Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

The NIV text says, "was about to kill him" (which is quite different
than "tried to kill him".  The continuation certainly sounds like
Moses had been deliberately disobedient and was about to suffer
the consequences.  Of course, this is speculation (but consistent
with the character of God as we know it from the Bible).  Indeed,
the Hebrew for feet (so I was told in Hebrew class) is a euphemism
for genitals.

  >This act seems quite insane.

I'm confused.  The (what I consider obvious) explanation that Moses was 
disobedient and that this disobedience was rectified at the last moment 
preventing Moses from being killed by the Lord seems very reasonable, 
doesn't it?  Exactly what seems insane?  The way in which this was done?
I expect that this had to do with the culture and traditions of the time.

The text indicates that the circumcision was performed on Moses' son,
not Moses.

The RSV says "sought to kill him".

Is this verse trying to say that Moses became extremely ill and recovered
after his wife circumcised their son?  In any case, these verses are a
rather abrupt transition from the previous verses, where God is telling
Moses to return to Egypt and confront Pharoah.  Apparently Moses obeyed
God's command, because 4:24 tells us that God met Moses at a lodging place
"on the way" to Egypt.  It looks like there is a verse or two missing which
would have explained why God suddenly tried to/was about to kill Moses.

				-- Bob

.2

> In any case, these verses are a
> rather abrupt transition from the previous verses,....

How true.  In fact, one could skip verses 24-26 and the storyline would
be undisturbed.  I suspect this may be another one of those junctures
involving multiple sources or perhaps it was edited in later.

Peace,
Richard

.2

>The NIV text says, "was about to kill him" (which is quite different
>than "tried to kill him").

Different, yes.  But not by a whole lot.

>The continuation certainly sounds like
>Moses had been deliberately disobedient and was about to suffer
>the consequences.

And what, pray tell, was the nature of that deliberate disobedience??  It
seems to have been utterly omitted by the writer of the text.

>Of course, this is speculation (but consistent
>with the character of God as we know it from the Bible).

I'll acknowledge that what you've shared *is* speculation.

>The (what I consider obvious) explanation that Moses was 
>disobedient and that this disobedience was rectified at the last moment 
>preventing Moses from being killed by the Lord seems very reasonable, 
>doesn't it?  Exactly what seems insane?  The way in which this was done?

The text provides no provocation, thus rendering the threat irrational.

>I expect that this had to do with the culture and traditions of the time.

I expect that quite a bit of what's in the Bible had to do with the culture
and traditions of the time.

>The text indicates that the circumcision was performed on Moses' son,
>not Moses.

Yes, that's how I understood it.  But the way I read it, Moses wife
touched Moses' genitals (or feet) with Moses' son's foreskin.  Rather
strange therapy, eh?

Peace,
Richard

Re: .3 Richard

>How true.  In fact, one could skip verses 24-26 and the storyline would
>be undisturbed.  I suspect this may be another one of those junctures
>involving multiple sources or perhaps it was edited in later.

Oddly enough, according to Friedman verses 22-31 are all from J.  Maybe
the missing verses between 23 and 24 were removed either when J was
combined with E or later when JE was combined with P.  A possible reason
for that might be that the missing verses contradicted something in E or P.
But that's just my own speculation.

If the verses were added later, then who would have added them?  My first
guess would be the author of P, because P tends to discredit Moses and
build up Aaron.  But another characteristic of P is that it depersonalizes
God.  As Friedman says (WWTB, page 191):

	  The issue is not just sacrifice.  For the author of P, it is the
	larger issue that the consecrated priests are the only
	intermediaries between humans and God.  In the P versions of the
	stories, there are no angels.  There are no talking animals.
	There are no dreams.  Even the word "prophet" does not occur in P
	except once, and there it refers to Aaron.  In P there are no
	blatant anthropomorphisms.  In JE, God walks in the garden of
	Eden, God personally makes Adam's and Eve's clothes, personally
	closes Noah's ark, smells Noah's sacrifice, wrestles with Jacob,
	and speaks to Moses out of the burning bush.  None of these things
	are in P.  In JE, God personally speaks the Ten Commandments out
	loud from the heavens over Sinai.  In P he does not.  P depicts
	Yahweh as more cosmic, less personal, than in JE.

Verse 24 says that God tried to kill Moses.  This sounds more like the
personal God of JE than the impersonal God of P.  Maybe that's why
Friedman assigns verses 24-26 to J.

				-- Bob

 Who is P, J, JE and A?





Jim

    >>The NIV text says, "was about to kill him" (which is quite different
    >>than "tried to kill him").

  >Different, yes.  But not by a whole lot.

My qualm was mostly based on the point that if God has actually tried to
kill someone, then it is likely that person would be dead.  :-)  Whereas
simply planning on killing someone and then changing his mind based
on the actions that were performed is different.

  >And what, pray tell, was the nature of that deliberate disobedience??  

Perhaps not circumcising his son on the eigth day?  True - this is
more speculation.

  >It seems to have been utterly omitted by the writer of the text.

Yup.

  >I'll acknowledge that what you've shared *is* speculation.

We agree!

  >The text provides no provocation, thus rendering the threat irrational.

I admit that the text is lacking a good story line.  Just look at it this
way, Richard.  Here's a legitimate chance to do all the speculating that
you like to do about the text.  :-)  My speculation is that Moses was
deliberately disobedient in circumcising his son.  I know that this is
rather bland and that it fits in quite well with the story - but that's
the way my speculation tends to run.  You, on the other hand, are much
more creative and can think up some really good speculation which will
make God's actions appear rational instead of irrational.   The story
itself doesn't make the threat irrational - it is the speculation (for
example, that there is no reason for God's desire to put Moses to
death despite that fact that this is contradicted throughout the Bible
by all we know about God).  Personally, I'd prefer a more complete
story.  But, you get what you get.
 
  >Moses wife touched Moses' genitals (or feet) with Moses' son's foreskin.
  >Rather strange therapy, eh?

I heard (somewhere, probably in my Old Testament class in Seminary) that
this was a common practice at the time (based on what very little
evidence they have).

Collis

Re:  .6

Jim,

You don't really want to know.  :-)  Talk about speculation
run amok.

But, for the record, here's a short summary.  The current
theory of how the Torah (first 5 books) as literature got to the form 
we have today, devised by those who reject the ability of God to perform
miracles as well as the authority of any prophets (including
Jesus) is that there were a number of seperate traditions
written down by authors referred to as J(ehovah), E(lohim), 
P(riestly), D(eutoronomy?) and then A(notated).  Of course,
these writings did not occur anywhere near the time of Moses;
some are said to be written 800-900 years later.  The
distinguishing feature of these authors is the verbage used
and/or the subject discussed.

The historical evidence for such a theory is zilch.

The Biblical evidence for such a theory is that it is totally
wrong, since Moses wrote these books both according to the books
themselves as well as numerous references by other prophets
(including Jesus).

The textual evidence for such a theory is totally up in the air.
Perhaps those with more knowledge in this field than me can fill
me in, but I am not aware of any proof whatsoever that this
methodology of picking apart a text and hypothesizing different
authors and a annotator can be done with any accuracy whatsoever
when all you have is a single text.  With multiple texts over
a period of history, you can indeed deduce something about what
has been annotated.

The JEDP theory has changed much since it was first introduced
(30 years ago?  I don't know) and will continue to change.  Since
there's no factual basis for anything in the theory (i.e. it is
impossible to prove that there was a P much less what P supposedly
authored), this lends itself quite well to the speculative nature
of Bible critics.  A hundred years from now (if the rapture has
not yet come), JEDP will be but a footnote in history (just like
no one remembers the theories from the liberal scholars of the
1890s).  After all, how much time can you waste on a theory that
is not only totally unprovable - but of very little practical value
even if it were true?  Ah, but that's why we have scholars.  :-)

RE:          <<< Note 738.8 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!" >>>
                   -< a biased explanation of the facts :-) >-


.You don't really want to know.  :-)  Talk about speculation
.run amok.


 I see what you mean :-)

    Jim,
    
    	As much as Collis objects to it, the multiple source concept of
    certain Scriptures is neither weird nor non-sensical.  It appears
    in my recent edition of Funk & Wagnall's and in many other encyclopedic
    sources.  Most assuredly, the concept is as good as the Moses-wrote-
    the-entire-Torah theory, and even more plausible.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

 Yes, I prefer, as you say "my ignorance"..





 Jim

Note 738.11

> Yes, I prefer, as you say "my ignorance"..

Fine.  I'll try to honor that.  But personally, I do not prefer ignorance.
I'd rather subject my faith to conflicting information, rather than keeping
it nice and safe in some belief-tight compartment.  Truth should be able to
withstand the weight of severe scrutiny.  If not, what good is it?

Richard

Note 738.7

>My qualm was mostly based on the point that if God has actually tried to
>kill someone, then it is likely that person would be dead.  :-)  Whereas
>simply planning on killing someone and then changing his mind based
>on the actions that were performed is different.

This is not worth quibbling about.  I don't know the Hebrew being translated
here.  Perhaps you do.  God could have been in the process of killing Moses,
but had not yet finished him off.

>  >It seems to have been utterly omitted by the writer of the text.

>Yup.

Perhaps you can tell us why it was omitted, if indeed it was.  Why would
an author give us only a portion of the story?  No literary prize is this
bozo gonna get!

Collis, I refuse to force the Bible to conform to my theology.  I refuse to
make excuses for the blatant blemishes that appear in the Bible.  I refuse to
"touch up the x-rays" so I can feel better about the diagnosis.  I refuse to
put the Bible on a pedestal, which I see so many inerrantists doing.

I take the Bible too seriously to treat it as a completely homogeneous book
containing zero imperfections.

Peace,
Richard

RE:           <<< Note 738.12 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>


.> Yes, I prefer, as you say "my ignorance"..

.Fine.  I'll try to honor that.  But personally, I do not prefer ignorance.
.I'd rather subject my faith to conflicting information, rather than keeping
.it nice and safe in some belief-tight compartment.  Truth should be able to
.withstand the weight of severe scrutiny.  If not, what good is it?


 Note I said "as you say" in reference to "my ignorance". I have no need to
 subject my faith to conflicting information.  The truth in the Bible has been
 revealed to me over and over again ever since the day I acknowledged my
 sin and accepted Christ.

 Scrutinize all you want, but my faith is in God, as revealed by His Word.




 Jim

    Fine.  More power to you.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Well Richard, with God everything is plausible and since as a Christian
    I'm sure Jim believes as do I that Moses or any of the other writers of
    the books of the Bible were not working under their own power.  As for
    exposing yourself to conflicting information.  I guess it depends what
    it conflicts with.  If it conflicts with another scholar, I'm sure Jim
    or anyone else wouldn't have a problem looking at it.  If it conflicts
    with the Word of God then why bother, you know it's wrong even if it is
    someone as prestigious as Funk & Wagnell. ;^)
    
    Galatian 3:6 "Consider Abraham:  He believed God and it was credited
    to him as righteousness."
    
    Jill

    Fine.  I believe God, too.  However, God is not the Bible.  Abraham
    did not have a Bible.  The multiple source theory is not anti-Bible.
    Neither are Funk & Wagnall nor are the scholars who teach it.  The only
    ones it seems to offend are the "inerrantists," the "literalists," the
    "fundamentalists."
    
    I'm not as certain as you are just exactly what Jim wants to cast a blind
    eye to.  It seems to me that Jim has said, in essence, if Collis says
    it's not legitimate, that's good enough for Jim.
    
    Richard
    

  Well, while I have a great deal of confidence in Collis' Bible scholar-
 ship, I don't need him (no offense Collis) to convince me one way or 
 the other.  The Holy Spirit takes care of that.  I trust the Bible from
 beginning to end.


 I was just curious as to who J E P and the other one were.




 Jim

Re: .8 Collis

You asked for it!  I've started a new topic, 740, to discuss whether Moses
wrote the Pentateuch.

Re: .14 Jim

>I have no need to subject my faith to conflicting information.

If that works for you, OK.  It would never work for me.  I try always to
be open to having my beliefs challenged.  I try to follow the truth
wherever it leads me.

				-- Bob

.18

> I trust the Bible from
> beginning to end.

As do I, a lot like I trust a roadmap.

Richard

RE:             <<< Note 738.19 by GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >>>



.>I have no need to subject my faith to conflicting information.

.If that works for you, OK.  It would never work for me.  I try always to
.be open to having my beliefs challenged.  I try to follow the truth
.wherever it leads me.



 
 I've had my beliefs challenged plenty of times, every day it seems.  But,
 I as does any Christian, know what has taken place in my heart and in my life,
 and it lines right up with the promises made in the Word.  And I look around
 me and see the decay that is going on in this world today, the very thing that
 God said would happen if we ignored Him.

 I found the truth when I confessed my sin and accepted Christ.  The Holy
 Spirit guides me into all truth.  I don't need intellectual arguments from
 men, when I have the Holy Spirit, and the Bible.




 Jim

RE:           <<< Note 738.20 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>


.> I trust the Bible from
.> beginning to end.

.As do I, a lot like I trust a roadmap.



 Difference being, of course, that a roadmap will show you several ways to
 get to your destination and should you have picked up an old map you may
 find the road you're on is closed, or worse yet, doesn't take you where
 you think you're going!



 Jim

    .22
    
    Neither does God always take you where you think you're going, friend.
    Neither is the Way always smooth.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .13

  >Collis, I refuse to force the Bible to conform to my theology.

Total agreement!

  >I refuse to make excuses for the blatant blemishes that appear 
  >in the Bible.  I refuse to "touch up the x-rays" so I can feel 
  >better about the diagnosis.  I refuse to put the Bible on a pedestal, 
  >which I see so many inerrantists doing.

I'm not the one doing the speculation various authors and doing the
speculation that makes God and the Bible authors appear to not know
what they are doing.  I do, indeed, attempt to explain what is
there based on the knowledge that we do have and acceptance of the
claim of the prophets.  You believe that this is deception, but I
believe that explaining the Bible using the foundation of truth
is the opposite of deception.

Neither did I put the Bible on a pedestal.  It is God Himself who
put it there.  I just refuse to knock over what can't be knocked out
and killing myself trying to do it.  :-)

Collis

    .24
    
    Collis,
    
    	<deep inhalation>......Never mind.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    (This is probably as close as we'll ever get to agreement on this.  And
    though we still share strongly divergent points of view, I hate to spoil
    the moment.)

    I finally got around to checking my own commentary on Exodus 4.24-26.
    The commentary contributor agrees with Friedman that, although it
    has been attributed variously, these verses are likely J's, but that
    they've probably been displaced.  Interestingly, the commentator
    observes that J's orthodoxy attributes demonic powers to Yahweh.

    In contrast to my speculation, the commentator feels certain that Moses
    would have already been circumcised either under the care of the Hebrews
    or as the adopted son of an Egyptian.

    There's more, but that's enough for now.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  .26

Didn't we agree that the circumsion was of Moses' son?

Collis

    .27  I never said it wasn't.  In addition though, it is pointed out
    in the commentary that there is some kind of vicarious circumcision
    going on with Moses as well; probably based on Midianite culture.
    
    The Bible points out that Gershom (Moses' son) was circumcised with
    a *stone* instrument.  It seems that there was a rather provincial
    distrust of instruments made of metal, which was supposedly available,
    but relatively new at the time.  Some go to great lengths to justify
    hanging on to the old, tried-and-true ways.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Thanks.  I don't understand the connection between Moses' son's
circumcision and what you wrote in .26 then:
 
    >In contrast to my speculation, the commentator feels certain that Moses
    >would have already been circumcised either under the care of the Hebrews
    >or as the adopted son of an Egyptian.

The commentator believes the circumcision was of Moses and doesn't
think that this makes sense?  If that's not it, I'm lost.

Collis

    The commentator, as I understand him, says that Moses was probably
    already circumcised, and yet there was some sort of *vicarious*
    circumcision going on through cutting off the foreskin of his son
    and having the bloody thing wiped on his genitals.
    
    To me, it's sounds like a sort of precursor to the Passover;
    paralleling the blood of an innocent first-born being smeared on
    a bodily portal, thus sparing the inhabitant(s).
    
    I don't always agree with the conclusions of the commentary, either.
    I'm an equal opportunity heretic, I guess.  ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.30

	Richard,

	The cutting off of the flesh has nothing to do with substitutionary
death. It is a lack of biblical understanding of either that would lead one to 
believe they are the same or parts of the same.

Ace

    .31
    
    Ace,
    
    I never said circumcision has anything to do with substitutionary
    death.  Although, now that you mention it, I can see how you thought
    I inferred it.  In the Passover, a blemishless first-born male animal
    (a goat or sheep, I believe) had to be killed.  The blood was then
    smeared on the doorposts.  And with Moses, his son was not killed.
    So you're saying it's not the same thing.  Is that it??
    
    I realize this.  I was only remarking on the *symbolic* similarities.
    
    There's just no real good substitute for death, eh?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

re.32
Richard,

> I never said circumcision has anything to do with substitutionary
>    death.

There I go again! Would have laid down good money that that is what you said.

The substitutionary death was accomplished in the Old Testament by a spotless
Lamb slain. This was a type of Christ, the perfect God-man slain for us and
accounted as our payment for our sins if we accept it. We are justified 
before God by it. Our believing applies it.

Circumcision was a type of the putting away of the flesh. It never could
justify a person. It represents our need to put away the flesh with it's
lusts. As New Testament believers we need to be circumcised in heart allowing
the Lord to work on us, deal with us, and have His way with us. Our
cooperation makes it effective in us.

Regards,
Ace

    .33
    
    Unh, Ace.  I believe circumcision is an outward sign of the covenant
    God initiated with Abraham (Genesis 17.1-14), although it may have
    other, possibly symbolic, implications.
    
    Now I realize that circumcision of the heart was intended metaphorically,
    but the metaphor has always presented a rather amusing mental image for
    me.  Some say we men have already had our *brains* circumcised when we
    received our literal circumcisions. 8-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.34

Ricardo,

>   Unh, Ace.  I believe circumcision is an outward sign of the covenant
>    God initiated with Abraham (Genesis 17.1-14), although it may have
>    other, possibly symbolic, implications.

	Yes, the reality of circumcision is realized in the age of grace 
initially through baptism which is a symbol of our co-death with Christ. Yet,
it had utility in the Old Testament as you say as well. Now believers only
need to abide in His death subjectively on a daily basis.

	"In whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with
hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
Christ, buried together with Him in baptism... " Col 2:11-12a

Ace

.35

Ace-o,

> Now believers only
> need to abide in His death subjectively on a daily basis.

Yes, death in Christ is vicarious, and not an actual physical death.

As a believer, I prefer not to abide in Christ's death, but to abide
in Christ's risen-ness.

But then, we digress.

Richard

re.36

Ricardo,

>As a believer, I prefer not to abide in Christ's death, but to abide
>in Christ's risen-ness.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. One cannot experience the resurrection of
Christ without experiencing His death. I'm speaking of more than just a one
time event, but a subjective daily experience as well.

regards,
ace-o

    You mean as in dying daily?  That's pretty tough don't you think?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

	re.38 Ron,

>  You mean as in dying daily?  That's pretty tough don't you think?

	It can be, it just depends on how willing you are. Dying daily in the
biblical context means that one takes Christ's death as the mold of his/her 
life. It is through such a living that the resurrection Life of the Lord Jesus
becomes manifest. The christian's life should be conformed to such a mold--
dying to our human life to live the divine life. 

"To know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His
sufferings, being conformed to His death,"  Philipians 3:10

Ace

	

    how about "being redeemed because of or through his death" rather than
    "conformed"?  Isn't that what his death means for us?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    We discussed the verses which are the basis of this topic at
    Bible study last Wednesday.  And we pretty much concluded that
    Exodus 4.24-26 has no real relevance for us.
    
    Richard

    re:                       <<< Note 738.40 by DLO15::FRANCEY >>>
                 -< how about redeemed rather than conformed? >-

    >how about "being redeemed because of or through his death" rather than
    >"conformed"?  Isn't that what his death means for us?
    
    
    We have been redeemed and we are being transformed:
    
    Rom 12:1,2  
    
    "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present
    your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is
    your spiritual worship"
    "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the
    renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what
    is good and acceptable and perfect."
    
                           

<Because of the rite of circumcision she said to Moses, "You are a husband
<of blood to me."  

So, what's a "husband of blood," and what significance does it have beyond
that of a "regular husband"??

     Carol