The New Leadership - RR171J17

From Pocket College
Jump to: navigation, search

The media player is loading...

Lesson[edit]

Professor: Rushdoony, Dr. R. J.
Title: The New Leadership
Course: Course - Exodus; Unity of Law and Grace
Subject: Subject:Pentateuch
Lesson#: 17
Length: 0:39:21
TapeCode: RR171J17
Audio: Chalcedon Archive
Transcript: .docx Format
Exodus Unity of Law and Grace.jpg

This transcript is unedited. It was:
Archived by the Mt. Olive Tape Library
Digitized, transcribed, and published by Christ Rules
Posted by with permission.


Let us worship God. This is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us. Having these promises, let us draw near to the throne of grace with true hearts and full assurance of faith. My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, oh Lord, in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and look up. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee that all things are in thy hands who doest all things well. We come into thy presence knowing how great our problems are in this generation. How great is the need for thy judgment, and for the cleansing of the nations, and we know that all things are known to thee, and that thy purposes are altogether righteous and holy. Therefore, we wait on thee. We commit ourselves and all our ways unto thee, knowing that thou art He who will make all things work to thy praise and glory, and to our good, in thee. Bless us therefore, by thy word and by thy spirit, and grant that we may behold wondrous things out of thy law. In Christ’s name, Amen.

Our scripture is from Exodus 6:9-30. Our subject: The New Leadership. Exodus 6:9-30. “Then the Lord,” excuse me, “And the Lord spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. And Moses spake before the LORD, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips? And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. These be the heads of their fathers' houses: The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi: these be the families of Reuben. And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman: these are the families of Simeon. And these are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari: and the years of the life of Levi were an hundred thirty and seven years. The sons of Gershon; Libni, and Shimi, according to their families. And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel: and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years. And the sons of Merari; Mahali and Mushi: these are the families of Levi according to their generations. And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years. And the sons of Izhar; Korah, and Nepheg, and Zichri. And the sons of Uzziel; Mishael, and Elzaphan, and Zithri. And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. And the sons of Korah; Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph: these are the families of the Korhites. And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bare him Phinehas: these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their families. [00:05:39]

These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the LORD said...[edit]

These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the LORD said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies. These are they which spake to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: these are that Moses and Aaron. And it came to pass on the day when the LORD spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt, That the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, I am the LORD: speak thou unto Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I say unto thee. And Moses said before the LORD, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?

God recommissioned the disheartened Moses in Exodus 6:1-8. He ordered Moses back to his task, and Moses accordingly spake so, we are told, or as God required him to. He spoke once again to the Israelites. But, we are told in verse 9 of our text that “they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.” The people were apathetic and they were defeated in spirit. They had not only lost faith in Moses, but saw him as the reason for their greater bondage. When therefore, God ordered Moses to go to Pharaoh again with God’s demand for the release of His people, Moses logically asked, “Behold the children of Israel have not harkened unto me. How then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?”

First of all, Moses is logically correct. Pharaoh would obviously know from his agents that Israel wanted no part of Moses. That they had very bluntly rejected Moses. Pharaoh would know, therefore, that Moses lacked any support now, he was all alone, and that any continuing demands in the name of the lord would be made by Moses with no support, except Aaron. Humanly speaking, Moses was finished, but there was more involved than Moses. [00:08:44]

When, as a young man, he attempted to deliver Israel...[edit]

When, as a young man, he attempted to deliver Israel, he had worked alone and had failed. Now God, the Lord was with Moses. To act without God had been foolish. To refuse to act now when God required it, was more foolish and illogical. But second, Moses was right. There was no reason why Pharaoh should hear him. But, God had declared that although Pharaoh would never agree voluntarily to let Israel go, God would break Egypt, and also break Pharaoh and would thereby deliver Israel. It would have been the mercy of God had Pharaoh heard, but instead, judgment was ordained by God on Egypt, and on Pharaoh.

Then third, Moses speaks of his uncircumcised lips. This is the first of many, many such usages in both Old and New Testaments of the word “uncircumcised” to indicate a lack of the necessary qualifications for God’s service, or salvation, or for His presence. Moses is now sharply aware of his own sinfulness, his fearfulness, and his inability to cope with the immense task assigned to him. And God’s only response was to renew the charge to Aaron and to Moses, to speak both to Israel and to Pharaoh. He was commissioning him. He had no choice but to obey.

Then what we have is a genealogical list. Now, the purpose of this list is closely tied to the recommissioning of Aaron and Moses. The list is in two very clear-cut sections. First, in verses 14-17, we have the sons of Jacob. These are the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, except that this time, the list only cites three of them. The eldest, Reuben and his sons, then the second son, Levi [I think he meant Simeon, but he says “Levi”] and his sons, then a third, Levi the third, and his sons. Reuben, Simeon and Levi. Reuben was the eldest, that he had been set aside for his sin. Simeon was the second born, and Levi the third. All three of them were Jacob’s sons by Levi. Both Simeon and Levi had earlier, while they were still alive, been set aside by God because of their covenant-breaking murder of the men of Shechem. [00:12:26]

Headship, therefore, for a time, had been given to...[edit]

Headship, therefore, for a time, had been given to Joseph, and afterwards to Judah. Now there was a reversal. Headship is given for the purpose of deliverance, until they come to the Promised Land to the tribe of Levi, in the persons of Aaron and Moses. Therefore, you have the second genealogical list. Permanent leadership for the duration from the Exodus to Christ’s resurrection remained with the line of Aaron and the Levites generally, in religious worship, education, health, and to a degree welfare. Moses personally was given great authority under God, but he was not given any power to transmit to his sons.

Now the biblical pattern is not personal in that the transmission of wealth and power is not necessarily to the eldest. The family welfare takes priority, so it is the godly and capable son who inherits, or as in Caleb’s case, his daughter. As Hertz noted, and I quote, “The firstborn according to nature is not always the firstborn in the sight of God. This thought is general in scripture. Abel, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Judah, Joseph, Ephraim, Moses, David were none of them eldest sons in their families.” All of them, however, were the chosen of God.

Our text refers to Israel’s anguish of spirit in verse 9, which means, very literally (it’s an idiom) shortness of breath. They were an exhausted people. They were lacking in courage and God was now providing new leadership. He was going to revivify a people that was incapable of doing anything. [00:15:08]

Now, this genealogical list has some interesting sidelights...[edit]

Now, this genealogical list has some interesting sidelights. For instance, in verse 20, we read that Amran, Moses’ father, married his father’s sister, Jocabed. This could have been a half-sister by a later marriage, and perhaps of an age comparable to that of Amram. However, there is confusion here because there are two Amrams. In verse 18, we have an Amram who was the son of Kohath, and the Amram of verse 20 is a different person. However, with the giving of the law, such marriages as Amram’s were forbidden, as in Leviticus 18:12 and 20:19. Such marriages were commonplace in Antiquity, as Herodotus makes very clear, and they survived in many areas as in Europe into the early years of this century. Royal families destroyed themselves, as did much of the nobility. As I have pointed out in other contexts, the fact that it was only well into the modern era that such close relationships of cousins and like became dangerous and deadly, producing all kinds of defects, is indicative of the short history of mankind, because geneticists who were honest recognized that, beginning with the radical diversity of genes in Adam and Eve, if mankind were as old as people say it is, you would not have problems arising with close intermarriage so late in history. Tens of thousands, and even a million years ago, physical degeneracy would have set in. But, that’s another subject.

Now, some of the names in the list are Egyptian names, indicating that they were picking up the Egyptian influence. Merarie, or Merari, Putiel, and Phinehas, and also, of course the name, Moses, are all Egyptian in derivation. Moses’ mother, Jocabed, had a thoroughly religious name, meaning “The Lord or Jehovah is glory,” indicating that there was a strong faith in her line. Phinehas, who later distinguished himself, had an Egyptian name meaning “Ethiopian, a Black Man,” which seems to indicate that intermarriages did take place in Egypt. Marriages in Antiquity, and until the modern era was well advanced, at least to about 1800 in Europe, were in terms of two basic considerations: religion and then the family. Since about 1800 and with the rise of the Romantic movement and the rise of the {?} Folklaras, and the stress on racial and folk history, race and romantic feelings have governed marriages. One reason why the twentieth century is so concerned about racism, is because it has become more an issue now than ever before in all of history. Before, it was cultural level, in terms of a religious faith and it was comparable family level. [00:19:48]

So, we have seen a major revolution take place and...[edit]

So, we have seen a major revolution take place and people have paid very, very little attention to the source of it. One of the worst errors in this area is to attribute racial hostility, especially to the white races, among whom in fact, it has been the least in force. In fact, there have been more intermixtures in the European peoples than in any others. Among Asiatics, for example, racism is very strong, always has been. The Japanese, like the Hindus, have an untouchable class. They have the {?} Inus, and they also distrust their own people so that for a Japanese to go abroad for graduate work, even though his corporation may send him, means that on his return, he is going to face discrimination.

Some scholars hold that religion and family are basic considerations that have led to bigotry and persecution. That the reason for the supposedly bad record in the Christian eras was the emphasis on religion and family. Now it’s certainly true that there has been religious prejudice, but it has not been the governing factor. In fact, we must say that with the abandonment of the priority of religion and the body polity, bigotry, persecution, and executions have increased. The Enlightenment in the eighteenth century prided itself on having ended religious conflict. This is why they called themselves, “enlightened.” They had abandoned religious bigotry, but the fact is that they immediately instituted massive laws calling for executions to protect class and property. The offenses for which a man could be hanged in eighteenth century England, ran over 200. They could be enforced for as much as a loaf of bread stolen by a starving child, or a shilling. As E.P. Thompson has so very clearly stated it, and I quote, “In some respects, the eighteenth century showed toleration. Men and women were no longer killed or tormented for their opinions or their religious beliefs as witches or as heretics. Cashiered {?} politicians did not mount the scaffold, but in every decade, more intrusions upon property were defined as capitol matters. If in practice the operation of the laws was modified, this did not alter the definition. The escalation of the death penalty did perhaps emerge out of a subculture which we can clearly identify, that of a Hanoverian Whigs.” [00:24:01]

And yet, if you’ve gone through the history department...[edit]

And yet, if you’ve gone through the history department in almost any university, you will see the Hanoverian Whigs called the great champions of toleration, and liberalism. That they gave us freedom, freedom from religion. The Whigs saw themselves as the sole of reason and toleration, whereas Christians were viewed as irrational, as intolerant. Whig historians have since colored our textbooks and our perspective, so we have today a Whiggish outlook. And because of that, nothing is said that, as compared to subsequent centuries, the Christian eras, with their fault, which were real, were very tolerant by comparison. In the twentieth century, more people have been killed and a higher percentage of mankind destroyed than ever before in all of history, and yet our humanistic writers see the eras of faith as intolerant. Racism, politics, and economics have led to mass murders in this century on an unequalled level in numbers and in ferocity.

This is why it is important to call attention to this aspect of the genealogy. One of the great heroes of the exodus is Phinehas, and his name clearly tells us he was a black man, probably partially black, but nonetheless, dark and that was the name he was given, and that, at that time religion and family were basic, not race. And this aspect, of course, neither Christian nor Jewish scholars, normally will touch upon because they share in the outlook of the post-Romantic world.

Now in our text, we see God providing a new leadership for a new beginning, the Levites, Moses and Aaron. The leadership God provides now is not for Israel as such, because those who left Egypt were those who looked to the Passover. We are told in Exodus 12:38 that Israel left Egypt a mixed multitude, or in the Hebrew, a great mixture. That’s what it reads, literally. So, it was Egyptians and any other peoples in Europe who believed on the Lord. We’re not told, but perhaps some Israelites remained. In Numbers 11:4-5, we see that these non-Hebrews were found morally wanting, and we’re often told about this, but these same verses tell us that the Hebrews were also found morally wanting. All the races who were in the exodus were like guilty before God, of ingratitude, rebellion, and faithlessness. The Bible thus discounts race as an advantage in favor of grace. [00:28:08]

There is a devastating statement that God makes to...[edit]

There is a devastating statement that God makes to Amos, in Amos 9:7. And Moffet’s very blunt version is worth citing. God says, to Israel, “What are you more than Ethiopians to me, ye Israelites? I brought up Israel from Egypt, yes, and Philistines from Crete, and from Kur the Arameans. Mine eyes are on the sinful realm, to wipe it off the earth.” So, what is God saying there to Israel? “Yes, I brought you out of Egypt, I gave the Ethiopians their realm, and the Philistines theirs, and the Arameans theirs. And my eyes are on every sinful realm to wipe them off the face of the earth, and you are no different.”

When an age, or a people are judged, God begins the judgment on their leaders, and he provides them with new men as their leaders. It was thus of the mercy of God to Israel that He gave them Aaron and Moses. They rejected them again and again, and God had to break them, and finally say, “You will perish in the desert, and it will be your sons and daughters who will enter into the Promised Land.”

Thus, this text is a very important one. It tells us something about God’s priorities. It tells us that, basic to His perspective is the faith and then the family. This is the same God that tells us that all people are the same to Him, but only when they meet His standard. And that some are not to be included in the congregation as voting members, we would say, until the third or the tenth generation. Until character and faith are demonstrable. God’s ways are not our ways, and neither the Israelites, nor the Americans, nor the British, nor the Germans, or French or the Russians, or the Asiatics or the Africans are any different in His sight. They either meet his purposes or He says, “I wipe them off the earth.” Let us pray. [00:31:34]

Oh Lord our God, thy word is truth...[edit]

Oh Lord our God, thy word is truth. Thy word speaks to our time and to all time, and summons us to believe and obey, to know our priorities and the priorities of thy word are thy word, faith in thee, and then life in family under thee. Teach us, so to reorder our lives that we in all things are faithful. In Christ’s name, amen. Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] On this comment that God regards all the races as an equal importance and unimportant if they fail to meet His requirements, doesn’t this apply also to other forms of life. We’re exposed now to these ridiculous biological experiments to keep certain species from becoming extinct, and they’re toiling{?} with the condor, which is a form of vulture. There are tens of thousands of them in South America, and they’ve only got a handful here and they’re very upset about that, and baby seals and so forth. What sort of nonsense is this?

[Rushdoony] Yes, that’s an excellent point because now they are insisting on a value to all forms of life as though they have a permanent place on earth. But we know that many, most species have been destroyed not because of man, so that the extinct varieties have disappeared for other reasons. But today, we have an exaltation of every form. I always smile when the condors are mentioned because they never mention the fact that the condors are scavengers, and one reason why they are disappearing in California is that there are no dead bodies lying around. If the liberals want to supply those dead bodies, I’m agreeable, but they don’t. They seem to feel we’ve got to do something special to save them. Anytime we have any surplus of dead bodies lying around, they’ll fly across the border from Mexico, they’re plentiful there. And of course now we have laws here and in other states making it illegal to kill a rattler, unless you can prove that your life is threatened. And of course we have a like law in that a policeman cannot shoot a criminal unless he can prove that virtually that the criminal has a gun aimed at his head, when it’s too late to try to defend himself. It’s insane, because they have abandoned God’s law, and when you equalize everything what you’re doing is to give the priority to evil because you are then affirming the rights of evil not only to live, but to do as it pleases. Any other questions of comments? Yes? [00:36:19]

[Audience] There’ve been a great many races and nations...[edit]

[Audience] There’ve been a great many races and nations that have become extinct.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] I always think of Rosenstock {?} explanation for the survival of the Jews. He says they survived because they are the witness to Jesus.

[Rushdoony] Yes, very good. Very good. A great many races have disappeared, the most conspicuous example is the Amalakite. Once a very powerful nation, now gone. A great empire. I think it was in the 1700’s that a two-volume work was written on the Amelakits, and that was at a time when they didn’t know that there had been such a place as Assyria. They thought it was just a myth in the Bible. Now, you never hear about the Amalakites, but they were a mighty empire and a people who are gone. Any other questions or comments? Well, if not, let us conclude with prayer.

Our Lord and our God, thou hast ordained all things for thy purpose, and thou dost raise up nations and peoples, and things and destroy them when thy purposed for them is finished. We give thanks unto thee that in thy mercy, thou hast called us to serve thee and be thy people. Make us faithful, obedient, joyful in thy service, and confident in thy kingdom, and grant that all the days of our life, we and our children’s children may serve thee with all our heart, mind, and being. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape.