Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Study Questions for Exodus 12:29-51

Study Questions for Exodus 12:29-51

What has been going on so far in the book? Chapter?

Verses 29-32

V. 29—What happened at midnight on the first day of the new year?
Why Midnight?
What does struck down mean?
Remember who the first born are?
How pervasive in the land of Egypt was the plague or striking?

V. 30—What did Pharaoh do when every one was dying?
Who rose up with him?
What was the people’s reaction to the death of all the first born?

v. 31, 32—How long did it take for Pharaoh to summon Moses and Aaron?
What did he say to Moses when he got there? He isn’t letting them go finally, he is forcing them to leave (3:20; 6:1).
How extensive was the command to go? Who got to leave and for how long?
Pharaoh has finally reached the limit of his pride—total surrender.
What did Pharaoh want Moses to do with him?
What does “bless” mean?

Verses 33-42

V. 33—What was the Egyptians attitude toward the command of Pharaoh to leave?
Why were they urgent about the Israelites leaving quickly?
There is no more thought of economic benefits for the people.

V. 34—What did the Israelites do when the people asked them to leave the land?
What did they pack up?
Why didn’t they put leaven in the dough?

V. 35—Besides packing, what did the Israelites do?
Who told them to ask the Egyptians for gold and silver and nice clothing? So they left in style and very wealthy?

V. 36—Why did the Egyptians think and act favorably toward the Israelites? Notice the emphasis on what God is doing in all of this.
What was the result of the good will the Egyptians had toward the Israelites? They left Egypt like a victorious army—stripping and vanquishing the foe and carrying off all the booty of the land.
What does plunder mean?

V. 37—Where did the people go from? And where did they go to? Numbers 33:3-4
How many people went in all? Somewhere around 2,000,000-5,000,000. Gen. 14:14
They went about 15 miles that first day.

V. 38—Who went with them?
What is a mixed multitude? Egyptians, other slaves. Num. 11:4
What is the difference between a flock and a herd? Gen. 15:14

V. 39—What kind of food did they eat on their journey?
Why didn’t anything have leaven in it?

V. 40, 41—How long had the Israelites lived in Egypt? Gen. 15:13-14; Acts. 7:6

V. 42—What kind of night was that last night?
Who was doing the watching?
Why was God watching?
What was he watching?
What was the response by the people of God’s watching? Honoring God means doing what he says. 1Cor. 11:28
For how long did this watching tradition last in Israel?

Verses 43-51

V. 43, 44—Who shall eat of the Passover?
Who says?
When can a slave eat the Passover? Only permanent members of the covenant community can participate in the worship of God.
What about women?
Circumcision was the mark of covenant incorporation. Gen. 17:12-13

V. 45—Who may not eat the Passover?

V. 46—What are the restrictions for eating the Passover?
What is this thing about not breaking any bones? John 19:36; 1 Cor. 5:7
What difference would this make? May have pointed to the care of the animal even in death, or it might have been seen as simply God making stipulations that he wanted the people to do for the sake of obeying.

V. 47—Who in Israel shall keep the Passover?

V. 48—What has to happen if a stranger wants to celebrate with the Israelites?
Why does he have to be circumcised first?
What does it mean to “come near”?
What does it mean to be a native in the land?
Who can not eat of the Passover?

V. 49—How many laws shall there be in the land?
What land is he talking about?
How many kinds of people will be in the land?
What is a stranger?
What does this say about government in general?

V. 50—What was the people’s response to what Moses told everyone?

V. 51—What happened that very day?
How did the people come out of Egypt?
What would you have seen had you been there that day?
What does “by their hosts” mean?

The Israelites were taken out of Egypt the goal now would be to take Egypt out of them in the ways they thought and acted.

Exodus is seen as a paradigm of divine salvation. God’s grace is central.
God does things to make everyone involved understand that God is and God chooses a people for himself and no one better mess with God or his people.

The Passover was seen as a response on the part of the people to the kindness of God. It was also seen as God’s kindness itself being poured out on his people. They were saved because the animal died. His blood covered their doors and effected atonement for the people in the house. God set them apart for a unique, blessed and eternal relationship with him.

Study Questions for Exodus 12:1-28

Study Questions for Exodus 12:1-28

Context, Context, Context: What’s been going on?

Gen. 6:13-18; Luke 9:31; 1 Cor. 5:7

Vs. 1—Who is talking here?
Who is he talking to?
Where are they?
Why does the author go into these kinds of details here? We already know who the participants are. We also already know where they are.

Vs. 2—What did God say to Aaron and Moses?
What does the “beginning of months” mean?
Why does God start the new year with the month they are in? God is their king and from now on dates will be used in accord with the king.
What significance does this have for the Israelites?
How had they previously counted the year and months? According to Egypt.
The first month was called Abib (Nisan; Babylon) and was in the spring March and/or April.
Israel’s calendar worked with the moon, and every few years they added a short 13th month to the calendar to keep the months on their solar cycle. Think of all the other ways people judge the year (hunters, fiscal, school, calendar, etc.).

Vss. 3-10

Vs. 3—What were the people supposed to do on the 10th of the month?
What does “a lamb for the fathers” mean?
What does “a lamb for the house” mean?
Are these two separate lambs?
What does it mean to “take” a lamb?
Congregation/community has its first use here. Also the heads of households representing their families becomes prominent here.

Vs. 4—What happens if the household is too small for a lamb?
What does it mean to be “too small for a lamb”?
How are they to decide how many families they need to get together to take a lamb?

Vs. 5—What kind of lamb are they to use?
Why does it need these characteristics? John 1:29; Rev. 5:6, 6:1—Mal 1:8
Does it have to be a sheep or can it also be a goat? Sheep and goats were indistinguishable except for their tails when they were little.
1 Pet. 1:19; Heb 9:14

Vs. 6—How long are they to “keep it up”?
What does “keep it up” mean?
What are they to do on the 14th day?
Who shall kill it?
Why the whole nation? Everyone was doing it at the same time, together, corporately.
What is this pointing to?

Vs. 7—What were they to do with the blood?
Which doors?
What blood?
Why should they put the blood on their door posts?

Vs. 8—What were they to do with the meat?
How were they to cook it?
What, besides meat were they to eat? Exo 1:14

Notice that God does not tell them why they are to do these things.

Vs. 9—How are they not to eat it?
How are they to cook it?

Vs. 10—how much are they to eat that night?
What are they to do with anything left over?

Vss. 11-17

Vs. 11—And what should be the demeanor of the eating of the lamb?
Why should they do things this way?
What does it mean to have your cloak tucked into your belt? 1 Kgs. 18:46; Isa 5:27
Why eat it in a hurry? Ready to travel
What is a Passover?

Vs. 12—What is God about to do in Egypt?
Besides people and animals, what will God be killing?
How will God be killing the gods of Egypt? Could be the spirits that ruled Egypt, or the spiritual outlook of the people. It certainly was the culminating battle in the war that was being waged between God and Pharaoh. Exo 6:1
Who is God?
What does this pronouncement have to do with killing all the firstborn of Egypt?

Vs. 13—What will the blood on the doors do in this judgment?
What is a sign/token?
How will the blood be a sign? Lev 17:11 the blood represented the victim The blood is a sign that the people are safe, have been saved, are being saved, are being delivered. The lamb is clearly substitutionary, it died in their place so they wouldn’t have to die. 1 Pet. 3:18
What will God do when he sees the blood on the door?
The slaughter of the Passover animal atoned for the sin of the people, and the blood sprinkled on their doorposts purified those within the house. Mackay, p. 211

Vs. 14—What will this day be?
Which day?
What is a memorial?
How are the Israelites to observe the memorial? Commemorate does not simply mean remember but relive.
What does it mean to keep a feast to the Lord?
How long are they to keep celebrating his feast?
What’s all this generations talk?
What does he mean “by an ordinance”?
For how long is this feast to be observed?

Vs. 15—What is he describing in this verse?
What are they to do for 7 days?
When are these 7 days to take place?
What is unleavened bread?
Besides eating unleavened bread, what are the folks supposed to do?
What was to happen if an Israelite were to eat bread with leaven in it?
What does cut off from Israel mean?
Unleavened bread was a symbol of discontinuity. Leaven was saved out of one batch of dough from one day to the next and it caused the next batch to rise. Like sourdough bread today. If they got rid of it they were saying that there was a disconnect between Egypt and Israel. When they left the leaven they left all of Egypt behind them.

Leaven: Luke 12:1; 1 cor 5:8; Lev. 23:17; Matt 13:33—not evil but a pervasive spread of something.

Vs. 16—What are they to do on the first day?
What is a convocation?
What is a holy convocation?
What are they to do on the seventh day?
What are they do with regard to work?
What kind of work were they allowed to do?

Vs. 17—What is this feast called?
Why did they call it that?
When is the feast of unleavened bread in relation to Passover?
Why are they to celebrate it every year?
For how long shall they observe that feast?
How can it be a feast if they are supposed to only eat certain things?

Vss. 18-20

Vs. 18—When in the year were they to eat unleavened bread?
Why in the evening?

Vs. 19-20—What are they supposed to do with all their yeast?
Why are they supposed to not eat food with leaven in it?
What happens if they have leaven in their houses? Exo. 31:14-15; Lev. 18:14
Who all does this apply to?

Vss. 21-28

Vs. 21—Who did Moses call after God told him these things?
What did he tell them to do?
Did the elders know what a Passover was? Simply Passover.

Vs. 22—What is hyssop?
Why did they use that to sprinkle the blood on the doors?
After the blood was put on the doors, what were the people supposed to do?
Why shouldn’t they go outside during the night? Matt 26:30 Not to be kept forever after.

Vs. 23—What is going to happen?
Who is this “destroyer”? 1 Cor. 10:10
Why will the destroyer pass over the Israelites houses?

Vs. 24—For how long will the Israelites observe this thing?
Why does he mention sons?

Vs. 25—Where are the people going?
What does this have to do with what is going on?
What will happen when they get to the new land?
Why does he mention that God promised the land?

Vs. 26-27—What does “it shall come to pass” mean?
What will come to pass?
What will the children ask?
Why should they ask this of their parents? Notice the parents’ responsibility throughout all of this.
What are the parents to say in response?
Notice the first use of sacrifice in connection to Passover. It shows that the whole affair was directed at them as well as the Egyptians. They deserved to die no less than the first born of Egypt. The lamb saved them from the death that killed the Egyptians.

They could eat the meal because God accepted their offering in place of their first born sons. The blood was a sign of God’s mercy to them. They were his people and he was their God.
What was the people’s response to Moses commands?
Why did they bow their heads?

Vs. 28—What did the elders do?
Why does he call them the children of Israel?
Why did it say they did it twice?

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Head Coverings & Modern Women

Head Coverings & Modern Women
Ben Merkle

Paul is often difficult. For example, his teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 has been frequently interpreted and applied, or pointedly not applied, in a very reactionary manner. Some Christians see something in the text about a head covering and go on to think how much women with doilies on top would stand out and be d by our current culture, and still further, that if the world would it, then it must be good. Another group looks at the situation and thinks that, well, the world would that, therefore, we probably shouldn't apply that passage; it had to have been a cultural thing. Best not to ask too many questions; best for all concerned.

But we should notice that both of these interpretations are based on what the world might think.

Why An Issue?

The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In the course of his discussion, Paul makes it clear three times that his teaching is not confined, or defined, by a particular culture. The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, man and woman in v. 3, which does not change from culture to culture. He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in v. 14 and explains that none of the churches of God differ on this teaching (v. 16). So whether this passage applies to us or not is therefore not really the question. It is very clear that what ever principle Paul is teaching about head coverings applies to us. A question does remain, however. How is the passage to be understood?

Once the principle of head coverings has been accepted, the next question to be answered is, "what is a head covering?" The simple and clear answer of this passage is that it is hair. "...if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (v. 14), because his head is uncovered (v.4). "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (v. 15).
The reason for the covering is that the relationship between a man and a woman reflects the relationship between Christ and His church. This teaching is explained more in depth in Ephesians 5, but we may notice here how the 1 Cor. 11 passage begins with a reference to how Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). The doctrine of headship is, not surprisingly, related to Paul's doctrine of hair.

In Ephesians 5, Paul discusses the creation ordinance of a man and a woman coming together, and then says: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (v. 32). The mystery of marriage is a reflection of Christ and His church. This understanding is emphasized from a different angle here in 1 Corinthians 11. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (v. 7). Here we learn that in the area of head coverings, the male is to reflect God's relationship to mankind, while the female is to reflect mankind's relationship with God.

This does not set up a "spiritual worthiness" pecking order. It is simply a reflection of the order of creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, the creation of mankind is described for us. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He made him; male and female He created them" (v. 27). Both man and woman are created in God's image, and both together are described as man. So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not teaching that men are deities and women are mortals; we are both created in God's image. Men, however, analogically reflect God's authority in the marriage, and women analogically reflect mankind's submission to Him. Thus, in a very important way, women are the representatives of men.

This understanding of headship is crucial to this passage. When a man and a woman come together they are picture of Christ and His church; therefore, they reflect this in an outward sign, which is the way they wear their hair. Long hair on a woman is a sign that she is in submission. Short hair on a man is a sign that he is leading. These two together are a picture to the outside world of Christ and His church. A man, of course, is also in submission to the authorities over him, but that is not the relationship depicted here.

Difficulties

A common question then asked is, "what about the Nazaritic vow?" One of the features of a Nazaritic vow was that the man did not cut his hair (Num. 6:5-6). Given the principle already described, we could reason that this is simply a special situation where a man reflects another relationship, which is his submission to God. But in this special situation, long hair means the same thing--submission.

Another difficulty that comes up is the understanding of v. 6. "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." A shaved head on a woman was a sign that the woman was a temple , a common practice in Corinth. The temple to Aphrodite in that city was staffed with a thousand such s.
A difficulty with this reply arises when one notices that being uncovered and being shaved signify the same thing. Yet, being uncovered doesn't necessarily mean that the woman is already shaved, or else there would be no need for Paul's ironic order to go all the way and shave her head. Being uncovered therefore cannot just mean not having long hair.

This problem is often used by Christians who believe that their women should be wearing a cloth or a shawl while praying. Their point is that this passage teaches that a woman's long hair is a sign to show us that women need an additional covering--her shawl, a napkin or whatever. A woman who then prays without her additional covering should then have her primary covering (her hair) removed (shaved).

However, the Bible gives a better explanation elsewhere of another understanding of what it is for a woman to be uncovered.

Numbers 5 describes the bitter water ceremony, which is a test for women charged with ery. The process begins with the priest uncovering the woman's head (v. 18). This refers to the woman's hair being let down. Women at that time customarily wore their hair either up, or, if it was down, tied behind the head. When a woman's head was uncovered it meant that the hair was unloosed and disheveled, which was taken as a sign to the world that the woman was not in submission to her husband.

The principle here is that a woman can wear her hair down and loose in such a way that it signifies that she is in rebellion. This principle is also very dear in ancient Greek literature. Commonly, whenever the women rebel against their husbands, especially when their rebellion involved demonic worship, there were continual references in classical literature to their hair being let loose and wild.

This principle was dear in ancient Israel, classical Greece, during Paul's life, and, not surprisingly, is still evident today. The current grunge movement is an obvious example. When a woman wears her hair down in front of her face and leaves it unkempt, or has her head shaved, the whole world knows that she is saying that she is in rebellion. Both styles seem to say the same thing. When a man has short hair, we say he is "clean cut". This carries the connotation of a nice, responsible, young man. Whether he truly is responsible or is an Eddy Haskel is really not the question. The question is what does his hair say about him?
In the same way, whether the woman is truly in rebellion or not is not the question. Frequently the is a sweet , not at all in rebellion, but that is not what her hair is saying about her.
What do these respective hair styles say about Christ and His church?

So the principle taught is that a man ought to have short hair that reflects his leadership. The woman ought to have long hair done nicely in a way that reflects her submission. Her hair is a glory to her (v. 15).

The Long & Short of It

Invariably, after reaching this conclusion someone asks, "How long is long, and how short is short?" Well, it is interesting that people don't usually have a difficult time distinguishing between these two outside the context of this passage. Whatever youhave previously called short hair, is probably what is short hair, and likewise with long.
In examining this passage closely, however, it is interesting to note that Paul does not spend time addressing this question. He doesn't give any length requirements in inches or cubits. We do not have here a Pauline "dress code." The problem he is addressing is masculinity and femininity reflected in hair length and style, and what someone's hair says about that particular person.

In this sense, this passage definitely reflects cultural practices, because hair style is a cultural category. Culture may determine variations in the length of long hair, or variations in the length of short hair. However, if a culture is the outward manifestation of a society's beliefs, if culture is religion externalized, then the culture of those that believe in the gospel should look radically different from the unbelieving cultures.

And in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is telling us of one way that God has prescribed for His people to look different. Our religion reaches our hair. shouldn't apply that passage; it had to have been a cultural thing. Best not to ask too many questions; best for all concerned.
But we should notice that both of these interpretations are based on what the world might think.

Why An Issue?

The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. In the course of his discussion, Paul makes it clear three times that his teaching is not confined, or defined, by a particular culture. The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, man and woman in v. 3, which does not change from culture to culture. He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in v. 14 and explains that none of the churches of God differ on this teaching (v. 16). So whether this passage applies to us or not is therefore not really the question. It is very clear that what ever principle Paul is teaching about head coverings applies to us. A question does remain, however.

How is the passage to be understood?

Once the principle of head coverings has been accepted, the next question to be answered is, "what is a head covering?" The simple and clear answer of this passage is that it is hair. "...if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him" (v. 14), because his head is uncovered (v.4). "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (v. 15).
The reason for the covering is that the relationship between a man and a woman reflects the relationship between Christ and His church. This teaching is explained more in depth in Ephesians 5, but we may notice here how the 1 Cor. 11 passage begins with a reference to how Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ (v. 3). The doctrine of headship is, not surprisingly, related to Paul's doctrine of hair.

In Ephesians 5, Paul discusses the creation ordinance of a man and a woman coming together, and then says: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (v. 32). The mystery of marriage is a reflection of Christ and His church. This understanding is emphasized from a different angle here in 1 Corinthians 11. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (v. 7). Here we learn that in the area of head coverings, the male is to reflect God's relationship to mankind, while the female is to reflect mankind's relationship with God.

This does not set up a "spiritual worthiness" pecking order. It is simply a reflection of the order of creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, the creation of mankind is described for us. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He made him; male and female He created them" (v. 27). Both man and woman are created in God's image, and both together are described as man. So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not teaching that men are deities and women are mortals; we are both created in God's image. Men, however, analogically reflect God's authority in the marriage, and women analogically reflect mankind's submission to Him. Thus, in a very important way, women are the representatives of men.

This understanding of headship is crucial to this passage. When a man and a woman come together they are picture of Christ and His church; therefore, they reflect this in an outward sign, which is the way they wear their hair. Long hair on a woman is a sign that she is in submission. Short hair on a man is a sign that he is leading. These two together are a picture to the outside world of Christ and His church. A man, of course, is also in submission to the authorities over him, but that is not the relationship depicted here.

Difficulties

A common question then asked is, "what about the Nazaritic vow?" One of the features of a Nazaritic vow was that the man did not cut his hair (Num. 6:5-6). Given the principle already described, we could reason that this is simply a special situation where a man reflects another relationship, which is his submission to God. But in this special situation, long hair means the same thing--submission.

Another difficulty that comes up is the understanding of v. 6. "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." A shaved head on a woman was a sign that the woman was a temple , a common practice in Corinth. The temple to Aphrodite in that city was staffed with a thousand such s.
A difficulty with this reply arises when one notices that being uncovered and being shaved signify the same thing. Yet, being uncovered doesn't necessarily mean that the woman is already shaved, or else there would be no need for Paul's ironic order to go all the way and shave her head. Being uncovered therefore cannot just mean not having long hair.
This problem is often used by Christians who believe that their women should be wearing a cloth or a shawl while praying. Their point is that this passage teaches that a woman's long hair is a sign to show us that women need an additional covering--her shawl, a napkin or whatever. A woman who then prays without her additional covering should then have her primary covering (her hair) removed (shaved).

However, the Bible gives a better explanation elsewhere of another understanding of what it is for a woman to be uncovered.

Numbers 5 describes the bitter water ceremony, which is a test for women charged with ery. The process begins with the priest uncovering the woman's head (v. 18). This refers to the woman's hair being let down. Women at that time customarily wore their hair either up, or, if it was down, tied behind the head. When a woman's head was uncovered it meant that the hair was unloosed and disheveled, which was taken as a sign to the world that the woman was not in submission to her husband.

The principle here is that a woman can wear her hair down and loose in such a way that it signifies that she is in rebellion. This principle is also very dear in ancient Greek literature. Commonly, whenever the women rebel against their husbands, especially when their rebellion involved demonic worship, there were continual references in classical literature to their hair being let loose and wild.

This principle was dear in ancient Israel, classical Greece, during Paul's life, and, not surprisingly, is still evident today. The current grunge movement is an obvious example. When a woman wears her hair down in front of her face and leaves it unkempt, or has her head shaved, the whole world knows that she is saying that she is in rebellion. Both styles seem to say the same thing. When a man has short hair, we say he is "clean cut". This carries the connotation of a nice, responsible, young man. Whether he truly is responsible or is an Eddy Haskel is really not the question. The question is what does his hair say about him?
In the same way, whether the woman is truly in rebellion or not is not the question. Frequently the is a sweet , not at all in rebellion, but that is not what her hair is saying about her.
What do these respective hair styles say about Christ and His church?

So the principle taught is that a man ought to have short hair that reflects his leadership. The woman ought to have long hair done nicely in a way that reflects her submission. Her hair is a glory to her (v. 15).

The Long & Short of It
I
nvariably, after reaching this conclusion someone asks, "How long is long, and how short is short?" Well, it is interesting that people don't usually have a difficult time distinguishing between these two outside the context of this passage. Whatever youhave previously called short hair, is probably what is short hair, and likewise with long.

In examining this passage closely, however, it is interesting to note that Paul does not spend time addressing this question. He doesn't give any length requirements in inches or cubits. We do not have here a Pauline "dress code." The problem he is addressing is masculinity and femininity reflected in hair length and style, and what someone's hair says about that particular person.

In this sense, this passage definitely reflects cultural practices, because hair style is a cultural category. Culture may determine variations in the length of long hair, or variations in the length of short hair. However, if a culture is the outward manifestation of a society's beliefs, if culture is religion externalized, then the culture of those that believe in the gospel should look radically different from the unbelieving cultures.

And in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is telling us of one way that God has prescribed for His people to look different. Our religion reaches our hair.