Exodus 32:1-6

Introduction

It can be hard for us to imagine idolatry. Why in the world would people ever be tempted to worship an object they created? While the average evangelical will acknowledge that we can be tempted to worship something/someone before God, the idea of "crafting an image" is much harder to imagine. Why in the world would an object of gold, metal or wood compete with worshipping God? Sadly, most scoff this temptation, considering they are much to sophisticated to be tempted, thus ignoring John's exhortation, Little children, guard yourselves from idols.

But perhaps a look at one of the most famous "idol exchanges" can show us the tendency of the human heart to craft an image.

Commentary

v1
Moses delayed. Since the Lord answered Moses with thunder (19:19) it is possible that the mountain thundered the entire time the Lord spoke to Moses. Perhaps, when the Lord was finished speaking (31:18) it quit thundering? Perhaps the thunder quit, or perhaps they were simply in awe of the whole encounter, but when Moses did not at first reappear, the people panic and look for alternative means. As they speak to Aaron, they share their concern is that they have no idea what happened to Moses.

Make us a god. Since Moses has disappeared, the people call for Aaron to make them a god. Just the idea of "making" a god sounds foolish to us, for wouldn't he who crafted the object have dominion over that which he crafted? The people have credited Moses with leading them out of Egypt and now they appear stranded alone in the desert. Could Aaron make a god to go before them?

v2
Tear off the gold rings... Aaron agrees, but it is going to cost the Israelites something. The material for the idol will come from those who want it.

(Yes, wives, sons and daughters all had earrings. This was probably a sign of their former slave status in Egypt, though it may have simply been a fashion decision.--Exodus 21:6)

v3
Then all the people tore off the gold rings... This sounded like a reasonable proposal from Aaron and the people obliged.

v4
Fashioned it with a graving tool. Aaron melts down the gold and begins to fashion it into an idol. Though he claims, I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf," clearly he was more involved in the process.

Molten calf. Why a cow? Though the Israelites were traditionally shepherds, the Egyptians highly esteemed tending to livestock. In fact, Egyptians considered shepherds loathsome (see: Genesis 46:34). Perhaps the calf represented status? Perhaps it represented Egypt (either negatively or positively)? Perhaps it was just an adaptation of the sacrifical system?

This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. At this point, it becomes very difficult to connect with the people of Israel. Not only does Aaron call this idol, whom he has crafted with material the Israelites provided, but now he is crediting it with delivering them from Egypt. It seems difficult for us to understand. How could the Israelites, who were removed from Egypt "B.C." ("Before Calf") now credit the calf for delivering them? Not only are they foolishly calling an object made by a man with their earrings a god, but now they credit it with bringing them to the wilderness even though it was crafted in the wilderness. This is very difficult for us to grasp.

v5
Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD. This phrase helps us peer into their motive. Aaron builds the altar before the calf. Clearly their worship is directed toward it. He has called a god (twice) and now he attributes the name "LORD." LORD (in all caps) is the way most English translations depict "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," the personal name for God. This is the name God revealed to Moses and the Israelites (Exodus 6:3). Why would they attribute the name of their God to a calf? They really couldn't think of an original name?

v6
Offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. Not only have the Israelites given the idol Jehovah's name, but they also begin to worship the idol in ways appointed only for God. This is probably not a display of the lack of their creativity, but rather, evidence of their motive. All of these features presented together suggests that the Israelites were not looking to replace God with a calf, but looking at replacing their means of worship (as prescribed through Moses).

Exposition

The author of Hebrews offers some interesting insight into the life and role of Moses:

Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.Hebrews 8:4-6

First, and most important, God intended for Moses to play a mediatorial role that "typed" Christ. Moses was not merely a good leader or a quality man that God used to get His people out of an oppressive land. Moses, and his function was to be an imperfect preview of the Ultimate Mediator who would initiate the Greater Covenant.

Therefore, secondarily, God cares very much about the detail. The Hebrews were to pay close attention to the pattern they were shown, for this pattern should lead them to seeing Christ. God was not simply interested in Who they worship, but also how they worship. In fact, how they worship directly tied to Who they worshipped.

Israel's first sin was that they neglected the role of Moses. They actually thought they could worship Yahweh without Moses...and they could have, had God desired to point to Christ in another way. However, the LORD chose to work through Moses to point people to Jesus. In fact, at they time they are carving up a calf, God was giving Moses the Law that would point people to Christ (Galatians 3:24)! Israel naively thought that details didn't matter. They would still give credit to God (naming the calf after Him) and would still practice forms of sacrificial worship. (Though Moses is concurrently receiving the written details for sacrificial worship, Genesis 4 reminds us that sacrificial worship already existed, and was acceptable to God.) They still wanted the same end (worship of God) but determined a different means. A new mediator would serve them just fine.

God, however, did not share their perspective. To ignore His mediator was to ignore His means. It is incredibly hard to worship Him as LORD when you will not obey how He says to do it.

Conclusion

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.--1 John 2:22-23

Ultimately, it is impossible to worship God the Father without acknowledging the divinity of His Son. For all religious systems who redefine Christ's divinity or humanity are of the Antichrist. They may claim to worship God (and even use the name Jehovah), but their is not middle ground. You are either worshipping God through His Mediator, or you are not.

But we can also be tempted to worship a god in our own making. As Calvin said, "Our hearts are an idol factory." This means we are not capable of discovering God on our own, or knowing Christ simply by our own musings. We must be firmly committed to the Word, to see how God has defined Himself and worship Him accordingly. Details do matter, for details point us toward His Beloved Son.

It is rare today that a Christian will intentionally replace Jesus Christ with something else. However, when we choose to serve ourself, or when we choose to define Jesus according to our own terms, and not the Word, this is exactly what we are doing. Just like the Hebrews believed they were worshipping Yahweh by using His name and performing the sacrifices, when the messed with the Mediator, they ceased to truly worship God. In the same way, when we worship a Messiah who does not match the Biblical picture, we do not simply find ourselves mistaken, we find ourselves worshipping an idol.

Isaiah 61:1-4

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in this exercise before reading any further.

The first text McLaren turns to is Isaiah 61:1-4

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn {in} Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations.

McLaren's Emphasis

1. McLaren says this poem was written to people "standing on the ledge of dispair" to tell these oppressed captives that a better day is coming.

2. [Referring to verse 4] "The structures of your civilization will be renewed. The environment of your civilization. Like if it were today, maybe he'd say, 'The toxic waste dumps will be cleaned up. The places that have been paved over by concrete. The places where species are going extinct. Those will be renewed. The cities that are filled with urban blight. The cities that are filled with poverty and unemployment. God cares about them, and you will have a part in rebuilding them.'"

3. McLaren points out that, contrary to our expectation, Isaiah does not point them to thought of eternity for comfort, but the hope is found in a point in history. He does not comfort them that they will leave this earth, but rather that the "poor, broken hearted, captive, prisoners, all who mourn and grieve, and those in dispair are going to be helped."

4. In the midst of discussing this issue, McLaren makes the statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story."

Some observations

1. We are never told these oppressed, downtrodden people are Jews. Why does this matter? It matters because Israel was in captivity as an act of judgment by God. They were not innocent victims. They had rebelled against God and He disciplined them. Yet, we see His grace extended in that He pursues restoration. No mention of this theme at all.

2. Again, McLaren glosses over the importance of the promised land and of Jerusalem in particular. He makes no mention of covenants made to the people, nor that this is even God's chosen nation. Strangely, in a message that is intened to motivate compassion for people, McLaren seems to be more focused on the environment. There is a significance to the "Promised Land" (see Hebrews 3 & 4) that unfortunately seems ignored.

3. I'm not sure I even fully understand McLaren's point here. He is right that the text does not point them to heaven as their solace. But the text does point them to future events. In verse 4, it regularly says "they will" indicating these are future events. In fact, Jesus states that this passage was fulfilled by Him. (Which happens to be the next text we'll examine.) Any immediate fulfillment of this passage seems to be secondary to the fulfillment in Christ, thus pointing us to the future, not Isaiah's present conditions.

4. I do not want to be overly harsh on his sidebar statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story." Every pastor occasionaly makes a sideways statement he knows could become a full blown "rabbit trail" and therefore brings himself back to the point without further explanation. This very well could be such a case. However, I do wish he would have articulated that the Scriptures only exhort believers to look forward to the Lord's appearing. Perhaps his facial expression or gestures articulated that not wanting to be with Christ is not the God pleasing heart attitude.

Summary

McLaren encourages the people of Mar's Hill to be good stewards of creation. He also encourages them to not fall prey to "escapism," thinking so much about eternity that they do not look to impact the present. These are both good, Biblical concepts. However, it is questionable to say they are themes addressed here in Isaiah 61, and it can certainly be said they are not the main theme of the passage. To this point in the message, there has been no mention of sin, God's judgment, God's holiness, or even His grace in restoring a people who did not deserve it of themselves.

Luke 4:16-21

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in evaluating before reading further.

First, McLaren directs the congregation to Isaiah 61:1-4. (You can read my review here.) Next, he turns the group to Luke 4:16-21.

McLaren's Emphasis

1. Technically, he does not "turn" the group there. He simply summarizes the passage, and actually tells them it is found in Luke 3 (We've all given the wrong reference before.) He concludes the Biblical narrative with, "Today, this day, those words are fulfilled in your hearing."

2. He explains that what Jesus was saying is that what happened in Isaiah's day is happening again today.

3. McLaren warns that we can tend to spiritualize the texts, assuming Jesus is talking about hearts rather than literally helping the poor and the oppressed. He contrasts the caricature of heaven (clouds and harps) with God's desire to rebuild cities in the here and now.

4. In illustrating this point. McLaren describes a boy who wishes to get out of cleaning his room by explaining entropy to his mother. The boy explains that entropy is a law of science and that God has established all of the laws of science. Therefore, attempting to reverse such a law would be rebelling against God. He suggests that some take this attitude when it comes to prophecy or even evaluating our current circumstances. Some look and claim that we shouldn't help the poor or clean up the environment because it's a helpless cause. However, McLaren says this passage shows us, "that God actually cares about this world. God has not abandoned creation. The law of entropy might be a law of physics, but there is a deeper law in the universe, it's the law of God's faithfulness. And that God does not abandon His creation, but that God cares about it being renewed, and restored, and rebuilt."

Some observations

1. While McLaren is able to summarize the details of Luke 4, I couldn't help but get the impression he was not very familiar with specific details. For one, he stated it was Luke 3 a couple of times. This would not be a major concern (again, we've all missed a reference before) except that he misses something else critical within the text. He tells the audience that Jesus quotes the passage in Isaiah 61 (verses 1-4 is what McLaren read aloud) however Jesus only quoted Isaiah 61:1-2. Why does this matter? Because McLaren spends a majority of his time in Luke 4 telling the audience how concerned Jesus is with cities and ruins, yet Jesus did not find it necessary to read that portion. Instead, Jesus concluded with "to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD." Jesus did not even bother reading the portion about cities and ruins, therefore it seems a stretch to say that was His main point when speaking to those in Nazareth.

2. To say that what Isaiah prophesied (and saw happen) in his day is happening again in Jesus' day seems to put Isaiah's and Jesus' ministry on the same plain. He does not take opportunity to share that Jesus was a greater fulfillment of the prophecy, nor that He had a greater mission than Isaiah.

3. I don't just struggle to see how the text makes McLaren's point, I actually struggle to see how it doesn't contradict his main point. He states that Jesus tells them the prophecy is fulfilled in their hearing and then goes out and actually performs these acts. McLaren warns us not to spiritualize this fulfillment, for Jesus says He will restore sight to the blind and we certainly see that literally fulfilled (thus making his case). However, I am not aware of Him creating release of the captives (actually, He left John the Baptist in prison to be beheaded), or to set free those who had been oppressed (I do not remember Him freeing a single slave and when His political motives were challenged He stated His kingdom is not of this world.) Again, Jesus mentions nothing of restoring cities and buildings, yet McLaren claims that was part of His mission too (even though He spoke of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and did nothing to prevent it). John 9 seems to be an important place to turn. Yes, Jesus cared abou the physical nature of things (we are not gnostics) and healed a man born blind. However, He seems to care even more about the man's soul, pursuing the man to reveal Himself as Lord to him.

4. I actually really liked McLaren's "clean your room" example. (I could hear myself trying that kind of approach as a child.) And he is quite right that we should not throw our hands up in dispair, refusing to influence the world. However, I was greatly disappointed to not hear the gospel articulated at this point. Entropy gave him a great opportunity. The law of entropy was not in effect when God said, "It is good," but became a law imposed upon a fallen world. This was a great door for McLaren to introduce the problem of sin. Sin is the reason for entropy, and only if God reverses the problem of sin can He reverse the problem of entropy. Yet McLaren presented entropy as if God created a world full of sin, disease, decay and death. Second, I'm not sure what better suggests that God has not abandoned His creation than to state He was willing to die to reverse the curse. Yet McLaren gives no reference to the cross.

Summary

The passage in Luke does not seem to be about the environment or social reform. In fact, the passage does not even contain some of the statements that McLaren draws as his main points. Not only does the listener focus on a point the text does not make, but it also causes the listener to miss the main point of the passage. The first line Jesus quotes from Isaiah is about proclaiming the gospel. The last line He quotes is about it being the favorable year of the Lord. McLaren does not acknowledge either of these points, instead focussing on the environment. By this point in his message, he has mentioned personal sin (acknowledging it is bad), however it is placed right beside social and political injustice. It is not presented as a violation of God's righteousness.