Each day at breakfast my family and I read through an advent devotional, and yesterday, we read Luke's story of the shepherds encountering Jesus from Luke 2:8-20:
8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” 15 When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. 17 And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. 18 And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.
Have you ever seen a nativity play? Have you or your kids ever been in one? Which role did you or they want to play? Well, the girls, I am sure, wanted Mary, and the boys, wanted Joseph. But, if you couldn't get Joseph, as a boy, the wise men were usually the next best thing. And, then, if you were really unlucky, you had to be a shepherd, which probably meant kneeling in a bathrobe on and a hand towel tied over your head. The shepherds often times get relegated to the lowest part of the pecking order of the nativity scenes and plays we see/perform. In fact, I have often wondered why Luke, the doctor, would choose the write about the shepherds. It seemed to me that surely Luke would have chosen to write about the wise men, the intellectuals like him. Why the lowly shepherds? I think we often think that the shepherds were just lucky, unimportant guests at the party. Well, those kinds of thoughts are a mistake that God and Luke do not make.
Have you every wondered what Joseph and Mary thought when the shepherds showed up? They knew what the angel had told them about Jesus, but they had to wonder, "What brought you here? How did you know?" The shepherds just showed up at the gate to the stable. And, they could have asked the same question of the wise men, who were the "academics" in their time. Now, we know the wise men probably did not arrive at the same time as the shepherds. It was perhaps years later. But, let's imagine the nativity scenes, as we often see them in plays or we put on our mantles, are correct and they all made it there at once, and Joseph or Mary asks, "How did you know?" Perhaps the wise men would have had a proud response and said that they had been directed by a very careful reading of ancient prophecy and vigilant watching the stars, as only an academic could have done. Then, they might have turned to the shepherds and said, perhaps looking down their noses a bit, "And, how did you know about this?" And, I image that a cheeky shepherd might have answered, "Yeah, we may not be too bright and able to read prophecy or watch the stars, but we had an angel appear to us; then an army of angels singing to us, and we saw the glory of the LORD surrounding us. You saw a star. God sent us a special host of heavenly messengers."
This is one of the great paradoxes of Christmas: the most marginalized of those in the nativity had the most spectacular display of divine power. And, as most of you probably know, shepherds were the lowest of the low in the society of that time. They could not even testify in court because it was believed de jure that they could never be trusted. Yet, the glorious birth announcement comes to shepherds who had done nothing to qualify for it, and they probably knew that they could do nothing to qualify, as they were the lowest of society. Do you see what this means? God shows us His grace even in the announcement. The Savior doesn't despise the shepherds, which means He doesn't despise the likes of me or you. He was born even for the likes of us.
But, let's think a little more about this story. Now, if you were a shepherd and you had seen a host of angels announcing the birth the Savior who is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, where would you think you would find that baby? You would probably think, like the wise men, that He must be royally-born and that He'd be in a palace. The wise men knew the star announced the birth of someone really important--a king--and they went looking in the place important people go first: the palace. But, what do the angels say to the shepherds? "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."
Have you ever thought about how that is a really weird sign? If the one born is the Savior and Messiah/Christ, how is Him being born in a manger--in the food trough of animals--a sign? Well, consider this: If you were a shepherd--the lowliest of society--and the angel told you He was in the palace, would you have gone to see Him? I doubt it, because you'd know a shepherd would never be let into the palace! That Savior would be off limits to anyone but the highest ranking people in the world. They would have said, "He's not for the likes of us." But, He was placed in a food trough, and that was a sign for the shepherds and us that the Savior has come for the least in the world. There is no one so far gone or so low that they could say, "I know He could save others, but He can't save me." He is so gentle, meek, and lowly that there is no obstacle in Him to prevent anyone from having access to Him as their Savior. He is the God of gods, the Messiah, the heir to King David's eternal throne--i.e. qualified to save the greatest--and He was born and laid in a manger--i.e. qualified to save the lowliest. Everyone from the shepherds to the wise men can go to Him because He is God born in a stable. The only obstacle is our sinful rebellion. The obstacle is found in us, not in Him.
Let's consider one more part of this story. There is something else odd in the birth announcement, in v. 11. Does that phrase "unto you is born" seem a little odd? Wouldn't you expect it to say, "unto Mary" or "unto Joseph"? The shepherds probably were good Jews and knew the Messiah was coming, but there is all the difference in the world between knowing that is true and believing that is for you. That little phrase was another way the angels showed them that the Savior can be theirs. He was born for them. He was born unto us, and even the way His birth was announced tells us that.
The glory, meaning, or "magic" of Christmas is not in the presents or good will that travels around this time of year, though those things in themselves can be great. The glory is, paradoxically, that Jesus--the second Person of the Trinity--humbled Himself to the level of a servant, was announced to lowly shepherds, and drew the shepherds to Himself, so that we could know we can come too and tell others that He is a Savior qualified to save the greatest to the lowliest.
A few months ago I began a blog series that will be irregular (at best) on lessons I have learned from being a dad about God being our heavenly Father--i.e. what it means for God to be our Father, how that impacts our lives, our relationship with Him as our Father, etc. I have learned quite a bit since I became a dad because the father-child relationship analogy that the Scriptures use has become so much more real to me. Well, recently I have been thinking about another aspect of God's fatherhood and our relationship to Him.
My son Gabriel is almost three now, and that means he is in the stage commonly known as "terrible twos," which should really be "terrible twos and threes or maybe even fours." That means that Gabriel is beginning to understand more and more how he is individual with a will of his own and he is desiring to assert his autonomy more and more. Of course, every parent out there knows what is coming next: tantrums. Gabriel now knows what he wants, knows that he is an individual, and knows he does not want to be told what to do, which means we see a lot of tantrums. This is actually part of their developmental process and is a good sign in the grand scheme of mental and emotional development, though it sometimes feels like hell on earth for parents.
This past weekend, for example, we took him to two Halloween activities in our city on Saturday, and at both there was lots of candy, which is what one would expect. Well, we, of course, try to limit his sugar intake, but depending on the day and activity, we might bend the rules a little and let him have more than he normally would. And, we did that Saturday, letting him have a little more candy than normally we would. That, however, was not enough. At a local church's festivities, we cut off the candy because he had had more than enough and we were about to go home and have dinner, and all of a sudden his world went from being loads of fun to a tragedy that in his mind would rival Oedipus' discovery that the oracle at Delphi had been right all along. And, while he did not attempt to gouge out his eyes, the screaming and crying certainly made it sound like he had.
Such tantrums are common in our life right now, and my "gut" responses vary. Sometimes the tantrums are so over-the-top ridiculous that it is all I can do not to laugh. Often they are frustrating, trying my patience to its limits. Most of the time there is mixed in with other emotions a sense of loving pity--pity because he does not understand all the things involved in denying what he thinks he needs, pity because I do not like seeing him sad, pity because I am trying to do what is best for him and he does not understand, pity because his immaturity is making him overreact. Lately these tantrums have also been humbling for me personally, which may seem like an odd response, but allow me to explain.
In my prayer life, there are times when I "vent" to God about things going on and my opinion of how my life is going. Now, those types of prayers are not necessarily bad or sinful because He wants to know what is on our hearts and He knows them anyway. And, certainly honesty with God in our prayer lives is something we need to develop. But, there are times where my "venting" is really just a "grownup" way of describing a tantrum. When I look at Gabriel with pity while in the midst of a tantrum, lately I have thought, "God, is this what I look like to You when I vent in my prayers? Do I look like a child rolling on the ground screaming because I did not get my way?" I am pretty sure I know the answer to those questions, and I do not like it.
I think that is probably the case much of the time. Even though I might veil it in "grownup" language and might not be screaming while rolling on the floor, sometimes it is about the same thing--I am upset because I cannot understand why God is not doing something the way I think that it should be done, and I doing whatever it takes to convince Him that my way is better. It may not involve stomping and screaming, but it is not really any better than a tantrum. Yet, at the same time, when I think, "God, is this what I look like?" I also think "Wow, you are so patient, kind, and loving to me to put up with this." With a toddler, we can cut him some slack because he has not learned how to deal with his emotions properly, but I have no such excuses. And, yet, if I--a sinner and sub-par father--respond with loving pity, how much more does God as my heavenly Father do that for me?
If I am moved with pity because Gabriel does not understand all the things involved in denying what he thinks he needs, then how much more is that true of God? The gap between God's knowledge and my own is far greater than the gap between my knowledge and Gabriel's--I am much less than a toddler in my knowledge compared to God. As the LORD says in Isaiah, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." If I am moved with pity because I do not like to see Gabriel hurt, how much more is that true of my heavenly Father who loves me perfectly? Of course, just like I know it is sometimes necessary for Gabriel to experience disappointment for his own good, so He knows that sometimes it is necessary for His good plan for me. Yet, even though it is necessary, it does not mean He does not experience fatherly sympathy for His confused and hurting child. If I am moved with pity because Gabriel does not understand that I am trying to do what is best for him, how much more is that true of my heavenly Father who always works all things for my good? My wisdom (as limited as it is) far exceeds Gabriel's, and, indeed, Gabriel would not throw a tantrum if he knew what I knew. Well, the same can be said of us. God's wisdom far, far, far exceeds our own, and God always answers our prayers in the way we would have them answered if we knew everything He knew and were as wise as Him. But, just as Gabriel does not understand because his knowledge and wisdom are limited, so I do not understand because my knowledge and wisdom are limited. So, my heavenly Father looks upon me with loving pity and says, "My child, you do not understand, but please trust me, for I love you more than you love your own son." And, if I am moved with pity for Gabriel because his immaturity causes him to overreact, how much more is that true of our loving and understanding heavenly Father? Immaturity does not, of course, excuse Gabriel's reaction and neither does it excuse my "grownup" tantrums, but it does move me to fatherly compassion for my son, and I think the same is true of our heavenly Father.
At the end of the day, I still need to do what is best for Gabriel, as God does for me, but thinking about how much I--a very imperfect father--am moved with love, compassion, and pity for my son makes me so thankful for my heavenly Father who is the perfect Father. If I can respond in love and compassion to my son, most certainly God does to me. Even when I throw a tantrum, He looks upon me with fatherly love because He has adopted me and loved me perfectly in Christ.
There is, of course, another side to this: how I would like Gabriel to respond. I know Gabriel cannot understand many of the decisions Erika and I make concerning him, but I would like him to respond by saying, "You know dad, I don't get it, but I know you love me, so I trust you." Obviously that is pipe dream for Gabriel. Every day Erika and I care for him, feed him, clothe him, love him, give him experiences, and so much more, but when what he thinks he "needs" is challenged, he forgets all that. He so easily forgets how much love we have shown him, so trust in those times is hard. But, am I really any different when it comes to my relationship to God--my heavenly Father? Throughout my life God has provided for me, proved Himself faithful over and over again, and never let me down, and yet when what I think I "need" is challenged, I forget all that too. I bet my heavenly Father would like me to say, "You know Dad, I don't get it, but I know You love me, so I trust You."
That is what the Psalms do. Do you know what the most common type of psalm in the book of Psalms is? It is not the hymns, the confidence psalms or the wisdom psalms. It is not the thanksgiving psalms or psalms of remembrance. It is the laments. There are more psalms of lament than any other type of psalm. These psalms express intense sadness, suffering, and confusion about life, and there are more of them than any other type. That alone should tell us something about the Christian life: God's people experience real suffering and pain often. But, the psalms of lament have a characteristic to them that keeps them from descending into "grownup" tantrums.
These psalms (e.g. Ps 13, 22, 26, 42-44, 74, 77, 79, 88, 102, 130, 143) almost always follow a very important structure. They begin with an invocation to God for help. Then, there is a complaint section that may lead to a plea for help, confession of sin, or cry for vindication. And, then, most importantly, all but one of them end with confident praise to God. For example, Ps. 13 ends with:
5 But I have trusted in your steadfast love;
my heart shall rejoice in your salvation. 6 I will sing to the Lord,
because he has dealt bountifully with me.
In this psalm, David has not seen any resolution between the beginning and the end, but even when he complains and cries out for God to act, he does not forget what is true about God. Even though it does not feel that way to him, he reminds himself of the truth.
I think we can learn something about how we should pray when confused or in pain from these psalms. It is okay for us to pour out our hearts to God and cry out to Him in pain and confusion. In fact, it is good for us to do so, but when we do that, we must never act arrogantly towards God--thinking we know better--or question His character--accusing Him of wrongdoing. The psalms of lament always ground their complaint in the goodness of God and then come back to that goodness with faith at the end, even when everything in the life of the psalmist seems to testify to the contrary. The psalms of lament combine honest, intense expressions of grief with truthful, biblical, faithful reminders of who God really is.
When we pray and "vent" like that, then we are not throwing a "grownup" tantrum but are doing exactly what we want our children to do: saying, "Dad, I don't get it, but I know You love me, so I trust You." That is a righteous lament; not a toddler tantrum.
In honor of Reformation Day and the 498th anniversary of Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, I would like to share my favorite quotes from Martin Luther, a few posts I have written concerning some of his theological statements, and a few of his works.
These are my two favorite quotes from Luther, and I think the reasons will be obvious:
"A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to every one." ~ Concerning Christian Liberty
"Good God, what a lot of trouble there is in marriage! Adam has made a mess of our nature. Think of all the squabbles Adman and Eve must have had in the course of their nine hundred years. Eve would say, 'You ate the apple,' and Adam would retort, 'You gave it to me.'" ~ Quoted in Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther
Here are a few posts I wrote on some of Luther's theology:
Today we come to the final post in this series, and it is fitting to end with the Passover and exodus—the climax of this book and the great miracle of the Old Testament. As we saw in the last sermon, during the first nine plagues, Pharaoh became increasingly hardened before God and would not let the Hebrews go. God, of course, had told Moses this would be the case because God is making His glory known through Pharaoh’s stubbornness. What we did not read in the last sermon, however, was Pharaoh’s last words to Moses before the tenth plague: “Get away from me; take care never to see my face again, for on the day you see my face you shall die.” Those are really bold words from a man who’s just seen his entire nation and pantheon of gods defeated by the God of a rag-tag group of slaves. Pharaoh’s arrogance in this story is striking, for even with the tenth plague predicted, he still doesn’t relent, and he’s conceited enough to think that he can threaten Moses’ life, even though Yahweh has devastated his country and worldview. When thinking about Pharaoh as I prepared for this sermon, I was reminded of a poem by William Henley, in the late 19th century, called “Invictus”:
Out of the night that covers me, Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.
Even though this poem was written thousands of years later, it’s a pretty good description of Pharaoh’s attitude toward God. Yahweh has just answered his question—“Who is the LORD?”—with nine plagues of devastation, and yet he still remains unbowed; still thinks that he’s master of his fate. Well, God has one more plague that will show Pharaoh he is, in fact, not the captain of his soul. Yet, this plague isn’t like the previous nine, for in the midst of it, we not only see Pharaoh, Egypt, and all their so-called gods judged by God—showing they’re not masters of their fate—but also God’s great salvation remembered and His ultimate salvation in Jesus—the Lamb of God—foretold. In the midst of judgment, we see redemption by the blood of the Lamb.
If you want to find out more of how the plagues display God's sovereignty, you can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.
THE CRUSHING PLAGUES have followed their ordained sequence. Repeatedly, Pharaoh hardened his heart; yet, however culpable this man was, God sovereignly moved behind the scenes, actually warning Pharaoh, implicitly inviting repentance. For instance, through Moses God had already said to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go” (9:16-17). Yet now Pharaoh’s patience entirely collapses. He warns Moses that he is not to appear in the court again: “The day you see my face you will die” (10:28).
So the stage is set for the last plague, the greatest and worst of all. After the previous nine disasters, one would think that Moses’ description of what would happen (Ex. 11) would prompt Pharaoh to hesitate. But he refuses to listen (11:9); and all this occurs, God says “so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt” (11:9).
In Exodus 11 – 12 there is yet another almost incidental description of God’s sovereign provision. Exodus 11 tells us, almost parenthetically, that “the LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people” (11:3). This is followed in Exodus 12 by the description of the Egyptians urging the Israelites to leave the country (12:33). One can understand the rationale: how many more plagues like this last one could they endure? At the same time, the Israelites ask for clothing and silver and gold. “The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians” (12:36).
Psychologically, it is easy enough, after the event, to explain all this. In addition to the fear the Israelites now incited among the Egyptians, perhaps guilt was also operating: who knows? “We owe them something.” Psychologically, of course, one could have concocted a quite different scenario: in a fit of rage, the Egyptians massacre the people whose leader and whose God have brought such devastating slaughter among them.
In reality, however, the ultimate reason why things turn out this way is because of the powerful hand of God: the Lord himself made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people.
This is the element that is often overlooked by sociologists and others who treat all of culture like a closed system. They forget that God may intervene, and turn the hearts and minds of the people. Massive revival that transforms the value systems of the West is now virtually inconceivable to those enamored with closed systems. But if God graciously intervenes and makes the people “favorably disposed” to the preaching of the Gospel….
Check out the original post over at the Gospel Coalition's website, and remember that God is sovereign over the human heart and will bring the fruit of the gospel wherever He chooses. This world is not a closed system. As Father Christmas said in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, "Aslan is on the move!" and all the snow and the ice is melting.
One of my favorite annual periodicals is the Darwin Awards. If you haven’t heard of those, sometime you should look them up. The subtitle for this prestigious set of awards is “Chlorinating the Gene Pool: Commemorating Those Who Improve Our Gene Pool by Removing Themselves from It,” if that gives you any idea of what’s coming. They are morbid (but generally quite amusing) stories from the previous year of people who died, or rather brought about their own deaths, in, shall we say, unintelligent ways. While preparing for this sermon of this post, one story from the 1999 Awards kept coming back to my mind. It’s the story of a lawyer and two of his friends on a fishing trip, and it goes like this:
A lawyer and two of his buddies were fishing on Caddo Lake in Texas. A lightning storm hit the lake and most of the fisherman immediately headed for the shore. But not our friend the lawyer. He was alone on the rear of his aluminum bass boat and his buddies were in the front. This gentleman stood up, spread his arms wide (crucifixion style) and shouted: “Here I am Lord! Show yourself to me!” Needless to say, God delivered. The other two passengers on the boat survived the lightning strike and are reported to have joined the Ministry immediately.
I couldn’t help but keep thinking of that story as I was preparing for this sermon because as silly as that story is, that is essentially what Pharaoh did ch. 5, which we talked about last sermon. Remember, Pharaoh has refused to let God’s people go and impertinently asked, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice?” He, like the lawyer in our story, thinks that YHWH is no threat at all to him, so he challenges YHWH, basically declaring war Him. And, the plagues--which we talked about from a historical perspective in the last post--are God’s response. As God says 7:4-5, “I will lay my hand on Egypt… by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD,” and Pharaoh will learn this too, though it takes a lot of righteous judgment and a long time because of his stubborn hardness of heart. And, essentially God answers Pharaoh’s question and judges Egypt by manifesting His sovereignty over everything in existence. In fact, His sovereignty is more clearly displayed in this story than almost anywhere else in Scripture.
If you want to find out more of how the plagues display God's sovereignty, you can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.
In the sermon of the next post, we will take a look at the first nine plagues that God unleashes on Egypt in order to drive Pharaoh to release His people. One thing that often comes up with the subject of the plagues of Ex. 7-12 is whether the plagues were divine intervention from God or just natural disasters that the Egyptians misinterpreted. Modern minds that want to deny any supernatural intervention in our universe have come up with all sorts of attempts to explain them naturally, but all of those attempts fail. I did not have time to go over that in the sermon that will be in the next post, so here we will look at why such attempts cannot explain the biblical data adequately.
First, we should note that in some of the miraculous events in Scripture God does use natural causes in supernatural ways. In some cases, God does appear to be using the laws of nature, but He uses them in a way that would be highly improbable or next to impossible without His divine intervention. Take, for example, the crossing of the Red Sea in Ex. 14. There the text tells us specifically how God divided the sea: "the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." (v. 21) Do you see God's use of natural forces there? God used wind that blew all night long to divide the water and dry the ground. Now, technically that is possible given the right environmental factors, but the timing, magnitude, and duration of the wind makes it not logical to believe it happened merely by chance. To say it happened by chance, we would have to say that "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea" (v. 21) at just the right moment (and he knew to do that how?), we would have to say that the wind blew all night long at just the right magnitude and in just the right direction without varying at all (no lulls in the wind at all), and we would have to say that after all the Hebrews had made it through again "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea" (v. 27) at just the right moment when the wind stopped (again, he knew to do that how?) and the water came crashing down on the Egyptians. Such a sequence of perfectly timed events is really not possible with God's invention, even though He did use the forces of nature. Well, the same reasoning can apply to the plagues: even if there is a natural component to some or all of them, the timing, magnitude, and duration of events shows that the divine hand of God must be behind them.
Let's look at one of the most sophisticated attempts to explain the plagues naturally. Greta Hort published the best attempt to give natural explanations to all the plagues in "The Plagues of Egypt" in 1958 (in the German journal Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, pp. 48-59), and it is often still referenced by those who try to attribute the plagues to natural events. Her theory can be summarized as follows:
Massive flooding in the Abyssinian plateau upstream from Egypt washed red clay into the Nile, and that clay, combined with two particular types of algae, made the Nile appear "blood red." And, in the fish that died from the pollution of the Nile, anthrax bread, which comes into play in the successive plagues.
Frogs left the uninhabitable Nile, invading Egypt, but the frogs were infected with anthrax and so they soon died as well.
As floodwaters receded, the pools and dead frogs became a perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes (more likely than gnats) and flies, both of which were infected by anthrax as well.
The mosquitoes bit humans and animals, and animals consume the flies, so both became infected with anthrax as well--it killed the animals that ingested them and infected the skin of the humans that were bitten.
In the seventh plague, the hail was just an extreme weather condition that destroyed crops.
In the eighth plague, the locusts bred as a result of the extremely wet ground from the hail and rain.
Finally, the darkness was a sandstorm (which, Hort claims, is why Bible says in 10:21 that it could be "felt").
I hope that while simply reading through those, you can already see how they are thoroughly unconvincing unless you are really looking for a reason to deny supernatural involvement by God. Here is an article that shows the many scientific inaccuracies in this theory (like the types of algae, what animals anthrax can infect, etc.). But, as mentioned above, such an attempt to create a purely natural chain of events (that breaks down after plague six, by the way) cannot at all account for the timing, magnitude, and duration of the plagues, so we do not even need to dig deep into the details to show that this does not work (though the article linked above is still worth a read):
The Nile turned to blood "in the sight of Pharaoh" (7:20), i.e. not gradually from an upstream flow, and it was not just the Nile but "all the water in Egypt" (7:20) and "even in the vessels of wood and in the vessels of stone" (7:19). Did Moses go upstream, see the red water flowing, run quickly (at 80 years old) down to Pharaoh, grab his attention, and then claim it was a plague from God? How did it get in all the surface water everywhere in Egypt?
The frogs came at least a week later (7:25), which is a long time to tolerate an uninhabitable river. Furthermore, the frogs did not come out gradually, but the Nile "swarmed with frogs" (8:3) and those frogs were so numerous "covered the land of Egypt" (8:6) so that they were everywhere, even in kneading bowls and ovens (8:3). So, that many millions of frogs were just sitting on the bottom of the (uninhabitable) Nile ready to march out at Moses' command?
The "biting insects" (mosquitoes probably more likely than gnats) of the third plague did not emerge gradually from cesspools but out of the dust of the ground when Aaron smacked it with his staff. And, it was not just a few insects but swarms that covered man and beast (8:17). Here also, even the magicians realized it was the "finger of God" (8:19). So, Moses saw the eggs were about to hatch and quickly commanded Aaron to smack the ground near some to claim a miracle?
The flies of the fourth plague were not breeding concurrently with the mosquitoes in the cesspools but a distinct plague that came out of the air. It was also not just a few flies but swarms to the point where "the houses of the Egyptians were filled with swarms of flies" (8:21). And, finally here, Goshen was protected from the flies. How exactly could that many flies in that timing come from cesspools? Furthermore, why would such flies avoid Goshen?
Here, it is claimed that anthrax killed the livestock. Perhaps that could be true, but it was all the livestock (9:6) and one would wonder if really every single one would have been infected. Furthermore, again, the Hebrews' livestock were fine (9:4). How could a disease like anthrax be so selective?
The boils did not arise slowly and gradually as the result of mosquitoes transferring anthrax but immediately after Moses tossed the soot in the air. (9:8-9). And, again, only the "all the Egyptians" were infected (9:11). How could it have been so abrupt? How could it have been so selective as to avoid the Hebrews?
Here, the causality link in Hort's theory breaks down. She just has to say that for some reason the first six things happened and then a storm "such as never has been in Egypt from the day it was founded until now" (9:18) just happened to arise. And, it came when Moses "stretched out his hand toward heaven" (9:22). Did Moses just happen to time it perfectly? Did he just somehow know the storm of the millennium was coming?
The locusts did not breed and arise gradually from more cesspools created by the storms, but when Moses stretched out his hand (10:13) they came in one an "east wind" (10:13) and they "covered the face of the whole land, so that the land was darkened" (10:15). When God was done, He sent a strong "west wind" that "drove them into the Red Sea" (10:19). Again, here her theory fails to account for the timing, magnitude, and duration.
While a sandstorm that lasts for three days has happened, such a theory cannot account for "pitch darkness" (10:22) again when Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven (10:22). Did he just happen to see the sandstorm coming and run quickly to Pharaoh, throw his hand in the air, and claim it was a plague? How did it plunge the land into "pitch darkness"? And, again, why was Goshen not affected by this darkness/storm (10:23)?
And, the tenth plague is not really the subject this week, but Hort says the tenth plague was not the death of the firstborn but the destruction of the last remains of the "first-fruits" of the harvest. And "due to a corruption of the Bible text" the word "firstborn" was misinterpreted. Yet, that completely ignores the context of Ex. 11:1-13:6, which describes in great detail the death of the firstborn. So, was the whole text "corrupted" but somehow created a cogent story line? And, how does Hort know what the original said since she claims we do not have it?
I hope now you can see how this attempt and others that claim natural causes for all the plagues are woefully inadequate. One does not even need to dig into the scientific detail but merely read the text to see that is the case.
So, could God have used natural forces in a supernatural way to bring about these plagues? Sure, He could have at least at some points, but the point is that the timing, magnitude, and duration of the plagues make purely natural explanations require more faith on our part than simply taking Scripture at its word. No, the plagues were real, judgment events that came from the hand of God. And, in the sermon of the next post, we will talk about what that means for us.
As we continue through our series in the story of the exodus, let me ask you: What is the most important information you can know in this life? If you could ask one question or maybe actually two and have them immediately answered with complete accuracy, what questions would be most crucial to ask? Well, the text—Ex. 5:1-6:13—for this sermon's post asks those questions and shows us how God answers them.
In the text, we see the two most crucial questions we can ask: one is clear and the other subtle, but ironically, they both come from the lips of God’s enemy: Pharaoh. He asks, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice…” The first words we hear from the mouth of this Pharaoh (who’s not one of the original Pharaohs from chs. 1 and 2) ask the most important question any human being can ever ask: Who is the LORD? Or, who is God? Now, there’s a second, subtle question in Pharaoh’s statement that’s almost just as important: Who am I? Here, Pharaoh sets up one of the major themes of the Pentateuch—the first five books of the Bible—because from here on out, these questions will get answered: Who is the LORD? And, who are His people? Pharaoh needs these questions answered if he’s going to let the people go. The Hebrews need these questions answered if they’re to relate to God, worship Him, and serve Him properly. And, really, every human being needs to answer these questions on some level in order to live and order their life.
If you want to hear more of how Ex. 5:1-6:13 asks and answers these crucial questions, you can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.
This fall at my church, I have had the pleasure of teaching an adult Sunday school class on bioethics, which is the ethics of medical decisions. It has been a great class so far, with great discussion and participation from my congregation. The class is designed to focus on practical issues that will likely come to bear on our lives personally sometime in our years and not so much on social issues, but it does still address social issues tangentially. This past Sunday what we discussed certainly does that: I began a two-week portion of the class on beginning-of-life issues. And, as God's providence would have it, a few days before I had to teach, Bill Nye decided he was going to post a video attempting to argue a pro-choice perspective. Now, to be completely honest and frank, the video is so lacking in actual, robust pro-choice argumentation that I almost skipped over writing about it. However, since Bill Nye is still popular and what he posted relates to what we discussed on Sunday, I changed my mind. But, before I discuss the video, you should watch it for yourself:
I am not going to try to critique the whole video but instead argue for why life and personhood begins at conception, which does address his argument; just not in a direct critique. There are others who have critiqued this video well enough. (See "Bill Nye the logical fallacy guy on abortion" for one such critique.) But, even though I am not going to critique his whole video, I do feel compelled to mention one thing.
Over and over again in the video Mr. Nye appeals to his listeners to "respect the facts." He emphasizes over and over again that there are scientific facts that pro-lifers need to hear and to which we need to pay attention. Yet, Mr. Nye only mentions two such "facts" in this video and both are wildly incorrect. He opens the video by saying "many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans... fertilization is not all you need; you have to attach to the uterine wall." Now, since his argument is sloppy, it is difficult to know exactly what he means, but it sounds like he is saying that hundreds more eggs are fertilized than attach to the uterus. Okay, that is fact number one, and it grossly, grossly, grossly inaccurate. It is very difficult to determine what the actual rate of implantation is, but all estimates fall between 30-80% of fertilized eggs attach (this paper estimates 70% attach/30% loss; this one also estimates 30% loss; this one estimates 25% fail to implant; and, this one estimates 20% do not attach). If we average these results, we get one out of four fertilized eggs does not attach, i.e. three out of four do attach to the uterine wall. Even if we use the lowest estimate of 30% implantation (i.e. only about one out of three attach to the uterus), Mr. Nye is still off by a factor of one hundred in his statement. Now, his entire argument is a logical fallacy, which I will get to below, but the point is that his "facts" are not facts at all but something he is either grossly misinformed about or is simply making up.
His second "fact" is that the Bible was written 5,000 year ago. Now, he does not technically say "Bible." He says, "I know it was written or your interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago, 50 centuries ago, makes you think..." [sic] Given that pro-lifers are often Christians, one can only assume he is referring to the Bible. Well, again Mr. Nye is either misinformed or making things up, because the first books of the Bible were written in the 15th century BC, which means it began to be written about 3,500 years ago. Now, this is not as grossly inaccurate as his implantation "fact," but it still shows sloppy argumentation. If Mr. Nye wants us to "respect the facts," then perhaps he should give some and perhaps he should try to get it right when he does.
That is all I really want to say about the video directly. Again, there are good critiques written (e.g. see the one linked above). Instead, I want to argue why both Scripture and the scientific data point to life and personhood beginning at conception. Now, I have added "personhood" because most contemporary and decent pro-choice arguments have given up trying to argue for life not beginning at conception. That is because there is really little debate anymore that a human embryo is life from its earliest days. What is argued more often today is that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, or whatever term one uses are not persons and therefore do not deserve to be protected with the rights of personhood. Peter Singer of Princeton, for example, argues that a person is "A being of rational awareness--who they are existing beyond simply the physical organism." He even acknowledges that this excludes infants, but he does say that the law can protect them, if it so chooses. (Just to elaborate a little more: Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood and, therefore, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.") So, we need to determine where personhood begins, where life begins, and if these are the same point. (I have already written some on personhood here in response to the Kermit Gosnell case, and here from the standpoint of the image of God.)
I think we can answer these questions all at once by looking at both the biblical and scientific information. I am first going to give a quick overview of the biblical data. It is going to be fast for two reasons: 1) most who take the Bible seriously do not really question that a human life is a person from its earliest days and 2) those who do not take the Bible seriously are not going to find this part of the argument very convincing anyway. If you are of that persuasion, stick with me please. You will get educated on what the Bible says on this subject and also (hopefully) see that the scientific data agrees (when interpreted rightly, and I make that caveat that because of what I have written about data and interpretation in this series on science).
Scripture:What does the Bible say about the beginning of life? Well, Christians must admit from the start that it does not really say anything directly about where life begins. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "Life and personhood begin at conception," but there are a lot of indirect statements in Scripture that show the Bible teaches that humans beings are life and persons from the earliest days in the womb. Here are a few passages that show us this:
Ex. 21:22-25: Here we see in the OT law code that if a woman is injured in such a way that she gives birth prematurely (which would cover miscarriages) and the baby dies, the responsible party receives the death penalty. Here we see that the in utero life is as valuable as the fully developed life that caused its harm or death.
Jdg. 13:13-14: Here we are in the beginning of the story about Samson. His mother is being told that she will conceive a child that will be a judge of Israel. His mother is also told that Samson is to be a Nazarite from the womb (for what that is, see Nu. 6). As a Nazarite, there were certain things that Samson could not eat or touch because they would make him unclean. But, in this verse we learn that Samson's mother also could not eat or touch those things because they would make Samson unclean through her. So, Samson in the womb, from conception onward could potentially become unclean. But, he would become an unclean what? An unclean person. Masses of tissue cannot become unclean with respect to the OT legal code.
Ps. 51:5: Ps. 51 is a very informative passage in general. David talks about himself in the womb and he uses personal pronouns to refer to himself. And, in this particular verse he identifies as an implicated sinner from conception. Tissue cannot be a sinner, but persons are sinners. Now, it is worthy of note that David's idea of conception was probably different from ours, but it does show that from the earliest days of pregnancy, in utero babies are considered human persons in Scripture.
Ps. 139:13-16: Here David again talks about his in utero self in personal terms, and he knows that God paid special, personal attention to him from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. The Bible does not speak this way about animals, much less masses of impersonal tissue but only about persons who can have a personal relationship with God.
Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:14-15: I will take these two together since they are similar situations. In these passages we see that Jeremiah and John the Baptists were "consecrated" (i.e. sanctified) and "filled with the Holy Spirit" in the womb. These men were regenerate (a theological term for new spiritual life being given, cf. e.g. Eze. 36:26; Jn. 3:5) from the womb. The question is a regenerate what? They were regenerate persons. Masses of impersonal tissue cannot be regenerated in theological terms.
Those are just a few examples of how the Scripture views life in the womb, and it views life in the womb as human persons from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. Now, we must admit that Scripture does not have the precision of a scientific study, but it does take us a long way back. Fortunately, God has revealed His truth in nature as well as in Scripture, and where Scripture is not as precise, nature picks up and we see that knowledge in the detailed studies of human development that modern scientific studies have revealed.
Scientific Data:What does the scientific data have to tell us about where human personhood begins? Most Christians would, of course, argue for the decisiveness of fertilization as the point where life and personhood begins, but why is that the case? Would medical information support that claim? I think so, and here is why.
In summary this is the argument: from the knowledge that we have of the human development process, fertilization is a unique, radical, and decisive event unlike any that occurs later on in development, and if one is going to assign personhood as an objective, non-arbitrary point, it must be here. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs are merely cells and do not have any possibility of developing into a full-grown human being or anything beyond themselves. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs really are part of the father and mother's bodies. But, after fertilization, the embryo is genetically unique and distinct, and he/she experiences an unbroken, continuous development unless something outside the embryo acts upon it, and at no other point does the child undergo a decisive and radical transformation into some other sort of being.
Fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours, during which the egg's cytoplasm and sperm's nuclear contents merge in a process called syngamy and form the 46 chromosomes that define a human's physical existence. This newly formed entity is called a zygote and it is clearly genetically different from both the sperm and egg. The mitochondrial DNA matches the mother, the Y-chromosome (if it is there) matches the father, but the autosomal DNA is a completely unique genetic makeup, making the lifeform something completely new. WebMD notes (Emphasis added):
At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genome and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.
At this point, the embryo will continue to develop towards fully independent life. This is crucial: the sperm and egg are living cells but have no possibility of independent life or life of further development (i.e. not persons), but the embryo is a new, genetically unique and complete individual that will follow human development unless otherwise interrupted by something outside itself. He/she is no longer part of the father or mother but a being all its own. The embryo is precisely not the mother's body, even though Mr. Nye and so many others keep sounding that mantra. Once fertilization occurs, the child is not a growth of cells or tissues like some kind of tumor in the woman's uterus. It is a genetically unique life that is distinct from both the father and the mother. And, it is scientific knowledge, to which Mr. Nye so often appeals, that gives us this insight. Christians and other's who are pro-life are not basing that determination based solely on Scripture but on what Scripture and scientific knowledge show us. Scripture only takes us so far (though it is far enough to protect persons in the womb), but scientific data takes us all the way back to conception. Mr. Nye is correct when he says:
You wouldn’t know how big a human egg was if it weren’t for microscopes, if it weren’t for scientists, medical researchers looking diligently. You wouldn’t know the process. You wouldn’t have that shot, the famous shot or shots where the sperm are bumping up against the egg. You wouldn’t have that without science.
But, that knowledge leads in the opposite direction of the conclusion that he (and others) is attempting to draw. Perhaps before the modern scientific knowledge about human development one could argue that the fetus is part of the "woman's body," but now scientific knowledge has shown us that from the moment of conception onward, it is not her body. It might be in her body and it might be dependent on her body for initial development, but it is not her body. It is a distinct, unique human being. (Some out there might be aware of the "violinist" argument that attempts to say that it does not matter that the baby is not part of the mother's body. I do not have the space to deal with that here and others have dealt with it adequately. For a critique of that argument, see this article.)
So, again, this is a radical transformation in which two entities (genetically different from one another) combine to form a genetically unique living human that will become a full-grown human under normal circumstances. If one is going to assign personhood not based on something external to the embryo and/or arbitrary in its development, that must be here. Other proposed points do not reflect any similar level of change within the human being or other points propose a definition of personhood that is arbitrary, at best. Let's take a look at the other proposed points. I will start at the latest points and move to the earliest (with the exception of the last, for a reason that will be explained then).
Birth: While birth is certainly a decisive event in human life, the baby undergoes no change in itself. Its location changes, but the baby does not change in any defining way. The day on which the mother happened to go into labor had no effect on the baby's ability to living independently of the mother (again, under normal circumstances) and no effect on its existence other than location. In fact, a few years ago, in The Journal of Medical Ethics, a couple of doctors argued for the validity of after birth abortions. This, of course, is the logical extension of pre-birth abortions because there is no moral or personal distinction between the unborn child and the newly-born child. Moving down the birth canal does not change the personhood of the baby. (Of course, this logical extension should lead our culture to realize killing the unborn is wrong, but unfortunately, some, like the above linked article, use that realization to argue for infanticide.) So, again, birth is an important event, but it changes nothing about the personhood of the baby.
Viability: Others suggest that viability is the radical point where personhood begins--the point where the baby could survive outside the mother. Hopefully you can see that this is as transparently false as birth as a possibility. The point of viability is quite independent of the child itself. Viability depends on medical technology. This recent paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association shows how dramatically things have changed when it comes to viability even in the past 20 years. It shows that in 1993, only 52% of infants born at 24 weeks survived. Compare that with 2012: 65% survived. The percentage increase in healthy premature infants is also striking: 47% of infants born at 27 weeks in 2012 survived without major illnesses, compared to 29% in 1993. As medical technology progresses, viability gets pushed further back in pregnancy.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine a decisive viability point in the child's development because it depends on medical technology. It is conceivable and even likely that eventually human beings will be able to develop in a lab. Furthermore, because it depends on medical technology, a baby that is viable today may not have been viable 50 years ago. Did human personhood change in the past 50 years? Or, to make it even more acute: If a mother travels form America to Cuba, a baby that is viable in the morning can become unviable in the afternoon. How does that change its personhood? Assigning personhood to viability is completely arbitrary.
Quickening: Others have suggested "quickening," which is the point at which the mother can first feel the baby move. This has historical precedence even in Christianity because hundreds of years ago (i.e. before we understood human development like we do now), it was believed by a few theologians that quickening was the point the soul was placed in the baby. But, quickening fails to demonstrate a decisive change to personhood from both a scientific and biblical perspective. From a scientific perspective, knowledge of human development shows us there is no substantial change in the child at that point, but that is simply the point at which they started moving enough for the mother to feel it. Furthermore, any mother who has had more than one baby knows that in the second pregnancy she could feel it earlier because she knew what she is feeling for. How can that affect personhood? It does not. From a biblical perspective, there is no information in Scripture about when the soul comes into existence or even if it is directly created by God or comes about by a physical process God designed. And, the above mentioned biblical data would certainly push personhood further back than quickening.
Full Nervous System Integration: Still others have suggested that personhood should be placed at the point where the fetus' nervous system is fully integrated (roughly about the 20th week of pregnancy). With this argument, rationality is made completely integral to personhood, and it is argued, then, that the fetus does not have the physical apparatus capable of rationality until this point, therefore the child is not a person until this point.
Attempting to place personhood at this point has several problems (at least). First, this argument depends on definition of personhood that overemphasizes rationality. I would first point out that to some degree "rational" is a subjective term. Furthermore, some elderly with Alzheimer's are not rational, at least not as we would define it in normal usage. Are they no longer persons? Sometimes a mental handicap makes the individual unable to be achieve rationality beyond that of an infant, so should we not consider them persons? A definition of personhood which depends heavily on rationality is dubious, at best. Second, just because the nervous system is integrated and the neurological structure for rationality is there, the fetus hardly thinks or acts rational at that time. That activity requires much more development that extends into early childhood. And, even before the nervous system is integrated, the potential is there; just at an earlier stage of development. And, finally, there is no consensus on when the nervous system is truly, fully integrated, so there is no identifiable point in time anyway. Therefore, attempting to assign personhood to the point of full nervous system integration is as arbitrary as any other point.
Implantation: Finally, we are back around to what Mr. Nye seems to suggest in his video: that implantation is the point at which life and personhood begins. (Although, again, since his argument is not very coherent, it is difficult to tell what point he is actually trying to make.) But, let's think about implantation. This generally happens 3-4 days after fertilization, and it is argued by many, not just Mr. Nye, that this is the point at which we should start to protect life, i.e. where personhood begins.
There are two parts of this argument that need to be addressed. First, those who simply say that personhood should begin at implantation commit the logical fallacy of assuming that location can somehow affect the personhood of an entity. Nothing changes in the embryo itself when it attaches, but it simply continues to develop like normal. In fact, comparing a successful pregnancy to an ectopic pregnancy shows that development does not change at all whether the baby is in the uterus or a Fallopian tube. The only thing that changes is location. How can a change of location change personhood? The answer is "It can't." (For more argumentation along this line, see this article on the SLED test.)
There is, however, another version of this argument that references the rate of implantation, which may be what Mr. Nye was attempting to argue, just with inaccurate numbers and little clarity. The argument is generally presented as follows: "Well, one in four fertilized embryos does not implant naturally, so this if it happens naturally, what is the problem with making it happen with a pill?" To this we can respond: just because something happens naturally (i.e. out of the control of the mother and father) does not make it moral for us to do it intentionally. One might simply point out that infant mortality rate in some third-world countries is one in four, so does that give parents the right to kill their newborns? And, of course, no one would say yes to that.
Both of the above versions of the implantation argument fail to demonstrate a change from non-person to person. Furthermore, even if personhood were to begin here, it would rule out almost all forms of abortion except for some forms of birth control and the so-called "morning after pills." Now, do not get me wrong, I still argue against those because life and personhood both begin at conception, but arguing for implantation as the point of personhood does not really help the major pro-choice agenda.
Individuation: There is one final point that some attempt establish personhood, which is more challenging than all the previous ones, which is why I broke the pattern of moving further back in human development and saved it for last. There is a stage in pregnancy that is often called "individuation." This is the point at which twinning is no longer possible, which is about two weeks after fertilization.
Twinning (or more precisely monozygotic twinning) is where a single embryo can split into two embryos of the exact same genetic makeup and therefore these can develop into identical twins. This is rare (three to four occurrences per one thousand births) but possible and perhaps even possible in any pregnancy (but no one is sure, see below about the mystery of this process). It is even rarer but still possible that the embryos will recombine into one embryo again. But, it is not possible, as far as we presently know, for this to occur after two weeks, which is where individuation is said to happen. So, some use this argument for the two-week mark to be the point where personhood begins. As the argument goes, we cannot claim the embryo is an individual because it could potentially become two (or more) individuals for the first two weeks. It is not an individual until that possibility has passed, it is argued. Advocates of this argument would say the embryo is a living being at fertilization but not a person because they have not individualized yet.
I think you can probably see why this is the most challenging and robust point to challenge conception for personhood. It does sound compelling at first because how can someone be a person and not an individual? Most of us would say, "Well, they cannot." But, there are some major problems with this point that I think render it unacceptable as well.
First, I would argue that twinning is extremely rare. Most embryos experience a continuous line of development from conception onward and nothing decisive happens at the two-week mark that changes that its being. While twinning may effect a change in the being, the lack of twinning does not change the being. So, for most pregnancies, there is no reason to argue that the embryo is not an individual before this point since if they do not twin, nothing decisive happens.
Second, why embryos twin or do not twin is entirely a mystery at present. No one knows if it is something genetically inherent in the embryo or whether it is forced on it from an outside source. But, those seem like the two possibilities, so let's examine both:
If twinning is caused by something genetically inherent in the embryo, then most embryos have no potential of twinning and therefore they are individuals from the beginning. And, furthermore, since it is part of the embryo's genome, could we not say that before twinning we have two (or possibly more) individuals? If it is genetically guaranteed that the embryo will twin, then we have multiple individuals in the process of development before the two-week mark, they simply have not separated yet. And, if we have multiple individuals from conception onward, then there is still no compelling reason to argue they are not persons.
If twinning is caused by something external to the baby, then just because something can force a change in an entity does not mean that entity is not an individual. That does not necessarily follow at all.
Twinning is a mysterious process, and the current state of scientific knowledge does not prove the lack of individuality in the first two weeks. At this point, one could invoke the "hunter" analogy. When a hunter sees something rustling in the bushes, any responsible hunter knows they must not shoot until they know what is rustling. Just because it is mysterious does not give the hunter the right to squeeze the trigger. This type of reasoning applies to the mystery of the twinning process. Prudence and responsibility require that we err on the side of caution, not taking the risk and hoping everything comes out okay.
In conclusion: Scripture compels us to the conclusion that a fetus is a human being and person from the earliest days, and where Scripture is not explicit, scientific knowledge comes back and shows us that there is radical change in the fetus only at fertilization, so if one is going to assign personhood not based on an arbitrary time or something outside of the child, then conception is the only identifiable, definable, objective point. All other points are extraneous definitions put on the child by others, and external definitions are subjective, not objective. And, subjective definitions are dubious, at best. If there is no authoritative, objective point, then personhood becomes defined by community (which is what Singer tries to do) or the laws that protect non-persons are defined by community. Either way, if definitions are made by the community, then a vote determines the life or death of millions. And, if that is the case, why do we get angry about atrocities like, for example, what the Nazis did? They defined personhood in such a way that Jews did not count in their community. In fact, they had a name for it: Untermensch--sub-human. Only by putting personhood and life at conception can we avoid such arbitrary dehumanizing of those made in God's image and give them the dignity and value they deserve.
For the past few weeks, I have been blogging a series of sermons and devotionals on the first twelve chapters of the book of Exodus that I preached and wrote over the summer. These chapters contain the actual story of the exodus, which is a great salvation that points us to God’s ultimate salvation that Jesus accomplished. We’ve seen God setting up that salvation in ch. 1 and the first part of ch. 2, and then we’ve also seen God preparing His savior and the people through suffering from the second half of ch. 2. In today's post, we’re going to see God’s official call of Moses.
The text for this sermon is a selected reading from Ex. 3-4, which recounts to us God's call of Moses and Moses' response. Moses' response is, shall we say, less than flattering for him, and if you know the story, you know what I am talking about. But, let's not be quick to judge Moses. Put yourself in Moses’ position here. He’s about 80 years old at this time. He has settled into the life of a shepherd and has been roaming the wilderness with his sheep for about 40 years. At this point, Egypt is probably a fading memory and any hope he had of being the one who delivers the Hebrew people has probably faded even more. Then, one day, which probably started out like a normal day, he brings his sheep to the base of a mountain. While there, he sees a burning bush, and probably does not think much of it at first, but then, after some amount of time, he notices that it’s burning but not actually burning up, so he goes to check it out. And, then, all of a sudden, the bush starts talking to him, and the bush knows his name. Then, immediately the bush introduces itself as God Himself and calls Moses to go back to Egypt and deliver the Hebrews from Pharaoh. Now, how do you think that would have hit you, if you had been Moses? Perhaps you fancied yourself a deliverer when you were young and well-to-do, but after 40 years of sheep herding, you’ve probably mellowed and maybe even given up on the idea of being a deliverer. Even when you tried to be a deliverer, you weren’t, shall we say, in your prime, and with each passing year in the wilderness, that dream fades, tracking somewhat with the deterioration of your body. So, you’ve become “set in your ways” and are content to live out your life as a shepherd. But, then, seemingly “out of the blue,” God calls to you from a burning bush and says, “Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.” How do you think you’d feel? Probably not really up for it, I would think.
Well, I wonder if stuff like this does happen to us at times in our lives. Perhaps it’s not quite so dramatic, for to be sure we no longer hear God’s voice out of a burning bush, but maybe at some point we had grand ideas about what we can do for God whether it’s in our own personal holiness or in the world around us, until the circumstances of God’s providence blindsided us and we kind of settled down. Yet, then, somewhere in that more settled life, an opportunity comes before us: maybe God brings to mind a particular sin with which we’ve gotten comfortable and we can no longer ignore it, or maybe someone in the church asks us to do something that we’ve never really considered or been trained to do, or maybe a situation at work challenges us to stick out more as a Christian, or something else, and we’re worried that it might be God subtly saying, “Come, I have this for you…” because, like Moses, we’re not really up for it. Well, I think this passage can help because here we see God’s call of the weak, and if we’re honest with ourselves, we should probably be thinking, “Uh… yeah… that’s me.”
If you want to hear more, you can listen to the sermon here or read the transcript here. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.
In the next sermon in this series, which will be posted later this week, we'll talk about the call of Moses, and since we have limited time in the story of the exodus, I cannot address everything in chapters 3-4. One of the things that I had to skip in the sermon is the rather difficult verses of Ex. 4:24-26. In the context of the story, Moses has argued with God about taking his call to bring the people out of Egypt, but by 4:17 Moses finally accepts his call. Then, in 4:18-20 Moses gets permission from his father-in-law to leave, and in 4:21-23, God tells Moses that Pharaoh will not agree to let the people go, indeed God Himself will harden his heart (cf. Ro. 9:14-18). So, things seems to be tracking along just fine. But, then, seemingly out of the blue, 4:24-26 comes into the story:
24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.
When we come to that, reading through the story as normal, we are generally surprised by it, even after knowing the story, because we wonder, "What is God doing here? God has just called Moses to deliver the people, so why does He seek to kill him here?" It does not seem to fit at all, at least as first brush.
We must first ask, "Why is God angry at Moses?" Well, the text does not say directly, but it seems pretty clear that God is angry at Moses for not circumcising his son--Gershom. That's clear enough to Zipporah, for she immediately acts to correct the sin without any overt prompting from God Himself, and she saves Moses' life. (By the way, one thing I have not had time to bring out so far is that throughout these first four chapters, all the heroes in various situations of dire need have actually all been heroines, i.e. women. This is one thing that sets the Scriptures apart from almost all other ancient documents: it is not afraid to show God working through women, who were not at all seen as equal to men in these ancient cultures. To make a woman the heroine would have been embarrassing to almost all ancient cultures, certainly ancient near eastern cultures. Such a factor lends to the historical veracity of these stories because if an ancient person were making them up, they would not put these "embarrassing" details in the stories.)
But, that prompts the question: Why was that so important that God would seek to kill Moses for not doing circumcising Gershom? Moses argued with God, and He was patient with him. Yet, when he did not circumcise his son, He became angry to the point of death. Why is that? To answer that, we have to remember that circumcision was no minor thing with God but the distinguishing mark that set apart His people who were part of His covenant community. It was the visible proof of being one of God's people that went all the way back to Abraham in Ge. 17. Therefore, if Moses intended to serve the God who was about to deliver His people based on His covenant promise to Abraham, Moses needed to fulfill his covenant obligations and circumcise his son. In fact, later on, the Hebrews all have to do the same thing before they celebrate the Passover and are delivered from Egypt (Ex. 12:43-49). Not doing so is kind of like wanting "to have your cake and eat it too": i.e. I want the covenant benefits but without fulfilling the obligations. In fact, even here we can be pointed to the gospel obligations of obedience to Christ: if we want Him to be our Savior, He also must be our Lord (cf. Js. 2:14-17; 1 Jn. 3:10). This does not mean our salvation is at all dependent on our works, for it is most certainly by grace through faith alone, but faith that does not seek to obey Christ is "dead faith" as James says, and not true, saving faith. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says in 11.2: "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love." Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
Now, getting back to Moses: not only did Moses need to be obedient to the covenant if he was to be the leader of God's people but circumcision also had a lesson in and of itself that Moses needed to learn. One of the reasons God instituted circumcision as His sign that set His people apart as His covenant community is that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (He. 9:22). In other words, God was teaching Moses through this encounter the basic element of salvation: the shedding of blood. Moses was placed under the shadow of death for his sin of neglecting God's covenant sign and then saved by the blood of that sign. Moses needed to learn that sin cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood. In fact, this whole experience was a test (much like Abraham learned in Ge. 22 when he was called to sacrifice Isaac), showing Moses firsthand what ultimate salvation would require--the shedding of the blood of a Substitute. But, who is this Substitute?
As odd as it may sound, these verses point us to Jesus Himself. Every human is under God's wrath because we have failed to keep His laws in total. As Paul says in Ro. 3:23-25, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." A "propitiation" is a sacrifice that satisfies God's wrath against sin. That was what was needed temporarily for Moses, and it is what is needed for all who would desire peace with God. Yet, in our case, we do not have to shed our own blood or the blood of an animal (for those can never take away sins altogether, He. 10:4), but the very blood of Christ Himself satisfies God's wrath for us. Jesus is, in a sense, our "bridegroom of blood," who satisfied God's wrath with His blood for us, so God relented just as He did with Moses. Jesus is the ultimate and final Substitute. It was the "circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) that satisfied God's wrath against us. Let us praise Him for His sacrifice, and even in this strange text, be reminded of what He has done for us.
