John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve

9780830824618This work constitutes a continuation of Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, that I reviewed earlier.  The basic thesis of The Lost World of Genesis One is repeated here and that line of thought is thereafter applied to Genesis 2 and 3.  This work is more detailed and also, I would say, more difficult than the first book.  Allow me to say up front that this is one of those works that I’m going to need to tackle a second time, so my comments here need to be seen as first-pass reflections.

Walton continues here is thesis that Genesis is talking more about function than material origins and that Genesis 1 is using temple inauguration language and not propounding empirical science.  We find here the same heavy reliance on parallel ancient creation accounts as a hermeneutical key and the same application of Walton’s conclusions to the modern controversies surrounding biblical creationism and evolution.  Concerning this last aspect, I would say that Walton offers a more passionate and, it seemed to me, more personal plea for Christians not to create conflicts where they don’t actually exist.

Walton argues that Adam and Eve serve a priestly function in Eden which, when compared to other ancient understandings of temple, should be seen as a sacred grove.  Priests in the ancient world often tended to sacred groves and served the deity within temples.  Among other interesting proposals, Walton suggests that Genesis does not necessarily suggest that Adam and Eve lived in Eden (priests in the ancient world did not live in the sacred groves – they simple entered them to tend and maintain them), that the serpent should be seen as a “creature of chaos” that came to threaten order with disorder, that Genesis does not necessarily say that Eve and the serpent had their conversation in the garden (it could have been in the disordered world outside of the garden), that since Genesis is not discussing science and material origins it is not necessary to read it as saying that Adam and Eve were actually the first people created, that nothing in the Bible suggests that death itself was part of the Fall, that there was a historical Adam but that Genesis’ description of Adam is primarily archetypal (which is not unusual, Walton argues, since there are other figures in the Bible, like Melchizedek and, indeed, like Jesus, who appear to be historical and archetypal), that Adam’s “rib” is more accurately translated as Adam’s “side” and that this may mean that Adam was cut in two, as it were, and Eve made from the other side, and that Adam and Eve should be seen not as the first two humans but as the first two humans that God chose to call to be His image bearers and to call humanity from disorder to order.

It should be said that Walton consistently argues that he believes what the Bible says and has a high view of scripture.  He is not arguing that the Bible is wrong.  He is arguing that our interpretations of Genesis have been wrong.  He does point to a few historical cautions concerning hermeneutics that might help his cause, primarily from the Reformation era, but it again must be noted that if what Walton is proposing here is correct then two millennia of interpretation concerning Genesis 1-3 are false.  The fact that there are wide divergences of opinion about Genesis 1-3 throughout these two millennia actually strengthens my point, for even with this lack of a monolithic hermeneutic and the presence of a wide range of interpretations on these issues over the last two-thousand years, nobody, to my knowledge, has ever proposed what Walton is proposing here in the way that he is proposing it.  Walton appears to understand this and to admit as such, but he then appeals to Reformation hermeneutical principles contra simply allowing tradition to eclipse current study and findings in his defense.

I suppose my interest after this first journey through the book is more philosophical than anything.  Again, one does not gather that Walton is trying to retreat from science (he actually seems to be as skeptical of modern naive scientism as he is of naive modern a-contextual hermeneutics) in his proposals but rather than he genuinely feels that the ancient context of these creation accounts leads naturally to these interpretations.  I will say – and I speak as one who is instinctively extremely cautious about these kinds of paradigm shattering proposals (thank you Vincent of Lerins) – that Walton certainly does not deserve to be dismissed as a mere contrarian or as some kind of heresy peddler.  His proposal – right or wrong – seems sincerely to want to honor the scriptures as God’s word to humanity and to take into account how ancient people thought and spoke of these matters.

I feel that a great deal hinges on Walton’s hermeneutical apriori concerning what role ancient cosmologies should have in our interpretations of Genesis.  His arguments have weight to the extent that his premises are true, the primary premise being this:  when ancient people did cosmology they did not have material origins in mind but rather function.  One wonders if it really is quite that simple, though the evidence Walton marshall’s cannot responsibly be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders.  One wonders further, if that premise is true, if that necessarily means that Genesis 1-3 is speaking of creation in that way or, if it is, if it is speaking of it in that way with such rigid categorization and hermeneutical myopia.  It seems to me that Walton is trying to argue on the one hand that the entire enterprise of the first few chapters of Genesis are strongly beholden to the framework of ancient cosmologies but that this enterprise was simultaneously unique and paradigm shifting in certain crucial ways as well.  Not, I should add, that this is inherently problematic, for we find this phenomenon throughout the Bible:  the appropriation of ancient structures of thought and then their reappropriation in unique and surprising ways. But one cannot help but wonder if the material origins vs. function argument quite so easily closes the door to the concept of creation traditionally understood…or does it simply nuance and qualify it?

Walton has offered a fascinating set of proposals.  He discussion of sin and Adam’s role in it (a discussion that he first says should be carried out by theologians but that he then dives into with real fervor) seemed less clear to me than his arguments concerning Genesis 1-3.

These, again, are some initial reactions to the book.  I intend to work more on understanding what is being said here and the set of issues Walton raises.  For that I do indeed thank him.  It has certainly stretched and challenged me.

Entire Cross Examination Sermon Series

I have removed these sermons from the sidebar “Current Series” menu and they are now embedded in the sermon audio archives under their respective books, but I wanted to preserve them here together as a series as well.

cross_nail

“Cross Examination, Part I”
(1 Corinthians 1:14-25)

“Cross Examination, Part II”
(Mark 8:27-37)

“Cross Examination, Part III”
(Matthew 26:1-16)

“Cross Examination, Part IV”
(Matthew 26:36-46)

“Cross Examination, Part V”
(Matthew 26:47-56)

“Cross Examination, Part VI”
(Matthew 26:57-68)

“Cross Examination, Part VII”
(Matthew 27:1-2,11-14,22-26)

“Cross Examination, Part VIII”
(Matthew 27:27-44)

“Cross Examination, Part IX”
(Luke 23:34)

“Cross Examination, Part X”
(Luke 23:43)

“Cross Examination, Part XI”
(John 19:25-27)

“Cross Examination, Part XII”
(Matthew 27:45-49)

“Cross Examination, Part XIII”
(John 19:28)

“Cross Examination, Part XIV”
(John 19:30)

“Cross Examination, Part XV”
(Luke 23:46)

“Cross Examination, Part XVI”
(Galatians 6:14-16)

“Cross Examination, Part XVII”
(Hebrews 12:1-4)

“Cross Examination, Part XVIII”
(Romans 6:1-14)

[Note: Poor Audio Quality] “Cross Examination, Part XIX”
(Colossians 2:13-15)

Exodus 20:4-6

what-are-ten-commandments_472_314_80Exodus 20

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

William F. Buckley Jr. once repeated an old story he had heard about the second commandment.

The old chestnut tells of the husband leaving the church service after hearing the rousing sermon on the Ten Commandments with downcast countenance. Suddenly he takes heart. “I never,” he taps his wife on the arm, “made any graven images!”[1]

It is a humorous image, this man cheering himself with the thought that at least he had never carved an idol! It is humorous because it is so very like human beings. We all take a desperate kind of joy in finding the one thing we have not done wrong despite the nine that we have.

Even so, we should probably be careful in assuming we have never made an idol, for idols come in many shapes and sizes and forms. The second commandment is as needed today as it was when it was first given, for the second commandment tells us certain crucial things about our great God.

The second commandment forbids the creation of idols as well as the creation of images of God.

I am going to contend that the second commandment is prohibiting (a) the creation of idols of false gods and (b) the creation of any image of the one true God. First, let us read the text.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The argument that this commandment is approaching two actions is not agreed upon by all. There is no widespread agreement as to whether it is addressing both of these ideas or whether it is simply forbidding creating any image of God (whereas the first commandment would ostensibly cover the creation of any idols to false gods).

Victor Hamilton raises the possibility that both realities are being addressed here and that, in fact, the first two commandments are connected in covering both of these.

Are the proscribed idols/ images those connected with the other gods of the previous commandment? That is, “You shall have no other gods or even any images portraying those gods.” Or are the proscribed idols images of Yahweh?… One might assume that v. 4 prohibits the representation of the Lord by images, for representation and worship of other deities have already been precluded in the first commandment. It is unlikely that the first commandment prohibits having other gods but forgets to say anything about also not having any physical representations of those deities… However, it seems that it would be images of other gods rather than images of himself that would provoke the Lord’s jealousy. Note that the antecedent of the plural “them” in v. 5 (“ neither pay them homage nor serve them”) is the singular “idol/pesel” of v. 4.[2]

What is more, Deuteronomy 4 contains a sermon from Moses that is widely considered to be commenting on the second commandment. Moses’ words would appear to be addressing both realities: the creation of images of the one, true God as well as idols to false gods.

15 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day. 21 Furthermore, the Lord was angry with me because of you, and he swore that I should not cross the Jordan, and that I should not enter the good land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. 22 For I must die in this land; I must not go over the Jordan. But you shall go over and take possession of that good land. 23 Take care, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make a carved image, the form of anything that the Lord your God has forbidden you. 24 For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Moses appears to address the creation of images of God, but he also appears to address the false worship of entities that would pull the children of Israel away from the worship of the Lord God. His acknowledgment of both in a sermon addressing the second commandment is significant.

The common factor in both of these prohibitions is the dilution of true worship. There are those who, missing this point, read certain wooden legalisms into the second commandment. For instance, G. Campbell Morgan writes:

I have known Christian folk who, because of this commandment, would not have their photographs taken, and who refused to have a picture in their houses! This, however, could not have been the Divine intention…Man was not forbidden to make a representation of anything: he is forbidden to use the representation as an aid to worship.

In Westminster Abbey, today, there may be seen a great many vacant niches where images once stood. They were removed not because they were statues, but because lamps were burned in front of them, and worshippers knelt before them. That was essentially a violation of this commandment.[3]

We might say, then, that any object that would call us from the worship of the one true God, who is Spirit, or who might tempt us to offer devotional reverence to it is forbidden by the second commandment. That being said, we will consider primarily the commandment’s prohibition of the creation of images of God in our consideration of the text.

Images of God are prohibited because the creation of such inevitably (a) exalts man and (b) reduces God.

Human efforts to create images of God tend to magnify man and reduce God. They magnify man by allowing his imagination to presume to depict the invisible God. They reduce the glory of God (not, of course, in reality, for nothing can do that, but in our own minds and hearts) by inevitably making less of Him than is His due. The basic theological truth behind this commandment is the fact that no man can see God and that God is spirit.

In Exodus 33 Moses actually asked God to allow him to see Him. The Lord made an astonishing concession by allowing Moses to see part of Him.

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” 21 And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”

Notice that even though the scriptures employ the anthropomorphic language of God’s “back” and God’s “face” (that is, language that attributes to God physical characteristics), what Moses actually is allowed to see is God’s “goodness” and God’s “glory.” Furthermore, the Lord communicates that man cannot see Him and that, in fact, “man shall not see me and live.”

Why? Because God is utterly and perfectly holy, ineffable, and other. He reveals of Himself what He will, but His self-revelation should not lead us to think that we have a right or an ability to see God outside of what He reveals.

The New Testament further teaches the “unseeability” of God. In John 4:24, Jesus said, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Later, in 1 John 4:12, John writes, “No one has ever seen God.” Here we see the foundation of the prohibition against images of the divine. We should steadfastly refuse to create images of the Father simply because we are unable to see God and it is an act of great arrogance for us to think we can.

I have been in the Sistine Chapel and stared up with wonder at Michaelangelo’s amazing painting of God reaching to Adam. We give a kind of theological pass to such things, but it should be noted that we truly ought not make such images. J.I. Packer writes, “No statement starting, ‘This is how I like to think of God’ should ever be trusted.”[4] This includes images that are revered as great achievements of Western culture.

The old joke about the little girl who informed her Sunday School teacher that she was drawing a picture of God has some profound truth in it. “But,” her teacher responded to the news, “nobody knows what God looks like.” To which the child retorted, “They will when I’m finished.”

We laugh because it is charming. Even so, the child’s answer reveals a significant truth: man-made images of the Father are necessarily impositions of our own imagination onto the divine. They necessarily are misrepresentations. They necessarily are incapable of accurately relay truth about God.

God has revealed His image in Jesus, and this should be sufficient for us.

However, there is an image of God that is sanctioned by God, sent by God, and Who possesses the blessing of the Father. I am speaking of the second person of the Trinity, the God-man Jesus. In John 1, John put it beautifully when he wrote:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Recall that it was God’s goodness and God’s glory that Moses had asked to see in Exodus 33. In John 1, John tells us that this is precisely what we do now see: “We have seen his glory.” Where do we see God’s glory? “Glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth…No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

How utterly astounding! Christ is the image that reveals the face of God. Would you see God? Look at Jesus. “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Paul says the same in Colossians 1.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Jesus is “the image of the invisible God.” Here is another reason why we should not seek to create with our own hands images of the Father: because the eternal image of the Father, Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, has come and been seen. Patrick Miller put it well when he wrote:

The prohibition of idol making, therefore, clearly rests on an understanding that the Lord does not appear in any concrete visible form. So no human being may seek to represent the Lord in such a way. Human-made images of the Lord in any form imaginable are forever excluded. The Lord chooses the manner of divine revelation and appearance.[5]

Indeed He does and indeed He has! He has chosen “the manner of divine revelation and appearance,” and it was a revelation and appearance that the world could not have imagined: God born of a virgin in Bethlehem, God with and among us, God crucified on the cross by and for us, and God rising from the dead. This is the image of God: Jesus!

It is occasionally asked whether or not images of the Son are forbidden just as images of the Father are. I can only share my opinion here. In my opinion, images of the Son are allowable so long as those images are not allowed to be made into idols, for the Son came to be seen and beheld. The barrier to creating images of the Son is the same barrier we face in depicting anything from the two millennia ago, namely cultural and historical distance. But so long as they are respectful depictions of the life and person of Christ, it is hard to imagine how such could be violations of the second commandment given the physical attribution of the Son’s incarnation, that is, given His visibility.

The appearance of the Son, however, does not cheapen the awesome transcendence and ineffability of God. Instead, it heightens our amazement at it. For who could have imagined that when the unseeable God would choose to be seen, would choose to imaged, that He would choose to reveal Himself like this? Christ reveals to us the heart of the Father, and it is a beautiful sight to behold! He reveals that the heart of the Father is one of love and mercy and grace. He reveals that the heart of the Father is one of light, and truth, and forgiveness, and compassion.

We dare not make any feeble image of the Father, for His image has already come: Jesus, the Lamb of God. Let us behold the face of God in the face of the Lord Jesus!

In the presence of the Lamb who has come, how could we ever need some mere idol? He has thrown wide the door of Heaven for all who will come and see. Come to the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit. Come and behold the God who cannot be contained in images and idols, but who has been gloriously revealed in the Son!

 

[1] William F. Buckley, Jr. Let Us Talk of Many Things. (Roseville, CA: Forum Prima, 2000), p.471.

[2] Hamilton, Victor P. (2011-11-01). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 10879-10881,10885-10895). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[3] Morgan, G. Campbell (2010-07-21). The Ten Commandments (p. 26). Kindle Edition.

[4] Packer, J. I. (2008-01-07). Keeping the Ten Commandments (Kindle Location 467). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[5] Miller, Patrick D. (2009-08-06). The Ten Commandments: Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church (Kindle Locations 1113-1115). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.

Apologia: A Sermon Series in Defense of the Faith – Part III: “Has Christianity Been Good For the World?”

apologiaIn 2007, the late Christopher Hitchens published his bestselling book, god is Not Great. As you might imagine the book was not a love letter to the Lord. Hitchens, an atheist, launched his complaint against religion in this book and his message was enthusiastically received by the many people who agreed with him. What is particularly telling about the book is the subtitle: “How Religion Poisons Everything.”

That is certainly an extreme opinion, and, again, it is one that is shared by many today. In fact, that premise (that religion poisons everything) has become almost an assumption among many modern people. But is it true? Specifically, is it true of Christianity, a religion that Hitchens had especial disdain for?

Put another way, has Christianity been good for the world or has it been bad for the world?

In exploring this question I want to offer two prefatory remarks. First, it needs to be understood that the truthfulness of Christianity and the truthfulness of the gospel of C hrist does not hinge upon the behavior of His followers. This is not a cop-out. This is simple logic, especially when we consider that one of the tenets of Christianity is the fallenness and sinfulness of all people.

This is not to say, of course, that the behavior of Christians is unimportant. That would be an absurd thing to say and even a blasphemous thing to say. How we act and how we as a Church have acted is extremely important. It plays a large part in the willingness of people to hear what we have to say. But the fact that Christian behavior is very important does not mean that Christian behavior has the power to falsify what Jesus said about Himself and the Father. Our failure to follow Jesus makes us tragic hypocrites, to be sure, but it does not make Jesus a liar.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge up front that, yes, Christians have done many bad and evil and regrettable and unChristlike things over the last 2,000 years. This is to our shame. I am therefore not trying to create a romantic picture of the past or present.

What I want to do, instead, is this: I want to say that those who depict Christianity itself as evil or as a poison or a force for bad can only do so by (a) grossly overplaying Christianity’s alleged crimes and (b) grossly downplaying Christianity’s virtues.

In short, Hitchens’ subtitle, “How Religion Poisons Everything,” is absurd if he was speaking of Christianity, which, in part, he certainly was. In point of fact, Christianity, even with its glaring faults, has indeed done amazing things in the world.

The coming of Jesus brought a sense of dignity and worth and value to mankind that the pagan cultures did not share.

The first thing we must realize is that inherent within the gospel, the central message of Christianity, are the theological and philosophical ingredients for a revolution that swept and is continuing to sweep the world. Those ingredients are the following four doctrines: the imago Dei, the love of God, the incarnation, and the call to incarnate ministry.

The imago Dei

The imago Dei is “the image of God.” Genesis 1 provides us with the foundational text.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The doctrine of the image of God means that men and women have inherent worth and dignity and value because humanity is not an accident and does not consist of mere animals. Rather, humanity is made up of image bearers who reflect the character of God. We are fallen, of course, and the image of God in us is marred and covered by our own rebellion and sinfulness, but we still bear the image.

The love of God

Along with the imago Dei is the doctrine of the love of God. To call this a doctrine seems coldly reductive, for the love of God is the very heartbeat of the gospel and stretches over the scriptures like a canopy from Genesis to Revelation. In John 3 we read:

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Christianity therefore asserts (1) that human beings bear the image of God and (2) that God loves human beings. But Christianity also teaches that the world is fallen. Even so, God’s love still stands. In fact. It was out of love that God sent His Son to us.

The incarnation

The incarnation refers to God taking on human flesh and being born of the Virgin Mary. It refers to God coming to mankind, reaching to lost men and women in and through Jesus. Thus, in John 1 we read:

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So God comes to us in our lostness, and redeems through Christ all who will come to Him in faith and repentance. In Christ, then, God has redeemed and created a people for Himself. Not only has He redeemed us, He has called us to be the body of Christ. That is, He has called us to incarnate ministry.

The call to incarnate ministry

God calls the Church to live out the life of Christ, to reach out to the world with the same heart of love that our Lord Jesus has. We are called to incarnate ministry in Philippians 2.

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

This is most significant: we are called to do today what Christ has done. We are called to love with God’s love, to go as Christ came, and to help people return to the God in Who’s image they are made.

These four theological ingredients – the image of God, the love of God, the incarnation, and the call to incarnate ministry – come together in the Christian movement in such a way as to grant a dignity to mankind and a framework in which the early Church, and the Church today, could love with absolute reckless abandon all of humanity. These four doctrines converge in Christ to create an incendiary revolution of love and care and compassion.

One beautiful expression of this comes from the novel Doctor Zhivago in which the character Nikolai Nikolaievich records the following thoughts about what Christianity brought into the world in his diary:

Rome was a flea market of borrowed gods and conquered peoples, a bargain basement on two floors, earth and heaven, a mass of filth convoluted in a triple knot as in an intestinal obstruction. Dacians, Herulians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Gyperboreans, heavy wheels without spokes, eyes sunk in fat, sodomy, double chins, illiterate emperors, fish fed on the flesh of learned slaves. There were more people in the world than there have ever been since, all crammed into the passages of the Coliseum, and all wretched.

And then, into this tasteless heap of gold and marble, He came, light and clothed in an aura, emphatically human, deliberately provincial, Galilean, and at that moment gods and nations ceased to be and man came into being – man the carpenter, man the plowman, man the shepherd with his flock of sheep at sunset, man who does not sound in the least proud, man thankfully celebrated in all the cradle songs of mothers and in all the picture galleries the world over.”[1]

Nikolaievich is right. The greatest good that Christianity has brought into the world is the gospel, the liberating, humbling, empowering gospel of Jesus.

Christianity is a revolution that has sought to alleviate suffering and evil in the world in a way that is truly astonishing.

This theological foundation gave rise to an amazing revolution of love and compassion and mercy. In short, the Christian Church immediately made amazing strides in alleviate suffering and combating evil in the world.

Greek Orthodox philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart has written of “Christianity’s twenty centuries of unprecedented and still unmatched moral triumphs – its care of widows and orphans, its almshouses, houses, hospitals, foundling homes, schools, shelters, relief organizations, soup kitchens, medical missions, charitable aid societies.”[2] Hart went on to give numerous examples of Christian charity, including the fact that “during the Middle Ages, the Benedictines alone were responsible for more than two thousand hospitals in Western Europe.”[3]

That is but one small example out of many. In a very insightful article entitled, “A New Era in Roman Healthcare,” Professor Gary Ferngren of Oregon State University wrote of Christianity’s revolutionary and attention-grabbing care for the poor in the Roman Empire. After observing that, “compassion was not a well-developed virtue among the pagan Romans; mercy was discouraged, as it only helped those too weak to contribute to society,” Ferngren offered some examples of how Christianity changed this unfortunate reality. Consider:

  • “Church leaders encouraged all Christians to visit the sick and help the poor, and each congregation also established an organized ministry of mercy. Presbyters (priests) and deacons added benevolent ministry to their sacramental roles.”
  • “By the third century the number of those receiving aid from the hands of the church had grown considerably, especially in large cities. Congregations created additional minor clerical orders, such as subdeacons and acolytes, to assist deacons in benevolence as well as liturgy.”
  • “Altogether the church in Rome ministered to 1,500 widows and others in need. It has been estimated that the Roman church spent annually between 500,000 and 1,000,000 sesterces—an enormous sum—on benevolent work.”
  • Concerning the 251 AD plague in Carthage, North Africa: “Carthage’s bishop, Cyprian, enjoined the city’s Christians to give aid to their persecutors and to care for the sick. He urged the rich to donate funds and the poor to volunteer their service for relief efforts, making no distinction between believers and pagans. Under Cyprian’s direction, Christians buried the dead left in the streets and cared for the sick and dying. For five years he stood in the breach, organizing relief efforts, until he was forced into exile.”
  • Concerning the 416 AD plague in Alexandria, Egypt: “the Christian patriarch of that city organized a corps of men recruited from the poor classes to transport and nurse the sick. They were called the parabalani, the “reckless ones,” because they risked their lives by exposing themselves to contagion while assisting the sick.”
  • “In the early fourth century, lay Christian orders began to appear in the large cities of the Eastern Roman Empire. The two best known were the spoudaioi (“the zealous ones”) and (in Egypt) the philoponoi (“lovers of labor”). The mission of these groups, drawn mostly from the lower classes, was to reach out to the indigent sick in cities such as Alexandria and Antioch. These cities had a large population of homeless sick and dying on the streets. The philoponoi would distribute food and money to them and take them to the public baths, where their basic hygienic needs could be met and they could find warmth in winter. None had medical training, but they were motivated by compassionate concern.”[4]

The old canard about the Church exhibiting two thousand years worth of cruelty, indifference, and violence has become so commonplace that the average person today is most unlikely to have heard much if anything about the amazing things that God has done through the Church throughout her history. In truth, honest observers, whether Christian or not, have marveled at the kindness that the Church has shown throughout history. The Swiss historian of medicine and Professor of the History of Medicine at The Johns Hopkins University, Henry Sigerist wrote that Christianity introduced the “most revolutionary and decisive change in the attitude of society toward the sick.” He continued:

Christianity came into the world as the religion of healing, of the joyful gospel of the Redeemer and of Redemption. It addressed itself to the disinherited, to the sick and afflicted, and promised them healing, a restoration of both spiritual and physical…it became the duty of the Christian to attend to the sick and poor of the community…the social position of the sick man thus became fundamentally different from what it had been before. He assumed a preferential treatment which has been his ever since.[5]

Even more striking is to hear an acknowledgement of Christianity’s kindness and works of mercy from an ardent opponent of the faith. Julian the Apostate, in the early 360’s AD, was a Roman emperor who sough the eradication of the early Christian movement and worked towards a revival of the old pagan religions. The problem was that the paganism he was seeking to revive was failing to exhibit the kind of benevolence for mankind that the Christians he was seeking to thwart were exhibiting. Julian wrote a famous letter to Arsacius, high pagan priest of Galatia, in which he said the following:

Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians’] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the pagan gods]?…For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.[6]

Amazing! Here we see a pagan emperor instructing his pagan priests to study Christianity so that they could learn how to be loving and kind and merciful to others. That is quite an endorsement!

Contrary to the consistent charge of bloodshed, Christianity is not a primary cause for war.

Having shown evidence of the great good that Christianity has done, I would like now to refute a popular claim that simply needs to be refuted, namely, the charge that Christianity is a bloody, violent religion that has been a primary cause of war in the world. For one example of this charge, consider the following statement that was sent in an email to one of our church members from one of his friends.

[I] believe that organized religion is the cause of wars, hate, bigotry, non-acceptance and cruelty. History proves that, the very words in the Bible proves it, the recent past & present proves it.

Another example can be seen in the words of Robert Green Ingersoll, who wrote:

Religion makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, “religion,” covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of persecution, of tyranny, and death. . . . Although they have been preaching universal love, the Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world.[7]

Well. That is quite a stunning accusation. But is it true? In his amazing book Atheist Delusions, David Bentley Hart writes of his frustration with this particular accusation.

[I]t is sometimes difficult, frankly, to be perfectly generous in one’s response to the sort of invective currently fashionable among the devoutly undevout, or to the sort of historical misrepresentations it typically involves. Take for instance Peter Watson, author of a diverting little bagatelle of a book on the history of invention, who, when asked not long ago by the New York Times to name humanity’s worst invention, blandly replied, “Without question, ethical monotheism…. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.”‘

After touching briefly on some of the reasons why wars have actually been fought, Hart concludes:

By contrast, the number of wars that one could plausibly say have actually been fought on behalf of anything one might call “ethical monotheism” is so vanishingly small that such wars certainly qualify as exceptions to the historical rule.[8]

These are two very different statements indeed! Who is right? Has Christianity, and, for that matter, religion in general, been the primary cause of war in the world or has it not.

In his book, The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day writes of his own examination of history’s wars and their causes.

A more systematic review of the 489 wars listed in Wikipedia’s list of military conflicts, from Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars to the 1969 Football War between Honduras and El Salvador, shows that only fifty-three of these wars—10.8 percent—can reasonably be described as having a religious aspect, even if one counts each of the ten Crusades separately.

Day next goes on to cite the three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, an exhaustive scholarly work of over 1,500 pages that looks at over 1,763 wars. Of those 1,763 wars, the authors concluded that 123 wars could be said to be religious in nature. Vox Day explains:

That is 123 wars in all, which sounds as if it would support the case of the New Atheists, until one recalls that these 123 wars represent only 6.98 percent of all the wars recorded in the encyclopedia…It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the encyclopedia, Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 B.C. In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.23 percent of humanity’s wars. The historical evidence is conclusive. Religion is not a primary cause of war.[9]

I repeat what I said earlier: Christianity has committed some heinous crimes over the years and the Church’s betrayals should not be excused. But I would simply like to point out that the charge of Christianity’s warlike nature is simply a slander, a gross misrepresentation of the actual historical record. I do not think such a charge should be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Christians could begin here and now to reclaim and live out once again the revolutionary nature of the message of the cross and empty tomb, and, in so doing, capture the attention and curiosity of the watching world as it once did.

All of this raises an interesting question: could Christianity, which, today, is tragically anemic, regain its revolutionary reputation through amazing acts of transformative benevolence, love, and compassion? Indeed. Indeed we could.

In fact, wherever Christianity is actually lived out, people still marvel at it. Case in point: on December 27, 2008, The Times of London published an article by Matthew Parris entitled “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.”

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it’s Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.[10]

Oh church, do you see? The unbelieving world is watching. Will we be a revolution again, a Jesus revolution? In Revelation 3, Jesus calls us to return to Him.

1 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

Church, let us wake up and live again! Let us live in such a way that the world marvels at us, and, more importantly, at our King, Jesus.

The fact of the matter is, the revolutionary spirit of early Christianity is still alive and well in the lives of many Christians today. And that makes sense. If we have been born again, we possess the Spirit of the living God through the saving work of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Lord Jesus has never changed. The Spirit of God today is the same Spirit Who led men and women to turn the world upside down with astounding acts of compassion in the first century. That is why even today, amidst all the failures of the Church, we see amazing glimpses of the Kingdom of God, living and active and still revolutionary.

How else to describe the behavior of the members of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, who responded to Dylann Roof’s murder of nine church members (because he said he wanted to start a race war) by forgiving him?

“I’m reminded of some news media persons that wondered why the nine families all spoke of forgiveness and didn’t have malice in their heart,” [Rev. Norvel] Goff said during the Sunday service. “It’s that the nine families got it,” he said, reminding worshippers that members’ unwavering faith in God shows how to “love our neighbors as we love ourselves.”[11]

They “got it.”

And we “got it.”

And we need to live it.

Has Christianity been good for world? Indeed it has. It has had its failures, to be sure, but it has also succeeded in truly amazing ways, bringing light and life and hope and transformation to the world.

May it do so again, and may it do so with us.

 

[1] Boris Pasternak. Doctor Zhivago. (New York, N.Y.: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958), p. 43.

[2] David Bentley Hart. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Kindle Locations 184-185). Kindle Edition.

[3] David Bentley Hart. Kindle Location 434.

[4] https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/new-era-in-roman-healthcare/

[5] Darrel W. Amundsen and Gary B. Ferngren, “Virtue and Medicine from Early Christianity through the Sixteenth Century.” Virtue and Medicine: Explorations in the Character of Medicine. Volume 1. Earl E. Shelp, ed., Philosophy and Medicine. 17 (D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985), p.50.

[6] https://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/julian-the-apostate-letter-to-arsacius/text

[7] Quoted in Day, Vox (2008-02-01). The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens (p. 97). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

[8] David Bentley Hart. Kindle Locations 116-126.

[9] Day, Vox, p.103, 105-106.

[10] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article2044345.ece

[11] https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/21/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

Exodus 18

jethromeetsmosesinthedesertExodus 18

 

1 Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. 2 Now Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her home, 3 along with her two sons. The name of the one was Gershom (for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land”), 4 and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”). 5 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God. 6 And when he sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her,” 7 Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. And they asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent. 8 Then Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had come upon them in the way, and how the Lord had delivered them. 9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the good that the Lord had done to Israel, in that he had delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians. 10 Jethro said, “Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.” 12 And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God. 13 The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. 14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16 when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.” 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. 19 Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20 and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” 24 So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. 27 Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country.

Philip Ryken has shared the story of the conversion of Edward Studd.

            One man who excelled at telling the gospel truth was Edward Studd, the father of C.T. Studd, the famous missionary to Africa.  Studd was a wealthy Englishman who led a life of ease and entertainment until suddenly he was converted by the preaching of D.L. Moody.  Edward’s sons were away at school at the time; so they didn’t know anything about what had happened to their father.  They were shocked when he arrived at Eton in the middle of the term and instead of taking them to the theater, as was his custom, took them to hear Moody preach.  C.T. Studd later said:

 

Before that time, I used to think that religion was a Sunday thing, like one’s Sunday clothes, to be put away on Monday morning.  We boys were brought up to go to church regularly, but, although we had a kind of religion, it didn’t amount to much…Then all at once I had the good fortune to meet a real live…Christian.  It was my own father.  But it did make one’s hair stand on end.  Everyone in the house had a dog’s life of it until they were converted.  I was not altogether pleased with him.  He used to come into my room at night and ask if I was converted.[i]

It is a powerful thing when the head of a home comes to know the Lord.  It tends to leave a marked impact on all who are in the family.  That was certainly the case with C.T. Studd and the conversion of his father.  Even though C.T. Studd would come to be more well known than his father, the conversion of his father was a seminal moment in his life.

Something along those same lines is happening in Exodus 18.  Moses is certainly more well known than his father-in-law Jethro, but here we are privileged to witness the conversion of Jethro and his ascendancy among the people of God to a position of leadership.  The chapter may be viewed in two parts:  first, Jethro’s entry into the family of God and, second, Jethro’s role in organizing the family of God.

Becoming part of the people of God

Moses had first met Jethro, the priest of Midian, after he saved his daughters from the threatening shepherds in Exodus 2.  Moses married Zipporah and she bore him two sons.  Then God called Moses back to Egypt to deliver His people.  What we have here, then, is a reunion.  Moses is being reunited with his wife, children, and father-in-law.

1 Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. 2 Now Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her home, 3 along with her two sons. The name of the one was Gershom (for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land”), 4 and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”). 5 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God. 6 And when he sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her,” 7 Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. And they asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent. 8 Then Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had come upon them in the way, and how the Lord had delivered them. 9 And Jethro rejoiced for all the good that the Lord had done to Israel, in that he had delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians. 10 Jethro said, “Blessed be the Lord, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.” 12 And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God.

Moses was understandably elated to see his wife, children, and father-in-law.  Less understandable to the modern reader is the immediate affection he shows to Jethro with no record of him showing affection to his wife.  Victor Hamilton has said of this:

But what about seeing Zipporah and the boys? I am sure that if I have seen neither my father-in-law nor my wife for a long time, I know which one I am going to kiss first! But that is a Westerner speaking. Middle Eastern cultures, both past and present, operate differently.[ii]

Hamilton is right in pointing to the differing times in which Moses lived, but likely what is happening here is simply a matter of spotlight.  That is, the spotlight needs to fall on Moses and Jethro at this point in order to show Jethro’s entry into the community of God and the role he would play in their strategic organization.  The story of Israel’s salvation is more focused on key developments than on assuaging the romantic curiosity of sentimental moderns like us.

What we see, then, is Jethro’s apparent conversion.  We will use the term “conversion” here, though the details of Jethro’s theology are not as exhaustively revealed as we would like.  The Anchor Bible Dictionary points out that some have attempted “to connect [Jethro’s] priesthood with a pre-Mosaic Yahweh cult whose beliefs and rituals were transferred to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 18).  This concept maintains that the Hebrew religion has Midianite roots.”  It then goes on, rightly, I believe, to reject this view as “doubtful” on the basis of our text, noting that Jethro seems to come to a confirmed belief in Yahweh only in Exodus 18 and that Jethro’s belief in Yahweh makes him “unique, for it is clear from other sources that generally the Midianites were idolaters (cf. Num 25:17-18; 31:16).”[iii]

What does seem to be abundantly clear is that when Jethro hears the tale of God’s deliverance of his people, he realizes and accepts that Yahweh God is the supreme God over all.

Terence Fretheim, while cautioning against forcing a conversionist template onto this scene, helpfully lists the telling steps in Exodus 18 that point to Jethro and his family’s assimilation into the people of God.

1. Jethro hears what God has done for Israel (v.1).

2. Jethro with Moses’ family visits the newly delivered community.

3. They go into the tent (sanctuary).

4. Moses declares the good news to Jethro…

5. Jethro rejoices over all the good that God has brought to Israel…

6. Jethro gives public thanks (=blesses) to God…

7. Jethro publicly confesses that Yahweh is God of gods and Lord of lords.

8. Jethro presents an offering to God…[iv]

It is tempting to make this a kind of template for conversion.  Moshe Reiss, writing for the Jewish Bible Quarterly, shows how many rabbinic commentators did just that.

The suggestion that Jethro was a convert has a threefold basis: the fact that he

blessed the Lord; that he made sacrifices and a burnt offering to God; and that he then participated in a festive meal, breaking bread with Aaron and the elders before God (Ex. l 8:1 0,12). The battle with Amalek (Ex. 17:8-16) that immediately precedes Jethro’s arrival apparently leads on to Exodus 18:1, Jethro…heard everything that God had done for Moses and for Israel. This fostered the rabbinic understanding that Jethro was inspired to convert after hearing about the defeat of Amalek (TB Zevahim 116a; Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, 3). In other midrashic sources, Jethro and his family spontaneously converted before ever meeting Moses. This explains why the shepherds in Midian disliked and oppressed Jethro’s daughters (Shemot Rabbah 1:32)…

 

…R. Berechiah explains that Jethro converted and then returned to Midian in order to convert the rest of the Kenites, who later came to live in Israel (Judg. 1:16). R. Berechiah’s pro-convert stance is attested by his statement that Israel’s merit can be ascertained from the number and quality of converts, “like Jethro, Rahab and Ruth” (Kohelet Rabbah 6:5). Going even further, R. Eleazar states that God told Moses:  “1 am He that brought Jethro near, not keeping him at a distance . . . some say that the Shekhinah went with him” (Mekhilta, Yitro).[v]

The only possible problem with this is Jethro’s statement in verse 11, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.”  Does this mean that Jethro believed there are still other gods but they are not as powerful as Yahweh, or does this mean that Jethro now saw that there was only one God?  In other words, did Jethro convert to monotheism, did he reject the pagan deities for whom he was a priest, or did he simply come to see that the God of Israel was the most powerful of many gods?

It is hard to say, and it is not an unimportant question, but the answer to that question still does not negate the point that what we do see in Jethro’s behavior contains all the marks of true conversion:  he is drawn to God, he learns the good news of God’s amazing saving works, he rejoices at this good news, he embraces the Lord God as supreme, and he moves on to worship God.  Conversion is more than this (in the sense that it does indeed need to include belief that God alone is God), but it is not less than this.

It raises an interesting question.  Have our lives been similarly marked by these movements of faith:  coming, hearing, accepting, rejoicing, worshiping?  When you look at Jethro, do you see your own journey?  Of course, there are a thousand different ways we move from point to point, but these points should be there:  coming, hearing, accepting, rejoicing, worshiping.

Organization within the people of God

Having entered into the family of God, Jethro noticed something about his son-in-law’s leadership style that prompted him to offer some paternal advice.

13 The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. 14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16 when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.” 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. 19 Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20 and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” 24 So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. 27 Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country.

This may seem to be a matter of mere logistics, delegation, and organization, but notice that what was at stake ultimately was the survival of the leader of Israel and the people of God and their final entry into the land of promise:  If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”

Jethro’s entry into the community of Israel was therefore significant both for what it meant for Jethro and his own salvation and for Moses and his own survival.  Simply put, God brought the right man at the right time.

One cannot help but be struck by the humility of Moses in hearing and heeding the advice of his father-in-law.  Moses could have brushed him off with wounded pride or he could have asked self-righteously what exactly a new convert had to teach a champion like himself.  But Moses did neither.  He honored and heard and obeyed his father-in-law.  Perhaps he was so exhausted that he knew something had to change.  Perhaps he simply knew his father to be a wise man who was not to be lightly dismissed.  Either way, Moses did something that it is hard for leaders to do:  he humbled himself and listened.

As a result, the large congregation was strategically segmented into units that could be more manageably ministered to.  In the Church, this passage is occasionally appealed to as a kind of Old Testament forerunner of the New Testament office of deacon.  Indeed, the rationale for this organization we find in Exodus 18 is similar to that of Acts 6.

1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. 7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

In both cases, organization and delegation are necessary so that the leaders of the congregation will not burn out and ultimately be of no use to God’s people and so that they can focus on their primary tasks.  Furthermore, it is interesting to compare the qualifications of Israel’s division heads with the qualifications of New Testament deacons.  In our text, Jethro called for a particular kind of man to be given leadership.

21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe

Similarly, Paul writes this in 1 Timothy 3:

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

This should not surprise us, these similarities, for the character of God does not change and His love for His people does not change and the marks of a useful servant of God does not change.  In both cases we see the providential care of God for His people:  His raising up of new leaders, His granting of humility to those leaders who have already been raised, His involvement of willing servants in the care of his people, His concern about the concerns of all His people, and His provision for His people on their journey home.



[i] Philip Graham Ryken, Exodus. Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), p.476.

[ii] Hamilton, Victor P. (2011-11-01). Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 9229-9231). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[iii] Joel C. Slayton, “Jethro.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol.3, H-J (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), p.821.

[iv] Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus. Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), p.195-196.

[v] Moshe Reiss, “Jethro the Convert.” Jewish Bible Quarterly. (April 1, 2013), p.93-94.

Malcolm Yarnell’s (editor) The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists

681745This book contains the presentations that were given at a 2012 conference by (essentially) the same name at my alma mater, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.  (Videos of the presentations can be viewed here.)  I have been mildly interested in reading this, to be honest, but not overly so.  However, when I saw it offered on sale at Amazon the other day I happily purchased it.  Having just finished it, I can say that this is an extremely interesting and informative work and one, I should say, that is more than worth the full retail cost.  (In fact, I may very well purchase a hardcopy because I think this would be a valuable addition to my library.)  Thus, my mild skepticism was wrong, and I gladly stand corrected!

There is way too much information in the book to summarize here, but, suffice it to say, you will walk away from a reading of this book with a very good understanding of the key personalities, historical developments, and controversies of the Anabaptists.  You will also come away with a deep appreciation for these brave men and women.  To be sure, the authors do not seek to gloss over some of the more unfortunate theological, political, and personal aspects that have been associated with the movement, but they convincingly show these to be anomalies and perversions of the true Anabaptist spirit.

What is the true Anabaptist spirit?  I would say it is radical discipleship.  This discipleship arose out of a fearless and honest reading of scripture and a desire to implement what was read therein.  This led to regenerate church membership, believers baptism, missions, and personal holiness.  The Anabaptist movement was filled with fascinating and colorful personalities who were persecuted by Catholics and (amazingly) Protestants alike.

There were many things in the book that I found very interesting.  The Anabaptists’ relationship with Zwingli, for example, is as interesting as it is frustrating.  Furthermore, if Luther hatched the egg that Erasmus laid then the Anabaptists can rightly be said to have hatched the egg that Luther laid.  Speaking of Erasmus, the book’s discussion of his impact on Balthasar Hubmaier was likewise intriguing.  The account of Luther’s detestation of the Anabaptists is tragic.  What is more, the magisterial Reformers’ wrestling with and ultimate rejection of believer’s baptism is a most unfortunate example of the victory of eisegesis over exegesis.

This is a very, very good book.  I’m sorry I did not read it when it first appeared.  If you would like to see church history taught in an engaging way, read the lectures in this book.