Exodus 25-40, Leviticus 1-27 AKA 'The Other Bits'

How have you been?

I’ve been finding this time of year tough – I’ve had a cold and what I’m sure is a touch of Seasonal Affective Disorder. It’s been raining so much that I considered whether constructing an ark featured in my near future, and the strong gusts of wind we’ve been experiencing have been blowing around so many plastic bags, it keeps reminding me of American Beauty, and making me giggle. On the plus side, on the days when the glorious sun has come out (like today), it has felt like going from Kansas to Oz. I’ve been pondering quite a lot whether the tediousness of January and February are worth it for the sheer joy you feel when spring starts, which is hopefully just around the corner . . .

On a different note: OLD TESTAMENT - PLEASE WOULD YOU STOP GIVING ME SUCH A HARD TIME??

I keep waiting for this Bible project to get easy, but it just isn’t, y’all! I kind of thought now the drama of the plagues and the Israelites escaping Egypt was over, things would calm down, but it’s just non-stop drama, drama, drama (incidentally, ‘drama’ is one of those words that looks increasingly strange and made-up the more you write it. Try it).

We’re now into what I call “the other bit” of Exodus (i.e. the bit no one makes a movie out of) and Leviticus, which is the tedious fascinating list of instructions for constructing the ark and tabernacle and rules for worship. I have heard Leviticus referred to as the ‘Bible-In-a-Year widow-maker’, as it’s been the death of so many good intentions. So, in the spirit of laziness efficiency, I’ve reverted to the structure of bullet points to cover all the random shiz thrown up in this week’s reading of Exodus 25-27, Exodus 28-29, Exodus 30-32, Exodus 33-35, Exodus 36-38, Exodus 39-40, Leviticus 1-4, Leviticus 5-7, Leviticus 8-10, Leviticus 11-13, Leviticus 14-15, Leviticus 16-18, Leviticus 19-21, Leviticus 22-23, Leviticus 24-25 and finally Leviticus 26-27.

• Question (by me): Why does God care about gold and jewels when decorating the ark and tabernacle? Surely God doesn’t care about such petty things as material wealth?

Possible Answer (by The Internet): There are several schools of thought on this. Firstly, the temple was meant to be an (obviously inferior) earthly replica of the temple of Heaven, therefore would by nature be beautiful. Secondly, anticipating the fiasco of the golden calf, God acted on the Israelites needing a physical representation of Him for them to direct their worship at. It’s not that God cares about gold or jewels, more about creating a focal point and sense of awe in the Israelites when they come to worship.

But maybe God likes this kind of Gold??

• Question: Why does God direct the priests to wear such specific, fancy clothes? Isn’t that the opposite of everything Jesus, in his humility, came to stand for?

Possible Answer:  Again, this is partly about creating a sense of reverence in the Israelites, but could also be about the priests, as flawed humans like us all, not being holy enough to approach God on their own, but about holiness being bestowed upon them when they cover themselves in priestly garments. Sounds very similar to the way we can’t earn our way into Heaven by our own actions, but the covering of grace makes us holy enough to go into God’s presence, heh?

• Question: Isn’t punishing people who work on the Sabbath with death a bit over-kill, literally?

Possible Answer: In a way, yes. There is no doubt this is a severe punishment. But the ‘crime’ is less the action of working on the Sabbath, and more what that’s indicative of: not trusting God to provide. Remember, these are people who have eaten the very manna God created from Heaven, and the meat (quails) God provided them in the desert. For them to not trust God enough to take one day off a week from working is pretty insulting to God.

• Question: After the incident with the golden calf, God instructs the Levite priests to "Go back and forth through the camp, each killing his brother and neighbour (who had worshipped the golden calf)". How can I follow a God who would say that?

Possible Answer: I hear you. I hate this instruction, and it gives me serious pause for thought about the character of God, and whether this can be consistent with the God I want to follow (i.e. Jesus). However, this is about the Levites, holy priests, choosing God over their families and friends, and is consistent with Jesus saying in Mathew: “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household”.

By the rest of His words and actions, we know that Jesus was one of the most compassionate people in history, therefore this comment seems disturbing and out of character. When we dig deeper, we see that it’s not in fact about encouraging people to take up arms against their own family, but it is saying that our relationship with God takes precedence over our relationship with our earthly families. Clearly, our first loyalty is to God, even over loyalty to our kin, and that if we follow God we may be persecuted by our own families and literally be on ‘different sides’ of the battle.

Tragically, if family members choose to follow other gods (the golden calf, paganism, science, success, atheism etc) this means there will be a metaphorical sword separating us from them. The punishment here is actually just a more violent and immediate symbol of the spiritual death that may befall us should we choose to turn away from God. It IS scary because God is making it clear these choices have serious consequences.

Adoration of the Golden Calf, by Nicolas Poussin

Still think it’s too harsh? Someone once quoted to me the following line from Scripture: “To whom much has been given, much will be expected”. These people had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea, they’d seen the mountain on fire when God spoke to Moses, and a cloud leading them onwards through the desert, yet still reverted to their old pagan ways. They had no excuse for not believing in God, and no excuse for turning away. The punishment for them is more demanding, because God had demonstrated His care for them so visibly. Initially I thought it seemed unrealistic that after such events the Israelties would forget so quickly. However, then I considered my own life and how quickly I forget gratitude, and revert back to old bad habits, and could identify with the foolish actions of the Israelites here.

• Question: Why are men valued at 5 shekels of silver and women at 3 shekels - does this mean God values women less?

Possible Answer: I am a feminist so this immediately got my back up. But after taking a few breaths and muttering “down with the patriarchy” several times (kidding) I considered the following viewpoint: This is not about God actually valuing men more than women. God laid down his life for each of us. He values us in more than mere monetary terms. This sum is specifically referring to people vowing their lives in dedication to God, and reimbursement in terms of lost labour in an agricultural society. Men could physically produce more valuable manual labour than women and are reimbursed accordingly, nothing more.

Moving on . . . .

As we progress through Leviticus we encounter various laws that all seem a bit silly, going on about clean and unclean foods with slightly random criteria, purifying rituals, and gems such as the command not to wear clothing woven of two types of material (that's a cotton-polyester blend ruled out then), and directions on how to trim your beard (that one’s for the fellas, I’m assuming). It all sounds a bit pointless and I’m not entirely convinced of the reasoning behind it. To sum up the various arguments I’ve read on the matter, it seems to be related to separating Israel from the practices of the other pagan nations around them, instilling self-control and discipline into their lives, and to emphasise the holiness of God and preparation needed to go into His presence.

Which I can pretty much accept until I come across the message that after childbirth women are unclean, and that they’re unclean for twice as long if they give birth to a girl as they are if they give birth to a boy. URGH, BIBLE, I GIVE UP TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOU. *Decides that some of these rules were written by some ancient, sexist dudes and are not actually explainable at all . . .

I admit to not enjoying reading the Old Testament as much as the New, precisely because I don’t like all the bloodshed and punishments for breaking rules. But I have to say there’s some remarkably consistent themes that run through the entire Bible, all pointing to Jesus and the salvation He brings.

In these chapters God describes the method the Israelites should use for atoning for their own sin – taking a male animal without defect to sacrifice, with the priest placing his hand on the animal and ‘transferring’ the sin to it (in place of their own blood) by confessing the sin over it. No animal with a defect may be used, which is hugely symbolic of how only Jesus, who lived a perfect, sin free life, is holy enough to be a worthy sacrifice. Through His substitution, we gain forgiveness for our sins and gain His perfectness for ourselves, just as here the Israelites ‘swapped’ their sin for the perfectness of the animal being sacrificed (there’s a reason Jesus was called the lamb of God, people).  The cost is the same for rich and poor, as with Jesus.

There’s a huge emphasis in these chapters on all the rituals required to approach the tabernacle and the holy presence of God. In fact, if I had to make a sweeping statement about the themes of the Bible, it would be that it displays God’s two most central characteristics – holiness and love. Holiness, in that He is perfect and cannot tolerate sin or even be in its presence, is most explicitly displayed in the Old Testament, with its emphasis on humans failing to live up to the law, and the punishment by death for sinful behaviour. Love – displayed most explicitly in the New Testament - in that He loved humans enough to take on the punishment Himself, and through the death of Jesus abolished the need for rituals and atonement to approach Him (hence doing away with all the rules for clean and unclean foods and ritual purifying). These chapters in the Old Testament, therefore, display just how much Jesus accomplished when He did away with the need for a special temple, declaring that now the temple was ‘within us’.

But I could do with less of the sexist hooey.

Exodus 7-24 The Sequel

I  am still pondering what the implications are for faith if parts of the Bible are untrue. The church claims that the entirety of Scripture is infallible and is the word of God. But does the Bible itself make that claim?

The most famous Bible quote on the subject is the following:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16,17 NASB)

From this passage all we can gather is that the Bible claims the words we encounter in it are useful for teaching in the ways of God. No claim is made that these are the facts as they actually happened.

I wonder if as a church we hold the Bible to standards it cannot possibly live up to, and was never intended to live up to.

An argument I have frequently encountered is that that the Old Testament was written in a way that people would have understood at the time, and is not meant to be held up to the scrutiny we expect from historical documents today. This theory seems plausible but flawed to me. The truth is always more powerful as it is – unvarnished and unembellished. The Bible is meant to stand as a document for all people, in all times. I cannot imagine God would allow the Old Testament to be written, knowing that hundreds of years later people would lose their faith as a result of factual inaccuracies, exaggerations and untruths.

I am left trying to construct something concrete and foundational. A line I can draw, to say “This I can trust and believe in. This actually happened as it is written”.

For the time being I have decided to carry on and, to use a popular line of Christian jargon, “live in the tension”. So I’m going to park that particularly flummoxing issue for the moment and turn to the moral implications of the text. Oh fun! Something a bit light hearted and easy!

First of all, when reading Exodus I struggled with the notion that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh so he wouldn’t free the Israelites, thus demonstrating God’s power and protection over His people. This seems like a violation of the free will that is central to the Christian faith.

Articles online (see bottom of page) argue that Scripture says in different places both that “Pharaoh hardened his (own) heart” and “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”. Both were involved in the process - Pharaoh hardening his own heart by choosing to continue in his arrogant behaviour, and God hardening Pharaohs heart by removing any trace of His presence or grace in his being and leaving him completely to his own sin. This is consistent with other parts of Scripture where it says that, whilst God always wants us to return to Him and will always welcome us, at some point He will leave us to our own choices. This therefore explains how the account in Scripture can be consistent with a God who is good.

The next issue I encounter is where God states that He would visit "the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations."   God punishing an individual for their own actions is one thing, but punishing children for sins of their parents I cannot accept. Study guides inform me that this line does not, as it sounds, mean people are punished for the actions of their parents or grandparents. More that sin habits tend to run in families and we inherit the behaviours of our parents, therefore if a parent raises their child in sinful behaviour, the child is likely to continue that sinful behaviour in their own lives, and the lives of their children.

So far so good. But now for some Biblical sexism!
When talking about the rules for keeping Hebrew Servants (a common job at that time, akin to a modern factory worker or office drone like myself) the Bible says: “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free (after six years) as menservants do”. So what’s the deal here? Are women not granted the same rights of freedom after six years like men are? After a bit of research I find that fathers often sold their daughters into slavery (for the purpose of being married off into the owner family) if they got into financial difficulties. Whilst this certainly seems abhorrent, I am advised that this practice was similar to that of arranged marriages which exist today, and the daughter would not leave after six years as they were now married into the family. Personally, I'm still not sure this sits easily with me, but at least this view provides some context.

The most disturbing passage I encountered in these chapters is the ruling that:
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property”.

When reading this passage, the only note I made in the margin was: “WTF?” underlined several times. I cannot believe that the same God who was incarnated in Jesus would state that it’s ok to beat a slave as long as they recover in a couple of days because the slave is the owner’s property. It seems to go against everything we believe, and everything Jesus preached, about hating injustice and valuing everyone as your brother

The only article I could find that addressed this matter admitted that the writer was troubled by this passage too. However, they point out that the rules for a slave being beaten were exactly the same as those stipulated for a free Israelite who was beaten so the law treated injured parties the same, regardless of whether they were slave or free.

Some Christians claim that these types of commandments were actually radical when taken in context, because no one legislated about the civil rights of slaves at all at the time. Therefore to grant rights of any kind to slaves was a startling move of compassion on God’s behalf. I suppose there is an argument that people weren’t ready to accept equal human rights for everyone and needed to be ‘raised’ into goodness in stages as parents raise a child for adulthood. 

However, I find this idea less than satisfying, precisely because as Christians we so often refute the idea of ‘relative goodness’. If we talk about ourselves as ‘good compared to most people’ (as some have applied to the Hebrews here) then as a church we preach that our relative goodness still falls short of the perfect standard God would require for us to get into Heaven on own merits. Yet here God is dictating a law that falls well short of our own modern human standards, let alone His perfect standard.

I’m about two weeks behind on blogging the Bible, although luckily I’ve caught up on my reading (mainly because the next few chapters are lists of the materials that went into constructing the ark so don’t require much in-depth study or throw up lots of difficult questions). I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on the issues I have raised in the course of reading Exodus, and I’ll continue to pray on the matter. If anything occurs to me I’ll post it here!

Have beautiful, peace-filled and fun-filled weeks, everyone.


http://www.abercrombie.cc/ds/q1109/q1109.html
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/why-did-god-harden-pharaohs-heart
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/god_iniquity_third_fourth_generation.html
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-god-visits-sins-on-the-third-and-fourth-generation

Exodus 7 - 24: Miracles, Miracles, lots of Miracles

Exodus 7-24 (Links: Exodus 7 - 9, Exodus 10 - 12, Exodus 13 - 15, Exodus 16 - 18, Exodus 19 - 21, Exodus 22 - 24) has caused me more faith problems than any other part of the Bible so far, including Genesis. There is so much ground to cover I’m going to need to split my discussion into two posts – the first to discuss the lack of historical evidence for the Exodus, and the second discussing, even if the events were true, how a loving God could issue some of the laws that scripture says He did.

The start of Exodus finds the Israelites – descendants of Jacob – living in Egypt. Joseph has been forgotten by subsequent generations of Egyptians, and the Israelites have increased in number so much that Egyptians consider them a threat and have enslaved them. Moses, a Hebrew adopted into Egyptian royalty then banished for murder, is chosen by God to lead them out of their oppression.

Still from 'Prince of Egypt'

The most important question for me when dealing with these chapters is: Is there any historical evidence for the plagues and Exodus? 

As an aside, I typed “Is there any evidence for . . . ” into Google (intending to finish with “for the Exodus”), and found that after “for God” and “for Jesus”, the most popular search question is: “Is there any evidence for mermaids?”. Mermaids beat vampires, aliens and werewolves in the popularity stakes! Sometimes I love the internet for these surprising revelations about the human mind.
 
Back to work . . . With the book of Exodus, it’s not just the reputation of the Old Testament at stake here – it’s the reputation of Jesus. He referenced the Exodus in his teachings and spoke as though it was a real event, so if the Exodus didn’t happen, that throws doubt on the reliability of Jesus’ testimony too.

"Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven" (Jn 6:49—51).

He ties his importance to that of the God of Exodus. If this account isn't true, then Jesus was wrong, and potentially so are some of His teachings.

There are reams of articles on the internet with apparently contradictory arguments - both sides are biased and thoroughly convinced of their own argument so it’s hard to find anything neutral, if there is indeed such a thing as a neutral person. I myself know that I am biased and want the story to be true to shore up my beliefs, but am not able to just ignore any conflicting doubts.

Those that claim the Exodus is fictional do so mainly due to lack of mention of the Israelites in Egyptian records, lack of references to the plagues in Egyptian records, and no evidence of a large group of people spending forty years wandering the Sinai Peninsula (the number of Israelites fluctuates from tens of thousands to two million depending on sources).

Trusty Wikipedia goes further in saying that not only is there lack of evidence for the Bible, there’s evidence that directly contradicts the Bible: Edom is one of the places listed that the Hebrews supposedly stopped at during their sojourn in the desert, yet it was not yet a nation at the time when they were meant to be there. The region wasn't even inhabited during the period in question. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't built until 800 BCE, but the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE.  

Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the following view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.” 

We still don't know where exactly the Red Sea was.

However, there are just as many people out there who claim the arguments above are explainable and do not rule out the Exodus being a historical event.

Firstly, they argue that archaeology has limits to how much it can discover. Very little of what was made in antiquity survives to this day, and only a fraction of ancient world sites have actually been excavated. With regards to a lack of grave sites for the Israelites during their wanderings, scripture indicates the bodies were just left to the elements and not buried in graves.

Secondly, the Egyptians had a tendency to destroy any evidence or references to events where they came out looking humiliated or weak. The Egyptians did this with the Hyksos people who were expelled from Egypt and all records of them erased, and many new kings destroyed evidence of the previous king or queen and their policies.

Thirdly, there are several arguments that the general consensus on the dates of the Exodus are wrong, therefore any evidence discovered on the route of the exodus is discarded as not pertaining to the Israelites because it doesn’t fit the accepted time line.

Finally, there is the argument that the currently accepted route through the Sinai Peninsula is slightly inaccurate – that Mount Sinai was in north Arabia and the Israelites followed a route that looped lower than the one currently popular, therefore archaeology has been looking in the wrong locations.

There is some evidence supporting the Bible account of events: In the early 1800s, a papyrus was found written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer. This papyrus references a series of plagues befalling Egypt that sound very similar those described in the Bible (whether it does reference the story of Exodus or something else entirely is another hotly debated argument in archeological circles).

Did the real Pharaoh look like Yul Brenner? We just don't know

There are various contenders for the identity of the two Pharaohs in Exodus – the one in power during the oppression of the Israelites, and the one in power during the plagues and Exodus itself. Some archaeologists have proposed that the plagues occurred at the ancient city of Pi-Rameses on the Nile Delta, which was the capital of Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses the Second, who ruled between around 1279BC to 1213BC. The city appears to have been abandoned around 3,000 years ago and scientists claim the plagues could offer an explanation. 

The sequence of natural events follow thus:

• A documented dry period during Rameses II reign could have caused the Nile to turn slow and muddy, which incubates toxic fresh water algae that turns the river red like blood. 
• The algae triggers hormonal development in frogs and would have led to a massive increase in frog numbers and force them to leave the water and invade the surrounding land. 
• But as the frogs died, it would have meant that mosquitoes, flies and other insects would have flourished without the predators to keep their numbers under control. 
• These insects often carried diseases which could have been responsible for the boils the Egyptians and their livestock suffered.
• A volcano on the Santorini islands 400 miles away exploded around 3,500 year ago, spewing billions of tons of volcanic ash into the atmosphere, which clashed with thunderstorms above Egypt to produce dramatic hail storms. 
• The ash fall-out caused weather anomalies, which translates into higher precipitations and higher humidity – classic conditions for attracting locusts. 
• The volcanic ash could also have blocked out the sunlight causing the stories of a plague of darkness. Scientists have found pumice, stone made from cooled volcanic lava, during excavations of Egyptian ruins despite there not being any volcanoes in Egypt. Analysis of the rock shows that it came from the Santorini volcano, providing physical evidence that the ash fallout from the eruption at Santorini reached Egyptian shores. 
• The cause of the final plague, the death of the first borns of Egypt, has been suggested as being caused by a fungus that may have poisoned the grain supplies, of which male first born would have had first pickings and so been first to fall victim.

Personally, I don't find the fact that the plagues could have natural causes as conflicting with the idea that God was the power behind them - if God is God then He can control the natural world and perform miracles through cause and effect. This goes back to the argument that events can have both a physical and spiritual meaning. As a note, natural events like these (apart from the volcano) occurred at various intervals in Egyptian history, and this does not limit them solely to the reign of Rameses II.

Another possible contender for the Pharaoh who oppressed the Israelites was Pepys II (although as he reigned later than Ramases II, this would rule out Ramases being the Pharaoh who was in  power during the plagues and Exodus itself).  In the Bible we hear that the same Pharaoh who ordered the death of the Hebrew infants was in power up until God 'hears' the cries of the Israelites and remembers their plight. We know that Moses was eighty when God asked him to speak to the new Pharaoh, although we don't know what time had lapsed between the previous Pharaoh dying and God speaking to Moses. However, it suggests that the previous Pharaoh had reigned for a very long time. Pepy II was thought to have governed for ninety four years, from the age of six until one hundred (although Ramases II also reigned from his teens until his nineties). From the Biblical account we would expect the reign of Pepy II's successor to be quite short. This pharaoh had to deal with Moses and the plagues, and the Bible indicates that he drowned in the Red Sea with the rest of his army (although whether Pharaoh himself died at the Red Sea, or just his army is not clear. Very little is definitely clear!) The Abydos king-list mentions that the successor to Pepys II was called Merenre II (also called Antiemdjaf), who reigned for only a single year. Not long after his death, Egypt collapsed both economically and under foreign invasion. No one knows exactly what happened.

Whilst I would love to resolve my thoughts on the matter conclusively, I am again left not knowing what to conclude about the validity of Exodus. Archaeology is constantly moving on, with previously accepted theories being revised as more evidence emerges, so it may be that some of the stumbling blocks to trusting the Bible account are removed in time. It may prove the opposite, and the story is shown to be definitively false. Or it may turn out that the story of Exodus is a combination of several events in Egyptian history and that whilst there may be some truth to the events, the facts as given in scripture are not strictly accurate. To what extent this impacts my faith is not something that I have yet resolved - this is definitely a subject I will have to park and come back to at a later date. On the plus side, my faith may be hanging on by a thread, but at least I've learned how to spell "Pharaoh".

*The arguments I've presented here are purely based on the reading below, I take no credit whatsoever for these theories.

Sources:
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/passover-in-egypt-did-the_b_846337.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/06/Where-are-the-Israelite-Burials-From-the-Wilderness-Wanderings.aspx#Article
http://carm.org/why-isnt-there-any-record-millions-jews-wandering-desert
http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-in-the-bible-and-the-egyptian-plagues/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?_r=0
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html
http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/14214-why-there-no-evidence-exodus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus