The One Year Bible: God's Eye View

So this week I finished the book of Job and began the book of Exodus.  They are quite different in many respects--so much so that I almost thought about doing two blog posts this week--one to focus on the conclusion of Job, and a second one to reflect on the opening chapters of Exodus.  But in the end I found a through line between the two--the power of God and it's implications.  God's power can be comforting, but also confusing and frightening at the same time.  That's because we lack the God's Eye Perspective (not to mention that we are reading these passages through the lens of our own culture and values that do not fit comfortably with those of the author and original intended audience).

In the book of Job, God's arrival on the scene gives me a great deal of comfort--and I think it did the same for Job too.  For many years, I felt God's response to Job was a little rough.  "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" God demands, and than sarcastically invites Job to teach Him--if he can.  Knowing the backstory, it's hard to understand why God wouldn't be a little gentler with the poor put-upon Job.  But now I find myself awed by the magnificent description of God's knowledge and power.  I am reminded that my perspective is so limited, and that without having that God's eye view--without having both His knowledge and His power, it's hard to make an accurate judgement of how God handles things.  But more than that, I think it's just God being there that gives me--and Job--peace.  "I had only heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes" (Job 42:5 NASB)

Perhaps the biggest reason that I find so much peace at the end of Job is that God vindicates Job.  After drawing Job out of himself and challenges him to consider the big picture, God fiercely defends Job's conduct:  "You have not spoken accurately about me, as my servant Job has"  (Job 42:7 NLT).  In doing so, God validates Job's feelings of frustration throughout the entire book and likewise makes it okay for us to cry out when life is cruelly unfair. Meanwhile God's erstwhile "defenders" are the ones who are instructed to have Job pray on their behalf in order to be forgiven.  How many other of us so quick to defend our God at the expense of others (because after all we're just preaching "Truth") will find ourselves hearing the words "not so well done Thou not so good and faithful servant, but I forgive you." 

I also like that Job's family and friends rallied around him at the end, not with advice or criticism, but with comfort and gifts (Job 42:11). It's worth noting that they "consoled and comforted him" after his fortunes were restored.  Its an acknowledgement that even though things are "better"  the hurt of loss doesn't just automatically disappear.

And of course Job gets everything back twice over.  He even has seven more children.  That part used to bother me too. It seemed too tidy.  Well look at that he's got 1000 female donkeys instead of 500 and he even gets seven replacement children.  Like that's supposed to make it all okay. Like children are replaceable. But now I see it differently.  I see in those final verses that Job, who would live to the age of 140, found joy again.  Despite the incredible pain and grief he suffered there came a day when Job could experience joy again.  That gives me hope.

Highlights from this week's reading Job 33-42 and Exodus 1-12:

• God challenges Job
• Job is vindicated and rediscovers joy
• Moses--the Baby in the Basket
• Moses--The Shepherd in the Wilderness
• Moses and Pharoah Face Off, Ten Plagues Ensue
• The Passover

"And a princess pulled a baby out of the water
He was hidden in the rushes
Sleeping in a basket made of reeds
And you never know who God is gonna use
A princess or a baby
Or maybe even you or me"

                            ---Rich Mullins, "Who God is Gonna Use"

In the story of Moses, we again see God demonstrating his mighty power, albeit in a much more frightening way--at least if you happened to be a citizen of the great nation of Egypt. If you were a Hebrew slave, you were heartened by the display of power on your behalf. If we take this story with our modern sensibilities, we tend to think of poor innocent Joe Egyptian caught up in this power struggle between Pharaoh and the God of the universe.  But if we think of it like a movie, with the Egyptians as the bad guys and the Hebrews the resurgent underdog good guys, the story is a bit more palatable.  One thing that is clear is that God is on the side of the oppressed. 

Fun Facts

• Did you know that Job's second set of three daughters are mentioned by name (and none of his son from either set are)? There's no clear reason why Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-happuch are mentioned or why they were given an inheritance along with their brothers, but I think it's cool that they are mentioned.

• File under What the What? : Did you know God tried to kill Moses, but his wife Zipporah saved him with a bloody foreskin.  Yes, you read that right According to Exodus 4:24-26, after God had called Moses from the burning bush, after God had chosen him to lead His people out of bondage, and while Moses was on his way to fulfill that task, God sought to kill him. Apparently Zipporah pulled off a super-quick circumcision of Moses's son, placed the foreskin at Moses' feet (I think) and told him "Now you are bridegroom of blood to me."  And so crisis was averted, Moses goes on to challenge Pharaoh and lead his people out of slavery.  This is definitely one of the stranger stories of the Bible.  I have so many questions!  It just does not add up. I kind of wonder if this just wasn't a big misunderstanding on Moses part.  Maybe he ate some bad food and thought he was going to die and that God was trying to kill him.  I don't know. 

•  Initially, I didn't bother doing any research on what Biblical scholars had to say on this, because I felt like I already knew what I would find--Zealous defenders of the Lord--kind of like Job's pals--trying to justify the unjustifiable, and I just don't find that satisfactory.  And sure enough, that's what I found in a review of the initial commentary by Christian authors. Interestingly, I had better luck when I modified my search to focus on Jewish interpretations. I found Jewish thinkers less inclined to provide a solid answer and more willing to admit to a lot of uncertainty about the passage.  It's from these sources that I learned that it may not have been Moses that God sought to kill but his first born son because he wasn't circumcised.  Despite the lack of authoritative answers to this strange story, I found the Jewish interpretations put in God in a better or at least more reasonable light.

• Did you know God told Moses from the jump that the Passover would happen? Yes from early on, before any of the plagues God told Moses the endgame.  He says in Exodus 4:22-23 (right before the bizarre encounter where God tries to kill him--I think there may be a connection) that Pharaoh will refuse to let the people go and God will kill his firstborn son. He doesn't even bother mentioning the intervening nine plagues.

• Did you know that the first two plagues could be duplicated by pharaoh's magicians?  Pharaoh's guys used their own dark arts to turn water into blood and to conjure up frogs (though they couldn't get rid of them). After that, God outpaced them in the plague-producing department. It's also worth noting that the first three plagues--all of which were mostly annoying, rather than dangerous--may have been experienced by everyone in Egypt, including God's people, not just the Egyptians.  The next six plagues (the flies, the death of the livestock, the boils, the hail, the locust, and the darkness) were only experienced by the Egyptians.  

• Did you know some Egyptians got a clue?  Depending on the translation, one or several of Pharaoh's officials hustled to get their remaining livestock indoors ahead of the plague of hail, once they heard it was coming. I wonder if these same people went ahead put the blood of a Passover lamb on their door as well.  There's nothing to indicate that the angel of death was favoring the Hebrews in the final and worst plague.  If you put the blood on your door, your family was safe. 

What stood out to me: The Parts that are Hard to Pass Over.

What does it mean that God hardened pharaoh's heart?

God is not one to pass the buck, I've noticed. If things go sideways, He takes responsibility. But sometimes I feel like He goes too far with that. For example, He says that He hardened Pharaoh's heart but when you read the passage you don't get the sense of someone acting under compulsion.  To me it's clear that Pharaoh is stubborn all by himself.  If anything, by choosing not to intervene in some miraculous way that would perhaps have softened Pharaoh's heart, God let things play out knowing what the result would be.  It's not a great explanation, but it makes more sense to me than God willfully preventing Pharaoh from letting the people of Israel go. I've done a little bit of research into commentaries on this issue--I could definitely do more.  Again, I find many Christian thinkers a little over-eager to "explain away" difficult passages like this and I find that annoying.  Is it really so hard to sit and be uncomfortable with a story in the Bible without losing your faith?  I do find I liked the The Bible Project's explanation a little better than some of the others.

Passover

This story is so familiar, we even tell it to our kids, despite the horrific details.  The firstborn male of every creature in the land destined to die--the final and worst plague, the one that would finally break Pharaoh's stubborn will.  Only the blood of the sacrificial lamb, painted on the doorpost of each home would protect those inside from the angel of death.  Of course for Christians we see a direct connection between the Passover lamb and the Passover Lamb, Whose blood on our behalf assures us of escaping death as a permanent end.  And it's worth noting, that anyone--Egyptian or Hebrew--that had the blood on their door would be spared.

Up until very recently most people were intimately familiar with what it took to get that roasted lamb on the table for dinner.  Most of us now live comfortably removed from the harsh realities of the slaughterhouse and butcher shop (which is just as well;  the meat we now eat likely suffered much more on it's way to our table, than the sheep, goats, and cattle of Biblical times did before they became dinner).  The idea of animal killed, eaten and it's blood a life-saving sign might not have seemed so macabre to generations past.

Finally, it's inescapable that the story of salvation is rooted in sacrifice.  We do not have a faith that boils down to: Humans--"My bad" and God--"It's all good."   The defeat of death requires death. The vanquishing of evil requires the sacrifice of the Innocent.  I can't say why this is so, but only that it makes a kind of deep down sense to me.  The human predicament is not merely a product of good intentions gone awry, something that can be fixed with casual remorse and forgiveness.  The wound is deep and cost of healing is nothing short of epic. I don't really understand it in my limited human perspective. I can't quite grasp the big picture the way God can. What I do know is this, the story of the Passover does not have to be the story of death. It can be the story of deliverance.