This is a part of a discussion called Sticky Issues. Â In this particular topic thread we are talking about what to do with some of the more odd commands in the Old Testament. Â The last post that this builds off of is here.
One of the key descriptors God uses for himself is that of father. He seems to see himself as our Father, our Dad. He calls us his children. When he discusses the idea of our being reconnected to him, he uses the term adoption.  He could have used any terms he wanted, he chose those.  He sees us as family.  It is by far the most common descriptor set he utilizes when he is describing his relationship to us.
So, let’s turn that thought over a bit and see if it is helpful.
As our Father, he looks at us both as individuals and as a holistic group. It isn’t that he cannot handle just giving us the individual treatment, as if he didn’t have the processing power to be up to the task, the RAM. It would seem that he actually looks at us differently than we look at ourselves, as much more interconnected with one another than we, as post-Enlightenment Westerners would.
So, as our Father, let’s consider the situation that God was in. Just to start, let’s consider how things were going for the Jewish people starting in the period starting in Exodus.  It is the second book of the bible.  The Hebrew people had been in captivity for at least a couple hundred years. After some very wild and miraculous interactions with the Egyptian leadership, they find themselves free. (If you would like to discuss the plagues, let me know.  That is a whole other conversation in itself.)  They would have likely known nothing about being a free people and likely just as little about the God that freed them. The false gods the Egyptians followed would have likely been much more understood. So, if God sees himself as a parent and sees his children as not knowing how to interact with their environment or himself as their parent, he would likely do what most parents would do in that situation.
He would parent his children.
The best parenting stage that would seem to describe where the Hebrews were in terms of being able to operate in their
environment as it was, would likely be that of the toddler stage. This isn’t an implication of the Hebrews’ intelligence, as the toddler stage isn’t indicative of intelligence in kids. Just awareness of the world they are in and how it works. Among other things, it is a the stage where danger isn’t understood. Simply put, many toddlers do not know the difference between the shiny mirror they have seen on playmats and the shiny edge of a knife. They see shiny and think fun.
The response of a parent to a child in that stage isn’t terribly nuanced. There is a lot of “no touch†when they get near things that are dangerous and big smiles when they do the right thing.  Messages  are very obvious. You don’t expect an infant to grasp subtle details, even their toys have bright, high contrasting colors. During this stage, the parent isn’t just protecting the child from themselves, they are helping to set up neuronal connections within their child’s brain that help them to understand what is going on. This isn’t a stage that you would expect a child to stay in. In fact, if they do, it is a signal that something abnormal is going on. It is just that, a stage.
Again, during this stage there isn’t much nuance. The world is ordered in very specific ways. We never cross the street without holding mommy’s hand. You don’t ever take candy from a stranger without asking daddy first. You are showing them how the world works in a manner they can understand. You are showing them what is good and what is bad. What is safe and what is not.  Of course, none of this means you don’t want them to explore their world.  It is essential that they do.  It is more an issue of how they explore it.
It is interesting that it is during this “toddler†stage of the Hebrews’ experience with God where the really wild stuff happened. Water was pushed out of the way. They followed a pillar of smoke during the day, and a pillar of fire when God wanted them to move at night. Not super nuanced, eh? The question of “where is God leading me?†was a simple one. Just look for the pillar. Food is miraculously provided and if you don’t handle it the way that God said to, it became unusable for the rest of the day.
But just like the toddler stage in parenting, they were absorbing an incredible amount about God. He would protect them, he would guide them, he was aware of them; both individually and as a nation. He both wanted and could communicate with them and it was important that they listen. He had expectations for them and he was doing things on his end as well. This was a real, two-way relationship between themselves and God.  He had made promises to them several hundred years earlier, and he was keeping up his end.
Again, what is interesting, is that almost all of the wild instructions that people really wonder about, were given to them during this time. Some to keep a people that were on the move a great deal safe.  Very wise instructions about how you should deal with blood and other bodily fluids when your location would often not allow you access to even levels of sanitation that other people would have had at the time.  As a parent, God cared about the safety and health of his children. Some of them, like the commands not to plant two types of plants in one row and not wear two types of fiber together in their clothing weren’t just God’s attempt to stave off the future threat of polyester, although if it were, I could understand His concern. Those types of commands were, I believe, primarily given to remind them that God wanted to be a part of every part of their lives. That every component mattered to Him, not just the obvious ones. Many of the people they were around would have held variations of the idea that only certain moments in life were of any interest to whatever deity you followed, and the rest of the time, it was up to you. God was showing them, that every part of life mattered to Him. Every part was meaningful.  And he was showing them that it was important that they obeyed him in each area of their life. Even the truly weird stuff had a purpose. The command not to boil a calf in its mother’s milk dealt directly to a Cannanite ritual that would involve the Canaanites doing that after a harvest, as a means to call upon the gods to bless their next planting.  God was telling them very clearly not to do it.  In that instance, it wasn’t that the actual act mattered as much, I believe, as what the act symbolized. He wanted them to be clear that He was God, that He responsible for them and they were responsible to him.
What is your take on all this?
Peace, Jim
