Question:
In Exodus 33 God refused Moses the sight of his face, but presented his back parts. Is this referring to God personally or to angelic manifestation?
Answer:
If we believe that God graced the scene by His person, and hid Moses temporarily in the cleft rock until He was sufficiently removed for Moses to safely behold God’s vanishing back, we are at once faced with the difficulty to explain why the Scriptures carefully assert that no man bath seen God at any time (John 1:18). Further, that He cannot be seen because He dwells in light unapproachable appears to be the plain message of 1 Timothy 6:16. If God is thus surrounded by light unapproachable, bow can it be maintained that one must see God’s face in order to really see God? That God is the source, of this effulgent brilliance is demanded by His unrivalled supremacy. How could this light radiate from any fountain other than Himself? God is the power-house of the universe.
On the other hand, to maintain that Moses’ request was fulfilled by an angel, poses another difficulty. In Exodus 19:20-21 Moses was previously in the presence of the LORD (Yahweh) by means of angelic manifestation. He then witnessed the magnificent display of divine power in fire, smoke and earthquake. The people were held back lest they break through to the LORD to gaze, and as a result, perish. The problem is that, seeing angelic manifestation can cause such destruction, must not the display of glory requested by Moses be something even greater? Also in Exodus 33:11 the LORD (Yahweh) had already spoken with Moses face to face per angelic ‘manifestation, so that, does not verse 20 require a greater and grander demonstration than that already experienced in conversation with the angel? We have problems both ways. How do we solve them?
The answer appears to me to be found by a re-examination of the words of the request. Moses asked to behold God’s glory, and was addressed to the angel, or better, to God through the angel that bore the name Yahweh. God had previously declared, ‘My name is in him’ (Exodus 23:21). Was the glory to be seen then, something beyond that which an angel can produce of his own volition, which, in this instance, Moses was seeking to be switched on, not just from the source of all power, but by the source of all power, and therefore producing a degree of brilliance and light hitherto not witnessed? This seems probable, especially when aligned with God’s reply ‘Thou canst not see my face, for no man can see me and live’ (verse 20).
To see God was to behold His face. This is better seen, not as a description of His literal form, but as the. very source of His power. In like manner, to view His back was not equivalent to saying that God about-turned. The Hebrew term ‘Akhorey’ is derived from ‘Akhar’ described by Gesenius as meaning ‘to be after or behind; what is behind, hinder part, extremity’. This authority uses the ram caught in the thicket to mean a distant thicket, and that the word ‘Akhar’ meant the extremity of the thicket and not its direction in relation to Abraham. Apply this to God’s back parts and we have a reasonable answer.
Question:
In Hebrews 1:10 Jesus laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands. How is this possible if he did not literally pre-exist?
Answer:
The answer does not depend upon whether or not Jesus pre-existed, but upon what constitutes the heavens and the earth. Whereas the literal are destined to abide for ever (Ecc. 1:4; Psa. 104:5, Psa. 148:3-6; Isa. 45:18), those referred to here perish upon waxing old like a garment that has been changed. This appears to suggest a sudden change, then a waxing old period before final disintegration and destruction.
If the simile is understood, it precludes the possibility of the heavens and earth being the kingdom of God, which is never destroyed (Dan. 2:44). The following suggestion is also in line with the general theme of the Book of Hebrews, which elevates Christ above the temporary Levitical cosmos that was then waxing old, being ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13). Consistently, the garments in the simile had already been changed and the metaphorical new heavens and earth were newly traceable. A great High Priest had ascended the heavens and his realm transcended the crumbling inefficient system dominated by a corrupt priesthood. It fully replaced it when Jerusalem was destroyed and the seat of local administration in the temple that dominated Israel could no longer function as a heaven over an earth.
Did the Lord Jesus, then, lay the foundation of that system? Undoubtedly. Without the-fundamental element of Christ’s sacrifice in the Law, both priest and offering would be meaningless. The people would be ruled by a priestly order with empty sacrifices and no prospect of redemption in view. When did Jesus then, lay this foundation? The answer could only be in his death, which gave substance to the Law and the prophets.
We notice also the context of the setting of the same verse in Psalm 102 anticipates the death of Jesus who there honours the Father with laying the foundation of the earth, etc. The same foundation the Lord laid, for in Hebrews the Father credits His Son with this as part of a sequel to his victory over evil. Consistently the term ‘of old’ is changed in Hebrews to ‘in the beginning’ with no definite reference to a particular beginning. The term `of old’ in Psalm 102:25 is rendered from the Hebrew term Phanah’ which means to turn and does not direct the mind to antiquity, but to a point upon which time turns.
It is not hard to find a point upon which a whole dispensation revolved in the giving of the Law and the establishment of the Levitical heavens and earth. Neither is it hard to see that all spokes of the wheel in the plan of God centre in the death and resurrection of our Lord. That two dispensations revolve around the same event appears to have been placed in the text by design.
Question:
Who was Melchizedek?
Answer:
Scripturally, Priest of the Most High God, and King of Salem or peace (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1). To positively identify him with another Biblical character is presumption. How do we know that Melchizedek was not his personal name? Many other people have had names just as full of meaning and descriptive of the functions they fulfilled.
However, we are made a little lower than the angels and as they speculated or desired to look into the development of the gospel, many of us seek excuse to look into some of the hidden mysteries much more imperfectly than would the angels. Shem satisfies the requirements of some minds, having lived long enough to be contemporary with Abraham, if the chronologies are consecutively recorded. Others, perhaps fewer, prefer a more daring explanation such as Enoch, whose sudden re- appearance amongst men after his translation before the Flood would cause many to wonder at the absence of any known genealogy, let alone his origin.
I must admit that the latter has often satisfied my curiosity more than the former, but I have to be satisfied with Scriptural silence and learn that the complete absence of reference to any forbears or predecessors more befits him as a type of the priesthood of Christ whose office is linked to no man before him, and whose origin is of the Spirit.
Question:
When God said to Moses that lie ws the Lord God of his fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; was this a prophecy of the multitudinous manifestation of God in the age to come?
Answer:
No. It is the declaration of the identity of the true God as distinct from the gods of the surrounding nations, especially Egypt. The context of Exodus 3:6 and 15 reveals that Moses sought identification of the One who was sending him to deliver Israel. However, the acceptance of the truth that God designed to manifest Himself in a multitude of kindred spirits with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is not the point of the discourse, but may be detected in the terminology used. Any inbuilt pliability in this direction should not obscure the essential intention to reveal a singular God in contrast to a pantheon of a polytheistic world.
It has been suggested that the Hebrew terms apply to God’s intention to manifest Himself multitudinously, being capable of the following translation, “I will be the mighty ones of Abraham, the mighty ones of Isaac and the. mighty ones of Jacob”. This is undoubtedly a Scriptural truth, but the Writer believes that the emphasis in this context does not lie in that direction.
Deut. 6:4 can be translated similarly, “Hear O Israel, He who will be our mighty ones is one who will be”. Nevertheless the stress is not upon the subject of God-manifestation, but on the one who will be manifested. See how Jesus views it: Mark 12:26-32 shows that Jesus gave both quotations a singular. Sense throughout. Therefore, when we are tempted to display our borrowed knowledge of Hebrew terms, we should remember that the Word made flesh applied them quite simply to the unrivalled and unchallengeable majesty of a single creator, hit Cod and Pathor.
Yet lie was able to say in a greater appreciation of God-manifestation than we will ever comprehend, “I have manifested thy name unto the men thou gayest me” (John 17:6). Let us preserve the simplicity of Christ and the beauty of his character, manifesting him even as he did his Father.
The Solution