Posts

Online courses and discussions, plus live Bible studies!

Join the Common Sense Bible Study community!
Posted on

Be Holy, for YHWH Is Holy

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

This week’s Torah reading is called Kedoshim, which means “Holy Ones” and includes Leviticus 19-20. These two chapters contain two of the most famous sentences in the Old Testament. Ironically, most Christians think these are New Testament ideas and have no idea that Yeshua and Peter quoted them from Leviticus:

  • You shall be holy, for I am holy. 1 Peter 1:16
  • Love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39

I want to focus on the first quote.

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
1 Peter 1:14-19 ESV

God makes this statement four times in Leviticus, three times in Kedoshim.

  • Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I YHWH your God am holy. Leviticus 19:2
  • Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am YHWH your God. Leviticus 20:7
  • You shall be holy to me, for I YHWH am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. Leviticus 20:26

In all three of these instances, the surrounding text emphasizes three things:

  1. Don’t do what the pagans do.
  2. Do what God tells you to do.
  3. Honor your parents.

When Peter quoted this command from God, he also included all three points: “Live according to your heavenly Father’s rules, not according to the pagan traditions of your ancestors.” Some will say that the “futile ways inherited from your forefathers” are God’s commandments as given through Moses, but Peter is clearly quoting from that very same Torah, and from the one book of Torah that is most despised by modern American culture: Leviticus.

Whether Jew or Gentile, we have all inherited pagan and man-made religious traditions. God said we are to leave them behind and adopt God’s ways instead. At the end of that chapter, Peter also quotes from Isaiah 40: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.”

That includes Leviticus.

Posted on

The Tabernacle and the Family

The wilderness Tabernacle is a picture of God, the individual, and the family.

YHWH is a God of patterns. You only have to look at DNA for the proof. Humans share a large percentage of their DNA code with monkeys, fish, and bananas. Contrary to popular opinion, that’s not evidence for evolution. It’s evidence for a Creator who loves to reuse a good pattern. Every good coder does the same thing. He writes a module, which is a small bit of code, that can be called and reused from numerous other parts of the program. That’s not laziness or a shortcut. It’s elegance. Efficiency. God is the master coder, the most elegant and efficient coder who has ever existed.

He follows patterns in other ways too. Consider the feast days. They are all patterns of his interactions with Israel and the world. They remind us of what he has done in the past, and they prophesy of what he will do in the future. Also consider the creation of mankind. God said “Let us create mankind in our own image.” Then he took a pattern of himself and applied it to his favored creation: man.

The image of God in mankind is much like his signature or fingerprints. First, God created Adam in his own image, and then he created Eve in Adam’s likeness to be a helper “suitable to him”, unlike any of the animals. She was shaped like him, had free will, and an eternal spirit like him. Adam and Eve, both together and individually, are made in the image of God, and the two together are tasked with creating new people who will carry the image of both of their parents and, through them, of God himself. If you look closely enough at all of God’s creations, you can find evidence of his fingerprints in everything he created. God loves to reuse a good pattern.

In Exodus 25, we begin to see God’s instructions for his Tabernacle, the place where he would dwell in the center of the camp of Israel. If we did not see evidence of his fingerprints in the design of the Tabernacle, I think we should be very surprised and begin to wonder if the Tabernacle was from God at all. Fortunately, we do see those fingerprints.

Like God himself, the Tabernacle is a unit. It is echad. Yet within it there are compartments and furnishings, and the primary components of the Tabernacle follow the pattern of the primary components of God.

The Ark contains a memorial of divine provision (manna), and the tablets of the Law, and so is an image of the provider and law giver, God the father.

The Menorah is a source of light generated by oil, like the anointing of the Holy spirit. Like the Holy Spirit the menorah has seven branches. Recall the seven spirits of God in Isaiah 11:2 and in Revelation 3, 4, and 5.

The Table holds within the bounds of its crown twelve loaves representing both the bread of life and the twelve tribes of Israel. Since it holds all the people of Israel, the Table is a metaphor of the King and Messiah of Israel, Yeshua.

If the Tabernacle is an image of God–and it certainly appears to be–then it must also be in some way an image of mankind, since mankind bears the image of God. I have written elsewhere of how the Tabernacle can be an image of a single person, but it is also an image of the family, which God instituted at the same time and on the same day he created man in his image.

The commandments in the preceding chapters of Exodus show some ways in which a man’s responsibility to his family includes providing sustenance and protection. Elsewhere in Torah, a man is commanded to teach his children, to be a lawgiver and law enforcer in his house. In this, every husband and father is intended to follow the pattern of God the Father, as he his represented in the Ark of the Covenant.

The very nature of the woman’s creation and her physical aspect shows us that she was created to be a life giver, a source of wisdom and comfort to her family, and to light the way of the children to their father. She nurtures her children when they are too young to understand explicit instruction, teaches them the ways and wisdom of their father when they are older, and comforts them when they are hurting. She is the Menorah in the tabernacle of man, and in some ways an image of the Holy Spirit for the family.

The firstborn son, according to God’s order, receives a double inheritance over his brothers, putting him in the position of a secondary provider for the extended family and the captain of his father. He is the father’s right hand, an extension of his father’s power into the world, and he sustains his siblings as the showbread table holds the sacred bread. The first born son of a man in this respect is an image of the first born son of God. When his father deems him ready, he will sit on his father’s throne and become the patriarch of his family. Even more than other believers, a firstborn son should look to Yeshua, the Son of God, for his role model.

Be careful of reading too much into these patterns. We are very good at finding patterns where none exist, so it’s important that any lesson drawn from allusions and apparent patterns in Scripture is supported by more explicit texts elsewhere. Some of the roles pictured by the Tabernacle and its furnishings are explicitly commanded in torah, while others may only be illustrated or even just hinted at. There may be characteristics of the Tabernacle that could be extrapolated into roles in the family but that are not commanded in scripture. Patterns like these might be illustrative but are not definitive.

For example, there is no explicit command in Scripture that younger children should obey the firstborn son in the absence of the father. This is an idea that could certainly be derived from the structure of the Tabernacle and the pattern of the firstborn son of man after the firstborn son of God, and it might even be a good principle in many respects, but it is by no means commanded by God and should not be treated as if it is.

For another example, a father is not to be hidden away from his family. To some extent he will be inscrutable to his children due to his superior strength, knowledge, and wisdom, and perhaps the oft inexplicable nature of his rules. Like God, he has no obligation to explain his actions or his laws, but also like God, his laws shouldn’t be arbitrary. Every commandment of God is given in love for the good of his children, and so should be every instruction of a father. He must be actively involved in the care and teaching of his children, aware of their activities and experiences so that he can speak directly to them when needed. A father should not only be a lawgiver and disciplinary, but a caregiver and a protector. He holds the staff of Aaron as a rod of correction, guidance, and comfort.

Likewise, a mother is not simply a source of light and comfort, she also is a lawgiver of sorts and a disciplinarian. The difference between the roles of father and mother in these respects is more of degrees and ratios, than ironclad laws. The Holy Spirit is God just as much as is the Father and Son, and a woman is just as much the image of God as is her husband.

Reading through scripture, you won’t be able to find a clean division between the authority and roles of Father, Son, and Spirit, and this is true in the household as well. There is no hard line between the roles of mother and father and firstborn son, but a gradient. Deborah was both mother and judge of Israel. Yeshua is our master, brother, friend, and servant. There will be times when a wife must take command of the household because her husband is ill, absent, or incapacitated. That’s not a sin. It’s part of the flexibility that God has built into all of humanity. It is part of our image to be able to fill in for and support one another.

Posted on

Jacob, First into Battle

Why did Jacob divide his camp before he met Esau in the wilderness east of the Jordan on his way back from his years with Laban?

Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape.”
Genesis 32:7-8 ESV

Jacob divided his camp into two companies. In one company went all of his livestock, and in the other went his family and other possessions. (We can know the general scheme of division because verses 22 and 23 say that all four women and eleven sons were still with him after he had sent off his livestock.) Jacob obviously did not consider his wives and children to be mere property. He was willing to sacrifice all his wealth before sacrificing even one of the concubines. Later, he would also divide his family into separate parties.

There are points in this story where it sounds like Jacob sent his family ahead to face the danger of Esau while he stayed behind to see what would happen, but a careful reading shows that this isn’t what happened at all. Here is a breakdown of the actual sequence of events:

  • 32:3-5 – Jacob sent messengers to Esau to announce his return.
  • 32:6 – Messengers returned to say that Esau was coming with 400 men.
  • 32:7 – Jacob divided people and herds into two groups, but they didn’t go anywhere yet. His entire retinue was still in one location.
  • 32:8-12 – Jacob prayed for deliverance from Esau and declared his trust in God’s promise.
  • 32:13-18 – Jacob sent servants with goats, sheep, camels, cattle, and donkeys as 5 separate gifts to Esau.
  • 32:19-20 – Jacob sent additional presents of herds to Esau.
  • 32:21 – Jacob stayed in the camp with his family.
  • 32:22-23 – Jacob sent his family and remaining possessions across the Jabbok river.
  • 32:24-30 – Jacob wrestled with the angel.
  • 32:31-32 – Jacob returned to his family.
  • 33:1-2 – Jacob divided his remaining camp into three.
  • 33:3 – Jacob went ahead of his family to meet Esau alone.
  • 33:4-11 – Esau met Jacob and his family. Discussion of gifts.
  • 33:12-15 – Esau offered to merge their camps and Jacob refused.
  • 33:16 – Esau returned to Seir.
  • 33:17 – Jacob went on to Sukkot.

At first Jacob feared for himself and his family, so he divided his household into two groups, thinking that if Esau attacked one, then the second might have time to escape. But then, as he prayed for God’s protection, he remembered God’s promise to make his offspring as numerous as the sand of the sea and realized there was nothing Esau could do to threaten that future. He changed his plan.

Instead of sending his household in two different directions, Jacob decided to try to make peace with Esau, apparently hoping to cool his brother’s anger before they even met. He formed small herds of goats, sheep, camels, cattle, and donkeys and sent them ahead as gifts, one herd at a time. He instructed the herdsmen accompanying each herd to tell Esau that they belonged to his servant Jacob and were sent as a gift to Lord Esau. He called Esau “Adonai” and used the same word for gift, minkhah, used of the grain offerings given to YHWH in Leviticus 6 and 7. He simultaneously expressed humility and generosity to someone who was legally and justly his inferior and did so in a way that was certain to soften Esau’s heart toward him.

Jacob then followed this with more of the same, with groups of animals–the most widely recognized form of wealth–probably arriving over the course of at least two days. He could have sent all of these animals as a single, tremendous offering, but he understood that many small–but still generous–gifts over time will have a much deeper impact on the recipient than a greater gift given all at once. If a soft answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), how much more will a dozen soft answers?

In Genesis 32:22, Jacob took his family and the rest of his household across the Jabbok River north of Esau’s territory. While both sides of the river were within the territory that God had ultimately promised to Abraham’s descendants, it was a significant geographic boundary separating them from Esau. Jacob had authority from God, but Esau still held most of the actual power, as evidenced by the significant force that accompanied him–100 more men than Abraham fielded in his war against Chedorlaomer in Genesis 14.

Verse 23 says that Jacob “sent them across the stream” and is then left alone in verse 24 for his wrestling match with the angel. However, verse 22 shows that he crossed the Jabbok with his family, probably going back and forth multiple times to lead them across in smaller groups. When his entire household had successfully crossed the river, it appears that Jacob went back by himself, possibly to make one last check for stragglers, just as we might check under all the pillows and in all the drawers of a hotel room before finally checking out.

Even then, the text doesn’t say which side of the river Jacob was on during his encounter with the angel. Most people assume that he was on the north bank since he was by himself, and that seems reasonable but is ultimately unknowable. The antiquity of Genesis necessitates guessing at many dates, names, and locations.

My point is that Jacob didn’t send his family ahead into danger. In 33:1, he is back with his family again, so whether he wrestled on the north or the south bank of the Jabbok, they were never far away.

In 33:1-2, when Jacob could see Esau and his men approaching, he divided his camp again, this time into a column of three groups, with those he valued most at the rear. Bilhah and Zilpah with their children were in the first group, Leah and her children in the next, and Rachel and Joseph in the last. Each of these groups probably included herds, beasts of burden, servants, and armed guards. Even after giving away enormous wealth to Esau, Jacob was likely still a very wealthy man.

Good leaders, fathers, and husbands should almost always be first into danger and the last to escape. Verse 3 says plainly that Jacob then went ahead of all these to be the first to meet Esau on the road, bowing seven times along the way. Although we know from Genesis 29:10 that Jacob was a strong man, he didn’t want a fight with Esau, let alone with all of his men. He wisely softened Esau’s heart before they met with generous gifts, shows of humility, and generally treating Esau as an honored lord, all the while putting himself and all his wealth in danger before his wives and children.

Finally, knowing Esau’s fiery character from previous decades spent with him, he seems to have also suspected that Esau’s good will might not last and that his men would not make good company for his family on the road.

In 33:12-15, Esau offered to accompany him on the road, but Jacob found a gracious way to decline: “Let my lord go on ahead of his servant, and I will lead my group slowly, at the pace of the livestock and children, until we reach Seir.” He flattered Esau by acknowledging his ability to travel more quickly, he made himself seem weaker in Esau’s eyes, and he even lied to say that they would join him in Seir, when he had no intention of going there.

Esau responded by offering to leave a group of men behind to guard them on the road, but without their lord present to keep them in check, that might prove even more dangerous than traveling with Esau. Jacob’s response this time was simpler, but even more subtly flattering: “There’s no need. Only let me find favor in your sight.” That last was probably to say that if everyone knew that Jacob was in Esau’s good graces, who would dare try to harm him? So Esau went to Seir and Jacob went to Sukkot.

Jacob, far from being a coward, showed himself to be a generous, determined, and humble leader. He put the well-being of his family ahead of his own, recognizing and avoiding dangers to them, and humiliated himself before the world in order to preserve them. He was far from perfect, but in this episode of his life, Jacob was a model from which all fathers and husbands can learn.

Posted on

To Serve and Protect the Garden

Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. What does that mean for our relationship to Creation and Creator?

YHWH Elohim took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Genesis 2:15

Adam was not placed in the Garden merely to water plants. The Hebrew word translated as “to dress” in the KJV and “to work” in the ESV is abad. It’s the same word used throughout the Old Testament for the Hebrews serving God or a slave serving his master. “To keep it” follows in the same vein. This is the Hebrew word shamar which means to guard and protect. Adam was to serve the Garden by helping it become the best that it could be, and also to guard it against anything that might try to harm it.

The King James rendering of “to dress it and to keep it” could just as literally be translated “to serve it and to protect it”, interestingly very similar to a phrase found on many police cars in America: “To serve and protect.”

Scripture describes many different kinds of servant relationships, but “serve” in this context doesn’t mean that Adam was a slave to the Garden. In fact, Genesis 1:26 says that God intended to give mankind authority over the whole earth. Adam’s divinely appointed task of caring for the Garden didn’t make him subordinate to the Garden. Rather it was a consequence of his authority over it. All authority is given, in part, to enable the bearer to care for his charge.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls, being accountable for them to God. Allow them to do so with joy and not grief, because that wouldn’t be good for you either.
Hebrews 13:17 (Paraphrased)

Mankind was never intended to be an absolute ruler over either the Garden or the rest of the earth. We were given authority over creation so that we might serve and protect it. The earth serves us, and we serve it, in turn.

God didn’t ad lib creation. His intentions didn’t change halfway through the week nor even after Adam was created. God programmed a drive to accomplish Adam’s first assignment into the very genetic code of mankind, both men and women. Men are driven to provide for and protect their wives and children. Women are driven to protect and nurture their children. We instinctively want to protect the vulnerable and help the weak become stronger.

In our sin-corrupted state, that drive is often abused, misdirected into tyranny. Some people may abuse the earth, destroying today with no care for tomorrow. Some men may dominate their families through physical intimidation and some women may treat their children as little more than annoying accessories to a lifestyle.

However, we can’t allow such abuses to rob us of the strengths that God intends for us to use. We have an obligation to use the resources that God has given us for his purposes. To neglect that obligation is as much a sin as it is to abuse it.

Posted on

Be Fruitful and Multiply! A blessing or a command?

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 ESV

Genesis 1:28 says “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it…”

The foremost question I want to answer concerning this verse is: “To what extent are we required by God to ‘be fruitful and multiply’?” I see three ways to argue the point.

1. God blessed us with fruitfulness, but did not necessarily command us to multiply.

The proximity of “God blessed” and “God said” (“And God blessed them, and God said unto them…”) appear to portray the two clauses as parts of a single act. God said “Be fruitful and multiply” two other times, once to the animals in v22 and once to Noah and his family in 9:1. In all three instances, the statement was intimately linked to a blessing. Therefore, the phrase “Be fruitful and multiply” is merely a blessing much as we might say, “Get well soon,” to a sick friend.

The problem with this argument is that there is a vital difference between the way that God blessed the fish and birds and the way that he blessed mankind. In v22, he does not appear to be speaking to the animals so much as over the animals: “God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply…” which could be reworded as “God blessed them by saying…” However, in the verse currently under consideration, Moses wrote “God blessed them, and God said unto them…” implying a qualitative difference in the nature of the blessing, as well as a logical division between the blessing and the “command.” But is this difference enough to make a command? I’m not convinced.

2. God categorically commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply.

The qualitative difference demonstrated above, namely that God spoke directly to mankind and that the name “Elohim” is repeated as the subject of both clauses, certainly seems to support this interpretation. Elohim is Hebrew for “judges” or “rulers” and so it appears that, by repeating the name of the Creator, Moses was emphasizing the authority with which God spoke. The command is valid until the Kingdom in which men will become like the angels and no longer lawfully procreate. (At least that is the commonly accepted interpretation of Matthew 22:30.)

However, Yeshua said in Matthew 19:12 that some people are eunuchs from birth and some are eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul also recommended that unmarried Corinthians should remain unmarried if they are able. This means that we can’t say that every person who refrains from marrying and having children is disobeying this command from God. It can only be a command to mankind in general and not to each and every individual.

3. God commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply, but only to a certain point.

God commanded us to multiply, but if the purpose of the command was to enable mankind to effectively govern the earth<1>, a point might come (or might have already come) at which further multiplication becomes unfruitful. “Replenish the earth” is an integral part of the command to multiply, so once we have populated the earth, the command may be considered fulfilled. This is the argument of the environmentalist who favors zero or negative population growth (and commonly also favors abortion and coercive measures to discourage growth, but these negative and ungodly attitudes are not inherent in the argument).

Although most theologians and men of God whom I respect believe this is not the case, I am not convinced either way. Since “subdue the earth” is part of the same statement, governance of the earth is at least a major part of the purpose for man’s creation, so this argument can’t be easily dismissed.

How does this question effect real life?

Believing that “be fruitful” is a blessing and not a command might change how you affect family planning or if you attempt to plan the growth of your family at all.<2> Some people will see rejecting a blessing from God as too presumptuous, even if it isn’t commanded, and decide not to make any special attempt either to avoid or prevent children. Others might want to time the arrival of children at the moment they believe will maximize the blessing.

Since the command is ambiguous, no one should be ostracized or harassed because they choose to have a large or small family or no children at all. I believe that most economic reasons for not having children are petty and faithless, but there are many other reasons that I am not capable of judging, such as precarious health of the potential mother, genetic disorders in either parent, or any number of other circumstances.

Paul wrote that under certain circumstances it is better to remain unmarried, and it might be that under some circumstances it is better to remain childless or to stop conceiving children. I cannot say for certain what all of those circumstances are, but I am not willing to judge the hearts of other men and women based solely on how many children they have. God knows and judges the heart in such situations.

I believe that we can say definitively that celibacy is not morally superior in general to marriage, although it’s possible that it might be in very limited circumstances. A divine command (or even a bit of divine advice) to multiply is also a divine command to have sexual intercourse.

The misogynist, anti-sex tendencies of a great number of Christians are proved in the very first chapter of Genesis to be perversions. These tendencies were no doubt inherited at least in part from the pagan philosophies that were popular in the early centuries of the Church. The Manicheans of Augustine’s day believed the whole physical universe to be the product of the Evil Kingdom’s invasion of the good. They believed that sex, by causing the continuation of the physical and by being surrender to physical pleasures, is the ultimate evil.<3> Many prominent Christian teachers of that day, Augustine included, were never able to completely purge this heretical taint from their doctrines, and it has infected the Church to varying degrees ever since.<4>

What about subduing the earth?

If “be fruitful” is a command then so is “subdue it.” To subdue means to forcibly subjugate, but I don’t believe that any kind of brutality is intended. In fact, the requirement of a Sabbath for the land in Leviticus 25:1-7 and a Sabbath for domestic animals in Exodus 20:10 indicates the opposite.

The point of the command was not to grant permission to conquer, but to grant the authority over nature which we require to effectively govern it and to use it for our livelihood. We were not commanded to go out and conquer all of nature for the sake of the conquest itself, but we were blessed with the ability and the authority to reshape it and redirect it as necessary.

In all cases, possession of the authority to do something when necessary is not a requirement to do it whenever possible. Environmental extremism and pseudo-scientific theories of anthropogenic climate change aside, it is impossible to witness the methods and abuse heaped by some men upon nature and call it righteous. Excessive abuse of authority is justification for rebellion. If we abuse the authority that God gave us over the land, we will eventually be thrown off by it. There are many examples all over the world of exactly that happening. We are not to simply ignore all of nature either. Adam was placed in the Garden in order to tend, protect, and cultivate it. The maintenance of the Garden—and by extension the whole earth—was one of his very first tasks.

Mankind, men in particular, can rarely be truly fulfilled living in the concrete hives we call cities nor in a scarred, oily wasteland of pure industry. We will be most happy living close to the earth, earning at least a part of our living through work with our hands. I have experienced few sensations as gratifying as burying my bare hands in rich soil and shaping and encouraging the growth of new life. The personal anecdotes of many others testify to the same phenomenon in their own lives.

God gave mankind, both male and female, authority over the earth so that we might be able to support ourselves through it and effectively tend it and protect it. Like the ox treading the grain, we may extract comfort and sustenance from the earth, but to take from the land more than we can use merely for the accumulation of wealth is an abuse of our authority.

Authority over land and house

The authority which a husband has over his wife is similar to the authority mankind has over nature in that his authority does not exist for its own sake and must not be abused. Men were given that authority for a purpose: in order to effectively guide and protect their wives and to facilitate their role as fitting helpers. If mankind abuses its authority over the land, the land will reject him; this is justice. If a husband abuses his authority over his wife, she will reject him; this too is justice.

Dominion over the land does not mean that the land exists solely for mankind’s benefit, nor does a man’s authority in his house mean that the woman exists solely for his benefit. She exists to be a support to her husband in whatever task God has given him and to be a mother to her children, but not to be a slave to either one. I absolutely do not mean to excuse the wife from submitting herself to her husband in matters where he is not terribly abusive or where he does not demand immoral behavior of her, but a man who mistreats his wife for his own purposes is in rebellion against God’s purposes and has rejected the headship of Messiah over him. He has no right to demand submission of his wife when he refuses to submit to his own head.

All of these things–children, marriage, fertile soil, and the authority to make them productive–are blessings that necessarily incorporate some commands: Do not commit adultery. Do not covet your neighbor’s wife. Don’t muzzle an ox when it treads the grain. Etc. Whether in having children, loving your wife, obeying your husband, or cultivating a field in a manner that preserves it for future generations, living according to God’s design, trusting him and his good will towards his creations, brings blessings in the form of peace, personal fulfillment, and abundance.

<1> Although I doubt that he would have openly supported the idea which I wrote next, this is the view promoted by Rushdoony: “The meaning of the family is thus not to be sought in procreation but in a God-centered authority and responsibility in terms of man’s calling to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it.” Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law. (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973.) 164.

<2> I do not mean abortion, abortifacients, oral contraceptives, or the self-centeredness which our society calls “family planning.”

<3> Augustine of Hippo, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Books I-X. Trans. F. J. Sheed. (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1942.)

<4> Many Christian and Jewish writings from the period extending several centuries in either direction of the Incarnation feature this heresy. The Books of Adam and Eve and the Shepherd of Hermas are notable examples.

Posted on

Obedience to God Requires a Community

And you shall rejoice in all the good that the LORD your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you. Deuteronomy 26:11 ESV

As I’ve noted elsewhere, it’s impossible to keep God’s instructions outside the context of community. How can you love your neighbor, if you don’t have any neighbors, after all?

And you shall rejoice in all the good that YHWH your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you.
Deuteronomy 26:11

Selecting Today’s Firstfruits Offering

This instruction is given in the context of harvesting in the Land of Israel after each man has received his inheritance. Most believers, including native-born Israelites don’t live in the land, and nobody in the land today has possession of his ancestral land. Most people–no matter where they live–also don’t have land from which they are harvesting any produce, so the command doesn’t directly and literally apply to anyone today. However, this command, like all others in Torah, is a reflection of God’s character. The principle that underlies the command, therefore applies to all believers in all lands and ages.

All productive labor–and all able-bodied people ought to be employed in some kind of productive labor–has a “firstfruits”, although it will look very different, depending on what you are producing. An hourly or salaried employee might consider the first portion of each check, or the wages of the first month in the fiscal year as his firstfruits and dedicate that to God. An artist might donate his first painting or sculpture and a general contractor could give a portion of the profits from the first project of the year.

Torah doesn’t give explicit commands for these things, so I don’t think anyone can tell you exactly how to determine and select your firstfruits if you aren’t a self-employed farmer. I’m sure that some ancient writers have expounded on this topic at great length, and there are probably entire books written on it more recently, but nobody gets to add to God’s Law. Ultimately, how and if you select your firstfruits is between you and God.

Giving of Your Firstfruits

Having determined what your firstfruits are, what should you do with them? There is no Temple where you can take a basket of fruits and vegetables. Even if there were, without some direction from Messiah, I’m not confident that it would be legitimate, and it would still be much too far for most of us to visit.

Fortunately, this same command provides some guidance here too: “You shall rejoice…you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you.” And the following verses, vs12-15, say that the agricultural tithe every third year is to be shared with the Levites, sojourners (landless and potentially destitute), orphans, and widows in your own community.

When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, giving it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your towns and be filled…
Deuteronomy 26:12 ESV

You do live in a community, don’t you?

Maybe you don’t have Levites (almost certainly no Levites who are functioning in a Biblical capacity), but unless you’re living in the wilderness far from people, you probably have poor or oppressed people, widows, orphans, and the sick somewhere near you. Who lives near you, needs help of some kind–even if it’s just a friend–and can’t pay you back?

God’s character, as evidenced by the commandments he gave to ancient Israel, is to bless those who bless others who can’t return the favor. But you can’t bless people who don’t exist. Living according to God’s Law, living as Jesus lived, requires that you have a community of some kind and that you know something about the people in your community.

It can be difficult for some of us to connect with other people–and I don’t say “us” idly–but we need to make it happen. Talk to people, ask about their lives, tell them you care, and then invite them for a celebration in God’s honor.

One of the best parts of God’s plan for supporting the disadvantaged, is that God said you get to use part of the tithes and offerings that you owe to him for throwing a party, so long as you include his favorite people, those who don’t have much to offer you in return.

But you can’t do that unless you know who those people are in your local community. You don’t have to live in a city; you only need to live near other people, and you need to have enough of a relationship with them that you can invite them to join you at your home or at a park.

Posted on

Seven Patterns of Marriage in the Bible

Seven patterns of marriage in the Bible. Concubines, wives, handmaids, levirate, etc.

This isn’t a how-to article. I’m not going to tell you how to have a happy or fulfilling marriage. Marriage advice is vital. No matter how smart or “experienced” you think you are, you can’t figure it out all on your own. You need help.

That’s not this. This is more of a “how-did” kind of article. Good, bad, or ugly…this isn’t about managing the dynamics of person-to-person relationships. It’s about categories of marriage that nobody else seems to want to talk about.

That’s understandable. In modern America today, for the most part, a man and a woman date, get engaged, and get married. That’s pretty much how everyone does it. (For the moment, set aside the world’s wickedness and rare outliers like surrogates.)

But I’ve got some foreign and uncomfortable news for you: Modern America is an anomaly. Most people throughout history–most people in the rest of the world right now–don’t do marriage the way we do. That includes the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible and for whom it was written.

Marriage Is Central

The concept of marriage is central to God’s portrayal of his relationship with his people. Adam was made in his image, and from Adam, God extracted Eve, making the two together a more complete image of God than either one separately. Over and over, he describes his relationship with his people as a marriage.

The wedding feast…The bride of Christ…Idolatry is the same as adultery.

If God uses marriage as a metaphor of his relationship with us throughout the Bible, it seems to me that it’s important for us to understand how the Bible portrays marriage.

That’s not to say that every marital arrangement in the Bible is a pattern we ought to follow. The Bible doesn’t hide its characters’ bad choices. In fact, it frequently–almost always–highlights them in order to give us examples of what not to do.

But that’s also not to say that every marital arrangement in the Bible that doesn’t conform to our cultural expectations of right and wrong is actually wrong. God doesn’t care about our cultural standards. He communicates with us where we are, but he doesn’t conform his moral standards to ours. If God says something is morally acceptable, then it is. If he says it’s not morally acceptable, then it’s not. Our preferences carry no weight.

God determines right and wrong. We don’t.

It’s tempting to think that God merely “winked” at the sinful nature of foreign things like concubinage and polygamy, which appear on the surface to be unfair to women, because the ancient Hebrews didn’t know any better, but that was never a consideration for any of the laws that he gave. God didn’t hesitate to give a law against making and worshiping statues of him, even though the Hebrews obviously didn’t know that they weren’t supposed to do that. They struggled with idolatry for another thousand years after Sinai, so suggesting God didn’t outright ban any of these marital arrangements only because the Hebrews wouldn’t have understood is absurd.

Slavery…bride price…capital punishment…polygamy…genocide…. Like it or not, these are things that God allows in his Law under some circumstances, and our gut feelings about how right or wrong they are is completely irrelevant to the reality of their rightness or wrongness.

With that understanding, I’d like to describe seven marital arrangements that you will encounter while reading the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Not because I think we need all of these arrangements now, but because I don’t think you can fully understand the Scriptures without understanding the culture and mindset of the people who wrote them. I am neither promoting nor condemning any of these practices. I’m just telling you how marriage used to work and what God allows in his Law. “Allows” does not equal “desires”. “Allowed” does not mean “ideal”.

  1. Betrothal
  2. Free Marriage
  3. Concubinage
  4. Levirate Marriage
  5. Handmaid Concubinage
  6. Slave Marriage
  7. Captive Concubinage

Betrothal is somewhere between our “engagement” and marriage. Free Marriage is closest to what we call “marriage” today. Levirate Marriage is tied to life in the land of Israel. The other four are all variations of concubinage. I’ll explain what that means later, but it’s important to know that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have a separate word for any of these, except perhaps for “concubine”, and that word isn’t always applied to concubines. In fact, it doesn’t have specific words for marriage or wife at all.

The Hebrew word for “wife” used in the Bible is ishah (אשּׁה), which really just means “woman”. Except for the Levirate Marriage (yabam / יבם), there is no single word for marriage or marry. For women, the Bible uses phrases like “become a woman” or just “become”. For men, it most often says “master”. For readability, almost all English translations render these terms as some variation of “wife” or “marry”, depending on the context. That’s fine as long as the reader knows this, but if you don’t, I think it can often lose meaning or gain unintended meanings.

The differences between these marital arrangements are fuzzy and often overlap. A captive woman might become a handmaid to a Hebrew wife and then be given to the husband as a surrogate. A concubine might be a man’s only wife and if he dies childless, she might become a levirate wife to his brother. It can be complicated.

The ancient Hebrews probably didn’t categorize their relationships in the way I do below, but I think applying labels and descriptions will help the modern Bible student understand what he’s reading in the Scriptures.

Betrothal

Betrothal is similar to what we think of as engagement, but wasn’t so easily broken. In fact, betrothal was considered tantamount to marriage and could only be broken by a divorce. A woman who was betrothed to one man and had a sexual relationship with another would be guilty of adultery.

A betrothal would begin when a man and woman (and her father) agreed to marriage. Under normal and ideal circumstances, the man would give her and her family a bride price–a substantial gift that would likely be shared between the bride and her father or eldest brother. The woman’s family would reciprocate with a dowry of land, livestock, or some other tangible form of wealth. If her husband ever abandoned or divorced her unjustly, her family would probably try to get her dowry back from him.

Joseph’s betrothal to Mary (Matthew 1:18-19) is an example. The primary laws governing betrothal (apart from to whom you are allowed to marry) are in Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 20:7, and Deuteronomy 22:23-29.

Free Marriage

A free marriage is one in which a man marries a free (not a slave) woman and receives a dowry as part of the marriage agreement. Although we don’t consciously think of bride prices and dowries, this is what we usually have in mind when we talk about marriage.

If the man paid the woman and her family a bride price and did not receive a dowry in exchange, then she would probably be considered a concubine instead. Recall the story of Jacob’s marriages to Leah and Rachel. He agreed to work seven years for each of them, and if that had been the full transaction, they would have been concubines instead of full wives. When Jacob suggests that it’s time they left his father-in-law, both of the sisters replied by saying “Our father sold us and devoured our money”. They were complaining that Laban had sold them to Jacob for labor and had used up their dowry for himself. Fortunately for them, God intervened and miraculously extracted their dowry from Laban in the form of striped and spotted sheep, ensuring that they were free women. See Genesis 31.

Abraham’s marriage to Sarah, Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, and David’s marriage to Abigail are all examples of free marriage.

Concubinage

In short, a concubine is a wife who is also a purchased slave, usually belonging to the man to whom she is married. In many ancient cultures, such as the Greek, a slave girl could be used by her master however he saw fit, including for prostitution, but that kind of behavior is forbidden by Torah.

If a man owned a female slave who was married to someone else, usually another slave, and if he had sex with her, then he could be executed as an adulterer. A man could take any of his unmarried, unbetrothed slave girls to be his own concubine, but that would become a permanent relationship. She would be his wife, and he couldn’t then toss her aside or give her to someone else like a party favor.

The primary difference between a concubine and a free wife was her legal/economic status as a slave. She had an added layer of economic obligation to her husband that a free wife did not. This had a huge impact on her social standing and on her options if he were to abandon or divorce her, but–contrary to popular mythology–it did not change the fact that she was his wife. She did not stop being a slave when she became his wife, nor did she stop being his wife just because she was also a slave. God required that he provide for her in the same way that he provided for a free wife. See Exodus 21:10.

The children of a concubine did not inherit her status as a slave if her service was owned by her husband directly, but probably would not be able to inherit as a firstborn unless he had no children by a free wife.

Abraham’s marriage to Keturah (Genesis 25:1; she was not the same as Hagar) and the unnamed Levite’s marriage to the unfaithful woman who was murdered (Judges 19) are examples of concubinage.

Levirate Marriage

The word “levirate” isn’t related to the tribe of Levi. It comes from a Latin word that means “brother-in-law”. In this type of marriage, if a man married a woman and then died without having any children, one of his brothers was to marry his widow and their first-born son would become the legal heir of the deceased. The woman was fully a wife to her new husband, just as she had been to her late husband.

Levirate marriage existed to ensure continuity of inheritance in the land of Israel. In Biblical language, a “name” is more than just a label. A person’s name is their character, reputation, faithfulness, and influence in the community. The story of Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27 and 36 shows that a man’s inheritance in God’s promises is an important part of his name, and the levirate marriage is one way that God ensures his name isn’t lost from Israel.

Exactly how this kind of marriage played out in real life is difficult to discern from historical records, including the Bible, but we can extrapolate a few things from the limited information we have:

  • The deceased’s brother would inherit his land if he died unmarried and without any children, but the brother couldn’t simply take the land if the man had been married and was still childless. In order to take over the land, the brother needed to marry the widow and produce an heir for the deceased. The land would then belong to that heir when he came of age, so the brother would only have control of the land for that period of time. His other children would divide his original inheritance among themselves after his death, while the firstborn of his brother’s wife would be the sole heir of his brother’s estate.
  • There were no exceptions for a man who was already married, so this could result in conflict and complications in his house. A second wife doesn’t just add a second relationship, because she will have to be integrated into the whole family.
  • The widow might also come with obligations to her family, including any stipulations that might have been included in her marriage agreement.
  • The deceased’s brother could refuse to marry the widow but such a refusal would cost him honor and social standing. The levirate obligation would then pass to another brother.
  • If the deceased had no brothers or none of his brothers were willing to marry his widow, it seems from the story of Ruth that more distant male relatives might have the option to marry her and produce an heir for the deceased, although that isn’t explicit in Torah.

Tamar’s marriage to Judah’s three sons (Genesis 38:6-14) and Ruth’s marriage to Boaz (Ruth 3-4) are examples of levirate marriage. See Deuteronomy 25:5-10 for the laws governing levirate marriage.

Handmaid Concubinage

Female slaves weren’t only purchased as concubines. Frequently they were purchased as laborers or as another woman’s personal maidservant, also known as a handmaid. The mistress of such a slave could give her to her husband as an additional wife–usually because she was unable to conceive or bear any children of her own–but this didn’t remove the economic obligation of the slave to her mistress. Hence Abram’s response to Sarai in Genesis 16:6 when she complained about Hagar’s behavior: “Look, your servant is under your authority; do to her as you please.”

A wealthy man’s house could get quite complicated if he had multiple wives, each with their own handmaids. Each wife would constitute a sub-house within the house of the patriarch, and each handmaid and her children would be a sub-house within the house of her mistress. The children of the handmaid were counted as the children of the mistress in some legal sense that’s difficult to make out from scripture, but treated as children of the handmaid in household practice. As with the children of a simple concubine, any sons of the handmaid would likely be passed over as the firstborn in favor of a son born to a free wife, if there was one.

Abram’s marriage to Sarai’s handmaid Hagar (Genesis 16:1-4) and Jacob’s marriages to Rachel’s handmaid Bilhah (Genesis 30:1-5) and Leah’s handmaid Zilpah (Genesis 30:9-10) are examples of handmaid concubinage.

Slave Marriage

In God’s Law, the master-slave relationship takes precedence over the husband-wife relationship. If a man marries his female slave, she becomes his wife, while remaining his slave. If a master gives his female slave to a male slave as his wife, they both remain slaves, and their children will belong to their master.

This is probably one of the most difficult elements of God’s Law for modern Americans to accept, but we don’t get to define right and wrong. That is God’s purview alone.

God requires that Hebrew slaves be set free in their seventh year, but non-Hebrew slaves and their children can remain slaves in perpetuity. If the male slave above is a Hebrew and set free, while the woman is not a Hebrew or has not reached her seventh year, she would not be able to leave with him.

At that point, he can decide between three options:

  1. He can walk away, leaving his wife and children behind.
  2. If his slave-wife is a Hebrew, he can wait for her to reach her seventh year, so that she and her children can join him in freedom.
  3. If she is not a Hebrew or if he doesn’t want to wait for her seventh year, he can choose to remain with his master for life.

I’m not aware of any specific examples of this kind of marriage in the Bible, but it is described in Exodus 21:2-6 and Deuteronomy 15:12-17.

Captive Concubinage

Scripture records numerous instances in which Israel captured the women and children of an enemy people. Although this sounds like a horrible thing, the alternative is that they be abandoned to pagan captors, who did not have God’s instructions on how to treat slaves, or to probable starvation. The most humane thing to do after a war in which all or most of the enemy’s men have been killed, is to take the survivors under your protection, and the only practical way to do that is to put them to work.

Many (most?) of those survivors would become handmaids or field workers, but an Israelite warrior also had the option of marrying a newly widowed or unmarried woman. This would make her a captive concubine. He was not allowed to take her immediately, though. In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 and 21:10-14, God gave instructions intended to add a layer of protection for everyone.

Her new master was required to shave her head, trim her nails, and wait thirty days before he could marry her. This gave her time to mourn her family, time to know if she was pregnant or sick, and time to evaluate her character. If, at the end of that time, the man realizes that he let his passions overrule his good sense, or he changes his mind for some other reason, he is required to set her free. He humiliated her in this process and the recompense is that she had shelter in his house for at least a month and cannot then be made a slave to anyone without her consent. She was free to remain in Israel as a widowed sojourner or make her way to some other land or relatives if she had any.

Although I don’t believe the Bible gives any specific details of these relationships, the sacking of Shechem in Genesis 34:29 and the remnant of Midian in Numbers 31 show two instances when a large number of women were captured in war, some of whom almost certainly became concubines to the victors.

Shadows of the Divine

As I mentioned earlier, throughout the Bible, God uses marriage as a metaphor of his relationship with his people.

Since we are most familiar with the concept of the free marriage, it’s relatively easy for us to understand that metaphor. We are the “bride of Christ”, chosen and betrothed, waiting for the marriage supper of the Lamb. But it’s easy to miss the exchange of gifts: the bride price of the Son’s life and the dowry of gold, frankincense, myrrh, spikenard, and spices. These seem like paltry tokens compared to what we were given, but there is no requirement that the dowry and bride price necessarily have to be of equal value. One could say that we give him our lives in exchange for his, but dedicating our lives to him is the marriage itself, so I don’t think that can be considered a dowry.

When we were transgressors, we were subject to the condemnation of the Law, debtors to the Law under a burden we could never pay. He betrothed us to him while we were still hopelessly in bondage, but then he forgave our debt and redeemed us from bondage so that we could be a free bride.

The freed slave who loves his master and his family and binds himself permanently for their sake of his family. This is connected to the believing spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:14 whose family is sanctified to God because of his faith.

All of the laws governing betrothal, marriage, and servitude in scripture are shadows of greater things designed and implemented in heaven. The shadows are patterns intended for our enlightenment. By studying God’s instructions for marriage–even those marital arrangements that aren’t practiced in our culture–we can learn more about him, ourselves, and our relationship to him.

Posted on

A Twitter Exchange about “Torah-Keepers”

I saw this post on Twitter this morning from someone I will call GRD and felt obliged to respond. I thought the content was worth preserving here in the likely case that something will eventually happen to make it disappear from Twitter.

This is an image of the tweet to which I was responding…

Of course, I disagree with the original tweet about the Sabbath and with the person complaining about Torah-Keepers. Your eternal salvation is not contingent on the Sabbath and most Torah-Keepers do not engage in scare tactics to make you believe you need to keep the commandments “or else”. Most of us are simply trying to live the way God wants us to and some of us are trying to tell other people what God says about how to live.

Some people are all fire and brimstone and trying to scare people straight. Some people are obnoxious and legalistic and all kinds of other negative adjectives, but that’s true of every religion and denomination, not just Torah-Keepers.

So, here’s how the rest of this exchange went:

Me: If you’re open to an honest conversation between brothers with an aim to understanding instead of accusations, I’d love to talk about this topic.

GRD: That depends on: 1. Do you agree with [the OP’s] statement, “There is no salvation without the 7th day Sabbath!”? 2. Can you show me my accusations?

Me: 1. No 2. That was a proposal for a conversation, not an accusation in itself.

GRD: Start a thread. Tag me. Restrict comments to just you and me. Let’s see if it flies.

Me: I believe that Torah defines sin and is God’s standard of behavior for all people, so I’m one of those “Torah-Keepers” who believe in keeping the Sabbath.

I don’t believe that anyone can earn eternal salvation by keeping the Sabbath or any other commandment.

I don’t believe that Jesus or Paul taught people not to keep Torah (aka the Law of Moses). Their words–especially those of Paul–have been twisted and misunderstood to say what they never intended.

[Some confusion about Twitter notifications not working.]

GRD: In your original tweet, you said, ‘I believe that Torah defines sin and is God’s standard of behavior for all people, so I’m one of those “Torah-Keepers” who believe in keeping the Sabbath.’

So, do you believe that the Gentiles in Romans 2:12-16, who do not have the law, but do by nature the things contained in the law, showing the work of the law written in their hearts, keep the 7th-day Sabbath?

Me: No. Paul was talking about those aspects of the law that can be discerned by observing nature and following conscience. The concept of a sabbath could be derived from natural law, but God’s Sabbath could only be revealed by Him. The same is true of almost all of God’s Law. Let me give 2 examples.

1) The need for some kind of mediator between God and Man can be reasoned out from natural law, but the identity and nature of that Mediator can only be revealed supernaturally.
2) Open homosexuals (whom Paul had just condemned as sinners) often show that they are still able to discern some right from wrong when they defend their sin by appealing to monogamy and “committed relationships”. In that respect, they “do by nature things contained in the law, showing the work of the law written in their hearts”, but they are still disobedient in other respects.

GRD: I just discovered your reply and did not get notified of it. Maybe we should follow each other & send DMs when we reply? Missing notifications gets frustrating.

What’s your take on the scripture below, since Torah observers say the New Covenant is really a REnewed Covenant?

Me: Yeah, maybe following will kick the system. Some Torah-keepers say it is a “renewed” covenant, but I don’t think Scripture supports that. Jeremiah 31, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews all say “new”, not “renewed”.

As Peter warned, Paul can be very difficult to understand. Without a thorough understanding of the Torah, he is impossible.

God’s Law had to be written down because the people couldn’t keep it through the spirit alone. Torah itself says that it is blessing if you keep it and a curse if you don’t. Of course, nobody is able to keep every commandment perfectly, so it becomes a ministration of death by it’s undeniable witness of sin. Most of it is very clear in meaning.

However, by faith, by God’s grace, and by Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are spared the eternal consequences of disobedience. The Law proves we are unworthy of eternal life and condemns us to death. God’s Grace forgives our sin, sets aside that condemnation, and promises eternal life. That doesn’t nullify the Law’s ability to define sin. It just takes away the Law’s power to condemn (ministry of condemnation).

As God reforms us in his image and writes his Law on our hearts, the written Law becomes less and less useful. I think the YLT is helpful here.

9 …for if the ministration of the condemnation is glory, much more doth the ministration of the righteousness abound in glory; 10 for also even that which hath been glorious, hath not been glorious—in this respect, because of the superior glory; 11 for if that which is being made useless is through glory, much more that which is remaining is in glory.

10-11 shows that the glory of the written Law that condemns has only diminished in comparison to the greater glory of the spiritual Law. As Jeremiah 31 says, the Law isn’t done away with; it’s only transferred from stone–which can ultimately only condemn because our hearts are unable to receive it–to hearts, where it can become part of who we are, not imposed from without, but natural and instinctive as reborn children of God.

[More confusion about Twitter notifications.]

At this point, GRD decided it wasn’t worth continuing since Twitter wasn’t notifying us when the other person replied. I wish we could have continued this conversation, as it seemed like we might have been able to reach some kind of understanding. In any case, I hope he was persuaded that manyTorah-Keepers are not legalist, salvation-by-works Judaizers.

Posted on

The Gospel, the Garden, and the Golden Calf

Thematic connections between the Fall in the Garden of Eden, the Golden Calf at Mount Sinai, and the Gospel.

My wife, Paula, is reading through Exodus, and last week she noticed several parallels between the stories of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) and the Golden Calf (Exodus 32). As we talked about them, those parallels deepened and it soon became apparent that both stories had Yeshua stamped all over them. I’m sure that some of those parallels will seem obvious–temptation, disobedience, passing the buck–but others are more subtle and significant.

Helping God in His Absence?

In the Garden, Eve was tempted by the serpent in the apparent absence of God and then she tempted Adam. At Sinai, the people began to doubt when it seemed like Moses wasn’t coming back. They likely felt confused and vulnerable, perhaps even abandoned. Genesis doesn’t seem to indicate the same about Eve, but her response was similar. In both cases, the people decided not to wait for God and to take matters into their own hands. They both tried to bridge a perceived gap that God had not authorized them to bridge.

In the Garden, the serpent told Eve that she could make herself like God. If mankind was created in God’s image, telling Eve that she would be like God, knowing Good from Evil, could have been intended to make her think that this is really what God wanted for them from the beginning. They could more fully accomplish their role on earth by being more like God himself.

At Sinai, he told the people that they could make themselves an inanimate mediator to represent YHWH in the camp. Since God had provided a mediator in the person of Moses and they had been unable to receive God’s Law directly from the source, they probably thought it was reasonable to make a replacement.

They weren’t trying to replace God himself; they were just trying to help him to help them.

The Surrender of Authority

People in the Bible often wore rings as symbols of authority. A ring in the ear or nose indicated submission, while a ring on the finger indicated the bearing of authority. Recall the pierced ear of the bond servant in Exodus 21:2-6 and the signet rings of Judah and Joseph in Genesis 38:18 and Genesis 41:42.

When the people demanded that Aaron make them a replacement for Moses, he told them to take the gold rings from the ears of their wives and children to make an idol, rings that symbolized their families’ submission to their authority. I believe that Aaron told them to bring these specific items and not their signets, arm bands, and other gold objects later given for the furnishings of the Tabernacle, in order to say, “You want me to disrupt your relationship with God, so I will disrupt your relationship with your families.”

Likewise, in the Garden, humanity probably would not have been expelled if Adam had not surrendered his authority over Eve to the serpent by not protecting her and instead joining her in eating of the forbidden fruit. In both stories, the people rebelled and their spiritual coverings aided and joined them.

Mankind might not have needed a savior and Israel might not have needed an earthly High Priest and priestly caste if they had not surrendered their authority to a false god.

Hiding from God

When God came to visit Adam and Eve in the Garden, they tried to hide themselves because of their shame. When he confronted them, Adam tried to blame Eve, and Eve tried to blame the serpent.

When Moses returned from Mount Sinai, the people couldn’t hide. God told him, “I have seen this people,” (Exodus 32:9) and Moses could hear the sound of their partying from all the way up the mountain. However, Aaron did try to shift the blame. First he blamed the people. “You know how these people are determined to do evil,” he told Moses in verse 22. Then he blamed the fire and gold in verse 24: “I threw it into the fire and out came this calf!”

Of course, nobody can really hide from God, and nobody can escape the consequences of their actions. It seems at first that Aaron got away without punishment for his role in the golden calf incident, but that’s not really true.

Cascading Consequences

God told Adam, “In the day that you eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17) and he told Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book…In the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them” (Exodus 32:33-34). These statements continue to puzzle theologians today because these threats don’t appear to have been literally carried out. Adam lived more than 900 years and Aaron lived almost 40 years after their respective sins.

God did punish the people at the time of their sin. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden by an angel bearing a flaming sword and the Israelites at the center of the calf worship were killed by sword-bearing Levites. God condemned Adam and Eve to a life of struggle and eventual death and he sent a plague among the Israelites, but neither of these really fulfill the letter of his promise.

There are several concepts that aren’t immediately apparent in the plain text and will have to wait for another article. I’m going to focus on one of those ideas for now: A dramatic change in role is analogous to death and resurrection.

As the first man, all of humanity is blessed and cursed through Adam. He wasn’t only expelled from the garden and condemned to die himself, but every person since is also condemned to die because of what he did. On the day that Adam ate the fruit, his role in the world changed from God’s governor to a mediator of death to all humanity.

When Aaron took the authority of all the men of Israel in order to create a thing that could never act as a true mediator, he condemned himself to occupying that role. This was a mixed curse, of course. It’s a great blessing to serve God by leading his people in worship, but Aaron also died to his prior role as Moses’ prophet, giving up any chance of an ordinary life, and was metaphorically resurrected as a mediator for the whole nation.

An Insufficient Mediator

Unfortunately, neither Adam nor Aaron were capable of finally undoing the damage they had done. They had both created their roles by sinning, by becoming imperfect, and that which is imperfect can never make itself perfect again. Adam and Aaron both presided over what Paul called a “ministry of death”. They could never do anything more than guide their people until inevitable death.

Ultimate restoration required a different kind of mediator, one without sin, who had never caused the people to stumble nor participated in their rebellion. The stories of the sin in the Garden and the sin of the Golden Calf are purposely told in such a way to highlight these parallels in order to illustrate mankind’s need for a perfect mediator and redeemer in the person of Yeshua.

He filled the role of God and Moses by coming down from Heaven to observe and confront the sin of mankind.

He filled the role of Eve and the Hebrews by living as an ordinary human subject to trials, temptations, joys, and sorrows.

He filled the role of Adam and Aaron by taking authority over mankind and the responsibility of their sins onto his shoulders through the cross. Like them, he died to one life and resurrected to another, but the great and essential difference is that his death was undeserved and his resurrection complete. Adam and Aaron deserved their punishments, while Yeshua did not, and so he will remain forever a perfect High Priest and Kinsman Redeemer.

Posted on

What Did Jesus Mean by “Fulfill”?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

Torah-keepers point to these verses as a primary text proving the ongoing validity of the Law of Moses (aka Torah), while anti-Torah Christians point to them as proof the Law has passed away, been nailed to the cross, superseded…you get the idea. Whatever word they choose to use, it amounts to the same as “abolish”.

In light of the numerous biblical passages claiming that the Law will never pass away, it seems the burden of proof must lie on those who claim that Yeshua here said the opposite. This is the typical argument: Yeshua said the Law would pass away when the Law was fulfilled, and he fulfilled the law on the cross, therefore the Law has passed away. The obvious counter is that Yeshua did not say “when the Law was fulfilled.” He said “nothing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (or “fulfilled” in some translations).
What did he mean by “all”?

I see four possible meanings: all of the Law, all of the Prophets, the passing away of all of heaven and earth, and the completion of Yeshua’s mission on earth.

  1. All of the Law. What does it mean for all of the Law to be accomplished? Whatever it means, Yeshua’s death and resurrection could not have done it because decades after the resurrection, in Romans 13:8, Paul wrote that believers loving one another continue to fulfill the Law. Some will say that he was referring to a greater, unwritten Law of God that is superior to the Torah (aka Law of Moses), but in the very next verse, Paul wrote that he was specifically talking about the Torah or at the very least, the Ten Commandments which is at its core. All of the New Testament epistles are full of instruction based on the commandments of Torah. Why would the Apostles continue to instruct first century believers on how to observe and fulfill those commandments if Yeshua had nullified them by fulfilling them?
  2. All of the Prophets. It’s trivial to show that some prophecies in the Old Testament have not yet been fulfilled. For example, in Deuteronomy 30 Moses prophesied that Israel will repent from their rebellion against God and be fully restored to the land of Israel where God will circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their children so that they would keep all of the commandments given by Moses. There have been two partial returns of Israel to the land, once in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, and once in the twentieth century. In neither case was there any significant repentance. In the former case, God returned the people to exile. Today, the state of Israel hosts some of the world’s largest celebrations of rebellion against God. There are numerous prophecies of Israel’s eventual repentance and restoration to the land, and none of them have been fulfilled.*
  3. The End of Heaven and Earth. As I write this article, I am flying through the air at more than 30,000 feet above the surface of the earth. Outside the windows of this A330, I see sun, sky, clouds, mountains, and many miles of West Texas desert. I know that when I am home tonight, I will be able to look up in the sky and see the moon and thousands of stars. I hope you’ll trust me when I say that the heavens and the earth have not yet passed away. In fact, Revelation 20:11 says that they won’t pass away until the Great White Throne Judgment immediately prior to the final resurrection. If Yeshua meant that the Law would pass away with the heavens and the earth, then it nothing in the Law will pass until God is ready to judge every person who has ever lived.
  4. Yeshua’s Mission on Earth. This is probably what most Christians believe Yeshua meant when he said “until all is accomplished”. When he said “It is finished” on the cross, that was the end of the Law. However, as I pointed out above, Paul said that believers continue to fulfill the Law of Moses after Yeshua’s death by obeying the command in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”. James also repeated this command, even stating that it was from Scripture at a time when the only Scriptures available were the Old Testament, so it is very unlikely that he was referring to the Gospels. Many scholars believe that James’ letter was the first of all the New Testament writings.

As you can see, none of the possible interpretations of “till all be accomplished” in Matthew 5:18 stand up when the whole of Scripture is considered. According to Paul, the Law wasn’t abolished at the cross. All Old Testament prophecy has not been fulfilled. The heavens and the earth are still here.

In Matthew 5:17, Yeshua said that he had come to fulfill the Law, and I think we have to believe that he did that or else he failed in his mission. In the very next verse, he said that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all is accomplished, which can only mean that fulfilling the Law does not annul it or cause anything to pass from it. If both Paul and James taught that believers fulfill the Law by obeying it, why should we assume that Yeshua meant something different when he said he came to fulfill it?

One of the fundamental principles of Bible study is to let the Bible define its own terms. Of course, tradition and historical context can also be important, but ultimately, every biblical concept must be understood by how that concept is used and explained in the Bible itself.

What does the Bible say it means to “fulfill the Law”?

The Greek word translated “fulfill” in v17 is πληρόω (pleroo). It is often used to describe the fulfillment of a prophecy. The Torah is full of prophecies about the Messiah (Joseph’s entire life story is prophetic, for example), and Yeshua certainly fulfilled it in that way.

However, it is also frequently used to describe keeping the requirements of a commandment as when Yeshua, Paul, James, and John said that if we keep the commandments, we are loving one another, and if we are loving one another, then we will also be keeping (fulfilling) the commandments because the commandments are instruction in how to love. (See John 14:15, 14:21, Romans 8:4, 13:8-9, 2 Corinthians 10:6, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8, 1 John 5:2-2, and 2 John 1:6.)

Pleroo/filled-full is also used to describe something being filled up or made complete. Yeshua was filled with wisdom in Luke 2:40, valleys are filled in Luke 3:5, joy is made full in John 15:11, and Ananias’ heart is filled by Satan in Acts 5:3.

In no case does pleroo ever mean to nullify, cancel, or make anything “of no effect”. When applied to God’s commandments as given through Moses, it can only mean one of three things: 1) Fulfill their prophetic meaning, 2) Obey them, or 3) Fill or restore them with their intended meaning. Based on Yeshua’s own words throughout the Gospels and the Apostles teachings, “I have come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets” in Matthew 5:17 probably means all three, but it definitely cannot mean that Yeshua came to abolish, nullify, make obsolete…and any other synonym that people might use to get around Yeshua’s plain words in verse 18.

Our task from here is to reexamine the erroneous interpretations of verses that talk about “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” and “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”. See here for more thoughts on this and related topics: Objections to Keeping Torah.

* Since the Deuteronomy 30 prophecy also clearly states that the result of Israel’s circumcised hearts at some point in the future is obedience to Torah, God must still be pleased by his people obeying Moses’ instructions.