Numbers 9

Numbers 9:22

Whether it was two days or a month or a year that the cloud lingered over the tabernacle, staying above it, the sons of Israel remained camped and did not set out; but when it was lifted, they did set out.

The Isrealites had the perfect direction of God about what they were supposed to do.  Now, they're given an extra direction, that of when to do it.  There's no uncertainty of when the camp is supposed to move, or where it's supposed to go, or when it's supposed to stop.  God is their navigator, with no possibility for misunderstanding.

Today, we're not so blessed.  We don't have a cloud hovering there to tell us where we're supposed to go.  So how do we know when to move, or where?  The traditional answer is that the Holy Spirit gives us that guidance.  Honestly, I've never been comfortable with that answer.  I can only recall one time when I've had any impression of where God wanted me, and that was choosing what college to go to.  Beyond that, I have never had any real idea of what God's path for me is.  Does this mean that I'm a "bad Christian," not in tune enough with the Holy Spirit to understand His will for me, or strayed so far from that path that He can't use me?  I would be the first to admit that I'm far from perfect, and certainly have failings that I am working on.  But have those failings caused the communication from God to collapse?

The other lesson here that springs to mind is about patience.  The Israelites don't have to worry about whether they're following God, because his direction is right there to be seen by all.  But if the cloud doesn't move, they don't either, and I'm sure there were times when they wondered what the delay was for.  Today, in modern Christian culture it seems like you're expected to have something amazing happening in your life, or something is wrong between you and God.  Given that nothing amazing has ever happened to me, I always hate it when people ask questions like "what has God been doing in your life recently?" because I never really have an answer.

But is that really a bad thing?  I've known for a long time that I'm not called to be a missionary, or a pastor, or anything like that, and that my place was in the workforce.  So is God still supposed to be having something revolutionary occurring every day of my life (or even if I were called to those areas, would I have anything to talk about)?  Or do I still have something to learn about patience, and just doing my best until that direction comes through?  Or, have I been waiting too long, and missed when the cloud lifted?

Numbers 8

Numbers 8:25

But at the age of fifty years they shall retire from service in the work and not work any more.

This caught me by surprise.  I'm one of those people who never has seriously considered retirement.  Granted, I'm not quite thirty, so I've got plenty of time before I have to really think about it, but I just can't see myself retiring in the normal sense of the word.  My dad's the same way; he'll keep going at his work until he physically can't anymore.

So why the mandatory retirement age for priests?  Is it because that was about the life expectancy at the time?  We see many people older than that listed in various parts of the history, so that may or may not be accurate.  My first thought on that age is that that is the point where the body really starts to show its wear.  Part of the priests' duties is to carry out certain rituals, the same way every time.  I'm only guessing, but maybe the retirement age is to help minimize/prevent priests from trying to do things they physically can't anymore, messing up ceremony, and possibly incurring God's wrath?

Numbers 7

Numbers 7:89

Now when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim, so He spoke to him.

I'll admit it's been a while (far too long) since I was covering this, but I believe that this is the first instance of God speaking from the ark.  The formal line of communication is now set between God and man.

So why does God now only speak from the ark?  Is it because it's now there, so He can use it?  It's not like He had any trouble before this in speaking to Moses.  And throughout the Bible, He speaks many times elsewhere.  The only thought I have is that because He has to choose those He will speak through, and He has now set aside a special people to do His service, the ark is used because only those people can enter in to it safely.  Also, this way everyone will know when someone is falsely speaking.

Numbers 6

Numbers 6:25

The Lord make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;

I've heard this blessing more times than I can remember, but for some reason this stuck out at me today.  Suddenly, this doesn't make nearly as much sense as it often does.

The one instance we have of God's face that I can recall is that it comes with a death sentence.  If you see God's face, you are a dead man, for none imperfect can look upon Him.  So how can His face shining on you match His being gracious to you?  Death isn't generally considered gracious.

Maybe it's something about it being so close to Christmas, and how it signifies Christ coming to Earth.  If that were the context, this would make a lot more sense, especially given all the Romantic-era paintings out there that show Jesus' face as somewhat luminous.  But that isn't the context.  Instead, the context is the Father, not too long after Mt. Sinai, where Moses specifically could not see God's face, yet the radiance of His back was enough to make Moses' face glow.  That would be what I think of as gracious.  God could have given Moses his wish, even at the price of his life, but didn't.

So how do I interpret this?  Is it that God's face doesn't appear, but we get some kind of indirect exposure to it that benefits us?  Is it linked to the next verse, which refers to His countenance, which when I looked up the definition can also mean approval?  Or is it that when you die and see God's face, that He deals with you graciously?

Numbers 5

Numbers 5:27

When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people.

Wow, I didn't remember this section.  If I were to read this without the priestly references, today we would call this black magic or voodoo or some such.  Yet this was the command that God gave to the people.

I do wonder what the disease she would contract from the water was, though that's kind of beside the point.  The big deal here is that God would reveal the sin, or clear her of guilt.  Trusting to the Lord to prevent a false positive or false negative would be the real act of faith in today's culture, but it would be a miracle God probably brought about daily for them.  Still weird to think about.

Numbers 4

Numbers 4:47

from thirty years and upward even to fifty years old, everyone who could enter to do the work of service and the work of carrying in the tent of meeting.

I don't know what the significance of being between 30 and 50 years of age is.  Does 30 have something to do with physical/emotional maturity?  Is it the age where you're normally rearing children, or perhaps where your children are old enough to assist with household tasks while you are working on the temple?   And why stop at 50?  Just because lifespans were shorter then, and that was their form of retirement?  Or is it because at that point you're becoming physically feeble, and aren't able to do your part?

This verse really caught my eye for one reason:  I'm a couple months from turning thirty.  So I wonder why that's such a big deal to the Levites.  I've always wondered what the proper age is to be considered for some forms of service, and I always thought that thirty was normally too young.  I guess this is one of those areas where culture may clash with commandment, if I were to try and apply it to modern Christianity.

Numbers 3

Numbers 3:41

You shall take the Levites for Me, I am the Lord, instead of all the firstborn among the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the cattle of the sons of Israel"

I always knew that the Levites had been selected as the priests of Israel, but I never remembered this as being the reason why.  I always thought it was that God wanted a specific tribe to be the priests, just so it was a decided thing.  I didn't know that they were in redemption for the firstborn of all the other tribes.

I also find the mention of the cattle interesting.  I understand how this would be, but two questions pop into my head.  First, why only the cattle, and not other animals that could be used?  Second, would the Levites continue to tend their own herds, so that there were still cattle for God, or would their herds be used, and therefore in the future the people would have to bring their own firstborn cattle?

Numbers 2

Numbers 2:2

"The sons of Israel shall camp, each by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers' households; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance.

 Two things caught my attention here.  First, they are now organizing the nation as an army, rather than a scrambled nation.  Before, it was implied that the nation was scattered around the camp, different tribes and families in different locations, but no real rhyme or reason to who was where.  Now, tribes are ordered and positioned, as a military force.  This is now a nation of conquerors, not refugees.

Second, they are positioned to always protect the tabernacle.  In a modern military force, what you have at the center is your most important items, the best defended for an attack from any direction.  Here, they are showing that their prized possession is God and His objects.  He is what is most important to them, not a thing, or even Moses.  God is what they defend.

Numbers 1

Numbers 1:50

But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it.  They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle.

Here, the Levites are truly set apart from the rest of the nation.  While everyone else goes to war, the Levites will care for the things of God, and protect the tabernacle from outsiders.  Some would say that this is a worse lot than the fighting men.  In war, you are not constantly fighting; much time is spent in routine activity.  However, the Levites now are to spend their entire time caring for the items of the tabernacle, and servicing the Lord.  This is a day-in, day-out job that never reduces.

It is, in my opinion, why few are called to full-time ministry; it takes a different kind of person, who is totally dedicated, to do that work.  You can't have one foot in and one out; it's all or nothing.

Leviticus 27

Leviticus 27:10

He shall not replace it or exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; or if he does exchange animal for animal, then both it and its substitute shall become holy.

First off, point of honesty:  I have no clue what he's talking about in this chapter.  It's not really clear, and I'm not sure what kind of vow would require this detail.  So I'm not even going to touch that.

However, this verse caught my eye.  Basically, it's saying that whatever the vow is, it must be kept, in its original form.  So even if it was a mistake, or you meant to promise something different, the vow must be as stated.  Even if it means something that is insufficient or of lesser value, it is still the promise.

That lesser value part (bad for good) is what really caught my eye here.  No matter what inferior thing was promised, that is what is to be given.  That can make someone think hard when making this vow, to be sure you don't give God (or whoever) too little.

Leviticus 26

Leviticus 26:44

Yet in spite of this, when the are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God.

I think of this as the Survivor's Promise.  No matter what happens, God will not allow the destruction of his chosen people.  This is why the Jewish people still exist, despite their multiple failings through millenia.

It is also a promise which I believe holds to the church as well.  While the church has been growing in some places and persecuted into hiding in others, it will never be destroyed.  There will never come a time while this world still exists when Christianity will be extinct.  Even during the tribulation, the church will continue, though much reduced.  There will always be the opportunity for people to learn the truth of God and believe.

Leviticus 25

Leviticus 25:21

then I will so order My blessing for you in the sixth year that it will bring forth the crop for three years.

 When I first read of the Sabbath Year, I had the same thought as the people did in the previous verse, how are they going to eat for that year?  This verse holds the answer.

Imagine knowing that every seventh year, you're going to get a bumper crop, without any fear of droughts of bad yields.  Wouldn't having that kind of certainty be amazing?  Knowing that God will provide for you, where you will be able to rest for the year and still be okay.  What peace that would be.

Leviticus 24

Leviticus 24:14

"Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him.

 I find the requirement to lay hands on him both interesting and disturbing.  Placing your hand on his head is what they did to animals they were about to sacrifice.  It almost makes it sound like they're going to sacrifice him to God as some kind of offering, like they would a goat or a bull.

However, I think it is not meant as a sacrifice, but a sign of commitment.  You are about to condemn something to die, that God's Law may be fulfilled.  That is a serious undertaking, and not to be done lightly.  To place your hand on the head of an animal, you are making a connection between you and it, that it may take your sins.  On a man who has transgressed, you are confirming that this is the man you heard curse, as a witness would in court.  He is about to die, and you are going to be responsible for that death, even though it is not you who sinned.  Like someone in a court bearing witness, you'd better be sure you're right.

Leviticus 23

Leviticus 23:22

'When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien.  I am the Lord you God.'"

 When I was in the Truth Project, the subject of gleanings is brought up in one lesson.  Ever since, it's been something I've pondered now and then.  The idea of leaving the gleanings is something I definitely approve of.  It is there for the poor, but they still have to work to get it.  One of the things I most dislike about many ministries to the poor is that support is often given away without any conditions or requirement, which in my opinion is likely to produce further laziness or expectation of that support.

However, I've never been able to figure out what I can do in this respect.  I don't own any land, or have a business I can work through, as I've heard some examples of.  So what can I do to help the poor earn their needs?  I don't have an answer for this, but really want God to point me to something.

Leviticus 22

Leviticus 22:13

But if a priest's daughter becomes a widow or divorced, and has no child and returns to her father's house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's food; but no layman shall eat of it.

Given my thoughts from last chapter, this caught my eye.  Before I was asking looking at the stigma of divorce, but here there is no stigma, under certain conditions.  Maybe that's because of a single woman's social status, I don't know.

What also interests me here is the condition, that she has no child.  Why is it okay for a now-unattached woman to return to her father's house, but one with children isn't?  Wouldn't a mother be more in need?  I have two theories, both of which are only guesses.  First, having a child makes you part of the father's household, and it is therefore the father's family's responsibility to care for you (though I'd think that would break down in the case of divorce).  The other guess is that since the child in this case is of mixed tribes, that disqualifies them from eating of the priestly food.

Leviticus 21

Leviticus 21:7

They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God.

Divorce has been a topic of some interest to me for several years.  I don't recall what first brought my attention to it, given I've never even been in a relationship, much less married, far less divorce.  But whatever did put it on my radar, it's been something I've wrestled with ever since.  The last couple years have been especially trying for me with this question, as it seems I am more and more surrounded by people who have divorced, including in my church's leadership.

Normally, my attention to divorce is framed around the New Testament.  I hadn't remembered that any statements like this were in the Law.  I find it interesting that this, the first mention in the Bible that I'm aware of regarding divorce, and it equated it to harlotry.

What would happen in today's church if we took that kind of view on divorce?  Would it change our view of ourselves and our marriages?  Would there be fewer marriages in the church, or just fewer divorces?  And what about those who were divorced before coming to Christ?  How would we view them?  These are some of the questions I've wrestled with over the last several years.

Leviticus 20

Leviticus 20:23

Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.

A very logical progression here.  The nations violated God's law, so he abhors them.  Since he abhors them, he guides the Israelites to drive them out of the land.

Some use this type of verse as a reason for why God abandons nations then their morals decline (like many claim ours are).  They say that we deserve what we get, because we have turned away from God.  However, here that mindset would not fit.  These people, to our knowledge, had no understanding of God, and had never been given His laws.  So why is he punishing people that didn't know any better?  What was the test that they failed?  Or, to put it into a modern context question, what happens to the people who have never heard about God or Jesus?  Apparently, there are still severe consequences.

Leviticus 19

Leviticus 19:17

'You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.

On the surface, this appears to be pretty evident, and sorely lacking in our modern times.  Maybe it's because I pay too much attention to politics, but it seems that we tend to hate more of our countrymen than not.  Can't say I'm immune to this, either, though I try not to let my disagreements become personal.  I know I personally like the "reprove your neighbor" part more than I should.

I'm not quite sure how closely these two halves of the verse are supposed to go together.  My first thought is that this is similar to the passage in Ephesians that says to not sin in your anger.  However, I'm not confident that I'm interpreting it correctly.  I guess my uncertainty comes back to where the line defining sin is.  Is it just that you hate the guy, or is it something more subtle?

Leviticus 18

Leviticus 18:25

For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.

 This fascinates me.  When I think about my sins, I sometimes think about the effect it can have on the people around me, but not the things.  I don't think in terms of defilement, of making something unholy just be being around it when committing sin.

How would I live my life differently is this was my mindset?  Most people's sin doesn't notably affect others, so we tend to excuse it a bit more.  But what if I were to think about a sin as spiritually polluting my desk, my bed, my clothes?  If I had the kind of respect for my environment that I do for others, how would that change my attitude about the things that I do wrong?

Leviticus 17

Leviticus 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

Once again, we come back to blood.  Blood is a central tenet, in my opinion, of the Jewish faith.  Original Judaism revolves around the perfection of God and the failure of man.  If that was all there was, Judaism would be hopeless, because we can never achieve the perfection necessary to be worthy of communing with God.  However, God, in His grace, has made a pathway available to us.  That pathway is blood, to act as a covering for our sins.  From the first sin, blood was shed to atone for it; God Himself shed blood and killed animals to provide physical (and spiritual) coverings for Adam and Eve.  In this passage, God implies that the reason for the reason God created blood is so that it can be used for atonement of sins.

However, blood is also finite.  It does not cover all sins with one drop, or one slain animal.  Instead, each offense, each failing, each inadequacy to God's perfect standard requires blood anew.  And so a constant cycle begins, one killed animal after another to substitute for our own deaths, with their blood as the manifestation and remediation of our guilt and sorrow.  And until the coming of God's son, no number of animals could build a large enough rampart to fill the chasm between us and God that our sins created.

Leviticus 16

Leviticus 16:2

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.

This is one of those stories that I've heard talked about ever since I was a kid, the origin of the term "scapegoat."  However, reading this, I never before realized how much was involved.  It wasn't just a matter of taking a goat and running it out into the wilderness.  First, the goat had to be prepared to be the scapegoat.  The priest had to confess the sins of the people, and lay that burden upon the goat.  Makes me wonder how they did that.  Was it just some generic speech for many unsaid things?  Or was it confessing known sins of the entire people, like when they disobeyed God as a group?  Or was there some sort of telling of many/all the people, for full disclosure?  I don't know.

The other thing here that caught my attention is that the goat isn't taken out by the priest, or run through some kind of gauntlet of the people to drive it out of town.  It was taken out of the city by a specific person, simply identified as standing in readiness.  What does this mean?  Is he a servant of the priest?  Is he another, lower priest himself?  Or is this some kind of honor/disgrace, that he was chosen for this duty?  I can see reasons for all three, though I think the first or second are most likely.  It's still interesting that this is someone's duty, to be the one to cast out their sins, and probably condemn the goat to a slow death.

Leviticus 15

Leviticus 15:8

Or if the man with the discharge spits on one who is clean, he too shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

OK, I have to admit I laughed when I read this.  First, the idea of someone spitting on someone else has never been appealing in my mind.  I come from a culture where people just don't spit; it isn't done, no mater who you are, unless you literally have something in your mouth that has to come out (dirt, bugs, etc.).  Also, spitting at, much less on, someone is the height of rudeness, so you don't do it anyhow.  So why would someone spit on another person to begin with?  I understand that some people do it specifically to be rude to another, but I can't say I ever really understood it.

That led me to another question.  According to everything I've ever been taught, an unclean person had to cry out that they were unclean everywhere they went, so that others would not be infected by accident.  So how did the guy get close enough to spit on someone?

I'm sure that I'm leaving out a few possibilities, but the simplest reason that I found was that they were trying purposefully to infect the other person.  Maybe they've given offense or some such, but this could be used as a route for intentionally make another share your disgrace/misery, by making them unclean for the day.  I even see how this could be used strategically to undermine someone you don't like, say by disrupting a big business meeting.  I'm sure this isn't the original use for the law, but the possible abuses kinda worry me on this one.

Leviticus 14

Leviticus 14:21

"But if he is poor and his means are insufficient, then he is to take one male lamb for a guilt offering as a wave offering to make atonement for him, and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, and a log of oil,

Today, there seem to be any number of religions, cults, and even non-religious scams that are designed to give you safety or security, if only you pay/invest enough.  If you can't afford it, sorry, you're just outa luck.  It gives me some peace to know that God does not operate that way.  God, when setting up his rules for the Israelites, acknowledged that people's income will not always be the same, sometimes not even really enough.  He then makes provision for it, giving those of lesser means an alternative.

That's not to say that he lets the poor off.  There is still an expense involved, possibly a severe one.  But it is designed to be more obtainable, not ruinous.  This is the other side of the coin.  While God does give an alternative, there is still sacrifice for atonement.  Just because you're poor doesn't mean you don't face consequences.

Leviticus 13

Leviticus 13:40

"Now if a man loses the hair of his head, he is bald; he is clean.

Okay, I'll admit, I chose this specifically for humor.  You're discussing leprosy, a set of serious skin infections (at the time, our definition's strayed a bit), and you're discussing this?  A guy goes bald, and  you have to check whether that makes him unclean or not?  If it did, then we're got a lot of unclean people in this world, and I'm sure the Jews had many in their camp at the time who breathed a sigh of relief.

I understand the significance of cleanliness in a camp like this, but the fact that you have to check about a normal biological function seems a bit strange to me.  Makes me wonder if there was some ostracism or denigration of bald men at the time.

Leviticus 12

Leviticus 12:5

But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

Okay, I'm not big on the whole women's rights movement, but I've got to ask here:  what's the deal?  Why is a woman unclean for twice as long if she has a daughter than a son?  I know the patriarchy is still alive and well (and with reason) at this time, but why is the woman punished for something she had absolutely no control over?  She didn't have any choice about whether it was a boy or a girl.  So why is she punished?

I'm not even going to try to speculate on this one.  It's just got me confused.

Leviticus 11

Leviticus 11:45

For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

 This is the end of a chapter about what animals are clean and unclean, and really sums up the reason for the book to this point, which has been mostly rules.  There are still plenty of people who think that a lot of these rules were made solely to make things difficult, or because He was on some kind of power trip.  But this verse shows that's not the case.

God's goal is to make His people holy, and it's my belief that it's so we're worthy of having a relationship with.  God can't associate with those who are unholy, like a healthy person can't be around the sick constantly without becoming sick himself.  So God wants us to be Holy, so that we can be with Him.  He wants that connection, that relationship, with His creation, so that we can return to the connection we had in Eden.

Leviticus 10

Leviticus 10:6

Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, "Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, so that  you will not die and that He will not become wrathful against all the congregation.  But your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which the Lord has brought about.

I almost wish this had stopped at the first sentence.  It would have been very easy to make a statement about not being sorry for the suffering of someone who sins.  But the end of this verse means that that is not necessarily the correct meaning.

Apparently, the priests were not to mourn their dead family, because what they had done was a very serious sin, and God had punished it in the only way he really could.  However, the people as a whole were permitted to mourn.  These were still deaths of members of the people, and therefore should be remembered.  But were they mourning the people lost, or was it the sin they had committed that caused them to wail?

Leviticus 9

Leviticus 9:23

Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting.  When they came out and blessed the people, the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.

I've always wondered what the glory of the Lord is.  I've heard all kinds of ideas and theories and explanations, but it seems to all be guesswork.  Even some Jews I've heard explain it will couch their explanations in hypotheticals.  It seems that no one knows what this consisted of.

From what I've read in other passages, I think it is at least partially a great light, given the reaction people had to Moses' face.  But somehow I don't think that's all.  I think there must be some kind of special spiritual quality to His glory, though I can't imagine what that would mean.  I've never been one who is able to describe a spiritual presence, so maybe I just won't understand until I experience it.  But how I look forward to that time when I do.

Leviticus 8

Leviticus 8:33

You shall not go outside the doorway of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the day that the period of your ordination is fulfilled; for he will ordain you through seven days.

This verse leads me to a couple of basic questions.  First, why is the ordination period seven days?  I realize the significance of a week, but why does it take a week?

The second question might answer the first, if I knew the answer to it:  what happens during this week of ordination?  The text makes it sound like they're supposed to just sit around doing basically nothing for that week.  Do they spend it in prayer?  In worship?  In some kind of service?  What's happening during that time?

Leviticus 7

Leviticus 7:25

For whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the Lord, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.

Wow, a pretty harsh punishment for someone who eats something.  Why is this such a big deal?  My theory is that it is because they are told that all the fat is to be offered up on the altar, so there should be none left for anyone to eat.

My other question:  what does it mean to be cut off from the people?  Is this permanent exile?  Or is it merely being declared unclean, and having to go through proper procedure to be cleansed again?  My personal opinion, in no way cross-checked, would point towards exile.  Again, this seems extreme, but it would also probably be effective in teaching the lesson that what is God's is for Him, not for man.

Leviticus 6

Leviticus 6:5

or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more.  He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering.

Today, a lot of debate goes into determining what punishment is effective for a given crime, especially property crimes like theft.  I find it somewhat refreshing to know that God had this figured out quite simply.  You forfeit the theft, plus a 20% "penalty" to the one you wronged.  Then you make the proper sacrifice, and that's it.  An almost clinical formula, but I can see how it works well.

I also like that you have to pay up the same day that you present your guilt offering.  I wonder if some people had to delay the offering because they couldn't pay the penalty at the time.  If that's the case, could they participate in the camp until then?  I don't think I've run across anything yet that says what one's supposed to do between when a sin is committed and it is discovered.  How many would just keep on living their lives, offering up the other required sacrifices until they were found out?  How many couldn't go to God until they had become right?  It would make for a different kind of punishment, knowing that you're holding out against God while appearing to go through all the right motions.  Not too different from many in church today.

Leviticus 5

Levitucus 5:4

Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.

My first thought in this is wondering how someone doesn't realize they've sworn?  Is this supposed to be one of those situations where they thought they were just thinking it, but realized it popped out their mouth too?  That's the only situation I can think of, but I wonder if there's some other possibility, like a Freudian slip or some such.

I also find it interesting that the reason for the swearing doesn't matter.  It can be for good (cursing someone who's done a serious wrong) or bad (insert example here, let your imaginations make one up). Either way, it is forbidden.  Intent has nothing to do with whether something is wrong.  I always found intentions vs. actions to be an interesting divergence in modern culture, where supposedly someone can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Never could figure the logic of that school of thought myself.

Leviticus 4

Leviticus 4:22

'When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things which the Lord your God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty,

I've always been interested in the topic of unintentional sin.  I've had very heartfelt discussions of what counts as sin, especially when you don't know it is a sin (and the other way around is even more interesting discussions, but I digress).  Some people think that something can only be a sin if it is done on purpose.  I've always had a problem with that, because in the law there is such a thing as culpability through negligence.  You should have done something, but didn't, therefore you are guilty.

However, in these case, what tends to be harder to define is where the difference between sin and unintentional/accidental lies.  For a way-out-there example, if it were a sin to step on a crack, but I couldn't see where I was going (say, because I was carrying something large) and stepped on one, would that be a sin?  Yes, because it's said "thou shalt not step on cracks."  But what about the times where there is no way to avoid a sin?  Using the same outlandish example, if I were on a ladder that slipped, and fell off onto a crack, how am I to prevent that from happening?  Am I still guilty for something I had no direct control over?

The reason this gets to me is partially the tangential issue of childhood innocence.  There's a big debate over whether children are considered innocent by God if they die, and if so to what age.  Unintentional sin could be the deciding factor in this discussion.  If a 1-yr old is told not to do something and then does it anyway, is that sin?  At what point do they understand what "wrong" is?  And at what point does that lead to condemnation?  Not a question I've ever found an answer to, but not for lack of wondering.

Sorry if this seems random, my ADD must be in high swing today.

Leviticus 3

Leviticus 3:17

It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings:  you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'"

I always knew there was a reason I didn't like fat on my meat.

Seriously, why is fat forbidden?  I understand about the blood, as that's explained elsewhere.  The life is in the blood, which is quite true.  And the idea of drinking blood or eating bloody food has no appeal to me.

But why is fat similarly outlawed?  This doesn't appear to just be for sacrifices or offerings, it's at all times and all circumstances.  Is there a religious significance to this, or is it God's giving them hygiene and/or fitness instruction?

Leviticus 2

Leviticus 2:13

Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from you grain offering; with all you offerings you shall offer salt.

 Okay, I'm just going to say to this, "huh?"  What is this talking about?  I will admit I'm not a world-class Bible scholar, but what is the significance of salt in the covenant?  I don't recall any mention of salt before.  I realize the value and importance of salt in this climate, but why put salt in your grains?

So why did God include salt here?  My only guess is that it's something similar to how the New Testament (specific reference isn't coming to me) uses the expression of salt as a way of showing how Christians are unique from the rest of the world.  That salt sets us apart from everyone else, and makes us noticeable.  I know I'm reaching here, but might that be the reference to the salt of the covenant?

Leviticus 1

Leviticus 1:2

"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock.

Okay, I'm not promising any extremely insightful things for the next month or so.

First, I always find it interesting where the term "offering" is used.  The implication, at least in modern context, is that this is not any type of requirement or necessity.  This is when someone chooses to give to God in appreciation, or as part of a request, or perhaps non-required atonement.  Today, we always use the term offering, because we are under no law or compulsion.  For them, that term meant something special.

I wonder sometimes if people would react differently if it were translated "bring a gift to the Lord."  Would people pay any more attention to this oft-neglected book?

Exodus 40

Exodus 40:35

Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Okay, I'm confused again.  Before, Moses was the only person who was able to approach God in His glory, but now we're told that he couldn't approach God because of His glory?

Maybe this is because when Moses saw God's glory before, he was seeing only a part; he was not permitted to see the fullness of God, for he would have died.  So if now God is fully filling the tabernacle, that is a greater extent which would kill Moses if he beheld it?  To think of a tent, constructed by men, assembled by men, to be so special that God would fill it with Himself, so that those same men could never even see what was happening, is something I don't know that I'll ever understand until the day I get to experience it firsthand.

Exodus 39

Exodus 39:43

And Moses examined all the work and behold, they had done it; just as the Lord had commanded, this they had done.  So Moses blessed them.

 I've previously made the point about how they followed God's instructions precisely, so I'll go on to the final bit of this verse.

Moses here blesses the craftsmen for making what they had been instructed to make.  They did it all perfectly, to exact specifications.  I don't know how detailed they were given, but obviously the work was magnificent.

I wonder what would've happened if something in the collection would have been only "okay."  Would Moses have simply withheld his blessing?  Or would he have cursed them, or have made them start over?  I know I'm often tempted, and too frequently succumb, to just getting by with doing what's necessary, not doing the best possible.  Knowing that I'm doing work for God does help with those temptations, though, even if I do not see the direct use of my efforts for Him.

Exodus 38

Exodus 38:26

a beka a head (that is, half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary), for each one who passed over to those who were numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for 603,550 men.

If I've done all my math right, the current best guess on this amount of silver would be 138,313 troy ounces, or about 9500 lbs of silver.  That would have a market value today of roughly $2.5M.  And that's just the silver, it doesn't count the gold or bronze.

For a people who had just come out of Egypt, no land of their own, to spend that much on a place for God to worship says something.  My church a couple years ago spent about the same amount on a new worship center, and it took years to raise the funds.  While the Israelites did "plunder" the Egyptians before leaving, this is still a significant amount of wealth, and it's all for the purpose of glorifying God.

Exodus 37

Exodus 37:9

The cherubim had their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faced toward each other; the faced of the cherubim were toward the mercy seat.

Okay, I know I'm stretching here, but bear with me.  It's honestly a dull chapter, saying "he built what he was told to build."

I never quite understood this description/arrangement of the cherubim.  From how it's stated, I'm assuming that normally (a.k.a. pagan cultures) the mercy seat would be open, with the cherubim facing outwards.  So if that assumption is correct, why are the cherubim facing inwards on the Ark?

Here's my theory:  normally, there would be somebody or someone on the mercy seat.  You don't build a seat that will never be sat upon.  So normally, either an idol or some ruler/high priest equivalent would use such a seat as a throne, declaring his divinity.  However, for the Ark, that is not possible.  With the mercy seat covered, no one could sit on it.  Not, that is, unless he were incorporeal, not restrained by physical limitations.  My theory is that this is almost a "seat reserved" sign, that it's only possible for God to sit here.  No imposters possible.

Exodus 36

Exodus 36:7

For the material they had was sufficient and more than enough for all the work, to perform it.

God will provide for His work, and there will always be enough when need arises.  I would point out that while God could have brought the supply from anywhere, he chose to use His people.

He could have had them go defeat some other nation, and use the spoil to supply the tabernacle, but he didn't.  He used the people who would worship at the tabernacle, perhaps as a way of allowing them to understand how their efforts would reap benefits.  I don't know if that was God intention, but it does have that side effect.  While it's possible for people to become prideful, it always seems harder to do when the work is for God's purpose.

Exodus 35

Exodus 35:29

The Israelites, all the men and women, whose heart moved them to bring material for all the work, which the Lord had commanded through Moses to be done, brought a freewill offering to the Lord.

A couple things are noted here about this contribution to the tabernacle.  First, this was a voluntary gift.  We still use the term "freewill offering" today for such circumstances, though in some churches "freewill" is tacked on as a veneer, which I strongly disapprove of.  Giving to God must be done by choice, not be a requirement or guilt trip.  Otherwise, with wrong motives, there is no learning or growth through the gift.

Second, those who gave did so because their hearts were moved to do so.  This may just be a literary trick, but to me that terminology means more than just feeling like, yeah, I should chip in to that.  Giving for something like this should occur because you feel you are being instructed by God to do it.  Many give because it makes them feel good, or gains them some favor with others.  Jesus reminds us later that wrong motivations are useless, but following God's guidance is great gain.

Exodus 34

Exodus 34:12

Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst.

I believe that the disregard for this short instruction was a main cause of Israel's downfall.  Not the only cause, but one of the main ones.  This is the command not to compromise in one's faith, and the instruction on how to do it.  If in doubt, avoid the possibility of contamination.

Now, many can carry this too far in the modern world, don't get me wrong.  It was much simpler for the Israelites, since they were called to be set apart from the other nations.  However, it is still an area we today have troubles with.  We are easily attached to the culture, and allow many non-honoring parts to infiltrate our lives.  But if we do not have connections in the culture, we easily can become so different from it that there is no appeal for others to join us.  The difficulty is striking the balance between separation and snare, to where we are accessible and able to relate to the modern world, without being compromised to the point of being indistinguishable.  I can't say I've always done a good job of finding this balance, in either direction.  I pray for God's insight into where I can correct my path, to be the conduit he wants me to be.

Exodus 33

Exodus 33:3

Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, and I might destroy you on the way."

OK, I could do a re-hash of my previous post, regarding God's use of the word "might" here, but I will refrain.

Instead, I'm downright fearful of God's saying he could end up destroying the Israelites if he continued with them.  They are an obstinate people, and that merits them worthy of destruction?  If that's the case, how much more are we deserving?  Christians are no less perfect than Jews.  In fact, I'd say we're probably more obstinate, because we have fewer rules to live by.

Does/did a conversation like this ever have to take place between God the Father and Jesus, where God would have destroyed the church if Christ had not claimed us?  We are part of Christ's family, children of God.  He stays his hand because He has made a promise.  Do we need to hear a threat like this now and again, to keep us in line?  Or would that be going too far towards a vengeful God rather of a loving God for modern Christians to handle?  Personally, I think a rebuke like this now and again would do the church good.

Exodus 32

Exodus 32:14

So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

I like to think I'm pretty good at wrapping my brain around difficult concepts.  I may not understand the why, but normally I can get an idea for the how.  This however, is the kind of thing that makes my head hurt.  The closest analogy I can think of my confusion here is the worst kind of temporal paradox in science fiction.

We here have the infinite, outside of time, unchanging God who changes His mind.  By most understandings, God shouldn't be able to change His mind.  He already knows everything that's going to ever happen, so He should already have accounted for how He will react.  But somehow He doesn't.  Moses has to convince Him not to wipe the Israelites out, which He already knew He wouldn't, but he'd decided to already...

Anybody got some ideas on this?  This would be one part of God's nature that I don't have a clue on.

Exodus 31

Exodus 31:16

So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'

I don't claim to have robust knowledge of modern Jewish customs, but I believe that this may be the only specific point of worship to which modern Jews still hold.  I realize that there are other parts of these original commands that Jews still follow (dietary laws and festivals being the two that jump to memory), but what else from the original reasons for non-festival worship still exists, besides observing the sabbath?

However, this verse caught my attention because it raises a question:  to what extent are Christians bound to this command?  I've written on this topic before, though not in this blog, but it's a question that concerns me at times.  It often seems to me that modern Christians seem to disregard this command more than any of the others.  Sunday for many believers is the day of socializing, the day, even more than Saturday, to go out to restaurants with friends, or to go to big events.  While I don't claim to be perfect about this, I do try to minimize it as much as practical, though much of my reasoning comes from the desire to not force others to work by having to attend me.  But is my consideration misplaced?  We are free from the Law, but that doesn't mean much of the Law isn't still a good idea.  So how much consideration should Christians give to how they spend their Sundays?

Exodus 30

Exodus 30:12

"When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord, when you number them so that there will be no plague among them when you number them.

Maybe this verse caught my eye because we're in the middle of our census.  I'm not sure.  But I find it interesting how they don't just stand and be counted.  There is a price to be paid for being one of God's chosen.  For being born into the people of God, you have to pay a specific price.

Today, the idea of having to pay to, say, become a Christian or join a church is something reserved for the most vile of con men.  However, that doesn't mean we don't pay; it's just not direct, and not just money.  Instead, we have to give up our time, or our future, or maybe our dreams.  We have to be willing to submit everything to God for him to use as He wills.  That may mean that we don't get a promotion down the line sometime, or that we are ridiculed by others.  But for that price, what a blessing we receive in return, to be counted among the children of God.

Exodus 29

Exodus 29:10

"Then you shall bring the bull before the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on the head of the bull.

For a long time, the laying of hands was a confusing action to me.  Maybe that's because I grew up in a family and a church where that sort of thing didn't occur frequently.  When someone laid hands on me, it usually meant that either I'd just gotten in trouble, or that I was about to be told something extremely important.  It wasn't until the last few years that I finally understood that my perception wasn't the norm, and that the laying of hands is today used for solidarity and blessing.

In the case of animals being sacrificed, my original perception is closer to truth.  The animals were in trouble.  They were going to have to take the penalty for someone else, and that penalty was death.  At the same time something important was about to happen.  They were going to die, so that someone else didn't have to.  The fact that the priests were laying their hands on the bull signified that the priests were not acceptable to God, and the bull had to die for them to be forgiven.

Also, laying hands on the bull turned it into a personal act.  This isn't taking your bull down to the butcher, dropping it off, and going home again.  Anyone who's known a kid who did 4H animal work knows how that kind of contact can make a loss personal.  That, I think, was part of the point, to make the sacrifice personal.  The people had to learn to improve, or more would die on their account.  It's one of the details that I think we've lost today, since Christ has already made the sacrifice needed.

Exodus 28

Exodus 28:3

You shall speak to all the skillful persons whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister as priest to Me.

It's interesting how God appears to make a connection between skill and wisdom.  That's not something that we frequently do in modern society.  Today, it's more common to link skill to knowledge, or experience, or even genius, but wisdom is seen as a different trait.

Today, wisdom is seen as the person who knows what to say, or when to say it; the one who corrects the mistakes of others, and makes it look easy.  It's not the one we think of as the person who knows how to make a beautiful painting, or the sturdy house, or the easy-to-understand teacher.  Who would we look at as wise, if we linked it to having a skill given by God?

Exodus 27

Exodus 27:21

In the tent of meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before the Lord; it shall be a perpetual statue throughout their generations for the sons of Israel.

OK, I don't like the thought of questioning God's priorities, but this one has me confused.  The first instruction about the processes and rituals of the tabernacle is to...keep a lamp on?  I don't get it.

Maybe this is just sometime that's too far outside my modern cultural interpretations.  But it seems to me that if you're going to issue your first command, it would normally be something besides keeping the light on.  I mean, having light at night, when you're not going to be doing any rituals anyhow, take priority over, say, how to perform a sacrifice, or when the people are to worship at the tabernacle?  I realize this shows a devotion to service, but it just doesn't make sense to me why it should be first on the list of instructions for worship.

Exodus 26

Exodus 26:33

You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of holies.

The separations between areas of the tabernacle, and later the temple, has been of interest to me for a while now.  In our modern culture, the idea of having places that are more and more holy seems to have been lost.  The ark is such a special item, so closely linked to God, that the people cannot even be permitted to see it.  Even almost all the priests, those closest to God, cannot see it, if I remember correctly.

Contrast this with our modern Christianity, where there is theoretically little divide between priest and laity, between holy and secular.  Protestants do not even recognize there being any special sanctified status of items.  If somebody were to rediscover the ark today, what would be the reaction?  After all, Christ's death ripped apart the veil described here, exposing the holy of holies.  With the Holy Spirit endwellt in us, is the ark no longer worth concerning ourselves about?  Is the specialness of God's presence no longer to be found there?  Or would we still be afraid to approach it, and wall it off again from the people?

Exodus 25

Exodus 25:40

See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain.

Coming from an engineering education, albeit not practicing, this just amazes me.  A lot of engineering is diagrams, drawings, and models.  To think that God Himself made some kind of "blueprint" for Moses to at least see, and possibly take with him, is humbling to think about.

I have a fair mind for picturing something that's described (not wonderful, but normally enough to get by in tasks), but I get lost in the descriptions given here of the Sanctuary's elements.  I wonder if God placed images of the finished product into Moses' mind directly like some type of vision, or if He actually made more conventional plans for him to take back down to the craftsmen.  These have to be made perfectly, without flaw or error, so God had to ensure somehow that the people making them would know what they were doing, and not just stumbling along to Moses' "second-hand" description.  God knew this had to be done right, and he obviously took the time to show Moses how they should be done.  We still have at least a part of that description thousands of years later.

Exodus 24

Exodus 24:7

Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!"

Ah, if only.

I can't really say I'm any better than the Israelites at this juncture.  I've done the exact same thing, many times.  I read/hear/learn about what God's instructions for our lives, I say out loud/in my head, "yeah, I'm going to do that!"  And more often than not, within a very short time, I've forgot/backslid/ignored it, and am back to my old self.  It seems far too rare when I actually manage to make a change permanent.

However, that doesn't mean I stop trying, just as the Israelites would keep coming back to God after messing up.  We're going to make mistakes, both accidental and deliberate.  What determines our commitment is whether we then try to fix those mistakes, or just accept them and forget our goals.

Exodus 23

Exodus 23:29

I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.

How many times do we ask God to do something amazing or supernatural?  How many times do we despair, or question Him, when He doesn't?  We wonder why God does not make our ways easier, the paths for us to walk carefree, or why he doesn't just make some business deal go wonderfully and us wealthy as a result?

I think this verse contains much of the answer to these questions.  God is so much bigger than we can comprehend.  With that comes the power to do amazing things.  However, we are not supernatural, but limited.  We cannot see what God's long-term plans are.  What he gives to us, is only what we are capable of using.  Tomorrow, God could send someone to me with a job offer for $100,000 as the CISO of a big company.  But I seriously doubt He will, because I'm not ready for that type of position yet.  I don't know what I would need to know in order to properly discharge those responsibilities.  If I tried, I would be very quickly overwhelmed on all sides, and either forced out or easily manipulated by others for their agendas.  Therefore, if God wants me to end up in that type of position (though I'm not saying He does), He will not just drop it on me, but will train me slowly, as I am ready and able to process the lessons, so that when that theoretical day occurs, I am able to step into the job properly and bring praise to Him in the process.

Exodus 22

Exodus 22:25

"If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest.

I must admit, ever since I found out about Dave Ramsey, I have had particular interest in verses that speak about money or debt.  I find it interesting how this verse changes the mindset of lending.  It is no longer a business for Jews; it is a means of assisting one another.  People are not to be banks to one another.  If a Jew loans to another Jew, it should not be with the intent of profit.

Instead, this would appear to be a form of not-quite-charity.  A means to assist a fellow Jew, without concern for coming out ahead in the end.  I have been known to do things like this from time to time, though this verse was not in my mind at the time.  When a brother is in a short-term jam, and needs a way out without hurting his pride or dignity, a loan without interest can work.  However, there are risks to this approach, if the person cannot pay you back in a timely fashion.  The relationship can be strained by failure to pay, so any loan should only be made under the most careful of conditions.

Exodus 21

Exodus 21:16

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

As I proceed further into this, it's going to be difficult for me to choose what verses to comment on throughout the law.  I find myself most drawn to those that are either the most starkly clear, or ones that show the changes our "modern morals" have made.  This one falls into both categories for me.

First, it's interesting to me how different the Bible would have been if God had given this particular law to Jacob, or before.  Would Joseph have been sold by his brothers, knowing this would be the penalty if it were discovered?  If so, would Jacob have carried out the sentence when the truth was discovered?  The nation of Israel would have been very different if either of those changes had been made; either it could have starved during the famine, or it just might not have entered the land of Egypt.

This leads me to the question of why God waited until now, 500 years after guiding Abraham to the Promised Land, to give his law to the people?  What changed in those 500 years where the Law was unnecessary before, but was mandated?  Were most/all of these rules part of common culture at the time?  Was it that if these had been done before, the penalty for transgressions would have thinned out the people to the point where they were no longer a nation, lopping off whole branches of the family tree?  Why not earlier, so that there would be no question of the consistency of God?  Unfortunately, this is a question I don't have an answer for, beyond the platitudes Christians use to cover when they don't know something.  I really wish I did have an answer, but I don't.

Exodus 20

Exodus 20:19

Then they said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die."

 I've always wondered at the source of the Israelites' fear of God's voice at this point.  I see two main possibilities for that answer.  The first is that the Israelites feared God's power, having had many demonstrations of what He could do should they displease him.  He already did terrible harm to the Egyptians, and wiped out the Egyptian army for good measure, so they know full well what could happen to them if He should decide this was all a bad idea.

The second possibility is that they feared God's holiness.  For this, I take my example from Isaiah, when he sees God.  He realizes that he is unclean, and unworthy to be anywhere near God, and fully expects to die for the simple act of being within sight of Him.  Here God had just spoken directly to the entire nation, giving them their first rules, and they know full well that they're already in violation.  So perhaps they are reacting out of fear that they are already judged and found wanting, and nothing they can do will change that, so they must maintain some type of separation between themselves and God, for their own safety.

I personally think the first option is more likely, but I wish the second were true.  Either way, it is clear that something has changed between then and today.  In modern Christianity, people long to hear from God, to have that booming voice tell them what they should be doing, how they should be living their lives.  I can't say that I've ever heard that voice, booming or otherwise, more than once in my life.  Yet in that yearning, we seem to have lost the reverence for God's holiness, the awareness that He holds the power of creation and destruction of anything should he find it unworthy (which by implicit definition is everything).  How would we lead our lives differently if we kept awareness of how powerful God truly is, and how unworthy we are to even be close enough for hearing His voice to be possible?  By grace he welcomes us in, and we tend to take that privilege for granted.

Exodus 19

Exodus 19:12

You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, 'Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.

Interesting how things have changed between the old covenant and the new. Here come God's people to Him, to receive His word and law, and one of the first things that happens is that they're restricted from coming near him. The very dirt of the slope was so holy through God's mere presence that it could not be defiled with their touch. Today, we seem to think that there are no boundaries, no limits to where we should go or what we should do. We are God's chosen, made heirs and children to Him, so we can do almost anything.

On the other hand, the Israelites had it much simpler in many ways. They know that there is a specific line that they cannot cross, and they know the exact penalty if the break the rules and go there. The fences are clearly visible, where everyone knows them precisely. Today, the fences are much more difficult to see. The writings of the New Testament are much more loosely defined in what is and is not permitted. There is great discord in the meaning of what is written; is this passage stating fact or metaphor, stern condemnation or cultural-laden hyperbole? On that day at Mt. Sinai, the boundaries were literal; today, they're a smudge on a map, which might not even be there.

Exodus 18

Exodus 18:21

Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

Maybe it's because primary elections were yesterday, and here in Texas we elect our judges, but this verse caught my attention. Specifically, a couple things here were of particular interest. I'll try to keep this as far from a critique of modern politics as I can.

The first was the criteria for leaders. To begin, leaders must fear God. Any leader who does not honor God will easily become prideful, and try to rule in God's place instead of guiding based on His law. The second is that he be a man of truth. One can be a wise guide of others, but have a nasty evil streak himself (for example, ) which he sees no problem with, as long as it "does not affect his public work." The third is that he must hate dishonest gain. This is almost synonymous with the second, but not quite. Many people can are men of truth, but just kinda look askance (or the other way) when a friend breaks the rules.

The other thing of interest was the division of leaders. You have judges for thousand, hundred, fifty, and ten. I wonder how things would be different if we were to divide our leadership this way. In my department at work, we have leaders of about six, then a leader of 20, then a leader of 50, and a leader of 1000, so we're not too far off. However, at churches today, we have leaders of hundreds, for the most part. If you were ask me who my "leader of ten" was, I couldn't tell you. There's the top leadership staff, and few people at lower levels (though in my case, all those lower levels are also staff, so I don't know if that counts or not). I wonder if our churches would improve if we divided things out more cleanly, so that everyone knew who to talk to with any questions or issues. I think at the least, it would make things much easier on Jim.

Exodus 17

Exodus 17:2

Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water that we may drink." And Moses said to them, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?"

This is obviously the Divine Abridged Version of the story.

Just looking at this briefly, I don't really see a problem. You have a huge number of people, literally in the middle of nowhere, with no water source. These people need water (naturally), they don't have water, which means that unless something amazing happens, they're dead. So they go the person who's been providing miracles, a guy by the name of Moses, and present their need. He gets a bit cranky about their request, though.

That's where you have to look again. Then, you realize that the Israelites are going about this all wrong. They do need water, of course, but they go looking for it in all the wrong places. They go to Moses, which I can understand; he has been their conduit to God recently. However, they don't ask God for water, or go requesting for Moses to intervene with God. They go and issue a demand of Moses, as if he's the one who can quirk an eyebrow and an aquifer appear. If they had instead gone to Moses and said, "please ask of God to give us water that we may drink," the place would have had a very different name.

Exodus 16

Exodus 16:29

See, the Lord has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

It's troubling how often I hear Christians talking about their weeks being so busy that they have to do something on Sunday. Back in college, I was even one of those people. However, I grew up with the mentality that (non-church) work isn't to be done Sundays, if it can be helped. Part of what always irritates me about the people saying that, is that they're often the ones who spend Saturday and/or Friday night "carousing." They choose to relax and have fun first, then suddenly realize that there is still stuff to do, and spend Sunday madly rushing around to get things finished.

Now, I can understand the occasional pre-planned activity, but my mentality just doesn't work so well with the idea of waiting to the last minute on Sunday to finish things. I think this verse gives the proper mindset: plan out your time, so that you don't need to work on the sabbath. In Moses' time, it was a forced decision; they didn't work on Sunday, because there was nothing to work on (the manna didn't deliver). If you didn't plan, you went hungry. Today, we actually have to think about it, and plan it out, then we can enjoy our time, and truly find the rest God offers us.

Exodus 15

Exodus 15:26

And He said, "If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the Lord your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the Lord, am your healer."

Interesting progression of "and"s here. First, the people must heed God. But not just pay attention; they must earnestly pay attention. They must be taking careful note of what God is saying. Second, they must do what is right in God's sight. How do they know what is right? Presumably, He will have just told them -- thus, they have to have been paying attention. Third, they must give ear to God's commandments. This almost seems like a repeat, except that now we are told that God's not just talking to them, he's telling them what to do. To hear him, they have to be paying attention. Finally, they have to keep the statues He has laid down, which they had to hear, which they have to be doing right, so they have to pay attention to know what is right and what isn't. Confused yet? It almost feels like a recursion loop to me, which is fair, because in effect it is.

Then, if they do all this, God gives them a promise, that He will not do to them what He has done to the Egyptians. With that comes the implication that if they stray, the Egyptians might look like they had it good. However, there is a point of hope even then, for God names Himself their healer. As Jesus would later say, a doctor is for the sick, not the well. So even if they mess up and are punished, God suggests that He may bring them back, rather than destroy them.

Exodus 14

Exodus 14:25

He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty; so the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from Israel, for the Lord is fighting for them against the Egyptians."

I had forgotten about this part of the story. I remembered how they were blocked by the cloud and pillar of fire, and of course everyone knows the ending, but I didn't remember about God actively messing with the army.

After all that has been inflicted upon the Egyptians, they still keep coming around and thinking it was a fluke. How here, as they are rushing to crush the Israelites (rushing through a miraculous parting of the sea, in case they hadn't noticed), they are confounded by what we would today call "equipment failure," and wise up once again that this is a bad idea. Unfortunately, this time they wised up too late.

Exodus 13

Exodus 13:17

Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."

Interesting that God kept the people away from the fastest route. Given what little I know about the Philistines' territory at the time, they may have controlled the entire Mediterranean coastline in the region, which would mean that any way to the promised land would have to go through them. If I'm right about that, then God was leading them away from the only path to what He had promised them.

Also, it's interesting what reason God lists. Despite everything that has happened, all the plagues and tragedies God struck the Egyptians with, the people have never seen combat. They don't know if God would protect them in a standard battle, and apparently would be afraid of entering one. That makes sense, in many ways. They were slaves, not soldiers. They may be physically able to fight, but that doesn't mean that they knew how. Moses and Aaron were spiritual leaders, not military commanders. So God leads them another way, until they're ready to do battle, and ready to trust Him to provide when their strength is insufficient.

Exodus 12

Exodus 12:42

It is a night to be observed for the Lord for having brought them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the Lord, to be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout their generations.

This verse caught my eye because it doesn't fit with the rest of the passage. It would make sense earlier, when God is issuing instructions to Moses, or when Moses is giving instructions to the people. It would even make sense later on. But this verse is dropped right into the middle of a long narrative about the exodus itself.

It appears to be the first commentary. We have a sudden, brief switch from relaying history to a statement about the importance of this event and of remembering it. This event was so significant, God had Moses step outside the narrative for a sentence, to emphasize how vital the commemoration of the liberation of God's chosen people is.

And then back to the history...

Exodus 11

Exodus 11:3

The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Furthermore, the man Moses himself was greatly esteemed in the land of Egypt, both in the sight of Pharaoh's servants and in the sight of the people.

I have to say, this statement surprises me. This people has been the cause of so much angst and suffering recently. Their desire to leave has caused nine terrible plagues to occur. Yet despite all that, the Israelites still have favor with the native Egyptians. What's more, Moses, the one man who is the harbinger, perhaps the cause, of these terrible occurrences, is thought of highly by those he has tormented.

I have three guesses on why this may be. The first is the obvious, that God has supernaturally inspired the Egyptian people to see the Israelites in high regard, though I have to say this feels like a cop-out answer. The second is that the Egyptians all realize the power of God, with the sole exception of Pharaoh (who is restrained unknowingly from that realization by God's direction).

The third is something closer to the effect modern politics, where the people think something needs to be done, it isn't done, so they blame the person who prevents it from happening (and I'm specifically not trying to point out any single issue as an example of this). In this case, the Egyptians know that the Israelites want to leave, they've suffered terribly because Pharaoh won't let them leave, so they blame Pharaoh and praise Moses.

Personally, I think the second explanation is probably closest to being accurate, but that's my opinion. Some factors of the other two may well have been influences as well. Or it could be there's a fourth alternative I'm not thinking up right now. Feel free to speculate.

Exodus 10

Exodus 10:2

and that you may tell in the hearing of your son, and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the Lord."

The reminder to tell their children about the things God has done for them is a frequent recurrence for the Israelites, especially between the Plagues and when the conquer the Promised Land. However, it's something they never seem to do very well, for whatever reason.

However, this got me thinking about how poor many of us are today at telling our own children about the things God has done for us. Maybe it's partially human nature, in how events lose their power over time. Perhaps it is just forgetfulness or laziness, or part of the human thinking of "what have you done for me lately?" But for whatever reason, I know that I'm not very good at remembering the things that God does, and I don't even have kids yet. How will I ever recall them once my hypothetical kids are old enough to understand, if I don't remember them a week later, or a day, or an hour? I think I'm going to start some kind of journal, to chronicle those times when God's power is evident in my life.

Exodus 9

Exodus 9:16

But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.

One of the hardest questions to answer a nonbeliever is "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" While I realize that Pharaoh doesn't exactly fall into the category of "good," I think this verse still shows a glimmer of an answer.

I have to be careful how I state this, due to the sovereignty-vs-freewill issue, but I'll put it like so: God will sometimes allow bad things to happen, or even lead us to bad things, so that he can show His power in delivering us from those circumstances. I'm not saying this is always the case, or that bad things are always from God. However, God sometimes will lead us through the valley to show that he is in control, and that he can bring us out again.

Also, he will sometimes cause bad things to happen to nonbelievers in an attempt to show them the error of their ways, and bring them to Him at long last. Many people have to hit rock bottom, and exhaust their own strength and abilities, before they are willing to consider that they are not the center of the universe, and need help from Him.

Also, consider that God could very well have annihilated the Egyptians at any time, leaving the Hebrews free to do what they wanted. But God did not do this. He specifically left them alive, though suffering, as a testament to His power and the care He had for His people.

Exodus 8

Exodus 8:18

The magicians tried with their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not; so there were gnats on man and beast.

The plague of gnats is considered one of the more minor plagues. Though it was highly annoying since the gnats covered everything, it didn't do any real damage. However, this verse signifies something that can often go overlooked in a casual read-through.

This is the point where God proved Himself sovereign. All the signs God had given so far to Pharaoh had been seemingly duplicated by the magicians. From this point, God shows Himself to be in a league of his own. He is not just another god forgotten from the pantheon, with powers roughly equivalent to the rest. He now is known to do things that no other can do, and that is when Pharaoh's resolve starts to shake.

Exodus 7

Exodus 7:20

So Moses and Aaron did even as the Lord had commanded. And he lifted up the staff and struck the water that was in the the Nile, in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, and all the water that was in the Nile was turned to blood.

The plagues begin.

The vitality of water makes this, to me, one of the worst of the plagues. According to the text, every drop of water in any container was turned to blood, and it remained this way for seven days. A person can survive without water for three days under normal circumstances. Given the heat of Egypt, even in the Delta area, I would suspect this rule of thumb holds true. So suddenly you're looking at four days with the risk of dying of thirst. Most of the other plagues are more towards annoying than truly dangerous to the civilization, but the risks involved in losing your water supply are huge.

So, while you are going into the early stages of dehydration and possibly heat stroke, you and your neighbors have to go out and dig emergency wells, just to survive. I don't know what level the water table is in that area (probably pretty shallow, given the proximity to the river), but making a usable well takes careful work, to avoid contaminating your water with the surrounding soil. Not something you want to be doing when you're suffering from possible muscle weakness or dementia. I wonder how many died from this plague because, to quote an old poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "water, water every where, nor any drop to drink."

Exodus 6

Exodus 6:3

and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

I read this, and my mental voice went "huh?" This may be one where a more thorough language study is needed to really understand what's being talked about, but since I don't have those resources immediately available, I'll have to take a logical inference.

God made His covenant with Abraham and family, and He communicated with them, but He never gave them his name. That is of significance because at this time, names had great power. Names identified a person's traits, their characteristics, even their personalities. This is evidenced in how some people's names could change (e.g. Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel). As the person changed, so could what they were known as. The closest we come to that today are titles and honorifics.

God identified Himself to Abraham's children as the God of their fathers, something that they would know him, but never gave His proper name. Not to put too fine a point on it, but how God identified himself is the same as we often think of "the janitor" or "the cashier" -- it was an identifier of what He did, not who He is, and that left a separation between Him and them.

However, now God gives His name to Moses and the people, and that signifies a change in the connection, in the relationship between them. These are the people who would know God for what He is and who He is, not just for what He did to help them. God is going to be personal with them, in a way that He never had before. That was the big deal in this passage, as Moses is doubting and the people are dismissive. God is going to reveal Himself in a way that will leave no doubt as to how much He cares about them and their future.

Exodus 5

Exodus 5:17

But he said, "You are lazy, very lazy; therefore you say, 'Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord.'

This would seem like an excuse by Pharaoh to justify punishing the Israelites. However, as I read this, I realize it could very easily be a true statement under different circumstances. I know that I've been guilty of trying to get out of work by using statements like this.

It's very easy for many people to get out of doing something they don't want to, by going and doing something else that is "better", or more noble, or nicer. I was very good at that in middle and high school. I used to get bored sitting back in the sound booth with my family, listening to the pastor's sermon about something that didn't have anything to do with me, so I would go and find out if the 3-yr-old class was short a helper, and that would almost always get me out of there. What I was doing was good, but I was doing it for all the wrong reasons. So as crazy as this might sound as an excuse Pharaoh thought up, it's not as far-fetched as we would like it to seem.

Exodus 4

Exodus 4:21

The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

This is one of those verses that really bothers me, and challenges how I perceive God. In modern Christianity, it's taken as a given that salvation is available to any who will receive it. Not all will accept, but all can. It is up to the person to decide freely if he will accept Christ or not.

However, here is a point in time where God specifically says he is causing someone to deny God. It seems that he is dooming Pharaoh to eternal hell because He wants to. That there is no hope for this person, because God has taken that free will away from him. It says later that He is doing this to allow the Israelites to leave, but what would have happened if God hadn't blocked Pharaoh? If Pharaoh had been allowed to make the choice himself, would he have allowed them to leave when asked, or at least to leave before all ten of the plagues had occurred? Would Pharaoh's son still be alive if God had allowed him that choice?

Some people say that to follow God is to be nothing but living machines, without any free will. They're wrong, but here is an example where it seems that God is making a person into that machine we're accused of being, though this time to his doom instead of salvation. That image deeply troubles me.