|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:21:57 GMT -8
10/16/06:
Why a Golden Calf?
Why a calf? Why not just make Aaron the new leader and continue on worshipping Yahweh?
The answer probably has to do with the following considerations: a) Yahweh had demonstrated himself to be pretty scary, b) had probably ‘eaten’ Moses or something like that c) and Yahweh had a bothersome requirement not to be represented by an idol
All the other cultures the Israelites knew had gods represented by tangible objects of worship (idols), usually in the form of an animal (represtenting fertility, provision, or fierceness). The most popular God of the Sinai region was the moon god, often represented by the image of a calf.
Who would take them seriously without a physical deity of their own? And how, after all, could they worship something that they couldn’t ‘pin down’, ‘package’, or parade out whenever they wished.
But that’s exactly the kind of God Yahweh was: one that can’t be confined to a single locality- a God who doesn’t show up at our beck and call, but in His own ways, which are ‘not our ways’.
I wonder, which kind of God (golden calf or I AM) is more attractive to us, most of the time, if we’re honest?
PS: One has to wonder if Aaron caved immediately or tried to hold out in deference to his brother. It’s highly possible that he felt he would be killed if he did not appease the Israelites.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:23:03 GMT -8
10/17/06:
a) I've always thought it was funny, but so human, that Moses can act so forgiving and intercessory for the Israelites when God tells him what they're up to, but when Moses sees it for himself, He flies into an absolute rage.
b) Aaron's 'excuse' is just classic: the calf 'just popped out of the fire!'
c) Making them drink the gold- that's like rubbing your dog nose in the mess he made on the floor. Nothing better than an object lesson to drive the point home.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:23:45 GMT -8
10/17/06:
Moses’ intercession on behalf of the Israelites here harkens back to Abraham’s dramatic intercession for Lot in Genesis, and certainly looks forward to the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf.
When Moses says that if God is going to destroy them, then he would have his own name ‘blotted out of God’s book’ too, it makes me think of two other passages:
a) in Isaiah, when it says the Messiah will be ‘numbered with the transgressors’ (Isaiah 53:12), and
b) when Paul says he’s so distressed for the Jews that he could wish that he himself would be ‘cut off’ from Christ, so that they might be saved (Romans 9:2-4)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:24:38 GMT -8
10/18/06:
I thought I'd post just a brief summary of Douglas' teaching last night, which I thought was excellent. It's always fascinating to me to see what another person can draw out of a bible passage.
Douglas focused pretty heavily on the potential conundrum in this passage regarding whether God changed His mind and the almost scandalous fact that Moses bargained with God over the impending destruction of the Israelites. This passage harkens back to earlier Biblical episodes where we are told God regretted something (the Flood story) or where God negotiated with a mere mortal (Abraham over the fate of Lot at Sodom).
Douglas then juxtaposed the idea of God 'changing his mind' or 'negotiating with humans' with verses in Scripture emphasizing the immutability of God (that God is said to be changeless) and the Sovreignty and Foreknowledge of God.
He further suggested (quite effectively) that although there is a lot of common ground between Greek Platonic thought and Christianity (which, I added, are evident in Paul's epistles as well as John's gospel) , there are some subtle but undesirable tendancies in Platonic thought as well- namely that God was/ can be perceived as so outside the realm of physicality (the particulars) that He really can't or doesn't have much inter-relational activity with humans. This line of thinking leads one to the idea, for example, that prayer is pretty much useless. If God doesn't condescend to our level, if everything is set in stone apart from our involvement, then what's the point of prayer? Passages like this one, where Moses seems to 'change God's mind' just must be deceptive- God musn't really have meant Moses to take Him seriously.
A reaction against this Neo-Platonic deism, which is equally as destructive, though, is Open Theism, which sees God, as well as man, as unable to know or control the future, as trapped with the limitations of time Himself. Douglas pointed out how both extremes on this paradox lead us into theological error.
In summation, he showed us how passages like these help us affirm an important paradox: that God is at once sovreign yet condescends to interact with us in a very real way. Our prayer does in some way affect Him. Though Sovreign in every way, he is not aloof- He interacts in the most intimate way with us- even involving some give and take, so to speak.
Hopefully that did it justice, Douglas. If you do get a chance, pipe in here
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:25:34 GMT -8
10/21/06:
Douglas sent me this outline of his lesson:
What I want to focus on in this passage is the nature and character of God and our relationship with him in prayer.
Christians throughout history have had difficulties with this passage.
Why?
Because it portrays God as changing his mind in response to human request.
Why is this a problem?
Christians have traditionally maintained that God does not change in any way. He is immutable: unchangeable. The reason that they have believed this to be the case stems from a couple sources.
1. Scripture: 1 Sam 15:23b-29 Deut 32:39 Daniel 4:34-35 Eph 1:11
2. Greek Philosophy Plato’s forms Aristotle’s Unmoved mover
[More on the Greek Philosophy element]: Before all matter, and all composition of matter and form, of potentiality and actuality, there must have existed a Being Who is pure actuality, and Whose life is self-contemplative thought (noesis noeseos). The Supreme Being imparted movement to the universe by moving the First Heaven, the movement, however, emanated from the First Cause as desirable; in other words, the First Heaven, attracted by the desirability of the Supreme Being "as the soul is attracted by beauty", was set in motion, and imparted its motion to the lower spheres and thus, ultimately, to our terrestrial world. According to this theory God never leaves the eternal repose in which His blessedness consists. Will and intellect are incompatible with the eternal unchangeableness of His being.
So what?
The problem is that Greek Philosophy taken to it’s ends concieves of God as a totally transcendant other-worldly being. Because of his perfections he was unable to relate to the world he created. The more these philosophies are meshed with Christianity the more difficult it becomes to understand this passage, because Greek philosophy does not allow real relationship with God. The Greek philosophical mind would have serious problems with this portrayal of God (in Exodus 32).
See Augustine: Though we sometimes hears the expression “God changed his mind” or even read in the figurative language of scripture that “God repented,” we interpret these sayings not in reference to the decisions determined by almighty God but in reference to the expectations of man or to the order of natural causes. City of God 14:11
I believe that there are things within Greek philosophy that do correspond to what we understand about God from scripture but I am not at all comfortable with it’s interpretation of this passage nor of others like it in the Old Testament.
It is very clear that God enters into deep real relationship with his people. This passage is a great example. Moses is the friend of God. He approaches God and finds mercy for the people of God. Really!
There is another side to this argument as well.
“Open Theism” is a new philosophy that originated in 1984.
“Open Theism” argues that these passages in the Old Testament define how we should understand God. Thus far there are several very different strands of it [Open Theism], so I have tried to bring some of their ideas together:
• The future is unknowable. • God is experiencing it for the first time with us and is thus able to respond our requests and actions. • God cannot guarantee the outcome of the world. Since he cannot know the future he is risking everything not knowing if his plan will succeed.
There is much more but I don’t want to understate it as I do not understand it all that well.
[It may be] well intentioned, but I believe that they are fighting a war that does not need to be fought. They are reacting rightly (I believe) to the stoic unmoving non-relational interpretation of God but have gone too far and have dissolved God into his creation.
How is Open Theism a reaction against Traditional Greek thought and yet a product of it as well?
Answer: Time they are attempting to answer the question by mixing science with hermaneutics.
Result : Incarnational Diety
But they have done it to draw attention to aspects of God that have been over-looked.
What this comes down to is: how ought we to read and understand these passages? How would a Jew of Mosess day, or Jesus’ (for that matter) see this passage? They did not seem to have a conflict with it at all. They held the two together [God’s sovereignty and genuine relational interaction] as a whole picture of God and not as contradictory.
So what can we see about God from this passage?
God as relational and intimately involved in his creation and responsive to his people.
This brings us to the practical part of the lesson on prayer.
• Prayer on behalf of other people is one of the most powerful ministries of the Christian.
• God has created a system where he is willfully dependant on our prayers.
• God is this passage chose to not extend his mercy without the prayers of Moses.
Other examples: Ezk 22:29-30, Job 16:19-21, Isaiah 53:12 Heb 7:24-25, Rom 8:27-28 33-34
These last couple are very significant because they are about the relationship between the Father and Son and the Father and Holy Spirit. One of Jesus’ jobs is to stand at the side of the Father and beg for mercy on our behalf. I think that what we have here on Sinai is God sighting. What Moses is doing is walking in the foot steps of the great intercessor Jesus himself.
For us this is one of the greatest gifts and callings. Eph 2:10 Talks about the good works that God has set aside for us, his church, to do. I believe that this is one of them.
Why? Because in prayer we partner with God in his work. Because in prayer we enter into the very throne room of God and obtain mercy for those around us. God has set it up for us to do so. We are his instruments of Mercy.
The question that lingers in mind is what would have happened if Moses had not interceeded for Israel? I cannot say for sure but I think that God would have done just what he said and wiped Israel out.
So where does this leave us? I believe that we have a much greater calling and mission is this world than we often understand. This has been true in my life and still is at times.
|
|
aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Jan 26, 2008 14:06:35 GMT -8
So, I have come to this section in my reading through the Bible. Sometimes I have difficulty relating to some of the Old Testament views and how God interacts with the Israelites. So, today I prayed about that issue before starting my study, and when I finished, I realized I felt like, "this is the same God I have experienced" Which, for me was an answer to prayer.
Specifically, in the Exodus 32:7-14 section I felt a new perspective...
Initially it seems strange that God changed his mind... I personally believe God knows the future. (Thus prophecy) So, why would he say he was going to kill the Israelites, and then change his mind?
God said to Moses Ex. 32:10: "I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses," and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
What came into my heart was that possibly he did this for Moses' benefit...
Moses was a reluctant leader. He asked God to specifically not choose him because he wasn't qualified, and didn't speak well. I know in my life God has let me achieve success at things I didn't expect to succeed in. Each time I have a success in a difficult area, I can look back on that time for reassurance, that "If I could succeed at that, this new struggle is nothing"...
Moses succeeded in dissuading God from killing His people. Perhaps Moses could use this confidence in future dealings with the Israelites. Particularly as he was just about to go down the mountain and make some tough leadership choices.
Another viewpoint I found interesting on this, was that God offered to make Moses into a great nation. Moses could have totally taken him up on it. But he didn't. Even though God offered, Moses chose to represent broken, sinful, Israel over his own success. It reminds me a little of Samuel's calling, they both chose what was good and wise over personal promotion.
|
|
aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Jan 26, 2008 14:16:30 GMT -8
"Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies."
When I read this passage, I couldn't help but chuckle, from my experience as a mom, I can in a small way relate.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 26, 2008 14:50:42 GMT -8
Great insights Aimee.
|
|