The God of the Exodus

>From Vaughan Roberts' "God's Big Picture", I got this beautiful three-part division of the book of Exodus:

1. The Exodus itself (approximately the first 18 chapters): The God who delivers
2. The law given at Mount Sinai (chapters 19-24): The God who demands
3. The Tabernacle described for building (25-31): The God who draws near

Combining this with a similar broad-level overview from Arthur Pink that incorporate Genesis, and adding in the covenant as a separate point in its own right which I think should be done, we get this clear five-part overview of salvation:

1. The call of Abraham: God chooses his people
   
2. The Exodus: God redeems his people
   
3. Mount Sinai: God covenants with his people
   
4. The law: God demands from his people
   
5. The tabernacle: God dwells with his people

And then we can see the centrality of Christ in each of those acts:

1. God choose his people in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)
   
2. God redeemed his people through the precious blood of Christ, the gospel Passover (John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7, etc.)
3. God brings his people into the New Covenant of which Christ is mediator, high priest, and whose blood ratifies the covenant, etc. (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 8-10, etc.)
4. Christ is the New Covenant law-giver (Matthew 5-7), and the Spirit of Christ is the one who teaches his people the love which is the heart of the law (Romans 8:1-4, 13:8-10, etc.)
5. Christ himself is the gospel tabernacle, the dwelling of God amongst us (John 1:14, 2:19-22, etc.)

This could surely be taken further, if we bring in the pillar of fire, the manna in the wilderness ("I am the bread who came down from heaven..."), the conquest and reception of the inheritance under Joshua etc...

Studying Exodus is thrilling!

Staggered up the hill...

Here's the elevation profile of today's marathon:

I did it, but there was quite a bit of walking from 20 miles onwards! I'm not sure if it was "hitting the wall"; my legs felt reasonable but I felt quite faint. It was fairly hot and I had some cold, so I think that weakened me a bit.

First half was about 1:47, second half about 2:28, for a total of 4:15. A run of two halves!

Things we'd like to be true...

The football world cup gives a good illustration of the human capacity to believe things to be true on rather flimsy ground.

About 4-6 years ago, I realised that the 2-yearly hype in the news media about how England could this time "go all the way", could well get to the final if they played well, etc., was not based upon reality.

Look at the facts. England reaching the semi-final of a major tournament is an event likely to happen, ooh, every 20 years or so. And if we're talking about what England can do without home advantage, then the facts are rather stark and simple. England have only ever reached one major semi-final. One semi-final.... let that sink in and remember it the next time a tournament comes round and you read the hype in the newspapers.....

The obvious natural limit for England based on their ability is about the quarter final. To go beyond that will need a lot to go well, including factors beyond our control (good draws, other big teams having howlers on the day, etc.). There are clearly around 10 teams in the world who are at least as good or significantly better than England. We'd like to think we're similar in standard to (for example!) Germany, but the facts of many years (i.e. not just based on a fluke here or there) say that they are a footballing powerhouse on the world scene, and we are a football powerhouse within the British isles.

Sorry if that sounds unpatriotic. My real point was to point out the difference between what English football supporters can persuade themselves to believe, and what the reality is, as an example of what human beings do all the time.

Aiming for the top is one thing, and is not to be discouraged.

But thinking that you are near the top when plainly you're not, is self-delusion. Telling yourself that you're far better than you are, year after year, is silly and pointless: and yet a fact of human existence as moral beings. Isn't it?

So let me ask the question, if we turn from football performance to moral performance - because I think I see a parallel. Is man actually what he thinks he is? Are we as "good" as we like to persuade ourselves we are? Or in God's eyes, is it rather the case that we actually fall far short of his right standards, and fully deserve his anger and judgment as the Bible says? And all this, notwithstanding our ability to tell ourselves that "we're pretty good - no-one can blame us for not being perfect", etc.? Our ability to consistently delude ourselves about ourselves is surely one of the many good proofs that man is a fallen creature, who needs redeeming.

Well, perhaps you'll think the parallel is a bit flimsy. I might agree - this is a blog after all, not a university thesis. But even so, does not the human capacity for consistent, long-term self-deception need some explanation?

A run up a hill...

The picture above is, all being well, miles 6-26 of my next marathon, on Monday.

We start at an altitude that fit people feel out of breath at if they have not acclimatised (7000 feet above sea level is about 2100 metres) - and then go up! And up, and up.... Net altitude gain somewhere around 900 feet. It's that final steep ascent beginning in mile 20 (i.e. mile 15 on the above graph) that looks like the make-or-break time. I've never run that bit before, but you can see it's as steep as the bit at the beginning of the graph which I have run, and that bit is very steep.

Other than finishing, my first target is to beat my Dublin marathon finishing time - 3:40 on a flat course at sea level. My training times have not been quite as good as before that marathon, but pretty close. If it's a really hot day it won't be possible, but we'll see!

So...

From various news sources:

"Women should be able to continue to abort their unborn babies up to 24 weeks because the baby can't feel pain, according to a controversial review of the scientific evidence."

"Interesting" logic. So, presumably it's OK to kill people who are under general anaesthetic, because they can't feel pain. "Yes, your honour, I'm not guilty of any crime here. I sedated my victim first, so when I hacked his head off / destroyed his limbs with a suction device / etc., he did not feel it!"

It's amazing how confused fallen humans can get about the simplest things, once we've decided we want something that God has forbidden, and what twisted and perverse reasonings we can come up with.

It ought to be clear... but the reason why it's wrong to kill babies is not because of how much pain they do or do not feel at the time.

It's because they are human beings.

He said what?

"Mitigating, Michael Hodson said Charlton was not motivated by self-interest but had been trying to create a fantasy world to feel better about herself."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10408665.stm

Pardon?

I'm guessing this lawyer was from the "fantasy world" of self-esteem gobble-de-gook?

How wonderful!

According to the atheist, life as we know it is simply the product of
the struggle for survival. It's the result of competition for limited
resources, as we've thought tooth and nail with our evolutionary
competitors.

Quiet wonderful and amazing, then, that it's turned out so well, don't
you think?

For example, the incredible range of tastes and complexions in all the
foods that humans can eat. It seems to have turned out precisely as if
we were meant to enjoy food, and find pleasure in the many different
varieties.

Or consider the beauties of the natural world - waters, green dales,
sunsets, shimmering oceans, etcetera. It all looks as if it was made to
be enjoyed. What a wonderful coincdence that no purpose or plan brought
about that beauty for us to enjoy, without it ever being intended!

Consider the variety of life as a whole and all its incredible breadth
of experiences. Given that we are allegedly just Darwinian
eating-and-mating machines, it's pretty amazing that we should have such
varied and interesting existences, isn't it?

Or look at the realities of morality, as all humanity understands itself
to be under laws of right and wrong - and that right is to be chosen
whilst wrong is to be rejected. It is a great blessing that people came
to believe that (even if they live it out very inconsistently),
notwithstanding the supposed fact that life is an undirected cosmic
accident, n'est ce pas?

How about music, and all of its beauty and variety - all the different
sounds and harmonies, together with our capacity to enjoy it. Perhaps we
might not have expected that, given that we are told that the only real
uses of noise are to warn off enemies and to attract a mate. But all the
same, it's a marvellous set of coincedences that have led it to turn out
exactly as if it was designed for our pleasure again, don't you think?

The world of the atheist thinker must be a painful one. His creed tells
him to expect nothing accept accidental by-products of the fight to
reproduce. But the world he actually lives in throws up infinitely more,
as a matter of daily routine in every area of existence. One further
great mystery is how little today's campaigning atheists seem to notice
these facts.

Or putting it another way: as an explanation for reality as it really
is, atheism simply does not work, and atheists are people who are living
in denial.