Bible Challenge Day 48: Numbers and the Wilderness

Last year we heard a fabulous presentation at Saint Andrew's about the book of Numbers by a Rabbi. He noted that the title “Numbers” does not make the book sound very interesting. And indeed the first chapters about the census of the tribes are a little rough going. But apparently the name of the book in Hebrew is “Wilderness.” That sounds a lot better!

The Israelites reached Mount Sinai way back in Exodus 19. In theory, the rest of Exodus and all of Leviticus is material revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. At the end of Leviticus, we have a pair of summary statements (26:46 and 27:34) that sound as if they are wrapping up the Sinai tradition.

As Numbers begins, I think the process of leaving is actually beginning, even though the people do not finally depart from Sinai until 10:11. Somehow thinking about these early chapters in Numbers as preparation for departure—preparation for some action at last!—makes them more engaging to me. But mostly I look forward to the stories after chapter 10 about the people as they travel through the wilderness.

 

Reading all this legal material has reminded me that I prefer stories! And thinking about Numbers as the story of the people in the wilderness makes me enjoy the book more even though we haven’t gotten to the stories yet.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 46: Jubilee (Leviticus 25)

As we come to the end of Leviticus, the thing that struck me was the year of Jubilee. On a purely personal note, I turn fifty this year. Aging has not generally bothered me. But I really like the idea of thinking of my fiftieth year as my very own Jubilee—a time when past mistakes can be rectified as well as a time of rest and reconnection to family. It makes aging sound much better!

But the year of Jubilee is also an interesting challenge to our normal way of understanding private property. People mostly think of our property as ours to do with as we will. But not Leviticus. Every fiftieth year, all debts are to be forgiven, real property reverts to its original owner, and slaves go free. Leviticus wrestles a bit with what this might mean for economic exchanges—property is devalued as the Jubilee year approaches since the sale is temporary and increasingly short-term.

In case we miss the point, Leviticus is explicit: we do not actually own the land. Rather, “the land is mine,” says God; “with me you are but aliens and tenants” (25:23). We say that in stewardship campaigns every year. But the year of Jubilee legislates it!

This could be the basis for a strong environmental ethic. Land belongs to God. God lets us use it, but only in accord with God’s purposes. The land cannot “be sold in perpetuity” (25:23) since God assigns it to the people God chooses. Very different from our understanding of private property rights as virtually sacred!

 

I gather that the year of Jubilee may never have been actually put into practice. Certainly it would have caused economic chaos, particularly in a culture that did not have a way to keep good records of small land deals. But it is a helpful corrective for our excessively possessive society.
Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 43: Abomination? (Leviticus 18)

Eighteen chapters into Leviticus, I have not seen much material that is obviously relevant to the Christian life today. I have enjoyed some parts of the book for what they tell us about how ancient Israelites viewed the world. But the fact is, to the degree Leviticus has been interesting for me, the interest has been primarily historical. I have a hard time imagining how I might preach a sermon or lead a Lenten program based on what we have read in Leviticus so far.

But today we read one verse that does sometimes come up in contemporary debates about the Christian life: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22).

In general, twenty-first century American Christians have clearly decided that the laws of Leviticus are no longer binding. In the Episcopal Church, in our three-year schedule of readings covering much of the Old Testament, we get only a single passage from Leviticus: love your neighbor as yourself (19:18). When we read in Leviticus about blood sacrifices or purity restrictions today, we assume that they are not binding on us. Reading Leviticus from the beginning has really driven that home for me.

I decided to do a word search to see what other things are called an abomination in the Hebrew Bible. The word in one or another of its forms appears in 112 verses. The one that most struck me was from Deuteronomy, where unclean foods are called an abomination. That includes things like shellfish and pork (14:3).

Given the general disregard that most Christians show Leviticus, I would say that the burden of proof lies on those who argue that 18:22 is relevant. My own position is that it is not. But that does leave me with another question: what is the value and authority of Leviticus for contemporary Christians? I am not comfortable simply dismissing a biblical book . . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 38: Sin and Sacrifice (Leviticus 4)

I may not have read this chapter from Leviticus in more than thirty years! When I was in high school, I read the whole Bible straight through. That may well have been the only time I read Leviticus four. I do not remember much from my high school Bible Challenge. But I do remember the impression I had of Leviticus: painfully dull and totally irrelevant.

What strikes me now, reading this chapter as a priest, is how messy priesthood must have been. The primary role of the priest was sacrifice. Priests were expected to kill and butcher animals, drain much of the blood, and splatter the rest on the altar. Imagining conversations with the ancient version of the altar guild about that, I can only shudder! Thankfully, the job description of a priest has changed!

Mostly I do not know what to make of the details of ancient sacrificial practices that neither Christians nor Jews have done for centuries. But bits were thought-provoking. I noticed that several of the sin offerings were specifically for unintentional sins (e.g. 4:13, 22, 27). That intrigues me.

We tend to define sin largely in terms of intention, as if sin were primarily subjective. Leviticus includes some sense of that. Obviously people can only offer sacrifice for their unintentional sin when they become aware of the sin (e.g. 4:14). But in general, Leviticus seems to treat sin as something more objective. Sin is real whether or not people intend it.

The analogy that occurs to me is disease. We can be sick without knowing it. Our lack of knowledge does not mean we are well, even if we cannot treat the illness until we become aware of it. The sacrificial rules for sin offerings seem to imply something similar for sin. That seems like a helpful corrective to an overly subjective understanding of what counts as sin.

The other thing I noticed was the virtual guarantee of forgiveness. This sentence repeats like a chorus through the chapter: “Thus the priest shall make atonement on your behalf, and you shall be forgiven” (4:26, 31, 35). This is not to praise the priest; it is a promise grounded in the love and mercy of God who forgives sin.

I still do not find Leviticus fun to read. But so far Leviticus has been more thought-provoking than I expected.

Fr. Harvey

 

Bible Challenge Day 32: The Face of God (Exodus 33)

The last few days were pretty rough going—I did not find much of interest in all the material about the tabernacle and the priestly vestments!! But the reading for today is great.

Two things particularly strike me. The first is God’s moodiness. God contemplates wiping out the idolatrous Hebrews. God says to Moses, “Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (32:10). Moses pleads with God, and God relents. Then God decides to send the Hebrews to the promised land, but not to go with them. “Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you or I would consume you on the way” (33:3). Again Moses pleads with God, and God agrees to stay with the people after all (33:14). I like this image of a passionate God emotionally engaged with the people of God, angry but ultimately forgiving. I also like seeing God open to human prayers. I suspect that God knew all along that Moses would intercede for the people and also that God would grant Moses’ request. But the story certainly is an incentive to pray!

The other thing I found thought-provoking was Moses’ relationship with God. At one point, we are told that “the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (33:11). Just a few verses later, Moses asks to see God’s glory. God responds, “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live” (33:20). Whatever else is going on here, these verses challenge a strictly literal reading of the Bible. It is hard to see how both verses can be literally true. It is also striking that the ancient author did not worry about the apparent contradiction. Certainly there is no effort to reconcile the two verses in Exodus.

But we can move away from a literal reading to ask the question, what does this tell us about our relationship with God? And the answer is profound. On one hand, we can know God intimately. Go is close to us, like a best friend. On the other hand, God is MUCH bigger than we are, so big that simply glimpsing the glory of God is more than we can take. Both are true.

This is the meaning of the incarnation, as I understand it. God, the very creator of the universe, elects to become human and dwell among us. Christ is fully human—thus accessible to us as a friend—and also fully divine—thus so powerful that we cannot come too close without peril. Our reading from Exodus says something very similar. I love seeing the Old Testament anticipate basic Christian claims!
Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 29: The Law Again (Exodus 23)

Today we are getting into parts of the Old Testament that a lot of Christians do not know very well. I did not check, but I think that we do not read any part of today’s chapters from Exodus at any point in our three-year lectionary. And it is easy to see why. Why should we care about laws specifying what we should do when, for example, we come upon our enemy’s donkey or ox going astray (23:4)?

And yet I like this part of Exodus. I like the specificity of it all. God’s law addresses the very ordinary concerns of very ordinary people in that time. I will probably never come upon a lost donkey or ox—certainly I hope not! But I like the fact that God cares enough about ordinary folk to address concerns like that.

I also think there are lessons to be learned from the law if we take the trouble to translate it into more immediately relevant issues. We are told that, “when you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free (23:5). The specifics are not relevant to my life. But the general principle certainly is. If I see someone who needs help, I should help, even if I don’t really like the person.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemies.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies” (Matt 5:43-44). I have sometimes thought of that as Jesus updating and improving the Old Testament law. Don’t just love your neighbors like the Old Testament says. Love your enemies, too. But it turns out the Old Testament says to help your enemy help his donkey! It is like the Exodus law gives very specific content to Jesus’ command to love our enemies.

There remain troubling passages in the law, of course, including some we read for today. But what strikes me this morning are the good parts, so long as I do a little translation.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 27: The Law of God (Exodus 18-21)

Today we really begin the law, including the Ten Commandments (20:1-17) that are generally considered its heart. What follows are more or less unconnected thoughts about the law as we see it in these chapters.

* The one who first proposes writing it down is a foreigner—Moses’ Midianite father-in-law Jethro. He sees Moses struggling with the responsibility of deciding every case himself. He tells Moses, “what you are doing is not good.” And he proposes instead that Moses teach other people the law so that they can decide the simpler cases (18:17-23). It is an astonishing example of a foreigner contributing to the religious life of ancient Israel.

* The point of the law is ultimately religious, not political. The verse that prefaces the law proper and sets the tone for the whole is 19:5-6. “If you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be . . . a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.” God’s law transforms Israel from a disorganized group into a nation/ kingdom. But they are not called to be an ordinary nation. They are called to be holy and priestly. Everything that follows is subordinated to that task.

* The law is, in some respects, unenforceable. Prohibiting idolatry and requiring people to keep the Sabbath are hard enough. Mandating that children honor their parents is tougher. And eliminating all coveting is totally impossible. When people say the Ten Commandments are the basis for our legal system, they miss the point that God’s law aims not only at outward behavior but also at inward dispositions. That is because its ultimate concern is holiness, not civil order.

* The law can be a little rough going! Almost as soon as we get past the Ten Commandments, it begins to alternate between being dull and being troubling. What are we to make of laws apparently condoning slavery? Earlier this week, we read Psalm 19: “the law of the Lord is perfect reviving the soul; . . . the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart” (verses 7-8). In places, I will have to look hard for something to revive my soul and rejoice my heart! Since we have chapters and chapters to go, I will have plenty of opportunity to search!

Fr. Harvey

 

Bible Challenge Day 22: Gifts and Callings (Exodus 4-6)

I have generally assumed that God gives us particular gifts and that our callings follow from them. God calls us to do what we are good at doing. Indeed I have assumed that discerning one’s gifts was a good way to discern one’s calling.

But Moses’ experience suggests I have had that backwards. Moses vigorously resists God’s call to lead the Hebrew people out of bondage in Egypt. (That strikes me as wise even if not very faithful. God calls us to do hard things! I think we sometimes too quickly assume that we are willing to do God’s will. Moses rightly recognizes that following God’s call will not be easy.) And one of the reasons Moses gives is that he is “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (4:10 and again at 6:12). Moses does NOT have the gift that would make him a natural spokesperson for God. But God will have none of it: “Who gives speech to mortals? . . . Is it not I, the Lord? Now go” (4:11-12). And Moses became the greatest of all God’s spokespersons in the Old Testament. Gift followed call.

I should have known this. I experienced exactly the same problem as Moses. When I first decided to become a teacher, I worried because I was so uncomfortable speaking in front of groups. The prospect of preaching terrified me even more! And yet I turned out to love teaching and now preaching. For me, as for Moses on a considerably grander scale, God’s call came first and the gifts to answer the call followed. That makes discerning God’s call a little trickier—I will no longer assume it is something that matches our gifts and/or tastes—but all the more important.

Fr. Harvey