No cheap grace here

Jeremiah acknowledges in prayer the necessity of divine discipline but he also pleads for leniency. Calvin draws attention to a general truth by pointing to the necessity of the people’s repentance as well: “the real character and nature of repentance is, to submit to God’s judgment and to suffer with a resigned mind his chastisement, provided it be paternal.” In other words, the intercessor urges Yhwh not to judge Israel in the heat of His justified wrath or nothing will be left of His people. The text makes a clear distinction between discipline in anger that would destroy the obstinate sinner and a discipline according to justice (ְbemišpāṭ) that will eventually lead to repentance and renewal. Here divine justice has the connotation of grace and mercy. Jeremiah does not plead for cheap grace. He clearly speaks of Israel’s guilt and its need for discipline, but he prays for a calm and well reflected judgment that would not endanger the future of the people of God (“. . . lest you would bring everything to nothing,” Jer 10:24; cf. Ps. 6:1).—Standing in the Breach, page 351

Powerless? Not totally...

Jeremiah’s intercessory prayer comes at the end of a polemic juxtaposition between the gods and idols of the nations and the incomparability of God (Jer 10:1–16). The gods are portrayed as powerless and mere humanmade images. The fact that such an elaborate polemic treatment is necessary, however, suggests that the gods of the nations are everything else but powerless. Although these gods cannot save (Jer 10:5), they excercise seductive power over Israel. Jeremiah’s polemic makes it evident that the temptation to commit idolatry has been a real problem for Israel (cf. Jer 7:16–20). In fact, the prevalence of idolatry is the main factor that leads eventually to the collapse and exile of Israel (Jer 1:16, 7:16–20, 10:1–18). The point of Jeremiah’s polemic presentation is not to provide an objective description of Canaanite deities but to win Israel back to an exclusive and committed relationship with their covenant God. Yhwh is not only Israel’s covenant God; He is also the living and eternal King of all peoples (Jer 10:7, 10).—Standing in the Breach, pages 347–48

So where does that put us?

[P]rayer, even the intercession of a godly person, is intrinsically linked to the moral and spiritual standing of the third party that stands under immediate judgment. According to Jeremiah 7, people who “masquerade” as God’s pious people, who have the Lord “near their mouth yet far from their hearts” (Jer 12:2), seriously jeopardize the divine-human relationship (e.g. Jer 7:16, 11:11).50 Thus, one of the main lessons of this chapter is that prayer, even the intercessions of a mediator, has to be seen as part of a larger divine-human relationship. In other words, if the relationship is healthy by the standards of Torah obedience, then prayer is effective. If, however, the divine-human relationship is tainted by consistent ethical misconduct and disobedience, then God’s gracious responsiveness to prophetic intercession is not guaranteed.—Standing in the Breach, pages 345–46

<idle musing>
So, I repeat, where does that put the US as a country?
</idle musing>

Poor Jeremiah

The Hebrew conjunction weʾattâ (“as for you”) marks a sudden shift of addressee away from the “temple audience” that is under judgment to the prophet himself (cf. Jer 7:16–20). Jeremiah is instructed with a threefold negative command not to pray for the people. The divine prohibition to intercede in v. 16 introduces the reader of the book of Jeremiah for the first time to the second intrinsic role of the prophet: that of the intercessor. Thus, the divine prohibition comes initially as a surprise because it is as much part of the prophetic office to intercede on behalf of the sinful party as it is to convey Yhwh’s word to them. In the light of the immanent disaster that is awaiting Judah (Jer 7:14–15), one would expect the prophet to advocate on behalf of the sinful people and stand in the breach to protect the people from Yhwh’s forthcoming judgment (cf. Ezek 13:5, 22:30–31). After all, seeking to pacify the righteous anger of Yhwh and to plead for mercy and patience is one of the main roles of the intercessor. However, it seems it is precisely this defining aspect of the prophetic ministry that is denied to Jeremiah.—Standing in the Breach, page 343

Intercession and sin

[I]ntercession, alongside speaking on behalf of the Lord are the primary responsibilities of the prophet. Jeremiah knew well that intercession is one of the marks of an authentic prophet and that refraining from intercession is thought to be a mark of a false prophet (cf. Jer 27:18). Samuel could even say that not to intercede for the disobedient people would be sinful for the prophet (1 Sam 12:23). In Jeremiah’s case, however, Yhwh prohibits the prophet four times from interceding on behalf of Israel (Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, 15:1). Moses was also told not to pray on behalf of sinful Israel after the golden calf incident, and yet he disobeyed God and succeeded in pacifying Yhwh’s righteous wrath and achieved divine pardon and the restoration of the covenant relationship for the sinful people (Exod 32:10–13, Deut 9:14). Amos as well, in spite of God’s intended judgment, pressed ahead in his intercessory efforts (Amos 7:1–6). This raises an issue of discernment. When is it permissible to disobey Yhwh’s command to refrain from prayer and persist in knocking on heaven’s door, and when does the prophet need to desist from prayer? Is there a biblical principle that indicates how far the prophet can push Yhwh to show mercy?

Interestingly, all but one of the four references to God’s restraint on intercession appear within chaps. 11–20. These chapters contain several laments of the prophet that give expression to the suffering that was evoked through Jeremiah’s calling as a prophet. One could almost argue that the fourfold command not to intercede is matched by the fourfold lament of the prophet (Jer 11:18–12:6, 15:10–20, 18:18–23, 20:7–18). Strictly speaking, Jer 15:1 is not an explicit divine ban on intercession. Nevertheless, it is instructive to observe the interweaving of the references to God’s restraint on intercession and the prophet’s laments. It looks as though God’s prohibition to intercede violates the very core of Jeremiah’s prophetic self-understanding and thereby gives rise to great pain and confusion.—Standing in the Breach, page 338

<idle musing>
There's so much I could say here. I was recently talking to someone who told me that he was convinced that God was going to judge the US. I asked him if he thought revival was possible. He said no, that God always had to judge a nation when it went too far—and in his opinion, the US had. I asked him about the role of intercession. He downplayed it, saying there was no hope. I pushed back, but to no avail.

So, here's my challenge, to those of you who are convinced that Trump is the greatest thing and to those of you who think he's the worst thing that has ever happened to the US: Intercede! Shake the heavens for revival. Realize that all human rulers are transient and what really matters is the human heart.

I recently read a book review that concluded that by 2060 climate change will have destroyed humanity. The final sentence was something to the effect that "may the next species that rules the earth be better than we were at being stewards." Wow! I'm not that pessimistic! But, are we interceding with God for mercy? Or are we throwing up our hands in despair? Or are you convinced that the rising temperatures and strange weather are God's judgment?

Either way, Intercede!
</idle musing>

Why?

Jeremiah’s intimate prayer dialogues were not canonized merely in order to preserve the prophet’s personal prayer life. If Jeremiah’s prayers were ever (auto)biographical, they are no longer only about him. In the canonical process they have become Scripture through which the reader can hear the voice of God. Jeremiah’s prayers were canonized because these human-divine dialogues have paradigmatic character and became important means for the instruction and edification of subsequent generations.—Standing in the Breach, page 334

Thought for the day

23 The Lord’s word came to me: 24 Human one, say to her, You are an unclean land without rain on the day of reckoning. 25 The conspiracy of princes[c] in her is like a roaring lion ripping up prey. They’ve piled up wealth and precious goods and made many widows in her. 26 Her priests have done violence to my instructions and made my holy things impure. They have not clearly separated the holy from the ordinary, and they have not taught the difference between unclean and clean things. They’ve disregarded my sabbaths. So I’ve been degraded among them. 27 The officials in her are like wolves ripping up prey. They shed blood and destroy lives for unjust riches. 28 Her prophets have whitewashed everything for them, seeing false visions and making wrong predictions for them, saying, “This is what the Lord God says,” when the Lord hasn’t spoken. 29 The important people of the land have practiced extortion and have committed robbery. They’ve oppressed the poor and mistreated the immigrant. They’ve oppressed and denied justice. 30 I looked for anyone to repair the wall and stand in the gap for me on behalf of the land, so I wouldn’t have to destroy it. But I couldn’t find anyone. 31 So I’ve poured out my anger on them. With my furious fire I’ve finished them off. I’ve held them accountable. This is what the Lord God proclaims. Ezekiel 22:23–31

[c] MT has prophets.

Sustenance

Announcing the forthcoming destruction of temple and city and criticizing the religious leaders, one does not make oneself popular (Jer 7:1–15). By declaring that the society is unacceptable to God, Jeremiah was not accepted by Israel. The prophet soon realized that hardship (Jer 11:21, 20:2) and alienation (Jeremiah 15–16) was the inevitable cost of his prophetic ministry. Numerous references confirm that Jeremiah was a man of great suffering. Chapter 11 brings Jeremiah in close association with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

The canonical portrayal of Jeremiah raises the question of what sustained and enabled the prophet to endure all the physical and spiritual hardship over the long years of his prophetic vocation. Jeremiah’s profound joy in the words of the Lord may have helped. The prophet ate them and they “became a joy and a delight of his heart” (Jer 15:16). In absolute obedience to God’s words, to the point of death (Jer 26:14–15), Jeremiah proclaims what God had entrusted to him. As we shall see, prayer, a close relationship with his God is another, possibly even more important, source for Jeremiah’s perseverance and inner strength.—Standing in the Breach, pages 332–33

Jeremiah's calling

The prophet [Jeremiah] was commissioned “to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” Correspondingly, we shall see that Jeremiah’s intercessory activities express both God’s grace and mercy, and also Yhwh’s wrath. As Yhwh’s prophet, who has access to the divine council, Jeremiah is intimately familiar with God’s perception and plans (cf. Jer 42:4–18). As a mark of Jeremiah’s intimacy with God’s will, the biblical text often merges the voice of God with the voice of Jeremiah. More than that, Jeremiah is so rooted in God and His ways that his prayers often reflect the pathos of the Lord. The book as a whole testifies that, no matter how severe the divine judgment will be, the ultimate divine purpose is the redemption of the people of God (cf. Jeremiah 30–33). This dual theme of grace and wrath and the dual commission of destroying and building also come to expression in the prophet’s prayers. On the one hand, his intercessions seek to build up Israel, while on the other hand, Jeremiah also prayed for the destruction of his adversaries.—Standing in the Breach, page 330

Eisenbrauns to Continue Under Penn State University Press

The news of the week:

What does it take?

Intercessory prayer in itself may not have atoning value (cf. Jer 15:1), if, however, the prayer is a reflection of God’s will and intention, it may. Thus, effective intercession is at its heart a prayer that seeks to be one with the will of God (cf. Isa 50:5, 53:10). In the case of the Isaianic servant, intercession is a complete turning to God, even to the point of self-sacrifice. To this kind of intercessory prayer God ascribes atoning power sufficient for the renewal of the covenant relationship.—Standing in the Breach, page 325

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in tandem

From a canonical perspective, both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 provide important hermeneutical keys for the church to understand the suffering, death, and vindication of Jesus Christ. While both Psalm 22 and Isaiah provide categories of the righteous suffering servant/king being vindicated and the nations coming into the sphere of God’s salvation (cf. Ps 22:27–28 [MT 28–29]), only Isaiah witnesses as to how an individual can become mediator and medium for God’s salvific purposes. In this sense Isaiah 53 is prophetic, not least because Isaiah 53 and the following two chapters contain powerful hyperbolic speeches that transcend Israel’s actual experience in Babylon. Thereby, the prophet’s message assumes an eschatological character that not only points to Jesus, but also beyond to its fulfillment at the consummation of time (Isa 54:11–13).—Standing in the Breach, page 322

Bury the term!

Scot McKnight has a good posting on the use of the word Evangelical. Here's the concluding paragraph, but you really should read the whole thing.

The one thing I despise about Christianity in the USA is its aligning with a political party. Mainliners have done it; they’re Democrats. Evangelicals have followed suit; they’re Republicans. Politicization is accomplished.

Let the rest of us call ourselves Christians.

<idle musing>
I dropped the term many years ago when it became evident that the pro-war people had taken it over. If asked, I will tell people the only way I can be called "Evangelical" is if you use the term to mean the 18th century Evangelicals, who were at the forefront of not just caring about souls, but caring for their physical well-being: establishing schools, orphanages, pushing for social reform, fighting slavery, etc. Those are the heroes of the faith that I can identify with, not the current pro-American, pro-war users of the term that we find today.

So, I'm with Scot, bury the term and call ourselves Christians. And may people know us by the love we have for others. What a radical thought!
<idle musing>

What happened?

Isaiah 53 does not only testify to the prophet’s suffering, but it also provides the reason as to why God restores the covenant relationship with Israel. The righteous one, somehow vicariously takes on himself the sins of Israel (Isa 53:6), intercedes for them (Isa 53:12), and thereby makes many righteous (Isa 53:11). The main thrust of chap. 53 is that of the suffering and wounded healer that gives wholeness to the many.

When we look at the immediate literary context, we can note a clear shift of tone between chaps. 52 and 54. Before Isaiah 53, the prophet still talks of the people’s guilt. The exiles are drunken with the cup of judgment and are full of Yhwh’s wrath (Isa 51:17–20). The time of divine judgment and hopelessness, however, is coming to an end. It is time to wake up and to leave the Babylonian captivity behind (Isa 51:17, 52:1). There is an expectation that Yhwh is resolved to intervene in a dramatic act of redemption.

For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. . . . Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (Isa 52:3–10)

The fourth poem is followed by chap. 54, a chapter that replaces the relationship of God and His prophet with the relationship between God and Israel. There is a dramatic shift of images. Israel who was portrayed as a barren, adulterous women who was left by her husband, is now called to rejoice.—Standing in the Breach, page 319

What is an intercessor?

Intercession according to Isaiah 53, is nothing less than the surrender of one’s own right to life in favor of God’s will. The servant accepts a ministry of nothing but contempt and misunderstanding, even to the point of dying the death of one branded as an evildoer. The servant’s ministry does not show any trace of self-seeking or self-exaltation. His intercession is a conscious surrender to God’s will and yet the servant does it out of his own free will. The servant identifies completely with the divine will.—Standing in the Breach, pages 316–17

<idle musing>
That's a strong definition! I'm not convinced that's the correct definition, but it definitely is a goal to strive for as an intercessor. But perhaps he is correct. Take a look at Paul; he' was willing to have himself condemned in order that Israel be saved.

Food for thought, anyway. I recall that there have been times in my own life when the burden of intercession has been so heavy that I've come almost to the point where Paul was. And in the most recent example I can think of, God answered that prayer. As I said, food for thought.

Just an
</idle musing>

Active prayer

[V]erbal intercessory prayer and intercession in the sense of vicarious suffering and death are not exclusive categories but rather they are intrinsically connected in the ministry of the servant.

We should remember that one fundamental Old Testament concept that led to the formation of the substitutionary understanding as we find it in Isaiah 53, is prophetic intercessory prayer.—Standing in the Breach, page 316

Delaying the inevitable

In sum, Israel’s pardon, reconciliation with their covenant God, and restoration to the land are always dependent on a fundamental “turning” back to covenant obedience and Yhwh’s compassion evoked by the intercessory prayer of the mediator. The public context of Solomon’s intercession suggests that the prayer partially aims to foster an understanding of the essential nature of repentance among the Israelites. According to classic Christian theology, Jesus’ intercessory act on the cross also demands a wholehearted response in the form of repentance of sin and trusting in the faithful love of God (cf. 1 John 1:8–2:2, Acts 2:37–38). In other words, the intercessor might be able to stand in the breach for a while, prolonging Yhwh’s just punishment from being implemented, but in the long term a breached relationship requires a wholehearted turning to God and a firm commitment to the covenant relationship by the lost wanderer.—Standing in the Breach, page 285

Intercession, yes. Repentance? Essential

As we shall learn from Jeremiah, even the greatest intercessors cannot achieve divine forgiveness, if the party being prayed for remains in their sinful ways. As there is nobody who does not sin, Solomon anticipates in his prayer a future when the people need to turn consciously from their sin in order to attain divine forgiveness (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46). In other words, only if Israel turns from their evil ways and recommits to covenant obedience will Solomon’s intercession find a favorable hearing.—Standing in the Breach, page 284

Forgiveness is only the beginning…

[I]t is important to note that Solomon’s prayer is never, as Fretheim notes:

simply for God to forgive sins, but are also for God to act in other ways to reverse the effects that their sins have had on various aspects of their lives. Salvation, therefore, is understood to comprehend more than forgiveness of sin; it includes also the amelioration of the consequence of sin that have reverberated out into the larger community, including the natural order. (vv. 35–37)

Terence E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (WBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 50—as quoted in Standing in the Breach, page 268

No coercion

We've been gone for the last ten days, visiting family, hence the hiatus. We're back and so are the daily excerpts from Standing in the Breach.

A consistent theme of Solomon’s prayer, and indeed of many Old Testament intercessory prayers, is however that divine pardon cannot simply be evoked by the intercessor. Brueggemann notes that “Israel’s only way into the future is to reverse its course and reembrace Torah obedience.”

The dynamics and circumstances of Solomon’s second petition are also reminiscent of Samuel’s intercessory activity in Mizpah (cf. 1 Sam 7:3–10). There as well, in the face of a military threat, the people gathered at the sanctuary to confess their sins and to recommit themselves to covenant obedience. The covenant mediator intercedes for the repentant Israelites. Samuel’s prayers are also accompanied by burnt offerings (1 Sam 7:2–12). The logic of these passages seems to be that, unless the sinful party recommits to Torah obedience, the intercessor can only pacify God’s wrath for a certain time.—Standing in the Breach, page 267

Small-town Minnesota

Just ran across a marvelous essay on living in a small town in (southern) Minnesota.

Yet I know that all that scarcity—or the perception of it—is what drives cultural life here. Rather than paucity, I see abundance of life and fullness of experience. A dynamic current runs through our community life. Though much of rural life is defined by scarcity of people and places, it’s precisely that sparseness that compels people to get involved. That’s what moves us toward action and makes events more meaningful. It’s a scarcity that’s vibrant.

Rural life is plentiful and life-giving in its own way. So I continue down this path, engaging in life’s mystery. I look for opportunities. I take on some of the boldness mirrored by so many around me. I say yes. I will continue to experience the mystery of life and faith as I cast anchor in the vibrant scarcity of rural life.

Indeed! Of course, Grand Marais is a bit different in that we aren't a farming community—not enough dirt or level ground here—and the nearest town over 250 is Two Harbors, about 1.5 hours away (or you could go to Thunder Bay in Canada). We already have a food co-op and a thriving art scene that is nationally known. And, most importantly, we have Lake Superior!

The limited role of intercession

Intercessory prayer, however, rarely eradicates sin. Sin usually remains suspended over the sinners until divine judgment has been fulfilled (cf. Num 14:19–25, Jer 7:16) or until an act of atonement has been made (cf. Num 15:22–29). The same understanding seems to apply to David’s intercessory prayer and his subsequent sacrifice of atonement. Not unlike in the wilderness rebellion against Moses and Aaron, the people’s offense required both intercessory prayer (“they fell on their faces”) and Aaron’s cultic form of intercession (incense offering) to propitiate the divine wrath and to atone for the people’s sin. Only then the plague came to a halt (cf. Num 16:45–50, 2 Sam 24:18–25).—Standing in the Breach, page 247

From despot to servant

Schenker catches the narrative development insightfully when he observes that from 2 Sam 24:3 onward, especially from v. 14 to v. 17, the account testifies to the transformation of the ruler. David’s conception of power does a 180-degree turn. At the outset of the narrative, the king is only concerned about personal power that is expressed through a numerically strong army. When the king’s seer confronts David with his guilt, David repents and attempts first to save himself (v. 14). As the extent of the disaster that David has caused becomes evident to him, the king prefers the downfall of himself and his family to that of the people (v. 17). Schenker observes,

King David changes from a despot to a father of his country; he no longer exploits his people and his power, rather he offers himself and his family for the people.

Only when David comes to stand in the right relationship to the power of a just ruler does he receive divine instructions to build an altar for himself and the people.—Standing in the Breach, pages 244–45

<idle musing>
I think there might be a lesson for us there. Servant leadership is a buzzword, but this passage shows that if it is really embraced, and not just tossed about, God can do something.
</idle musing>

Why was David forgiven, but Saul not?

A brief comparison with 1 Samuel 15 is quite illuminating. Besides the reoccurrence of the expression of God’s change of mind concerning the punishment (נחם [nḥm]; cf. 1 Sam 15:29, 2 Sam 24:16), in both accounts we find reference to the sin of a king. In both instances, God sends a prophet in the morning to draw attention to the monarch’s transgression (cf. 1 Sam 15:12, 2 Sam 24:11). This is followed on both occasions by a double royal confession of guilt (cf. 1 Sam 15:24, 30; 2 Sam 24:10, 17). Initially, however, Saul sought to justify his failure by blaming the people (1 Sam 15:14, 21), while David fully acknowledges his guilt and is eventually ready to take upon himself all the punishment (2 Sam 24:17). Saul is not even ready to accept his own judgment (1 Sam 15:24–25). In fact, Saul does not change much during the conflict with Samuel, while David acknowledges the divine word communicated through the prophet and thus repented genuinely. Authentic repentance of sin averts the wrath of God and often leads to the reestablishment of the divine-human relationship. By praying that Yhwh would redirect the punishment onto himself, David appears to earn the right to pray for pardon for the people. David’s prayer was heard.—Standing in the Breach, page 244

Wrath? Yes!

The notion of the wrath of God is not a pleasant one. Indeed the modern consciousness resists it mightily. Jonathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is cited often, but only for negative and antiquarian reasons, that is, an example of a time and a theology that are long gone. Again, however, a dismissal of this notion may be simplistic and reflective of a tendency to cut the moral nerve of our theology. The wrath of God is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic figure, to express the conviction that there is in the universe a moral connection, that the love and mercy of God are not apart from or understandable without the justice of God. Sin is not finally, and in the Bible never actually, an abstract notion. . . . It is a breakdown in the nature of relationship, a moral breach that always has consequences . . . It is not a divine appetite that confession seeks to satisfy, but a divine nature that is just and insists that the universe reflect that justice.— Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 247–48; cited in Standing in the Breach, page 239 (emphasis original)

Carta Online!

Carta has a new online program coming soon. It looks great; they are going to premier it in Boston at AAR/SBL in November. You can get a preview here: https://vimeo.com/230358095/8dba570479

Figurative language? Or literal? Is there a difference?

The traditional position, both in philosophy and in linguistics – and indeed the everyday view – is that (1) there is a stable and unambiguous notion of literality, and (2) that there is a sharp distinction to be made between literal language, on the one hand, and non-literal or figurative language on the other. According to this view, while literal language is precise and lucid, figurative language is imprecise, and is largely the domain of poets and novelists. In his 1994 book The Poetics of Mind, cognitive psychologist and cognitive linguist Raymond Gibbs examined this issue. Based on a close examination of the key features that are held to distinguish literal and figurative language, and based on a wide-ranging survey of different kinds of psycholinguistic experiments aimed at uncovering such a distinction, Gibbs found that there is no evidence for a principled distinction between literal and figurative language.—Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, p. 287

All that's left…

Like so often in the psalms, David entrusts himself to Yhwh’s mercy (cf. Ps 51:1 [MT 51:3]). Divine mercy is one of the fundamental attributes that Yhwh has revealed to Moses in the aftermath of Israel’s archetypal sin, the golden calf (רחם [rḥm]; cf. Exod 34:6). Since then, Israel has invoked divine mercy, as one of the last resorts, like one who has nothing left to claim for oneself, but to throw oneself to the “womb pity” of God (רחם [rḥm]; cf. Dan 9:18).—Standing in the Breach, page 237

How does this king thing work anyway?

The prophets speak on behalf of God to the people, while the kings are called to rule and judge wisely on behalf of the divine King. The prophets are called to stand in the breach on behalf of the sinful people, whereas the kings have the responsibility of protecting the people against earthly enemies (cf. Ps 72). Unlike the prophet, the king’s role is not primarily advocating for the people before the heavenly throne and speaking to the people on behalf of God. In fact, it is interesting to note that God communicates to a person as great and pious as King David through the prophets Nathan and Gad. Having said this, Israel’s kings also intercede occasionally for the people.—Standing in the Breach, page 224

Worship wars, part 2

From The Christian Week

I have recently had the opportunity to visit two of the most popular churches in my city. They both had something in common when it came to worship. First, both had very good worship bands that were obviously very talented. The lights in the auditorium were dimmed (or right out) and the lights were on the band. The band only played a few songs and most of the congregation listened instead of singing along. Basically, both churches put on very nice and professional Christian music concerts.

I’m seeing and hearing a lot of this in the last several years.

Back some 15 years ago, while we still lived in the Twin Cities, we went to a all-city gathering of a megachurch that had local campuses scattered throughout the city, such that each branch was only a couple of hundred. Our daughter was involved with one of the branches and invited us to join her for the big gathering, advertised as a worship service. The first 30–45 minutes were basically a big concert, complete with light show. Truly spectacular, but I wouldn’t have called it worship; the songs were not singable by a congregation and there was no attempt to involve the congregation. It was just a (well-done) concert.

Sadly, that seems to have become the norm in many places—and not just megachurches, either. : ( Maybe I’m an old man waxing nostalgic, but I seem to recall that once upon a time people would enjoy sitting on the floor and singing (admittedly not very good or theologically deep) choruses together. If somebody could play a couple of chords on the guitar, they would accompany, but it didn’t really matter. What mattered was the body was together and sharing.

That seems to be dead now. People talk about getting together for a Bible study, and you enquire about the format. Response, “Oh, we’ll throw in a CD and sing along with some well-known Christian artist for a song or two, then we’ll throw in a teaching DVD by a well-known Christian teacher.” My question, “Is there any interaction on the part of those there?” Response, “Oh, sure, we’ll discuss the teaching a little bit, but hey, what do we know compared to the teacher?”

The Reformation is dead.
</idle musing>

Justice? What is justice?

In the Old Testament, justice always describes a relationship between two entities. When applied to God, the terms for justice can be used with reference to the relationship between God and the world, between God and society, or between God and individuals. Correspondingly, when applied to humanity, justice can refer to the relationship between an individual and the world, between an individual and God, or between an individual and society. The relational aspect of justice gives it a dynamic and process-driven character. That is to say, justice can increase and decrease, it can be attributed or denied, and therefore ultimately remains elusive.

The motif of justice in the Old Testament has two axes: divine justice and human justice. Both axes involve—albeit with different emphases—cosmological, historical, anthropological, theological, and ethical dimensions. Both axes share three further aspects: the belief in justice, the problematizing of justice, and the redefining of justice.—The Development of God in the Old Testament, page 30

There are limits!

The outcome of Samuel’s prayer (1 Sam 15:11) is already foreshadowed in the prophet’s warning that was voiced in the context of his commitment to pray for both people and king: “But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king” (1 Sam 12:25). We find the same dynamics in Deut 10:12–22. There intercessory prayer for pardon can only be effective in the long run, if the prayed-for party returns to Yhwh and His ways. In the case of Saul, we have seen that there are indicators that suggest that his repentance was not genuine. This understanding of intercessory prayer is strongly endorsed in Jeremiah’s intercessory activity. Jeremiah has to learn as well that there comes a time when intercessory prayer for the disobedient party is rendered ineffective and judgment takes over, if the party itself does not return to God (cf. Jer 15:1). In spite of the prophets’ persistent warnings and prayers, Israel persisted in their disobedience. The prophetic warning materialized in 721 and 587 B.C.E.—Standing in the Breach, page 222

<idle musing>
Yes, there are limits to how long. I was in a discussion with someone a week or two ago who thinks that it is "too late" for the US and the Western world. Personally, I don't agree. Anyone who has read about ancient Greece and then compares it to modern western society would have to agree that western society still looks puritanical compared to them … and look at the success of the early church in those areas! If only we would spend more time praying and less time soapboxing, maybe we'd see the same results.

Of course, praying isn't as "sexy" and doesn't bring the personal accolades. And big gatherings, proclaiming victory over the darkness, are much easier than the moment-by-moment death to self necessary for real victory over the darkness.

But the call remains. It's our choice to obey it—or not.

Whose praise would you prefer? Society's? Your subgroup's? Or God's?

Just an
</idle musing>

Are you listening?

This pattern of informing the prophetic mediator is categorically spelled out in Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” Particularly in the case of Moses’ advocacy, I have argued that Yhwh does not just make the prophet privy to His intentions for information’s sake, but Yhwh does it because He seeks to elicit an intercessory response from the mediator (cf. Exod 32:10, Num 14:12, Deut 9:14). Moses responds to what is most likely a concealed divine invitation to plead for mercy by imploring the Lord: “why does your wrath burn hot against your people. . . . Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind (נחם [nḥm]) and do not bring disaster on your people” (Exod 14–32:11). As a result of Moses’ prayer, Yhwh changed His mind (נחם [nḥm]). about the intended judgment (Exod 32:15). So when we read in 1 Samuel 15 that “The Word of the Lord came to Samuel,” saying that God regretted (נחם [nḥm]) that He made Saul king because of his disobedience, we are most likely to understand that Yhwh is not only informing Samuel in characteristic fashion about His plans, but also that God is inviting a response from His prophet.—Standing in the Breach, page 209

<idle musing>
Are you listening to God? Are you hearing him say he's going to judge? If so, maybe instead of getting on your soapbox and condemning everything, you should get on your knees and intercede. OK, forget the maybe. You definitely should get on your knees and intercede. Then, and only then, do you have a right (and responsibility) to warn the people.

My experience (limited though it may be) is that if I start blasting without interceding first, it's out of a self-righteous attitude. On the other hand, if I intercede first, I find that I'm crying out for them because of love, not with a judgmental attitude. Try it!
</idle musing>

No silver bullet

In the context of Moses’ prayer, as recorded in Deuteronomy 9–10, there is good reason to argue that the efficacy of the intercessor’s prayer is dependent on the reception of the prophets’ instructions (cf. Deut 10:12–22). In other words, the response of the guilty party plays a decisive role in whether the mediator’s prayer is answered or not. Only if the sin is recognized and confessed, and one is committed to do so no more, is the mediator’s intercession likely to be effective long-term. This dynamic of biblical intercession is further confirmed in the context of Jeremiah’s intercessory ministry. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that Samuel’s speech ends in a warning that reminds of the covenant curses as we find them in the book of Deuteronomy: “you shall surely perish” (Deut 8:20, 27).—Standing in the Breach, page 205

Long-suffering defined

The fact that Yhwh kept on calling and commissioning prophets over the centuries reveals that God is fundamentally committed to His people in love and righteousness.—Standing in the Breach, page 204

I can't help it!

[First Samuel 12] Verse 23 strongly suggests that intercession “is an inextricable part of the prophetic role.” It seems as if Samuel is not at liberty to refuse Israel’s request for advocacy before Yhwh. We shall see in our reading of Isaiah’s, Jeremiah’s, and Amos’s intercessory prayers that their ministries were driven by a compulsion to defend the sinful party even against divine prohibition to pray for the people. … Defending the sinful people in intercessory prayer before a loving and just God is the benchmark of the authentic prophet. Like Moses, Samuel is aware that Israel breached the covenant, and yet he could not but advocate for divine grace. In doing so, the prophet reflects in a sense the heart of Yhwh. Just as God could not cast away His repentant people in spite of their sins (cf. 1 Sam 12:22), so Samuel could not help but intercede for the undeserving.—Standing in the Breach, pages 203–4

Sensing the tension

Psalm 99 illustrates well God’s fundamental challenge. That is, how to be both a loving God and an “avenger of their wrongdoings” (Ps 99:8). According to Psalm 99, Yhwh’s kingship and holiness are ultimately defined by divine willingness to bear Israel’s sin, without leaving the sinners unpunished. Yhwh does not avoid sinners and their wrongdoings, but is patiently willing to endure their sins. At the same time God ensures that justice is done. This portrayal is not only fundamentally rooted in Yhwh’s self-revelation as a God of love and justice (cf. Exod 34:6–7), but is also of central importance for our discussion of Samuel’s intercessory ministry as depicted in chaps. 12 and 15.—Standing in the Breach, page 201

Languages change, so should we

The old King James translation “helpmeet” does not mean a help mate but rather a helper who is “meet,” that is, suitable for the task. Woman is not man’s maid, nor merely his assistant, but a “suitable companion,” corresponding to him. She is the crown of creation, God’s last act that makes it all very good.—Ben Witherington in Torah Old and New, forthcoming from Fortress Press

Not just a veneer

Chapter 7 [of 1 Samuel] portrays a people who come to their senses in the face of opposition. With the help of Samuel, the covenant mediator, Israel is readily willing to remove all their idols from their midst and put their trust anew in their covenant God only. As we have seen, the narrative reports in some details of their repentant hearts. Israel confesses their sins and put their entire trust in Yhwh and His mediator (1 Sam 7:6). In other words, it is not about manipulative or mechanical practices that seek to evoke Yhwh’s favor. Rather, the narrative paints a picture of genuine repentance, reorientation of trust, and allegiance.—Standing in the Breach, page 189

Obedience? Or politics?

In the first book of Samuel, the sea-people represent in some sense Israel’s fear. Thus, one of the central issues of chap. 7, as in so many other passages of the Old Testament, is the issue of trust. In whom does Israel put their trust? The foreign gods of a technologically more advanced people, a tangible symbol such as the ark, or their covenant God who delivered their fathers from Egypt? The reader knows from chaps. 4–6 that Philistine power rests on idolatrous loyalties that cannot save. Israel has little choice than to take refuge in Yhwh. Samuel’s intercession is in some sense detached from the world of warfare and politics, it is an act of obedience and courage in the face of a real danger and threat.—Standing in the Breach, page 188

He will hear!

Samuel’s intercessory prayer is emphasized by the comment that he cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel. This time, it is not the people who cry out in the face of danger (cf. 1 Sam 12:10, Ps 107), but their mediator. Here we find employed the most fundamental terminology to describe the dynamics of intercessory prayer: Israel urged Samuel not to cease to cry out to the Lord for them. Samuel cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel and Yhwh answered him (1 Sam 7:9). Miller argues that not only is the cry from trouble and suffering “one of the thematic threads of the Scriptures,” but so is the certainty that God will “hear and respond to that outcry.”—Standing in the Breach, page 184

A recurring theme

After Samuel disappeared from the biblical text for more than two chapters, he finally reappears in the narrative without introduction (1 Sam 7:3). Back on the scene, Samuel demands three things of Israel: (1) that they remove all foreign gods and turn radically from idolatry (2) that they renew their commitment to Yhwh (3) that they serve Yhwh alone (1 Sam 7:3). Samuel’s postulations echo Moses’ covenant faith as we find it expressed in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:4–5, 10:12–22). Thus, Samuel affirms the core claim of Mosaic covenantal faith: to turn (שוב [shuv]) from idolatry and to recommit themselves wholeheartedly to Yhwh. Only then, God will deliver them from the oppression of the Philistines.—Standing in the Breach, page 179

What was he doing all night?

[First Samuel] Chapter 15, among other things, illustrates what Samuel meant when he declared that he, as a prophet, considers it as sin (חטא [ḥt']) against the Lord not to intercede for those entrusted to him (1 Sam 12:23). In characteristic fashion, the prophet is not only informed about Yhwh’s intention but is also commissioned to deliver the will of God (cf. Amos 3:7). In this case, Samuel is sent to inform Saul that God has rejected him as king because of his disobedience. In response to Yhwh’s strict words, Samuel spends the entire night in prayer with the Lord (1 Sam 15:11). Chapter 15 raises issues of great theological delicacy, such as the power and discernment of genuine repentance, election, and covenant obedience, divine mutability, and the limits of prophetic intercession.—Standing in the Breach, page 177

<idle musing>
What was Samuel doing all night? Another model of what a true prophet looks like. He's given a message to deliver, but before he delivers it, he spends the whole night interceding, asking God to be merciful—at least that's how I read it, based on Samuel's comment in 1 Sam 12:23. That doesn't seem to be the way some of these so-called prophets work today.

Even if you can get them to say anything other than "God will bless you with abundant material blessings," all they will do is stand on a hill and pronounce curses.

I know of exceptions, real prophets who almost sweat blood interceding, but they are the exception, not the rule.
</idle musing>

It's in your hands

We have seen that Moses’ intercessory activity enabled Israel to make a new start. But ultimately, it is the people’s choice that will determine their future (the same dynamic is found in Numbers 13–14, where after a temporary pardon, it is up to the new generation whether they want to follow Yhwh or not). As faithful mediator, Moses stands in the breach before Yhwh in order to obtain pardon for them. He does not stop there, for with prophetic vigor equal to when he defended the people before God, Moses admonishes the people to change their sinful ways and recommit themselves to God and His ways (cf. Deut 10:12–20). This twofold ministry of representing the people before Yhwh and of representing Yhwh before the people is reminiscent of the later prophets. In fact, both aspects mark the genuine prophet (cf. 1 Sam 12:23; Jer 27:18; Ezek 13:5, 22:30).—Standing in the Breach, page 170

<idle musing>
This is beginning to sound like a refrain, isn't it? The intercessor stands in the gap, then rebukes the people. If the people respond in repentance, i.e., they change their hearts and their ways, then judgment doesn't fall.
</idle musing>

High standards

The narrative states several times that God was going to destroy Israel (cf. Deut 9:8, 14, 19, 20). It was only through Moses’ sacrificial and persistent prayer that YHWH showed mercy, changed His annihilative intensions, and renewed the covenant with them (Deut 9:19, 10:10; cf. Exod 32:10–14, Ps 106:23). Thus, the theology of this narrative seems to suggest that God’s grace and mercy must first be invoked and claimed in prayer (Exod 34:6–9). Not just by anyone, but by a faithful mediator.—Standing in the Breach, page 170

<idle musing>
OK, you "name it and claim it" people: There's the standard. Can you meet it?

I suspect not, because the goals of most are self-centered, not God-centered. You can't be a faithful intercessor without being God-centered. And if you are God-centered, the only things you want to claim are ones that will bring the maximum glory to God, not to self. And that basically disqualifies 99% of what most people in the U.S. want.
</idle musing>

Ouch! That hurts

Just ran across a (longish) post that attempts to explain why 81% of self-identifying evangelicals voted for, and largely continue to support, the current POTUS.

Donald Trump is what we evangelicals already are, or at least are becoming. It explains why he is so supported among us. Even after a cavalcade of circus-like activity coming from the White House since his inauguration, he still retains his support. Why? Why not, I say, if he matches what we actually value. We love entertainment, ourselves, power, and money. Trump gives us those things. We need to admit it. We love these values even more than the Son of God they obscure behind them. We might fill out surveys and claim differently, but we don’t live that way.

<idle musing>
Ouch! Unfortunately, as he points out in the main body of the post, it is true. The keynotes of traditional Evangelicalism of the 18th through mid-20th century (as highlighted by Bebbington) have been eclipsed by the love of self, which manifests itself in the love of entertainment, power, and money. The exact opposite of what conversion used to mean.

Lord, have mercy! Bring revival to your church!
</idle musing>

Moses as a type

The twofold prophetic role anticipates Jesus’ life and ministry. As one who is part of the divine council, he speaks with divine authority (Matt 5:21–22; John 5:19–30, 12:49–50, 17:8). As for Jesus’ intercessory prayer, as one who was tested in every way, yet without sin, Jesus can advocate on behalf of humanity in a unique way before the throne of God (cf. Heb 4:15, John 17).—Standing in the Breach, page 168

Why?

Moses speaks to the people as one who has intimate knowledge of Yhwh’s nature and purposes. Not only does his prophetic utterance presuppose intimate knowledge of the divine, but Moses’ intercessory prayer also testifies to a deep understanding of Yhwh’s attributes and plan. The intercessor can influence the divine decision-making and rebuke the people with divine authority because he has a “place” at the divine council (cf. Exod 24:2–4, 15–18; Deut 5:27, 31).—Standing in the Breach, page 168

No, it's more than that!

Often the prophet’s prime or sole responsibility is mistakenly perceived as receiving and communicating God’s words (judgment or salvation), but the biblical picture of the prophetic office is clearly twofold. It entails both the communication of God’s will and the representation of the people’s concerns before God. The prophets usually spoke with as much fervor and zeal to the Lord in prayer as to the people in judgment oracles. The reality of judgment and threat usually go hand in hand with intercessory prayer. Only the office of the prophet allows for this dialectic role.—Standing in the Breach, page 167

<idle musing>
If there is one thing you take away from reading this book, this is it. Prophets don't primarily foretell or even forthtell. Prophets primarily intercede.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I have so much of a problem with the current rage of "personal prophecy." Where's the intercession? How can you intercede when all you ever prophecy is "good stuff?" It reminds me of the false prophets in Jeremiah.

Of course, it didn't end so well for Hananiah, did it? (See Jeremiah 28.) Just an
</idle musing>

Me, at book exhibits

This is me, at book exhibits (ARC = Advance Reading Copies)

You've got to go there to see the whole thing...

Fix it!

Restoring a breached wall by doing righteous community work is a longterm process. When the hour of destruction is advancing, it is the prophets’ duty to stand temporarily in the breach in prayer, before the gradual process of restoring the divine-human relation can begin. Deuteronomy 9–10 gives exactly expression to this dynamic. First, in prophetic fashion, Moses draws attention to Israel’s sin by shattering the covenant tablets (Deut 9:15) and hastens to defend the breached wall from YHWH’s destructive wrath (“For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you” Deut 9:19). After having successfully fended off the first attack (Deut 10:10–11), the mediator urges Israel to repair the wall by recommitting themselves to fear YHWH and to love their neighbor (Deut 10:12–22).—Standing in the Breach, page 166

<idle musing>
Indeed. That's one reason I have a problem with "declaring the powers bound" thinking. If there is no repentance, you can rebuke demons all day long and it won't have any effect. Repentance is essential to repair the walls. Yes, we need to stand in the breach as intercessors, but we also need to call people to repentance—and live lives that reflect holiness ourselves!

I like how the CEB translates repentance: change your hearts and minds. Too often in the US Evangelical community, conversion has been nothing more than a change of mind. No change in behavior, just a mental assent to a set of beliefs.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. That's selling out the biblical definition for cheap grace, easy believism. I'm with the early Anabaptists here: no change in lifestyle equals no salvation. That's one reason Wesley organized his converts into bands and societies: to keep people accountable and to promote "scriptural holiness throughout the land." We could do a lot worse—and are : (
</idle musing>

Judgment will catch up!

[E]ven after their most grievous offense was pardoned, they continued to be rebellious (cf. Deut 9:22–24). The continuous intercessory activity of Moses indicates, however, that his prayer, though powerful and effective, provides only a temporary solution to Israel’s predicament. It appears that Moses’ summons to a change of heart suggests itself as a more permanent solution to Israel’s rebelliousness. Their stubbornness, in the long run, can only be remedied through circumcision of heart (Deut 10:16), a metaphor for an inner renewal of the covenant relationship, a decisive act of committed obedience.—Standing in the Breach, page 165

<idle musing>
At the risk of overextending the application of this, I would say we're on the same path in this country...there's a limit to what intercession can do. At some point, individuals have to decide whether they want God or not. Contrary to what some think, you do reap what you sow. And violence always begets violence, just as hatred always begets hatred.

Unfortunately, the current evidence is that the choice is "not."

But we are called to pray anyway.
</idle musing>

Faithfulness hurts

The fact that YHWH responds favorably to Moses’ threefold appeal reveals not only that mercy depends on YHWH’s character and His promises but also that God allows Himself to be persuaded by His faithful servant to let love triumph over justice. This is not to deny the fact that YHWH has the freedom of disciplining His rebellious son, but the outcome of Moses’ prayer strongly suggests that one of the central purposes of Israel’s election is God’s commitment to fellowship with His people. This is a commitment that in times of rebellion costs Him dearly.—Standing in the Breach, page 163

The stakes are high

In spite of the fact that Israel has been obstinate and rebellious from the moment of birth (Isa 48:4; cf. Deut 9:7, 24), YHWH is determined to glorify Himself by delivering Israel from exile and thereby show once again that He is God of gods (cf. Isa 52:5–6). This is a costly undertaking on God’s part because the restoration and preservation of God’s name (and covenant) is ultimately only possible by way of self-sacrificial commitment to His people. Thus, it has become clear that Moses raises a problem, which reaches to the very heart of God’s internal dilemma. How is one to consolidate divine justice with divine grace and loving commitment? There is no way that one can or should try to resolve this tension because it belongs to the very essence of God’s being (cf. Exod 34:6–7, Num 14:18). The fact, that YHWH allows, even invites, Moses to participate in this dilemma in faithful prayer speaks volumes for YHWH’s solidarity for His people. We have seen that Moses at no point excuses or belittles Israel’s rebellion and disobedience, but he juxtaposes it with YHWH’s history of loving and faithful commitment to them and with the fact that YHWH’s name would be at stake if Israel were annihilated.—Standing in the Breach, pages 161–62

Where does the punctuation go?

In John 1:3–4, that is. Is there a stop at the end of verse 3? Or does it come at the end of the phrase, with the relative pronoun and participle going with verse 4?

Here's the Greek:
3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

I had never noticed it before, but NA27 (and I assume NA28) have the stop before the relative pronoun. Here's what Metzger says:

1.3-4 οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν {B}

Should the words ὃ γέγονεν be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (P66, 75* א* A B) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took ὃ γέγονεν with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.

Interestingly, Metzger disagreed with the Committee

[On the other hand, however, none of these arguments is conclusive and other considerations favor taking ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence. Thus, against the consideration of the so-called Page 168 rhythmical balance (which after all is present in only a portion of the Prologue, and may not necessarily involve ὃ γέγονεν) must be set John’s fondness for beginning a sentence or clause with ἐν and a demonstrative pronoun (cf. 13.35; 15.8; 16.26; 1 Jn 2.3, 4, 5; 3.10, 16, 19, 24; 4.2, etc.). It was natural for Gnostics, who sought support from the Fourth Gospel for their doctrine of the origin of the Ogdoad, to take ὃ γέγονεν with the following sentence (“That which has been made in him was life” – whatever that may be supposed to mean). It is more consistent with the Johannine repetitive style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (cf. 5.26, 39; 6.53), to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate with a full stop after ὃ γέγονεν. B.M.M.]

So, the CEB translates it thus:

3 Everything came into being through the Word,
and without the Word
nothing came into being.
What came into being
4 through the Word was life,
and the life was the light for all people.

Not sure which I prefer, but it does make one pause to think...

The tension

The covenant relationship, by its very nature, makes certain demands on both sides of the party (Deut 26–30), by which life and blessing can be gained or lost depending on the human response. Childs helpfully comments: “Election was not a privilege to be enjoyed, but a calling to be pursued.” [fn: Childs, Biblical, 445. He draws attention to the fact that the same tension is still found in Romans 9–11, particularly 11:22: “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.”] … there is a tension between Israel’s special status and the breached covenant. This dynamic is clearly in the background of Moses’ prayer. The Scriptures witness to this subtle but fundamental tension between election and covenant. On the one hand, YHWH, in sovereign love, choses people on His own initiative. This divine call is unchangeable because it depends on God’s loyalty. On the other hand, the chosen people have entered a covenant relationship that requires obedience. It is a real relationship that depends on both covenant people and covenant God. This dynamic tension cannot and should not be resolved because it is the dynamics of love.—Standing in the Breach, pages 152–53

Slaves, but freed ones

YHWH’s legal claim to the ownership of Israel is based on His act of sovereign redemption. The verb פדה carries the sense of ransoming an enslaved party. Hence, on one level an acquisition of slaves has taken place, and on another level, Israel does not remain merely a “material” property which changed its owner, because the verb פדה is closely associated with the ֵgō'ēl (“redeemer”). In other words, YHWH is portrayed not as slave trader but as faithful and generous redeemer who ransomed Israel from bondage. There might even be a sense that the redeemer is obliged to ransom his near of kin, that is, His son (cf. Exod 4:23).—Standing in the Breach, page 149

Booklust

I just saw this at Evangelical Text Criticism.

A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method
Tommy Wasserman, Peter J. Gurry

Must get! By the way, go to the Evangelical Text Criticism blog and vote for the cover. I chose B

It's a lonely road

This act of humble self-abasement does not only come as a sharp contrast to Israel’s rebellious attitude, but also raises the question of why Moses would do this. After all, he has just condemned Israel’s behavior by shattering the covenant tablets? This brings us back to the twofold role of the prophet. On the one hand, he confronts and rebukes the people’s sin with divine authority, and on the other hand, he entreats YHWH with reverent boldness on behalf of the people. This puts the mediator in an uncomfortable position, as he is caught up between announcing judgment and pleading with YHWH for mercy and pardon in an act of costly intercession. Muffs comments, “Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach and at the same time to call on the people that does not listen.” [Muffs, Love and Joy, 32].—Standing in the Breach, pages 142–43

<idle musing>
A.W. Tozer said that it was a lonely road to travel for those who were totally sold out to God. Moses is one of the first to exemplify that. Later prophets will travel the same road—think of Jeremiah!
</idle musing>

A bit of lexical information

עון [`wn] indicates both guilt and punishment (that is, it includes the offense and the consequence thereof), and these are not separated in Hebrew thinking.—Standing in the Breach, page 139n291

Destruction!

Calvin sees in the divine demand to be left alone Moses’ sharpest and sorest trial of faith. The reformer compares it with God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22). First, the patriarch is told that in and through Isaac God will raise a people for Himself and then Abraham is to slay him. As Calvin observes:

The same thing is here recorded of Moses, before whom God sets a kind of contradiction in His Word, when He declares that He has intention of destroying that people, to which He had promised the land of Canaan.

Of particular interest is Calvin’s interpretation of YHWH’s demand to be left alone. He senses in this request a divine testing of Moses’ faith, while at the same time a means to provoke Moses to pray more earnestly. Calvin’s interpretation is not only congruent with the rabbinic interpretation above but also realizes the critical interrelation between Moses’ prayer and YHWH’s outworking of salvation history. Calvin denies the possibility that God was not serious, or even deceitful when He announced His intention to destroy sinful Israel. According to Calvin there is a delicate line between YHWH’s providence and Moses’ prayer.—Standing in the Breach, page 135

<idle musing>
One of the few times I agree with Calvin! : )
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

The wrath of God under which the idolatrous, sinfully perverted man stands is simply the divine love, which has become a force opposed to him who has turned against God. The wrath of God is the love of God, in the form in which the man who has turned away from God and turned against God, experiences it, as indeed, thanks to the holiness of God, he must and ought to experience it.—Emil Brunner, Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947), 187

An encouragement?

Jacob [Exodus, 931] affirms the idea that let me alone actually means do not let me alone and is paradoxically a summons to persuade YHWH not to destroy Israel. Jacob develops the idea of an implicit invitation to intercede by remarking that YHWH could have shut the door and said: “Enough, do not speak of the matter anymore,” as he did when Moses requested permission to enter the promised land (Deut 3:26; cf. Jer 7:16). According to Jacob, God not only encourages Moses to intercede for Israel by increasing his self-confidence (“and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they,” Deut 9:14), but even provides him with a persuasive argument to counter His anger by reminding him of the promise made to the patriarchs (cf. Gen 12:2, Exod 32:13, Deut 9:27).—Standing in the Breach, page 134–35

<idle musing>
Not sure I'm convinced, but an intriguing idea, anyway.
</idle musing>

Mode of action or attribute?

"Yahweh is again reminded [in Ps 86] that he is a good and forgiving (sallaḥ) God. The grammatical construction of the qaṭṭal verbal adjective, a form occurring only in this passage, underscores 'that here a divine attribute is bing described, not merely a mode of action.' [Kedar, 107f.] The enduring aspect of this forgiving element in God's personality is being emphasized."—Hausmann in TDOT 10:262

The audacity!

YHWH’s request to be left alone implies the possibility of not leaving Him alone and thereby restraining God in the outworking of the judgment. In other words, God’s demand implies nothing less than that Moses has to make Israel available for punishment, as it were, otherwise YHWH would be hindered to act. Jewish interpreters have long noticed the disturbing notion that Moses is somehow capable of holding back God from executing His judgment. Rabbi Awahu comments:

If this verse were not written, it would be impossible to say it. This verse teaches us that Moses held the Holy One, blessed be He, like one grabs the cloak of a friend and said to Him, Master of the universe, I will not let you go until you have forgiven them.

—Standing in the Breach, page 132

<idle musing>
Now that is audacity! And that's what we're called to as Christians: to intercede on behalf of others. As I've said many times on this blog, the prophets spend as much time interceding on behalf of the people with God as they do telling the people to repent. Would that were true of me!
</idle musing>

That sums it up

I would like to suggest that Deuteronomy 5–11 provide an intrinsic definition of Israel’s ְצָדָקה [ṣādāqah]. It is characterized by wholehearted love and trust in God and a devotion to keep the commandments (cf. Deut 10:12–20; 11:1, 22; 19:9; 30:16). In obedience to the law, the fear of YHWH is realized (cf. Deut 6:1–2, 24).—Standing in the Breach, page 127

The book is dead! Long live the book!

Just ran across this today, about the "death" of the book. The final paragraph sums it up (although I encourage you to read it all):

All the handwringing that the book is dead is really directed to the “books that are really not books,” the kind of things enumerated above that were published as books at a time when that was, however inadequate, the most viable format. The long-form text, on the other hand, has no real competition outside of the entertainment area, where Netflix and HBO compete with the commercial novel (but not, for the most part, with the literary novel). For all our talk about reduced attention spans, some ideas require space to stretch out in, some areas need extended syntheses. It is a mistake to make a book more like the Web, valuable as Web-like publications are. But they are different kinds of publications. The future of the long-form text, the core meaning of a book, is in making it more like itself.

<idle musing>
I would take issue with reference materials being better digitally. There’s still a lot to be said for the paper dictionary/lexicon. I still reach for BDAG/LSJ/HALOT/BDB/DCH—there’s something about a paper version that makes it easier to pick up a lot of info in a quick glance and then go deeper. I have electronic versions of most of those, but find I rarely use them as opposed to the paper version.

That also goes for text editions. I find navigating a text with an apparatus criticus to be easier on paper—although I'm sure others would disagree with me there.

Sure, the hyperlinking is nice—and I take advantage of that. But, the initial look-up (for me) is easier via paper. Mind you, that's not because I'm a amateur at things digital—I built my first computer back in 1982 and have been on the Internet since 1995. I even ran an IT department for five years and had a network running Linux, BSD, and Windows in my basement for several years. But, there are things that are better on paper, just as there are things that are better digitally.
</idle musing>

Why interecession is necessary

God’s good original intention and purposes with Israel have been endangered by sin and God’s wrath. Divine change of mind has to be understood against this background. As we have just noted, not only does His tendency toward grace and mercy belong to YHWH’s constancy, but so too does His commitment to holiness. God’s intended judgment, however, is always open to an appeal to mercy and compassion. It is in the context of a loyal and responsive God that Moses’ intercessions, and any other prayer, must be understood. YHWH’s nature enables Him to respond to development and incorporate it in the shaping of the future, for better or for worse (cf. Jer 18:1–12). The notion that God genuinely concerns Himself with a prophet’s prayer in working out His judgment is not a sign of divine weakness or inconsistent behavior. Rather, it is a sign of true greatness. God can and chooses to accommodate human prayer in His will and plan.—Standing in the Breach, page 100

The distinction matters

To begin, it is clear that the Old Testament shows no signs of embarrassment in depicting God in human ways. Acknowledging the metaphoric value of anthropomorphic language, it is exactly this anthropomorphic language that helps us to perceive God in a truly personal and responsive fashion. It is surely noteworthy that all the adjectives employed in YHWH’s fullest self-disclosure are relational in character (cf. Exod 34:6–7). By the logic of the Old Testament, “God-talk” is either descriptive or prescriptive (third or first person) because YHWH in His grace and free decision revealed Himself in ways that are comprehensible to humans (that is, in anthropomorphic language). Strictly speaking, however, one should not forget that the Old Testament perceives humanity as theomorphic and not God as anthromorphic.—Standing in the Breach, page 99

<idle musing>
The distinction matters. Humans were created in the image of God, not vice-versa.
</idle musing>

Those three extra phonemes

Recently Doug Petrovich attempted to rock the world by saying the Hebrews invented the alphabet (you can get the book here). His claim has been met with skepticism, to say the least. Many claim that those who are skeptical are doing so because he is using it to bolster a historical exodus. But, as always, things are much more complicated than that : )

For instance, I believe in a historical exodus. But I think his theory is bunk. You see, there are three phonemes (sounds) in the Hebrew language during the first millennium BC that don't have their own letter. It's all about the history of languages and stuff. I can't do a better job of explaining it than Eric Reymond does in ch. 2 of his forthcoming book Intermediate Biblical Hebrew Grammar: A Student's Guide to Phonology and Morphology:

The inventory of Classical Biblical Hebrew phonemes listed above [in a chart] is three greater than the number of graphic letters used to represent these sounds. This resulted in some letters representing more than one phoneme. Specifically, three letters were used to represent two phonemes each. The khet represented the phonemes /ḥ/ (IPA [ħ]) and /ḫ/ (IPA [x]). The ayin represented /ʿ/ (IPA [ʕ]) and /ġ/ (IPA [ɣ]). The sin/shin letter represented /ś/ (IPA [ɬ]) and /š/ (IPA [ʃ]). (Recall that the dot that distinguishes sin from shin is a medieval invention.) The existence of the phonemes /ḫ/, /ġ/, and /ś/ is thought to have existed in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite as implied by names and words in the El Amarna texts as compared to Egyptian transcriptions.[footnote:Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria, AOAT 214 (Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 50–52.]

So, you see, in order for Petrovich's idea to be correct, he would have to posit that the 3 double-duty letters merged about 1000 years before they did and then divided again about 100–200 years later only to merge again in the first century (or thereabouts) BC. Sorry. Not buying it.

How does it work?

It is clear that God’s pronouncement of His name (Exod 34:6–7) forms a beautifully balanced statement on the goodness of YHWH who is committed to His people but who nonetheless demands moral integrity. Flowing from the loving divine commitment to the people, YHWH allowed Himself to be persuaded by His mediator to renew the covenant relationship (Exod 34:8–10). Although the covenant was renewed, the second half of the divine self-disclosure (YHWH’s judgment), did not find any concrete application in the context of Exodus 32–34. It seems to me that Num 14:20–35 sheds significant light on the nature of the divine name, particularly on the logic of YHWH’s visitation. In fact, I have suggested that YHWH’s twofold response to Moses’ prayer (Num 14:20–35) provides an inner-biblical commentary on YHWH’s nature as revealed to Moses on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). It is particularly the important relationship between divine pardon and covenant maintenance, and the much-debated logic of the divine visitation to the third and fourth generation, that receive an illuminating outworking in Num 14:20–35. To be more precise, YHWH’s judgment on both the rebellious wilderness generation and on their offspring exemplifies how His holy name (Exod 34:6–7) is enacted in a concrete situation.—Standing in the Breach, page 98

Did it work?

I suggest that the divine resolution is one not of fierce sovereignty, belittling Moses’ prayer, but rather a sophisticated and complex statement, which implicitly affirms pardon and covenant loyalty without failing to execute divine justice. I think that the problem has to do with the concept and meaning of divine selîḥâ, as envisaged in this context. If, as we have suggested before, Moses’ petition for divine selîḥâ is primarily a plea for the preservation of divine covenant loyalty, rather than Israel’s forgiveness in the sense of annulment of guilt and sin, then Moses’ prayer has been heard and achieved its objectives. That is, the continuance and preservation of YHWH’s covenant relationship with Israel and the assurance that they as a people will eventually settle in the promised land.—Standing in the Breach, page 97–98

Moses's intercession, round two

The scout narrative is rightly called the second main focus of theological reflection on the nexus of sin, judgment, prayer, and divine verdict in the canonical sequence of the Pentateuch. Moreover, the relation between the golden calf account and the scout narrative goes far beyond common themes. There are numerous conceptual and verbal parallels between these two narratives. The problem of YHWH’s presence among a fundamentally rebellious people is significantly developed in relation to the outstanding promised land in Numbers 13–14 (cf. Exod 33:1–6). Moreover, it is in these chapters that the outstanding divine warning of a forthcoming judgment finds a concrete resolution (cf. Exod 32:34). For our purposes, however, most important is the intrinsic relationship between YHWH’s fullest self-disclosure of His name (Exod 34:6–7) and Moses’ praying the divine attributes “back” to YHWH in the face of a threatening judgment (Num 14:11–12). YHWH’s response to Moses’ prayer provides a helpful inner-biblical commentary on the meaning and implications of YHWH’s attributes in a specific context. The divine resolution encompasses both judgment and mercy. Although all the people who have despised YHWH are punished, YHWH maintains the covenant relationship with Israel as a people. By implication, the prayer of the covenant mediator was successful. Israel can continue as YHWH’s people; their children will be the bearer of the divine promise made to their ancestors, and they will eventually be given the chance to inherit the promised land alongside the two loyal scouts. Thus, YHWH’s response to Moses’ prayer includes the complex interplay of human rebellion, divine judgment, prophetic mediation, and God’s merciful and gracious disposition.—Standing in the Breach, page 95

<idle musing>
No one ever said figuring this stuff out would be easy! It gets complicated real fast, doesn't it? It still boils down to our individual response to the grace of God. God remains faithful and calls us to the same. He's merciful, too, and that mercy is huge, but at some point it has a limit, as we'll see later in the book.
</idle musing>

That seems backwards to me!

In gratitude and worship for the affirmative recharacterization of the divine name, Moses prostrates himself and launches his climactic prayer. In this petition, Moses resumes most of the major themes of his previous prayers and boldly advances them in the light of YHWH’s new revelation. Holding together personal divine favor and the good of the people, Moses prays: “If I have found favor in your eyes then walk in our midst for they are a stiff-necked people and pardon our guilt and sins and take us for your inheritance” (Exod 34:9; cf. 33:13). In total solidarity and in tune with his previous unswerving loyalty to Israel (Exod 32:32), Moses identifies himself with the people’s guilt and sin and makes their pardon depend on his intimate relationship with YHWH. Moreover, there is good reason to argue that Moses actually promotes Israel’s recalcitrant nature as the very reason for the resumption of YHWH’s presence and pardon. “Please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people (Exod 34:9, ESV).”—Standing in the Breach, page 94 (emphasis his)

Attribute versus action

Anger is an act, a situation, not an essential attribute. This distinction is implied in the words which are of fundamental importance for the understanding of all biblical words: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious.”—Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets, 71, as quoted in Standing in the Breach, page 93

<idle musing>
As always, Heschel hits the nail on the head. Wrath is a reaction of God because of his attributes. It is not an attribute of God in and of itself. This needs to be blasted from the rooftops and drilled into our thick, judgmental, parochial skulls. God is merciful and gracious. Yes, he does have limits to that and wrath and judgment will eventually fall. But, and this is a huge but, it is not an attribute of God to be wrathful.
</idle musing>

Judgment might come

The revelation of YHWH’s name came as an affirmation to Moses (and through him to Israel) that YHWH is primarily and fundamentally for Israel. This is not to say that divine pardon can easily be presumed, for v. 7b comes as a stern warning that God’s moral order still matters. One could say that vv. 6–7a give expression to YHWH’s fundamental nature, whereas v. 7b gives expression to His action if Israel’s offence persists. Therefore, it can be seen that God’s visitation of Israel’s iniquities does not stand in an irresolvable tension with His fundamental covenant loyalty. The immediate and wider context of vv. 6–7 make it evident that YHWH’s wrath is provoked by and directed against a specific sin. In other words, divine wrath and judgment are circumstantial and temporary, and as the proportion of thousands to four generations indicates, they cannot overrule YHWH’s faithfulness and love.—Standing in the Breach, page 93

The divine reversal

It looks very much as though YHWH in the aftermath of the golden calf incident deliberately reformulates His previous pronouncement. Most striking is the reversal of the order of His attributes. In Exod 34:6, YHWH commences with a fundamental statement about His nature. He is basically merciful and gracious, whereas in the Decalogue the warning of a jealous God precedes YHWH’s attributes of mercy and grace. In other words, there is a radical shift from an emphasis on divine jealousy to an emphasis on divine mercy, grace, and loyalty without denying justice. God allowed Himself in His sovereignty to be persuaded by the persistent prayer of His faithful mediator to overcome justified wrath with grace and loving compassion.—Standing in the Breach, page 92

Knowing the unknowable

Reading Moses’ intercessory prayers, one gains a sense that the more Moses engages in prayer the deeper he is led into the divine mystery. There is a clear sense that God’s revelation is intrinsically connected to Moses’ response. Moses self-involvement enables an encounter with God of unprecedented nature. Through the use of a variety of metaphors and anthropomorphic language, a complex and sophisticated biblical truth is established: God is gracious and merciful and yet holy and morally demanding, He is seen and yet unseen, He is close and yet He transcends human perception. These irresolvable tensions are inherent in Exod 33:18–24 and are confirmed in the actual revelation of God’s name (Exod 34:6–7). The text, as Moberly observes, articulates, in its own way, “that sense which has been fundamental to classic theology that to know God is to know the one who surpasses knowledge.”—Standing in the Breach, page 90

Pressing through

Moses’ third prayer has understandably been described as the climactic prayer because, arguably, it is in this intense dialogue that the fundamental breakthrough happens. At the outset of the chapter, everything hangs in the balance: Although Moses is to lead Israel into the promised land, YHWH announces that He cannot go with a stiff-necked people. Thus, Israel’s future is still undecided and Moses is uncertain regarding his role and YHWH’s purposes. Verses 1–11 not only introduce the fundamental problem of how a holy God can live among a sinful people but also testify to a transformation of the people and, implicitly, of YHWH’s relation to them. This change of attitudes on both sides is significant for the development of the story. It seems that the text presupposes this mutual change of heart for Moses’ intercession to be fruitful. At the end of the chapter, YHWH affirms the resumption of His presence among the people and announces a show of His goodness to Moses in a forthcoming theophany.

In contrast to his previous prayer, Moses’ dialogue with YHWH is characterized by an increasingly brave and insistent tone. Although it is clear that the objective of Moses’ prayer has always been the restoration of the breached covenant relationship, Moses initially mentioned sinful Israel only in a seemingly incidental manner, as carefully exploring YHWH’s reaction after the previous divine word of reproof (Exod 32:33). Encouraged by not being opposed this time, Moses becomes bolder and speaks of Israel more directly. Although YHWH shows some reluctance in committing Himself to the people, we note that He does not dismiss Moses’ plea either. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Moses’ brave words are not presented in a negative light. It is likely that this is the reason that Moses’ prayer increases in boldness as YHWH is graciously willing to respond. The reader is reminded of the dynamics of Abraham’s dialogue with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:16–33). Moses’ audacity reaches its climax in his request to see YHWH’s glory (Exod 33:18).—Standing in the Breach, pages 89–90

Audacity!

On the next day, Moses returned out of his own initiative to the mountain to advocate for the people before YHWH. So far, Moses has climbed the Mount of God several times to speak with God. Every time, Moses followed God’s summons to come up (cf. Exod 19:3, 20, 21, 24:1, 12); this time, however, Moses sought God’s audition without invitation.—Standing in the Breach, page 87

Are you listening closely?

I follow a long interpretative tradition, which suggests that YHWH implicitly invites (by prohibition), possibly even tests, His mediator to challenge His justified yet circumstantial wrath. This line of interpretation has been substantiated by a number of observations: First, YHWH could have simply proceeded with His intentions without involving Moses at all. Second, and following from that, it appears that YHWH intentionally makes His decision vulnerable to Moses’ response (cf. Num 14:12). The imperative “leave me alone” opens the door “not to leave Him alone.” Third, by presenting Moses with an offer to make him the new patriarch at the cost of the death of the sinful generation, YHWH makes His intention and the fulfillment of the divine promise clearly susceptible to Moses’ response. All these points endorse the view that YHWH’s “no” is a subtle divine invitation to intercede.—Standing in the Breach, page 85

<idle musing>
Are we listening? Do we hear God calling us to intercede? Or are we too busy playing Jonah and rejoicing in the possibility of destruction? I fear it is too often the latter : (
</idle musing>

How many times?

It is perhaps the acute seriousness of Israel’s sin and the extensive dialogue between YHWH and Moses that make Exodus 32–34 the most detailed and intense treatment of intercessory prayer in the entire Old Testament. Moses is said to have interceded four times on behalf of the sinful people in order to save them from YHWH’s destructive wrath and to reconcile them to their God (Exod 32:11–13, 32:30–32, 33:12–23, and 34:9). The theme of Moses’ persistent intercessory activity pervades the entire narrative.—Standing in the Breach, page 84

Prayer as theology

Theology in its purest form is revealed by God Himself. It is certainly important to note that the deepest insight into the nature of God is given in the context of a prolonged prayer dialogue between Moses and YHWH.—Standing in the Breach, page 83

Finally!

This just showed up in my e-mail inbox: The Positive Power of Walking Showcased at National Summit. And it's in St. Paul!

Many things leap to mind when someone mentions walking: fitness, fun, fresh air, relaxation, friends and maybe your most comfortable pair of shoes. But a word that rarely arises is “power”.

That will begin to change after the 2017 National Walking Summit (held in St. Paul, Minnesota September 13-15), which is themed “Vital and Vibrant Communities — The Power of Walkability”.

We'll see; I'm always skeptical about getting people to actually do more than talk when it comes to physical activity. But, hey, it's a start. Maybe if communities built the infrastructure for walking, people would do it. Can't hurt. We walk about five miles per day, but I wouldn't say that Grand Marais is "walker-friendly." There are few sidewalks and it's built on the side of a hill, which scares some people off. But, the whole town is about 2 miles long, measuring from the National Forest Service office on the west side to the DNR building on the east. And, aside from Highway 61, there isn't a lot of traffic.

Maybe we can get the mayor or city council to send somebody...

The rest of the story

The idea of liberation is sometimes summarized in the popular slogan “Let My people go.” The full demand Moses brings before Pharaoh in the name of YHWH is “Let My people go that they may serve Me” (cf. Exod 7:16, 26, 8:16).—Standing in the Breach, page 81 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
How easily we forget! There is no absolute freedom in this world; as Bob Dylan said, "You gotta serve somebody". I don't know about you, but Joshua summed it up nicely for me:

Worship the LORD, obey him, and always be faithful. Get rid of the idols your ancestors worshiped when they lived on the other side of the Euphrates River and in Egypt. But if you don’t want to worship the LORD, then choose right now! Will you worship the same idols your ancestors did? Or since you’re living on land that once belonged to the Amorites, maybe you’ll worship their gods. I won’t. My family and I are going to worship and obey the LORD! Joshua 24:14–15 (CEV)

</idle musing>

About those warrior motifs

If one upholds the authority of Scripture, one cannot simply reject passages that speak of YHWH’s wars. It may be uncomfortable to modern ears, but one of the main metaphors for God in the Old Testament is that of a divine warrior. After the Exodus, YHWH is praised as a “man of war” (Exod 15:3). In fact, this metaphor is essential to the logic of a lot of biblical accounts that affirm that God saves His people in faithfulness from the enemy(ies). If we stay with the stories and observe what happens to the Old Testament metaphors, themes, and motifs in Jesus, we see that Satan and the demons become the principal enemies of God’s rule (Mark 3:22–27, Luke 11:14–23). Thus, Longman and Reid argue that Jesus’ whole mission should be viewed as a typological fulfillment of the divine warrior motif of the Old Testament. According to them, Jesus is presented as the eschatological divine warrior who by the “finger” (Spirit) of God brings in the kingdom by driving out the spiritual enemies of God (Matt 12:28, Luke 11:20) .—Standing in the Breach, pages 79–80

Working together

Exod 17:11–13 illustrates that, while Moses’ prayer decides the outcome, Joshua’s leading of the charge in the valley is also necessary for victory. The text makes it absolutely clear, where the power to win comes from. Still, the message of this account is different from the Exodus from Egypt, where the struggle against Egypt was fought by YHWH alone (through the mediation of Moses; cf. Exod 14:14). Thus, Barth found in Exodus 17:8–16 a lesson of God’s working through man in a delicate balance which neither impaired God’s will nor destroyed man’s genuine activity. This delicate divine-human balance is central to the biblical concept of faith.—Standing in the Breach, page 76

<idle musing>
The technical term is synergism—working together—versus monergism, which claims it is only God doing everything; humans are basically puppets in that system.
</idle musing>

Is YHWH with us?

[T]he Massah and Meriba account finishes with the open-ended question הֲיֵ֧שׁ יְהוָ֛ה בְּקִרְבֵּ֖נוּ אִם־אָֽיִן and implicit judgment: “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exod 17:7). Thus, when it says in the next verse that Amalek came and fought with Israel, the question becomes urgent. Will the Lord help Israel or not? We have seen that, with and through Moses’ intercessory help, God’s divine presence is secured (Exod 17:10–13). Interestingly, in the scout narrative, also in the wider context of Moses’ intercessory prayer, Amalek wins against disobedient Israel because YHWH is not with Israel (Num 14:43). In other words, Num 14:39–45 contains a remarkable contrasting parallel to Exod 17:8–16. This time, Amalek (not Moses) is on “the top of the mountain” (cf. Exod 17:9–13, Num 14:40, 44) and triumphs over Israel. The roles are reversed. The reason, according to Moses: “Because you have turned away from YHWH, and so YHWH is not with you” (כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֤ן שַׁבְתֶּם֙ מֵאַחֲרֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה וְלֹא־יִהְיֶ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה עִמָּכֶֽם)(Num 14:43). In the Exodus account, divine presence is visualized against the Amalekites through Moses’ staff, in the scout narrative through the ark of the covenant (cf. Num 14:44) .—Standing in the Breach, page 71

Yep. Not much has changed

Testing has to do with “putting God to the proof,” that is, seeking a way in which God can be coerced to act or show himself. . . . Israel’s testing of God consisted in this: if we are to believe that God is really present, then God must show us in a concrete way by making water materialize. . . . It is, in essence, an attempt to turn faith into sight.— Terence Fretheim, Exodus, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991) 189–90, quoted in Standing in the Breach, page 60