Not Here to Quilt: Mark 2

One of the great things about Mark's Gospel is that he records Jesus as a man of action, as one who gets right to the work that He was there to do. John, Luke, and Matthew record both action and parables, but the pacing by all three of those is slower. Mark writes like he's putting together an action film, Matthew more of a contemplative movie, Luke wrote a miniseries with two parts (Luke and Acts), and John wrote a multi-part theological documentary.

Mark wrote the nuts-and-bolts of the life of Christ. It's for this reason that I have shifted my guidance to new believers or those trying to start a Bible-reading habit. Formerly, I recommended one start by reading the Gospel of John as their starting point. John's great, but I now recommend starting by reading Mark and then 1 John. Mark to get the first look through the life of Christ and 1 John to began to grasp the theology underneath it.

Mark 1 gives you the opening of the life and ministry of Jesus, and Mark 2 (link)  gets you straightway into His ministry. He's in Capernaum on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee. Mark makes the reference in Mark 2:1 that it was heard the Jesus was "home" when He was there. We tend to think of Jesus as being completely homeless, and I think that during the bulk of His ministry He essentially was (Matthew 8:20), though I think it was by choice. He certainly had not invested His life into houses and earthly wealth that He did not need.

The issue at hand, though, is not where He lives but what He teaches while He's there and elsewhere. Let's take that and see what we gather:

First: He's teaching in a house (possibly His own) and we see four men bringing a paralyzed man to Him, cutting a hole in the roof, and lowering the man down to Jesus. Jesus promptly seizes the moment, tells the man his sins are forgiven, and sends him out of the room. Before the crowd clears out of the way, though, Jesus acknowledges what the people in the room are thinking: No one has the right to forgive sins not committed against them.

No one.

Yet Jesus takes the prevailing idea of the time, that sin and affliction were the direct result of sin, and turns that on its head right in front of everyone. Now, it's possible that the people knew why this particular person was paralyzed—maybe he had actually brought it on himself, but we do not know now. Jesus asks a very direct question: Which is easier? Forgiveness or healing? This question hits the point: forgiveness is hard to do but easy to say—healing is easy to say but hard to do, and the crowd would have expected no healing without forgiveness. So Jesus pronounces both.

It's a serious opening salvo in His preaching. He is putting forth that He will not be just another rabbi along the way. Truly, much of what He does will follow in the pattern of the rabbis before Him, but this is different. He does not stop with this one pronouncement, though.

He goes on to accept a tax collector as a disciple, eat with sinners and tax collectors (Jesus came to save both parties: sinner Republicans and tax collector Democrats), corrects the religious misunderstanding of who He is, upends unnecessary legalism about holy days, and speaks forward of His death.

All of this is summarized when He points out that He's not here to quilt. That is, He is not here to put a new patch on an old cloth or to put new wine into old wineskins, but rather He is here to show what the garment looks like brand new. To show how things ought to work from the beginning. No one before Him or after Him can make that claim: He is the One with that authority.

Our old lives, bound up in sin and selfishness, driven by rebellion against God, all must pass away and be remade by Him in us. We cannot squeeze Him into our religion but must be transformed by the Word of God, shown in His life and His teachings.

Today's Nerd Note: There is much debate today regarding whether or not Jesus held material riches in His lifetime. There are actually a few books and preachers that fully hold that He not only had enough, but actually was quite wealthy in His earthly life. One point of disagreement with those who hold this view is the above mentioned passage that notes Jesus telling one of the disciples that He "had no place to lay his head."

That is, of course, not exactly true of His whole life as we see in this passage where His being "home" is referenced. However, there's a pretty big gap between recognizing that Jesus had a home before He started His obvious ministry and that He was always rich and healthy and happy.

This does not bear out throughout His ministry. There is little Scripture to support that He lived in abject poverty, but He also lived at a level lower than He deserved. Given that all of Heaven was His, all of Creation was His, and He instead took on the form of servant, then even if you found ancient chariot titles made out in His name, would you not agree that He was poor on this earth? (Philippians 2:5-11)

In that, we should follow His example and not seek more than we truly need and can truly use for His glory. After all, all that we have is His if we are His.

Book: A Commentary on the Psalms Volume 1: 1-41

Just a warning: the following post is a book review generated by sending me a free book to review. So, if reading book reviews is not your thing, or if you think that Kregel required me to be happy in my review, or any other such, you might skip this. Otherwise, here you go: (and, for the record, they required nothing of me. I do not recommend books I honestly do not like. See here for one I got free and did not recommend.)

This week, I have had the pleasurable task of reading through the over 800 pages of Allen P. Ross's commentary on Psalms 1-41. Here's a picture of the cover:

Now, writing a review of a commentary is not quite in my academic skillset. Or at least, I do not quite have the credentials to tell you if Dr. Ross, professor of divinity, has properly or improperly parsed his Hebrew verbs. Even if I thought I found a mistake, the right assumption for me is that I am confused about it and that he's right. Not that I found anything of those issues within the text, but that is not what I am qualified to address.

What I do feel qualified to get into with this text is its usefulness for plain old pastors like me. I have the average amount of education in the Hebrew language for most preachers: I passed it in seminary and promptly passed it from my mind. I will, then, take a look at this and how well it can be used by someone who remembers, vaguely, that there's some vocal shewa thing out there, and that the letters go right-to-left.

Ross opens his commentary appropriately: one cannot produce an academic study of a Biblical book without addressing setting, authorship, and textual issues. These usually lump under "Introductory Matter" but the Psalms are a different sort of challenge. While one can debate the author of Hebrews, for example, one will generally concede that no more than one or two individuals are behind the book. The Psalms could have one author (or more) per Psalm, so it takes a broader introduction to deal with them.

Ross presents first an effort to explain why we should study the Psalms. As beautiful as they are, it is often tempting to just chalk them up as poems to be enjoyed rather than also material to be studied. He presents evidence why there should be more than just casual appreciation of the poetry present.

He also well explains the challenge of translating the Psalms into English given the linguistic differences in general and the special challenge of translating poetry not only from one language to another but one culture to another. This involves some discussion of Hebrew language, including verb tenses and forms, but the discussion is not excessively technical.

There is a good background discussion of such issues as the numbering of the Psalms, the divisions of the Psalter into Five Books, and the headings that are present with some psalms. Further, Ross acknowledges some of the current theories regarding the origins of the Psalms and provides a defense of the more traditional interpretation of those origins.

He also addresses the original Hebraic divisions in the Psalter of five books, of which this commentary deals only with the first book, Psalms 1-41.

The explanation of the structure of poetry is well done, with examples shown in English for the reader to see the point. The introductory material draws from all of the Psalms, though the individual psalms to be considered are only the first 41.

Each psalm is given its own chapter, where the text is examined. Ross presents his own translation of the psalm and footnotes any major textual issues or translation arguments. I could rehash here my preference for seeing a standard translation used, but that is more of a concern in books intended for popular rather than research use. However, it is noteworthy that all of the English Biblical text in this book is the author's own translation, and so should be compared to a quality Bible translation. (Or your amazing Hebrew skills if you 've got 'em.)

These chapters then address the meaning likely behind the psalm, any special circumstances that led to it, and any poetic structures worth noting. Each chapter concludes with a summary of the message and application of the psalm in question. These sections provide clarity and a stepping-stone for the reader to help find the fuller idea in the text. The Hebrew used is well explained, though a bit of familiarity with the language smooths out the reading of Ross's text.

Ross uses the standard English all-caps LORD for the tetragrammaton YHWH rather than rendering the English equivalent. Some will fault that, others will praise it, and most of us will just see it as normal. In a reality from the digital era, it's not the KJV method of small-caps on the ORD, but a fully capitalized word, which web browsers and e-readers can handle. If you think that we should see Yahweh in al of those places, you will be disappointed.

It is one man's point of view on the Psalms and specifically on the first 41 of them. He comes from a text-first point-of-view and presents his information accessibly, so I am glad to have the book on my shelf and recommend that anyone seeking an academic look at the Psalms have it as well.

Buyer's Note: You can buy direct from Kregel here. Or from Amazon here. Be careful on Amazon—a pair of third-party sellers have this book listed under a slightly different title and it's currently $1,000. It's good. It's not that good. The full title is:

Kregel Exegetical Library: A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: 1-41. ISBN: 978-0825425622

It’s Party Time! Exodus 23

Back to the Old Testament today, we continue going through the whole Bible by taking a look at Exodus 23 (link). As we take a look through here, the highlight of the chapter is the prescription of three annual feasts for the people of Israel. They are to gather three times a year and worship God together as His people.

The first celebration is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This commemorates the deliverance of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. We also know from earlier accounts (Exodus 12:38) that there were many who were not of the descendants of Jacob who joined God’s people in that time. It is a celebration that prefigures the deliverance of humanity from the curse of sin, and it is commanded to be recognized by all of God’s people.

The second celebration is the Feast of the Harvest of First Fruits, celebrating the initial results of the agricultural efforts for the year. This marked a time to remember God’s faithfulness, and was a reminder that no amount of human effort is enough. It takes the work of Almighty God to bring all to its fulfillment.

The third celebration is the Feast of the Ingathering. It’s at the end of the year, a reminder of the faithfulness of God to bring you through the year prior, a crying out to ask that He do the same in the year ahead.

Each of these Feasts are mentioned with the corporate command that every man is to appear before the Lord GOD (Yahweh Adonai, Hebrew for the covenant name of God and the Hebrew for “Lord, Master”). Every man in the country is supposed to be at one place at one time for this. Think about that for a few minutes, then come back. I should be done writing this by then.

Ok, finishing up: if every man in the country is at the Tabernacle (later, the Temple) for these religious festivals, who in the world is watching the border stations to make sure Israel does not get overrun at these times? The women are left, but this is a time that women generally did not fight in those types of battles. Further, the males are commanded to attend the Feasts, but the women are not forbidden and many likely would have made the trip—I see an opening here for the newly delivered or very pregnant mother to not have to journey. Think of the grace in that, compared to Caesar Augustus and his tax plan in Luke.

The idea that the countryside would be devoid of the usual wielders of the sword and bow leaves us with a few practical points. The first is that Israel was never intended to be a giant country. Think about it: some of the greatest geographic knowledge has been compiled by religious pilgrims across the years. That’s why Muslims of the late first millennium developed great maps, why nearly anyone Medieval could find Rome, why all Rednecks can get to Talladega. Pilgrims make long trips and figure out the routes and methods involved in travel. Yet these are sourced in annual (even once-in-a-lifetime, when you consider ticket prices) trips.

Not thrice-annual journeys. It would be nigh unto impossible to journey from even modern-day Syria to Jerusalem (or Shiloh) and back and still get the work done if you did it that often. So, Israel, by design, should have been a compact, close-knit country.

Second and more importantly, appearing before God to worship required the people to trust in God for their safety and security. That actually connects well to the remainder of this chapter. The rest of the chapter speaks of avoiding bearing false witness and granting the land its Sabbath years. Every seventh year, the land was not to be planted but to rest. The people had to depend on the harvest of year six and the wild growth of year seven to survive. That took faith.

It takes faith also to trust that justice will be served without lies and connivances. Consider how easy it seems to pervert the system even to this day—a few perjurers here, a shady lawyer there, and now the guilty walk free, the innocent can’t make bail, and you cannot find a way to stop electing, much less jail, the biggest criminals in America.

It took faith and that is what God is commanding. It takes faith to walk in obedience to God in all things, even when those things are hard. Where does it come from? That faith is planted in our hearts by God and grows through exercising in obedience. The first Sabbath year, they had to trust it would be okay before they saw it would. They had to gather to know they were safe--

So we must walk in obedience to know that it will all turn as He wills it, and that in the scope of eternity, He is glorified and we get to see and be joyful in that glory.

Today’s Nerd Note: The most famous Jewish Festival in modern in America is most likely Hanukkah (or Chanukah, or some form thereof). So, which of these three festivals is that?

None. The origin of Hanukkah falls in the second century B.C. during the Maccabean Revolt, which brought Judah independence from the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucid Empire had taken control of the realm of Judah after it was taken from the Persians by Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.

Hanukkah celebrates the Maccabean victory that liberated the Temple by remembering the miracle that happened in the process of purifying the Temple. Not being a Jew, I am not clear on all the aspects, but essentially it comes down to one night’s worth of lamp oil being miraculously used for eight nights. This was taken, rightly in my mind, as a sign of God’s blessing on the dedication and purification of the Temple and as a sign that marked the return of His favor on the Jewish People.

It’s important, but it’s not the most important or even second most important celebration. In a way, it is not unlike our national celebrations in the United States: we take off for the Fourth of July and Memorial Day, but not often for Patriot’s Day or Constitution Day. The latter are important, but not viewed as quite as important as the former.

Why, then, do we all seem to know Hanukkah? Easy. It falls near Christmas and for much of American history, the two dominant religious forces in this country have been Judaism and Christianity. Christianity rightly followed carries a deep respect for Judaism, and so it was important not to ignore the Jewish holiday that falls so close to the biggest American Christian holiday: Christmas. Plus, it made for a nice trade-off: the Christians could work on Hanukkah and the Jews on Christmas. And yes, I have heard physicians speak of such arrangements, alongside arrangements for the Christian doctors to work on all Saturdays and the Jewish doctors to work on Sundays.

Let’s Get Started: Mark 1

Opening Note: I’m going to work on alternating between Old Testament and New Testament. I’m not sure if it will alternate every day or part of the time, but we’ll bounce back and forth to break some of the monotony as we work through the Law and still go through the whole Bible.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at Mark 1 (link). Generally speaking, it appears that Mark is likely the earliest written of the Gospels, though that’s debatable. A good New Testament survey or quality study Bible will give you some of the different arguments.

Mark does not start as Matthew or Luke does in addressing the birth of Jesus or the announcement of His coming. Rather, Mark jumps straight in by bringing out the coming of John the Baptist and his role as the forerunner of Jesus.

John is one of those strange characters in Scripture. Other Gospel accounts give more of his heritage, but for Mark he just pops up in the wilderness, preaching repentance. Preaching repentance and pointing ahead toward Jesus, that is. Mark then gives us that Jesus comes to John and is baptized in the Jordan River. As this happens, the voice of God speaks from the heavens and commends not simply the message or methods of Jesus, but the person Himself. Mark records it as direct address: “You are my beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

While there is plenty of other material in the first chapter of Mark, camp out there in Mark 1:11. Consider what is being said here by God Almighty, that here is One who is actually pleasing to God. Without getting over-Greeky here, the phrasing shows that the “well-pleased” is a completed action. It doesn’t really refer to one specific action, but is a summary statement about all that has happened until this point in time. It does not, though, preclude the idea that it is possible for God to be more pleased with Jesus later—and that is actually what we see going through to the Cross.

God expresses that He takes pleasure in Christ. Contrast this by looking all the way back at Genesis 6:5 where the only thoughts of man are evil at all times, or by looking forward to Romans 3:23 where we see that all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus is the exception that proves the rule here: only the Begotten Son of God can actually live life that is pleasing to God.

That’s without the miracles, without the parables, even without the Cross and the Resurrection. In His very being, Jesus was pleasing to God. Fundamentally, this is something that is not true of us as descendants of Adam. We are born with a depravity that is inescapable apart from the work of grace from the hand of God.

This is the beginning that Mark gives us here: not just a beginning of miracles or teaching, but a beginning that declares from the start the very nature of this Jesus he will write about. The only One capable of pleasing God.

Today’s Nerd Note: Mark is one of three Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from the Greek words that mean “see” and “together” or “with.”  The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called this because they see the life of Jesus through very similar lenses.

That leads to some speculation that the three authors used common sources, or a common source, to develop their writings. It is entirely possible that this is the case. This does not, however, practically affect our response to these texts or our understanding of the inspiration of Scripture.

The inspiration of Scripture is the belief that the words of the Bible are not just the words of the human authors, but actually are the words of God Himself. As a conservative evangelical, I think this extends to the actual words of the original texts themselves, as penned by the authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is how source theory comes into the question: if Mark used a source, is the source inspired and Mark copied it or are only the words Mark used inspired? My response would be that the words that Mark used, wherever drawn from, would be the inspired words. Finding documents that help us undercover any of the potential source documents would be educational, but it would not shake any key doctrine: Mark’s use of the source is inspired, not the source itself.

Do NOT Break that Ox: Exodus 22

There are various parts of going through the whole Bible that will be easy to write about. The Resurrection of Christ. The Fall of Jerusalem. David and Goliath—even the book of Revelation will be a fun one to go through.

Right now, though, we're in Exodus. Exodus 22 (link) to be precise. Now, you could click on through and read this chapter and it would do you no harm whatsoever. You would, however, perhaps wonder a bit about how this bears on you. Let's break it into pieces.

Or, better yet, let's not. There are various theories of the writing of Exodus that put forward the idea of multiple authors and how that explains the seemingly convoluted nature of these chapters.

There is, however, another possibility. That possibility is this: the divisions we cast into life are more than just artificial, they are unsustainable. Looking in this chapter, we can actually see that.

Take the first section: there are rules and laws here about restoration of material when it has been borrowed, lost, or stolen. Addressed first is recompense for theft, and that is followed quickly with the discussion of the Exodus version of the Castle Doctrine: if someone is breaking in at night, then their death is on their own head if killed in the process. However, if it's daytime, that's not the case. If it's daytime, you are not to strike the thief that way but to capture him.

Then we see that allowing your animals to overeat your own food supply and then eat your neighbors' food is not allowable, either. Then there's info about how to handle loaned items disappearing.

It is, essentially, a solid defense of laws regarding the right of private property. People may reasonably demand restitution for their property losses and may even take a life if it seems that there is a potential for their own harm by one taking it. (That would be the reason for the night allowance of killing: it is hard to know what someone's intent is then, but not in the daytime. It is not killing to protect your material, but for your life.)

That's a great right-wing moment in Scripture. Here we can sit, glad to hold our own stuff and defend it, and count ourselves as doing the Word of God. We can expect a return from those who steal our stuff, we can lock the door and load the shotgun. It sounds great.

Yet it does not stand alone. Instead, following hard after this are commands regarding how other people are to be treated. Of special note is the command that a man who seduces an unmarried woman, he is responsible to go ahead and marry her. Not abandon her or pass her off as used goods for later. While we now find that a bit harsh and old-fashioned, it was likely an improvement over the treatment of girls at the time.

Tucked in are laws about executing those who corrupt religion and morality which were crucial then but are not the way we handle things now. It is of value to routinely ignore those who would violate these commands, but Hebrews 9:27 points out that judgment falls at death, and so just as God's grace has reached us before that point, so we strive to allow all we can to live out their natural years, praying for His grace to intersect.

Then we have a further development of the idea of care and compassion for those in need. Sojourners, immigrants are to be cared for. Widows and orphans provided for, the poor treated kindly and not exploited.

In short, it's the modern-day liberal's dream world: nobody should go hungry or cold, no meanness, no grumpy people anywhere. Yet one should consider this: the care for the needy is not extorted at the point of a sword, either.

It is here as life should be: there are both the needs of the many and the rights of the one, and these are not separate issues. It is only in a society that abhors theft and even negligent destruction of property that the ability exists to care for the poor, widows, and orphans. It is only in a place where people's hearts are moved to care for strangers and sojourners that you can trust others to mind your stuff.

We must come back to that place, together: compassion and caring and private property and justice and social needs are not opposites. They are portions of the composite that society must build on.

Of final, special note is Exodus 22:28. To the left, you ought to notice the first half of the verse. To the right, you ought to notice the second half of the verse. To the ones that rule and the ones that wish to rule: neither should you be a curse to the people, for keep this mind: the ultimate earthly authority in this country is the people who have consented to be ruled by you in accordance with the agreement that is the US Constitution. Whether you are a stubborn donkey or a blundering elephant, we the people retain the right of veto. Through the Constitutional Convention process now, but through the Continental Congress process if needed in the years to come.

Today's Nerd Note: It is somewhat of a giveaway of the presumptions of a Biblical scholar when you find out how they ascribe authorship of the Pentateuch. The ones who come to the text assuming divine inspiration will usually find a single author, though perhaps later editor, behind the text. They will see a unity in what is present.

Those with a more earth-bound view will readily split the text into multiple components, sometimes slicing Hebrew sentences in half, to ascribe to multiple groups of writers and editors a bundle of source texts. Then, a group of final editors generated the text as we see it now, but it is so far divorced from the claimed setting that it's no reflection of reality.

There would be exceptions, but that's the broad pattern of Biblical studies right now. It comes from this: the whole of the Pentateuch has some marvelous diversity of vocabulary and focus and it seems odd for one man to have done it. This is potentially true, but it is also possible that Moses authored the main text and that a few later edits and revisions were made, all under the inspiration of God.

The key, though, is this: God has preserved for us a unified text. Jesus referred to it as a unified text. That should be good enough. If it's not, then there are some good points to consider: some of the proponents of the "compilation view" suggest that too much of the Pentateuch sounds just like other writings of the mid-2nd millennia BC, so they think it must have been copied; those same folks suggest that it wasn't even written until the mid-1st millennia BC and was done to justify the existence of the Jews.

Here's the problem: the cultures that the literary forms are borrowed from (supposedly?): those cultures did not exist nor was there evidence of them at the time. Many of those cultures have been found by archaeologists who have used the Biblical text to kick start their work. Makes sense, right?

The Not Top Ten: Exodus 21

In modern days, we spend lots and lots of energy on the Ten Commandments. I think this is good energy, as those ten summarize well the covenant between God and Israel at Sinai and well summarize the principles that apply through this day. No amount of "we live under grace in this time" will convince me that stealing, murder, or adultery are now acceptable. This means even you, Congress and the White House. Even for you.

One can take the principles of the Ten Commandments and then spend quite a bit of energy debating how those flesh out in real life. For example, certainly I should not go forth and murder someone, but what happens if my cattle get loose and kill someone? Does that make me a murderer? What about assaults? How do I know what "honoring my mother and father" means?

With questions like this, we come into Exodus 21 (link). It is easy to get bogged down into these laws, and they constitute much of the remainder of Exodus and Leviticus. Here is the main thing that we should take from these laws:

There are implications in day-to-day life if you are going to live in covenant with God.

Those implications range from the biggest of issues to the smallest; from willful murder to negligent injury. It takes time to grind through how all of it would apply: compare how, in 200 years, the United States still cannot fully settle on the implications of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even the settled aspects, like judicial review as stated in Marbury v. Madison, are questioned by both political parties when convenient.

The people of Israel, though, do not have time to have their judges haggle out what constitutes "keeping the Sabbath." That's actually one of the issues we see coming forward to the New Testament era: over time that commandment became the basis for a substantial body of expectations and requirements. Instead, as we come through this passage and into the others, we see God give them directly the case law from which to settle those disputes.

We see that ethics and daily life can and should be informed and driven by God's commands and see how those come forward. Now, I am not going to subject you, dear blog readers, to a full-length exposition on the applicability of the whole Old Testament Law on the New Testament believer, but it is important to consider two things: 1) God does not change; 2) Culture and society do change.

Throughout the Law, what we see is the God-given direction for how an agrarian society lives in light of the covenant. Everyone at the time of the Law farmed, so giving and taxation are expressed in terms of produce and agricultural products. (Really, everyone did—the closest to a non-farmer was a Levite, supported by the giving and taxation.) There were no major government structures, there were no big highways to maintain, so the Law looks different than it would today.

An additional aspect of this issue comes from the situation of the time: the Israelites have lived under Egyptian law and are going to be influenced by other laws in the region. They have to find from their location what God truly wants. The Babylonians may have a good idea, but is it godly? That is part of the question at hand.

That's important: we have to extract the eternal principles as reflected in the more specific wording present. Here's an example:

Take a look at Exodus 21:28-29. Oxen goring people to death is not a major issue in modern America, but personal responsibility is. Here is the principle: an animal may do unpredictable things, and no person should be considered responsible for those things. Unless they knew it would happen. In the same way, there are unpredictable issues in life today—and it is reckless to hold someone responsible for those. However, if it is painfully obvious that those issues were predictable then the responsible party is just that: responsible.

Further, one should look at Exodus 21:24. This verse is often maligned today, most notably by those who quote Gandhi that "An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." The world situation then, though, was different. Look back at Genesis 4:23-24. Lamech voices the world's perspective: I don't get even, I go one up.

This is prohibited by God's law. Justice is about bringing equity for harm, not about vengeance beyond that equity.

Today's Nerd Note: Much ado is made of the laws regarding slavery. The presence of these laws have wrongly been cause for the perpetuation of slavery and for the dismissal of all of the Bible. The situation at the time was a world full of slavery. In a non-monetary society, slavery is practically unavoidable. Eventually, someone will have nothing to offer for trade besides their own labor for a time. Anyone in that situation becomes a slave—even if just for a season. The other source of slaves was conquest in battle. Given the choice between slavery and extermination, some chose slavery and others chose death.

As such, the Law provided much regarding the treatment of slaves. It was a reality of the times. It was unpleasant then, but we ought not take the presence of legal rules as absolute permission for the behavior now. Likewise, we no longer expect to see brothers marry widows or any other form of polygamy.

Like a Rock: Exodus 20

Exodus 20 (link.) You hardly even need a post about this chapter, do you? After all, these are the Ten Commandments. These are not really there to be debated but there to be obeyed. Let's take a look at both the Decalogue (Ten Words, see Today's Nerd Note) and the rest of the chapter.

I like Durham's summary title for the Ten Commandments section in the Word Biblical Commentary on Exodus: Yahweh's Principles for Life in Covenant. This gives us a proper starting point for understanding the idea here: the Ten Commandments are not the whole of the covenant between God and Israel or between God and humanity in general. Rather, they are the "executive summary" or "Powerpoint bullets" of the covenant.

Later, of course, we see Jesus summarize the covenant down almost to Twitterform: "Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength" (Mark 12:30) and "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12:31). Rightly considered, those two statements sum up the Ten Commandments, which are themselves a proper summary of the covenant that we see in the whole of the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy).

What, then, are the contents of this summary of the covenant, these basic principles? The first is not one of the commandments, exactly, but is critical to the discussion. It addresses identity: God identifies Himself by both name and deed: Yahweh, who brought the Israelites out of slavery. Between being the God Who Is and Who Created All Things and being the Deliverer of Israel, He establishes here His right to set the rules.

That's a critical component going forward in life. Who gets to set the rules? In many cultures, it's the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. Certain people or interest groups are in charge, so they set the rules. You can find this reflected historically in many places. Kings or priests with armies, wealth, or food were able to say "This shall be the law!" with little regard for the opinions or needs of others.

God establishes here that He sets the rules. He made all there is and in the case of Israel, He delivered them from slavery and so made them as a nation. He has the right and the responsibility to set those rules. The lawgiver is more important than the laws: if the lawgiver lacks authority, the laws don't really matter, do they? God has that authority.

The Commandments themselves are straightforward: first, recognize God and count no equal with Him. That is whether among other suggested gods, your own words, or your own efforts: all of these are dismantled by the first four commandments. These four, though, are definitely worship-driven commandments:these are about worship of the One True God in appropriate ways. Three of them, as with five of the next block, are given as "negatives:" no specific action is commended but certain actions are prohibited. This is actually easier to do, as I can be fairly certain that I have made no graven images today.

Further sermons, of course, could develop about taking the Lord's name in vain, putting other gods before Him, and keeping a day focused on Him. Some will even happily argue over the day that should be observed, but that's another post. After we're done with through the whole Bible.

The next six commandments highlight how we ought to treat each other in light of God's covenant. These start with respect and honor to those who raised you and then proceed to your marriage and your neighbors. Really, there's no one else left after that, is there? No. You're either family or neighbors—so be good to each other.

This being the chapter with the Ten Commandments, we often look right past the last few verses. Let us make quick mention of the content of Exodus 20:22-26. Here we see three things commanded after God highlights that He has spoken to the people (something they feared in Exodus 20:19) and they have lived. They are not to make idols. That's a repeat. They are to make altars wherever they are, and God will come to them and bless them, but those altars are not to be made of hewn stones, worked with tools. They are also not supposed to have steps to the altar—because everyone wears robe/gown type clothing.

Catch the "no-tool-worked stone" rule. Think of it this way: there is no way that we can make the grace of God more amazing and beautiful than it is, just as there was no improving the beauty of God accepting the sacrifices and praises of His people then. We do not adorn the Gospel by chiseling more into the stones, only by using the Stone Himself: Christ Jesus.

Today's Nerd Note: The Ten Commandments are sometimes called the Decalogue, which is Greekish for "10 Words." This is based on the idea that the Ten Commandments are actually just written as 10 words in Hebrew. That's the art image, as well, with just 10 sets of letters etched in the rocks in the hands of Moses.

This is one of those traditional labels that is right in some ways and wrong in others. First, Hebrew is a compact language, but it's not that compact. Seriously—some of the commandments are just one word. You shall not murder is one of those. Hebrew uses inflected endings to show person and number of verbs, and prefixes to show negation, so it is the word for "murder" with "you" shown in the ending, "shall" shown by using the imperative inflection, and "not" stuck on the front of the word. So it's one word.

However, Hebrew is not quite compact enough to put all of Exodus 20:8 into one word. This is expanded. Even so, one could boil that commandment down to one word that says "You shall honor" but it doesn't work without defining the object of the honor.

So, Decalogue is not an invalid term, but it does not quite give the complete picture. However, I'd love to see someone actually try and carve the whole passage into a piece of stone. The Lord Almighty had to have some compact writing going on.