Part III: Ethics/Boundaries (5-26)
11 JUDICIAL CONTINUITY
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire (Deut. 5:1-5).This passage begins the third and longest section of Deuteronomy: the law. The theocentric focus of this law is God as the covenant-maker. The covenant's authority extends through time, generation after generation. "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." God had appeared to Israel at Horeb almost four decades earlier. Prior to His giving of the Ten Commandments, He appeared to the nation in fire and smoke: "And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly" (Ex. 19:18). Sinai and Horeb are interchangeable names in this case, since it was at Horeb that the Israelites worshipped the golden calf in Moses' absence (Ps. 106:19).
Moses spoke here of the covenant God made with them. He said that this covenant was not the covenant that God made with their fathers. God made this covenant with those still alive: face to face. Some of the listeners had been young men or children at the time of that initial covenant act (Ex. 19). But what about those who were now under age 40? Those alive at the time of Moses' second presentation of the law had not all been alive at the first presentation of the law. What did Moses mean when he said, "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (v. 4)? This sentence cannot be taken literally, nor was it so understood in Moses' day. How should it be taken?
Face to Face To make sense of the passage, we should consider in detail another literal phrase that cannot be taken literally: face to face. "The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire" (v. 4). We know this cannot be taken literally because of what God revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai:
And he [Moses] said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (Ex. 33:18-23).
So, we know that Moses did not speak to God face to face. Yet a few verses before this passage, we read: "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle" (Ex. 33:11). The key phrase here is this: as a man speaks to his friend. God spoke to Moses as someone bonded to Him through shared experiences and shared goals.
Not only did the Israelites not speak to God literally face to face, they avoided speaking to Moses face to face after his return from the mountain. "And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face" (Ex. 34:30-33). The glory of Moses was more than they could stand, let alone the glory of God.
Yet in the confrontation between God and Moses regarding the ten spies' false testimony regarding Canaan, and the people's willingness to stone Joshua and Caleb, Moses reminded God that He had called Israel out of bondage and had promised to deliver Canaan into their hands. Moses asked: What if God destroys the nation first? This will lead God's enemies to mock Him. "And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night" (Num. 14:14). But God is not seen face to face. What the Israelites saw was the glory cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. In this, God manifested Himself to them. This was the literal application of "face-to-face." Israel was in God's presence, as in the presence of a friend, when they were led by the glory cloud.
The reference is partially symbolic -- the glory cloud -- and partially ethical: the relationship between friends. Thus, whenever this ethical bond is broken by Israel through rebellion, Israel will no longer enjoy its face-to-face relationship with God. "Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day. Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods" (Deut. 31:17-18). "And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith" (Deut. 32:20).
"Not With Our Fathers" This phrase seems to refer to the patriarchs. Moses spoke to the nation about God's new covenant, a covenant not made with their fathers. Moses was the father of the exodus. His generation had fled Egypt. Yet he spoke here of the fathers. Such a reference points back to the generations that preceded his.
What covenant was Moses speaking about? The covenant whose stipulations are the Ten Commandments. Moses was preparing his listeners for a second reading of the Decalogue (vv. 6-21). This had been a new covenant for Israel, one which provided the general principles of law by which the nation would judge and be judged. God had made this new covenant with those alive that very day.
But what of those who had not been alive at Sinai-Horeb? They were listening now. They would soon hear the law read to them again, though modified slightly: the justification for the sabbath, i.e., their deliverance out of Egypt (v. 15). The important factor here was the continuity provided by the Mosaic law. The covenant was the same because the law was the same. The covenant had been made with them at Horeb because the law had not changed. The constancy of the Mosaic law was the judicial foundation of the continuity of the Mosaic covenant. The act of covenant renewal which would transfer the inheritance to the next generation would be grounded in the same commandments that had grounded that original covenant at Sinai-Horeb.
The covenant had been made between God and all of the listeners because the covenant establishes continuity: God's sovereignty, His authority, His law, His oath-bound historical sanctions, and His system of inheritance. Point five -- inheritance -- is possible only because the covenant can be renewed through the generations. This covenant renewal system is what links the generations. The link is the covenant, not biology. The biblical covenant is not a blood covenant; it is a confessional covenant. It is established by oath, not genetics. By birth, men are automatically consigned to Adam's covenant of death. The enter God's redemptive covenant only by oath.
Were the patriarchs participants in God's redemptive covenant? Of course. Then why did Moses exclude them from this covenant? Because this covenant had been and would continue to be the historical manifestation of God's redemptive covenant for a new era. There was a new priesthood: Aaron's. There was therefore a new covenant with a new set of stipulations. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12). There was absolute continuity of redemption; there was only partial continuity of administration. Circumcision remained; Passover was new.
God had made this new covenant with Israel. This covenant, as with the redemptive covenant in every era, included an administrative means of succession. The covenantal mark was still circumcision, but this mark was not sufficient. There also had to be annual covenant renewal: Passover.
The question arises: Did they actually celebrate Passover in the wilderness? The biblical texts do not say. Numbers does not provide information of events beyond the first two years until two years before the conquest.(1) Passover is not mentioned in the interim period. They celebrated it in the first year (Num. 9:5), prior to their rebellion against Joshua and Caleb (Num. 14). The next reference to Passover is at the end of the wlderness era, when Moses told the conquest generation the proper date for celebrating it (Num. 28:16). It appears as though they had not celebreated it in the interim.
Here is the theological problem: grace and law. The Passover was a means of grace, but it was closed to those who were not circumcised (Ex. 12:48). The conquest generation was not circumcised in the wilderness. This took place only after they had crossed into Canaan (Josh. 5:5). They immediately celebrated passover (Josh. 5:10-12). God timed their entrance into Canaan in terms of the Passover. If Passover had been celebrated in the wilderness, either these people had been excluded or else admitted apart from the mark of the covenant. Exclusion seems unlikely. What about participation? The Old Testament is silent.(2)
We must decide despite the absence of evidence: either there was no formal covenant renewal in the wilderness (no Passover) or there was grace shown to the conquest generation, i.e., access to Passover apart from circumcision. What do we know for sure? The parents refused to circumcise their children; they were in rebellion. It would have been consistent with this rebellion to have refused to celebrate the feasts. They had cut themselves off from the future by refusing to: 1) conquer the land themselves or 2) turn power over to their adult sons to lead them into the Promised Land. They had also been unwilling to participate representatively in the conquest through faith in their sons' future victory. The mark of this unwillingness was their refusal to circumcise their sons. My conclusion: they did not celebrate Passover.
To Maintain the Grant Moses introduced this third section of the Book of Deuteronomy with a call to Israel to learn, keep (guard),(3) and do the statutes. He reminded them that God had made His covenant with them. They participated in the original covenant just as if they had been there at Sinai when God appeared in the fiery cloud and gave them the commandments. Judicially, God had made the covenant with them through their legal representatives, their parents. The covenant at Sinai was their covenant, for God would deal with them as friends, face to face. He had broken off relations with their fathers after the rebellion of the spies. Only God's promise to Abraham to deliver Canaan into Israel's hands had preserved them. Moses had pleaded on this basis in order to save the entire nation (Num. 14:13-17). On the basis of that promise, to be fulfilled soon by the fourth generation (Gen. 15:16), the face-to-face relationship with Israel had been maintained. Thus, the covenant was far more their covenant than it had been for their fathers at Sinai, who had broken it repeatedly. The very uncircumcised condition of the fourth generation testified to the degree that their fathers had broken the covenant.
To maintain the covenant, Moses announced, they would have to obey God. The continuity of law had not been broken. This was what linked them to their fathers. It was also what would link their descendants to them. The inheritance was grounded in God's promise to Abraham; maintaining it would be grounded in their obedience to God.
The focus of Moses' immediate concern was the conquest. He was about to recapitulate the law because a new generation had succeeded the old. To them the Abrahamic promise applied. The covenant was their covenant far more than it had been their fathers' covenant, for they were the heirs of the promise. They had to understand the judicial relationship between God, covenant, law, sanctions, and inheritance. To maintain the grant, they had to obey.
Grace, Law, Grace
God granted them the inheritance, not on the basis of what they had done but on what He had promised. As heirs of the promise, they were heirs of grace. They had not earned the inheritance. It was theirs because God had promised Abraham that the fourth generation would inherit. They would have to fight to win it, but the promise was their motivation. As recipients of God's grant, they could fight in great confidence. They had already learned this in the war against Midian, in which not one Israelite warrior had died (Num. 31:49).
The land flowing with milk and honey would soon be theirs. This was grace. They would receive an infusion of capital to replace whatever they had spent of Egypt's spoils. This capital would not just be money; it would be land. To this grant of land they would add their creativity and labor. This would in turn produce great wealth, if they continued to obey.
This means that Israel's greatest visible capital asset was the law of God. The law would serve them as their tool of dominion.(4) But without God's grace, God's law is incapable of delivering the goods long term. The law always condemns those who seek to use it for their own purposes. Adherence to the law produces wealth, but this wealth then becomes a snare for its owners (Deut. 8:17-18). Men sin. Without grace, men cannot fulfill the stipulations of the covenant. Habakkuk announced this principle clearly: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith" (Hab. 2:4). Faith in God's redemptive grace, not faith in man's creative power, is the basis of covenant blessings. Through faith, men obey; through obedience, they maintain the covenant grant.
Conclusion God spoke through Moses to the generation of the conquest. He told them that He had made a covenant with them. God was dealing with them just as if they had been the first to make this covenant with them. This was a new covenant which the patriarchs had not known. It was a fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. Moses told them that God had spoken to them out of the fire at Mt. Sinai, even though many who were listening to Moses had not been born at that time. He told them that God had spoken face to face with them, even though no man had seen God's face. God had established a covenant at Sinai, and they were part of this covenant. They were about to inherit the land, fulfilling the Abrahamic promise. The continuity of both promise and law placed them inside the covenant.
To re-confirm this covenant, Moses would now read the Ten Commandments to them. First, he referred to the covenant-making event of Exodus 19: the face-to-face meeting between Israel and God at Mt. Sinai. This event was followed by Exodus 20: the giving of the Decalogue. Second, they were now going to hear the law again. This was evidence that God was still dealing with Israel on a face-to-face basis. God had not changed, and neither had the terms of His covenant, with one exception: the reason given for the sabbath. If Israel remained faithful to the terms of this covenant, the nation would maintain the kingdom grant that was embodied in the land.
Footnotes:
1. R. K. Harrison, Numbers: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1992), p. 431.
2. Paul wrote, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" (I Cor. 10:1-4). The drink that counted spiritually as the wine of the Lord's Supper was water from the rock. But this took place only twice. What was the spiritual meat? Manna? How could this have counted as Passover? The manna did not appear on the sabbath; a double portion appeared the day before, and this portion did not rot the next day (Ex. 16:22-25), unlike any extra quantity saved on other days of the week (v. 20). If manna counted as a sacrament, as did the water from the two rocks, then excommunication meant exclusion from the community as a whole. Not to have access to manna meant death. Those banned from the community were also banned from the manna. In any case, Paul was speaking of New Testament sacraments: baptism (the cloud and sea) and the Lord's Supper: wine (water from the two rocks) and bread (manna?). He was not speaking of circumcision and Passover.
3. "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3:24); "And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9; emphasis added).
4. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com