As Moses, Aaron, and the Hebrews face a reality in Exodus 5 that does not fit with their expectations, a crisis of faith unfolds. If the God of their fathers, who has visited them and seen their affliction (cf. Exod 4:31), has promised deliverance, why have the lives of the Hebrews gotten worse since the prophet of God appeared? While Moses and Aaron may have known in theory that Pharaoh would not let God’s people go without a fight, they struggle with the reality of God’s deliverance. So, also, the Hebrews, who had believed the words of Moses and Aaron, are thrust into a crisis of faith as the reality of their lives does not meet their expectations. For Moses, Aaron, and the Hebrews, the disconnect between expectation and reality produces a crisis of faith. But what was the underlying cause of this crisis? And was there more than one cause? It seems to me that Pharaoh gives voice to the root cause of the crisis when he rebuffs Moses and Aaron by saying, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go” (Exod 5:2 ESV). That is to say, the root cause of the crisis of faith is a denial of the revelation and authority of God. To be sure, neither Moses, nor Aaron, nor the Hebrews would have explicitly stated or formally agreed to Pharaoh’s point of view, but in their actions they all functionally expressed unbelief in the revelation and authority of God.
This formal, explicit denial of God’s revelation and authority has a long history in and beyond the historical events of Scripture. All kinds of revolutions have popped up on account of such a denial. In fact, it could be said that Pharaoh gives expression to a fundamental revolutionary principle when he denies both the revelation and authority of God. Analyzing the origins of the French Revolution nearly 60 years later, this was the basic thesis that Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer presented in his work, Unbelief and Revolution, as the translator Harry van Dyke points out.[1] And then, in the forward to the third edition of Unbelief and Revolution that was published in 1904, almost another 60 years later, Herman Bavinck points out the durability of this thesis, even as the actors on the stage changed and the script was revised. Bavinck writes, “It is almost sixty years ago that the first—and more than forty years since the second—edition of this work appeared. In those years, times have changed in various respects. The enemies, against whom Groen moved, have almost all disappeared from the scene. The ideas, opposed by him, find almost no more supporters nowadays.”[2]
Instead, in Bavinck’s day all sorts of changes have taken place: “Rousseau has made a place for Darwin, Kant for Hegel, deism for pantheism, optimism for pessimism. While formerly man was thought to be like an angel, now he is held to be a developed animal. And after at first having vainly tried to derive all institutions and relations, in a Pelagian way, from the will of man, [or] from chance, one now endeavors in the work to explain everything deterministically from an unconscious impulse, [or] from fate. Revolution has, after repeated failed experimentation, passed over into the stage of evolution.” And yet, the more things change, the more they stay the same. In spite of all the changes through the decades, Bavinck notes that in both the cases of the French Revolution and Bavinck’s day, “it is still man, who brings into being language and religion, right and moral, state and society; in both cases, God, His word and law, are left outside of consideration.”[3]
Much of what Bavinck discerns continues to hold true today. Many of our contemporary challenges exhibit the same kind of revolutionary principle as prior ages, the denial of God’s revelation and authority. One big challenge for the church is to remain true to the unchanging truth of God’s word as the shape of the spirit of Pharaoh continues to take on new forms. It is critical for followers of Christ today to hold fast to both God’s revelation and his authority, especially when the pressure mounts individually and corporately to functionally deny these truths. The antidote to the functional disbelief that is the root cause of crisis is the gospel. As Bavinck notes, “The Gospel was the one but also the sufficient medicine for the diseases of the century.”[4] As it was then, so it is now. May we hold fast to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
[1] Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, Unbelief and Revolution, trans. Harry Van Dyke (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018), xvi–xvii.
[2] Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof En Revolutie: Eene Reeks van Historische Voorlezingen, 3rd ed. (Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1904), V.
[3] Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof, VI.
[4] Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof, XI.
댓글