Why God Attacked Moses

Billie Smith also asked about God's attack upon Moses in Exo 4.24-26. Here's my comment on this strange passage:

The stunning thing in this passage is the idea that God would attack His own servant. We should not imagine this behavior as excluded by God's character however; parallel incidents occurred in the lives of Jacob (Gen 32) and Balaam (Num 22-24). Remember that God is the One who both kills and brings to life, wounds and heals (Deu 32.38). Add to this the principle that judgment must always begin with the family of God (1Pe 4.17), and then the incident with Moses no longer seems so strange. Though this passage in Exo remains obscure because of its paucity of information and the ambiguity of its pronouns, this much seems clear: one of Moses' sons had remained uncircumcised. This state of affairs was unacceptable for a descendant of Abraham (Gen 17.10), and criminal for one sent on a covenant mission (Exo 3.10). God therefore responded in a way that rendered Moses too incapacitated to rectify the situation himself. Zipporah, understanding the issue (commentators speculate that her own aversion to circumcision had delayed that of her son, though nothing in the text proves this), did the circumcision herself, and touched the bloody foreskin to Moses' feet, thereby ritually including Moses in the covenant act. The divine requirement fulfilled, God permitted Moses to recover and continue on his mission.

Sons of God and Daughters of Men

Billie Smith asked about Gen 6.1,2, the strange passage about "the sons of God" marrying "the daughters of men." Here's my response:

Two interpretations have been set forward regarding the "sons of God" uniting with "the daughters of men" in this passage. One interpretation is that the "sons of God" refers to angelic beings as it does in Job 1.6; 2.1 and 38.7 (cf. Dan 3.25). The Pseudepigraphal book, 1Enoch, chapter 6 and following, assumes this interpretation as it describes the conspiracy of angels to mate with human women, and the horrible 300-cubit giants that were their offspring (see also 1Enoch 9.8; 15.3; 18.3 and 2Enoch 18). Irenaeus takes up this interpretation in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, describing how angels not only produced giants by mating with human women, but also taught the women all kinds of witchcraft and evil arts. Julius Africanus (b. AD 200) acknowledges a possible connection with magic arts, but opines that "the Spirit" means by "the sons of God" to indicate the righteous descendants of Seth (fragments, ch. 2). One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), in recounting the unusual birth of Noah, has Lamech describing his suspicion that the conception was due "to the Watchers and the Holy Ones…" Josephus is explicit in saying that "many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Greeks call giants" (Ant. 1.73), and Whiston in his notes says, "This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity." (Sources: Charlesworth; Smith; Vermes.)

The second interpretation of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" passage is that the "sons of God" refers to the godly line of Seth, and the "daughters of men" refers to the ungodly line of Cain. It would follow that intermarriage between the two lines caused the moral decline that finally led to the deluge. This interpretation is plausible since humans also were referred to as "sons of God" (see Deu 32.4,5; Psa 82.6; Hos 1.10). Keil rightly observes that the biblical designation “sons of God” is not intended in a physical sense, since neither angels nor men are physically generated by God, nor born with His divine essence. Rather, the designation is a moral one, and thus cannot be restricted to either men or angels, but can indicate anyone who submits to God as a spiritual son. (Notice how Satan is distinguished from the "sons of God" in Job 1.6; this positive designation would not be applied to fallen or rebellious angels!) Keil also points out that contextually, no previous mention of angels as a category of beings occurs in the Genesis context, "not even [of] their creation." On the other hand, pious men who "began to call on the name of the LORD" are mentioned just before our "sons of God" passage at the end of the preceding section, Gen 4.26. Therefore, in spite of the accretion of legends about angels that attached to Gen 6 over time, the original audience of this passage, could only have understood it to have reference intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the less pious descendants of Cain.

I have briefly entertained a third interpretation of this passage, namely the idea that disembodied spirits "possessed" ungodly men in order to consort with human women. However, the context of the passage gives no hint to prepare us for such a meaning; this would be a "retro-interpretation" dependent upon later legends and perspectives foreign to the Genesis text. Also, as mentioned above, "sons of God" is a favorable designation and would not be applied to angels who "left their proper habitation" (Jud 1.6). Furthermore, the phrase "took wives" in Gen 6.2 is the standard Heb phrase for marriage, therefore, the "sons of God" actually married women, they did not simply fornicate with them nor "possess" men who did. The statement of Christ that angels do not marry, while not explicitly denying sexuality to angels, does strongly imply that they are incapable of marriage by design (Matthew 22.30). Since there is no support whatsoever in Scripture for the idea that angels or spirits are capable of marriage with humans, we must abandon such an interpretation for Gen 6.1,2.

God's Amazing Gift To Adam

Thanks to the archaeological researches of P. J. Wiseman*, we now understand that Moses collated the book of Genesis from nearly a dozen volumes written earlier by the Patriarchs. Each volume in Genesis ends with a colophon incorporating the word toledoth (histories) and providing title and author/owner information. Contrary to the assertions of liberal scholars, the earliest records of God’s interaction with mankind were not passed down by “oral tradition” but were carefully written down -- probably by eyewitnesses --, and probably on cuneiform tablets (see the word written/book in Gen 5.1).

Amazingly, the first colophon appears in Gen 2.4, closing the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Who was around to witness and record this event? I propose that God Himself wrote Gen 1.1-2.4 on a tablet and gave it to Adam for safekeeping. But wait! Isn’t it preposterous to think God would condescend to write on an earthly tablet for mankind’s sake? Nope! Check out Exo 31.18.

*See P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Creatio Ex Nihilo

The Bible consistently teaches that the material universe was created ex nihilo, i.e., out of absolutely nothing.The strongest theories in astronomy and physics today confirm that the universe somehow popped out of nothing in "the Big Bang." Because the scientific community has generally restricted itself from positing any supernatural causes, it is constrained to say that the Big Bang was caused by an unexplained “singularity.” Of course, for us the Bible explains the singularity and the cause behind the universe in its very first verse: “In the beginning, God created ... ”

What has particularly interested me is that, from the time of the first discoveries of subatomic particles until now, physics has been closing in on the fact that our material universe is made up of “nothing,” at least nothing in the traditional sense of a thing. At the most fundamental level of the material universe, physics theory is finding nothing more than infinitesimal vibrating strings of energy! However, even on the first level of subatomic particles, the level of electrons and protons as depicted in the graphic above, the atoms that make up or material world are mostly made up of empty space. And, according to the laws of electromagnetism, these atoms should disintegrate because the like-charged protons of the nucleus should powerfully repel one another!

In the early 1970’s, a friend of mine asked his physics professor at UPS in Tacoma, "Why don't the like-charged protons of the atomic nucleus fly apart causing the disintegration of the universe?" The professor answered, “Nobody knows; that’s why I go to church.” Since then I have been told that the thing that holds the protons together is “nuclear glue” and more recently, “the strong force.” These sound suspiciously to me like names without an explanation. The Bible, on the other hand, provides a clear explanation in Col 1.17 and Heb 1.3. The same LORD who called the material universe into existence ex nihilo in the beginning, keeps it from imploding back into nothingness today by the word of His power!

Truth Sets

I propose that there is such a thing as Pure Biblical Truth; it’s the truth as our Lord Jesus would have understood it. That Pure Biblical Truth is a subset of that larger set of beliefs we call Christian Orthodoxy. Christian Orthodoxy includes all the ideas that a person can believe and still be considered a Christian by historical definition. Many ideas that are orthodox are not biblically correct, but they are taught by whole denominations and considered acceptable ideas for Christians to hold. For example, there are churches who teach that certain spiritual gifts (charismata) have passed away, and other churches who teach that those spiritual gifts continue operating legitimately among believers to this day. Both beliefs fall within the circle of Christian Orthodoxy, but since the two beliefs contradict each other they cannot both fall within the set of Pure Biblical Truth.

Our goal is to bring our Personal Beliefs more and more into conformity with the Pure Biblical Truth, but some of our beliefs inevitably fall outside that circle. That’s okay so long as they still fall within the circle of Christian Orthodoxy AND we are continuing to seek the Lord for better understanding. However, sometimes our beliefs fall both outside of the Pure Biblical Truth AND outside of Christian Orthodoxy. Then we have a spiritual-theological problem, and we call it Heresy. Heresy happens too often in American Christianity today. Respected evangelical (or pseudo-evangelical) theologians are proposing, for example, that God’s punishment of the wicked after the judgment will not last forever. Others are proposing that God is not omniscient, for He does not foresee the choices that humans will make. These ideas fall outside the circle of Christian Orthodoxy, and we must reacquaint ourselves with the Scriptures that invalidate them.



The relationship between our different Truth Sets is illustrated above. Notice how the set of our beliefs (the red circle) overlaps both the set of Pure Biblical Truth and the set of Christian Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, our Personal Beliefs sometimes stretch outside of Orthodoxy -- before we realize it!

Why Do I Teach?

My first reaction is, "because I love it!" But to go a little deeper, here's a few reasons why I love to teach:

(1) I have a voracious curiosity and I learn a ton of stuff from my students while I teach.
(2) I have a profound and enduring sense that teaching the Bible and its principles is a strategic activity at this time in history.
(3) My sense of purpose in teaching, and my sense of giftedness for it, combines to make me feel God's pleasure when I teach.

I wish you the gift has given me: the privilege of spending your life doing what you love!