Archive for » March, 2011 «

Having Enough Faith

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 | Author:

And He could do no miracle there except He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them. Mark 6:5 NASB

Could do no – Do miracles depend on our faith?  If we don’t believe, does our unbelief hinder God’s ability to perform?  Was Yeshua hampered because people in His hometown didn’t acknowledge Him as the Messiah?  Do we have to believe before God can act?

Recently a man asked my opinion about the implications of this verse.  Was it really true that the lack of faith of the villagers made it impossible for Yeshua to do miracles?  What does that mean for us?  What if we are skeptical or doubting?  Can Yeshua still act on our behalf?  I suggested that Mark’s passage be compared with the parallel in Matthew.  That verse says:  “He did not do many acts of power there due to their lack of emunah” (Matthew 13:58).  The parallel in Matthew in Hebrew suggests that he did not do many miracles there, not that he could not do.  The verb in the Greek text in Mark is from dunamai, which can mean both “to be able” and “to have power.”  In Mark it is imperfect passive, indicating that it was a continuing action brought about by someone else.  However, in Matthew the verb is poieo.  It is aorist, active.  It indicates that Jesus chose not to do miracles.  We have a conflict in the implications of these two texts.  That means we need to interpret the texts in the light of other indications about Yeshua’s character. While I cannot explain why Mark treats the incident as passive, it seems to me that Matthew captures what I know about Yeshua.  Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Mark actually says he did do some minor healings, so in spite of Mark’s passive construction, it is obvious that Yeshua was not completely prevented from performing miracles.

If we step back just a bit, we recognize that Mark may be saying Yeshua did not perform any miraculous signs.  The townspeople of Nazareth had already made up their minds.  This man could not be the Messiah.  They knew he was nothing more than a carpenter’s son.  Under those circumstances, there was little point in demonstrating their error by providing them with a spectacle of power.  They would not have accepted it anyway.  And Yeshua never used miracles to prove a point.  That would have been inconsistent with the humility of the Suffering Servant.  Mark notes that Yeshua did heal a few sick people.  This is mission-fulfilling work.  But He is not interested in the crowd that only wants proof.  Accepting Yeshua as the Messiah is not a matter of spectacle.

It seems to me that Matthew’s Hebrew gospel explains the situation with greater clarity.  Yeshua chooses not to perform a miracle because the purpose of miracles is not to convince the skeptics.  Miracles for skeptics are usually temptation; the same temptation we find in Yeshua’s confrontation with the evil one.  Appropriately, he refused then and he refuses now.  When they occur, miracles serve God’s purposes, not ours, although occasionally the two perspectives coincide.  The point is that miracles are an act of grace, not obligation.  If God acts with miraculous benevolence toward His children, we are blessed – and grateful.  If He does not, we are nonetheless blessed – and grateful – because His purposes are fulfilled in either case.  “Our God is able to save us from this fiery furnace, but if He does not, we are nevertheless still His servants.”

Topical Index:  miracle, could not do, dunamai, poieo, Matthew 13:58, Mark 6:5

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Equal Treasures

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 | Author:

And He said to them, “Therefore every sofer who is educated in the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to the owner of a house who brings out of his storehouse new things as well as old.” Matthew 13:52 (The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels)

New things as well as old – If you went to your safe deposit box, would you discard old things kept there simply because they are old?  Undoubtedly not!  In fact, the old things in that box are probably the most valuable to you.  If you went to your records file, would you toss out the oldest documents because of their age.  Heavens no!  Those documents probably include your birth certificate, your children’s birth certificates, your marriage license and many treasured photographs you would never let go.  So when Yeshua says that the Kingdom of heaven is like a storehouse of treasures, old and new, what justification does this provide for discarding the “old” covenant and replacing it with the “new”?  Aren’t all the treasures of the Kingdom valuable, useful and purposeful?  If we understand this tiny parable, won’t we see that each interpretation provided by Yeshua stands upon prior revelation and that prior revelation is not only equally valid, it is absolutely essential in the Kingdom.  Why else would the householder keep these old things in his storehouse?

With this in mind, it is difficult to see how a scholar like F. F. Bruce can say:

“When our Lord began His public ministry in Galilee His hearers recognized that what He brought was ‘a new teaching’ (Mark 1:27); and those who listened to the Sermon on the Mount were aware that they were being presented with a ‘new morality,’” (p. 26)

“those earlier forms of divine revelation were brought to perfection when the Eternal Word became incarnate in the Son, . . .”  (p. 74)

“Since the new commandment of love is the distinctive commandment of the new age, the test of obedience is pre-eminently a test of love.”  (p. 56)[1]

It is even more difficult to hear Millard Erickson claim that Old Testament rules governing sanitation are reflected in modern principles of pollution control and diet and, therefore, it is no longer necessary to keep the Torah rules as they are written.  The principles employed are enough.[2]

It makes you wonder if John Stott’s declaration applies to Christian theologians:

“The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.”

Bruce does say: “Those who have abandoned the foundation of their faith in the original apostolic testimony have severed themselves from fellowship with the true God, for that is the true testimony of God,” but one is inclined to believe that Bruce doesn’t see this the same way that Peter, James and Paul would see it.  They built on Torah.  One wonders if Bruce would side with Erickson or with Sha’ul on this subject.

When we read a letter like Hebrews, do you suppose we are willing to apply Stott’s dictum or are we in the same camp as Erickson, throwing out everything that came before Pentecost because we only accept the principle of the “new”?

Topical Index:  new and old, Matthew 13:52

[1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Revell)

[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker Book House)

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | 27 Comments

Keep Your Enemies Closer

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011 | Author:

And He said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings forth out of his treasure things new and old.” Matthew 13:52  NASB

Scribe – Does Yeshua take a line from Godfather 2?  Is He really suggesting that those who were so adamantly against Him should be included in the Kingdom?  You might say, “Well, don’t you see that they must first become disciples?”  But is that what He means?  Is this statement to be applied only to those who were once opposed and have now seen the light?

A scribe in normal usage in the New Testament is someone who has been trained to interpret the Torah.  We do encounter scribes in the gospel accounts, but none of them seem to be on the side of Yeshua.  They uniformly interpret Moses against Yeshua.  So how could any of them become disciples?

Commentators have suggested that Yeshua’s comment is directed toward either (1) his chosen disciples who are now proponents of a “new” understanding of the covenant or (2) the general sense of the term as writers.  Neither seems very compelling.  There is force behind Yeshua’s words.  This is a metaphor about the Kingdom, the reign and rule of God on earth.  Certainly it must have a greater application than to the small band Yeshua selected or to some anonymous group of people who took up the quill.  A little Jewish background might help.

Yeshua is called “Rabbi” by those who drew near him.  That circle was much larger than the twelve.  As Rabbi, he taught Torah.  He came to complete the understanding of Torah.  In fact, the rabbinic idea of “fulfilling” Torah was simply teaching correct interpretation.  At this, Yeshua excelled beyond all others.  If a scribe is one who is trained to correctly interpret Torah, then everyone who follows in the footsteps of Yeshua and keeps His commandments (His haggadah) would qualify as a scribe in the kingdom of heaven.  The force of Yeshua’s claim is two-fold.  First, his words claim that human pedigree has no standing in the Kingdom.  To correctly interpret God’s words, you must become Yeshua’s disciple.  He alone is the final authority of interpretation.  His statement claims that Torah interpretation is at the very heart of discipleship.  Scribes knew God’s Word, right down to the smallest detail.  They were meticulous caretakers of the Tanakh.  Yeshua tells His followers that they too must be meticulous students and practitioners of God’s Word interpreted by the Son of Man. [1]

Secondly, Yeshua’s claim challenges the official scribes of religious practice.  His words suggest that there are scribes who know Torah but do not become disciples because they do not listen to the authoritative interpretation of Yeshua.  They are not caretakers of the truth of Torah.  They are merely pall bearers of the letters.  They have no place in the Kingdom because those in the Kingdom must be disciples of the King.

There are many official scribes in our religious world.  They carry the Book around with them.  They can quote chapter and verse.  But they do not understand what it means to “keep His commandments” because they have not interpreted His words as He intended.  They have thrown away the words of God in the Torah, replacing those gifts with ethical principles of their own.  They stand on the shoulders of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Irenaeus, not Moses and Isaiah.  They think “Jesus” speaks Greek.

You and I could be among these modern-day scribes.  Everywhere we look, Christian theologians, commentators and preachers tell us that we need to “be like Jesus,” except of course, when Jesus keeps the Sabbath, the dietary laws, the instructions about charity and purity.  Apparently modern-day scribes have decided that they can do their own interpretation.  What does Yeshua say about them?  Better not read Matthew 13:47-49 if you don’t want to hear His interpretation.

Topical Index:  scribe, interpretation, disciple, Matthew 13:52

[1] The Hebrew version of Matthew clears this up: “Therefore every sofer who is educated in the kingdom of Heaven can be compared to the owner of a house  . . .”

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 12 Comments

The Absence of Awe

Sunday, March 27th, 2011 | Author:

and the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, . . . Genesis 3:6  ISR

Saw - Are you able to see what’s good?  Can you look below the skin of something and see its true nature?  Maybe you can, I can’t.  I’ve spent some time in the wilderness.  I often come across beautiful plants with apparently wonderful fruit, but I would be foolish to “see” it as food unless I knew that it would not harm me.  When I was growing up, we had a mountain ash in our backyard.  It produces amazing red berries.  But my mother sternly warned me, “Don’t you eat those.  They’re poison.”  They looked good, but they weren’t.  As far as I can tell, no human being can simply look at a plant and determine it is good for food.  So why is Havvah able to do so?

The answer, of course, is that she can’t do this either.  When she sees that the tree is good for food, she is projecting a previous evaluation.  That evaluation doesn’t come from her.  It doesn’t come from careful testing of the fruit.  It comes from trusting the word of the serpent.  Havvah is deceived before she even looks.  By the time she looks, she has already decided to believe the serpent’s statement.  The truth is that this fruit was the most poisonous substance on the planet, but the actual nature of the fruit was not the issue here.  The issue was her decision to not trust God’s word.

Doesn’t it seem absolutely incredible to you that Havvah would trust the serpent?  I mean that it is simply not believable that this woman whose very existence is the direct result of YHWH’s action, who lives in an absolute paradise, who has unmediated interaction with the Creator, could have even entertained the possibility that God didn’t speak the truth.  Does that seem reasonable to you?  How are we to explain this complete collapse of relational awareness?

We don’t have to look very far to find the answer.  Even in paradise it is possible to be indifferent to the wonder of being.  In fact, lack of awe may be the genesis of sin.  When I stop being completely amazed at the very existence of the cosmos, at my very being within it, when that sense of overwhelming presence ceases to permeate who I am, then the possibility of my own self-determination arises within me.  Suddenly I become far more important than all the evidence supports.  I have intimations of divinity, and that is enough to allow me to turn from the face of my Creator and question whether or not His word is really “good for me.”

What did Havvah see?  It’s quite impossible that she saw that the tree was good for food.  What she saw was the possibility of becoming better than what she was called to be.  What she saw was an alternate reality where she decided what was good for food.  Havvah was tempted to add to the wonder of the world by ignoring the mystery of being.

Each of us stands before the Tree.  Each of us must decide, “Is this tree good for food?”  We are surrounded by the Presence of all that we are not.  We can stand in awe of it or we can determine to add our own little bit of creation.  We can be shaped by the power of His might, or we can attempt to shape a world stamped with our mark.  It just depends on what we see.

Topical Index:  saw, food, good, Genesis 3:6, awe, ra’ah

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Phoenix, April 21st

Saturday, March 26th, 2011 | Author:

I will be in Phoenix, April 21st for a ONE-NIGHT only seminar.  Here are the details.

If you did not get the e-vite, and you want to come, please contact Roderick Logan to let him know.

APRIL 21 at 7PM

26056 N. 71st Lane

Peoria, AZ 85383


Contact Roderick at 623 826 0938


invitation

Category: Articles  | Tags:  | Comments off

Torah Alignment

Saturday, March 26th, 2011 | Author:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” Acts 15:19-20  NASB

Contaminated – What’s in your refrigerator?  That might be the appropriate modern-day question to introduce James’ pronouncement.  Far too often Christian theologians have suggested that this passage eliminates all Torah requirements except the rules given to Noah.  That’s probably because most interpreters in the last millennium have ignored the context of this announcement.  We will not.  Let’s take a longer look at what James has to say.

James is Jewish (despite the Anglicized name).  He is Ya’aqob, recognized leader of the Jerusalem assembly (qehillah) of the followers of the Way.  Everything about him stems from his Jewish roots and his understanding and worship of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach.   When he speaks, he speaks from the authority of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures).  His concern is not about how his fellow countrymen become “Christians.”  His concern is about all the Gentiles who are joining the Jewish qehillah.  After listening to the discussion, he determines that only four things are really required of these Gentile converts.  He agrees with Sha’ul that outward circumcision is not a requirement.  A Gentile does not have to become a Jew (the ritual process of becoming a Jew included circumcision) in order to be a participant in the fellowship of the qehillah.  That is settled.  What a Gentile must do, however, is meet four specific requirements.  These requirements begin with the idea of pagan contamination (in Greek, alisgema, a word occurring only here in the New Testament).  Of course, Ya’aqob wasn’t speaking Greek.  So whatever he said must be related to a Jewish-Hebrew perspective.  And once we begin to look there, we find something very interesting, not found in the Genesis account of Noah.

Whoever participates in table fellowship in the qehillah has fellowship with YHWH.  The Tanakh makes it clear that table fellowship incorporates “clean” food and specific kosher rituals.[1] Gentiles who are entering the qehillah fellowship are required to participate in the table fellowship according to Tanakh practice.  They may not participate in sacrificial meals to pagan deities because table fellowship was a symbol of worship.  In other words, a person could not participate in pagan rituals and, at the same time, participate in table fellowship with YHWH.  This requirement has nothing to do with “earning” salvation.  Salvation is God’s gift.  But it has everything to do with living a life in honor of YHWH and participating in the community called apart by YWHW.  James effectively says, “You can’t keep on doing those things associated with pagan table fellowship.  You have to leave all those behind.”

Now look at the four requirements.  In the context of the first century, Jewish culture in Jerusalem, each of these four actions would have been considered signs of pagan worship (offerings to idols, sexual worship rituals, strangulation rather than kosher slaughter, drinking blood or using blood in ways other than those prescribed by God).  So James says, “None of these can be allowed,” not because he is making a pronouncement about food but because these fellowship-related behaviors are associated with idolatry.

If you are going to participate at God’s table, you need to give up your idolatrous ways.  Today, James might have a different list, a list that includes our symbols of serving other gods.  Table fellowship with YHWH comes in only one flavor – His.

So, what’s in your refrigerator?  And what’s in your heart?  Have you put aside all those actions and elements that signal idolatry in any form?  Have you determined that you will sit at God’s table according to His directions?  Or are you trying to eat from your own menu?

Topical Index:  table fellowship, pollution, alisgema, food, idolatry, Acts 15:19-20

[1] cf. 1 Samuel 9:13, Jeremiah 11:15, Haggai 2:12, Zechariah 14:21

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 8 Comments

Who Will Pay?

Friday, March 25th, 2011 | Author:

On the next day Moses said to the people, “You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going up to the LORD, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” Exodus 32:30  NASB

Make atonement – God is never appeased!  Appeasement is demanded by pagan deities, not by YHWH.  Why?  Because appeasement implies that the deity is in a state of wrath or anger and that some human action is needed to defer that anger.  Appeasement suggests that human beings are able, through their own efforts, to assuage the anger of the gods.  But the Hebrew view begins from an entirely different perspective.  God isn’t angry at us.  He is brokenhearted. God loves His creation.  Our rebellion produces a broken relationship that He is anxious to restore.  Of course, if all His efforts fail, the moral integrity of the creation calls for punishment, but this is not His beginning state of mind.  That’s why the Hebrew verb kipper “never refers to propitiation of God.  Even when a human person is the subject of the action, kipper denotes the action of a substitutionary mediator, effecting forgiveness of sin.”[1]

How is atonement made?  Someone stands between the offender and the offended.  Someone acts as the mediator.  Someone offers payment on behalf of the offender in order to restore the relationship with the offended.

In most of the sacrificial settings, a priest acts as the mediator.  The offering becomes the payment required by the offended party in order to heal the broken relationship.  The Torah spells out in great detail exactly what is required to restore such broken relationships.  The requirement implies a legal setting much like a court of law where certain restitution must be made to satisfy the judgment.  This works perfectly when the offenses concern interactions between human beings (for example, when a man steals someone’s property).  Atonement is the payment of the penalty.   But what happens when the offended party is God Himself?  What happens when my sin breaks relationship with Him?  How will I atone for that?  I am the offender.  I can’t come to the offended one, YHWH, on my own because I am the one who broke the relationship.  I need a mediator.

We see this principle in action when Israel offends YHWH in the incident of the golden calf.  Moses must act as the mediator.  Even with Moses in the middle, the outcome is uncertain.  “Perhaps I can make atonement.”  Why isn’t the atonement guaranteed? Moses isn’t certain what God will require as payment.  And Moses might not be sure if God will accept his role as mediator.  There is a lot at risk here since the required payment has not been specified.  Moses is doing all that he knows to do and all that he can do, but it might not be enough.  The price might just be too high for anyone to pay.  This sin is a “great sin,” a sin of blasphemy and idolatry, a sin that offends the very nature of God since it implies God is not who He claims to be.  The punishment for this sin is death.  But who can pay such a price?  Must every one of the children of Israel die in order to balance the books?  Must you and I be put to death because we too have committed a great sin?

God says, “NO!”  “I will take your place.”  No man can ransom the life of another from God.  In fact, no man is able to ransom even his own life from God (Psalm 49:8).  The price exceeds our ability to pay.  Who then will pay?

Only God.

And He does.

Topical Index:  kipper, atonement, ransom, substitution, Exodus 32:30

[1] Lang, kipper, TDOT, Vol. 7, p. 294

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 2 Comments

Koran vs. Tanakh

Thursday, March 24th, 2011 | Author:

With this ram the priest shall make atonement before Yahweh for the sin which he has committed. Leviticus 19:22  NASB

Atonement – Many Hebrew words have cognates (similar words) in other middle-Eastern languages.  One of those languages is Arabic.  So it isn’t surprising to find that the Hebrew word kaphar has some relationship to the Arabic word kaffara, a word which mean “absolve.”  This Arabic word is borrowed from Hebrew.  That might lead you to think that the idea of atonement in the Koran is the same as the idea of atonement in the Tanakh, but you would be mistaken.  Knowing the difference is fundamental to understanding the enormous gap between Judaism (and Christianity) and Islam.  In fact, once we understand the real difference, we see that some past forms of Christianity are far closer to Islam than the Tanakh will ever be.

Kaphar (to atone, to expiate – with some differences in the nuances, remember?) is central to the Hebrew idea of forgiveness.  Essentially, atonement is an act needed to restore a relationship between two parties when that relationship has been severed through some transgression.  What is crucial in the Hebraic view is that the break in the relationship is not emotional.  It does not occur because of hurt feelings or social displeasure.  The break is legal.  It is contractually based.  One party has aggrieved the other and this grievance must be repaired by some legally sufficient act.  It doesn’t matter which party initiates the act of atonement.  It only matters that without this act the relationship cannot be restored.

In Israel, atonement is accomplished when the person who has caused the break in the relationship fulfills the restoration obligations demanded by the aggrieved party.  This involved a sacrifice.  The kind of grievance determined the kind of sacrifice. Atonement could be accomplished through the imposition of punishment (a thief can atone, for example, by repaying what he took plus twenty percent).  But when God was the offended party in deliberate sin, final atonement had to be accomplished by God since the penalty included the death of the offender.  God’s sacrifice is at the heart of the act of atonement.

This is not the case in Islam.  Atonement in Islam is the act of a merciful god without the need for sacrifice.  In other words, kaffara (Arabic) implies the concealing or covering up of transgression, not the removal of transgression through the payment of the debt.[1] In Islam, forgiveness is a matter of white-washing the sin, not of cleansing it.  The moral debt isn’t erased.  It is swept under the carpet.  Ethical and moral balance is never achieved.  Holiness is not maintained.  In the end, the sin remains, but Allah pretends it no longer matters.

Now you can understand why Muslims are devoted practitioners of even the most violent aspects of their faith.  They are never actually forgiven.  They must continually meet the obligations of Allah in order for him to not recall their transgressions.  As long as they are obedient, and only as long as they are obedient, Allah will turn his wrath away.  But one slip in devotion, and it all comes back.  It is simply impossible for Islam to claim that Allah removes guilt as far as the East is from the West.  Guilt is always there, under the prayer rug.

In past centuries some theological expression within Christianity tended to move in the direction of the Islamic concept of atonement.  One might recall the endless process of achieving righteousness through certain Roman Catholic rituals, for example.  Fortunately, none of these are part of the Hebrew concept of kaphar.  Kaphar is true payment.  Transgression is not concealed.  It is paid for.  It no longer applies.  Raise your voices in praise to YHWH who forgives for He casts our guilt as far as the East is from the West, never again to become a burden.

Topical Index:  Islam, Koran, atonement, kaffara, kaphar, Leviticus 19:22

[1] The Arabic word is used throughout the Koran.  Here are but two examples for Sura 5.

5:12 GOD had taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we raised among them twelve patriarchs. And GOD said, “I am with you, so long as you observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and believe in My messengers and respect them, and continue to lend GOD a loan of righteousness. I will then remit your sins, and admit you into gardens with flowing streams. Anyone who disbelieves after this, has indeed strayed off the right path.”

8:29 O ye who believe! If ye keep your duty to Allah, He will give you discrimination (between right and wrong) and will rid you of your evil thoughts and deeds, and will forgive you. Allah is of Infinite Bounty.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 5 Comments

Tax Burden

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 | Author:

You shall take the expiation money from the Israelites and assign it to the service of the Tent of Meeting; it shall serve the Israelites as a reminder before the LORD, as expiation for your persons. Exodus 30:16   JPS Torah Commentary

Expiation – God does not like taxes (applause, please).  In fact, God doesn’t like a census either since the usual purpose of a census is taxation or conscription.  This is why Joab was so reluctant to carry out King David’s order for a peacetime census.  It should be no surprise to us that the Hebrew term kenas becomes the Latin term census, but you might find it very surprising that the word meant penalty.

Once we understand these facts, we need to ask two questions.  The first is why God prohibited a census in the story of David, and the second is why God commands a census on this occasion in Exodus.

The questions are easily answered.  First, God prohibits a peacetime census because He knows that such information is almost always used for nefarious purposes.  The census is a vehicle for the transfer or accumulation of power.  That vehicle shifts authority from God to men and it creates an atmosphere where men depend on their own plans rather than on a gracious and loving God.  “The census was clearly felt to mark the beginning of the state’s encroachment upon the individual, who had previously found protection within the family, clan, and village, in a sacred order beyond the reach of human calculations.”[1]

You can easily imagine how much more community integration and spiritual dependence occur when no one knows how many of what kind actually live where.  Without a census, everything must be done locally, where community needs and community provisions take priority.  Information in the hands of evil men produces evil, and God opposes it even if it is only counting His children.  It doesn’t take much reflection to see how much power is involved in our version of the census.  That power is inherently dangerous, and God knows it.  The only one in the Bible who needs (and has) all this information is God.

The second question addresses another issue.  The Tabernacle belonged to everyone – equally.  It was the sign of God’s presence within the community.  Therefore, everyone needed to be a contributor to its construction and its operation.  Everyone needed to have a stake in the result.  So every male over the age of 20 made a one-time, equal contribution of a certain weight of silver or gold.  This census was not repeated (although centuries later rabbinic Judaism used this event to institute an annual tax).  God’s census had the purpose of involving everyone in His interaction within the community.  It is not about power.  It is about participation.  It was about building His place of presence.

Now we come to the word ha-kippurim, translated here by “expiation” but in most Christian Bibles by “atonement.”  Baker and Carpenter call this the word “of supreme theological importance in the Old Testament.”  At its root, kaphar is about imposing something that changes the appearance or the nature of a thing, like stamping an invoice, “Paid in Full.”  The invoice is changed from a debt to a statement of fulfillment.  So sin is cancelled, not by covering it up but by stamping it with a mark that shows the debt is paid.  Translated as “atonement,” the word conveys the idea of reparations, that is, making amends for a wrong, paying for a wrong done, or compensating someone.  As “expiation,” the word means (from Latin) “to end by allowing the full consequences to have their expression.”  Atonement and expiation are closely related, but they are not exactly the same.  Atonement carries the nuance of compensation by substitution.  In other words, to atone for a sin would mean to provide some other way of repaying the obligation.  Of course, this is what Yeshua did.  His life was provided as another way of dealing with the obligation of our guilt.  But expiation carries the further nuance that the repayment means suffering the full consequences of the original obligation.  To atone for sin might imply that God merely cancels the debt, but to expiate the sin means that someone has to suffer and die to remove the guilt.

Now apply this subtle difference in the Exodus passage.  The payment of the tax used for the construction of the Tent of Meeting expiates the individual.  What debt does the person carry that needs to be removed?  The debt is the obligation to enter into a living covenant with the presence of God in the midst.  It isn’t free! God in the midst requires personal commitment.  Notice that no one can pay for another.  Each male must pay for himself.  Each male must fulfill the obligation entirely.  He is not to borrow, barter or beg from another.  His is a personal obligation to become part of God’s witness in the community.  And once he pays in full the required amount, his obligation is satisfied.

If you see hints of the sacrifice of Yeshua in this Tabernacle tax, you shouldn’t be surprised.  Perhaps you will discover that reflection on the Exodus census gives you greater insight into the Savior on the cross.

Topical Index:  census, tax, atonement, expiation, ha-kippurim, kaphar, Exodus 30:16

[1] Lang, kipper, TDOT, Vol. 7, p. 301.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 15 Comments
« Previous Entries