Friday, May 9
Exodus 20:Unlike the other commandments, this first commandment commences with God’s self-identification; only then does there follow the immediate prohibition against idolatry. Three things must be said about the auto-identification of God in this commandment.
First, it places the Ten Commandments firmly in the context of God’s revelation. This fact needs to be asserted explicitly, because of a widespread idea that the Decalogue is simply an expression of Natural Law. It isn’t. While it is true that there are a number of material equivalents between certain components of the Decalogue and certain dictates of Natural Law (those governing murder and theft, for instance), there is a formal difference between them. In the case of the Decalogue, each of the commandments is rooted in God’s self-revelation within specific biblical history—Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are essentially revelatory. They are all extensions of “I am the Lord your God.” This is why we call them the “Decalogue,” or “ten words” (deka logoi). This Septuagint usage corresponds exactly to the Hebrew expression ‘aseret haddevarim, which is common in the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:4).
Second, God’s self-identification places the Decalogue entirely in the context of unmerited grace. He is not simply “the Lord your God,” but the One who “brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” The observance of the commandments is man’s grateful response to the God who “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). The Ten Commandments, almost any time the Bible speaks of them, were “given” to Moses on Mount Sinai. Holy Scripture regards them entirely as gifts, component dimensions of God’s redemptive grace and covenant.
Third, God’s self-identification makes idolatry necessarily the first sin: “You shall have no other gods in My stead.” All other sins are material extensions of idolatry. When men exchange “the truth of God for a lie,” all other sins follow, because idolatry is the root cause of “all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness,” and so on (Romans 1:18-32). It is always the case that idolaters do “not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts” (Revelation 9:20-21).
To ensure that false gods are not worshipped, a second commandment prohibits the making of images, especially images intended to represent the true God (verses 4-6). This prohibition played an important role in the history of salvation, because it prepared for the coming of the true Image of God, who is Christ our Lord (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). The goal and purpose of this prohibition was fulfilled in the mystery of the Incarnation, in which its prophetic value was brought to completion.
In this respect the prohibition of images was similar to the prescription of the Sabbath rest (verses 8-11). That is to say, both commandments were preparatory to the coming of the Messiah, in whose appearance both were fulfilled.
Then there follows a prohibition against invoking the name of God irreverently or with evil purpose, such as magic or cursing (verse 7). This commandment did not preclude legal oaths (since perjury is forbidden in verse 16), but it did inspire a godly impulse to avoid oaths in normal conversation (James 5:12).
Then comes the precept of the Sabbath (verses 8-11), which had already been in effect (16:23). Here in Exodus the motive for the Sabbath is entirely theological; it is an imitation of God’s own Sabbath rest (Genesis 2:2-3). In the parallel text in Deuteronomy (5:12-15), however, there is included a certain humanitarian interest—man needs the rest.
The remaining commandments of the Decalogue are concerned with the relations among human beings (verses 12-17), and their inclusion indicates the social nature of man’s relationship to God. These commandments too are fulfilled in the morality of the Gospel (Romans 13:8-10).
The first of these latter commandments points to the importance of tradition, prescribing the honor due to parents. This is “the first commandment with a promise” (Ephesians 6:2).
Saturday, May 10
Exodus 21: The material in these next three chapters is often called “the book of the covenant,” a term suggested by Exodus 24:7. In substance this code is largely identical with the core section of the Book of Deuteronomy (and hence the name of the latter, which means “second law”).
Whereas Chapter 20 enunciated universal legal principles, Chapter 21 commences a series of specific “judgments” (mishpotim—verse 1), or “case laws.” The latter are particular applications of the earlier legal principles. Thus, the judgments in the present chapter are concrete applications of the established principle, “You shall not steal” (20:15).
The prescriptions in these chapters come under the heading of “case law” or casuistry, because they deal with the practical applications of laws to certain hypothetical cases. We find this legal style in our most ancient legal codes, such as the formulations of Ur-Nammu, composed in Sumerian about 2050 B.C. and named for the ruler of Ur in southern Mesopotamia (cf. Genesis 11:31).
By reasonable recourse to comparison and analogy, the accumulation of such judgments serves to indicate certain directions in which future ethical cases—those not specifically covered by law—might be appropriately judged,. The study of case law is also intended to give a proper contour to moral sentiment, a certain “feeling” about moral situations that may arise. By the sustained examination of God’s judgments (mishpotim) in the various hypothetical situations described in these passages, the moral imagination is given a godly shape in order to make proper moral decisions in the future, particularly in cases not governed by specific laws.
The laws in these next few chapters are civil (21:1—22:14), liturgical (20:22-26; 22:28-30; 23:10-19), and moral (22:16-27; 23:1-9).
The present chapter begins with slavery (verses 1-11), the state from which the Israelites have just been delivered. The functioning principle here—through all the hypothetical cases being reviewed—is that no man may be enslaved against his own will beyond six years. The “Sabbath year” becomes the time of release.
In verses 22-36 we have what is the Bible’s first and perhaps clearest enunciation of the legal principle of equity, quid pro quo. Thus, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” and so on (cf. Leviticus 24:17-20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Eyes and teeth are understood, of course, as metaphors (that is to say, no one benefits from really depriving another person of an eye or a tooth).
All such laws are founded on the perception of proportions—“an eye for an eye,” not two eyes for one. Justice, that is to say, has something to do with the principles of mathematics (symbolized in the scales that often appear in artistic representations of Justice as a blindfolded figure holding a scales), a proper conformity to correct measure. Moral truth is perceived like mathematics or any other truth, by the correct application of a properly reasoning mind.
Sunday, May 11
Exodus 22: This chapter begins with some more applications of the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”
Whereas Chapter 21 presumed situations in which the harm inflicted was unintentional—and thus involved only commensurate restitution—the present chapter looks more closely at situations in which the harm inflicted is deliberate and intentional. That is to say, a malicious motive is introduced. In this chapter, then, we are dealing, not only with laws of compensation but also with punitive laws. Here we have not only restitution of damages but the punishment of malice. The penalties in these latter, one we notice, are quite a bit harsher. They are obviously designed to discourage certain sorts of behavior!
The Bible takes very seriously the concept of ownership, a fact that explains the serious penalties imposed for theft. These include a manifold restitution for stolen or damaged property, and the lack of a guaranteed protection for a thief who is taken in the act (verses 1-4).
Whereas modern philosophy tends to distinguish public from private property, the Bible is more interested in what we may call family property, property as a family’s substance of labor and inheritance. That is to say, in the Bible property is more closely associated with the experience of tradition, including respect for the labor of one’s ancestors. Property is regarded as an extension of family; it is that component that binds the generations of a family together.
For this reason there is a close alliance between “Honor thy father and thy mother” and “Thou shalt not steal.” It is hardly surprising, then, that those who disregard the claims of tradition are more likely to be thieves. Of this latter phenomenon we have a good illustration in the case of Ahab and Jezebel in the instance of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21).
Family property, moreover, is a community concern, over which the newly appointed judges (18:13-26) have jurisdiction and the right of determination (verse 9).
Community concern is also directed to another important dimension of social life: sexuality. In the present context, however, this concern pertains to the (consensual) defilement of a virgin (verses 16-17), a situation in which the offense directly affects the financial worth of the father of the girl. This is the reason for its inclusion in the present section of Exodus.
This brief consideration of a sexual matter, however, prompts the inclusion of another sexual offense: bestiality (verse 19). Even this inclusion is prompted by the consideration of property, inasmuch as the animal must be slain. In this chapter neither fornication nor bestiality is considered except under the aspect of property and value.
By an association difficult to follow, the subject of bestiality leads in turn to rules about sorcery and idolatry (verses 18,20). Apparently the common element in all these rules is the prescription of the death penalty.
There next follows a concern for sojourners and others deprived of a normal domestic life (verses 21-24), those with whom the Israelites, remembering their own sojourn, are to commiserate (cf. 23:9: Leviticus 19:33-34; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:17-19; 14:28-29; 16:11-14; Jeremiah 7:6). Sins in violation of this concern are included in this section because of their social nature.
Laws concerning pledges and usufruct are characterized by a concern for the disadvantaged party (verses 25-27).
Monday, May 12
Exodus 23: Pursuant to the Decalogue’s prohibition against false witness (20:16), the present chapter opens with directions about judicial proceedings (1-3,7-8).
Because it appeared unlikely that a poor man (dal), in ancient times, would be favored in court, some textual historians suspect that verse 3 has been corrupted in the transmission. They suggest a slight emendation (the supply of one letter in Hebrew), causing this verse to read, “Thou shalt not favor a great man (gadol) in his cause.” This appears to be a responsible emendation that renders the text more understandable in the historical context.
Nonetheless, in more recent times we have seen the rise of political ideologies that have tended in exactly the opposite direction: favoring the poorer, disadvantaged classes as a matter of principle, sometimes at the expense of specific determinations of justice. It is not unknown, in modern times, that the courts are used in an activist way, in order to rectify inherited social inequities, instead of simply adjudicating individual cases on their just merits. This text reminds us that it is not the business of courts to rectify social ills, but to punish evildoers. This is the reason that Justice is portrayed as blindfolded—that is, does not consider the social class or financial standing of a litigant.
The Sacred Text moves on to treat of the effective charity that a believer owes even to his enemies, out of an elementary sense of humane compassion (verses 4-5; Leviticus 19:17-19). This motive also prompts concern for the stranger and sojourner (verse 9), the same motive given earlier (22:21-24).
Following the stated solicitude for the poor and disadvantaged, attention is given to the “Sabbath rest” of the cultivated fields, because this practice too serves a kind and humane purpose (verses 10-11, Leviticus 25:2-5; Deuteronomy 15:1-3; Nehemiah 10:31; 1 Maccabees 6:49,53).
From this metaphorical application of the Sabbath rest, the Text takes up the literal Sabbath rest, enunciated in the Decalogue (20:8-11). Once again the motive given here is humane more than theological (verse 12).
Continuing the theme of consecrated time, Exodus goes on to treat the three annual feasts (verses 14-17): Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Each of these is here briefly explained, not in relation to their specific meaning in salvation history (deliverance, covenant, and desert journey), but with respect to the annual agrarian cycle. Both aspects of these feast days remain somewhat in tension throughout the Old Testament period.
Transferred to the Christian Church, these three feasts—Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles—became Easter, Pentecost, and the Autumn Rogation Days. One observes, nonetheless, that Christians too are reluctant to separate these feast days from an agrarian setting in the calendar. They became the occasion for the quarterly Ember Days, at which it was customary to bless the fields and harvests.
The recent mention of unleavened bread (verse 15), leads to more reflection on the same subject (verses 18-19). This prohibition of leaven in the sacrificial rites is analogous to the exclusion of polished stones in the construction of the altar (20:25). That is to say, in both cases there is a concern to preserve the elements of the worship in their more primitive and undeveloped state, in keeping with the sparse conditions of the exodus itself. It seems likely that this liturgical concern (for simplicity) may be inspired by a reaction against certain features of Canaanite religion.
Thus ends “the book of the covenant,” which is now followed by a general exhortation that fills the rest of the chapter.
Verse 20 is one of our earliest texts to introduce that spiritual presence that an ancient Christian litany calls “an angel of peace, a faithful guide, a guardian of our souls and bodies.” Indeed, among the many blessings given to men by God to guide their sojourn in the world, the Liturgy of St. Basil lists the ministry of the guardian angels, a traditional doctrine supported by such texts as Matthew 18:10; Acts 12:15; several passages in Daniel and the entire Book of Tobit.
Early Christian liturgical texts identify Israel’s guardian angel during the Exodus as St. Michael. In the context of the exodus and wandering, this guardian angel is portrayed as the specific enemy of idolatry (verses 23-24), and surely this danger of the idols (1 John 5:21) remains the reason why God links a guardian angel to the lives of those who, at the exodus of their own baptism, have renounced the false gods. These enemies of the true God are served by the nations that are to be driven out of the Promised Land itself.
With respect to the dimensions of the original Promised Land, it is worth noting that not until the tenth century (1 Kings 4:24)—and never afterwards—did it assume the vast dimensions indicated in verse 31.
Tuesday, May 13
Exodus 24: As we have considered in our comments on Exodus 19, God does not impose the Sinai covenant on Israel. He does not force them to become His elect people; rather, He invites them. The covenant is to be ratified by Israel, and in the present chapter, which follows the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant, we come to Israel’s ratification (verse 7).
This narrative seems to be derived from two accounts of the event, joined but not entirely reconciled with respect to some details. For instance, it is not entirely clear which actions take place on the mountain and which on the plain. The ratification itself is marked by both a sacrificial meal and by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood (verses 8,11). We find references to this ratification in Zechariah 9:11 and Hebrews 9:18-20.
Indeed, our earliest Christian reflection on verses 3-8 is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:16-23, in a context emphasizing that the deep significance of the sacrificial blood in the Old Testament is its prophetic reference to the redeeming blood of Jesus, shed on the cross for the salvation of mankind. The blood of Jesus is called the “blood of the covenant” also in Hebrews 10:29 and Mark 14:24.
Moreover, in quoting Exodus 24:8, the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:20) slightly, but very significantly, alters the wording of it. Whereas Exodus reads “Behold (idou) the blood of the covenant,” the author of Hebrews wrote: “This (touto) is the blood of the covenant.” There is no doubt that his wording reflects the traditional words of Jesus with respect to the cup of His blood at the Last Supper (cf. Matthew 26:28).
Moses ascended the mountain with three men (verses 9-18), two of whom were brothers, and there was a six-day delay. Compare the remarkable parallel to both points in Mark 9:2. In the scene of the Lord’s Transfiguration, He is joined by the two figures most clearly associated with revelations given on Mount Sinai/Horeb: Moses and Elijah (cf. 1 Kings 19:8-18).
Moses is again summoned to ascend the mountain in order to receive the stone tablets and certain liturgical regulations (verse 12). The engraving of laws on stone was characteristic of many ancient legal codes, all the way from the Decree of Hammurabi to the inscriptions on the walls of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Law, that is to say, represents inheritance, binding one generation to the next. Hence, it is appropriate to write laws on stone, a substance that does not quickly pass away.
The chapter ends with Moses on the mountain for forty days and nights.
Wednesday, May 14
Psalms 34 (Greek & Latin 33): Summarizing an entire Wisdom theme of Holy Scripture with a single question, Psalm 34 asks: “Who is the man who desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good?” At first the question may appear merely rhetorical. After all, doesn’t everyone desire life? Would anyone intentionally choose or prefer death over life?
The Bible is not so confident on this point. Deuteronomy distinguishes a true choice between life and death. It really is a matter of picking one or the other, and some people do, in fact, prefer death over life (Deut. 30:19). That person shows little familiarity with history, or even his own soul, who would deny this deep, inveterate death-wish at work in the human heart. Our psalm’s question, then, is well directed; in very truth, just who is the man who desires life?
By “life” we mean, of course, much more than material, animal survival, for man does not “live” by bread alone. True human life is a far more ample thing, a matter of the soul’s relationship to God; true life involves living in a particular way. The psalmist goes on, then, to answer his own question: “Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”
Our choices really do count in the sight of God. Even though He causes His rain to fall on both the just and the unjust, it would be a serious mistake to suppose that God has no regard for the difference between a just and an unjust man. God actively resists the proud man and gives His grace to the humble (Prov. 3:34; James 4:6). God really does discriminate, and our psalmist elaborates the consequences of this discrimination: “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry. The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.”
These verses of Psalm 34 are later paraphrased in 1 Peter 3:10–12—“He who would love life / And see good days, / Let him refrain his tongue from evil, /And his lips from speaking deceit. / Let him turn away from evil and do good; / Let him seek peace and pursue it. / For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, / And His ears are open to their prayers; / But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” For the Apostle Peter, these lines of our psalm provide an outline for how the Christian is to live. He comments on them: “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (3:8, 9).
Choosing life over death clearly has a great deal to do with the discipline of one’s mouth: “Keep your tongue . . . and your lips,” says the psalmist, for “if anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man” (James 3:2). Seeking and pursuing peace is nine-tenths a matter of keeping bad things out of one’s mouth.
And how does one accomplish this difficult vigilance? By constantly, over and over, putting the words of prayer into his mouth, and this was how the psalm began: “I will bless the Lord at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth.” This ceaseless prayer, manifestly a standard teaching of the New Testament, is also a theme in our psalm: “This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him. . . . The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears.”
This life of constant, sustained calling on God involves also a certain cultivation of “taste” that leads to vision: “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.” Once again, it is 1 Peter that comments on our psalm by contrasting the sins of the tongue with the godly discipline of the Christian mouth: “Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious” (2:1–3; see also Heb. 6:5).
Finally, in Psalm 34 the context for this continual effort of prayer is the experience of various trials suffered in the service of God. The dominant sentiment is one of trust in God: “I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. . . . The young lions lack and suffer hunger; but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. . . . Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. He guards all their bones; not one of them is broken. . . . The Lord redeems the soul of His servants, and none of them who trust in Him shall be condemned.”
Thursday, May 15
John 7:40-53: Nicodemus now appears for the second time in the New Testament. We last met him in John 3, when he approached Jesus by night. He was a genuine seeker who had done some logical thinking on the subject of Jesus. “Rabbi,” he declared on that occasion, “we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do (poiei) these signs that you do (poieis) if God is not with him.” The ensuing conversation was a challenge for this seeker, but Nicodemus continued to ponder the ministry and teaching of Jesus with an open mind, always adhering to the logical conviction with which he began his query.
In today’s reading, Nicodemus pleads with the Sanhedrin to listen in the same way and not to close their minds to inquiry: ““Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he does (ti poiei)?”
Exodus 26: The construction of the Tabernacle is described in the first part (verses 1-14) of this chapter. This structure had four coverings, divided into workable sections. The first covering was made of linen, over which were coverings of goats’ hair, rams’ skins dyed red, and dugongs’ skins.
Two things are noteworthy about this last item: First, the dugong, or sea cow, is a native of the Indian Ocean. The availability of this product indicates the extensive trade carried on through the Red Sea. One speculates that the sea-going power of Sheba was the medium by which this product reached Egypt. Second, the skin of the dugong, which sat uppermost over the Tabernacle, rendered it rainproof.
Next are described the wooden side-frames of the Tabernacle (verses 15-30), indicating that this shrine stood about 14 feet high, was 62 feet long, and measured over 42 feet wide.
Finally comes the internal division of the Tabernacle between the holy place and the Holy of Holies (31-37), the latter measuring about 14 feet square. It contained the Ark of the Covenant and the tablets of the Decalogue (cf. Hebrews 9:3-4).
The division within the tabernacle was later duplicated and further developed within the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, the sense of separated space is intrinsic to the very notion of a “temple,” a word derived from the Greek temno, meaning “to divide.” A shrine of any kind is already a section of space devoted to the things of God, and divisions within a shrine are related to the ordered structure of the community that worships there. The building reflects the congregation’s conception of itself. In the case of Israel and the Christian Church, the ordered structure of the worshipping community is “hierarchical,” meaning that its organizational structure is holy and reflects a divinely appointed order.
This hierarchical aspect of biblical worship, that is to say, is enacted even in architecture. (Indeed, if one looks closely, both “hierarchy” and “architecture” are formed of a common root, a Greek word meaning, roughly, “a principle that gives structure and explanation to reality.”)
Friday, May 16
1 Corinthians 12.12-19: Continuing to address the schismatic spirit at Corinth in the more recent chapters of this epistle, Paul has concentrated on the “good order” (taxsis) requisite in Christian congregational worship. In chapter ten, he began to focus his attention on the Lord’s Supper, that solemn rite around which all of Christian worship is centered—from which it flows and towards which it tends.
In the mystery of the Lord’s bodily presence in the Eucharist, Paul found the source of the unity of the Church. Jesus had identified the eucharistic bread as his own body. Jesus said it; Paul believed it. Moreover, he took it as a starting point to address the problems at Corinth: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ (koinonia tou somatos tou Christou)? For we many are one bread, one body, because we all partake of that one bread” (10.16-17).
When Paul speaks of the Church as the body of Christ, he does not understand this as a figurative or metaphorical speech, no more that Jesus, when he spoke of eating his body as a figure or metaphor. Jesus’ “hard saying” (skleros estin ho logos toutos) in John 6.60 becomes, for Paul, a principle of ecclesiology. If all of us truly eat the body of Christ, then, in some way passing understanding, we all become the body of Christ.”
And if we are the body of Christ, Paul continues in these verses, Christian unity is organic. Each Christian is to find, in the body of Christ, the specific place and ministry that God has assigned him, because the parts of any body are diverse.
Exodus 27: We come now to the sacrificial altar, the court in which the Tabernacle stood, and the perpetual flame that was to burn before the Holy of Holies.
The frame of this hollow altar, which was, of course, portable, was to be made of light wood overlaid with bronze (verses 1-2). Its construction was to be large, its top about 7 feet square, and its height about 4 feet. The corners of the altar were to be extended into horns. Although we can say that these adornments, like all horns, signified strength, their more precise significance is now lost to us. We do know, however, that similar fixtures adorned many altars in antiquity, from Assyria to Greece. In Israel they took on a social and even political meaning (cf. 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28). In the ritual itself, these horns were smeared with the blood of the sacrificial animal.
It is possible that stones were placed on this altar, to provide a surface on which to burn the sacrificial victim. Otherwise it is uncertain how the bronze could withstand the fire of the sacrifices.
Under and around the altar was a bronze grating for the purpose of receiving the ashes from the fire (verses 4-5). Inasmuch as the altar was portable, staves were provided, with which to carry it.
The Tabernacle stood in a court area that measured roughly 142 by 71 feet (verse 18). This area too was set apart by a system of linen partitions (verses 9-17). This was a consecrated area, separated from profane use.
A perpetual flame, fed of olive oil and cared for by the sons of Aaron, was to burn before the Holy of Holies (verses 20-21). The idea behind a perpetual flame is very old and has symbolic value immediately understood by almost all men.
As a symbol of the human spirit standing in vigilance over the forces of darkness, it is found in world literature from Homer to William Golding. As a religious symbol of man’s standing in prayer before God, it is nearly universal. A sustained flame has burned near the altar in Christian churches virtually from the first day they were built.