With God Daily View RSS

The One Who Carries Away Our Sins 16 Apr 11:00 PM (10 hours ago)

Click Here for Audio

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest selected two goats as an offering. The first goat was “for YHWH.” It was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled to cleanse the Tabernacle from the sins of the people. This goat did not represent sin. Instead, it represented purity and innocence. That is why it was offered to God and its blood could wash away the stain of sin.

Understanding the meaning of the second goat offered on the Day of Atonement presents more challenges. After the first goat was offered “for YHWH,” the high priest was to offer the second goat “for azazel.” How to translate the Hebrew word azazel has been debated for millennia. Early Greek translations of Leviticus interpreted azazel to mean “the sent away one.” Eventually, this was revised and condensed into our English word “scapegoat.” That’s why many English Bibles refer to this second goat as the scapegoat. But there are real problems with this translation.

In Leviticus 16:8, when the two goats are selected, it says one goat is “for YHWH and the other for azazel.” The sentence isn’t saying what the two goats are, but who they are for. This is why many ancient and some modern translations identify Azazel as a proper name. The Hebrew suffex –el means “god,” and is still very common in proper names. (For example, the name Daniel is a compound of the Hebrew words dan, meaning “judge,” and el, meaning “God.”) Some argue that Azazel is also a compound of two Hebrew words: az, meaning “rugged” or “strong,” and el, meaning “god” or “spirit.” This helps explain why the Book of Enoch identifies Azazel as a fallen angel, a demon connected to the wilderness and an enemy of God’s good order.

So, which translation is correct? Honestly, I’m not sure. The evidence is ambiguous, and good arguments can be offered by all sides. Here’s what is not ambiguous—the second goat was not offered to God. On this point, every theologian and Bible translator agrees. The animal that represented the sins of the people was not sacrificed to God, it was not killed by God, and it was not an offering to appease God. Instead, the high priest would lay his hands on the head of the goat and “confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head” (Leviticus 16:21). It then carried the sins of the people off into the wilderness where it was presumably killed by wild beasts or a demonic spirit—depending on your reading of azazel. Think of this second goat as a ritual garbage truck carrying toxic waste. That’s why it was not offered to God as a gift, but instead it was sent to azazel, to the place or person who is the antithesis of God. It was the Israelites’ way of saying, “Here, this trash belongs to you, so we’re giving it back.”

Why is this important? Because it has significant implications for how we understand Jesus’s death. Like the second goat on the Day of Atonement, the New Testament says that our sins were placed on Jesus, and he carried them on our behalf (see 1 Peter 2:24). As John the Baptist said when he saw Jesus, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29). The allusion to the goat on the Day of Atonement who took away the sins of the people is hard to miss. And just as that animal was sent into the wilderness to die, Jesus was crucified outside the city wall, and he was not murdered by God the Father but by the powers of darkness and their evil human accomplices.

To properly understand the meaning of Jesus’s sacrifice, we need to see it through the symbolism of both goats on the Day of Atonement. Jesus offered himself both to God as a pure sacrifice that cleanses us from our sins (the goat for YHWH), and he carried away our sins by offering himself to the evil powers of death, injustice, and chaos on our behalf (the goat for azazel). Failing to recognize this distinction, and collapsing the cross into a single dimension of meaning has led some to associate God with the unspeakable horrors of the cross as if he were the one actively torturing Jesus. While this message of a violent God who murders his own Son finds resonance in some Christian traditions, it does not conform to the character of God revealed in Scripture, it contradicts the unity of the Trinity seen in the New Testament, and it does not fit the foreshadowing of the cross revealed through the Day of Atonement.

The post The One Who Carries Away Our Sins first appeared on With God Daily.

What Can Wash Away My Sin? 15 Apr 11:00 PM (yesterday, 11:00 pm)

Click Here for Audio

This is Holy Week, and exploring how our study of the Temple can help us understand the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection makes sense. To do that, I want to look more closely at the Day of Atonement—an annual ritual of sacrifice at the Temple that the New Testament writers use repeatedly to explain the significance of Jesus’s sacrifice. We’ve already seen that the Temple and temple theology permeates the Torah—the first five books of the Old Testament. From the opening chapters of Genesis about the creation and the garden of Eden to the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus, and God’s presence leading his people to dwell with him in the promised land—the Torah is about temples from start to finish.

At the center of the Torah is the book of Leviticus, and at the very center of Leviticus is the chapter about the Day of Atonement. Scholars do not believe this is coincidental. The Day of Atonement captures the central problem the entire Torah and its temple theology are trying to address: How can the presence of a holy God dwell among a sinful people? Of course, this isn’t just the central question of the Torah. It’s the problem the Bible seeks to answer, which is fully and finally solved through Jesus Christ. Leviticus 16 offers us a framework for understanding how.

The Day of Atonement was the one day each year when the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place—the inner sanctuary of the Temple where God’s presence was enthroned atop the ark of the covenant. First, the high priest was required to purify himself by washing with water and offering an animal sacrifice for his sins. It’s worth noting that the high priest did not wear his lavish, ornate garments on the Day of Atonement. No jeweled breastplate, no colorful ephod, and no metal crown over his turban. Instead, he wore a simple linen tunic.

After this, the high priest selected two male goats. Although the two goats had very different functions in the ceremony, the language used in Leviticus 16 refers to them as a singular offering, and both of them illuminate the meaning of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross in different ways. Today we will look at the goat “for YHWH.” This animal was slaughtered by the high priest to be the “sin offering for the people.” Blood from this goat was taken by the high priest behind the curtain into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the cover of the ark. After this, the blood was sprinkled on the other parts of the Tabernacle as well. “In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been” (Leviticus 16:16).

It’s important to understand what the sprinkling of the blood means and what it does not mean. The Bible views the sin and rebellion of the people as a contaminate. It makes the space they inhabit unclean and therefore unfit for God’s presence to dwell among them. The blood of a blameless animal, however, represents life and purity. The blood acts as a decontaminant or a disinfectant. This first goat, which is given to God, does not represent the sins of the people. Instead, it cleanses the sins of the people so they may dwell with God.

This is what we often misunderstand about the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, as well as Jesus’s sacrifice in the New Testament. If the blood of a goat, bull, or lamb represented the peoples’ sins, it would be a contradiction to carry it into God’s presence in the Most Holy Place. The point was to erase sin from God’s presence, not dump more of it there. And if the sacrificed animal given to YHWH carried the peoples’ sins, why would they offer something so vile and unclean to him? The blood of sinless Jesus, like that of a flawless animal in Leviticus, does not carry our sins. It purifies our sins. As the old hymn says, “What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.” But this is only half the story. Tomorrow, we will look at the second goat from the Day of Atonement and discover another dimension to the cross.

The post What Can Wash Away My Sin? first appeared on With God Daily.

Another Temple Ends, Another People Exiled 14 Apr 11:00 PM (2 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

I’ve tried to show that Solomon’s construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which should have been recorded in Scripture as a triumphant event in the history of God’s people, is actually presented with deep ambivalence. While the king and the people celebrated, God was less impressed. He responded to Solomon’s project with concerns and warnings rather than praise and gratitude. When we read the rest of 1 and 2 Kings, we discover why.

First, a quick recap. The details about the design and construction of the Temple are recorded in 1 Kings 5-7. In chapter 8, the ark is brought into the new Temple, God’s presence fills the space, and Solomon dedicates the Temple with prayers and lavish celebrations. Then, in 1 Kings 9, the Lord warns Solomon to obey his commands and to not serve any other gods, otherwise, the people would be expelled from the land and the Temple reduced to rubble. While the early chapters of 1 Kings focus heavily on Solomon’s work of constructing the Temple, the rest of 1 and 2 Kings focus on the opposite. The remaining chapters detail the Temple’s slow deconstruction and ruin.

First, Egypt’s pharaoh attacked and looted the treasures in the Temple (1 Kings 14:25-26). Later, the king of Israel’s southern kingdom stripped the Temple of silver and gold to buy the allegiance of Syria (a pagan empire) in his war against Israel’s northern kingdom (1 Kings 15:18-19). Then, another king used the wealth in the Temple to pay the Assyrians to attack the Syrians (2 Kings 16:8-9). King Ahaz removed the bronze altar in the Temple courtyard dedicated to YHWH and replaced it with an altar to a foreign deity to appease the Assyrians. Later, when the Assyrians attacked Jerusalem, King Hezekiah, like his predecessors, stripped gold from the Temple to pay off the invaders (2 Kings 18:16). Throughout 1 and 2 Kings, the Temple of God is slowly stripped, plundered, and looted as one calamity after another befalls God’s people.

Why is Israel devastated by civil war, foreign invaders, and constant threats? Why did one king after another view the Temple as a treasury to be pillaged rather than as a sanctuary for worship? Because almost immediately after the Temple was completed and dedicated to YHWH, Solomon and the people turned away from him to worship other gods. Remember, God warned Solomon not to do this in 1 Kings 9, but by chapter 11, the king was already building temples and high places for other gods. He even erected a high place to the pagan god Molek “on a hill east of Jerusalem” within sight of the Temple. (New Testament readers know this location as the Mount of Olives.) Later, worship of Molek included child sacrifice in the Valley of Ben Hinnon next to the Temple wall (Jeremiah 7:30-31). And before the end of 2 Kings, idols of foreign gods are placed in the Temple itself (2 Kings 21:4-5). In this way, the steady looting and deterioration of the Temple throughout 1 and 2 Kings is symbolic of the descent of God’s people into depravity and evil.

Ironically, the extravagant, awe-inspiring Temple built by Solomon in the opening chapters of 1 Kings is rarely used as a place to honor and worship YHWH. Instead, throughout 1 and 2 Kings, the Temple functions as an avatar for the condition of God’s people and their covenant with him. As Israel’s leaders and people descend into deeper levels of idolatry, depravity, and evil, the Temple is slowly stripped of its beauty and glory. In this way, the deterioration of the Temple is symbolic of the degeneration of Israel itself. Until the end, when the Babylonians invade Jerusalem, God’s presence departs, the Temple is destroyed, and the people are expelled from the land (2 Kings 25). Just as the rebellion of Adam and Eve resulted in their exile from the first temple in Eden, God’s second attempt to establish his presence on earth also ended in the rebellion and exile of his people.

The post Another Temple Ends, Another People Exiled first appeared on With God Daily.

Don’t Claim God’s Promises & Ignore His Conditions 13 Apr 11:00 PM (3 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

After Solomon inaugurated the new Temple in a series of seven-day celebrations, (remember, the seven-day temple inaugurations were the norm throughout the ancient Near East and the basis for the seven-day creation story in Genesis), God appeared to Solomon with a message: “I have heard the prayer and plea you have made before me; I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there” (1 Kings 9:3).

With this declaration, God appears to fulfill the desire that David, Solomon’s father, had expressed decades earlier. For over 400 years, the presence of God abided in a tent with no permanent location, but David wanted to change that. After ascending to the throne of Israel, defeating his enemies, and conquering Jerusalem, David wanted to relocate the ark of God to be with him in his new capital and build a house for YHWH there next to his own palace. The idea wasn’t simply to honor God with a spectacular temple but to demonstrate the legitimacy and permanence of David’s reign and dynasty.

By replacing the mobile Tabernacle with a fixed Temple, David would be saying to the other tribes of Israel, “YHWH’s presence no longer moves here and there throughout the land. He is now and forever to be found only in Jerusalem, the City of David. And if anyone has schemes to replace me as the king—think again. God is now permanently on my side; he is with my family because he has chosen me, and this temple is proof.” So, when Solomon finally completed the Temple in Jerusalem, it was the Davidic dynasty’s ultimate flex, a display of power and divine approval he believed would keep him and his descendants on the throne of Israel forever. God’s message to Solomon in 1 Kings 9 appears to confirm this as well.

Or does it?

If we stop reading in verse 3, we might conclude that God’s promise to keep his presence at the Temple “forever” is unconditional and irrevocable, and unfortunately, that is what some Christians have been taught. A certain theological tradition has used 1 Kings 9:3 to construct an elaborate view about the relationship between ancient Israel and the New Testament Church, the role of the modern State of Israel in God’s plan, and even the need to build a new temple in Jerusalem to trigger the second coming of Jesus. But God’s message to Solomon does not end in verse 3, and his promise to put his Name on the temple forever comes with a very important caveat.

Beginning in verse 4, the Lord makes clear that both his presence in the Temple and Israel’s occupation of the land are conditional upon their obedience to his commands and the covenant. He orders Solomon and his descendants to walk faithfully, with integrity, and to “observe my decrees and laws.” If they fail to do this, and if they turn away from YHWH to serve other gods, he will “cut Israel off from the land,” he will “reject this temple,” and prophesies that it “will become a heap of rubble” (1 Kings 9:7-8).

1 Kings 9, and the way it is often misread and misapplied, is a reminder that how we read the Bible matters. Consumer Christianity loves to pluck a verse out of its context, slap it on a mug or meme, and then claim it’s an irrevocable promise of God’s to us. We then display these totems of Scripture as evidence that we love God and his word. In other words, like David and Solomon, our instinct is to use God like a good luck charm or validator of our desires. But this neither honors God nor his word. Instead, we need to read Scripture in context, recognize the larger themes, and resist the temptation to merely claim the bits we like and ignore the parts we don’t.

The post Don’t Claim God’s Promises & Ignore His Conditions first appeared on With God Daily.

God’s Presence ≠ God’s Endorsement 10 Apr 11:00 PM (6 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

The writer of 1 Kings appears to carry a skeptical view of Solomon’s Temple at best, and perhaps an entirely negative view at worst. While clearly using the construction of the Tabernacle from Exodus as a template, the writer of 1 Kings adjusts some crucial details to throw shade on the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. For example, while Exodus emphasizes God’s direct involvement and oversight of the Tabernacle, he has no role in the design or construction of the Temple in 1 Kings. Instead, everything is attributed to Solomon, and the few times God is mentioned in these chapters, it’s to warn Solomon to keep his commandments.

Unfortunately, these warnings are unheeded. While Exodus highlights the generosity and joy of God’s people in supplying the materials and labor for the Tabernacle, 1 Kings spotlights the involuntary slave labor Solomon used to build the Temple. In the process of building a great house for God, the king was actively disobeying God’s laws and abusing God’s people. It’s a stunning example of Solomon’s arrogance and shortsightedness.

Given all of these failures and ungodly actions, readers of 1 Kings might expect God to reject the slave-built house the king had constructed for him. After all, Solomon’s leadership looked nothing like Moses’, who constructed the Tabernacle after leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Instead, Solomon looked far more like Pharaoh, who enslaved the Israelites, and his kingdom was increasingly emulating Egypt’s injustice rather than God’s righteousness. But in 1 Kings 8, after the Temple was finished, we read that “the cloud filled the temple of YHWH…for the glory of YHWH filled his temple” (1 Kings 8:10-11).

What does this mean? Was God endorsing Solomon’s disobedience? Was he blessing his abuse of God’s people? Why did he seemingly reward a project that was clearly contrary to his desires and accomplished in a manner opposed to his character? An earlier story in the Bible may provide some answers.

In Numbers 20, while the Israelites were wandering in the desert, they complained to Moses about not having enough water. As he had done many times, the Lord provided a solution. He commanded Moses to speak to a rock, and fresh water would flow from it. For reasons I won’t unpack here, Moses disobeyed God. Rather than speaking to the rock, Moses struck it with his shepherd’s staff twice. For his disobedience, Moses was severely punished by God. He was forbidden from entering the promised land. Instead, Moses died within sight of it. But here’s the crazy part. When Moses disobeyed God’s command and struck the rock, a miracle still happened. Abundant fresh water flowed from the rock for all of the people and cattle to drink.

The story from Numbers 20 reveals two important things. First, leaders are accountable to God, and he will judge them more severely than others. Second, sometimes, God chooses to bless his people despite the disobedience of their leaders. I think something similar was happening with Solomon and the Temple. God chose to fill the Temple with his presence and dwell among his people despite Solomon’s arrogance and abuse, not because of them. It was an act of mercy toward his people, not evidence of his endorsement of Solomon’s behavior. Likewise, we should be careful not to assume that God’s power or presence acting through a ministry is proof that the ministry’s leaders are godly, obedient, or full of his Spirit. This is a theme we see throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Motivated by his grace, God often chooses to act despite bad leaders, not because of them.

The post God’s Presence ≠ God’s Endorsement first appeared on With God Daily.

Bodies Under the Bus 9 Apr 11:00 PM (7 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

In 2021, Christianity Today launched a documentary podcast series called “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” It followed the story of a megachurch in Seattle led by a dynamic Gen X preacher. The podcast’s success can be attributed to more than the pastor’s celebrity status within the American Christian subculture or the stunning details surrounding the church’s eventual implosion. So many people were drawn to podcast because the story of Mars Hill Church resonated with their own experiences of narcissistic pastors, abusive ministry cultures, and the church’s relentless focus on growth.

Perhaps the most infamous audio clip from “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” came from a presentation the senior pastor gave at a church leadership conference. He said, “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus and by the grace of God it will be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus, those are the two options.” The culture at Mars Hill put the church’s growth and the pastor’s ego above everything else—including the well-being of those the ministry claimed to love. In the name of serving God, the church ignored glaringly ungodly behavior.

Looking back, it was an unsustainable and self-defeating strategy, but amid the church’s rapid growth and widening influence, few could see the contradiction. A similar blindness affected Solomon during his mission to build a permanent Temple for God in Jerusalem. His goal may have been godly, but the way he pursued it was utterly inconsistent with God’s character, and it led to the downfall of his kingdom.

Once again, it’s helpful to contrast how God built his Tabernacle hundreds of years earlier in the book of Exodus with how Solomon built the Temple. Although the Israelites were migrant refugees with finite resources, the Tabernacle was built by their overflowing generosity. Remember, Moses invited the people to donate all of the materials necessary for the Tabernacle, and day after day, so much was offered that eventually the people had to be commanded to stop giving. Likewise, the labor of the people was also voluntary. Filled with God’s Spirit, both men and women used their skills and artistry to complete the Tabernacle just as God had instructed them. The repeated message of Exodus cannot be missed—the Tabernacle’s construction was accomplished through the voluntary, joyful generosity of God’s people. In this way, the Tabernacle reflected God’s character not merely through its physical appearance but also through the process by which it was built.

The process of building the Temple was very different. In 1 Kings 5, we read that Solomon used “conscripted laborers” and “forced” workers to build his Temple. In other words, he enslaved people. This included 30,000 Israelites and another 150,000 stonecutters and carriers who were probably both Israelites and foreigners. To build a glorious house for God, Solomon broke God’s laws and abused God’s people. When it was completed, the Temple in Jerusalem was impressive. No doubt, visitors marveled at its scale and beauty, but the real legacy of Solomon’s rule was not the glory of God’s house but the ruin of God’s people.

Solomon’s slavery of his own people, which the Bible called “a heavy yoke” and “harsh labor” (see 1 Kings 12:4), sparked a civil war in Israel that split the kingdom in two. Not surprisingly, the northern kingdom rejected Solomon’s Temple and turned away from God to follow the idol of a golden calf instead. Can you blame them? If you, your family, and your community were imprisoned and tortured to build a temple for God, would you still want to give him your allegiance and worship? Likewise, if you, your family, and your community were verbally and emotionally abused to build a megachurch for Jesus, would you still want to give him your devotion and love? Whenever a leader tries to advance the mission of God in a way that contradicts the character of God, they will inevitably injure the people of God, but they will not escape the judgment of God.

The post Bodies Under the Bus first appeared on With God Daily.

Missing God’s Message in Ministry 8 Apr 11:00 PM (8 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

1 Kings 6 is one of those chapters we usually skip when reading through the Bible. It explains how Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem with details that are mind-numbing to modern readers. There are a lot of measurements in cubits, descriptions of inlaid this and carved that, and specifics about what kind of wood was used for which doors—olive, cedar, or juniper. Honestly, it can get tedious and often seems irrelevant to those seeking to follow the way of Jesus today. But if we look closely, we will find gold in this chapter, and not just the kind used inside the Temple.

The entire chapter is written to make it sound like Solomon built the Temple by himself, which is ridiculous because the construction took seven years and required thousands of workers (see 1 Kings 6:38). Here are just a few examples:

“The temple that King Solomon built for YHWH was sixty cubits long…” (6:2)
“He made narrow windows high up in the temple walls.” (6:4)
“He lined its interior walls with cedar boards…” (6:15)
“On the walls all around the temple…he carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers.” (6:29)

There are dozens of verses like these. No one other than Solomon is mentioned because the writer wants the king to receive full credit for every detail of the project. Unlike the Tabernacle, even God is not mentioned in the design or construction of the Temple. The message of 1 Kings 6 is loud and clear: Solomon built the Temple for God.

The complete absence of God from the process of building the Temple makes the one time he does speak in the chapter jump out. Sandwiched between all of the design and construction details, the Lord says to Solomon. “As for this temple you are building, if you follow my decrees, observe my laws and keep all my commands and obey them, I will fulfill through you the promise I gave to David your father. And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel” (1 Kings 6:12-13).

Notice that God doesn’t say anything about the Temple itself. Nothing about its magnificent scale. Not a word about all of the gold, or the grandeur of the bronze pillars, or the enormous altar and basin. And the Lord never says a word about all that Solomon is doing for him. Remember, that is the overwhelming drumbeat of the chapter, but God doesn’t seem to care one bit. Instead, God ignores the Temple and Solomon’s work to remind the king what matters more—following his commandments.

Unfortunately, the message didn’t appear to get through. Solomon didn’t respond to God with a reflection on his laws or promises. Instead, the very next verse says, “So Solomon built the temple and completed it,” and it’s followed by 23 more verses of construction details. If this chapter were visualized, it would show Solomon hard at work building the Temple. I imagine him wearing a hardhat, pencil behind his ear, studying the blueprints, as he’s directing crews of workmen. Then God taps Solomon on the shoulder and says, “Hey, Solomon, don’t forget that what I really care about isn’t this massive project you’re doing for me. I want you to obey my laws. I want you to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with me.” But rather than receiving God’s message, Solomon just brushes him aside because he’s consumed by his important work for God. After all, if he doesn’t build a house for God, who will?

Therefore, when we read 1 Kings 6 in this light, we discover that the chapter isn’t really celebrating Solomon’s work for God. Instead, the chapter is a warning that Solomon had given his attention to the wrong priority—and that warning is just as relevant today. We can become so focused on our work for God that we completely miss our true calling from God. We can easily assume that the ministry we are building, the organization we are constructing, or the mission we are accomplishing is what matters most. Like Solomon, we can make our goals for God more important than our life with God and advancing a mission more critical than obeying his commands. When this happens, we will even excuse evil or cover up abuse because doing otherwise might get in the way of accomplishing our work for God. Character and obedience are often the first things sacrificed on the altar of ministry.

The post Missing God’s Message in Ministry first appeared on With God Daily.

Unless the Lord Builds a House, the Workers Labor in Vain 7 Apr 11:00 PM (9 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

The reign of Solomon, David’s son, represents a significant shift in the history of Israel. Those with some basic Bible knowledge probably remember two things about Solomon—he was considered very wise, and he built the first Temple in Jerusalem. It’s natural to assume both of these are good things; therefore, we should add Solomon to the short list of good kings from the Old Testament. In reality, the biblical authors are at best ambivalent about both Solomon and his Temple, with some scholars arguing the Bible actually paints both in a very negative light.

To understand why, we need to look at the construction of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 5-8 and compare it to the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25-40. If you recall, in Exodus, God was intimately involved in the design and construction of the Tabernacle. He gave Moses very detailed instructions for every part of the tent, every article of furniture, and even the fabric and stitching on the priests’ clothing. YHWH filled the craftspeople with his Spirit so they could make the beautiful items for the Tabernacle, and he inspired the generosity of the people to contribute the raw materials needed. After receiving God’s instructions, in Exodus 40, we find the phrase, “…and Moses did everything just as YHWH commanded him,” eight times. As J. Daniel Hays says, “From start to finish, [the Tabernacle] is a work conceived, designed, and superintended by God.”

The construction of the Temple was different. 1 Kings 5-8 is structured very similarly to the chapters in Exodus about the design and construction of the Tabernacle, sometimes even using the same phrases, but where Exodus made God the primary builder, 1 Kings gives this role to Solomon. This time, God does not initiate the idea for building the Temple, God does not provide the instructions, God does not supply the materials, God’s Spirit does not empower the craftspeople, and God does not supervise the project. Surprisingly, God is almost entirely absent from these chapters and the whole process of constructing the Temple. Instead, Solomon is given credit for launching the project, designing the building, and securing the resources and labor.

One detail captures the stark difference between the Tabernacle and Temple. In Exodus, God chose an Israelite to lead the people in building the Tabernacle. “See, YHWH has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exodus 35:30-31). The same language is used to describe the man Solomon chose to lead the building of his Temple: “Huram was filled with wisdom, with understanding, and with knowledge to do all kinds of bronze work” (1 Kings 7:14). But unlike Bezalel, Huram was not chosen by God nor was he from among God’s people. He was a foreigner—a Canaanite from Tyre.

Using the exact same language to describe Huram, minus any mention of being filled with God’s Spirit, is also not a coincidence. The biblical authors are emphasizing the human origin and earthly power behind Solomon’s Temple in contrast to the divine origin and heavenly power that built the Tabernacle. Although Solomon built a house for God, it was not a house built by God. This fact makes the opening verse of Psalm 127, which is attributed to Solomon, somewhat ironic: “Unless YHWH builds a house, the builders labor in vain.”

By any earthly standard, the Temple Solomon built in Jerusalem was far superior to the old Tabernacle, and not just because permanent buildings are more impressive than tents. Everything about his Temple was bigger, bolder, and more extravagant. And yet, Solomon seems to have forgotten the lesson his father, David, learned when God chose him to be king rather than one of his older, stronger, more impressive brothers. “YHWH does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but YHWH looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). The heart behind the construction of the Temple was not aligned with God, and as we’ll discover, the result for Israel was devastating.

The post Unless the Lord Builds a House, the Workers Labor in Vain first appeared on With God Daily.

Are We Building for God or Ourselves? 6 Apr 11:00 PM (10 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

History has revealed a well-established pattern, one I have observed in my decades within the Christian ministry subculture. A uniquely gifted leader rises with an uncommonly intimate communion with God. Invariably, a community begins to form around the leader that is inspired by the leader’s faith and activism. Good and beautiful things are accomplished. Eventually, however, the leader departs. That is when a critical decision is made by those who remain. They conclude that what God accomplished through the Spirit-led leader may continue in perpetuity if they faithfully copy the leader’s methods and teach others to do the same. So, they build an institution and sometimes they even put the departed leader’s name on it. All of this is done with the best intentions, but it is laced with a series of dangerous assumptions.

First, we assume that the same Spirit that abided within the Christian leader will now abide within a Christian organization. The belief that we can replace a godly minister with a Spirit-empowered institution is similar to the dream of uploading a human consciousness onto a computer. Both are attempts to achieve immortality through human wisdom. It’s the echo of our ancestors’ sin in the Garden of Eden. The second assumption is that the leader’s effectiveness was the result of their methodology rather than their intimacy with God. Ministries and organizations can copy and perpetuate methods, but they cannot live in intimate union with God. Only people can do that. But in our desire for permanence and perpetuity, which we assume is best achieved by building an institution, we fixate on the leader’s methods, and we ignore what we should have copied—their deep love of Christ.

What does this have to do with our study of the Temple? For over 400 years, from the days of Moses until the reign of David, God’s presence abided in the Tabernacle. It was a mobile tent, a temporary structure that God’s people carried with them wherever he led them. But as Israel grew larger and stronger, as it shifted from a community of migrant refugees into a kingdom of fortified cities, they wanted God’s presence to also be more established, more institutional. After building a palace for himself in Jerusalem, the idea came to David to build a permanent temple for YHWH. “Here I am, living in a house of cedar,” David said, “while the ark of God remains in a tent” (2 Samuel 7:2).

Here’s the important part—the temple was not God’s idea, nor was it his desire. In fact, in response to David’s proposal to build a permanent house for him, YHWH says he’s quite content where he is. “I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say… ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?'” (2 Samuel 7:6-7). In other words, God never asked for a temple, and he did not want one. Of course, eventually, a temple was built in Jerusalem by David’s son, Solomon, but it was less about honoring God or obeying his commands than about displaying the power and might of Israel and Israel’s king.

Whether it’s the construction of an impressive temple in Jerusalem 3,000 years ago or the construction of an impressive ministry organization today, we need to ask what’s really motivating us to build things for God. Why are we so uneasy with his presence dwelling in simple, temporary structures? He is content abiding in a tent that moves from place to place or in a gifted leader, and when they are gone, he is more than capable of filling another with his Spirit. The Almighty is not worried about perpetuating his power, nor is he insecure about the humility of his dwellings. Instead, it is his people who worry about these things because shabby tents and mortal leaders reflect poorly on us—those who are called by his Name. Therefore, we must ask if our desire to build large, perpetual structures—both physical and institutional—is really about seeking God’s glory or displaying our own.

The post Are We Building for God or Ourselves? first appeared on With God Daily.

Feline Worship & Canine Worship 3 Apr 11:00 PM (13 days ago)

Click Here for Audio

After Uzzah died and David was angry at God and fearful of his power, he left the ark at Obed-Edom’s house for three months. When word reached him in Jerusalem that God had blessed Obed-Edom and his entire household, David decided to try bringing the ark to his capital again. The second procession we read about in 2 Samuel 6 resembles the first. Like before, there was dancing, rejoicing, music, and singing. Once again, “David was dancing before YHWH with all his might” (2 Samuel 6:14).

But two important things were different. First, the ark was being carried the way God had commanded—with poles on the shoulders of priests. Remember, the first time David tried to move the ark to Jerusalem, he disregarded God’s instructions and put the ark on a wagon pulled by oxen, but when the oxen stumbled, the ark slipped, Uzzah grabbed it to prevent it from falling, and he died instantly. David had learned that his comfort and convenience were less important than respecting God’s holiness. He did not make the same mistake again.

Second, unlike the first procession toward Jerusalem, which was all about celebration, this second procession was also about sacrifice. “When those carrying the ark of YHWH had taken six steps, [David] sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf” (2 Samuel 6:13). The language indicates a sacrifice was made every six steps. The pattern appears rooted in the idea of sabbath. Just as God created in six days and rested on the seventh, God’s presence, represented by the ark, was moved six steps and then rested. The sacrifices were a way to honor God, show reverence, and acknowledge his surpassing value.

The important thing to recognize is how David’s vision of God transformed his worship of God. At the beginning of the chapter, David was fixated on God’s goodness and blessings. He saw YHWH as the one who elevated him to the throne, defeated his enemies, and gave him a new capital. David was filled with gratitude, and his worship was celebratory, but it was also dangerously self-centered and casually irreverent. There’s an old joke that captures this problem. A dog thinks: “You feed me, you pet me, you love me. You must be God.” But a cat thinks: “You feed me, you pet me, you love me. I must be God.” By narrowly focusing on all of God’s blessings, David had unknowingly succumbed to the feline error. He placed himself, rather than God, at the center of his worship.

With Uzzah’s death and the shocking reminder of God’s uncontrollable power and holiness, David’s narrow vision of God was obliterated, and how he worshipped him changed. David no longer placed himself, his blessings, or his convenience at the center. In fact, by carrying the ark and sacrificing after every six steps, the second procession to Jerusalem was dominated by inconvenience. Importantly, however, it was still a celebration of God’s blessings. David came to understand that God was both good and holy, and this fuller vision was reflected in his joyful but deeply reverent worship. David’s worship matured from feline worship (I am who matters) to canine worship (you, God, are who matters).

It’s worth asking, what does your worship, or the worship of your community, reveal about your vision of God? Do you carry the narrow, cat-like assumption of consumer Christianity that says God exists to fight your battles, advance your agenda, and bless your dreams, resulting in worship that is celebratory but ultimately self-centered, comfortable, and convenient? Or are you learning a more dog-like humility that puts God at the center, respects his holiness, and rejoices in him as both deeply desirable and also reveres him as mysteriously dangerous?

The post Feline Worship & Canine Worship first appeared on With God Daily.