…And pitched His tent among us

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt (εσκηνωσεν) among us, and we beheld his glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jn 1:14)

I’ve been listening through the Pentateuch at work lately. After working my way through Genesis and Exodus, I’ve skipped to Numbers–not because Leviticus is less important, but because listening to law code doesn’t make the hours pass by any faster!

One thing I noticed is the location of the tabernacle (משׁכן) or “tent of meeting” (אהל מועד) through the wilderness wanderings relative to the camp of Israel. Exodus 25-31 give the initial instructions for the construction of the tabernacle, the making of the priestly vestments, and the regular offerings. Exodus 35-39 continues these instructions, with Exodus 40 describing the completion and dedication of the tabernacle and the indwelling of YHWH’s presence.

Exodus 32-34 begins with the tragic story of the golden calf. While Moses is up on Sinai receiving Torah, the people are building an idol down below (“This is your God, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!”). The “Fall of Israel” (so-called by the Rabbis) results in Moses pitching the tent of meeting outside the camp in 33:7 (even though its building instructions haven’t yet been completed or even implemented!). YHWH’s presence has not yet dwelt in the midst of the people, and his relationship with Israel appears to be in jeopardy. But he renews the covenant (Exodus 34) and proves his favor by showing himself to Moses (apparently).

Leviticus, as far as I can tell, nowhere prescribes the location of the tabernacle relative to the camp of Israel. But Numbers 2 sets forth in detail the location of the tabernacle with the Levites at the center of the camp, with three tribes on each of the four sides surrounding it. As YHWH gives his Torah to his people, he moves from outside the camp to the center. Whereas Israel began its relationship with YHWH unworthy of his presence in their midst, his Torah permits him to dwell with them. Numbers 12-18 is all about the concentric “layers” of holiness, the hedges around YHWH and his tabernacle to protect the general population from his glorious presence: the Levites, the Kohathites, Aaron’s family, and Aaron himself.

Protestants (going back to Calvin, as far as I know–I am not a Reformation scholar, nor am I the son of a Reformation scholar) have traditionally affirmed three purposes of the Law. The Law is pedagogical in that it acts as a mirror to show us our sin and point us to our need for salvation in Christ. The Law also has a civil component that restrains evil in society. Finally, the Law also normative for Christians in some sense, in that it reveals the will of God for the life of his redeemed people.

When I teach Numbers and Deuteronomy, or the Pentateuch in general, I also speak of a fourth purpose of the Law–though I suppose you could think of it as an extension of the civil purpose (or perhaps the pedagogical purpose as well).

It’s important to think of the Mosaic Law as providing a way for a holy God to live with an unholy people. The Law provides the context for God’s redemptive plan to continue through his old-covenant people. In this sense, it functions somewhat like common grace, which allows redemptive grace to exist. The Law allowed YHWH to remain with his people throughout their sojournings, as well as during the conquest, the judges, the monarchy and the divided kingdom. YHWH’s startling absence is the reason for the exile, and his return to his people through the renewal of the covenant is the dream of the prophets, especially 2 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah and Malachi.

Who among the prophets would have guessed, though, that YHWH’s presence would return to his people not in a cloud or a pillar of fire, but as a person, Yeshua` bar Yosef, who came and “tented” (εσκηνωσεν) among us?

Posted in Bible-Theology, Research | 3 Comments

Reformed-er Than Thou

I’ve been having a long debate about hermeneutics and the NT’s use of the OT over at Reformed Forum. Here’s my most recent (somewhat lengthy!) comment.

A friend asked me whether I think it’s of value to have debates like these. I think it is, because the label "Reformed" is worth contending for. Needless to say, I think my friends over at RF are mistaken on this issue and not doing justice to the Reformed tradition. But I hope we can acknowledge that we all still fall within the purview of Reformed thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Earthquake

I was at work this afternoon when the earthquake hit. Like must East-Coast folks, my first reaction was, “That can’t be an earthquake–we don’t have earthquakes out here!” I’ve felt a few earthquakes during my visits to California, and it’s always quite unsettling. Thankfully, there was no damage in my area. The big Merck manufacturing and testing facility down the street evacuated as a precaution, but there was apparently no harm done. I’m still waiting to hear about the extent of the damage further south.

Geoff stopped by my desk on his way home and made a joke about the signs of “the end times.” That made me think: according to the New Testament, we’ve been in “the end times” for 1,982 years now, and the earth is still groaning in travail, awaiting the revelation of the sons of God (Rom 8).

מרנא תא

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Links: 19 August

This week has been crazy, since after I agreed to preach twice next weekend at PVURC, my boss asked us to work overtime on Friday night and Saturday. A couple of long days could pay for a nice safari when Corrie and I go to Africa, so I couldn’t say no.

In the meantime, enjoy these links:

Posted in Links, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Creation vs. Flood

I was bored at work yesterday, and so I put together a chart comparing certain narrative elements of the first Genesis Creation account (1:1-2:4) and the account of the Noahic flood (7:17-9:17).

Creation/Flood Comparision

It’s fascinating that in the final form of Genesis the two creation stories are consecutive but the two flood stories are edited together.

Let me know what you think of my comparison, and if there are any parallels I missed.

Posted in Bible-Theology, Research | 1 Comment

Question about Abraham

I’m listening through Genesis at work, and I re-read a quotation from Adele Berlin:

"Narrative is a form of representation. Abraham in Genesis is not a real person any more than a painting of an apple is a real fruit. This is not a judgment on the existence of a historical Abraham any more than it is a statement about the existence of apples." (Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [Eisenbrauns, 1983], 13.)

That said, most historical critical scholarship, including so-called "maximalists," deny the historicity of the patriarchal narratives of the Hebrew Bible (Gen 12-50), based primarily on the lack of archaeological evidence.

My question is this: why in the heck would we expect to find archaeological or documentary evidence of a small clan of a few hundred bedouin wandering around the ANE in the first half of the second millennium BCE?

Yes, there are cultural and geographical anachronisms in Genesis. But those don’t disprove the essential historicity of those narratives.

Thoughts?

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Links: 4 August

A helpful reminder that political gridlock can be good.

How many of us read Scripture this way? How many of us aspire to do so? I wonder if this relates to the debate I’ve been having over at the Reformed Forum.

I bet you never knew that Thomas the Tank Engine was imperialist propaganda.

I discovered this article in my explorations of genre and discourse. It made me sit bolt upright and draw a breath.

Another discouraging take on higher education for those of us in graduate school.

Posted in Links, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Isaiah 7: Two Kings

“Two Kings” is a sermon I preached at Preakness Valley United Reformed Church in Wayne, NJ, on July 31, 2011. The text is Isaiah 7.

Here is the MP3 audio (29:33, 27.7 MB), and an excerpt:

Ahaz is a type of Adam: he receives a direct word from God with a promise, but he does not trust God, and is then overwhelmed by the consequences of his sin.  Hezekiah is a type of Christ: he calls on God in time of trouble, receives a direct word from God with a promise, and then his enemies are overwhelmed.

Likewise, Isaiah’s sons are types of Christ.  Remember Isaiah’s older son from 7:3, named “She’ar Yashuv”?  This means, “A remnant will return.”  Built into God’s promise of judgment was a promise of forgiveness and restoration that would ultimately come through God’s own son, Jesus.  Isaiah’s second son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, is also a type of Christ, whose birth is a sign from God.

You may also be interested in my previous sermons on Isaiah 5 and Isaiah 6.

—-

Audio and text: ©2011 by Benjamin D. Giffone. Reproduction and distribution are permitted, providing that the author is properly credited and that no fee is charged.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hebrews 10: Approaching the Throne

“Approaching the Throne” is a sermon I preached at Preakness Valley United Reformed Church in Wayne, NJ, on July 31, 2011. The text is Hebrews 10:19-31.

Here is the MP3 audio (30:29, 28.6MB), and an excerpt:

We avoid people when we know we’ve done something to offend or hurt them.  Just being around them reminds us of how much they dislike us and how guilty we feel.

In these verses, we are told to feel exactly the opposite way when it comes to approaching God.  Let’s not miss the extremely shocking aspect of this image: no one could be more holy, more pure, more clean, more powerful, more wonderful or more worthy of respect and honor, than God himself, the Creator of the universe!  No one could be less worthy of approaching God than sinners—sinners like me, and you, and everyone else—created beings who have rebelled against our Creator.  And yet, we are told that we must enter God’s presence with confidence and full assurance—because of Jesus.  We enter “by the blood of Jesus,” “sprinkled on our hearts,” “through his body,” “washed clean with pure water.”  The perfect, ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, God’s only Son, has made a way for us to see God—and for God to see us, his people.

Audio and text: ©2011 by Benjamin D. Giffone. Reproduction and distribution are permitted, providing that the author is properly credited and that no fee is charged.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Coïncidence? I think not!

I noticed a literary connection in the court-story books of the Writings…

In Esther 4:

Then Esther spoke to Hathach and commanded him to go to Mordecai and say, “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law—to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days.” (Est 4:10-11)

And in Daniel 2:

The king answered and said, “I know with certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see that the word from me is firm—if you do not make the dream known to me, there is but one sentence for you. You have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation.” (Dan 2:8-9)

One is in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic, but the roots are cognates and the syntax is similar:

Esther 4:11

אַחַת דָּתוֹ

“One is his decree”
Daniel 2:9

חֲדָה-הִיא דָתְכוֹן

“One is your (pl.) decree”

I just thought that was cool. Can you think of another similar instance, either in the HB or in other ANE lit?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment