Krissi
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Krissi
-
-
In the recent past, the poor, aliens and orphans were shoved aside by the court system, unable to defend themselves against other citizens or from the government itself because the system was rigged against them. Today, courts are corrupted and politicized in a different way with different victims. For example, "lawfare" harms a political opponent by using the court system to destroy his reputation, bankrupt and silence him.
Today's courts are above the law. They create, not interpret, laws and use these newly created or fantastical re-interpretations of existing laws to destroy political opponents or people they don't like. Once targeted, a citizen's life will never be the same. He or she will never feel safe and will constantly worry about the next trumped up accusation their political enemies will make. Today's legal system uses the laws as a weapon to coerce submission and silence.
Ray Donovan (who had some sort of job under Reagan, I believe) after finally being acquitted (as well as bankrupted), famously quipped, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" He had been ruined by the courts. Unjustly. His acquittal didn't help him because his entire life, career, family and health had been devastated by weaponized courts. There are tens of thousands of people who have had experiences like Ray Donovan's ... harmed and destroyed by the government's judicial system.
Today's court perverters of justice intellectualize the problem by pretending that justice is an airy-fairy concept that no longer exists -- "whose justice ... which rationality" -- but the rest of us know that justice remains an understandable concept.
Corrupt judges are part of a corrupt system. That system seeks to harm individuals who critique or oppose it. Americans can no longer safely voice contrary opinions or challenge the government -- free speech has been gutted. For this reason, Solomon's wise sayings don't fit today's circumstances. In fact, Solomon's situation has been turned on it's head! The poor, disadvantaged and aliens are actually protected and acquitted by the courts even when guilty, while Christians, the innocent and reformers are persecuted relentlessly even though innocent. There is a positive bias toward criminals and Leftists in today's courts -- witness the lax punishment of those who steal, destroy property or are a public menace in San Fransisco and Portland, for example.
The court is part of the insider's club which excludes true Christians -- governmental elitists are a law unto themselves. Social justice only will be manifested when governmental insiders are unable to change the laws to benefit themselves or to consider themselves above the law.
Personally, I no longer think it is possible for Christians to work within the system to reform the system. Governmental corruption is too endemic and pervasive to be changed with the typical remedies of voting and activism.
-
Solomon’s answer is surprisingly wise for a young man – I have two twenty-something sons and am quite certain they wouldn’t ask for wisdom! That’s just not the sort of thing most young men think about. Thus, Solomon’s answer sets him apart from and above the typical male at that age, particularly considering he is a young man invested with great power. It is true that Solomon had expected to follow his father’s footsteps, to be a king. He must have been schooled by people around him including his father for the great responsibility he would assume. Still, think of all the egoistic, power-hungry, young kings … Solomon was different.
Did Solomon talk to God as David did? I don’t see him having the same sort of intimacy with God as did his father. Scripture doesn’t record everything, and perhaps the dream that he had was just the tip of the iceberg of his relationship with God. I hope so. Clearly, Solomon recognized God was speaking to him in a dream, and he did so while dreaming! That’s amazing.
God was pleased with his answer. But could he have asked for something better? I wonder what his father would have answered if asked this same question. Solomon could have asked for great faith, or the faith and intimacy of his father's relationship with God ... multiplied by ten, for example. That would have pleased God, but would it have pleased God more than his real answer?
God was pleased for his request for wisdom enough to give him wealth and honor. He did NOT get a long life, however, because of his disobedience. It's interesting that God took this from him and not something else.
To be honest, I serve God both for what He does for me as well as what I can do for him, though I feel that what I do is insignificant. I want to serve him more. And more deeply. By this I mean I want him to speak to me as he did David, leading me and telling me clearly what I should do.
Singleness of heart is a phrase that means “focus.” Focusing on God, not myself or my needs, is very difficult when my needs are overwhelming. He is teaching me -- right now -- to not be distracted by my own desires and needs but instead focus on Him. I am trying to obey, but fear of the future loom large in my mind. It's a constant battle to focus on Him. I've learned that focusing on the tasks at hand, humble and insignificant though they may be, keeps my mind on Him.
-
Solomon's marriage to a foreigner's daughter is like making a treaty in today's world -- it was an act of expedience and calculation, a way of binding two countries in peace and mutual interests. In short, it doesn't seem like a bad thing, but to God, it sullied a pure people.
Many years ago, (in New Jersey if I recall correctly), I visited a Christian retirement home which had, above the entrance doors, the words, "BE YE SEPARATE." This startled me. Separate from what? In what were these very old people going to intertwine themselves that was so dangerous? I think this must have been the same mentality that God had regarding Solomon -- Christian separationism is required to maintain the purity of faith. Separationism applies to marriage, obviously, but in the case of the elderly people, it must have referred to the people with whom they would spend their final years on earth.
Marriage and sacrifice on hilltops are two examples of separation not done by Solomon. Both had a certain beneficial logic -- marriage was strategic and ensured peace; in the high places, the Israelites were worshipping Yahweh, not Baal. But the lack of cultural separation was still anathema to God.
Israelites became involved with other cultures or ways of thinking that insidiously worked into the minds of Israel. The point is that some things seem to get a toehold in our minds, even our collective mind, and then expands with time. Then, it's a devastating problem.
Compromises can be defined negatively, as things not done. Compromises are predicated on not morally and culturally separating ourselves from the world around us. Christian faith is fragile. We need to erect tall walls of separation to keep it pure.
As a divorced woman who had been married to an unbeliever, I've experience firsthand the consequences of not separating from culture and fascinating men. My resultant children struggle in their faith, or lack thereof, which is a direct consequence of my stupid mistake. My witness was sullied. God couldn't use me. I pray that He both forgives, which He has, and changes my sin into something by which He can be glorified.
-
One of the attributes of Moses I wish I had, but don't, is his ability/permission to speak to God face-to-face. He communicated with God in ways no one, beside Jesus, has done. God talked to him. Led him. Worked with him in spite of his many weaknesses. And, I think God loved Moses because Moses desired to talk and be with God.
But Moses' desire to hurry up the promise led him to do a horrible thing -- kill the Egyptian -- this is something I intuitively understand because I, too, am eager to be used, to get on with the promise (any promise will do!) and make my life worth living for HIm. But, the warning of this story is that a hurried promise is actually a horrible disobedience which may, in the end, keep that promise from being fulfilled. Unlike others on this forum, I believe that in the back of his mind, Moses always knew he would do something for the slaves in Egypt, though certainly he doubted and wondered what that would be and if he had heard incorrectly from God.
One thing I learned from the life of Moses is that careful, exacting obedience -- waiting for the promise to unfold -- is highly important to God. THough He forgives, He also punishes those who do not do His will in detail. Moses was only able to see the promised land from a distance. How sad that is! What a horrible punishment. Moses' entire life had been spent working toward this end, of entering the promised land, but God saw to it that he never arrived.
It is a scary thought that my own behavior, though forgiven, may keep me from experiencing the joy of accomplishment years down the line. It's such a crushing thought, that whatever promised land God may have had for me, I may have shut the door on without knowing it. I pray this is untrue, that I still have a chance of being used, that my promised land lies ahead of me, not in the dust of personal history.
-
Balak/Balaam remind me of weak politicians who do underhanded deeds in the dark rather than act openly and work to defend their positions and policies. These sorts of politicians often work through proxies, weak men and women who do their dirty work and cover their tracks.
Phinheas is a good sort of religious radical, one consumed with a righteous passion that would cause his public execution in today's legal system -- he killed a man because of his arrogant sexual behavior. God rewarded and approved of Phinhaes' deed. We should take note of this.
When God is for us, who can be against us?
We are afraid to defend God's honor because the Western legal systems and governments stand against God's holy commands. Instead of upholding righteousness, our legal system enshrines, protects and encourages sexual perversion and human and child abuse.
Those who openly and blatantly defy God are rewarded in our morally backward political system; those who defend the rights of God and live according to His dictates are maligned, hounded and imprisoned. Thus, most Christians are afraid. That's why they look away from sin meekly rather than expose it. In this, they dishonor God. Rather than revolt against evil structures and destroy evil people, they walk away or emigrate from corrupt Western countries, wiping their feet as they go.
-
All political transfers of power -- including that of Western leaders -- are accompanied by purging of people loyal to the competitor/opposer and putting one's own people into their influential positions. In ancient times, such purging didn't merely remove sinecures or jobs, but included killing one's political rivals. So, Solomon's behavior, though it seems quite harsh today, was rather run-of-the-mill for his time.
What's remarkable, then, was Solomon's restraint. He patiently waited until his power had consolidated. He also waited for his enemies to trip themselves, which they did. This was not only politically clever as it ingratiated and gained the loyalty of the lower-ranked followers of Solomon's three big enemies, as well as being, according to scripture, God's intention.
(I wonder why David didn't kill these three individuals himself? Why did he off-load that responsibility onto Solomon?)
The balance, as I see it, isn't between the "protection of the throne" and justice, but a calculus between a raw, Machiavellian exercise of power and a more merciful exercise of justice. God/Solomon opted to consolidate Solomon's power against those who would challenge it. No mercy was shown. It was assumed that once a person had been disloyal, that person would forever be untrustworthy.
It appears God was pleased with this calculus.
-
In this passage, God seems harsh to Moses even though He was protecting His own holiness. In another harsh-like/holiness passage, Uzzah was struck dead for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from tilting precariously and then falling. Thankfully, in other biblical passages God seems more kind. Much of his relationship with David was a display of grace and kindness, for example.
Still, I sympathize with Moses. He had been on the receiving end of the Israelites' whining, grumbling, fear and avarice for many years! Think of this. It is understandable that in a moment of frustration, moses would speak to the people and not the rock.
God explained His response, in a way, by exposing Moses' motive for speaking to the people harshly: “Because you didn’t trust me, didn’t treat me with holy reverence in front of the People of Israel, you two aren’t going to lead this company into the land that I am giving them.” Message version.
But, immediately before this, had not Moses laid himself before God and His glory? At that moment, Moses must have trusted God. In other biblical passages, those who see His face die. Since Moses didn't die, God must have been pleased with Moses.
As an aside, Moses had talked to God face-to-face on prior occasions. He had seen God's face (taken literally). But in the tabernacle, when Moses asked to see His glory, God responded by telling him that no one would live after seeing His face. I don't understand this.
What is righteous anger anyway? Was Moses justified in his anger toward the Israelites? To me, it seems so. But to God ... apparently not: God saw Moses anger as a lack of faith and reverence toward Him. I must change my idea of righteous anger, then. What I see as justified anger, God sees as a lack of public humility.
This passage ends with God revealing Himself as holy. God saw Moses' anger as an affront to His holiness.
His own holiness, therefore, is important to God. In fact, God didn't let Moses have any earthly reward for his travails. Moses didn't see the promised land.
-
To what commandments is David referring? Is he pointing to the myriad of laws and regulations that have undoubtedly emerged, particularly around the priesthood and sacrificial system? The Ten Commandments? If David is referring to the Ten Commandments, then it’s interesting that he would command his son to uphold the same basic moral minimum to which we all must obey.
The Ten Commandments were written for all people, not just kings.
Everything in the Christian life is conditional except our salvation, which we cannot lose. Every promise is predicated on faith or behavior. That’s why we see so few of those promises actualized in our lives. It’s also why it feels as if we have to earn our salvation or sanctification. Nothing comes easily!
We’re tempted to break the Ten Commandments because we’re sinful. Our core nature, yet to be redeemed fully, asserts itself constantly – it is our constant battle to subdue our inner self. Such self-discipline is a synonym for obedience.
I’m not sure obedience and prosperity are connected as I’ve known many very good and obedient Christians who struggle financially. I’ve also known a few Christians who are quite wealthy and unable to handle wealth, prestige and power.
A glorious thing to behold, in my wee opinion, is a worldly-powerful/wealthy/famous Christian who remains humble, giving and concerned for others. We need more of these people.
-
Within Christian organizations and collectivities, there exists a tension between spiritual egalitarianism (priesthood of all believers) and spiritual hierarchy. Perhaps, it’s not a tension but a balance. In some denominations, hierarchy is so overwhelming that believers have little to do, lack agency and defer to the priest rather than take initiative for their own spiritual development. In other denominations, it’s a free for all.
So, I see Korah’s rebellion as an expression of this tension. He was saying, in so many words, that the balance has gone too far toward hierarchy and too far from egalitarianism. "The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them."
Moses responded by reiterating the claim that He alone could speak for God, and that Korah was not only challenging Moses’ hierarchical position, but God Himself!
God responded by killing Korah and his followers. Pretty brutal. God went further by killing anyone associated with Korah – the plague.
Obviously, in this circumstance, God wanted the people to obey Moses, his mediator, and respect the hierarchy He had instituted. Is this a principle? Is this the New Testament pattern, too? Those are the big questions that remain, for me.
--
Top-down organizations, including political structures, tend to ossify. In time, the people disregard them and revolt or move toward more responsive structures. Chaos is rare. Hierarchy is the norm in society. This doesn't make it moral or right in the eyes of God, but it is, I believe, an accurate observation to say that all societies tend toward striation and hierarchy, placing some people above others, and causing grave social inequities. After a long time, these political structures become stone-like, immovable and oppressive -- at this point, the only recourse is revolution.
Does this apply to the church? Churches, because they're usually not part of the government or state-enforced, lose members when they no longer meet the needs of their congregants. Congregants vote with their feet -- they go to churches that grow them spiritually, which are often, though not always, churches that are less ossified and hierarchical.
-
No.
Jesus' command to love enemies applies only to people.
Enemies are people we know or know of, not institutions or forms of governance. The current government has been purposely depersonalized -- we do not know the names or faces of those who work for it, and if we do, we cannot know what they do. This information is hidden from us. Bureaucrats are purposely shielded from the gaze of ordinary Americans and long ago ceased to "re-present" our desires and points of view.
I understand what it is to love non-human things. I love my dog. Passionately, in fact. I love modern art, sculpture, great architecture, sunsets, beautiful sentences and phrases, well-formed ideas, etc. I have a friend who loves food so much so that he drools and gets tongue-tied when he talks about grilled meat. This passion is real! It's a form of love. But it's NOT the sort of love that Jesus had in mind when He told us to love our enemies. Again, enemies are people who have harmed us. Actual people.
I've often wondered what it would be like to be in a war and kill someone I do not know. I can understand why the surviving relatives of that person would hate me, even though I had no idea of the identity of the person I killed. Is anonymous hatred real? I think Jesus' command to love would extend to a war situation, though tentatively.
There used to be an expression that went something like this: love the sinner and hate the sin. This doesn't make sense to me because sin isn't a little Platonic cloud hovering over us, but is in us. It's constitutive. Sin is part of who we are -- we are forgiven sinners. I can't extract and set aside a sin from a man's character anymore than I can extract the good things.
Back to war. Most soldiers, historically, have been conscripted or drafted. They did not go to war voluntarily but under extreme duress. There are videos online, now, of Ukrainian soldiers grabbed off the streets, arms hogtied behind their backs, to be forcibly sent to their certain deaths on the frontlines. These unfortunate men and anyone who is coerced to harm/kill others should be placed in a different moral category than those who eagerly sign up to kill, or those who take salaries from governmental agencies instead of finding moral employment in the private sector.
Those who choose to harm others by working for the government are individuals -- actual people with names -- who must be prayed for and, if they confess and repent, forgiven. But the system for which they work ... the government ... the bureaucracy ... is evil, in it's current permutation, and merits our total disdain and hatred. We are morally obligated -- reform or revolt -- to protect others from predation and unfair coercion, and keep them from the clutches of bureaucratic evil. We should be motivated by a hatred of injustice and unbridled power to upend or try to change a system that is raw evil to it's core.
-
This fascinating story could be out of Shakespeare or Sophocles. Palace intrigue. Big egos. The powerlessness and decline of the patriarch. Warring siblings. Intrigue. Potential murder. This story has it all.
The presence of the prophets and religious leaders, and the insistence of Solomon's mum that David honor his promise is what made Solomon the leader, not his brother (whose claim to the throne makes sense.) As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that Solomon was a great person or leader.
I don't know why Nathan protected Solomon first. Perhaps it was because he had special access to the backstory, how David had been prohibited from building the temple because he was a soldier who had taken innocent blood, how Solomon had been chosen by God to build the temple, and furthermore, how Bathsheba had been promised that her son would be the next ruler. I suppose, knowing all he did, Nathan the prophet and Zadok the high priest -- who both wore the mantle of God -- felt it was their duty to intervene and actualize God's will.
I'm certain that God would have had His way even if the prophet/priest didn't intervene, but it is fascinating that they sought to manipulate events during a palace coup in such a way that Solomon became king. So much for separation of church and state, huh?
-
So many of us get close to our goal, but never reach it because we're afraid, sinful or just can't think big enough to imagine ourselves victorious when we're doing God's will. The Israelite failure to reach the promised land is an example of this. It's tragic. In fact, it makes me ill to think that the Israelites saw many miracles and blessings and yet still fell for disinformation and were fear-filled.
Most of us are afraid when obstacles in front of us seem insurmountable. That's the mindset of the "ten." The majority. Most of us, too, fall for governmental disinformation. We are kept in a state of fear to make it easier for the government to control us.
Think about history: the Israelites were rescued from Egypt, shown great forgiveness and blessing, and then, at the very end, were punished by not achieving the ONE goal they were promised, entrance into the promised land. How did they go on afterward knowing their lives were going to be wasted in the desert, that there would be no future or hope? The people were unused to thinking clearly and critically as they had been propagandized by their leaders for years. I pity them.
Only "two" were clear thinking and faith-filled. Caleb and Joshua were the social rebels and God-obeyers of their time.
How often have we, as Christians, started out on a journey of faith and then screwed up on the path along the way? Did God put us back on the path, or did he condemn us to wander forever in the desert? Our faith in Jesus changes the calculus of the time of Moses even though God is the same ... and so are we. Though we can be forgiven, the consequences of our sin could keep us in the desert forever. God doesn't necessarily or even often erase consequences of sin.
Not one of us have stayed strictly on the path. Yes, the Israelites had repeatedly sinned in big ways, but haven't we all? Haven't we had fear? Distrust? Haven't we held back and thought of ourselves as grasshoppers and not "more than conquerers?"
Yes, I think the punishment was too severe but I'm a softy and expect His forgiveness to overrule our sin, big or little. At least God didn't kill them, as He did in Sodom or with the Noatic floods.
God, when He so chooses, cleans the slate.
-
What are the main provisions of the Davidic Covenant? What does it say about the temple? About David’s descendants? About discipline? About mercy? About the throne?
The main point of the covenant, as I see it, is that David's bloodline would continue and would in some manner produce leaders. One of those "leaders" was Christ Himself. Thus, his claim to the throne would be everlasting.
The two lesser points of the covenant have to do with the temple. David would not be the one to build the temple, but rather, one of his sons.
Regarding discipline and mercy, I'm not sure I can answer this question correctly so will wait and learn from these lessons.
-
I think their disapproval of Moses’ wife was just a ruse or cover for their own pretensions to power. This is a common theme in literature and life – a minor player tries to usurp the power of those above him. From the point of view of Miriam and Aaron, it must have been difficult to watch their brother, who, after all, had been banished from Egypt and out of sight for decades, to suddenly come to power and have status above them. Was theirs, then, jealousy? Maybe. It could also have been the will to power (Nietzsche), a subconscious desire in all humans that seeks to dominate and crush others. So, though Moses may have been the most humble (least power-seeking) man alive, those around him did not seem to possess the same attribute, at least to his degree.
Moses, in my opinion, didn’t handle this well. He should have recognized the plottings of his brother and sister and dealt with their urges to power before they manifested as rebellion. He only interceded to heal Miriam after the fact. Had Moses prayed to God to take away the cravings for power expressed by his siblings, or even asked for the wisdom to deal with them, this entire scene could have been avoided. At the least their stymied rebellion could have served as a example to others who could have also wanted to challenge Moses’ power and preeminence as God’s chosen leader.
Asking God for protection and wisdom in dealing with those who contest leadership is not a sign of pride, but rather of humility. Had Moses been proud (and morally weak) he could have crushed his usurpers. That's the typical response. Instead, God inflicted Miriam with leprosy, a socially-shunning disease. Because she had this disease, she was removed from contact with others … for a week. Eventually God healed and restored her to fellowship.
-
What precipitated the plague of snakes?
Is being impatient with God's provision a sin? Why or why not?
What are the points of comparison between the bronze snake in the desert and Christ on the cross?
God gets angry with us when we keep doing the same sin or complain repeatedly. God must not like whiners. I am not a whiner but I do complain about many things. There must be a thin line between persistent prayer and complaining -- I hope I haven't crossed it. Anyway, complaining, whining, ungratefulness and otherwise sinning angered God so much that he sent a plague of snakes.
I do not put much stock in the idea that the level of grumbling had risen from complaining about people to complaining about God. The Israelites knew that the israelites identified with Yahweh, therefore what they did was supposed to be what God had commanded them to do.
The good news is that the Israelites had actually learned something. They mentally connected their own behavior with the circumstances that befell them, that is, the sudden appearance of venomous snakes.
Yes, being impatient or ungrateful with God's provision is a sin. I'm not sure why, but God seems particularly peeved by whiny people. I totally understand!
There are no logical connections between the bronze snake and Christ on the cross. It's gross to think such connections or comparisons exist. I find the bronze snake story shocking, to be honest, and find it difficult that God would set up an idol to remind the people of their sin and his forgiving/healing.
-
Moses seems to feel that the responsibilities put on him were more than he could effectively handle, and being out of rational ideas, he sank into despair.
I believe his complaints were grounded. He felt that God had overburdened him with these ungrateful, immature people. He had no idea where to get meat, which they were clamoring for incessantly. In the desert, meat was nowhere to be found -- Moses knew this and had no way of providing what the people wanted. Note that the provision, so far, hadn't come from Moses but from God. So, Moses ws taking on God's burden! He was trying to do the miraculous by creating meat.
I do not think any prayer except, perhaps, the Lord's prayer, are model prayers. We don't pray according to a template but by giving God our real, unvarnished thoughts, fears, praise and worship. In a way, Moses did this. He told God what he was truly feeling, his felt inadequacies and his frustration with his circumstances. God was not angry at Moses' prayer but at the people.
God flatly answered His prayer. He reminded Moses that He had cared for him in the past and would do so again. He miraculously provided quail as meat.
I have never eaten quail but I've heard it is good, though there's only a small amount of meat on each bird. Thus, to get the meat off of quail takes quite a bit of work. Those who were hungriest or greediest for quail apparently were willing to work for their food -- a good thing! -- yet were still killed by God with some sort of pathogen in the quail. Those who ate the most quail got the most pathogen. They died and were buried in "graves of the craving."
-
The bible verse that has to do with putting our hands on the head of the sacrificed animal is found in Leviticus 1.3, ““If the offering is a Whole-Burnt-Offering from the herd, present a male without a defect at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting that it may be accepted by God. Lay your hand on the head of the Whole-Burnt-Offering so that it may be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you.”
Putting our hand on the animal about to be killed somehow connects the sinful human to the animal, specifically to the animal’s blood. It’s a practice that’s also practiced in New Testament times by the laying on of hands to bless, heal, anoint with oil and, most interestingly, to impart or acknowledge a gift of the spirit or special assignment by God. Such a ritual is tangible; a physical re-enactment of some sort of divine transference that cannot be seen.
What happens in the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament is that the sinful person’s curse is transferred to the animal via the physical connection of the person’s hands on that animal. Frankly, i"m surprised that we don't have to plunge our hands in blood rather than put our hands on the head of the animal; so much of this is beyond what I can understand.
I suppose the person making the sacrifice has to kill the animal because it symbolizes the killing of his own sin. The entire animal is burnt after the priest tosses the blood on the altar which may suggest that the entire sin has been burnt and therefore released or eliminated.
I don’t understand why God chose this rather brutal way of eliminating sin. It’s not for me to know. I’m certain that the repulse I feel toward murdering an innocent, flawless, male animal was NOT felt in Old Testament times. They were used to killing animals for food, not going to Safeway to pick up a piece of bloodless meat neatly tucked under cellophane. Food in ancient eras had to be hung, I’ve been told, to drain the blood out of the animal before it could be cooked and eaten. Today, we spent effort to rid the meat of blood – in the Bible, our effort is spent collecting the blood. Blood to represents the life force in the animal, it’s “spirit” so to speak.
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
Actually, the person sacrificing doesn’t collect the blood, but rather the priests. I’m not certain why it’s important for the person to kill the animal but not collect it’s blood, though perhaps the “holiness” of the blood renders it untouchable by mere non-priests.
When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, he was the last blood offering to God. Jesus’ blood “took away” the sins of the world. Jesus as a man was sacrificed so that His blood could be metaphorically “shed” on the cross as an altar to eliminate the sins of those who desired and understood, though through a glass darkly, what getting rid of one’s past sins really means. His life gave us life; the life of Jesus was in His blood (as was that of an animal) and the blood makes “atonement” for our sinful lives. This satisfies God.
“The blood makes atonement for one’s life.” It’s interesting that the atonement isn’t for the sin, or described as such, but for our lives, as if everything we do has to be purified and atoned for.
-
The tabernacle was built according to a blueprint given to Moses by God Himself. This includes the Holy of Holies and the Ark. I have to admit that I’m bothered by the hierarchy which permitted only one person into the Holy of Holies, only priests into the antechamber and ordinary people peering from outside but not allowed inside. Christ got rid of such castes and elevated the most common of the common people to an equal "rank" with others.
The importance of the ark and it's trapping is in it's ability to hold the awe and attention of the people who were not well-schooled in God's nature or desires. It made tangible that which is difficult to comprehend and gave God an aura of mystery and power. To say that God was limited to the ark, or was somehow "more" within the tabernacle than in other places gave the people an identity of being special, chosen, set-apart and possessing the place where God lived. Obviously, God is everywhere. He's never been limited to a tent, or little area within the tent.
The meaning of the tabernacle, ark and tent must be symbolic. It symbolizes God's utter holiness by being inaccessible and mysterious ... and, conversely, symbolized the sinfulness of the people who were so "soiled" by sin that they could not approach God.
--
Thankfully, we are in the new covenant, not this old one. From the Message version, 2 cor 3:
Unlike Moses, we have nothing to hide. Everything is out in the open with us. He wore a veil so the children of Israel wouldn’t notice that the glory was fading away—and they didn’t notice. They didn’t notice it then and they don’t notice it now, don’t notice that there’s nothing left behind that veil. Even today when the proclamations of that old, bankrupt government are read out, they can’t see through it. Only Christ can get rid of the veil so they can see for themselves that there’s nothing there.
Whenever, though, they turn to face God as Moses did, God removes the veil and there they are—face-to-face! They suddenly recognize that God is a living, personal presence, not a piece of chiseled stone. And when God is personally present, a living Spirit, that old, constricting legislation is recognized as obsolete. We’re free of it! All of us! Nothing between us and God, our faces shining with the brightness of his face. And so we are transfigured much like the Messiah, our lives gradually becoming brighter and more beautiful as God enters our lives and we become like him.
-
1. This layout reminds me of American settlers who would circle their wagons in the evening to let the children and animals safely play in the centre. It's a defensive strategy that protects, in this case, the tabernacle. Any enemy would have to fight through a tribe or two as well as the priestly groups to get to the tabernacle.
2. This layout puts the tabernacle and priests in the centre of the activity. To get from one side to the other, an Israelite would have to walk through the tabernacle, or around it. The layout also fosters solidarity between similar tribes by grouping them together.
3. It is my understanding that hundreds of thousands of non-Israelites followed the Israelites out of Egypt. What happened to them? They're not located in this drawing, but maybe had already been absorbed in the tribes via marriage and understanding.
4. This layout is also remarkably egalitarian. No tribe is above another except the priests who are separated by function. The 12 tribes around the periphery have equal access and distance to the centre.
-
This is an amazing story. Moses would go outside the city, away from the other residences, to what seems to be an isolated place where he had erected a tent. He took with him one person, a young man. There, he would UNCOVER his face to talk to God.
Moses' uncovered face is unlike that of Elijah who immediately covered his face with his shirt at the mouth of the cave where God spoke with him. Other biblical stories are similar.
So, until the tabernacle was built, Moses was to cover his face before people and uncover it before God. An uncovered face is intimate. It’s almost like undressing before your spouse … something no one else sees but one’s beloved.
I don’t know why it is called the tent of meeting other than the obvious, that God met Moses there. It was a temporary structure, a tent, which makes sense since this was a temporary time of intimacy before the institutionalization of the tabernacle.
I spend a long time with God daily. My mind often wanders, however, so it’s not as focused as it should be. Much time is sadly wasted. For now, I have a little spot in my home for meeting Him which I do early in the morning. My father just died so I’ll be leaving this residence in a couple weeks – I pray to have a similar place of study and worship. Please pray that the Lord clearly leads me to where He wants me to go.
As an aside, I’ve been designing floor plans for a small cottage and am going to include a special place of prayer and study, a little room set-aside just for Him, if He permits me to build.
-
This has been, so far, the most important lesson I have had in all of Pastor Ralph's teaching ... I pray to understand it far, far more deeply.
--
There seems to be no limit to what we can ask God in intercession. Furthermore, God Himself doesn't act according to our notions of love and forgiveness but has His own exacting ideas to which we are not privy.
When God wanted to slaughter all the Israelites, Moses did not appeal to God's character -- he did not remind God that one of His essential characteristics is love therefore He should overlook and forgive the wayward Israelites -- rather, Moses told God that in the past, He had declared the Israelites to be His people and that they were still His people, even though they had abandoned Him at a crucial point in history. God had promised the Israelites would inherit the land which means there had to be a few Israelites left to get that land. This was the basis of His appeal.
Moses, then, interceded for a people whom God had rejected. HE interceded as an individual who knew God well and could speak to God in the first person, as a man to God, not as a nation to God.
God did not relent in vengeance -- He killed most of the Israelites with slaughter and plague. He did, however, keep a remnant to enter the land ... as He had promised. But note that the ones who survived did so because they had turned "against their own sons and brothers." Turning away from and rejecting horrible people (idolators) is what permitted the remaining Israelites to be set apart for His service. Slaughtering the horrible Israelites, "killing brother, friend and neighbor," preserved a remnant. Interceding for the remnant saved them.
--
So many questions:
- Should we intercede like Moses?
- Can we intercede for people who have cruelly and wrongly persecuted us as well as denied Him, can we ask God to separate and slaughter our/His enemies?
- If we are strong in our beliefs and ethic, must we necessarily oppose our apostate "sons and brothers?"
- What about turning the other cheek? Is this somehting new for believers, or does God Himself look away when we are persecuted?
The strong connection between OUR INTERCESSION and HIS VENGEANCE/PURITY cannot be ignored. We may intercede; He may answer in ways we don't expect or seems cruel. God kills the sinners. He slaughters them. He sends plagues. He does so because worshipping a hand-conceived idol is horrible to God. IN many ways, Moses' intercession didn't make much of a difference: God still slaughtered and judged. Intercession appears to have created a remnant, however, a smaller group of people that could carry on His will.
God's character isn't as sweet, fuzzy and loving as we'd prefer -- He easily and willingly slaughters when angry and does demand vengeance. So, to intercede effectively means we have to take both the happy-making and fear-inducing aspects of His character into consideration. Regarding His promises, it's difficult to know what is historically conditioned (for a particular people and place) from what we can ask of Him legitimately here and now. A promise to Moses may not be a promise to me. Probably isn't, in fact. But God's character doesn't change.
-
I'm struck by the fact that Aaron wasn't punished for leading the Israelites into idol worship ... in fact, he is made a priest in the tabernacle. Yet we know that God was angry enough for Moses to feel the need to plead to God to spare the people, which presumably includes Aaron. So, what was the nature of his sin, and why was it turned into a blessing -- becoming priests? I would think that idolatry and syncretism would be HUGE sins in the eyes of God, which were then compounded by the libertine and uncontrolled behavior of the people. That's the sin of Aaron. It's a doozy.
On top of this, Aaron effectively downplayed the nature of his sin, which was to lead people into idolatry, syncretism and social libertinism. I don't know why he didn't fall to his knees in shame, but perhaps Aaron didn't quite understand the gravity of what he had done, or, conversely, was afraid and tried to sidestep it.
Again, I don't know why God accepted Moses' intercessory prayer for the people/Aaron. Moses DID seem to get off easily. God's anger abated.
The rest of Pastor Ralph's questions have to do with the application of the principles learned in this story. I think leaders, as well as laity, must be responsible for their actions -- I do not think leaders are "more responsible" than the people. We all are responsible for whatever God has commanded us to do or has put in front of us. If we do not do it, or if we blatantly disobey, God may punish us. That punishment arrests and causes us to focus on the sin as well as our own motives and weaknesses that caused us to do it. Thus, we can, if we not only understand the sin but feel the gravity of it's horror to God, repent and change, that is learn from our mistakes.
-
An idol isn't "just" anything that pulls us away from the worship of God ... many distractions and detours are not idols, though they can be sin. An idol is a substitute god, a god of our own creation.
I've noticed that pagans/unbelievers/seculars tend to create idols when they give up on the true God. For example, the "green" religion makes an idol of nature and has instituted religious-like rituals and sub-beliefs that sustain their fantasy. Environmentalism is a godless religion -- loving nature as God's creation can be part of worshipping God, however.
Thus, I think that people need God, that there is something constitutive in us that needs to worship, and that once God is rejected, political values, power plays, money and the shallow aspects of communal life (entertainment) become gods.
It is shocking that Aaron so quickly conspired with the weak Israelites to jettison God for a substitute. Perhaps he was afraid of being lynched by the mob? Perhaps his own faith in God had been teetering? It's difficult to know why he was so disloyal to the God who had done so many miracles in front of him.
God hates sin so he would have hated the golden icon.
Individuals within churches have to be primed, because of their immaturity in faith or faithlessness, to abandon faith when the pressure toward unbelief is overwhelming to them. It's not that "churches" leave God, but that individuals within the church choose to worship another god. The church is not greater than the sum of it's people.
-
Old covenant
-
law (ten commandments, mosaic laws)
- written on tablets of stone
- carried around in tabernacle
- only applies to Israelites
-
ratified with blood of animals
- has to be done repeatedly -- not lasting
- has to be done via priests or mediators
New covenant
-
grace
- written in the hearts of believers
- carried within us
- applies to all who accept Him -- universal
-
ratified by the blood sacrifice of Jesus
- one time sacrifice is sufficient -- everlasting
- no priests or mediators needed
-
law (ten commandments, mosaic laws)
Q8. Proverbs
in 2. Solomon’s Wisdom (1 Kings 3-4)
Posted
I tend to skip over the proverbs which is one of the reasons why corrective learning about Solomon is important.
The proverbs seem a bit like folk wisdom -- it is difficult to know what to do with them. Often, a proverb stands alone as an isolated sentence without context or development. In a way, the proverbs contradict how we've been taught to think in the West, that we are to dig, dig, dig downward to get to the pithy core of a statement, and then rebuild it in its historical and cultural context. Down than up. But a proverb seems to be the core meaning of a wise statement, (as far down as one can go) without the secondary development (the upward rebuilding). So, I'm not sure what to do with a proverb. Take it as it appears? If so, how?
"Trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding." Hah! That's a proverb I often tell myself. It tells me to stop the process of understanding and just take God's teachings "as is", but ... in practice, what does this mean? God doesn't want us to turn off our minds but rather He is telling us to not lean on our minds, to not overemphasize thinking and reasoning. I take this to mean that when the limit of thinking has been reached, I am to stop scrubbing at the problem and just trust God to give understanding. His understanding.
Easier said than done.
So much in the Bible is difficult to understand. I reach my limit of understand both often and early and have to rely on God to help me stop worrying about being so dumb and ignorant. Important concepts such as the resurrection or the humanity of God in Jesus ... floor me. I simply don't understand them deeply enough so that this knowledge can be "applied."
--
i wonder if God looks at us as I look at my dog. Right now, my dog is barking at something he sees outside the window. Probably another dog. I tried to reason with him, "What does this do for you ..." but he didn't listen. So, I said, "Good Dog No Bark." He understood this but the temptation to bark was too overwhelming so he didn't care. Solomon tries to tell us what to do/not do by reducing His directives down to pithy statements, "Bad Woman Think Too Much." I understand this, and truly care, but, well, am still barking ...