Hebrews Lesson
188 February
25, 2010
NKJ Isaiah 41:10 Fear not, for I am
with you; Be not dismayed, for I am your
God. I will strengthen you, Yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My
righteous right hand.'
Open your Bibles to Hebrews 11, and we are down to
verse 23. We'll just pick up a little bit to review some of the things that we
went over last time to kind of get brought back up to speed and then hit a
couple of new things. I want to make some comments I left out last time I want
to make sure I cover.
Back in Genesis 15 in the Abraham Covenant, God had
promised to Abraham as part of the covenant that there would be a time when the
descendants of Abraham would be out of the land. He had just reaffirmed the
promise to give Abraham the land.
NKJ Genesis
15:13 Then He said to Abram: "Know
certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs,
and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
This isn’t a precise number; it just gives a round
number. Then afterward they would come out with great possessions. This of
course refers to the time in Egypt after Joseph and his brothers moved down
there with Jacob; and then they were there for 400 years leading into the
period of slavery when a new pharaoh came into power that as the Scripture says
did not know Moses.
This is something that has always intrigued people
trying to discover just who the pharaoh of the Exodus was. Last time I looked
at a little bit of this. This is the list of the 18th dynasty that I
put upon the screen last time. It is generally assumed that it was during this
time period that the Exodus occurred. This was a time of Egyptian ascendency of
power, especially during the time of Thutmose III who had co-regency with his
mother Hatshepsut and also during the time up of Amenhotep IV and later on in
this dynasty.
Last time I pointed out that even though there is a
traditional or conventional Egyptian chronology, it is not at all certain. In
fact if you go out and you do research on the Internet, you will find that
there are a number of other folks who have done work on these chronological
problems and there are even a few who will put the Exodus as early as 1520. These
are not coming from a liberal viewpoint. There are those who are just trying to
wrestle with the numbers because anything earlier than 700 BC really isn't as
set as the museums and the archaeologists and the writers of textbooks would
like us to think. Most of the time when you pick up a book on the Exodus, or you
pick up a book on any number of topics, they will identify Thutmose III as the
pharaoh who banished Moses and at his death Moses was able to come back and
Amenhotep II then would be the pharaoh of the Exodus.
As I pointed out last time there are a number of
different problems that we have just in looking at conventional chronology
because most conventional chronology would put the earliest dynasties of Egypt
before the flood. Biblically speaking, looking at the numbers, taking
everything at face value; we have a flood somewhere around 2500 BC. Conventional
dating would put the first dynasty in Egypt around 2900 BC. There is this
problem of about 387 years or where you have an Egyptian civilization before
the flood occurred which would not take place. The flood would wipe out any
evidence of it. That's part of a problem.
Then I went through this slide showing these are some
of the bedrock dates that people go to: 664 BC is a date related to
Ashurbanipal’s invasion of Thebes.
And that's a set date; 925 is the time when Shoshank I invades Israel
(925 BC). This is a time often equated with the biblical Shishak; but there are
problems with the names there - also calendar names, other things of that
nature, so we're just not certain who or what these dates are. We can't really
hang anything there.
Then I developed this little diagram to show that if
there's any change whatsoever and these individuals are not at the time that
they are thought to be in terms of the conventional dates (which are the
numbers in white); if there's the least little shift, then they moved off
further down to the right and they come after. Now this is a chronology that is similar to the one that
Immanuel Velikovsky. Some of you listened to Charlie's framework series and
have heard him refer to Immanuel Velikovsky, who wrote back in the 40’s and
50’s and had some really fascinating interesting things to say about
chronology. In his view the 18th dynasty came late so much later
that Hatshepsut would be at the time of Solomon. He believed that Hatshepsut
was the Queen of Sheba. He argues what seems to be a very convincing date.
One of the things to note about Velikovsky’s approach
was he basically was thinking that because in Egyptian chronology, instead of
seeing the dynasties all one after another, certain dynasties overlap or were
simultaneous. You have a Northern Kingdom in the delta and a Southern Kingdom
further up the Nile where you had two dynasties at the same time such as the 21st
and 22nd dynasty overlapping. Instead of the 22nd dynasty
following the 21st dynasty, they ruled that the same time. If you
had a number of situations like that, then you would actually have a situation
where traditional or conventional Egyptology would have as much as 500 years
too many in their chronology. So you take 500 years out of that conventional
chronology. You would end up putting a scenario similar to the one I have up on
the screen.
Part of the problem I have with that approach was
– and that was revised by a man named David Rohl in a book that came out
in the 90’s called Pharaoh’s and Kings.
The Discovery Channel had a great little series on it. There were two or three
others who came out of a Velikovsky study group in the 70’s – is that they
realized that the 500 years of Velikovsky was just too much. There were 2 or 3
others that came up with alternate schemes; but they would say there were
around to a 200 to 350 years that were added to Egyptian chronology that needed
to be taken out. Part of the problem with that is that if what happens at the
Exodus occurs as Scripture says, then you have the complete destruction of the
Egyptian army. You have a complete destruction of their complete infrastructure
that wipes out their families, wipes out their herds. There is just economic,
social, political, and military devastation that they don't recover from for
300 or 400 years. So if this is the scenario, then you have Ahmose and
Hatshepsut and Thutmose coming on the scene with a tremendous amount of Egyptian
power way to soon. They would be coming in during the time of the period of the
judges and it’s not until late in the period (and not really until you get to
the time of Solomon) that Egypt is mentioned again after the Exodus as a
significant power. Egypt isn’t mentioned at all during the period of the
conquest or during the period of the judges. That would indicate they were
wiped out.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are
problems with history and archaeology as it is put together conventionally.
That is because of a number of factors that influence secular archaeologists
and historians in much the same way that these same presuppositions affect
evolutionists and others who deny the accuracy and literal value of the
Scripture. They start with the evidence of archaeology and they start with the
evidence in the rocks. They try then to make the Bible fit what they think they
have found historically rather than starting with the Scripture as the absolute
pattern and then working from an absolute standard to the data.
It's the same problem that you have basically with the
charismatic Pentecostal movement: that instead of evaluating the experience by
the Bible, you're evaluating the Bible by your experience; except in this case
it’s your experience with the rocks and the remains that are found
archeologically. If you look at data from archaeology, it would appear that the
Noahic flood could not have occurred any later than about 4,000 to 5,000 BC
because of the way they date various levels of civilization that they found in
the Middle East and in other places.
When I was in seminary I remember sitting down having
a lengthy discussion about this with Al Ross who at the time was the chairman
of the Old Testament Department at Dallas. Al was one of those brains that they
often produced at Dallas. He had his doctorate from Dallas and his second doctorate
from Cambridge. He had written his doctoral dissertation at Dallas on the Table
of Nations in Genesis 11. That was his specialty: all of the genealogies and
everything.
I had raised the question: are there gaps in the
genealogies in either Genesis 5 or Genesis 11?
He said, “Well, on the basis of exegesis there can’t
be gaps. It's a locked genealogy.”
Whenever you have numbers that so-and-so lived 130
years and begat so-and-so; then their son lives 85 years and begets the next
generation; those numbers lock down. Even if you're skipping a generation
between father and son (It’s really father and grandson) it still has to occur
within those numbers, within a 130 years or 80 years. So there can’t be gaps
there.And if there are no gaps in genealogies, then you end up with a creation
date of the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 somewhere around 4,000 to 5,000 BC
just as Usher developed it back in the 17th century.
Usher was one of the most brilliantly educated men of
his day. His name is dragged through the mud today by many people, who reject
the young earth view, or reject a biblical view of recent civilization, or worldwide
flood around 2500 BC; but he took the numbers in a literal fashion. All of this
is just to say that when you read - and it's important to read things just to
be aware of the discussions that are going on and that even among conservative
biblicists who try to take the numbers accurately, there are things we just
don't know. There's more that we don't know that we can be sure of.
There are articles that are written by the Associates
of Biblical Research. This is a group that produces a journal called Bible and Spade.
Here is the website page. This is an article by
Douglas Petrovich. I’m not familiar with who he is on Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh, this is
just one of the articles. He argues for Amenhotep II as being the pharaoh of
the Exodus, and he also believes he was not killed in the Exodus event, whereas
one of the other articles here by Bryant Wood on recent research on the date
the Exodus argues that he was killed. That shows the difference.
These guys are very conservative and they produce
really great articles about a lot of different things. You should be familiar
with it and bookmark it on the Internet and go look at some other articles. I
have mine set up with RSS feed so I get the things they post every week and can
keep up with things. This is a good article dealing with the different issues
related to the date and the setting of the Exodus; whether it is a late date
which is a liberal view with Ramses or whether it is an early date, some of the
different things that are there. But both of them will argue for a conventional
(pretty much a conventional) Egyptian chronology.
Now what's interesting if you read through this
article that one of the things that he points out is that later on in history
the pharaohs in the Old Testament are named. You have Pharaoh Neco and a couple
of other pharaohs that are given names. But in the Exodus account, there's no
mention of the name of pharaoh.
He’s just called the king of Egypt or the pharaoh. What he argues is
that in the literature of the 18th dynasty in the time period of
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, whenever they wrote their war stories (whenever
they have gone out and conquered the enemy), they never identified the kings.
That was how they wrote. That was their style at that time in history. It was
to simply refer to their enemies as the king of so-and-so without identifying
them by name. But on several hundred years later (300 or 400 years later) that
was not the case.
And so the fact that Exodus is written in such a way
that the pharaoh was never identified (no one’s name is given) fits the time
period of this midpoint in the 18th dynasty. It is things like that
that archaeologists have to struggle with as they try to figure out who the
pharaoh of the Exodus was.
One other article that I want to make a comment on -
because this comes up every year at least once if not 5 or 6 times - and this
is the view that there's a crossing that has been found down across the Gulf of
Aqaba where there's land bridge (a shallow area with a land bridge) going from
the Sinai Peninsula across to Saudi Arabia and that there've been a number of
things found over in Saudi Arabia that indicate that this is where Mount Sinai
was and this is really where God gave the law to the Israelites and where they
crossed the Red Sea wasn't on the western fork but the eastern fork port of the
Red Sea which is the Gulf of Aqaba.
Gordon Franz actually got his undergraduate training
and is close friends with Dr. Steve Austin who's going to be our evening
speaker at the Chafer Conference in a couple of weeks. They have known each
other for 20 or 30 years. Gordon has written a number of articles that I've
read over the years and I have always appreciated. He's an excellent scholar
and archaeologist. Last year he was heading up the project in Jerusalem where
they were sifting the remains of all the rubble that had been torn up and taken
to a dump by the Arabs when they were excavating (building out) this
underground mosque up on the Temple Mount. We had hoped to volunteer and go and
spend part of a day helping to sift through the rubble looking for remains and
it happened that the day that we had available was a Shabbat so his team was
off on that day. So they weren’t working.
But this is a very good article and you've probably
seen this e-mail come across. I see it like I said anywhere from 1 to 5 times a
year where you have these pictures of chariot wheels and maps and everything. It
describes the fact that they actually found these remains and they haven't. It
goes back to a Seventh Day Adventist adventurer by the name of Ron Wyatt, who
has been discredited by the Seventh Day Adventists and he has been discredited
by every legitimate archaeologist. He claims to have found the Ark up in a
certain area of northern Iraq. He has made a number of these other claims. He
claimed to know where the Ark of the Covenant is, and all these things. But of
course nobody has ever seen the real evidence for that.
Then there were a couple of others that came along
including Bob Cornuke, someone else who's name I can’t remember. But this stuff
gets recycled every couple of years and I always have to go back. I keep a
bookmark of this particular article and then I started e-mailing it to
everybody. Don’t listen to this.
Don’t pay attention to it. Read the article. This isn't good
archaeology. So this is a good article to have and to read to see some of the
issues that are involved in this.
Now when we get into Hebrews 11, there are 5 events
that are emphasized by the writer of Hebrews in Moses’ life. As he is
illustrating his thesis, it is by faith, by trusting in the propositional
revelation of God where God has made a promise (a specific statement) that the
patriarchs (the Old Testament believers) hung in there. They were steadfast.
They endured. They did not grow weary and fall out (fall by the wayside.) They
were not tragedies on the spiritual road to honoring God. There were times in
all their lives, sometimes many times, when they were failures; but at key
points they trusted in God.
The two people that are emphasized the most in this chapter
are Abraham and Moses. The interesting thing if you read through the original
in the Greek is that the writer gets a little more excited as he is developing
Moses. The sentences become shorter. His clauses become a little terser. You
can tell that he is building to a crescendo in his argument, in the evidence
that he gives. If you look ahead a little bit by the time he gets down to verse
32 he runs through Gideon, Barak, Sampson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the
prophets all in one verse. He is speeding up as he is dealing with his
particular subject.
But before he gets to where he just throws out a list
of names, he’s going to go through these 5 events in the life of Moses. The
first doesn't have anything to do with Moses’ faith, it has to do with his
parents’ faith. The second, third, fourth, and fifth have to do with Moses’
obedience to God and his trust in God.
I was thinking this week as I was re-reading the first
half of Exodus again when God told Moses when He had appeared to Moses in
Midian in the burning bush and was commissioning Moses to be the deliverer for
the Israelites in Egypt and He told Moses that he would perform various
miracles. He told him to throw his staff down on the ground. He threw his staff
down on the ground and the staff turned into a poisonous cobra or viper of some
kind. Then he told Moses reach down and grab it by its tail. That didn't make
Hebrews 11. That would have been the first thing that I would put there –
by faith Moses grabbed a serpent by the tail. That's the last thing I ever want
to do is to touch a snake. That is not something that I think would be an easy
thing to do. Parting the Red Sea – sure! Challenging pharaoh, waiting on the 10 plagues, okay. But
reaching out and picking that serpent, that would really stretch my faith. That’s
where my test would be.
So we begin in Hebrews 11:23 with the birth of Moses.
NKJ Hebrews
11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born,
was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's command.
Now this is basically just picking up phrases and
descriptions about Moses from either Exodus 2 or Acts 7 in describing Moses’
birth.
A couple things that we ought to note in terms of
translation is the phrase “when he was born” is a translation of the aorist
passive participle of genethes which
without the article indicates that it’s some sort of adverbial participle. But
as an aorist participle it would precede the action of the main verb. And, it’s
translated correctly as a temporal participle. But they didn't hide him when he
was born; they hid him after he was born. This is such an elementary issue and
many translations do that: “when he was born they hid him.” No, they hid him
after he was born. This is basic Greek translation 101. First you are born;
then you are hidden. It just makes common sense. Sometimes the obvious gets
lost because traditionally something was always translated a certain way.
“So by faith Moses, after he was born was hidden three
months by his parents.”
It is his parents’ faith. It is their act of hiding
him that is the act of faith, and their trust in God. Now we have seen in our
study of Scripture again and again and again is that the Bible never talks
about just some sort of stand alone, autonomous, no strings attached faith that
is just faith in faith.
Often you have people who make comments. They see a
friend or co-worker going through difficult times and they’ll say, “Just
believe!”
Just believe what? Is it just faith that makes you
strong or is it faith in something? What does faith apprehend? Faith always has
an object. You always believe something; and it’s what you believe that has
significance. It’s not just the act of faith.
What is it that the parents of Moses are believing?
We're not told. It doesn't say what it is that they are believing. But Josephus
in his Antiquities relates that it
was the common Jewish understanding that God had given a vision to Moses father
Amram related to Moses being the deliverer of the Israelites from their
Egyptian bondage. This is also seen in a number of other rabbinical
commentaries.
Now all we have in the Scripture are basically two
references to the birth of Moses.
The first is in Exodus 2:1-2.
NKJ Exodus 2:1 And a man of the house of Levi went and took as wife a daughter of Levi.
NKJ Exodus 2:2 So the woman conceived and bore a son. And when she
saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months.
Now this is then alluded to by Stephen in Acts 7:20
where he says that at this time Moses was born and he was well-pleasing to God.
He is interpreting the word that is translated in the Greek Septuagint back
here as a beautiful child. He translates that in terms of beauty in
relationship to God. The Greek word that is used in the Septuagint translation
is the same word that Stephen uses in Acts 7:20 and that is the word asteios. This was a word that has a rich
history in Greek language. It originally had the idea in classical Greek of
referring to someone who was polite, well bred, and who lived in a city as opposed
to a country bumpkin. That was it an original meaning, but then it came to be
applied to anyone who was attractive in terms of their physical appearance,
someone who can rapport themselves well. The focus was on the physical
attractiveness, and in the Greek world that had to do with physical proportions
and things of that nature. But Stephen is using the term in Acts 7 in a
character sense. At the time Moses was born, he was well pleasing to God,
indicating that God had a plan and a purpose for Moses.
I believe that because of all the patterns that we see
in Scripture even though there isn't a specific reference to a special
revelation to Amram about this son, it would seem that that would have taken
place. Every other instance of faith in Hebrews 11 is related to faith in a
specific revelation and a specific promise of God. It's just that in this case
that has not been given to us in terms of the specific.
NKJ Hebrews
11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born,
was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king's
command.
Now this is important to understand because the
connection between faith and fear is crucial. When you have faith, fear doesn't
operate. When you have fear, faith is not operational. Faith and fear are
mutually exclusive because faith is focusing on the provision of God;
ultimately the provision of a loving God who has graciously given us everything
we need as 2 Peter says.
NKJ 2 Peter 1:3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through
the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,
That is a term related to the spiritual life. God has
given everything to us out of love. That's why 1 John says perfect love casts
out fear because we understand the love of God and what He has provided for us
in His grace and that we can rely upon that by means of faith, trusting in
God’s provision. That means that we are not afraid. We can even pick up poisonous
serpents by their tail … but only when I have special revelation from God! No
other circumstances will work out.
I remember when I was a kid at Berachah. Back in those
days when we had a youth group. Bob had come to know – I think his name
was John Worley who's the director of the Houston Zoo pretty well. They had a
survival night one night. So they had a thing for all of the teenagers. I was
about 15 at the time. All the 14, 15, 16 year old guys were down front. Worley
had brought a bunch of different animals from the zoo. He was giving
demonstrations and there was this burlap sack down there that was making all
kinds of movements. He reached over and picked it up and dumped it out. Three
or four rattlesnakes came out and of course he had them under complete control.
But there was a whole group of boys that were right there on that front row
leaning over that front barricade there who in just one movement sort of
elevated back about 3 rows as soon as they saw those snakes. That was a typical
of my approach to snakes.
Bruce Cooper's brother Bobby, when we were growing up
at Camp Peniel, was the first camper to always find a snake. Always, by the
second day of camp he always had a black racer or a silver racer wrapped around
him. I never could understand. There’s something wrong with that kind of
mentality!
The second event in Moses’ life that does relate to
his volition and to his faith is then spelled out in the next 3 verses. This
relates to his decision not to be identified any longer with the pharaoh’s
daughter, not to be identified with the aristocracy of pharaoh, not to be identified
with anything Egyptian, but to be identified as an Israelite.
It is interesting to see how the writer of Hebrews
interprets this in light of what the event that is alluded to here, back in
Exodus 3. So we'll have to go back there to look in just a minute.
In Hebrews 11:24 we read:
NKJ Hebrews
11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of
age,
That's the New King James translation.
refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter,
NKJ Hebrews
11:25 choosing rather to suffer affliction
with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,
NKJ Hebrews
11:26 esteeming the reproach of Christ
greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
I remember the first time I've heard this passage
taught. I think I was in college. This is one of those passages that just ought
to hit every one of us right between the eyes. This is a tremendous statement
here in terms of Moses maturity and his understanding of the truth of God's
Word and His commitment to that truth. That's really what positive volition is.
It is more than just a casual interest or curiosity in the study of the Bible.
It is a recognition that the Bible is absolute truth. And if it is absolute
truth, then nothing else matters and I need to be completely committed to what
the Scripture says.
Now we’re all going to fail at times. I can't think of
anyone who is probably more committed to the veracity of the Word of God and
the faithfulness of God than David and David certainly messed up many times and
significant and a majestic ways we might say. But he never lost his commitment
to God. That's why God says he was a man after God's own heart. David was
totally (completely focused) in his soul on serving God. That didn’t mean he
was sinless. That didn’t mean that
he didn’t make serious mistakes; but when you boiled it all down, that was
David’s focus.
Moses came to this point where he had everything. He
had education. He position. He had power. He had respect. He had anything and
everything that anyone in the world at that time could possibly have. He
couldn't look anywhere in the world for someplace to give him more respect,
more prestige, more money, more pleasure. He had all of that and then he looked
out on the Israelites, on his relations, on his ethnic cousins who were slaves
in Egypt. He was so committed to the truth of God's Word and the reality of
that as a living truth that he would rather be associated and identified with
that no matter what it cost him than to take time to enjoy the transient or
temporary pleasures of sin as verse 25 points out. That means that he has a
tremendous understanding of God's Word, a focus and a strength of will and
mental attitude that few people ever really have. That's why Moses was the
great leader that he was.
Just a couple points in terms of the translation and
exegesis of the passage, that verse begins with the same kind of construction
that you have in verse 24.
NKJ Hebrews
11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of
age,
Actually it's the same kind of construction - should
be translated “after he became of age” or “after he became an adult.” Literally
it says, “after becoming great.” That is just an idiom for after becoming mature
or after becoming an adult; reaching a certain stage that he made a choice.
After he became an adult (after he became mature)
refused
… the New King James says.
to be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter,
The word there is the word arneomai. I learned something when I was studying that today. One
of the sources I went to is that this is the antonym for homologeo. This is the opposite of homololego. Homologeo means to admit or acknowledge something to be
true. Arneomai is to deny that something
is true. It is to reject it or to renounce it. The best idea here is that he
renounces everything that had come to him by virtue of being raised by
pharaoh’s daughter. He just gives it all. The way the text presents this in Hebrews
emphasizes his volition. Let’s just stop and hold our place in the text here
and go to Exodus 3.
While you're doing that, I want to look at one other
word that’s used here and that's the next word, which is translated choosing in
verse 25. This is another participle and it’s the word eireo. When I saw this, I saw it was a rather odd word. It means to
lift up or to take up. But it's in the middle voice which in Greek means to
make a choice, to make a decision, to elect, to take a particular course of
action. So the emphasis here is on Moses making an active decision. Then when
we get down to verse 26, which in the New King James is translated “esteeming”.
I’ve translated it down here. This is sort of a corrected or enhanced the
translation. I translated it “because he thought” because this is the word hegeomai which is the word for thinking.
It’s for reasoning. It’s for thinking through to a conclusion.
It’s a very rational word. He's not reacting
emotionally. He's not jumping into something. He’s not emotionally identifying
with his people. He hasn't done a genealogical search and suddenly discovered
what his roots are and now he is going to go live with the people that he
belongs to. It’s not this kind of emotional thing at all. It is a thought
through, reasoned choice that he makes.
Now when you read most commentaries and they try to
identify this with what happens in Exodus 3. So keep your place there in
Hebrews so you don't get lost and let's go back to Exodus 3. Actually, it’s
half way into chapter 2.
NKJ Exodus 2:11 Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was
grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens. And he saw
an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.
Now in the Septuagint, the language there, when Moses
was grown is the same language that we have over there in Hebrews 11 when he
became great. So that is what’s borrowed into the text there. This one reason
why people go to this point.
when Moses was grown,
We know from other information that he was 40 years
old when this takes place. Moses lived 120 years and his life is broken into 3
equal periods of 40 years, 40 years and 40 years. The first 40 years he’s a
Prince of Egypt; the second 40 years he is in Midian as a shepherd out in the
boonies; then last 40 years he is leading the Israelites through the
boonies.
NKJ Exodus 2:11 Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was
grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens.
This is indicating not a single event but a
recognition (an identification) of their suffering, and the injustice that they
are undergoing. This probably summarizes a process that took place as he's
coming to recognition of his own identity and who he is the plan of God.
And he saw an Egyptian beating a
Hebrew, one of his brethren.
NKJ Exodus 2:12 So he looked this way and that way,
He wanted to make sure nobody was looking.
and when he saw no one, he killed
the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
By the fact that he's hiding him in the sand (burying
the body) indicates that he recognized (in fact he looked both ways to make
sure nobody was looking) indicates that he knows that he knows what he was
doing was wrong. But this act is not the act of the choice that’s referred to
in Hebrews 11.
Hebrews 11 indicates that he makes a clear thoughtful
analysis of his circumstances and now he's going to identify himself with his
brethren. This is more of a rash emotional sinful reaction to an injustice. They're
not the same event although what surprised me was how many commentaries I
looked at were trying to identify this event with his decision. I think he's already made the decision
to identify himself with the Israelite's and then he recognizes the destiny
that God has for him as the deliverer; but he doesn't have enough doctrine and
humility yet to recognize that he needs to do it in the power of God. So he's
going to do it in his own power. That is why he is starting with this one
Egyptian that is beating an Israelite.
In verse 13 he comes back. The second day two Hebrew
mean are fighting.
NKJ Exodus 2:13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two
Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the one who did the wrong, "Why
are you striking your companion?"
The other Hebrew said:
NKJ Exodus 2:14 Then he said, "Who made you a prince and a judge
over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" So Moses
feared and said, "Surely this thing is known!"
So it became known. There apparently were witnesses. Some
one saw him trying to hide the evidence.
NKJ Exodus 2:15 When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he sought to kill
Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh and dwelt in the land of Midian;
and he sat down by a well.
Now if you read through those 5 verses, it looks as if
Moses’ decision to leave is not a rational thought out decision; but he is
simply escaping for his life as a result of a sinful choice and an emotional
reaction and his attempt to carry out his role as a deliverer on his own.
There are two different issues. One is he comes to
this decision on his own to fulfill his role. The second is he gets out of
fellowship and tries to do it on his own.
The result is that he has to depart with a posse right behind him.
So he heads to Midian, which is located somewhere in
the southern area south of the land of Canaan. The Midianites were somewhat
migratory; and so they're in the northern areas over into the Saudi Arabian
peninsula. So this is why some people thought that Sinai was over in Saudi
Arabia. Actually it is more in the in the Sinai Peninsula. It’s probably
located not the very tip. I don’t have a map – maybe I do have a map down
here at the end to put up here so you can see what I'm talking about. Here is
the map here showing the Sinai Peninsula which is located right here. It’s this
triangle with a point down at the bottom. These two bodies of water that go up
on the eastside westside and then the east side are both part of the Red Sea. The
leg on the right side is a Gulf of Aqaba. This is the area in here, which is
where the Midianites, who were nomadic at the time lived. The traditional site
for Mount Sinai is down here the very tip of the Sinai Peninsula; but I don't
know of a single biblically committed archaeologist who thinks that that's
where the real Mount Sinai was located.
Most of them will choose one or two various sites up in the center part
of the Sinai Peninsula primarily because of the distances that are given for
the Israelites to travel from Sinai to Kadesh Barnea. Kadesh Barnea would be
located roughly in this area.
This is the trouble with the one major problems with
the view that the Sinai is located over here in the Saudi Peninsula is that it
would take them too long to travel up to Kadesh Barnea. Even from the southern
tip of the Sinai, it's too far for them to travel in the length of time that
the Bible gives in order for them to make it to Kadesh Barnea. The site for
Sinai was somewhere in the center of the Sinai Peninsula which would place
Midian up in this area. Moses is going to lead from this area in Lower Egypt,
head across the Sinai to the area of Midian.
Back to verses 24, 25 and 26. If we clean up the
translation just a little bit, these verses are all one sentence in the
original would read:
By faith Moses renounced.
That’s your main idea.
By faith Moses renounced his position as being
identified as the son of pharaoh’s daughter.
That's the main thought. He is renouncing everything. Everything
else that’s in here is secondary. He does it by:
NKJ Hebrews
11:25 choosing rather to suffer affliction
with the people of God
He would rather be identified with God than anything
else.
than to enjoy the passing pleasures
…or, the transients pleasures.
of sin,
That's what's sin is. We think that we're going to get
a lot of pleasure from it. But it's just instant gratification whether it is
some sort of emotional release of anger or whether it is some other sin of the
tongue such as, “Oh well, I just want to gossip about that person” or say this
or say that and enter into a sin of the tongue or whether it is some other
physical sin. We think that it is going to give us immediate pleasure. And it
does! That’s the thing. Sin is really fun; but it's only fun for a short time.
I remember when I was in high school. I went on a ski
trip with Camp Peniel and had a counselor who was a few years older than I; and
he was giving a night-time devotion in the cabin and he was making some
comment.
“Sin is just not fun at all.”
I said, “Yes it is! Sin is a lot of fun. It's fun for
a short time.”
We got in a real argument, which went on for the 3 or
4 days we were on the ski trip. Five years later he left his wife for a younger
woman. I've always wanted to ask him if sin was fun.
There is a pleasure there. The Scripture says so. But
it is a transient pleasure. It is temporary. It is only for the moment.
The issue is thinking.
NKJ Hebrews
11:26 esteeming the reproach of Christ
greater riches than the treasures in Egypt;
Isn't that interesting how the writer of Hebrews says
this? The reproach of Christ – Christos
is the translation of the Hebrew word Meshiach
meaning the anointed one. So this indicates that Moses had a clear
understanding of His role in terms of the promised Deliverer (the ultimate
Deliverer) of Israel. He was the temporal deliverer during the time of the
Exodus; but he understood something about a future Deliverer that would come. He
thought that the reproach of Christ to be greater riches than the treasure of
Egypt. That was greater treasure than just about anybody we could think of
except perhaps Bill Gates or Howard Hughes or somebody in that category. He
focuses not on the temporal pleasure; but he focuses on the future reward.
for he looked to the reward.
That's an explanation there in the Greek. It's not a
cause. It’s not because he looked to the reward although it is close to that
idea. But it’s explanation. How could he do this? Because he's focused on the
reward. It’s that personal sense of our eternal destiny. It's understanding
that we are putting off today gratification for today that may be tremendous in
light of what we believe God has promised us in His Word that will take place
in the Millennial Kingdom after this life is over with. So for him the promise
of God is more real. The rewards related to his future destiny (a spiritual destiny
in terms of God's plan) were more real to him than all of the tangible items
that surrounded him in Egypt and in the court of pharaoh. No one had more power
more at that time than the pharaoh did. The pharaoh was the incarnation of god
in Egyptian culture. Whatever the pharaoh wanted, the pharaoh got. Moses as a
prince of Egypt would have had access to anything that he wanted to satisfy any
lust of his sin nature. Yet all of that is set aside because the reward was
more real to him than that immediate gratification. That is a real sign of
maturity.
I remember someone saying one time that the real sign
of maturity (you can teach this to any adolescents in your sphere of influence)
is the ability to postpone gratification. We live in a world today that
basically preaches that we need to have immediate gratification of whatever we
want rather than learning self-discipline and learning to postpone that.
Moses, because of his understanding of the plan of God,
refuses to be identified as Egyptian royalty, identifies with the slaves and then
he is going to leave Egypt. This is the next verse and we’ll come back and
start their next time in verse 27.
NKJ Hebrews
11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not
fearing the wrath of the king;
That just sounds so majestic to forsake something.
Basically it means he left. He put Memphis in his rear view mirror and he
headed Midian. We'll pick up with that next time because we come to that second
half which is a tremendous statement.
for he endured as seeing Him who is
invisible.
The word there is an unusual word in Greek. It’s not
the word that we normally see for endurance; but it has to do with strength,
for he was strong. He was unshakable because he saw the one who can’t be seen.
Think about that. That's that personal sense of eternal destiny. He saw the one
who can’t be seen.
Let’s bow our heads and close our eyes.