On Women, Preaching and Church

In this post I will outline my position on the very controversial topic of the role of women in regards to preaching in church. This is an issue which draws ongoing debate  amongst evangelical Christians. We need to recognise that though this is not an all important issue, it is nevertheless significant for several reasons. To many it matters greatly as a matter of justice and opportunity for women to use their God-given gifts, while to others it matters greatly as a significant test case on our willingness to follow scriptural injunctions rather than cultural trends.

As will be explained, I take a conservative point of view on this issue, and the purpose of this post will be to explain why. Many theologians and church leaders I respect hold to an egalitarian position on this issue, such as John Dickson, Mike Bird and Craig Keener. It appears to me that the conservative position is not the “flavour of the month”, and more and more Christian people are openly critical of it. For what it is worth, there are many prominent theologians who do hold to substantially the same position as mine, such as Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Tom Schreiner, and DA Carson. It is a distinctive of conservative evangelical denominations and church movements such as Sydney Anglicans, evangelical Presbyterians, and Acts 29 churches. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it is our responsibility to study the scriptures ourselves and come to our own convictions about them, rather than just following what other churches or people do.

The majority of this post will be taken up with responding to the most common arguments for women preaching (the “egalitarian” case). While people of different persuasions rarely change their minds on these sorts of issues, my goal in writing this is to at least express why I believe most arguments encouraging an egalitarian view fail, and to hopefully cause other people to understand and wrestle with this issue in a fresh light.

To begin, let me immediately respond to a few possible misconceptions. I acknowledge that women can probably preach just as effectively as men. I also acknowledge that not allowing women to preach effectively cuts your pool of preachers in two which doesn’t appear to be a very strategic move to encourage growth in churches. I also can only imagine that there must be a very significant degree of frustration and even anger commonly felt by gifted women who are restricted in their involvement in some churches on this issue. I acknowledge that to a younger generation not acquainted with this topic, my position must seem increasingly bizarre and totally antiquated.

I acknowledge the force of all of these arguments, and yet I still maintain that in fact women should have a restricted role in regards to the delivery of sermons in churches. Why? Simply because I’m unconvinced by all of the many arguments which respond to two key scriptural passages which appear to restrict the public teaching of women in church. The Bible must be our final guide, whether we like it or not, and whether we think it’s a good idea or not. This issue for me comes down to the matter of biblical authority, and is a challenging test in whether we are led by culture or led by God’s word.

Here are the two passages in question.

1 Corinthians 14:33-38.

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 

 

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

 

It is worthwhile simply citing the texts in question here, because these are the verses at the centre of this discussion, and often there is distraction from the issue by focussing at great length on many other verses which do not directly deal with the issue and only briefly touching on the main verses in question.  I will defend the conservative position simply by responding to the most common six counter-arguments made by egalitarians on why in fact women should indeed lead in preaching.

  1. Women in the Bible did something. Therefore they should be allowed to do everything.

This is a very common argument made for why women should be allowed to preach. We are pointed to the examples of Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla’s role in teaching Apollos, and Philip’s daughters prophesying (Judges 4-5, 2 Kings 22:14, Acts 18:26, Acts 21:9). But this argument does not follow. Just because women are reported doing something in the Bible doesn’t mean they are authorised to do everything- especially when there are other passages which do restrict them from doing something. No one is saying that women are not allowed to do anything. It is clear that women are allowed in certain contexts to do some activities, such as prophesying, yet there are also restrictions in some activities given. The examples of Deborah and Priscilla are both particularly poor as examples of women having equal authority to men. Deborah clearly urges Barak to take the lead; in his weakness he insists that Deborah come with him to bolster his confidence. This is not a clear example of a woman’s equality to a man in leadership. Rather, it is an example of a woman stepping up to assist a man in his lack of public leadership. Priscilla seems to have been the prominent influence in teaching Apollos, but she is rarely separated from her husband’s side. The passage would be far more indicative of her authority if she was mentioned on her own, but this is exactly what is not done. Furthermore, this is obviously a case of private counsel being given to Apollos; it is clearly not a public teaching role. Just because women are described doing something in the Bible does not mean they are encouraged to do everything.

 

  1. Women today are allowed to do something. Therefore they should be allowed to do everything.

This second argument is exactly the same as the first, except the appeal is made from current activities which women are involved in, instead of scriptural examples. For example, arguments are frequently made that since women are allowed to teach Sunday School, or lead secular companies, or lead worship, that therefore they should be allowed to preach as well. How does one draw the line between the “teaching” in a sermon, and the “teaching” in a testimony for example? It is a good question which will always be present in some way when you do try to make a restriction in some way. Where the line will be drawn will always be somewhat subjective, and open to charges of inconsistency. Yet, if the Bible is teaching that there should be a restriction in some contexts, then there will have to be a line drawn somewhere, and a church leadership will have to make a decision on what they believe to be an appropriate application of the biblical injunction in their cultural setting. To use this argument as justification for there to be no restrictions whatever in spite of the biblical teaching of course will lead just to the Bible being ignored when it gives these restrictions. Because women are allowed to do something in church today is not a justification for why they must be allowed to do everything.

 

  1. We must interpret the unclear passages in the light of the clear passages.

Here the two passages in question (1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2) are labelled as “unclear” passages, and others, such as Galatians 3:28, Romans 16:7, and Acts 2:18 are labelled as “clear” passages. However, it is difficult to see how that decision is made. The two passages in question appear to be very clear in their explicit discussion of a woman’s public involvement in a church service, whereas none of the other passages are specifically in reference to a church service at all. Furthermore, there are numerous passages which speak in some way of a submission of women to men in some way- such as 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 18-19, 1 Peter 3:1-7. 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are not two passages which are exceptions to the rule of what scriptures teach elsewhere. Rather, they are specific applications of a principle of female submission in the context of church life. It is clear that Jesus also followed this pattern in his selection of 12 male disciples. The other passages are rather the unclear ones which need to be considered in light of these clear ones.

 

  1. Paul’s restrictions relate to a specific cultural situation, not a timeless ongoing pattern.

Clearly there is a cultural context for these two passages. 1 Timothy 2:9 for example, immediately before one of the passages in question, tells women to “dress modestly. with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds”. There is undoubtedly a cultural situation also influencing Paul’s instructions for women not to teach.

I think this objection is valid, but insufficient in itself to dismiss the instruction from having relevance to us today. Every single passage in the New Testament is influenced by first century culture; this does not mean that they all have no relevance to us today. What makes it difficult however to completely dismiss Paul’s restrictions for us today though is the nature of his appeals. He makes his argument in 1 Timothy 2 on the basis of the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the fall. It is not simply a case of “this is culturally dishonourable”. He argues- “13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” There is a symbolic meaning in both creation and the doctrine of the fall which is applied in a timeless way to leadership roles in church life. I personally think that the way we apply these instructions in our culture may well be different to the way they were applied in the first century, in a similar way that our views on appropriate hairstyles or jewellery might be different in our culture than what they were in the first century. The whole structure of our church service with a modern sermon is probably quite different to what was practiced in a first century church service. However, it is our requirement now to interpret and apply these biblical instructions in a way which are most appropriate for our cultural setting.

So the question might be- are Paul’s instructions restricting women from teaching (or speaking in 1 Corinthians 14) applicable to a sermon? At some point, a church leadership will need to determine how they will apply these instructions- whether they apply to teaching a Sunday School class or leading a small group, or to preaching a sermon in a gathered congregation. I would suggest that if they do not apply to a sermon, they do not really apply to anything at all in actual modern church life. Sermons are clearly the space of authoritative public teaching in the modern church, and so this is the most reasonable application of Paul’s instruction.

A further argument for the application of Paul’s instruction beyond a specific cultural setting of the first century is the strength of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14. Immediately before his statement on women’s role in church, he includes these words: “As in all churches of the saints”. This would appear to make the following statements apply to all churches no matter what their cultural setting. Furthermore, immediately after restricting women from speaking in the church service, he includes these forceful words: “37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” These are strong words, and I find them hard to dismiss with the lack of consideration which is commonly given to them.

 

  1. Junia was an apostle. Therefore, she would have been allowed to preach.

Romans 16:7 is considered by many egalitarians as an extremely important verse for their case. “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I.” The argument is that Junias was most probably a female, and she is said to be an apostle. Therefore, she must have been accepted as a church leader, and surely allowed to preach.

I find it strange that such a verse should be the key verse which dominates the whole discussion. There are at least two big problems which throw doubt on the use made of this verse by egalitarians. Firstly, the key phrase “outstanding among the apostles” (NIV) is translated as “They are well known to the apostles” (ESV), or, “They are of note among the apostles” (KJV). Clearly, the phrase is ambiguous in its meaning. Given that Jesus appointed only male apostles, it is queer to make a strong argument from this incidental verse that Paul instituted a new policy of appointing female apostles. Secondly, there are different senses of the word “apostle”. It can be used in the sense of a “messenger”, as seen in Philippians 2:25 and 2 Corinthians 8:23. Again, the case would be stronger also if Junias was mentioned clearly as an apostle apart from Andronicus who was probably her husband. Even if Junias was an “Apostle”, this still does not say anything about her role in a public church service. There are many women missionaries today who serve solo in traditional societies who take roles of leadership and yet honour the cultural setting by not taking a public role in a gathered church service.

 

  1. Women can preach if they are given authority to preach.

A final argument I will respond to is this common response that if an eldership empowers a woman to preach, then it is no longer an issue of authority. However, the problem is that this is exactly what Paul says we are not to do! Imagine how Paul would respond if Timothy was to write a letter back to Paul and say the following: “We note Paul that you said we were not to allow a women to teach or have authority over a man in our church service. We have decided to put this into practice by giving them authority to preach because we would like to have them preaching”. This would just be at best ignoring Paul’s instructions or at worst disobeying them. Compare the topic of sex being limited to marriage. The biblical requirement is that sex should be limited to a marriage relationship. However, if a church wanted to get around this, they could say that really the issue is one of commitment, and if a couple are committed to one another, then the church will grant them permission to have a sexual relationship before marriage. Of course, this is just changing the Bible’s requirements of marriage to suit our own standards of commitment, for the Bible’s standard of commitment is in fact marriage. Similarly, to say that we’re not going to treat teaching as an act of authority is simply changing Paul’s instructions for he appears to be saying that it is indeed an act of authority which should not be allowed.

 

Conclusion

Much more could be said on this topic. It is not the most important issue which confronts the church, nevertheless I believe it’s an important test case on our submission to scripture. It seems to me that the six arguments I have responded to above provide a very weak foundation for a case for women to be allowed to preach, yet these six arguments are frequently presented as providing sufficient reason. The conservative position will not be a popular one and as our society slides further into a secular worldview, it will be more and more subject to ridicule. However, I contend that the conservative position on this topic is more faithful to the guidance of scripture and therefore should be followed, even at the cost of the misunderstanding and disappointment of many who find it hard to agree with.

 

Romans 7: Christian or Non-Christian Experience?

To whom does the inner struggle between good and evil apply in Romans 7: 7-25 ?7 What is Paul’s view of sanctification from Romans?

 Throughout church history, Romans 7:7-25 has proved to be a passage which has divided the opinions of commentators sharply. The controversy has been whether it is a description of a Christian or a non-Christian in their struggle with evil. After surveying some of the major arguments for both sides, this essay follows Schreiner’s (1998:390) argument in suggesting that the passage has relevance to both in its discussion of how the law has no power to transform the sinful nature of humans. Paul’s view of sanctification flows out of an understanding of the tension between the present age and that to come, and the appropriation by faith of the blessings of the gospel.

The sharp division in opinion over this passage arises because of the remarkable strength of arguments on both sides. Some commentators strongly contend that the passage must be a description of the life of Paul before he was converted. Firstly, the passage is summarised it is suggested by 7:5-6, in which is contrasted our unconverted life in the flesh with our new life in the Spirit (Schreiner 1998:1385). Throughout the passage there is a strong emphasis on the flesh, with a complete absence of the Holy Spirit. This ties closely to the description of our unconverted life in the flesh as described in 7:5. Secondly, the language used of the person in 7:7-25 contradicts the language Paul has already used to describe Christians (Moo 1996:448). Christians have had their “body of sin done away with“ (6:6) and have “been set free from sin” (6:18), yet the person described in this passage is “sold under sin“ (7:14), in captivity to the law of sin (7:23), and longing for deliverance from “this body of death” (7:24).

A third argument is the way chapter 8 succeeds chapter 7 (Schreiner 1998:1387). Chapter 8 speaks of two types of people, some who walk according to the flesh and some who walk according to the spirit. These are clearly non-Christians and Christians in view, as is seen in v9: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you”. Thus, the logic of the argument implies that if in chapter 8 there are only two types of people, Christians and non-Christians, the person described in chapter 7 living by the flesh must by implication correspond to the non-Christian. There is no mention of a third “carnal Christian” type in Romans 8: 1-14 which would be expected if it was present in chapter 7.

However, others contend that on the contrary the passage must be a description of the struggle of a Christian to live a sanctified life. Firstly, it is argued that Paul’s use of the first person and the present tense most naturally leads to the assumption that Paul is referring to the sort of struggle that he himself goes through in his present experience (Morris 1988:1285). Secondly, it is argued that the desire to please and serve God that is in evidence in v18 and v22 is not a natural description of a non-Christian; by contrast, the non-Christian does not “seek after God” (Rom 3:11) and cannot “submit to the law of God“ (8:7) (Moo 1996:446). Thirdly, in verse 25, after Paul’s reference to Christ’s deliverance, Paul again reiterates the fact of the conflicting struggle of the will, showing that it is an ongoing feature of the Christians life (Cranfield 1985:170).

The most compelling argument of this second view would be the use of the present tense. The second argument regarding the unbelievers desire to please God may be contested easily by pointing to examples such as Romans 9:31-32 and 10:2 (Schreiner 1998:388). Furthermore, the third argument may be rebutted by pointing out that the phrase after Paul’s thanksgiving for Christ’s deliverance doesn’t easily fit either view of the passage. If it is referring to a Christian’s life, why does Paul still serve with the flesh the law of sin even though he has just mentioned the deliverance that is his through Christ?

However, the argument regarding the use of the first person and the present tense is more difficult. Some argue that Paul here takes on the identity of another, such as Adam, or the nation of Israel. But there is no explicit indication anywhere from Paul that he has suddenly started “impersonating” somebody else, and it would be expected that Paul would make this clear if it was his intention. Certainly Paul’s description may have elements in common with Adam or Israel, but this does not in itself demand an identity switch. The fact that he speaks with such passion and so personally later in the chapter (eg v24) gives the most straightforward expectation that he speaks about himself (Cranfield 1985:157).

But neither must he be talking about himself in terms of real historical experiences that he has undergone. The words “I was alive once without the law” (v9) or “by it sin killed me” (v11) are very difficult to assign to actual events that he has undergone in real life (see Stott’s (1994: 199) summary of the difficulties). More likely is he possibly speaking of himself in a rhetorical narrative style to describe a theological point with more vividness. This is suggested by the fact that both sin and the law are continually personified throughout the chapter (eg v1,8,9,23) as actors working on Paul. The events described regarding the effect of the law and sin on Paul do not have to convey real historical events, but rather may be understood to be there to answer the theological question “Is the law sin?” in a dramatically vivid way (Cranfield 1985:156).

This leads us to now consider the second half of the passage in which the present tense comes into play. If the context gives us the expectation that it should refer to an unregenerate man, why does he speak as if his struggle for sanctification is one he is engaged in as a Christian? Firstly, continuing from the paragraph above, it should be seen as an explanation of Paul’s theology before being seen as Paul’s recount of his biography (Morris 1988:284). Paul is expressing himself in a vivid personal manner to illustrate his theology, not to tell his life story. It is a portrait of how it is to live under the law, without the aid of the Spirit of God. Morris (1988:284) writes, “there is autobiography here, but the passage is not basically Paul’s account of his experience. He is not saying “ I will tell you what happened to me. You can profit from my experience.” Rather he is saying ‘This is how the law confronts people. Let me illustrate from my own experience.” Had it been simply a piece of autobiography it would have doubtless been clearer whether we should see the regenerate or the unregenerate here. But Paul is talking about the law and its demands and showing the reader what it cannot do.” Rather than being primarily a historical description of Paul’s experience (whether regenerate or unregenerate), it is a theological description of the flesh, which is present in Paul, and also in all humanity.

Does this passage apply then to the regenerate or the unregenerate? It certainly applies to the unregenerate. That is who Paul has in mind in saying “when we were in the flesh” in 7:5 and in his description of those who walk according to the flesh in 8:6,13 who are heading for death. But as Bruce (1985: 143) writes, “Christians live in tension between two worlds, having passed spiritually from death to life, but being still present in their sinful bodies. Although we have been set free from sin (8:2) and are under no condemnation (8:1), Paul still has to tell the Christians that they are not debtors to the flesh (8:12), and that they need to “put to death the deeds of the body” (8:13).

Thus in as far as the sinful nature is still present in the believer’s mortal body, this passage which describes the sinful nature has relevance to the Christian. This is possibly why so many Christians do immediately relate to Romans 7 in their struggle with sin in their daily lives. It is also possibly why Paul uses the present tense here, because he is aware of the sinful nature which still lurks within him, seeking to rob him of his freedom in Christ.

Thus, Paul’s view of sanctification is consistently clear throughout Romans 6-8. True Christians live in consistence with the spiritual blessings God has brought them into in Christ. Our body of sin has been “done away with that we should no longer be slaves of sin”(6:6), we have been “set free from sin“ and become “slaves of righteousness”, we have been “delivered from the law” (7:6) and we have received the Spirit of life who sets us free (8:2). However, we are also told that it is our responsibility to appropriate these truths in our lives by “reckoning yourself dead to sin“ (6:11) by not “letting sin reign in your mortal body” (6:12) and by “putting to death the deeds of the body through the Spirit” (8:13).

It is by living out the truths that God has blessed us with that we prove the reality of the blessings of salvation and the presence of the Spirit in our lives. This tension between having already received by faith blessings such as freedom from sin, and yet our ever present responsibility to deal with it personally in our lives is the paradox involved in our sanctification according to Paul.

Thus, it is suggested that this passage, does not deal specifically with either the regenerate or the unregenerate, but rather with the flesh which all men have in their struggle with the law. This conflict is present in unbeliever as they lack the Spirit’s power to live in righteousness, but also in the Christian as they live in this present age, having received spiritual blessings yet still being physically present in their mortal bodies. Sanctification according to Paul involves an appropriation by faith of the blessings of the gospel in our freedom from sin and reception of the Holy Spirit for a life of godliness.

References

Bruce, F. (1985) Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series: Romans,2nd Edn, IVP, Leicester.

Cranfield, C.E.B. (1985) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Moo, D. (1996) The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The

Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Morris, L. (1988) The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Schreiner, T.R. (1998) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

Romans, Baker, Grand Rapids.

Stott, J. (1994) The Message of Romans, IVP, Leicester.

Explaining holy war in the Bible

One of the chief battlegrounds for Christian apologetics is concerning moral issues in our society today. These questions are emotional questions that criticise Christianity on the grounds that it teaches old fashioned values or even immoral values. In this article I will discuss the classic issue of the presence of holy war in the Bible. Throughout the Old Testament, God gives instructions to the nation of Israel to wipe out their enemies, even their women and children. So how may we respond to this?

This certainly is a difficult question which is not to be downplayed at all. However, I would start by keeping the question in its place. This question is concerning the Bible’s morality or truthfulness, and so it is secondary to the main question of the truthfulness of Christianity, which starts with merely the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, as usually it is atheists who bring this question up, the atheist may be asked on what basis is holy war wrong in a world which has relied on survival of the fittest for our origin? Of course, atheism in just the twentieth century had its own “holy wars” to account for.   Vox Day writes: The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.  The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot.” So these aren’t great records for what happens when religion is replaced by atheism.

However, let us move to giving a positive response to the question. We can present a response by moving through 5 questions about it.

1.Why does God take lives in the Bible? God has right to take people’s lives as he sees fit. He is not obliged to give anyone 80 years of life. He gave people their life, he does have the right to take it whenever he should choose. So it is silly to call God a mass murderer, as if He is subject to some human rights law which says he has to give people 80 years of life.

2. Was it reasonable for God to kill the Canaanites? The reason for this judgement in OT is not their race- it is sin. In addition to divination, witchcraft, and female and male temple sex, Canaanite idolatry encompassed a host of morally disgusting practices that mimicked the sexually perverse conduct of their Canaanite fertility gods: adultery, child abuse, bestiality, and incest. Worst of all, Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. So, holy war is a matter of God judging these people for their depraved level of sinfulness.

3. Why did God use a holy war as opposed to another method of judgement? The manner of their destruction probably reflects something of the destruction they had wreaked on others. See Judges 1:7- “ThenAdoni-Bezek said, “Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off have picked up scraps under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them.” Obviously, the Canaanite nations were saturated in brutal and barbaric wars with one another, if this king has done this to 70 others. God has had enough and is stepping in to bring his judgement on them in the only language which they will understand.

4. Why the killing of everyone, including women and children? For starters, there is good evidence to suggest that the language used may have been deliberately hyperbolic- it probably didn’t literally mean everyone. It’s like us saying we’re going to walk all over our opponents in a football match- it’s not meant to be taken literally. Furthermore, most would have been driven out of the land rather than actually killed. However, the killing that did take place was the nature of holy war- communicating in their cultural language God’s total rejection of their culture. An analogy may be that during wartime, things are done which ordinarily would never be contemplated-eg bombing towns risking civilians’ lives. In World War 2, after Hitler began bombing hospitals and synagogues in London- there was only 1 way to communicate with him- to flatten his own country. It’s easy for us now to look down our nose at such a strategy but when you are on the receiving end of such ruthless and barbaric tactics from such an enemy, you cannot merely respond with gestures of peace and good will. So the judgement of the Canaanites may seem harsh according to our modern sanitized standards, but may have been the only thing to communicate to these hardened peoples that their sin was no longer going to be tolerated. 

5. Does this not give religious people a precedent for violence today? For example, if I thought God told me to kill someone today, should I do it? No, that is like deciding to murder a German today because I read a history of an assassination attempt taken against Hitler in WW2.  The instructions given about holy war were for a very specific time and situation- they were not general rules for normal life. So if I thought God commanded me to murder someone or go to war: this would go against whole thrust of scripture, and contradict many commands of scripture. I would therefore conclude it is far more likely I am being deceived in thinking God told me to do this.

The challenge about holy war in the Bible is certainly a difficult one. However, when thought through properly in terms of its historical context we can see the reasons why such unpleasant historical accounts may be present in our Bible.

Should we be afraid of God?

I had an older brother who was very wicked in many respects, and it was a provision of God, because it has given me plenty of good sermon illustrations. One very wicked thing I remember witnessing my brother do one day was the time our youth fellowship visited a young family from our church. They had a little girl about 5 years old, and this little girl had an imaginary cat she was quite attached to. Apparently it is quite common for children, particularly when they are an only child, to play with an imaginary friend. This little girl, Joanne, had an imaginary cat she was devoted to- she would pat it, feed it, sleep with it, take it everywhere, and show it to everybody.

We were sitting round this family’s lounge room, and someone suggested that Joanne introduce us to her little cat. She very foolishly agreed to let us pass it around the room, and each of us had a pat and said something complimentary about it- until it reached my brother Stephen. Stephen I guess had a strong conviction that kids should face reality, and get over their imagination, so Stephen received the cat, gave it a few pats, and then promptly put it into his mouth. He gave it a few chews, and then with a big gulp, swallowed it. At first poor Joanne thought it was a bit of a joke, but when she asked for her cat back, Stephen said, “I’m sorry, I’ve eaten him. I can’t give him back- he’s scattered throughout my digestive system”. I think even Stephen felt a little guilty after seeing Joanne break down into wails of grief on the passing of her imaginary cat.

Today I want to do what my brother did to Joanne that day- to snatch from you, not an imaginary cat, but an imaginary god which you may carry around with you. I want to confront you with the brute reality of what the true God is really like. Because many Christians carry around with them an imaginary god- and they have ceased to worship the true God.  Moses over and over again warns the Israelites of the danger of idolatry- and what is idolatry? It is creating an idol and worshipping it instead of the true God- it is dumbing God down, and creating an imaginary God, a god who conforms to what they might like to imagine what God is like- instead of what the true God is really like.

A few years ago a survey was done in Australia about teenagers views on life and religion, and they found that consumerism reigned supreme. Most teenagers viewed God as a sort of heavenly butler- a God who exists to serve them when they are in need, a God who may be called upon, but who preferably should stay out of sight except when required. He is like an imaginary cat we carry around with us, to comfort us, to speak to when we get lonely, to make us feel better. He exists to come to our rescue when we get in trouble. He is a teddy-bear God. He is a God who never gets angry, He never makes demands of us, other than suggesting we try to be nice, and try to make ourselves happy.

Similar to this is the “old man upstairs” God or the “my best mate” Jesus. A classic picture of this idea of God is in the movie Bruce Almighty- where Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter, is having a rough time in life, and so he complains that God isn’t doing his job very well. Consequently God, appearing just as a laid-back humble sort of guy dressed in white overalls, meets up with Bruce,  and says to him, “Well, if you think it’s so easy being God, I’ll give you a go of being God and see if you can do any better”. So he lets Bruce be God to see what it’s like. And what is God like according to Bruce Almighty? God just wanders around, appearing to people sporadically to give them a little gem of wisdom here and there. When Bruce blasphemes to God’s face, God just responds with a little chuckle, and plays a practical joke on him to get him back. God is just a very tolerant friendly fun-loving family uncle who tries his best, who never gets angry, who finds it hard to get around to listening to everybody’s prayers, let alone answering them, who needs to go on holidays every now and then, and who exists to provide amusement  to people he takes a shine to.

What is God really like? Well, God is a God of love. God is a God of faithfulness. God does care about us. God is always near to us. It is right that we call to him when we are in times of trouble. But God is also a God of holiness and righteousness. God is a God of great majesty and power. God is a God we should fear. God is  a God of anger and judgement. Really? An angry God? Well, does it anger you to hear of terrorist madmen beheading and crucifying random individuals for the most trivial of crimes? Does it anger you that the most common offence local courts deal with is possession of child pornography and sexual assault? Does it anger you that now one of the biggest types of child abuse comes from children abusing other children in the playground because they have become so messed up? Should it anger you that there are so many countries in which the masses are living in abject poverty, and yet they are run by a corrupt dictator who uses his people’s suffering to live a life of luxury in a palace?

God is a God of righteous anger. God is a God of jealousy- righteous jealousy. This is the God which Israel encountered at Mt Sinai. And when Israel meets God at Mt Sinai, and God gives them His 10 commandments to live by. What happens? Israel starts trembling. The people of Israel think they are going to die. God is a God who makes us afraid when we come near to him.

Should we fear God? I’ve heard many Christian people want to back away from this thing about fearing God. And they say, fearing God is not actaully being afraid of God. Wait a minute. What is the difference between having fear and being afraid? Isn’t it exactly the same thing? And at Mt Sinai, weren’t the people afraid? Some people say, fearing God is just respecting God. But I’d want to say it’s more than respecting God. Reverence is getting closer, but I’d say it is still not close enough. Awe? Yes, but does awe make you tremble? Does awe make you feel like you’re going to die? That’s what happens in the Bible when people meet God.

When Jesus’ closest disciples see Jesus revealed in glory up the Mount of Transfiguration- what is their response? It says they were terrified. John was one of Jesus’ closest disciples, He walked with him for 3 ½ years, He is so close to Jesus that he lays his head on his breast to show his affection. That was before Jesus died. But when John sees the risen, exalted glorified Jesus, Revelation 1 tells us he falls down at his feet as if he was dead. He was overwhelmed. He was speechless. He was overcome.  And Jesus touches him, and says, “do not fear”. You see, his natural response was utter fear. Then Jesus lifts him up, and says, ‘you may have confidence in my presence’. But you know what we have lost- we have lost that sense of natural fear.

No one has explained this better than CS Lewis in the Narnia tales when the 2 beavers are describing who Aslan is to the 4 children. Lucy says, ‘Is Aslan a man?’ ‘Certainly not’, replied the beaver. ‘Aslan is a lion- the lion, the great lion, the king of the beasts’. ‘Oh’, said Susan, ‘I thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous meeting a lion’. ‘That you will, dearie, and no mistake’, said Mrs Beaver. ‘If there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly’. ‘Then he isn’t safe?’ asked Lucy? ‘Safe?’ said Mr Beaver. ‘Who said anything about safe? Of course he isn’t safe. But He’s good. He’s the king’.  “I’m longing to meet Him, even if I do feel frightened when it comes to the point” said Peter.

Should we fear God? Yes, we should fear God. But of course, there is something more which Christians can also do. We can also love God. If we just fear God, we will run away in terror from Him. But if we fear God and love God, then we will be drawn to worship Him. Because that is what worship is- it is a response to God of the fear of God and the love of God perfectly mingled together.

Do you fear God? You should. Because you don’t even have to read the Bible to discover that at the heart of our universe, at the heart of our existence, there is someone who is infinitely majestic and awesome. At the heart of the universe is someone who is infinitely great. Behind this physical world we see and touch, there is something or someone utterly majestically awesome. At the heart of our universe, exists a being who is unimaginably powerful- He is the one who created a star in the sky for us which lets off a 400 million tonne hydrogen  bomb every second in its core, to keep us nice and warm on planet earth.  He is the one who is unimaginably big- not in his physical size, but in his scope, the extent of His influence. He created a universe that is at least 100 billion light years in diameter. You could travel nonstop at 8.5 million miles per hour during a lifetime of 80 full years, and the distance would total about one light year – and that’s just all we are able to see at the moment- who knows how bigger the universe actually is. I think it’s telling that God allowed us only to discover how big the universe actually is in the twentieth century, when our human arrogance and pride with its technology reached a maximum, just so that we would know something of how puny and insignificant we are in comparison to Him.

He is a God who is infinitely clever – He has written the code for the DNA for each living thing on earth, and it is vastly more complicated than all the computer programs we have ever written put together. Do you know if you were to get hold of a tiny piece of our DNA, the size of a pinhead, and write out the information content of that tiny DNA, how many average size books would you need to write it all down? 10 books ? 20 books? A stack of books as high as the ceiling? No, as high as the distance from earth to the moon, and back- multiplied by 500. He is an infinite God.

He is a God who is infinitely beautiful. Do you know why all around the earth everywhere we look, we see things of beauty? Because God Himself is an infinitely beautiful being- His creation is an expression of His nature.  Furthermore- God is also infinitely pure and righteous and holy. He is perfectly loving.  Our levels of morality just do not cut it. No wonder the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No wonder that when God gave his 10 commandments to the Israelites at Mt Sinai, their response was one of fear.

Some people ask- where did God come from? Answer- He has always existed. Some people ask- why does God exist? Consider this- God is the source of existence itself. God is self-existent. Existence comes from God. The question should be- why does the concept of existence exist? The very property of existence comes from God.

Can you see why it is right for you to fear Him? Can you see why, when you are brought into His presence, you will fall down, and you will be speechless? Can you see why in Revelation 4, we read about 4 living creatures, angelic creatures- they are in God’s throne room, and all they ever do, day in, day out- year after year, century after century- all they ever do- is cry out “Holy Holy Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come. ” You see, a really good movie, a really good football game, it might keep us captivated for an hour or two- eyes to the screen. But if you are in the presence of God, you will be overwhelmed and awe-struck with the infinite beauty and glory of God- it will captivate you for all eternity. Do you follow?

Can you see how blasphemous it becomes to commit idolatry, and bring God down to our level, and make Him our heavenly butler, who exists to serve us? Can you see how wrong it is to trivialise God, to say, “I’m doing fine in my life, I don’t need to worry about God too much”. The question is not whether we need God- of course we need God. The real question is, ‘how much do you owe God?’ The answer is an awful lot. An infinite amount.
There are many people in our society, they don’t worry too much about God. I don’t know if you’ve ever thought like this- most people don’t worry about God, and they seem to get on okay. You know, they never really talk about God on any of your morning breakfast shows, yet they seem to be happy sorts of people. The consensus of our society seems to be that the main thing in life is to try to be a decent person, but if you want to talk about God, well, that’s just an optional extra. It’s not important. But do you know, there is something more powerful and more compelling than the consensus of our society that we don’t need to worry about God. That is, the reality that there is an infinitely glorious and holy God. His glory compels us to worship Him- no matter how many millions of people around us neglect him.

You might go through times where you think- I have tried Christianity, it hasn’t worked for me. My life is no different from a non-christian. My Christian life is just a struggle, and sometimes I wonder if it’s worth the bother. But there is something greater than our disappointments and failures- the infinite glory of God still compels you to worship him, whether you have made something of your life or not. You may have been hurt and discouraged by the behaviour of other Christians in your life- and you think, if that is how Christians can behave, I’m going to forget about Christianity. But there is something that transcends the many failures and sinfulness of other Christians- the infinite glory of God compels you to worship Him, whether you have been wounded by the sins of Christians or not.  You might say, I have unanswered questions which trouble me from time to time. Ok, that’s fine, but the reality of an infinitely glorious God still compels you to worship him, whether you ever get those questions answered or not.

God is a God whose nature demands your worship. When the day comes in which you stand before Him, you will be full of fear, because suddenly you will be full of an awareness of how miserably inadequate you have lived your life, how you’ve failed to live up to the 10 commandments, and how you are deserving of his judgement. But there is one more thing. There is another mountain in the Bible where God revealed Himself at. Just like Mt Sinai, this mountain surrounded by darkness, there were earthquakes, people were trembling. But God didn’t descend from a cloud and speak from Heaven. This time the great infinite God of the universe had taken upon Himself a human body- just like you and me- and His destination was a wooden cross at Mt Calvary. There 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ, God in human body, was crucified. And in the death of God the Son, an amazing transaction was completed- the penalty was paid for all our failures and sinfulness, and sinful human wretches like you and me can now stand accepted and forgiven before an infinitely perfect God.

The Bible says, For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. All that we have to do is place our faith in Jesus, who did this incredible act on our behalf, so brilliant it could only have come from the mind of God- we must place our faith in Him, and we will stand accepted, and forgiven before God- and we will not only just fear God, but we will also love him, as our Heavenly Father.

We cannot trivialise God. We dare not procrastinate with God. The infinite God of the universe demands your worship, your allegiance, your obedience. Maybe you realise that you’ve just been treating God as a low priority amongst all the other busy things of your life- and you realise that in fact you’re guilty of idolatry- because you have trivialised God of His glory, and imagined him to be far less glorious than what he really is. You have imagined him to exist for your purposes on the rare occasion that you need Him, rather than realising that you exist totally for his purposes. If that’s you, then you need to repent, before you come under the judgement of a totally holy God for your idolatry. There is mercy for us in Jesus, freely available for us all- but we must not, we dare not take this mercy lightly. We must cast ourselves upon it while we may.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

If you had 10 words to share with the world, what would be the most important thing you could say? Of course, in days gone by that would be a totally hypothetical question, but in today’s world, it’s a very real question. Everyday we are now bombarded with  hundreds of little 10 word sayings from social media, each of which have the potential to take off and get millions of views, if only we get enough other people to pass them on. So, if you had to reduce the most important thing in the world to just 10 words, what would you say? I want to suggest to you that we have 10 words from Jesus in Mark 1:15 which sums up his whole message. So, what does he say?

Jesus uses different language to the way we put things. We develop our own little Christian clichés and slogans to talk about Christianity- we talk about inviting Jesus to be our “own personal Saviour”, we talk about “Asking Jesus to come into your heart”, we talk about “going to Heaven when we die”. Some of these slogans are ok, some are better than others. The problem with Jesus’ slogan and His terminology is that I’m not sure it is an incredibly catchy slogan today. It’s not all that clear what he means, it doesn’t relate instantly to our culture. But if we are really going to understand Christianity properly, it really helps to go back to what Jesus was on about- even if we then adapt his language for our society today.

What is Jesus slogan? He says, “the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel.” Let’s think about these first 5 words – “the kingdom of God is near.” The gospel according to Jesus is that the kingdom of God is arriving. This doesn’t relate hugely well to us, because we don’t live in kingdoms anymore- well, technically we do- long live the queen- but really we have prime ministers, and elections, and senates, and double dissolutions- and kingdoms don’t really enter too much into our thinking these days. But the kingdom- this is Jesus’ gospel. This is really the message of the whole Bible- starting back in Genesis 1, where God tells man to rule the earth in his image- on through to the reign of King David in the Old Testament, whose kingdom was said to be an everlasting kingdom- Jesus in the gospels, Paul in Acts- right through to Revelation- where Jesus is said to be king of kings and lord of lords. If you look through Jesus’ teaching in the gospels- kingdom is the slogan used again and again, kingdom is the core concept which everything revolves around.

Jesus comes preaching the gospel about his kingdom. Gospel of course means great news- it was the word which was used by the Romans often to signify important news about the emperor- a messenger would come to a town proclaiming the latest important news about the king- our king has been victorious in battle; a baby has been born to the king; we have a new king who has been crowned today. It was the latest big news. So when the New Testament writers talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is this in the background- there is a new king who has come- He is the greatest king of all- His rule will change everything- His name is Jesus Christ. But the other background to the word gospel comes from Isaiah 40, where Mark quotes from in verses 2-3.

Isaiah 40 starts a new section of Isaiah- and it starts with good news. “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” What’s he saying? The hard times are over. Judgement is past. Verse 3: A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” God is coming. Look at v9. “Go on up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news;lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” 10 Behold, the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. 11 He will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.” There is it- the gospel is that God is king, and He is coming. One more verse from Isaiah. 52:6- “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”” This is the gospel. And so, when Jesus says- the kingdom of God is near- repent and believe the gospel- this is the gospel he is talking about, and He is claiming to be the one Himself who brings God’s kingdom to earth. The kingdom of God is coming- in Him, right now.

What did Jesus mean by saying- his kingdom was near? Because last time I looked,  our world is still a pretty messed up place. Let me summarise what Jesus meant by the gospel of his kingdom with 5 statements.

1. Jesus’ kingdom is a spiritual kingdom.
When people heard Jesus say- the kingdom of God is near- they probably thought of a soldier riding into Jerusalem on a warhorse. Jesus teaching of the kingdom is very different. In Mark 4- he explains how his kingdom will come- and he doesn’t use the image of a soldier, he uses the image of a farmer, planting seeds in a field- and those seeds slowly growing over time- until at the end of the world, there will be harvest time. Then there will be a public, physical kingdom- and there- evil, corruption, injustice, death itself will be done away with. But the present nature of the kingdom which Jesus was instituting was a spiritual one. Jesus was not coming to set people free from Caesar, or Herod, or any other earthly human ruler. Jesus was coming to set us free from our spiritual slavery- because that is our big problem- not our political system, or our educational system or our economy. The big problem we have is we have a heart which is enslaved- we worship idols of money, of sex, of religion, of status- idols which we don’t even know about- we are addicted to loving ourselves, we are in slavery to sin, and ultimately, we’re enslaved to Satan. Jesus comes to interrupt our world on a spiritual level, by setting individuals free- and bringing them into a new spiritual kingdom of freedom.

2. We need to enter into Jesus kingdom.
Jesus talks a lot about entering his kingdom. Usually, he talks about our entering the future kingdom- “going to Heaven when you die” if you like. Sometimes he talks about us being in his kingdom now. For example, Mt 11:11- “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”. Jesus talks about how we enter his kingdom- he gives several different images for how we do that. For example- Mt 18:3- “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn andbecome like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Later Paul describes us who are Christians as being already in God’s kingdom- Col 1:13- He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

So the question we need to ask ourselves is- do I belong God’s kingdom yet? Have I entered into it? Are you a citizen of Australia?  The answer is yes or no, not I hope so. Yet many people say they hope they are a Christian. You are either in God’s kingdom or you’re not in God’s kingdom yet. And if you never become a citizen of God’s spiritual kingdom in this life, then you will never enter into God’s physical kingdom in the world to come.

3. God’s kingdom enters into us.
Not only do we enter God’s kingdom, but God’s kingdom enters into us, and demonstrates its presence in our lives and in the world around us. Luke 18:17-  “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” We receive the kingdom of God- it comes within us- and Jesus starts to be Lord in our life. And the kingdom of God makes its presence felt around us. Mat 12:28- But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Luke 10:8 “Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’” As God’s people live in our world, people should see the kingdom of God bursting out of us in all of its life, and so, they see the kingdom of God coming near to them.

Like in the novel- The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe- Aslan has arrived to rescue Narnia from reign of White Witch. The children are on a hike through snow to meet with Aslan- and what do they see? They see the snow melting, flowers starting to bloom, birds start to chirp, and signs of spring are everywhere to be seen. Why? Because Aslan is on the move. His kingdom is coming, his kingdom is invading. God’s kingdom invades our world now- the signs of the future kingdom are to be revealed in us right now- as God’s people show the beauty of God’s coming kingdom- in way we live, in compassion we show, in way injustice is dealt with. The kingdom of God is appearing, in our lives, and through our lives around us. A really good question to consider- what would it look like for the kingdom of God to invade my workplace? Where does the kingdom need to come? Where is there sin? Injustice? Sadness? Fear? How does God want me to announce his kingdom?

4. God’s kingdom is a subversive kingdom.
God’s kingdom operates differently to the kingdoms we are used to. Jesus says some fairly outlandish things. He says- in my kingdom- blessed are the poor in spirit- for theirs in the kingdom. Blessed are those who mourn. Blessed are the meek. He say- in my kingdom the first shall be last, and the last first. The rich will barely find a place in the kingdom. The religious will often be thrown out, and sinful no-hopers will be rescued. In my kingdom it is more important to serve than it is to be served. It’s more important to be generous than it is to be rich. It’s more important to be pure in your heart than correct in your theology. God’s kingdom is one which will challenge our natural way of thinking over and over again. It challenges our selfishness and the way we live.

It’s a little bit like Jarryd Hayne, Rugby League superstar, returns to break into the NFL- American football- for his second season. And when he returns, he gets interviewed by a reporter, and he says- I’ve got an important announcement. The days of the NFL are coming to an end. The NRL is coming to America. He says- at the end of this season, I’m going to return to Australia, I’m going to bring back an incredible team, called the NSW Blues, we’re going to play another fairly crummy team called the QLD Maroons, and when all America sees how we crush the Maroons, they will never play NFL again, they’ll all just start playing NRL. The NRL is coming. So now- Jarryd says- the time has come guys. I have come to set you free- from your shoulder pads and helmets. You need repent of all these forward passes you’re throwing. From now on, you need to stop all this constant subbing on and off- everybody gets to play all the time, except you get 4 on your interchange bench, but just 4, no more. And the ball, it’s going to change shape, it’s too pointy. A new era of true football is coming, and it begins now. God’s kingdom has invaded our world in the person of Jesus, and in Jesus people, the kingdom of God continues to invade and express itself, showing a glimpse of the future to come.

5. God’s kingdom is entered through death and resurrection.
The most surprising thing of all about Jesus kingdom- is that his kingship is inaugurated through the death of the king. The king dies for the sake of his subjects. Above Jesus head, there was the sign placed- this is the king of the Jews. Ironically, they were proclaiming a central truth of God’s kingdom without even knowing it- that God’s kingdom is begun and is experienced through the death of its king, and through his resurrection. And for us, we enter God’s kingdom and experience God’s kingdom through our death and resurrection- coming to an end of our old life, and beginning a new life through His Holy Spirit within us. Jesus says- “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

This is Jesus message for the world. His kingdom is near. And so, the mission Jesus has entrusted us with is to declare this truth- God’s kingdom is here. God’s kingdom is breaking in. God wants to pull us further into his kingdom, He wants to push his glorious kingdom deeper into us, and through us to the world around us.

Why would God test his people?

Why would God deliberately take his people for a wander in the wilderness after setting them free from Egypt instead of travelling up a road straight to Canaan? Well, it is quite clear what God was doing. God was testing His people. Exodus 16:4 says “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.” (See also 15:25). God testing his people? Doesn’t that sound a bit rough? I mean, what sort of tests are these, starving people and making them parched with thirst in the desert? A pretty tough test, isn’t it?

Well, we mustn’t get the idea here that this is sort of a like a test to see if the Israelites made the grade – and if they didn’t they were going to get punished by God. These tests were rather primarily designed to teach the Israelites, not to fail the Israelites. Remember what James says- “My brothers, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.” God was teaching the Israelites important lessons – that is why God did not respond to the Israelites complaints here with judgement but rather with a gracious provision for their needs.

It’s like what we’ve got in Exodus 20:20, where Moses says, “God has come to test you, that the fear of Him might be before you, that you may not sin”.  Why was God testing? What was He trying to teach the Israelites? Firstly, He was teaching them to obey God’s word. The Israelites, and us today as well, have a stubborn habit of assuming that we know better than God and don’t need to follow His instructions. Secondly, He was teaching them to rely on God’s provision- the Israelites needed to learn that God was their provider and could be relied on. Thirdly, He was teaching them that God’s way was the good way- the manna tasted great! We need to trust that ultimately, God’s way is the best way to live, although the pathway sometimes can be challenging in the short term.

 

Questions about the Passover Feast

Exodus 12 is a chapter which raises a number of questions which are common types of questions applied to many passages in the Old Testament. So hopefully these questions here will not only help in understanding Exodus 12, but other passages also.

Why is there so much detail about this Passover meal in Exodus 12?
This chapter contains the details for later generations of Israel to prepare one of their most important meals of the entire year- like a list of instructions for how to prepare a Christmas dinner for somebody who had never had one before!

Why the blood on the doorpost?
This seemed a rather gory task! But it provided God’s people with a beautiful picture of what Christ’s sacrifice has done for us. We are safe from the judgement of God when we shelter “under the blood of Christ”, and the judgement of God passes over us.

Why the rule about the yeast?
Yeast was commonly used as a metaphor for sin in Bible times.

Why such a harsh punishment for breaking the rule about yeast? (v19) It’s quite possible that the phrase “cut off” does not necessarily refer to execution, but rather excommunication from the congregation. Furthermore, it is likely that these harsh punishments were rarely enforced. Having said this, there really should be little excuse for the Israelites who personally had seen God work such miracles for failing to obey Him in simple instructions like this. Such disobedience would be a sign of willful rebellion against the God who had so powerfully and openly saved them from slavery.

Was God’s judgement on the Egyptians fair? A few things need to be remembered in considering God’s acts of judgements in the OId Testament. Firstly, God is not obliged to give everybody 80 years of life. It is not a moral matter if God should take a life of somebody before they are old. Thus, the death of all the firstborn is not necessarily a judgement on each one of them specifically, but rather a general judgement on the nation of Egypt. As such, it was no different than any natural disaster in which many people have their lives cut short. While we may wrestle with why God allows any such event in the world, this event should be understood in a similar way to a natural disaster. Thus, the general judgement occurred against the nation of Egypt in general, and probably not against all of the specific Egyptians involved.