The first essay in this series is Birth of the Israelite Nation. This is the second in a series of essays that cover the origin of the Israelite nation and conclude with a discussion of the Ten Commandments.
When I was a pastor I keep a little clipping taped to my computer monitor in my office. It said, "Put it up to a vote, and the people will always vote to go back to Egypt." That was no idle speculation for the Israelites. As problems mounted in the desert at one point the vast majority were ready to return to familiar bondage in Egypt.
We should ask ourselves if we too would vote to go back to the familiar bondage of the past. I think that when things get tough many of us would. The bondage of the past might be awful, but it is something we know and think we understand. The future God offers to us is unknown; and the unknown is frightening.
God saved the Israelites from the slavery and bondage of Egypt. God did it alone, using Moses as his instrument. Moses had absolutely no power to do anything for the people without God. And the people did nothing to save themselves from the Egyptians. Nothing at all.
Why did God do it? Why bother to save this unruly brood of complainers? There were many reasons, but two stand out. The obvious one in the text is that God wanted to show Pharaoh who was boss. He wanted to demonstrate that no evil could stand against his righteous power. Moses reminds God of this fact later in the story when he convinces God to change his mind about consuming his own people lest he look bad in the eyes of Egypt.
But, underlying that reason is a far more basic reason that is not so obvious. The world was out of whack. God's own creation was being corrupted yet again, particularly due to the evil power exerted by the Pharaohs of the world. God intended to restore His creation to its original intent.
Thus, if we simply look at the struggles in Exodus to free the chosen people from bondage in Egypt as of little consequence; and if the crossing of the Red Sea is nothing more than a curiosity - something to argue over whether or not it is even true - then we miss the whole point that the text is trying to tell us.
These struggles and this event are meant by the writers of Exodus to be seen as being cosmic in their scope. The God of Salvation who wins the freedom for the Israelites is also the God of Creation intent on restoring the good order of things which he created originally. And his chosen instrument for that restoration was to be the people who descended from Abraham, with whom he had established his covenant.
God chose these people as his own. They were to become a new nation, a new people, destined to set the example for the rest of the world; and destined to "be a blessing to all nations" according to the original covenant some 400 years before with Abraham. Nothing in God's intentions implied in any way that the chosen people were to "do their own thing." They were to do God's will. That is why he saved them.
Thus, their freedom was never viewed by God as the freedom to do as they pleased. The issue was never bondage versus "no boundaries;" but rather bondage to Pharaoh versus freedom to serve God. The whole purpose of the Exodus was to create a people with one goal: to be obedient to God.
The story of the wanderings in the wilderness is the story of a people growing up; learning to trust and to serve their God, making mistakes, stumbling, and yet learning all the while. The question for them is the question for us: "Whom will you serve?" That is always the question.
If the purpose of salvation for the Israelite nation was to be obedient to God, it is clear from the text that they struggle, right from the beginning, with doing that.
Yes, immediately after the crossing of the Red Sea they do get it right, until the next crisis. At the next crisis, which was no small thing, they were in the desert without drinkable water, they complained. Chances are that we would have too. We have to be very cautious about feeling smug about how we are when compared to how they were.
From the very beginning of the book of Exodus there was a pattern starting to form, a pattern that will continue throughout not only Exodus, but throughout the entire Pentateuch - the first five books of the Bible - and into Joshua and Judges.
Here is the pattern. First there is a crisis; followed by distress. This leads to complaint, which God hears. God then solves the problem, resolving the crisis and relieving the distress. This, usually, but certainly not always, is followed by joy, praise, and thanksgiving: in other words, God's grace results in worship by his people. At least that is how it is supposed to work.
At the end of Chapter 15 we saw the first crisis in the wilderness: bitter water that is unfit to drink. So the crisis leads to distress and the people go to Moses. But Moses has no power to do anything alone, so he complains to God.
And, what happens? God hears and solves the problem, showing Moses a particular piece of wood which, when thrown into the brackish water, sweetens it and makes it drinkable. Crisis solved. Interestingly, the people do not break out in thanksgiving or anything like it. I guess they felt that they were entitled to the water.
God does not get angry at their lack of thanksgiving this time. In fact, He leads them onward to a marvelous oasis at Elim, complete with twelve springs of water and 70 palm trees for shade. Nothing is said in the text about how they felt about that. But I imagine that they felt about like we do: the crisis is solved so we forget about who solved it and get on with our lives.
Another thing happened at Marah that is vitally important to understanding our story. God laid down some ground rules. Call them "Instructions for the Journey." Whatever you call them these rules begin to set the boundaries for what will be later known as the "Torah," the instructions for living that God sets before the Israelites.
We usually translate the word "Torah" as "law." And, at least in one sense, that is a true translation. But it is not enough to say "law" in English and capture the real meaning of "Torah" in Hebrew. "Torah" means more than "law" as we understand that term. "Torah" means "instruction," or "teaching." In other words, the "Torah" is God's own teaching, God's own instruction, to the Israelites on "How to Live the Good Life."
Regardless of how we define Torah, as law or instruction or teaching, let me just impress one thing on you: The law follows salvation. The law is the result of grace. We are mightily confused about that in Christianity. We are constantly talking about the law versus grace. But what Jesus in the New Testament was railing against was the corruption and narrow interpretation of Torah, not the reasonable application of Torah to everyday life.
In Chapter 15 God said, after he solved the problem with the bitter water, and after he delivered them through the Red Sea; in other words, after he saved them by his grace: "If you will listen carefully to the voice of your God, and do right in his sight, and give heed to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians." Now, listen carefully to the next line: "For I am the Lord who heals you!"
God is saying that he is the one who makes them whole, who restores them to abundant life. This is the God of Grace, the God who gives wholeness, completeness, integrity. This is the Creator God who restores, redeems and saves. The word in Hebrew for "heals" is the same word we also translate in English as "saves." God heals and saves.
And that is what the Israelites had to figure out. God offered them protection, salvation, healing and wholeness, but the price they had to pay for that was obedience. What will they do? Will they obey and follow the God who saved them, or will they pressure Moses to take them back to Egypt?
They will have to learn that there is no cheap grace. Just so, there is no cheap, easy healing. But there is real healing for those who trust God. God says that those who trust his decrees and make the break with Pharaoh will find themselves at the oasis with an abundance of sweet water. And from there they will just have to trust him to take care of them. That is the choice. Return to a known bondage or trust God to lead them to an unknown future. They must choose.
So it is with us. We can continue to allow ourselves to be seduced by the evil idols of indulgence, by our own society's "fleshpots of Egypt," or we can chose to follow "Torah," God's own instruction as to how to live. Which will it be for us?
Next: Manna from Heaven: But is it enough?
God bless.
505 page views as of 2010 01 10
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lucy Mercer
Erica K
Shawn O'Shea
Melissa Holbrook Pierson
Sissy414
Raymond Roske
Salon.com
Comments
awfully impatient with these religious...
these religious, spreading their blood
in the Mideast like some damn sacrifice..
look, torah is eternal, as u know..
and: the exodus is happening as we speak...
iow it too is eternally happening, as , again,
u f---ing know...
i know it too, so do others...
the downtrodden are still there, and:
christianity so called
must be a-born again,
cuz the whole thing is
always goin on..the
resurrection of the body especially, ha!
"the apocalypse begins with an increase in sensual
enjoyment..." wm blake
james
A distinction many miss. :-D
This post brings to mind the immortal words of The Rolling Stones:
You can't always get what you want,
But if you try, sometimes you find
You get what you need.
Maybe it shouldn't be about what we want, but rather what we need. ;-D
Rated. I wish, my friend, we could sit around a wood stove, sipping hot cider or maybe just some hot chocolate (my favorite kind is laced with coffee liqueur) and just talk. I think I could learn quite a bit from you, Monte.
This is somewhat misleading.
"Salvation" is not a Jewish concept. It is a Christian concept, and as such, a statement like that would be entirely foreign to a Jewish understanding of the Torah.
I just wrote an article on "Orthodox" vs "Secular" Jews because I desparately wanted to know more about the subject. In the process, I learned about the Torah as both the oral and written form of the law, which does have a different meaning than we have for the word "law".
It turns out that there is a better set of terms: "observant" and "less observant", and that the term "Orthodox" started in America.
Oy! Now where's my matzoh ball soup? That stuff is delicious!
"Salvation" is not a Jewish concept. It is a Christian concept, and as such, a statement like that would be entirely foreign to a Jewish understanding of the Torah.
Um, not according to the teachings I had. I attended Hebrew school for eight years. In support of that, I found the following:
Salvation of sin in the Jewish context means to stop doing the sin, to repent, and to never do it again. This is an all-encompassing formula that doesn't just extend to the Jews, but is G-d's salvation plan for all mankind. I think the Christian salvation is by grace, and not by works, which is contrary to any logic and reason, and is not something that the Creator Himself describes as what He needs the human beings to do
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Various-2.htm
Salvation is a religious concept not tied to any one specific religion.
I don't think allexperts is a valid source for the meaning of important Jewish concepts.
I stand by what I said. Given the realities of Jewish history, people should be particularly sensitive to attempts to interpret Jewish religious values and meanings through the lens of other religions.
Salvation is a Christian concept, and does not reflect Jewish thinking on the Torah.
Hi, CB: yes, we are all more of one cloth than most would ever think given the hostility among the three religions that all stem from the same source. There are major differences which we cannot overlook, but there are many similarities that we should celebrate.
Thanks for your comments, Lea. I really appreciate your perspective. As a Christian theologian there is no question that I see the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament to Christians) through the lens of Christianity. That is the hermeneutic in which I was trained and, underlying it, the faith which I believe. This can cause some confusion, witness Amy's protestations, but I am always abundantly clear where I am coming from. That being said, there is value in viewing the same texts and histories from more than one viewpoint. I have often wished that I could have known your husband! What wonderful conversations we could have had!
Hello, Karin, thank you. Following God in one's every day life is the essence of faith. And if you do that I too think that blessings will not only follow but will be more recognizable and more appreciated. I did not see the documentary, but will look for it.
Cocoa, I agree. We cannot afford to be smug. If for no other reason that history teaches us that it leads to irrational and stupid enmity between people who should be friends. There is really no room for smugness in any religion. God is not done with us yet. And so we can never claim to know what we would do until we walk in another's shoes. Unfortunately people do not change all that much and we are destined to repeat the errors of prior generations.
I think, Pilgrim, that you have come to the essence of this issue. Surrendering is indeed the key, the "rub" as you say. I try, God knows how hard I try, but at some point or the other I will be trying to climb over the seat and take that steering wheel back. And I love this line of yours: "What we all want..is for God to deliver us unto where we want to be delivered." Amen to that.
Jim: you do seem impatient today. God's time is not our time, now is it? And surely we will be slow to react to Godly urges, mere mortals that we are. We are still imperfect beings; but still we can try to live as God would have us live. Else how could we be examples of his goodness that we are called to be?. Remember that it is not only in success that we offer back to God our meager attempts at progress, but also in the willingness to try at all. Stick with the series and see if we can learn something of patience, and impatience, and why one is better than the other. Be well, friend.
Ah, Bill, I would jump at that chance to just sit and talk, and talk some more. I could learn a lot from you as well. I always appreciate your take on my musings. If only we could learn that what we need is not always what we want. I am afraid that we are a long way from recognizing that most of the time. The Stones' lyric isn't half bad, is it? See also my comments to Amy, below.
Hi, Amy. I think that we might be parsing semantics here. Perhaps I should have used a different word, like deliverance or redemption. I was speaking of the deliverance from the hand of Pharaoh.
I think you are using the word "salvation" as in a Christian "being saved." That was the furthest thing from my mind as I think the context of the use of the word "salvation" in my essay makes clear. In fact, in quoting from Exodus God's statement following the exodus from Egypt, God himself is said to have said that he is the God who "heals." As I understand it "heals" in that statement is a translation of a Hebrew word that is also translated "saves."
The idea of Christian "salvation" in the sense you mean is, as you say, totally foreign to the Jewish idea of Torah; or to Judaism for that matter.
As I said in my comment to Lea, "As a Christian theologian there is no question that I see the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament to Christians) through the lens of Christianity. That is the hermeneutic in which I was trained and underlying it the faith which I believe." I am always crystal clear that I come at these issues as a believer who is Christian, not Jewish.
Please keep in mind also that Christians consider the Hebrew Bible to be part of our holy scriptures. When I attempt to understand parts of the Hebrew Bible as I am here I am investigating a book that is considered by Christians to be holy.
I am not in any way trying to tell Jews how they should interpret it. That is not my place. But it is my place to interpret the theology of the 'Old Testament."
I do think Bill's point that salvation is a religious concept and is not limited to any one religion is valid.
I certainly try to be very cognizant of the limits of my own hermaneutic.
Hey, Zuma. Glad you found that quiet time to read this essay. And I hope that works out for the ones to come as well. Point me in the direction of your article, would you? I would love to read it. Send me a PM, please.
Kay, so good of you to read and comment. I have no idea about that piece of wood or how it could have made the water drinkable. I don't even know if this is an actual event or a metaphor for the need that we have for God to provide for us "living water."
Water is a powerful metaphor in all of the texts in the Bible when it comes to wilderness times. It is the essence of what it means to stay alive in such a hostile environment. If you do any research on that wood I would be more than a little curious about what you find out.
Hi, Mike: Glad that you are following this series, and I will try my best to keep your interest up. Manna is an interesting word, translated in a slang phrase it means roughly, "What is it?!"
Patricia K: wonderful to find you reading here. Yes, indeed, it is often more comforting to fall back into old familiar habits rather than chance the new and unknown.
Thank you all, very much for your interest and your good comments.
Monte
Thanks for the clarification. If you Google Judaism + salvation you will find numerous references to articles that claim to show that Judaism contains the concept of salvation but the Jews didn't understand. Unfortunately, that view is all to0 common. despite the fact that it is a misinterpretation of Torah.
In a response to my comment on a previous post, you advised me that I might be assuming Christians take these stories literally, when you yourself don’t. I’ve read this post a few times and it really seems like a literal interpretation to me.
But let’s assume the exodus story is allegorical (which I do). It seems like pretty heavy lifting to get God to come out of this story looking like a deity to anyone but the Israelites (and not even they should be impressed if they reflected just a bit). I know the story was told by Israelites to Israelites so they wouldn’t have necessarily have considered any outside perspective (but bear with me).
The part of this story that has particularly bothered me was that God either a) hardened the Pharaoh’s heart to ensure that he would not be moved by the curses or b) knew that the curses would have no effect on the Pharaoh and inflicted them anyway. I’ve seen this interpreted both ways but more often the first.
The story doesn’t imply that ALL the Egyptians were guilty of anything other than having a tyrannical leader or that the Israelites had any particular redeeming features other than more direct ancestry with Abraham. But ALL the Egyptians were made to suffer horribly while the Israelites were spared punishment for their sins.
That’s a tough metaphor to gain enlightenment from, especially when combined with previous stories that should imply a fairly recent common ancestry among these two peoples.
So what’s the moral of this part of the story?
Okay so I guess I can walk away with the message that God showed the pharaoh who’s the Boss and that contracts/covenants should be honoured (but a less violent and more direct metaphor might have sufficed for that!).
I can’t however find a positive message in the progressive torture (that was the curses) with the knowledge that there was no way for the Pharaoh to even acquiesce to God’s will that the slaves should go free. Why was the façade of negotiation necessary or even contributory in a demonstration of superiority?
So even as an Israelite, I don’t think I’d be moved by the story. Happy to be lucky in birth – yes. Awed and moved to servitude – why should I be, when God has a track record of forgiving me and never forgiving my enemy?
Not to put myself in the company of Marcion but I do think that Christians may have been better served by not burdening themselves with the inclusion of the Old Testament as part of your own scriptures.
Still I’m looking forward to the next installment!
Thanks for coming back, Amy and commenting further. I understand that everybody from Jews for Jesus to the right wing conservative churches do a real number on the Torah. I surely hope that I can in this series show the nonsense of that point of view.
Thanks to both of you.
Monte
If people want to take all of this story literally they will have to defend that because I don't see it that way. I too do not like the God described in that early portion of the Exodus saga. Whether modern Jews do will be for them to explain why. However, I know many Jewish scholars who have at least as much problem with that as you and I do. I am not much of a fan of a manipulative God and that is who is too often described in the Old Testament, although there is more than enough of that in the New Testament as well.
The real issue for me is whether or not we can look inside of the gory details and try to see what the message from God might be for us today. Perhaps there is none that you would accept as useful. But it was not by accident that I started with chapter 15.
I think that I can explain what is going on theologically in that small pericope within the book. That is enough work for me right now and is something that I have worked on for many years so I am very familiar with dozens of commentaries and articles of this period of the history. The intent of this series is to deal with that pericope.
But I will not defend this text either. That is never my goal. I like some apologists like C. S. Lewis, but that is not what I am about. Instead, I will try to report accurately what it says and then decide what theological import is that I find in the text and share it.
I think we have to accept what the Bible says as a description of what the oral story tellers, the writers and the redactors, of which there were many and which I will discuss in one of the essays.
I am not of the view that I would have written the Old Testament as it is. But I was not asked my opinion on that so I take what is written, which is not a literal "interpretation" but rather an attempt to be faithful to what was written without putting my spin on it. I then work with it carefully and respectfully and view it through the eyes of my faith. I can do nothing else, and would not even if I could.
Personally I think that there is much to be learned in the Old Testament and I think that Christians do themselves no favors when they spend all of their time in the New Testament.
If nothing else they are hamstringing themselves by not being able to fully understand Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was the only scripture he knew and he had great respect for it. If Christians never figure that out they will not have a very good idea what he was thinking and why he said what he said.
I do think I understand some of your frustration. It is not easy for a nonbeliever to spend a lot of time with the work of a believer without wanting to take up the red pen and write a lot of "interesting" comments in the page margins.
Believe me, I have spent a whole lot more time with that red pen than you likely ever will, because I cared about it from a position of whether what I learned would destroy my faith and that included while in seminary and well after when I was working on my doctorate. I had a lot to lose, and seminary is, surprisingly to some, a place where people do, fairly often, lose their faith. Happily, I did not lose mine, but I came close more than once.
I do hope you will be a little patient with the series and see where it leads you. If not, well, I understand. I certainly would not stay with it if it gives you heartburn all the time. On the other hand if you think it helps you understand faith a bit better hang with it and see where we go.
Monte,
Indian theologians ands philosophers do this all the time. re-interpret the Gita , re-interpret the scriptures or the myhtologies. And I know that is what they are supposed to do and find the same meaning in them as all religions. Sri Ramakrishna Dev /Swami Vivekananda said "As many minds there that many paths exist to the truth."( bad translation forgive me) In that respect I agree that you are but showing what can be seen. For a scientist though it becomes tough to accept. There has to be some testable hypothesis. There seems to be no burden of proof other than "faith" that leads the discussion. And even though we try and fit in some rational explanation to phenomenon described it is untestable.
However I do recognize the strength you give to many in your words and in that you do wa-ay more than I ever can or will and thus I bow to you with respect. And read you to increase my knowledge and understanding and juxtapose my own ideas in the background.
I fully understand the possible frustrations of a scientist looking at faith. There is no testable hypothesis. Faith comes from the heart, the intuition. It cannot be rationally derived from the proofs that men apply to scientific evidence.
Perhaps St. Anselm said it best: "Religion is faith seeking understanding." Notice the order of the words. With faith first then understanding is possible. But to get there one has to take a "leap of faith."
I know something about that because it took me a half century to really take that leap. Up until then I was sure I could somehow study my way to faith. And I surely tried! I just knew that if I could only understand then faith would come. And I was a good church member and all of that. But it just does not work. Either you get it with your heart or you just don't get it. I am glad that I finally did because all that study makes sense to me now.
I do not try to justify my understanding of God to others. It is what it is and I can only say that I am glad that I have it now. Having that faith I feel that I can do my own small part to help other believers to understand it and in some small way help them strengthen their own faith, or, in cases like yours, help you understand where at least one person of faith is coming from and what that faith means to him.
Blessings and Peace,
Monte
Mark, the only thing I can tell you is that Judaism has relied on oral history for a very long time, in addition to that which is written. While I would tend to think that much of that oral history has been embellished over time, it still does a fair job at chronicling the events that occurred.
MarkTheCanuck said:
The story doesn’t imply that ALL the Egyptians were guilty of anything other than having a tyrannical leader or that the Israelites had any particular redeeming features other than more direct ancestry with Abraham. But ALL the Egyptians were made to suffer horribly while the Israelites were spared punishment for their sins.
Uh, I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion at all. The Israelites were enslaved for four hundred years, how is that not considered punishment? After the exodus took place, they once again were punished for their transgressions by being made to wander in the desert for forty years until the offending generation died off. You seem to have an exceedingly narrow view of what is considered punishment.
One thing you fail to take into account is that Pharoah had free will still to do as he wished. He could have acquiesced to G-d's demands, even though his heart was hardened.
We are bound by the choices we make.
But we should not think that is only true of the Old Testament. The New Testament also reflects, for example in the four gospels, the viewpoint of the community to which each gospel was addressed, all the while recording the written gospel decades after the fact the stories told orally about Jesus, etc.
I try to neither defend the stories about God that emerge nor to attack them. It is best from my point of view that we present them as written and let each individual decide for himself or herself what is to be made of them. There are stories in the Old Testament about God's actions that I find reprehensible and those stories are about a God that bears little resemblance to the God I worship. When taken out of context to prove some point that we already have those stories can look even worse.
There are no simple answers but each of us has to ask the questions and decide where we come out.
Thanks much for reading and commenting.
Monte
R~
Monte