Redeemed for What?

I was reading the Exodus story in the past couple days, and was struck by a few things that I want to share here.

The story of the deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh is a type for the deliverance of the Church from sin and death.  God comes to redeem His people, his chosen ones, and to bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey.  But as we read Exodus, we find that God early on gives a specific purpose for Israel to leave Egypt.

Afterward Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.” Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to to the LORD our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”

~Exodus 5:1-3

There are a couple times before Israel’s final deliverance that Moses and Aaron make this less drastic request of Pharaoh.  And of course, as God had told Moses He would, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart against this request.  But I want to point out that there is a particular purpose in the request itself.  YHWH tells Pharaoh to let Israel go in order that they might hold a feast to Him.

Now, as we continue reading through the Pentateuch we find that a feast has a specific purpose.  It is not just a grand ol’ time where the people of God gorge themselves and get drunk like the pagans at their feasts.  Rather, it is a solemn occasion of remembrance.  Yes, the feasts are joyous celebrations, but they are held for one purpose: worship of the One True God.  So essentially, God is telling Pharaoh to let Israel go out into the wilderness to worship, and the means by which they are to worship is the feast.

When Moses restates YHWH’s demand, he makes this even clearer.  Now  rather than call it merely a feast, he says that they must go to sacrifice to YHWH.  The feast and the sacrifice are inextricably linked.

In the same way, God has redeemed us from the power of sin and death . . . for what?  To worship.  It is the expressly given purpose of our deliverance.  It is the chief goal of man’s existence, which we can only fulfill in Christ.  And when we gather as the Church to worship, we offer the sacrifice of our songs and praises, our acclamations, and of our very selves.  And we partake in a feast to the LORD our God, which Christ gave us at his last supper before going to the cross.

There is another interesting point we can glean from the various encounters with Pharaoh.  Initially, the demand is simply that he let God’s chosen people go out into the wilderness for three days to observe the feast and the sacrifice.  But we know, of course, that Pharaoh will not comply with these demands.  Not until his nation has been destroyed by plagues and he himself lies drowned in the Red Sea.  At that point the deliverance promised by God to Israel is complete.  It is not only for a short time that He delivers Israel to observe the feast, but it is a permanent deliverance.

Just so, when God commands us to worship, we cannot do so until He has ultimately delivered us.  There is no going to worship God and then returning to Egypt.  That is an impossibility.  Sin and death as principalities are cruel and unyielding masters that will not allow us to leave for a time, worship God and then return to them.  In order to engage in true worship, we must be freed in a permanent and ultimate way with no thought of going back to the place from which we came.

I think there is some significance to the three days journey into the wilderness even though the journey never happened as first asked of Pharaoh.  It is perhaps enough that Moses stated the three days as the original demand.  Israel must go into the wilderness for three days to make sacrifice.  Christ as the ultimate representative of Israel is the final fulfillment of this.  For on behalf of His chosen people, after instituting the feast of the Lord’s Supper He journeyed into the wilderness of death for three days, Himself being the final sacrifice to atone for sin.

There is one more thing I want to bring out from this part of the Exodus story.  Sometimes Pharaoh seems to be on the verge of complying with the demand of YHWH, but he always seems to put limits on his obedience.  At one point, Pharaoh even tells Moses that he will let the people go . . . but there’s a catch:

Then Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long shall this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God. Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?” So Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh. And he said to them, “Go, serve the LORD your God. But which ones are to go?” Moses said, “We will go with our young and our old. We will go with our sons and daughters and with our flocks and herds, for we must hold a feast to the LORD.”

But he said to them, “The LORD be with you, if ever I let you and your little ones go! Look, you have some evil purpose in mind. No! Go, the men among you, and serve the LORD, for that is what you are asking.” And they were driven out from Pharaoh’s presence.

~Exodus 10:7-11

Pharaoh will allow Israel to go . . . but only the men.  It is as if Pharaoh says, “Isn’t that enough?  Your covenant heads may go and worship and sacrifice.  The children need not.”

No doubt some will point out that he simply wished to keep the children behind as a guarantee that his slaves would actually return.  And as far as Pharaoh is concerned this is probably true.  But I think there is more than just that going on here.  Moses will not concede these limits put on God’s demands, and he gives the reason.  The whole family unit must be allowed to go.  The men, the young and old, their sons and daughters must go . . . why?  For we must hold a feast to the LORD.

What does this tell us about how God regards the children of believers in relation to worship?  Simply this: they must be included in the worship of God’s people, and in the feast.  It is not right for the parents to worship and leave the children aside.  God wants even the little ones to observe the feast and the sacrifice.  The old and young, our sons and daughters alike must be taught to worship.  It is for this reason that He redeems the little ones as much as the men (the covenant heads) from sin and death, just as He would not accept that Israel’s little ones should be left in the hands of Pharaoh.

“As it is, they are holy.”

When the baptism of infants is a topic of discussion, Paul’s exhortation to those living with unbelieving spouses in 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 often comes up.  Inevitably, there is then some debate over whether this could possibly be applied to the question of baptism at all.

Those who are strictly for credo baptism will no doubt point out that while the passage does speak the believing spouse’s children as sanctified, it also speaks of the unbelieving spouse as sanctified.  So to say that since Paul calls the children holy they ought to be baptized is to prove too much, since he also calls the unbelieving spouse holy, and surely he is not suggesting they ought to be baptized as well!  I think this is a reasonable point, given how the passage is often presented.

Which brings me to the question of how proponents of infant baptism use the passage.  I think we are often guilty of reversing Paul’s logic in here, if not in our own reading of the passage, then in how we represent his line of reasoning.  I know I am guilty of having done so in the past.  Just so we’re totally clear on what he says, here’s verse 14:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

What I want to point out in this post is that Paul’s burden here is not about the status of the believing parents’ children!  It is rather the status of a believing person’s unbelieving spouse that is in question.  Paul is not making an argument here for the holiness of a believing parent’s children.  Instead, he is doing something much more powerful:

He is assuming it.

In order to bolster his main point that an unbelieving spouse of a Christian is in some way sanctified, Paul appeals to what he evidently considers obvious and well accepted by all—that the children of believers are holy.  Paul tosses the point regarding children into his argument as almost an afterthought, and he never brings children up again.  It’s almost an incidental feature of his case, and he expects all his readers to grasp it without further elaboration.  Notice how he phrases things:

Otherwise, Paul says, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

In other words, “Corinthians, you must accept that an unbelieving person is sanctified by a believing spouse, for if you reject this possibility, then by conclusion you must also say that your children are also unclean, but you of course know and understand that they, at least, are holy.”

Paul then goes right back to discussing the relationship between a believer and an unbelieving spouse.  So while the set-apartness of a spouse may be a question of debate here, the holiness of a believer’s children is not.

Does this by itself prove infant baptism?  No, it doesn’t.  But I think it strongly supports the case.  For unless the children of believers are baptized, recognized members of the covenant family, and so definitively sanctified, how else could Paul so readily appeal to their sanctified state as a given (as he here does) in order to argue for the apparently less obvious sanctification of an unbelieving spouse?

In short: if children were not baptized, then Paul would likely need to make a case for their holiness first.

Regarding Race

This post is prompted by an article that I saw posted a little while back regarding mixed marriages.  I gave it some time to ruminate, and after much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is my firm belief that one should indeed marry only within his or her own race.  Now, before you start picking up stones to throw at me, please read on and see if you agree.

It is fashionable today to say that “there is only one race—the human race.”  Things like ethnicity, culture, faith, etc. do not matter.  What matters is one common humanity.  After all, our DNA is pretty much 100% identical no matter what ethnicity you are.  The accidentals like dark or light skin are just that.  Accidentals with no meaning beyond aesthetics.

In a biological sense that’s true.  All mankind does share the same basic physical makeup.  And if physicality was all there was, they would be right—there is only one race, the human race.  But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

On the other hand, we have the reaction against these modern views of anthropology.  There are some who believe that ethnic groups constitute race, and that these races ought to remain distinct and separate.  As such, there should be no marriage or mixing between the various ethnic groups.  Some even appeal to the Bible for such a position (yes, the article I saw was from this site).  After all, God divided the peoples into many tongues at Babel, and thus created ethnicity.  Who are we to try to reverse that?  That would be like trying to rebuild the tower of Babel.

I would propose what I believe is a more Biblical view—that there are only two races.  There is Adam’s old humanity which fell with him into sin and death, and there is the new humanity in Christ that is raised to life and righteousness.  For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free.  All are one.  In Adam all die, but in Christ are all made alive.

To be in Christ is to be not only a new person as an individual, but a member of a new humanity, born of water and Spirit.  The old man and the former race is no more.  For the believer is a part of that New Creation.

As for Babel, that was a curse upon the old Adamic race.  God reversed that curse at Pentecost, when the confused languages of the many peoples became no impediment to the spread of the Gospel.  The scattering of nations is finished for all united in the Church as the Bride of Christ.  Any attempt at a united humanity apart from Christ as the old Adamic man is indeed a rebuilding of Babel.  Because only in Christ can true legitimate unity be found.

And so, I say again, one must not be joined to another outside of one’s own race.  If you are a member of the new humanity in Christ, how can you even think of being united to one of Adam’s lost race?  And if that person from across the Pacific is your brother, how can you even think of him as a foreigner to you?

Pathways

Providence once was a highway, paved;
well marked by signs
and arrows to give
direction.

It became at length a winding road
through a meadow flowered;
the moments bright but
destinations unknown.

Yesterday it was rocky path
to a mountain’s peak
that bled my feet
as You led by the way.

Did these paths lead to a cliff?
A dead end of sorts
that bids me:
“Trust, child; faith,
And leap!”