"They beheld God, and ate and drank" (Exodus 24:11).

How amazing this is! They saw God and fellowshipped with Him over food and drink. We are told a little of what they saw: "they saw the God of Israel." (Exodus 24:10).

It appears they were given a vision of the throne of God, somewhat like Isaiah's vision or the apostle John's vision in Revelation. Perhaps they were seeing a manifestation of the Son, the visible image of the invisible God.

Who saw God? We are told that Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel (cf. Exodus 24:9–10).

Do you notice Nadab and Abihu? These two later offered unauthorized fire and were struck down by God. Even they saw God. So seeing God did not guarantee holiness or continued obedience, just as the Israelites' experience of the many miracles of the Exodus did not guarantee continued obedience and faith. Aaron would take part in the idolatry of the golden calf. Moses would fail to honor God at the waters of Meribah. "Experiencing God" was no guarantee of persevering faith.

Friends, I raise this because some believers think that all they need is to "experience God" in order to find favor with Him and walk in obedience. Yet the Bible speaks of humility, discipline, study, and persevering faith. If by "experiencing God" we mean these things, then we ought to pursue it. But if we mean a mystical experience of "ushering in His presence," I do not believe this is what the Bible presents as the path to holiness. In my view, such an understanding resembles mystical practices from other religious traditions more than the teaching of Scripture. The Christian life is lived not through transcendent experiences but through faith and obedience to God's Word (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16–17).

AI-Expanded Reflection

Exodus 24 records the ratification of the covenant at Sinai. Moses read the Book of the Covenant, the people pledged, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient" (24:7), and Moses sprinkled them with "the blood of the covenant" (24:8). Then came the meal on the mountain — a covenant meal in the presence of God, in which "he did not lay his hand on the chief men" (24:11). Jesus deliberately echoed Moses' words at the Last Supper: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (Mark 14:24). The meal on Sinai foreshadows the Lord's Supper and ultimately "the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Revelation 19:9).

The comment's observation about Nadab and Abihu is sobering and well taken. Within a short time, the same people who ate and drank before God were dancing around the golden calf (Exodus 32). Scripture consistently teaches that spiritual experiences, however real, do not by themselves produce faithfulness; Jesus warned that some who did mighty works in His name would hear, "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:22–23). Christians differ on how to describe and value experiences of God's presence in worship; all agree with the comment that genuine encounters with God lead to humility, obedience, and perseverance, and that God's Word is the test of every experience.

"Pay attention to all that I have said to you," and make no mention of the names of other gods (a paraphrase of Exodus 23:13).

The Lord made it clear to the Israelites entering the Promised Land that they were to remove every trace of idolatry from the land. This included both the idols and those who worshiped them.

Here God forbids even naming the gods of the nations, and forbids seeking to hear about them.

Why? Isn't it acceptable as long as these idols are not worshiped? Couldn't the Israelites keep them simply as a historical record?

Apparently not. Any lingering remnant of idolatry risked corrupting God's people. Israel's history gives example after example of this kind of corruption. Beyond the obvious corruption through Baal and Asherah worship, we read even of Gideon's ephod and Moses' bronze serpent becoming stumbling blocks to Israel. Perhaps this is why Paul wrote to the Romans that their obedience was known to all, so that he rejoiced over them, but he wanted them "to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil" (a paraphrase of Romans 16:19).

Paul does not say they should be wise in what is good and also wise in what is evil. He specifically tells them to be innocent regarding evil. Innocence suggests freedom from experience with what is evil. In other words, it is better never to experience an evil than to experience it and learn from that experience that it is evil.

Friends, what does this mean for us? I contend that we ought not to pursue an unhealthy interest in anything ungodly or idolatrous. Even for the sake of knowledge, we risk corrupting ourselves. Our children do not need to know the details of Baal worship. We may need to shelter them even from glorified presentations of the occult and witchcraft in popular books and films. In my view, we should not keep in our homes souvenirs that depict the idols of other lands, and it may be unwise to immerse our children in exhibits that showcase the worship practices of other religions.

And as much as Paul urges believers to be innocent regarding evil, he also encourages them to be wise regarding good. Time and attention should be given to godly and morally excellent things: whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable — if there is any excellence, anything worthy of praise — "think about these things" (cf. Philippians 4:8).

In the Old Testament, of course, there was nothing so excellent as the Law of God. The Israelites were commanded to immerse themselves in it, so that every activity, conversation, and thought would be shaped by it: these words were to be on their hearts; they were to teach them diligently to their children, talking of them at home and on the road, when lying down and rising up, binding them on their hands and foreheads, and writing them on their doorposts and gates (cf. Deuteronomy 6:6–9).

So instead of books that glamorize sorcery, books like those of C. S. Lewis may be better to have around the house. Instead of artwork depicting idols or ancestor worship, perhaps we can fill our homes with passages from Scripture and depictions of the great stories of the Bible.

It is enough that believers are aware that evils exist in the world. They do not need to be deeply knowledgeable about them. I believe Scripture makes clear that such curiosity can open a door to harm.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The command not to speak the names of other gods (23:13) had a practical purpose in a world where oaths were sworn by gods and where invoking a deity's name was an act of worship. Joshua gave a similar instruction (Joshua 23:7), and the Psalms reflect it: "nor take their names on my lips" (Psalm 16:4). Yet Scripture itself names Baal, Molech, Dagon, and Ashtoreth many times, usually in order to expose their emptiness — Isaiah 44:9–20 describes in detail how an idol is made from a leftover piece of firewood. So the command is not against ever mentioning such gods, but against treating them with honor or familiarity.

On how much exposure to worldly ideas is wise, Christians apply the principle differently. Paul quoted pagan poets in Athens (Acts 17:28) and knew the culture of his hearers, while also warning believers against "empty deceit, according to human tradition" (Colossians 2:8). Many Christian parents shelter younger children closely and then teach discernment as they grow, following Hebrews 5:14, which says the mature "have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice." The comment's convictions about particular books, images, and museums are personal applications offered to fellow believers rather than commands, and Romans 14 leaves room for differing consciences on such matters. All agree with the comment's positive aim: that our homes and minds be filled chiefly with what is true, pure, and praiseworthy.

God promised that if Israel served Him, He would bless their bread and water and take sickness away from among them; none would miscarry or be barren in the land; He would fulfill the number of their days; He would send His terror before them and make all their enemies turn their backs (a paraphrase of Exodus 23:25–27).

Notice what God promised Israel if they obeyed Him. He would bless their food so they never lacked bread or water. No one would be sick. No one would miscarry or be barren. Everyone would live a full life. All their enemies would flee from them.

Prosperity preachers would say to Christians today, "Name it and claim it!"

So if you obey God today, will He keep you from sickness, miscarriage, and untimely death? That is what "name it and claim it" implies.

Again, a pastor recently used a passage in Malachi to say that God sometimes does not answer our prayers today because we do not tithe: bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in God's house, and put Him to the test, whether He will not open the windows of heaven and pour down blessing until there is no more need (a paraphrase of Malachi 3:10).

A forty-five-minute message may not allow time to give the context for every passage the pastor mentioned — and there were many — but it may have been better to leave this one out. Thankfully, the pastor was not teaching the congregation to "name it and claim it," but he also did not distinguish between the Levitical tithe and Christian giving. He also did not explain that, as I understand it, this passage was addressed to the priests rather than to the general population.

I give these examples without much explanation. Since I have written extensively in the past to show that Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, I will simply supply two key verses. Hebrews says that if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second; in speaking of a new covenant, God makes the first obsolete, and what is becoming obsolete is ready to vanish away (a paraphrase of Hebrews 8:7, 13). And Paul writes that we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (a paraphrase of Romans 7:6).

We are New Covenant Christians. As such, we are no longer under the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. So we must be very careful how we apply Old Testament passages to our lives, especially the blessings and curses given specifically to Israel and directly tied to obedience to the Law of Moses.

Careless handling of Old Testament passages leads to careless application, forcing us to make all kinds of excuses for why God did not deliver on His promises. Someone might well say, "I have tithed faithfully for over forty years" without seeing the promised outpouring — and I can barely hold down a low-paying job.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The promises in Exodus 23:25–27 belong to the covenant God made with Israel as a nation in the land, and the comment is right that they cannot be lifted directly into promises of health and wealth for individual Christians today. The New Testament presents a different picture of faithful life: Paul left Trophimus ill at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), advised Timothy about his "frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23), and learned that God's grace was sufficient in weakness when his own "thorn" was not removed (2 Corinthians 12:7–9). For readers who have experienced miscarriage, infertility, or illness while walking faithfully with God, it matters deeply to say that these are not signs of God's displeasure.

On Malachi 3:10, interpreters differ. Some, like the comment, emphasize that chapters 1–2 address the priests and read the tithe passage in that light; others note that 3:9 addresses "the whole nation" and read the command as directed to all Israel. Christians also differ on tithing today: some regard a tenth as a continuing baseline for Christian giving, others (like the comment) see it as part of the Mosaic system replaced by the New Testament's call to generous, cheerful, proportionate giving (2 Corinthians 8–9). Both sides agree that giving should never be presented as a transaction that obligates God.

As you read these chapters, you may be tempted to apply them selectively to your own life. Don't. These laws were given to the children of Israel for life in the promised land. So even if your child curses you (Exodus 21:17), don't imagine you need to put your child to death, however you may feel in the moment.

Even so, reading these laws — without getting caught up in the specifics — you can learn something of the moral and equitable character of God. Notice also that this list of laws and consequences is not annulled when the sacrificial system is established in Leviticus. You will discover that animal sacrifices were designed to cover unintentional sins, not intentional ones like these. These laws would only be annulled through the blood of Jesus Christ, who inaugurated a New Covenant to replace the old.

Finally, notice how the Mosaic covenant was ratified — by blood. Moses read the Book of the Covenant aloud, the people again responded that they would do everything the LORD commanded, and Moses took the blood and sprinkled it over the people, declaring that this blood confirmed the covenant the LORD had made with them (a paraphrase of Exodus 24:7–8). Just as the Old Covenant was ratified by blood, so the New Covenant would be ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 12:24).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The hermeneutical warning at the top is the most useful thing in this comment, and it applies well beyond the example given. Reading Israel's civil and criminal code as direct personal instruction produces incoherence quickly — the same chapters govern goring oxen, restitution for a burned field, and the treatment of servants, and no one applies these selectively without some implicit rule about which ones transfer. Making that rule explicit is better than leaving it to intuition, which tends to select for whatever already agrees with the reader.

The observation about sacrifice is worth checking, though, because it is close to right rather than exactly right. The sacrificial system does center on unintentional sin (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27), and there was no offering that simply covered deliberate defiance — the "high hand" sin of Numbers 15:30–31. But Leviticus 6:1–7 does prescribe a guilt offering for deliberate wrongs like fraud and false oaths, paired with restitution and confession. The line runs between wrongdoing acknowledged and repented of, and wrongdoing committed in open defiance, more than between accidental and intentional as such.

Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

It's amazing that God had planned all this from the very beginning. Israel was enslaved in Egypt — how many of them could even read or write? Yet God chose baby Moses out of all the Israelites and had him raised right in Pharaoh's own household, where he was undoubtedly educated, trained in reading and writing, for this exact purpose — to write down God's words for future generations.

This reminds me of the famous line from Esther, "for such a time as this." Mordecai is trying to persuade Esther, a Jewish woman who'd become one of King Xerxes' queens, to plead for mercy on behalf of the Jewish people facing annihilation. Esther offers excuses for why she can't, and Mordecai responds that even if she remains silent, deliverance for the Jews will still come from somewhere else, since it's God's will regardless — but who knows whether she's come to her royal position precisely for this exact purpose (a paraphrase of Esther 4:12–14)?

Even for us, our upbringing, education, profession, and where we happen to live aren't the product of some random sequence of events. God has placed each of us exactly where He wants us — so we each need to ask ourselves, for what purpose, and are we willing to be obedient to it?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The parallel this comment draws between Moses and Esther is worth extending one step further, since both stories share a detail easy to overlook: neither figure volunteered for their position in advance. Moses tried repeatedly to decline his calling (a theme covered elsewhere in this project), and Esther becomes queen through what looks, on the surface, like an ordinary royal search rather than a deliberate spiritual assignment. In both cases, the "for such a time as this" purpose only becomes visible in hindsight, well after the positioning was already complete — a genuinely encouraging thought for anyone wondering whether their own current circumstances, chosen or not, might be serving a purpose not yet visible to them.

Someone asked why the commandments God gives Moses to relay are so specific — whether the Israelites needed this level of detailed guidance at this particular time.

I responded: Scripture answers this, at least partially, in passages like Deuteronomy 6:1–3, which explains these commands, decrees, and laws were given so Israel, their children, and their children's children would fear the LORD by keeping them, enjoying long life as a result, and so they'd prosper and multiply greatly in the promised land (a paraphrase). This tells us these laws were specifically for Israel's entry into Canaan, addressing the particular kind of moral life they needed to live there. A good case can be made that many specific provisions were given precisely to contrast with the idolatry, immorality, and wickedness of the Canaanites — consistent with Exodus 19:5–6's language about Israel being a treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy — literally "set apart" — nation.

As an aside, tradition holds there are 613 commands in the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments. The Ten are unique in being spoken directly by God and written by His own finger on stone tablets, and they carry no attached curses or blessings (except the command to honor parents) the way other provisions do — even their grammar differs slightly, using a stronger, more absolute negative form than most other commands. This doesn't mean the Ten Commandments were meant to remain eternally binding while the rest were merely temporary, as some suppose — rather, the entire covenant, Ten Commandments and everything else together, was temporary as a whole, which is exactly what Hebrews describes as becoming obsolete at Christ's death (see my discussion of the Law in yesterday's comments).

Still, the Ten Commandments' distinguishing features likely mark them as providing overarching principles, while the remaining provisions gave Israel specific application for the land they were about to possess. Since the Ten Commandments couldn't be applied identically to every situation, the remaining roughly 603 provisions offered guidance for specific moral, ceremonial, and civil circumstances — and it's within these specific provisions that we find the attached blessings and curses tied to obedience and disobedience (cf. Deuteronomy 28).

Do 613 laws sound overly detailed? The religious leaders of Jesus's day had already added many more on top of them. But for perspective, the U.S. tax code alone runs over 67,000 pages — by comparison, the Law of Moses hardly seems excessive or overly specific. Interestingly, Paul writes that the law was made not for the righteous, but for lawbreakers (a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 1:9) — perhaps the Law's specific provisions were exactly as detailed as Israel actually needed them to be, entering the land God had promised them.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Ten Commandments' distinctive grammar this comment mentions is worth expanding slightly, since it connects to how differently they're delivered compared to everything else in the Law — they're the only commands the text says were spoken by God directly to the entire assembled nation, with everyone hearing His voice from the mountain, before the people asked Moses to serve as intermediary for everything that followed (a paraphrase of Exodus 20:18–19; Deuteronomy 5:22–27). That detail supports this comment's own instinct that the Ten Commandments occupied a different category from the start — not just stylistically distinct, but delivered through a different, more direct method than any of the 603 provisions that followed.