Reading Bruce Waltke's commentary on Genesis, he has a fine couple of paragraphs on page 264 where he explores how the sign of circumcision relates to baptism today. I agree with nearly everything he says, and it's so helpful that I thought I'd put it here in case it's helpful for some:
Last Sunday, I explained that Sarai and Abram attempted to solve the problem of their childlessness through Sarai offering her maid, Hagar, to Abram as a second wife.
I said that, even though we find this unacceptable today, in that day and age this was a socially acceptable way to raise an heir.
The problem with doing this was not that it was socially unacceptable but that it did not arise out of their trust in God.
I'm studying Genesis 15, in preparation for this Sunday's sermon.
Yet again Bruce Waltke is very helpful.
Here is one paragraph (from pages 239-240). The details he highlights probably won't make it into the sermon, unless they're crucial to the flow of thought in the chapter. But it's important that we see how the promises God makes Abraham in chapter 15 are precisely those that he needed after the events of chapter 14, redefining his protection, his reward and his allies.
I find Motyer's proposed structure of Exodus 32-34 more convincing at some points than at others, but it definitely contains some useful observations about how the section as a whole is working:
A1 Moses doubted (32:1-6)
B1 Covenant under threat. Moses’ intercession (32:7-14)
C1 The broken tablets (32:15-19)
“It is most fitting that the Sabbath be the sign of this covenant. Israel, as we have noted, is a new creation. This is a new people of God, whom he intends to use to undo the work of the first man. Also, the tabernacle is a microcosm of the created order, a parcel of edenic splendour established amid the chaos of the world. The Sabbath is not just a reminder of the original creation in Genesis 1 and 2, but a reminder of God’s re-creation of the cosmos in the tabernacle.”
A bit of background information for those who are interested. This coming Sunday I will be preaching on Exodus 25-31. Desmond Alexander's book, From Paradise to the Promised Land has some very helpful things to say. Below are some excerpts
The ten commandments are framed as negative statements. Does that mean that they are negative in purpose, and restrictive of freedom? Not at all:
“A negative command is far more liberating than a positive one, for a positive command restricts life to that one course of action, whereas a negative command leaves life open to every course of action except one.” (Motyer, page 215)
Looking at Exodus 19-24 for Sunday morning, I'm struck by the structure of the law there. It is anchored with back-references to the deliverance from Egypt in chapter 19 and 20:1-2, and the climax is a meal shared by 74 of the Israelites in the presence of God in chapter 24. They enter heaven, and they eat and drink without dying.
See Exodus 18.
I've long puzzled over Jethro's role in Exodus, and I think I'm making some progress at last.
Jethro features in Exodus 2 (as Reuel, where he welcomes Moses the refugee), in Exodus 4 (where he sends Moses back to Pharaoh in peace, although Moses hasn't been strictly honest about the nature of his mission), and in most detail in Exodus 18.
We find Exodus chapters 7 to 10 quite hard to read. When we ask why this is, Motyer is surely spot on.
