kata Drew

Most often the phrase “the great exchange” is associated very specifically with the obedience of Christ on the Christian’s behalf as part of his redemptive work whereby he took on our sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and we consequently are able to be clothed in his righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). The great exchange in the New Testament is Jesus takes our sin and we get his righteousness imputed to us. He gets sin, we get God. O glorious gospel! Trust in him now!

Well, the great exchange of Deuteronomy is very similar but less specifically and explicitly about the redemptive work of the Messiah. Deuteronomy 29:10-15 (ESV) magnificently preaches exchange when it reads,

You are standing today all of you before the Lord your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.

The bolded portions are to help trace the line of thought amidst the enumerating of persons present (elders, lumberjacks, water boys, etc.). The people are standing before God in order to cross (over) into the covenant of YHWH (לעברך בברית יהוה), a covenant which he is making in order to establish them as his people and he as their God ( לעםוהואיהיה־לך לאלהים למעןהקים־אתך היום לו). The “exchange” is that we become his people and he becomes our God. He gets us, we get him.

The ל (lamedh) prepositions here (ל+עם and ל+אלהים), though functioning differently syntactically, remind me of Song of Songs 6:3 where quite famously it is asserted that “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.” Here also are ל prepositions, though attached simply to object pronouns masculine and feminine rather than nouns. Again there is a certain amount of what I think can be called exchange or reciprocity which reflects, albeit dimly, the great exchange which is the gospel revealed in the work of Christ and the New Testament Scriptures.

Respond

Take a moment to read Deuteronomy 29. Think about all of God’s provisions for sinful, rebellious laid out throughout the Scriptures. Think on what it means for you, as a Christian, to be part of God’s people. Think on God becoming your God when you at one time were alienated from him and without him in the world (Ephesians 2). Now, rejoice at the thought of the gospel!

If you’re not a Christian, trust in Christ as God’s provision for sinful humanity to be brought back into communion with him after being separated by our sin and rebellion. Now, rejoice in the gospel!

Hebrew Help

What’s the best way to blog Hebrew? I just copy and pasted from e-sword. No vowels. Hopefully, everyone who cares will be able to read it. Sorry if it shows up garbled. Read the English. It’s not a bad translation.

There’s election and there’s election.

Hill and Walton in their A Survey of the Old Testament describe God’s election of Israel as making “the Israelites the people of God only in a revelatory way.” They further clarify by saying, “By this we mean that God chose them as his instrument of revelation.”

The difference between this use of election and the (modern) Christian usage is that “when we speak of the church as God’s people, we refer to those who have accepted salvation through faith, specifically faith in Jesus Christ.” The Christian concept of election is strictly soteriological while that of Israel as a people is understood as revelatory. This is not to deny that “many Israelites of the Old Testament could be identified as God’s people by virtue of their faith in Yahweh”; but that “God revealed himself to the world through Israel” through the law, their history, writings of the Bible and Jesus the Christ.

How does this square with Romans 11 where Paul seems to be speaking of the election of Israel in soteriological terms? In line with the understanding and differentiation of election given above, “a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5) appears to differentiate those Israelites who are “identified as God’s people by their virtue of their faith in Yahweh” from ”the rest [who] were hardened” (Rom. 11:7) who were only God’s people in the sense of belonging to the people group God elected revelatorily. For if Israelite election were the same as Christian soteriological election, how could the Scripture speak of “Israel not find[ing] what it was looking for, but the elect did find it” (Rom. 11:7)? It could not. Therefore the distinction made by Hill and Walton appears to fit with the Pauline distinction made in Romans 11.

Ultimately, this distinction leaves soteriological room for Gentiles which is the vein in which Paul continues through to the end of the chapter leading to an eruption of praise to God:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33-36)

[All quotations from Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, Zondervan: 2000, 74. Scripture quotations from the HCSB.]

Are you a real man?

HT: Codex: Biblical Studies

Check out this sermon on the phrase “him that pisseth against the wall” from the KJV of 1 Kings 14:10. The phrase also occurs in 1Sam 25:22, 25:34; 1Kings 16:11, 21:21, and 2Kings 9:8. The rendering by the KJV, while perhaps vulgar to modern ears, is a word for word translation of the Hebrew.

While I — along with this preacher — lament modern translations that simply render the Hebrew idiom with the English term “male” I do so for very different reasons. In absolute contrast with the meaning of the passage, the ludicrous message the preacher takes from the phrase is that “real men” pee standing up (and I would add, should never lift the toilet seat!). If this preacher would have cracked the cover of even the most useless Bible Commentary, he would have discovered that the expression is contemptuously comparing males to dogs who “piss against the wall.” Thus, I don’t think modern translations bring out the connotative meaning of the original Hebrew by the non-vulgar translation as “male.” See my post Dogs, Urine, and Bible Translations (On the Importance of Translating Connotative Meaning).

“We got pastors who pee sitting down. We got the president of the United States who probably pees sitting down. We got a bunch of preachers, we got a bunch of leaders who don’t stand up and piss against the wall like a man…That’s what’s wrong with America.”

“A man needs to be a man not a male…It’s because the editors of the NIV pee sitting down.”

Drew,

I can’t help feeling a bit sorry for Uzzah. There he was, walking along hot and tired, chatting to his mates. An ox stumbles; Uzzah tries to stop the Ark from getting damaged, doesn’t want it to get scratched. He reaches out to help and he gets struck down by God. I know God is almighty and can do what he wants and maybe Uzzah had done other things to deserve God’s wrath. But the way the Bible puts it Uzzah sounds like an innocent man only trying to help. The nature of God in th Old Testament seems to conflict with the mesage of love and forgiveness in the New. Can they be reconciled? Jesus allowed people to touch him, even healed them. I’m thinking of that woman whose haemorrhage was cured when she touched Jesus cloak. I can’t imagine Jesus cutting down Uzzah for touching him. Has the Old Testament got God wrong? Is he as vengeful and bloodthirsty as it suggests? Maybe the New Testament is too loving and forgiving and God is stern and demands respect above love? Am I talking nonsense, Drew?

Jack

Jack-in-the-Email,

You’re not talking nonsense. I feel sorry for Uzzah, too: literally trying to lend a helping hand; but I guess when God says “don’t touch,” he means it. Sometimes I feel like if I do something [wrong] I may get arbitrarily zapped like Uzzah or worse yet get eaten from the inside out by worms like Herod in Acts 12; but then I remember that God isn’t arbitrary or capricious. He gave specific, explicit instructions for handling the ark, and Herod, well, he was just stupid for accepting deification from his people.

Should we then marvel if people are judged on the spot? We should marvel like the Psalmist when justice is delayed and cry out for the day, as Martin Luther King impassioned in his famous sermon quoting the prophet Amos, saying: “let justice roll down like waters” (Amos 5:24). The topic of justice is a nice segue into your email concerning the two seemingly opposing views of God presented in the Old and New Testaments.

A lot of people want to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament, but I would like to argue that they’re not at odds but complimentary. Is there reconciling to do between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament? Are there two gods at hand? If one has a cursory knowledge of the Bible and/or his view of the “Gods” of the Bible is taken from hearsay, I can understand that he may feel that there is a noticeable inconsistency when comparing the two Testaments; but after becoming familiar with the Bible as a whole, this inconsistency in the mind of the reader should decrease. What the Old Testament contains, the New Testament also contains. It is the error of Marcion to insist that two separate “Gods” exist in the Scriptures because the Testaments seemingly present two opposing views.

“But there is the wrath of God poured out on people in the Old Testament such as in the case of Uzzah, something Jesus would not condone.”
Consider the case of Herod in the New Testament who was smitten by the Angel of the Lord and eaten by worms. Consider Jesus depicted in the final book of the New Testament, Revelation, coming with a robe dipped in blood to judge the earth.

“The God of Jesus seems so loving but this aspect of God isn’t presented in the Old Testament.”
Consider the Psalms which are songs addressed to God: “your steadfast love is better than life” (Psalm 63:3). Also, the Law contains provision for the widow and and the poor and the foreigner that should find themselves in Israel. In fact, the golden rule comes originally not from Jesus in the Gospels but from Leviticus (book of law in the Old Testament): “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

The New Testament affirms the God of the Old Testament. Indeed he is the same, not two different, and both Testaments testify to him. It is necessary when thinking of God not too allow yourself to concentrate on only one attribute. Yes, God is love but God is also a righteous judge. These two attributes are not at odds. If we feel he needs reconciled to himself, we lack understanding and knowledge of the whole person of God.

I can see where one would think that the wrath of God in the Old Testament in opposed to the love of God in the New Testament, but I would encourage that person to read the Bible and see that both the love of God is presented in the Old Testament and the wrath of God in the New Testament.

“Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you judge the peoples with equity
and guide the nations upon earth.
Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!”
Psalm 67:3-5

Hey Drew,

Those 10 commandments are quite something. When I read down them I think I’ve broken them all at some time or other. How strict is God about these? I’m thinking of the one about being angry or not honoring your parents. I’ve told “white” lies. The other day I told the most obnoxious girl in my history class that she had more friends than she thought when, in fact, she has none. And when she asked me if her bum looked big in her new jeans, although I was tempted to say “yes, you little porker”, I just smiled sweetly and said, “no way”. Was that a sin if I was trying to be nice and not hurt her feelings? Hey, Drew, you don’t think she’s coming on to me?

But, to be serious….You’ve said that God forgives sin if you ask him, but is there a crime or set of crimes that he just won’t forgive. Do you think Adolf Hitler or Gengis Khan who killed thousands if not millions of people would have made it into heaven if they had asked forgiveness?

Jack

Jack upon Tyne,

The 10 commandments are quite something indeed, and you’ve rightly pointed out one of their purposes: “the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). When we read down them and realize that we’ve broken them, they point out our sinfulness and our need for salvation, and finally to Christ. It’s like holding up a mirror to your face to realize you have a pimple. You feel the pimple, but you’re not quite sure how bad it is until you see it in the mirror for what it really is, a blocked pore building up pus like Mt. Vesuvius.

You ask how strict God is about the 10 commandments. I think it’s important to note here that the law God laid down in the Old Testament reflects his character and are not arbitrary rules to keep people under control lest someone somewhere might have fun. The law, it should be remembered, is part of the revelation of God that is the Scriptures, and because the law is part of God’s revelation to us, we should see what it is revealing. Two main characters it reveals information about are us and God. As you mentioned, we’ve seen that the law reveals how sinful we are and that we are in need of the Christ, the chosen one of God to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Secondly, as a cursory look at the Psalms will show, the law of God exhibits many of the same characteristics as God. It follows because God is pure and holy, his word will be equally as error-free and true. To return to the question at hand, I would argue that because the law is God’s word to us, it should be taken equally as serious as God himself.

There is a story from the Old Testament that shows how seriously God takes his law. It is from 2 Samuel 6 and it concerns the transportation of the ark of the Covenant which was a box which God had the Israelites make to transport the ten commandments and some other goodies, and also be a place for the priest to meet with God. (You can read about its making in Exodus 25. What happened in 2 Samuel 6 was that King David was having the ark brought to Jerusalem, but they weren’t transporting it correctly according to how God had told them to in his law. They were having it pulled by oxen on a cart when the Levites (priests) were supposed to carry it on their shoulders using poles which went through rings of the box. One of the oxen stumbled, a guy named Uzzah stuck out his hand and touched the ark to steady it on the cart and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God” (v.7). What effect did this have on the people? “David was angry because the Lord had burst forth against Uzzah” (v.9) and he, for some odd reason, no longer felt like bringing this box into his city. I bet you from that day forward people took God and his law seriously. We should do the same.

Is there any sin which God will not forgive? Jesus said that “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31). Moses for example murdered an Egyptian guy. Paul, before he was a Christian, persecuted Christians and helped get them arrested. What Jesus is saying is that these sins will be forgiven but the person who blasphemes, or rejects, the Holy Spirit who testifies about Jesus will not be forgiven. This sin is an outright rejection of the person and work of God in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is what you have to worry about being not forgiven because Jesus it won’t be. So the better question might be, Did Hitler ultimately reject the Holy Spirit working in his life? His actions seem to lean toward more of a yes than a no.

Psalm 95:7-8 says, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” If God calls your cellphone, pick up. If the Spirit comes knocking on the door of your conscience via the 10 commandments, don’t shrug it off and continue in sin, but yield to God and live. Have you heard his voice?

Praying that your heart might not be hardened,