INTRODUCTION
The next course I selected for my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course Exodus Part 2, which covers the second half of Exodus. Here are the Discussion Questions for the entire course along with my responses.
As a reminder, you can find all of my course assignments for the uThM here.
So, let’s get started…
WHAT DO I ALREADY KNOW?
Exodus was written by Moses and records Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt, their journey into the wilderness, and the beginning of their life as a nation under God.
Modern scholars often challenge Mosaic authorship of the Torah, with some questioning whether Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible—or even whether Moses existed as a historical person. Yet Jesus repeatedly speaks of Moses as the author and giver of the Law. If I accept Jesus’ testimony, His attribution of the Torah to Moses carries far more weight for me than modern theories of authorship.
Chuck Missler also describes Exodus as one of the Bible’s most prophetic books. I know many of its events, institutions, and images appear again throughout Scripture, but I want to see for myself how extensive those connections actually are.
WHAT DO I WANT TO LEARN?
1. I want to get my arms around Exodus as a whole—to understand its major movements, structure, events, and themes and come away with a 40,000-foot view of what the book is saying.
2. I want to understand the central message of Exodus and what God intends His people—and me personally—to learn from it.
3. I want to examine the prophetic elements of Exodus and trace how its people, events, institutions, and imagery connect with the rest of Scripture, particularly Jesus Christ and the New Testament.
4. I want to pay attention to what Exodus reveals about God Himself—His character, His holiness, His judgment, His mercy, His covenant faithfulness, and His desire to dwell among His people.
SESSION 9
Dr. Missler says to put Christ into the middle of a passage that you don’t understand. Share an example (other than the one Dr. Missler uses) of when you have done this and what you learned from it.
Psalm 2 is probably one of the clearest examples for me. When I put Christ into the middle of the Psalm, the entire thing comes together. Instead of reading it simply as an ancient king dealing with rebellious nations, Christ becomes the key that makes sense of the larger picture. It demonstrates the principle Missler keeps emphasizing: Scripture is not a collection of unrelated books and passages. An underlying design runs through it all.
What I learned most from Psalm 2 was just how symmetrical Scripture really is. It becomes an intimate conversation between the three figures of the Trinity. That is one of the things I am beginning to appreciate more as I study the Bible this way. Christ is not simply introduced in the New Testament. Once you know who He is and begin looking for Him, you discover that He has been there all along.
What is your view concerning capital punishment? Support your viewpoint scripturally.
As a person, I think capital punishment is sometimes necessary, and Scripture certainly recognizes the state’s authority to impose death for particularly serious crimes. Exodus 21 makes a distinction between accidental killing and intentional murder and provides no refuge for the deliberate murderer. At the same time, I have no direct personal experience with capital punishment. I have never had someone I love murdered, nor have I had a wife or child sentenced to death, and I suspect those experiences would affect how I emotionally approached the question. As a Christian, I am commanded not to avenge myself and to do good even to my enemies, so personal vengeance and judicial punishment cannot be treated as the same thing. Some people clearly must be restrained by civil authorities because they will continue hurting others. Whether a particular person should be executed is not a judgment I am personally in a position to make. My concern with eliminating capital punishment altogether is human-born justice. Exodus certainly does not treat the deliberate taking of innocent human life lightly. If society eventually decides that no crime, regardless of its severity, warrants the death penalty, I think there is a danger that our compassion for the offender will come at the expense of justice for the victim and the victim’s family.
Research and discuss the role of the cities of refuge. What practical application do you draw from this?
The cities of refuge provided protection for someone who had caused another person’s death without deliberately committing murder. The distinction is important. Exodus 21 distinguishes between intentional murder and a death that was not premeditated. The person responsible could flee to a place God provided for him, while the intentional murderer was afforded no such protection. Missler explains that this system is developed further later in the Torah and in Joshua, where six cities of refuge are established. The avenger of blood could pursue the person responsible for the death, but the city of refuge provided a place where the accused could receive protection rather than simply being killed in retaliation.
I think this picture of Christ is interesting. I am guilty, judgment is coming, and my only refuge is the place God Himself has provided. I flee to Christ because I cannot save myself from judgment. My first instinct was to carry the analogy farther and say that if I leave the refuge, condemnation returns—which immediately raises the question of eternal security. But, Missler repeatedly warns, a type can illuminate something without every detail becoming doctrine. The important picture for me is that God provides the refuge. I do not escape judgment by defending myself or somehow becoming innocent; I escape by fleeing to the provision God has made.
Compare the laws recorded in Exodus 22 with the laws of your country. What do you think would happen if the laws of your country were changed to reflect the laws recorded in Exodus 22?
Exodus 22 contains many laws, and some have recognizable counterparts in our legal system. Theft requires restitution, property damage creates liability, and people can be held responsible for negligently damaging someone else’s property. Even laws about breaking into a house have a modern parallel in self-defense laws, although what someone is legally permitted to do depends on the jurisdiction. What strikes me about Exodus is how much emphasis there is on restitution. If you steal or destroy something that belongs to another person, the concern is not merely that the government punishes you. You owe something to the person you harmed. A very practical concept of justice runs throughout the chapter.
Other laws would be completely foreign to modern American society. The man who seduces a virgin assumes an obligation toward her and her family. Sorcery, bestiality, and sacrificing to another god can receive the death penalty. Charging interest to a poor Israelite is prohibited, while today the financially vulnerable are often precisely the people who pay the highest borrowing costs. If Exodus 22 suddenly became American law, our society would change dramatically, and parts of it would be almost impossible to reconcile with our present culture. But underneath the individual ordinances I see a consistent principle: God takes personal responsibility, property, sexuality, worship, treatment of the vulnerable, and restitution seriously. Biblical justice is not merely concerned with punishing somebody for breaking a statute. It is concerned with what was done, who was harmed, and what must be done to make the wrong right.
Discuss the role of Jesus as bondservant. In what ways does your life reflect that of a bondservant?
Jesus voluntarily submitted Himself to the Father’s will and surrendered His life for our sake. That part of the bondservant picture resonates most strongly with me. The servant in Exodus 21 could choose to remain permanently with his master because he loved his master and his household. Missler connects that picture with Christ, who voluntarily took the form of a servant and became obedient even unto death. His service was not forced upon Him. He willingly submitted Himself to the Father. In a much smaller and certainly much less perfect way, that is how I understand my own relationship with God: my life is not mine to direct. He says where I go, and I go. I might complain under my breath. I might even complain directly to His face. But ultimately, I still go.
My marriage is probably the clearest example in my own life. I had been single for nearly thirteen years when I met my wife, and I had absolutely no desire to get married again. I was happy as a hermit. I had plenty of time to study, write, and do whatever I wanted. I was content. Then I became convinced that God was telling me to “prepare for a future wife.” I argued with Him about that for three months. Eventually I obeyed, met my wife, and married her—and she had ten kids. It was crazy, and I never would have chosen that life on my own. Yet through it all, I have had a peace about the decision that has never left me. I remain convinced that it was God’s will, and over the last four years it has been an incredible blessing to me. That is what it means to be His servant. Obedience does not mean that I always like the assignment when He gives it to me. It means that when I know what my Master wants, ultimately my answer has to be yes.
Research and discuss the relationship between Israel and the land. How is this being played out in today’s world?
The relationship between Israel and the land is one of the major themes running through Scripture, and Missler emphasizes that God joined the two beginning with Abraham. Israel has possessed portions of the promised land at different times, but has never permanently possessed the land in its full promised extent. Even in Exodus 23, while Israel is still outside the land, God gives its boundaries and promises to bring them into it. I think that relationship remains prophetically significant today. Israel’s existence in the land again makes the issue impossible to ignore, and I think the prophetic trajectory ultimately leads to Israel’s national restoration. My present understanding is that Israel will eventually be corporately restored (Ezekiel 37:1–14), return to the land in far greater numbers, become secure enough to dwell without the walls and defenses upon which she presently depends (Ezekiel 38:8–11), and ultimately see the Temple restored in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40–48; 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4; Daniel 9:27). I see those developments as part of the conditions surrounding the Tribulation and the fulfillment of God’s remaining prophetic program for Israel.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
SESSION 10
In what ways does the Tabernacle illustrate what Christ is to the believer today? Provide Scripture references to support your ideas.
The Tabernacle illustrates Christ primarily as the place where God meets with man. God dwelt in the Tabernacle, while 2 Corinthians 5:19 says that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” and Colossians 2:9 says that in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” John 1:14 makes the connection even more directly, saying that the Word became flesh and “dwelt among us,” which Missler points out carries the idea of tabernacling among us. The Tabernacle also had only one entrance, just as Jesus says, “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the way, the truth, and the life” in John 14:6. Once inside, the altar represents the sacrifice that must come first, the laver represents washing and purification, the showbread points to Christ as the bread of life, the lampstand provides light through oil representing the Holy Spirit, and finally the Holy of Holies brings us into the presence of God. In that sense, the entire Tabernacle depicts what I have in Christ: sacrifice, cleansing, fellowship, provision, illumination, and ultimately access to God.
Select one of the items in the Tabernacle and show how this represented Christ. What meaning does this have for you?
I would choose the seven-branched golden lampstand, or menorah. I originally associated the seven lamps primarily with the seven Spirits of God, but that is not the connection Missler develops in this lecture. He focuses instead on the central shaft with six branches and connects it to Christ’s statement, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” The lampstand was made as one beaten work of pure gold, and Missler emphasizes its oneness. The branches do not produce their own light independently from the central structure. The light also comes through oil, which Missler identifies with the Holy Spirit. His question is therefore, “Are you at one with Him?” because that is the condition of being a light bearer.
That gives the lampstand more meaning to me than simply identifying what each of the seven lamps symbolizes. If I am one of the branches, then I am not the source of the light. Christ is the source, and the Holy Spirit provides the illumination. My responsibility is to remain united with Christ and bear the light that comes from Him. That fits with the larger picture Missler presents: the Tabernacle is not merely a collection of religious objects but a model of Christ and what His presence means personally to the believer.
Describe the gifts brought by the people. What gifts do you bring? Explain.
I initially thought this question referred to the gifts the Egyptians gave Israel when they left Egypt, but in the context of this lecture, it refers to the offerings Israel brought for the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25. They brought gold, silver, bronze, blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goat’s hair, ram skins, badger skins, acacia wood, oil, spices, onyx, and other precious stones. What stands out more than the individual materials, however, is Exodus 25:2: the offering was to come from everyone who gave it “willingly with his heart.” Missler’s point is that God did not need their possessions. He let them participate in something He was doing.
That probably changes how I should think about what I bring to God. It is not simply money. I bring my time, my work, my writing, my study, my abilities, and whatever resources He has given me. None of those things are something God needs from me as though He could not accomplish His purposes without me. They are things He has already given me, and I have the opportunity to use them for his purpose and his glory. Missler describes giving almost as an investment: God gives us the privilege of participating in His work, but the offering should come willingly rather than because we think God somehow needs our help.
What attitude was expressed by the people’s giving? How is this relevant today? What does this say to you personally?
I remembered this incorrectly at first. They were not giving begrudgingly. Exodus 25:2 specifically says that the offering was to be taken from those who gave “willingly with his heart.” Missler makes a strong case for that point. God has no use for an unwilling gift. He does not need our money, resources, abilities, or help to accomplish what He intends. Instead, giving is an opportunity He allows us to participate in. That makes the attitude behind the gift as important as the gift itself.
That is relevant to me because it means I should examine why I give something to God, not merely whether I give it. If I give money, time, work, or service while resenting that I have to, I have missed something fundamental about giving. God is not dependent upon me. If He allows me to participate in something He is doing, that is an opportunity, not an obligation I should resent. I may not always feel enthusiastic about what obedience costs me, but I should recognize that whatever I have to offer Him was His to begin with.
Why is the study of the Tabernacle important to Bible students? What do you hope to gain through studying the Tabernacle?
The Tabernacle matters because Scripture gives it an enormous amount of space. Missler points out that only a couple of chapters describe creation while roughly ten chapters of Exodus deal directly with the Tabernacle, in addition to material elsewhere in Scripture. Hebrews 9:23–24 gives a reason for taking that detail seriously: the earthly holy places are described as patterns or figures of heavenly realities. Missler also points to Hosea 12:10, where God says that He used similitudes through the prophets. From that perspective, the Tabernacle is a deliberately constructed model. It represents God’s dwelling place, points to Jesus Christ, and illustrates Christ’s presence among His people. Missler argues that ultimately every piece of furniture—and perhaps even every material, color, and fitting—points to some aspect of Christ.
I honestly don’t expect to gain much from the study yet, simply because I have never been particularly interested in the physical details of the Tabernacle. What interests me is whether Missler can demonstrate the patterns he claims exist. If the altar, laver, bread, lampstand, incense altar, Ark, Mercy Seat, materials, dimensions, and arrangement genuinely form a coherent picture of Christ rather than symbolism being imposed upon them after the fact, then that would tell me something significant about the design and consistency of Scripture. That is probably what I most want to gain from studying it: to see whether those connections are actually present in the text and how much of the symbolism can be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.
Thus far in the study how do you see the Tabernacle depicting the way of salvation?
Thus far, the strongest picture of salvation is the movement from the outside toward God’s presence. There is only one entrance, which Missler connects with Christ as the door in John 10:9 and with John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” After entering, the first thing encountered is the brazen altar. Before a person can proceed any farther, there must be sacrifice and blood. Then comes the laver and cleansing, followed by entrance into the Holy Place with its bread, light, and fellowship, and ultimately the Holy of Holies and God’s presence. So I would modify my original answer. The Tabernacle is not simply a picture of God dwelling inside the individual believer. It depicts how God makes it possible for sinful man to come into His presence: there is one way in, sacrifice comes first, cleansing follows, and everything ultimately leads to fellowship with and access to God through Christ.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add
SESSION 11
Research the lampstand. In what ways does the lampstand represent the church? What message do you take personally from this?
Revelation 1:20 specifically states, “The seven lampstands are the seven churches.” I find the first three chapters of Revelation particularly interesting because they function as an almost mystical prelude to the rest of the book. The seven churches were real historical congregations, but I also see them representing the unfolding history of the Church, the various characteristics found in churches throughout history, and characteristics found in every modern church (or self-proclaimed church) today. Missler points out that the lampstand in the Tabernacle was not the source of light itself. It was the instrument through which the light was displayed. The oil that fueled the lamps represents the Holy Spirit, and Christ identifies Himself as the Light of the World (John 9:5). In Revelation, the individual churches are represented by lampstands because they have been entrusted with bearing that light.
What I find particularly significant is the warning given to the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:5. Christ warns that He will remove their lampstand unless they repent. Apparently, simply being established as a church does not guarantee that a congregation will continue to fulfill its purpose. The same principle applies individually. If Christ is the source of the light and the Holy Spirit supplies what is necessary to bear it, then my responsibility is not to manufacture something spiritual through my own efforts. My responsibility is to remain faithful to Christ and allow His light to be displayed through my life. The lampstand exists to illuminate something other than itself, and I think that distinction matters for both individual Christians and the Church collectively.
How do the boards and sockets represent the church? What personal lesson do you gain from this?
I did not initially take much away from the boards and sockets beyond Missler’s connection between silver and the thirty pieces of silver associated with Christ’s betrayal. However, looking more closely at the lecture, the significance becomes clearer. The Tabernacle was constructed using boards of acacia wood overlaid with gold, with each board resting upon two sockets of silver (Exodus 26:15–30). Missler identifies the wood with Christ’s humanity and the gold with His deity. The silver, however, is associated with redemption. In Exodus 30:11–16, the Israelites were required to contribute ransom money, and Missler connects that silver with the foundation of the Tabernacle. He then turns to 1 Peter 1:18–19, which explains that we were not redeemed with silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ. The Tabernacle’s foundation therefore becomes a picture of redemption through His blood.
I think the application to the Church becomes apparent when we consider 1 Corinthians 3:11: “For no one can lay any other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The individual boards were joined together into a single structure, but the entire structure rested upon the same foundation. In much the same way, the Church consists of individual believers brought together into one body, with Christ as its foundation. What stands out to me personally is that the foundation is not something we construct or contribute to. The price of redemption has already been paid. Everything else rests upon that completed work. Without Christ’s sacrifice, the Church has no foundation on which to stand.
What lessons do you draw from the laver? How does this affect your day by day walk?
The laver stood between the brazen altar and the entrance to the Holy Place. Missler explains that it was constructed from the bronze mirrors of the women of Israel and filled with water for ceremonial washing. He connects the reflective properties of those mirrors with the Word of God, which reveals our condition, and the water with the cleansing that comes through that Word. In John 15:3, Jesus tells His disciples that they are clean through the word He has spoken to them. In John 17:17, He prays, “Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth.” Paul makes the same connection in Ephesians 5:26 when he describes Christ cleansing the Church through the washing of water with the Word. The laver therefore represents more than ceremonial cleanliness. It points toward the continuing sanctifying work of God’s Word in the life of a believer.
The practical application is that my relationship with Scripture should involve more than simply accumulating biblical knowledge. The Word exposes things about me that I might otherwise overlook, including attitudes, motivations, and conduct that are inconsistent with what God has revealed. The mirrors used to construct the laver make that connection particularly interesting. A mirror reveals what is actually there, whether I appreciate what I see or not. Likewise, Scripture confronts me with the truth about myself. I cannot make myself righteous through my own efforts, but I can continually submit myself to the Word through which God sanctifies His people. That gives my daily study of Scripture a purpose beyond understanding the text. It is also part of how God continues to transform me.
Select one item from the week’s study and discuss its significance. What message does it hold for you? Does it alter the way you think of God? If so, explain.
One detail I found particularly interesting was the connection Missler makes between the almond blossoms on the golden lampstand and the resurrection. In Exodus 25:33–34, the lampstand is decorated with almond-shaped cups, buds, and flowers. Missler notes that the almond tree is among the first to blossom in Israel each spring, and he connects this imagery to Aaron’s rod in Numbers 17:8, which miraculously produced buds, blossoms, and almonds. Something that was apparently dead suddenly produced life. Missler sees this as a picture of resurrection, ultimately pointing toward Jesus Christ. I find this interesting because it reinforces something I have encountered repeatedly throughout Scripture: the same themes appear in different places, often separated by centuries, yet they fit together remarkably well. I would not argue that every decorative detail necessarily carries a prophetic meaning, but the connection between Aaron’s rod and resurrection is worth considering. It does not fundamentally change how I think about God, but it reinforces my conviction that Scripture possesses an underlying unity and design that becomes increasingly apparent the more carefully we study it.
Discuss the rending of the veil. What significance does it have for today’s world? Explain.
The veil separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, where God’s presence was represented above the Mercy Seat. Under the Mosaic system, only the high priest could pass beyond that veil, and only once each year on the Day of Atonement. When Christ died, Matthew 27:51 records that the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Missler emphasizes this because it shows that God alone removed the barrier. Man did not tear the veil, nor did God tear it halfway and leave the remainder for us to accomplish. Christ completed the work Himself. Hebrews 9:11–12 explains that Christ entered the greater heavenly sanctuary through His own blood, obtaining eternal redemption. For the world today, this means access to God no longer depends on participation in the Mosaic priesthood or the sacrificial system. We do not have to become Jewish or attempt to establish our righteousness through obedience to the Law. We must surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and trust in what He has accomplished. We are guilty before God, but Christ has already paid the penalty for our sins. Those who belong to Him are forgiven not because judgment has been disregarded, but because His sacrifice has satisfied it. The veil was torn because God Himself provided the way back into His presence.
How do the four coverings relate to Jesus? How is this relevant to the world today? Explain.
Exodus 26 describes four coverings: fine linen embroidered with cherubim, goat’s hair, ram skins dyed red, and an outer covering traditionally translated as badger skins, although Missler suggests the Hebrew may refer to porpoise skins. Each covering represents a different aspect of Christ’s person and work. The innermost covering of fine linen, with its elaborate embroidery and colors, speaks of His glory. Missler connects the four colors with the four Gospel presentations of Christ: Matthew emphasizes the King, Mark the suffering Servant, Luke the Son of Man, and John His heavenly or divine nature. The goat’s hair represents the sin offering, pointing toward Christ bearing our sins. The ram skins dyed red represent substitutionary sacrifice, recalling the ram provided in place of Isaac in Genesis 22. Finally, the outer covering represents God’s provision and protection. Missler connects this with the preservation of Israel’s clothing during the forty years in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:4; 29:5).
What strikes me about these coverings is that they present several different aspects of the same Savior. Christ is glorious, yet He took upon Himself the burden of our sin. He became our substitute, and through Him God has provided everything necessary for our redemption. There is also an interesting contrast between the Tabernacle’s appearance from the outside and what could be seen from within. Externally, it was not particularly attractive, but inside it contained gold, elaborate embroidery, and representations of heavenly things. Missler connects this to the description of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:2, who had no outward beauty to make people desire Him. I think the relevance for today is that people often judge things by outward appearance without understanding what lies beneath. Christ’s significance cannot be determined by examining His earthly circumstances or outward appearance alone. His true identity and the significance of His sacrifice become apparent through what God has revealed in Scripture.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add
SESSION 12
Using the Tabernacle as a reference explain how a person can become saved. What new insights does this give you?
The Tabernacle presents a remarkable picture of God’s plan of redemption through Jesus Christ. From the outside, we see the white linen representing God’s righteousness and the brass sockets representing His judgment. Only one entrance exists, which Missler identifies with Jesus Christ in John 10:9, where Jesus declares, “I am the door.” No one can enter God’s presence through his own righteousness or efforts; he must come through Christ. Once inside, the brazen altar represents the sacrifice necessary for redemption, while the laver represents cleansing. Beyond these is the place of fellowship, illuminated by the lampstand and sustained by the bread of life. What strikes me most is Missler’s distinction between intellectually acknowledging the door and actually entering through it. Simply knowing about Jesus Christ, or even intellectually agreeing with His claims, is not the same as being redeemed through Him. Salvation requires more than intellectual assent; it involves genuinely coming to Christ in faith. Yet, as Missler emphasizes, redemption is entirely God’s work. We contribute nothing toward the price of our ransom. God provides the sacrifice, the cleansing, and the Mediator through whom we approach Him (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:25). Even our ability to come to Christ depends upon the Father drawing us (John 6:44). The Tabernacle reinforces something I have come to understand more deeply over the years: salvation is not something we accomplish for ourselves. God has accomplished it for us through Jesus Christ.
What “golden calves” do you have in your life? How will you deal with them?
I don’t believe I have any golden calves remaining in my life, at least none that I am presently aware of. There have certainly been several throughout my life. At one time, martial arts occupied that position, followed by Buddhism and meditation. Later, it became business, making money, and acquiring wealth. These were things that consumed my attention, directed my ambitions, and ultimately competed with God for authority over my life. But over the years, God has progressively stripped those things away. Slowly but surely, my life has been surrendered to Jesus Christ, or at least as completely as I can presently recognize. Everything I have, everything I do, and everything I hope to accomplish belongs to Him. That doesn’t mean I have reached some state of perfection, but I no longer consciously pursue anything as an end in itself apart from Him.
What I find particularly interesting about Exodus 32 is that Israel’s golden calf wasn’t simply a matter of forgetting God. Aaron actually proclaimed a feast to the LORD while the people worshiped the idol (Exodus 32:5). They were trying to incorporate their rebellion into what they apparently considered worship. That is a sobering distinction because idolatry doesn’t always announce itself as a rejection of God. Sometimes it disguises itself as something compatible with serving Him. I think the danger for me today is allowing something otherwise legitimate, such as my writing, ministry, or business, to become more important than the God who has entrusted those things to me. My responsibility is to remain attentive to that possibility, continually examining my motives against Scripture and remaining willing to surrender anything He might require. As Missler points out, Israel’s failure came immediately after an extraordinary demonstration of God’s power. None of us is beyond that danger (1 Corinthians 10:12).
What do you do when you feel that God has stopped speaking to you? How can Exodus 32 help you in that situation?
I can’t really say that I have experienced God ceasing to speak to me since I was first saved. His direction has taken different forms throughout my life, sometimes through Scripture, sometimes through circumstances, sometimes through other people, and sometimes through an unmistakable conviction that He is directing me toward something. I don’t mean that I hear an audible voice or that every impression I have necessarily comes from God. Rather, I have never experienced a period in which I genuinely believed He had abandoned me or withdrawn His presence. Even when circumstances have been difficult, or His purposes have been unclear, I have continued to recognize His involvement in my life. His Word remains available, and His promises do not depend upon whether I happen to feel His presence at any particular moment (Hebrews 13:5).
Exodus 32 illustrates what can happen when people mistake the apparent absence of God’s activity for His actual absence. Moses had been on the mountain longer than the Israelites expected, and instead of waiting on the LORD, they demanded that Aaron make them gods to lead them. Their impatience became an excuse for rebellion. Yet God had not abandoned them. Moses was on the mountain receiving God’s instructions for the very people who were rejecting Him below. I think the lesson is that God’s silence, or what we perceive as silence, does not mean He has stopped working. We are not entitled to dictate His timing or demand that He reveal everything He is doing. Proverbs 3:5–6 instructs us to trust in the LORD rather than lean upon our own understanding. When I don’t understand what God is doing, my responsibility is not to manufacture an answer or seek some substitute for His direction. It is to remain faithful to what He has already revealed and trust Him with everything else.
How is God’s covenant sustained, then and now? Why do you think so? How does this affect your promise-making?
God sustains His covenant by His own will, purpose, and faithfulness, not by man’s ability to remain faithful to Him. This is one of the most significant lessons in Exodus 32. Israel had already violated the covenant almost immediately after agreeing to obey everything God commanded (Exodus 24:3). Yet when Moses interceded on their behalf, he did not appeal to Israel’s righteousness or obedience. He appealed to the promises God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, promises God had sworn by Himself (Exodus 32:11–14). As Missler emphasizes, Israel’s preservation rested on God’s faithfulness, not Israel’s. I believe this reflects a much larger truth about God’s redemptive plan. His purposes were established before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4–11), and He accomplishes what He has determined to accomplish (Isaiah 46:9–10). His covenant promises are consistent, coherent, and continuous because His character does not change (Malachi 3:6). Under the New Covenant, Jesus Christ is our Mediator, just as Moses served as an intercessor for Israel, although Christ’s mediation is infinitely greater because it rests upon His own completed sacrifice (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 7:25).
As for my own promise-making, I don’t generally approach God through conditional promises or bargains. I don’t believe I can obligate God to act by promising Him something in return, nor do I believe His faithfulness depends upon my ability to negotiate with Him. Instead, I try to follow the principle established in Ecclesiastes 5:4–5, which warns against making vows that we do not intend to fulfill. I would rather make no promise at all than make one carelessly and fail to honor it. Jesus reinforces this principle in Matthew 5:37, teaching that our yes should be yes and our no should be no. God’s covenant faithfulness reminds me that promises are serious matters. Although my faithfulness can never compare with His, I should nevertheless strive to reflect His character by being truthful, deliberate, and dependable in the commitments I make.
How do you determine God’s will in a particular situation? How does this differ from that of the priests?
This is a rather loaded question because I’m not certain I could explain precisely how I determine God’s will in every situation. Generally, I live my life, make decisions I believe align with His Word, and leave the ultimate outcome to Him. Proverbs 16:9 says that a man’s heart plans his course, but the LORD directs his steps. That describes my approach fairly well. If I believe God is leading me toward a particular opportunity, I pursue it. But if that door closes and another opens, I am generally willing to accept that change as part of His direction. Of course, an open door does not automatically mean something is God’s will, any more than a closed door necessarily means it isn’t. Every opportunity must first be evaluated against Scripture. If pursuing something would require disobedience to God’s revealed commands, then I have no reason to believe He is directing me toward it. Beyond that, I trust His sovereignty. I make the best decisions I can with the understanding He has given me, and I trust Him to accomplish His purposes regardless of whether my original plans succeed.
The priests of Israel had a somewhat different means of seeking God’s direction through the Urim and Thummim, which were associated with the high priest’s breastplate (Exodus 28:30). As Missler explains, we don’t know precisely what these objects were or how they functioned, although Scripture suggests they were used to obtain divine judgment or direction in particular matters (Numbers 27:21). Missler compares their apparent function to casting lots, while acknowledging that their physical form remains uncertain. Their significance, however, points beyond the objects themselves to Jesus Christ, whom Missler identifies as our light, perfection, truth, and ultimate judge. Under the New Covenant, we do not depend upon a Levitical priest using sacred objects to determine God’s direction. We have Jesus Christ as our High Priest and Mediator (Hebrews 4:14–16), the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:26), and the written Word of God, which equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17). I don’t believe this guarantees that every decision will come with unmistakable supernatural confirmation. Rather, it means I can seek God’s wisdom, examine my decisions against His Word, and trust Him to direct my steps according to His purposes.
What “golden calves” represent your culture? Explain.
I think our culture is filled with golden calves, although we don’t generally recognize them as such. Money, wealth, fame, notoriety, power, and influence are among the most obvious. Sexual immorality and the pursuit of pleasure have also become defining characteristics of our society, along with an increasingly pervasive emphasis on self-interest, self-expression, and self-absorption. We have elevated personal desires, individual identity, and material success to the point that they often take precedence over obedience to God. Exodus 32 is particularly relevant because the Israelites did not necessarily believe they were abandoning religious worship. Aaron proclaimed their celebration to be a feast to the LORD while they worshiped something they had created with their own hands. I see a similar pattern today, even within Christianity, where cultural values are sometimes incorporated into worship and justified as expressions of faith rather than examined against Scripture. Romans 1:21–25 describes humanity exchanging the truth of God for a lie and worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. Ultimately, I think that is what every golden calf represents: taking something God has created or permitted, elevating it above its proper place, and allowing it to become an object of devotion that belongs to God alone.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
SESSION 13
Why is the priesthood important to you? Explain.
The Levitical priesthood itself is not particularly important to me in terms of its historical ceremonies and responsibilities. However, the priesthood of believers is important because God considers it important. First Peter 2:5 and 2:9 describe believers as a holy and royal priesthood, while Revelation 1:6 says that Christ has made us kings and priests unto God. I think there is a mystery here that we do not fully understand. We are told we are priests, but I am not convinced we fully comprehend what that designation means or what our responsibilities will ultimately entail. Nevertheless, if God identifies believers as priests, then understanding the priesthood He established under the Old Covenant should help us better understand our relationship with Him.
What I found particularly interesting in Missler’s lecture was his examination of the seven stages of priestly consecration in Exodus 29. Aaron and his sons were selected, brought, washed, clothed, anointed, had their hands filled, and were sanctified. Missler connects each action to what God does for believers through Christ. His most significant observation, at least to me, was that the priests were essentially passive throughout their consecration. These things were done to them rather than accomplished by them. That seems to illustrate something fundamental about salvation. We do not make ourselves acceptable to God through our own efforts. God calls, cleanses, clothes, anoints, and sanctifies us. Our role is to receive what He provides.
In what ways was Moses a type of Christ? How is Christ typified in your life?
Moses was a type of Christ primarily because he was a deliverer and mediator. God used Moses to deliver Israel from bondage in Egypt, just as Christ delivers believers from bondage to sin. Moses also served as the intermediary through whom God established His covenant with Israel. Moses led them out of Egypt and through the wilderness. Moses officiated at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, performing the actions necessary to establish them as priests. Missler argues that Christ performs the corresponding work in establishing believers as priests before God.
I am not entirely certain what the question means by asking how Christ is typified in my life, since I would ordinarily understand a type as something that foreshadows Christ rather than something Christ becomes in my personal experience. However, if the question is asking how these parallels apply to me, I would point to the same seven stages of consecration that Missler discusses. Christ has brought me to God (1 Peter 3:18), cleansed me, clothed me in His righteousness, and sanctified me. I did not accomplish those things myself. I can also recognize His work in transforming my life. God intervened and changed the direction of my life in ways I could never have accomplished through my own efforts. In that sense, Moses’ ministry toward the priests illustrates what Christ has done for me.
Discuss the role of the laver? What significance does this have for life today?
The laver was a bronze basin positioned between the Brazen Altar and the entrance to the Tabernacle. According to Exodus 30:17–21, Aaron and his sons were required to wash their hands and feet before entering the Tabernacle or approaching the altar to minister. This was not optional. God specifically warned them to wash so they would not die. I originally associated the laver with baptism, but Missler explicitly rejects that interpretation in this lecture. Instead, he connects the water with the cleansing power of God’s Word. He distinguishes between two kinds of washing: the initial washing associated with regeneration, which occurs once, and the ongoing cleansing believers need throughout their lives. He draws on Titus 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, Psalm 119:9, and 1 Peter 1:22 to develop that distinction.
What interests me most is the relationship Missler draws between the laver and the mirrors that made it. Exodus 38:8 identifies the women’s bronze mirrors as the material used to build it. Missler connects this with James 1:23–25, where Scripture is compared to a mirror. God’s Word reveals our actual condition, exposing things we might otherwise overlook or refuse to acknowledge. However, recognizing our condition is not the same as cleansing ourselves. The Word reveals what needs to change, while God provides the cleansing. Missler also observes that Scripture gives no dimensions for the laver and no instructions for covering it during transport. He interprets those omissions as illustrating the unlimited availability of God’s Word. I find that interpretation interesting, although I would distinguish it from what the text explicitly states. The practical application is clear enough: regeneration occurs once, but we still need to examine ourselves and be continually cleansed through God’s Word throughout our lives.
Discuss the role of the priest. What comparisons can you draw between then and now?
Under the Old Covenant, the priest served as an intermediary between the people and God. He represented the people before God through sacrifices, offerings, intercession, and the various responsibilities associated with the Tabernacle. This differs from the prophet, who generally represented God to the people by communicating His Word. The priesthood was also restricted. Not everyone could enter the Tabernacle and perform priestly duties. Aaron and his descendants were specifically appointed and consecrated for that purpose. Their consecration involved washing, clothing, anointing, sacrifices, and sanctification, all according to the instructions God gave Moses in Exodus 29. The priesthood was therefore not something a person could simply assume.
Under the New Covenant, believers are identified as priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), but that does not mean we replace Christ as the mediator between God and man. First Timothy 2:5 identifies Christ as the one mediator, and Hebrews 13:10–15 connects Christian worship with offering praise to God through Him. Missler argues that the Old Testament priesthood provides an object lesson for understanding our position before God. Just as Aaron and his sons were consecrated through actions performed on their behalf, believers are made acceptable to God through Christ’s work. We can now approach God through Him and offer spiritual sacrifices, including praise. Nevertheless, I still think there is more to the designation of believers as kings and priests than we presently understand. Scripture establishes that identity, but I am not convinced we fully comprehend everything it will involve in God’s kingdom.
Investigate what happened when Uzziah handled incense. What have you learned from this incident?
Missler briefly references King Uzziah in connection with the Golden Altar and directs us to 2 Chronicles 26. The account explains that Uzziah became powerful and prosperous, but his success eventually led to pride. He entered the Temple intending to burn incense on the altar, even though that responsibility belonged exclusively to the consecrated priests descended from Aaron. Azariah the priest, accompanied by eighty other priests, confronted him and warned him that he had no authority to perform that service. Uzziah became angry, and while he was standing there with the censer in his hand, leprosy broke out on his forehead. The priests hurried him out of the Temple, and Uzziah himself was eager to leave. According to 2 Chronicles 26:21, he remained a leper until his death and lived separately, while his son Jotham administered the kingdom.
What stands out to me is that Uzziah was not condemned for worshiping God or for wanting to offer incense. His offense was assuming an authority God had not given him. He was the king of Judah, but being king did not make him a priest. His position, accomplishments, and previous blessings did not give him permission to disregard God’s instructions. I think that is the central lesson of the incident. We cannot assume that because something appears religious or is supposedly being done for God, we are free to approach Him however we choose. Uzziah’s pride led him to cross a boundary God had established, and when he was corrected, he responded with anger rather than repentance. The incident reminds us that obedience and humility matter more than our position, accomplishments, or intentions.
Research the Golden Altar. What significance does it hold for the believer? For you personally?
The Golden Altar, described in Exodus 30:1–10, was the altar of incense positioned immediately before the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Unlike the Brazen Altar, where animal sacrifices were offered, the Golden Altar was used for burning incense before the Lord. Aaron was instructed to burn incense on it every morning and evening, and no unauthorized incense or other offerings were permitted. Missler emphasizes that the two altars were connected because fire from the Brazen Altar was used in connection with the incense offered at the Golden Altar. He interprets the Golden Altar primarily as a picture of intercession and praise. More specifically, he connects it with Christ’s present ministry of intercession on behalf of believers. This distinction is important. The Golden Altar does not primarily symbolize the purity of Christ’s sacrifice. The Brazen Altar more directly represents His sacrificial death, while the Golden Altar points toward His continuing ministry before God.
Personally, I find the connection with Christ’s intercession more meaningful than the symbolism I originally assigned to the gold and the altar itself. I know that Christ’s sacrifice made my salvation possible, but I do not always spend much time considering His continuing ministry on my behalf. Hebrews 7:25 says that He lives to make intercession for those who come to God through Him. That means His work for me did not end with my conversion. I have experienced a transformation in my life that I believe would never have happened without God’s intervention. Yet I still need His grace, His guidance, and His ongoing work in my life. The Golden Altar also reminds me that prayer and praise are not peripheral activities. They are part of our relationship with God, made possible through Christ. Missler’s observation that the Golden Altar comes after the consecration of the priests is particularly relevant: before we can approach God in worship, He must first make us acceptable to Him.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
SESSION 14
How do you view the Sabbath rest? What crowds out your Sabbath rest? Explain.
I do not view observing a particular Sabbath day as binding on me as a Christian. Exodus 31:12–17 specifically identifies the Sabbath as a covenant sign between God and the children of Israel. I believe Romans 14:5–6 provides the appropriate instruction for believers concerning the observance of particular days. Some esteem one day above another, while others esteem every day alike, and each should be fully convinced in his own mind. Whatever we do, we should do it unto the Lord. Consequently, I do not set aside Saturday or Sunday as a required day of rest. I rest when I need to rest, and I work when I need to work. My desire is to bring everything I do before God because my entire life belongs to Him. If someone is convinced that observing a particular day is necessary, that person should act according to that conviction. Likewise, someone who regards every day alike should act consistently with that conviction rather than violate his conscience.
I do, however, recognize the distinction Missler makes between observing a Sabbath day and entering into God’s rest. He argues that the Christian’s Sabbath rest is not primarily about refraining from physical labor on a particular day but about learning to trust God completely and depend upon Him throughout our daily lives. I agree with that distinction. The rest described in Hebrews is something considerably more significant than taking a day off from work. It involves trusting God rather than attempting to control everything ourselves. What can crowd out that rest is not necessarily work or activity but worry, anxiety, and assuming responsibility for things that belong to God. I can be physically busy while resting in Him, just as I can be physically inactive while failing to trust Him. The issue is not whether I am working but whether I am living in dependence upon God.
Discuss the workmanship required in God’s service. How does your workmanship reflect these characteristics? Explain.
I believe that whatever God has given us to do should be accomplished to the very best of our abilities, using whatever materials, resources, skills, and opportunities He has provided. Exodus 31:1–11 describes how God specifically called Bezalel and Aholiab and equipped them with wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and craftsmanship to accomplish the work He had appointed. As Missler emphasizes, the key issue was not merely their natural ability, but that God called and equipped them for a particular purpose. Their responsibility was to obey that calling faithfully. I believe this principle extends to everything we do in service to God. We see the importance of sincerity and obedience in the account of Cain’s offering and in the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. We also see that God evaluates more than the outward value of our work or contribution in the account of the poor widow who gave two small coins (Mark 12:41–44). The issue is not necessarily how impressive our contribution appears but whether we are genuinely offering God what we have. In my own life, I no longer make much distinction between secular work and spiritual service. My days are largely devoted to the responsibilities, pursuits, and passions I believe God has given me. I approach those things with an innate passion to do them as well as I possibly can, not because I am trying to earn anything from God, but because I regard my time, abilities, and opportunities as belonging to Him. But, more so, because this is a passion he has given me to exercise, and I’m naturally drawn to it.
Is the work of the kingdom being hindered today by faulty workmanship? Explain.
I believe the work of the kingdom is being hindered, but the problem goes much deeper than poor workmanship or a lack of effort. Much of what I see in the modern institutional church reflects misplaced beliefs, questionable motives, and a willingness to elevate money, organizational structures, and inherited traditions above biblical truth. A church can have excellent facilities, polished services, professional leadership, and elaborate programs while still failing to function according to the principles established in Scripture. In Exodus 31, God chose the workers, equipped them, and specified the work they were to accomplish. Missler makes an important distinction when he says that true service is rooted in obedience to God’s calling. I think much of the modern church has reversed that order. We establish institutions and programs, create positions to maintain them, and then attempt to persuade people to finance and participate in what we have built. Being busy with religious activity does not necessarily mean we are accomplishing the work God has appointed.
I also believe the church has confused the gathering of believers with evangelistic outreach. I understand the assembly of the church to be a gathering of believers for fellowship, teaching, worship, and mutual edification, rather than a performance designed to attract or entertain unbelievers. Evangelism matters, but I do not believe it should define the nature of the church’s internal fellowship. I am also deeply skeptical of the professional clergy system, particularly where spiritual authority becomes tied to paid positions, institutional power, or financial dependence. I see a possible connection between that kind of hierarchical control and the warning concerning the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6, for they are those who “lord it over” the congregation. My concern is that the church has become so dependent upon its institutions, finances, and traditions that many congregations would struggle to survive serious persecution. I believe genuine workmanship in God’s kingdom begins with obedience to Scripture, sincerity of faith, and a willingness to abandon whatever God has not actually called us to do.
Investigate the spices used in the anointing oil. How are they representative of the Holy Spirit? How is this manifested in your life?
Exodus 30:22–25 identifies four principal spices used in the holy anointing oil: myrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, and cassia, combined with olive oil. Missler associates the olive oil with the Holy Spirit and interprets the individual spices as symbolic representations of characteristics associated with Jesus Christ. He connects myrrh with suffering and death because it is associated with burial and the fragrance released when crushed. He associates cinnamon with righteous jealousy or zeal, particularly Christ’s zeal for His Father’s house in John 2:17. Sweet calamus represents uprightness, while cassia is associated with bowing down in worship. Taken together, Missler sees these ingredients as pointing toward Christ’s suffering, zeal, righteousness, and worshipful submission. I find these associations interesting, although I would distinguish between what Exodus explicitly teaches and the symbolic meanings Missler draws from the characteristics and proposed meanings of the spices. The passage clearly establishes that the oil was holy, carefully prepared, and reserved for consecrating the tabernacle, its furnishings, and the priests. The individual symbolic interpretations are less certain.
What I find more significant is Missler’s discussion of the Holy Spirit Himself. He emphasizes that the Spirit is not merely a force or an influence but God, and that His work is directed toward glorifying Jesus Christ rather than drawing attention to Himself. He also argues that the costly and carefully restricted anointing oil illustrates the seriousness of the Spirit’s work in a believer’s life. I understand that work primarily through the individual’s transformation: conviction of sin, an increasing desire for God’s Word, a growing understanding of Scripture, and a willingness to surrender every part of life to Christ. I do not believe the Holy Spirit’s activity must always be accompanied by outwardly dramatic manifestations. His work can be seen in the continuing transformation of a person’s desires, priorities, understanding, and obedience. In my own life, I would identify His work particularly with my desire to study Scripture, understand biblical truth, and bring the different areas of my life under God’s authority.
What is your view concerning giving? How do you give? Explain.
I believe giving should be voluntary, sincere, and motivated by genuine conviction rather than obligation, persuasion, or pressure. Exodus 35:5 specifically calls for offerings from those with willing hearts, and the account continues until Moses must actually instruct the people to stop bringing contributions because they have more than enough (Exodus 36:5–7). I think this contrasts sharply with much of what happens in modern churches. Missler emphasizes that God does not need our money and that giving is a privilege, not a way to meet some deficiency in God. I agree. I also believe 2 Corinthians 9:7 establishes the proper principle: each person should give as he has determined in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion. I do not believe someone should give simply because another person has pressured him. I also place considerable importance on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6:1–4 concerning giving in secret. We should not give for recognition or to establish a reputation for generosity. Motivation matters more than the amount, and I believe giving should ordinarily be as private as possible.
Personally, I rarely feel specifically drawn or convicted to give money to another person or organization. However, when I do, I give willingly and without expecting repayment or recognition. I try to arrange things so that as few people as possible know where the money came from. I do not want the recipient to feel indebted to me, nor do I want others to regard me differently because I have given something. I also do not believe giving is limited to money. We can offer God our time, abilities, resources, and willingness to serve others. Money itself has very little significance to me beyond its usefulness as a tool. It is something to be managed responsibly, not something to pursue as an end in itself. Ultimately, I believe God wants far more than a portion of our income. He wants our entire lives, and financial giving is only one possible expression of that surrender.
Is the ministry of the church affected today, positively or negatively, by member’s attitudes towards giving? Explain in relationship to your own home church.
I believe church members’ attitudes toward giving can affect a congregation both positively and negatively, but I also think those attitudes are often shaped by how church leadership approaches money. In many modern churches, giving has become closely associated with maintaining buildings, salaries, programs, and institutional structures. I am particularly concerned when financial appeals are presented as spiritual obligations or when members are made to feel responsible for sustaining an organization regardless of whether its activities are producing genuine spiritual fruit. Missler raises an important question: how many ministries are being sustained financially that God might otherwise allow to end? His point is that believers should exercise discernment rather than simply contribute wherever someone claims to have a need. I agree with that principle. Giving should be voluntary and informed, and those entrusted with contributions should be accountable for how they use them. I believe professionalizing church leadership can create conflicts of interest when the institution’s financial survival becomes inseparable from its leaders’ personal income and authority.
In relation to my own home church, I would apply these principles without assuming that every criticism I have of the modern church necessarily describes my local congregation. I cannot speak to the private motives of its members or leadership, nor can I evaluate its financial stewardship without knowing how it actually uses its resources. My concern is with the broader system and the degree to which churches become dependent upon money to maintain their existing structures. I believe a healthy congregation should encourage voluntary generosity, practice financial transparency, and direct its resources toward work that is genuinely consistent with Scripture. I also believe we should ask whether our fellowship and ministry could continue if we suddenly lost the buildings, paid positions, and organized programs. If the answer is no, I think that raises serious questions about what we have built. The church is ultimately the people who belong to Christ, not the institution that houses or organizes them. Giving should strengthen the ministry of those people, not become an obligation to preserve an institution for its own sake.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
SESSION 15
How would you have responded to the question in Exodus 32:26? Explain.
I believe I would have stood with Moses, but I cannot say that with absolute certainty because I was not there, and I do not know how I would have responded under those circumstances. I would like to believe that my allegiance to God would have outweighed my allegiance to the people around me, including my family, friends, and religious leaders. Throughout my Christian life, I have been willing to question traditions, challenge religious authority, and separate myself from institutions when I believed they were acting contrary to Scripture. I do not value belonging to a particular group or maintaining relationships at the expense of what I believe to be biblical truth. Consequently, I think I would have separated myself from those worshiping the golden calf and stood with Moses, regardless of how many others chose to remain behind.
However, I would not attribute that decision to some inherent righteousness or strength within myself. I believe God is sovereign over our lives, including our convictions, decisions, and willingness to follow Him. If I had stood with Moses, it would have been because God had drawn me to Himself and given me the conviction to do so. I also recognize that declaring allegiance to God is considerably easier than following through when obedience requires something personally devastating. The subsequent command in Exodus 32:27–28 makes that distinction particularly significant. I cannot honestly claim to know whether I would have possessed the resolve to carry out that command against people I knew and loved. What I can say is that I believe my allegiance belongs to God above everything else, and I would hope that when confronted with such a choice, He would give me the conviction and willingness to stand with Him.
What kinds of idols do you wrestle with? What excuses do you use to justify this?
I think the greatest idol I struggle with is control. I have a strong desire for order, structure, predictability, and stability, particularly in my home, marriage, finances, and daily responsibilities. When circumstances become chaotic, or people refuse to cooperate with what I believe needs to happen, I become frustrated, angry, discouraged, and sometimes withdraw. I justify this by appealing to my responsibilities as a husband, father, and steward of what God has entrusted to me. I tell myself someone has to establish order, someone has to make responsible decisions, and if I don’t take charge, things will fall apart. While some truth lies in those concerns, I recognize that I can use legitimate responsibilities to justify an unhealthy need to control circumstances and people. I profess to believe that God is sovereign over everything, yet I sometimes behave as though everything depends on me. I need to confront that contradiction.
I also struggle with making idols out of productivity, accomplishment, intellectual correctness, and possibly even my writing and publishing business. I can become so focused on completing projects, building systems, achieving goals, and fulfilling what I perceive to be my calling that I neglect other things God has entrusted to me, particularly my relationship with Him, my marriage, and my family. I justify these pursuits by telling myself that I am being productive, practicing good stewardship, defending biblical truth, or using the gifts God has given me. But I recognize that doing good things does not necessarily mean I am doing what God wants me to do at that moment. I can become so committed to my understanding of what faithfulness should look like that I struggle to surrender my expectations, ambitions, and plans. Ultimately, I think my greatest temptation is to place my confidence in my own ability to understand, organize, and accomplish things rather than resting in God’s sovereignty and trusting Him with the outcomes.
Do you ever find yourself being casual about sin? Explain. What risks are involved?
Yes, I do, although I think I am less casual about sin today than I have been in the past. One area where I recognize this is the secular music I listen to. I enjoy secular music, and I sometimes listen to songs whose lyrics describe or even celebrate sinful behavior without giving much thought to what I am allowing into my mind. I don’t necessarily believe that listening to secular music is sinful in itself, but I recognize that I can become desensitized to the messages contained in it. I can justify my choices by telling myself that I enjoy the music rather than the message, or that listening to a particular song doesn’t mean I approve of its content. However, that reasoning can become an excuse for treating something lightly that God takes seriously. As Missler points out in this lecture, the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf should remind us that God’s grace does not mean He has become indifferent toward sin. The very necessity of Christ’s sacrifice demonstrates how seriously God regards it.
My greater concern is the influence my behavior might have on my children and other believers. My children see and hear what I listen to, and they may follow my example without exercising the same discernment I believe I am exercising. Something I consider relatively harmless might introduce them to influences that eventually lead them in directions I never intended. The same principle applies to other believers who might misunderstand my conduct or conclude that I am being hypocritical. Paul addresses this concern in 1 Corinthians 8, where he warns believers to consider how exercising their freedom might affect someone else’s conscience. I need to recognize that my decisions affect more than just me. I have a responsibility to consider the example I am setting, particularly for my children, and not allow my familiarity with certain sins to make me indifferent toward them.
Discuss your role as an intercessor. What can and will you do to improve your intercessory prayer life?
I believe one of my responsibilities as a husband and father is to intercede before God for my wife and each of my children. I think of Job, who regularly offered sacrifices on behalf of his children because he was concerned that they might have sinned against God (Job 1:5). I also think of Moses in Exodus 32:11–14 and 32:30–32, where he intercedes for the Israelites despite their rebellion. Rather than abandoning them or distancing himself from their sin, Moses appeals to God’s character, His promises, and His faithfulness. Missler identifies Moses as a type of Christ in his role as mediator and intercessor. While I recognize that Jesus Christ is our ultimate mediator and continually intercedes for believers, I also believe I am called to bring my family’s needs before God. That includes praying for their salvation, spiritual growth, protection, struggles, and decisions, even when I disagree with the choices they are making.
Unfortunately, my prayer life is where I struggle most consistently, especially when it comes to intercessory prayer. I have tried different approaches, read books, and attempted to establish routines, but nothing has worked consistently. The one thing that reliably drives me to sustained and earnest prayer is distress. When I am facing a crisis, I can pray frequently, deeply, and persistently. When circumstances settle down, prayer gradually gets pushed aside by everything else competing for my attention. I recognize the inconsistency in that. I profess to believe that God is sovereign and that my family depends upon Him, yet I often behave as though prayer becomes necessary only when I have exhausted my own ability to manage a situation. I want to change that by making intercession a regular part of my relationship with God rather than something reserved for emergencies. I need to pray for my wife and children when things are going well, not merely when something has gone wrong, and learn to approach God consistently rather than waiting until circumstances force me to my knees.
Do you have a care or concern that you would like your classmates to intercede with God on your behalf? If so, share how we might pray for you.
I would appreciate prayer for our son, who has been making some poor decisions. My concern is not simply that he might experience unpleasant consequences, but that he would recognize the direction his choices are taking him and turn toward God. I would ask that you pray for wisdom, conviction, and a genuine transformation of his heart. I believe that lasting change comes from God rather than merely from external pressure or circumstances, so my greatest desire is that God would work in his life in a way that leads him toward repentance, wisdom, and a relationship with Him.
I would also appreciate prayer for my daughter’s boyfriend and their family. They are struggling with the challenges of caring for a newborn who was born blind. Please pray for the baby, for the parents as they adjust to the circumstances, and for the wisdom, patience, strength, and resources they will need moving forward. I would also appreciate prayer for my wife and me as we try to navigate these family circumstances faithfully, knowing when to help, when to establish appropriate boundaries, and when to entrust situations to God rather than attempting to control them ourselves.
Discuss how the world today treats sin casually. How do you respond when you personally witness this?
I think our society has become remarkably casual about sin, to the point that much of what Scripture identifies as sinful is now celebrated, commercialized, and exported throughout the world. I have often thought that the United States is one of the world’s leading exporters of sin through its entertainment, music, movies, television, and broader cultural influence. We have developed an enormous industry around promoting behaviors that Scripture condemns, and much of the world consumes what we produce. What I find particularly ironic is that a society that often considers itself morally enlightened can simultaneously normalize behavior that directly contradicts God’s standards. In this lecture, Missler points out that the Israelites did not simply adopt a golden calf; in their hearts, they turned back toward Egypt (Acts 7:39). I see a parallel in the modern world, where people continually find new ways to justify the desires of the flesh while rejecting God’s authority over their lives.
When I personally encounter this attitude toward sin, I generally do very little about it. I recognize it, sometimes find the contradictions ironic, and usually move on. To some extent, I have come to regard it as an unavoidable reality of living in a fallen world. I don’t believe Christians are called to police the behavior of unbelievers, and I don’t expect people who reject God’s authority to live according to His commandments. However, I also recognize the danger of becoming so accustomed to sin that I no longer respond to it with the seriousness it deserves. Paul reminds believers in 1 Corinthians 10:6–12 that Israel’s failures were recorded as warnings for us. I think my responsibility is to remain discerning, refuse to participate in or endorse what Scripture condemns, and be willing to speak the truth when an appropriate opportunity presents itself. At the same time, I need to remember that the greatest problem is not simply the sinful behavior I observe in the world, but humanity’s rejection of God. That is ultimately a problem only God can resolve through the transforming work of Jesus Christ.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
SESSION 16
In Exodus 34:6-7 what characteristics of God are revealed? How does this compare with your understanding of what God is like? What new insight have you gained?
Exodus 34:6–7 reveals that the Lord is merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. He is forgiving, just, and vengeful. These characteristics are consistent with my understanding of God.
I plan to write a book based on verse 7, exploring how the consequences of our sins can extend through multiple generations, affecting children and grandchildren who may have had nothing to do with the original sin. I don’t believe this necessarily means God actively punishes innocent descendants for their ancestors’ sins, but rather that the consequences of sin can continue through generations. Yet God can intervene and redeem anyone at any time, regardless of their family history or circumstances.
This passage reinforces my understanding that God’s mercy and justice are not contradictory. He can forgive sin while still allowing its consequences to unfold.
Discuss the “jealousy” of God. How do you see this being played out today?
Scripture explicitly describes God as jealous, even declaring that His name is Jealous in Exodus 34:14. I don’t believe God’s jealousy is sinful. God is righteous in everything He does, and His jealousy reflects His rightful expectation that His people worship Him alone.
I haven’t personally witnessed what I would identify as an expression of God’s jealousy in my own life. However, I recognize that His jealousy concerns our devotion and allegiance to Him. Today, this shows up in the ongoing conflict between worshiping God and pursuing the many things that compete for our attention, devotion, and loyalty.
Discuss the Abrahamic covenant and its implications for today.
The Abrahamic covenant has been unfolding for approximately 4,000 years. God promised Abraham and his descendants a particular land, that He would be their God, and that through Abraham all the families of the earth would be blessed.
This covenant was unconditional. Israel’s subsequent disobedience under the Mosaic covenant resulted in judgment, exile, and dispersion, but it did not nullify God’s original promises to Abraham. The Jewish people spent much of their history scattered throughout the world, particularly following the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Although Israel was reestablished as a nation in 1948, the entirety of the promised land has not yet come under its possession.
I believe this covenant will become especially significant in fulfilling biblical prophecy. My personal interpretation of Ezekiel 37 is that it describes a literal resurrection of the whole house of Israel. I understand this to mean the totality of those whom God recognizes as Israel, and I lean toward the possibility that this includes every Jewish person who has ever lived, although I recognize that the passage does not explicitly establish that conclusion.
I believe this restoration will culminate in the corporate redemption of Israel, as described in Romans 11:26. Just as individuals in the Church receive salvation through God’s grace, I believe Israel will ultimately experience a physical resurrection, then a corporate regeneration and salvation, fulfilling God’s covenant promises.
Select a way in which Moses is a type of Christ. Discuss how it typifies Christ and how that characteristic is significant for you today.
Moses led the people of Israel and served as a mediator between God and the people. He interceded on their behalf, particularly when they sinned against God. Jesus likewise serves as the mediator between God and fallen humanity. However, His mediation is greater because He accomplished what Moses could not: He provided the sacrifice necessary for our redemption.
First Timothy 2:5 identifies Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and mankind. This matters to me because through Christ alone we are reconciled to God. No other mediator and no other name can save us.
Moses fasted when he was on the mountain. What role does fasting play in your life? Explain.
Unfortunately, fasting does not play much of a role in my life. For a time, I thought my faith might be weak because I couldn’t or didn’t want to fast. However, I’ve come to understand that fasting is not a requirement for salvation, just as baptism and Sabbath observance are not the means by which we are saved.
I recognize that fasting has an important place in Scripture and that many biblical figures practiced it, including Moses and Jesus. However, I don’t believe every believer must fast in the same way or to the same extent. My relationship with God has developed primarily through studying His Word, seeking to understand and follow His will, and praying.
What new insight have you gained from this session? How will you implement that insight into your life?
I can’t say that I gained any particularly new insight from this session. Much of the material reinforced what I’ve already studied and the conclusions I’ve already reached.
However, the discussion of God’s characteristics in Exodus 34:6–7 reinforces my interest in exploring the generational consequences of sin and God’s ability to redeem individuals regardless of their circumstances. I intend to explore this further through my own study and eventually through a book I plan to write.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
CONCLUSIONS
Alright! Another course done at KI. This course was mostly a review, since most courses aren’t at this stage in the journey. But that is good. Not sure what my next course will be. I’m coming to the end. I think I have about 20-25 left before I’m finished with the entire KI program. Can’t wait to be finished!
Until my next assignment….
But if you’re still here…
You’re already standing in front of one.
Start reading In the Meadow for free.
Download your copy → here
What do you think?