Exodus 12:43, 45, 48: This is the ordinance of the Passover: no son of a stranger is to eat of it. A sojourner or hired servant shall not eat of it. But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised. Passover is for Israel and for Israel alone. Non-Israelites are all allowed to participate in the other feasts of Israel, but not Passover. No strangers, no sons of strangers, no... Read more
Armies travel on their stomachs, and, as Pastor Sumpter will show today, Israel marches out of Egypt as an army. But the exodus is a haphazard operation if there ever was one. The Israelites leave with the unleavened bread cakes that they baked before leaving, but they have no traveling provisions and no plan. As soon as they get over the Red Sea, they are in a wilderness without water or food. If this were a US military action, we’d... Read more
Pharaoh drives Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 12:39), just as Yahweh drove Adam and Eve from Eden (Genesis 3:24) and Cain from the land (Genesis 4:14). The analogy could work in several directions. Israel has eaten forbidden fruit in Egypt, and Yahweh drives them from the good land of Goshen into the wilderness. As Adam was thrust out of Eden to rule the earth, so Israel is thrust out of Egypt to become a people of the heavens, like stars.... Read more
INTRODUCTION: STRUCTURE There are five identified collections of Proverbs in the book. The choices are set up in the opening section, identified as “proverbs of Solomon, the son of David” (chapter 1-9). Chapter 10 begins another section, also identified as “proverbs of Solomon.” That section lasts until the beginning of chapter 25, which begins a collection of “proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah the king of Judah, transcribed (25:1). Chapter 30 is the fourth collection, and chapter 31... Read more
1 Corinthians 10:14-22 forms a paragraph of its own. Prior to this section of 1 Corinthians 10, Paul is drawing out an extended comparison between Israel’s exodus and wilderness wanderings and the state of the Corinthian church. After verse 23, he draws the conclusion that eating and drinking should be governed by love for the brothers. Between these two, the paragraph in verses 14-22 forms a rough chiasm: (more…) Read more
Paul’s hymn(s) to Christ in Colossians 1-2 are constructed as a large chiasm: A. 1:16-20: head; “rulers and authorities” B. 1:19-20: fullness of deity in Christ; reconcile through cross C. 1:21-23: formerly hostile, now established and steadfast D. 1:24: rejoice, flesh E. 1:26-27: mystery hidden from ages and generations; Christ in You F. 1:28-2:2a: proclaim, labor, struggle (more…) Read more
In Genesis, circumcision is a sign of the weakness of flesh. Abraham’s flesh is a good as dead, and Sarah’s womb is barren. Yahweh’s promise will be fulfilled only if Yahweh does something that flesh cannot do. Circumcision is a renunciation of hope in flesh, a confession of impotence. That is not what it appears to mean in some other ancient cultures. Egyptians practiced circumcision, but from the fragmentary evidence it seems that it was a sign not of impotency... Read more
In his commentary on Genesis (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) , Rusty Reno cites a number of patristic sources to support his claim that the new covenant does not mean a rejection of circumcision but rather its expansion. Ambrose: “Circumcision of the past ceases when circumcision of the whole shines forth. So now a man is saved, not in part, but in his whole body . . . . Each of our members must be said to be circumcised... Read more
Assmann points out that monotheisms of various sorts arose in the ancient world along various paths. Gods might be translated from one religion to another, from one nation to another. Gods might take on an ever-expanding list of hyphenated names. Gods might eb re-imagined as the soul of the cosmos. Gods might be organized into a hierarchy – there’s one chief god in the pantheon. Assmann insists, however, that “there is no evolutionary line that leads from polytheism to biblical... Read more
The Economist ‘s “Lexington” correspondent offers a cheer or two to the Tea Party movement. It starts snidely: “They are not French.” Snarky, but it has a serious point: For all the frothing attacks on the Tea Party from Democrats, none of them have barricaded streets or set fires in DC. They’re not French. More importantly: Instead of demonstrating on behalf of shorter working hours and more extensive benefits, the Tea Party wants less from the federal government. As Lexington... Read more
Leithart
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In