15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.
16 And the Lord said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
No sooner did Pharaoh get what he wanted than he abandoned his promises and went back to being the same as before. This is an excellent example of a false conversion. Many come to God for what they want, but they do not actually love Him or want to be His obedient child. Their journey to God is entirely self-serving, and as soon as they get what they want—or don’t get what they want—they drop all pretenses of devotion.
God can be patient through such acts of betrayal, though. He does not lose any bargaining power by removing the pressure, for He is able to bring it right back in a multitude of ways! And, since the faithless did not respond to the first pressure, the second most often comes back even worse!
And that was certainly the case with Pharaoh. God did not return the same plague of frogs, he escalated it to something worse. The lice would have been a more intimate, invasive, and infuriating affliction. The frogs had been inside the Egyptian’s rooms and kitchenware, but now lice were living directly on their bodies! Wherever they went, the unpleasant, itching, disease-carrying lice would remain right on their person!
Pharaoh had tried to cheat during his wrestling match with the Lord, but God simply put him in a deeper hold.
11 And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only.
12 And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh: and Moses cried unto the Lord because of the frogs which he had brought against Pharaoh.
13 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died out of the houses, out of the villages, and out of the fields.
14 And they gathered them together upon heaps: and the land stank.
As extensive as the curse had reached in Egypt, so too did the cure. From every place and from every people the frogs ceased to spread and multiply. But it does not seem that the frogs left those places, rather that they died within them. The people still had to do the work of gathering them from every nook and cranny. They placed them in large piles which spread the stench of dead amphibians across the land.
I mentioned earlier that the effects of the curse seem symbolic of how a people will adopt false and harmful philosophies. The lies and deceit spread into every place and affect every person, whether they personally believe the falsehoods or not. They corrupt every home and every public square. And so, too, even after the madness has been dispelled, when society returns back to basic truth and reason, there is still a period of labor where the vestige of the old lie must be eradicated wherever it is found. And, for a time, there is still the lingering stench of old prejudices and wrongs that hang in the air. The curse is gone, but not the memory of it.
8 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Entreat the Lord, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord.
9 And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I entreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?
10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God.
The priests of Pharaoh had also been able to summon frogs, just as they had turned water to blood and staffs into snakes. Somehow, they were able to do all of these things, but there was one thing that they apparently couldn’t do. They couldn’t undo what Moses and Aaron had already done. They could be just as destructive as the Lord—so far—but that really wasn’t what Pharaoh needed!
If the priests really had power over God they would have shown it by reverting His plagues. This was the difference between God and the priests. When God commanded a plague upon Egypt, only He could recall it. It seems that Pharaoh came to that same conclusion, and finally had to go to Moses for relief.
We often talk about the signs and wonders that took place in Egypt, but typically only mention the destructive side of them. Creation, restoration, and healing are far more difficult than destruction, though. More significant than God sending the frogs, the lice, the flies, the boils, and the locusts was when he miraculously cleansed Egypt of the frogs, the lice, the flies, the boils, and the locusts. This is the power that we truly ought to remember, the greater power that separated Him from any other, the power that proved to Pharaoh “that there is none like unto the Lord our God!”
5 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt.
6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.
7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
God instructs Moses what miracle to perform, Moses and Aaron tell Pharaoh what it will be, and then it happens. The works of God typically follow this three-step process. He tells His servant, His servant tells the world at large, and then the fulfillment of the prophecy occurs. This establishes two principles that are largely consistent in God’s interactions with man.
1) God will speak to us indirectly, through His chosen prophet. 2) God will alert us to what He will do before He does it.
Thus we do not have to guess at what God will do next. It is knowable, though we do have to recognize who it is that speaks with his authority.
Presumably, the Egyptian magicians doing their enchantments to also bring up frogs was another attempt dispute who truly had that authority. Repeating the wonders of the staffs-to-snakes, water-to-blood, and summoning of frogs were likely meant as an argument that the Hebrew God was no more powerful than the Egyptian ones. It was to reassure Pharaoh so that he wouldn’t feel that he needed to give any regard to the words of Aaron and Moses.
This might have worked in the previous two instances, but as we will see in tomorrow’s verses, this wouldn’t be good enough for Pharaoh any longer. Whether by forces of darkness or subterfuge, the magicians were able to do some things, but they weren’t able to do the one thing Pharaoh actually needed. Only God could.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneadingtroughs:
4 And the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants.
For the second curse, a plague of frogs was sent throughout Egypt. I think the thing that stands out most from Moses and Aaron’s pronouncement is the complete invasiveness of this curse. In the house, in the bed, in the ovens, and in the dough. Among the royal, among the citizens, and among the servants. In short, there was nowhere that the frogs would not be found. And as we will see, this same invasive quality would also apply to every other curse as well.
So, too, when we disregard God and give in to our vices and sins. Disobedience invites all manner of plagues today: violent altercations, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, heartbreak, guilt, long-lasting consequences, broken relationships, cynicism, criminal records, and more. And, like the frogs, each of these can invade every aspect of our lives, perhaps manifesting in one place first, but then splintering to every part of our lives. No part of life is content until the whole vessel is pure.
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
Now begins the back-and-forth exchange between God and Pharaoh. There is a basic pattern that these discussions will follow:
God demands that Pharaoh let the Israelites go serve Him
Pharaoh refuses
God sends a plague upon the land
Pharaoh begs Moses to take the curse away, promising to let the Israelites go
Moses beseeches the Lord and the curse is removed
Pharaoh reneges on his promise
There might be some variations on that pattern here and there, but that’s generally how it will continue until Pharaoh finally relents. And this, of course, is the pattern that we so often see in our own lives. God calls us to live a better life, but we turn down those impulses to maintain our hedonistic pleasure or quiet complacency. Something goes wrong in our lives and we ask God to take it away, in the moment dedicating ourselves to Him, body and soul. God shows us grace, and we are grateful…but we don’t make good on our promise to better serve Him. We go back to our old ways and so it repeats. Our instinct might be to shake our heads at the strange actions of Pharaoh, but he is a representation of our own faithlessness.
I’ve spent the last week-and-a-half exploring this concept of why we believe the things that we do, and which justifications for our moral alignment are reasonable and which ones are not. Today I’ll wrap things up by reviewing all of the things that I’ve covered.
Our Basis for Right and Wrong)
After contemplating the different foundations people set their judgment of right and wrong upon, I concluded that there were three main bases. A person judges what is right and wrong based on what God has said, or what society has said, or what he, himself has said.
I observed that people in our society have adopted a principle that they must listen to their own heart, determining their own right and wrong to live by. I also noted that usually what we think comes from our own self, has actually come from the society we live in. We tend to absorb the ideas we are surrounded by osmosis and then have those ideas come out of us word-for-word the same as we heard in the public square. Thus, most people end up basing their morals on what society has said, but they think they have based it upon themselves.
But neither individual whim or society’s favor are reliable bases for determining what is right or wrong. Both of them have too much variance and transformation to reflect any sort of objective, universal truth. What is “right” in society today was wrong yesterday, and likely will be wrong again in the future. A cursory glance at history shows us that it’s not as if society only improves, either. Sometimes it gets better, but sometimes it gets worse. Things have been brighter since the dark ages, but things were also brighter before them. Who is to say whether society today is at a local maxima or minima? We might think we know, but some future generation somewhere will surely disagree.
Sooner or later, any who believes that truth is defined by the individual or the society and pursues that logic to its end must come to the only possible conclusion: there actually is no absolute truth, no ideal, no sacred or unchanging standard by which our actions can be judged. Morality is transient and subjective, and any attempt to censure another person as being “wrong” is both hypocritical and vain.
The Proper Basis)
The only logical and consistent basis for moral judgment is God. Only a being that exists outside of the individual or society, one that is constant through all ages, one that is greater than the created world could lay down a law and a morality and a truth that would be consistent and objectively right.
Of course, the identity and exact opinion of that God would still be up for debate, but at least we would accept that truth could only come from some sort of theology. Of course, it would be important to acknowledge that whatever god was the true God, our knowledge of His universal law must transcend from heaven itself. It cannot simply be the idea of some man that this is what God must want, God Himself needs to have dictated it to some persons, and those persons need to have written it down as directed. Again, if such a thing were to occur, it would still be a matter of opinion as to which sacred book actually represents the mind of God, but at least we would accept that the truth could only be read out of the scripture He had given us.
And then, once we felt that we had identified that true scripture, from that true God, describing that universal truth that we are all beholden to, then all competing ideas and philosophies would have to be discarded. Never mind if your loved ones thought you were crazy, or your friends reviled you, or society persecuted you, or the great enemy destroyed you. Because, as we have established, none of those other voices have any foundation to stand upon as they oppose you. Let them think, say, and do what they will, their logic and methods are self-defeating, and all of them will crumble in time.
You, however, will have made yourself an acolyte of genuine truth, and having laid hold of it, you will be united with the only thing that is permanent, the only thing that can stay with you through all of life, and even into the world that lies beyond. Whether you be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, or any other believer of divinely-inspired words, hold to that inspired truth above all others, and your existence will surely work out better for you than chasing the ever-changing goalposts of society’s latest fad.
I’ve seen a trend where people are incredulous that those who hold traditional, Christian values could follow and believe the principles that were common in our society until just recently. “How could you believe that outdated doctrine? It’s sexist, it’s homophobic, it’s discriminatory, it’s shaming!”
But people who say such things seem to be oblivious to the fact that we all consider one social behavior or another to be reprehensible. If we list out every controversial behavior, we will all find many things that we discriminate against. Child marriage, eating disorders, slavery, incestuous relationships, bestiality, animal sacrifice, cannibalism, the use of hallucinogenic drugs, polygamy, asceticism, and many, many more. Are there not at least some of these practices that you are staunchly opposed to?
Thus, to some extent, we all discriminate and judge between what is right and what is wrong. The only question, then, is on what basis do we judge the way that we do?
The Religious Basis for Judgment)
For the traditionally religious, the answer is simple. Our basis for moral judgment is that God is our creator. He made us according to a fashion and order that is consistent with His own principles of right and wrong, and He educates as to what morality we must live by to fulfill our design and purpose.
And, if these assertions are true, then what coherent argument could be brought against those who strive to live by the principles given by that creator God? Frankly, it wouldn’t matter what God asked of us, simply the fact that He did ask it would be justification to follow it. Our understanding isn’t necessary, compliance with the modern trends of the world isn’t necessary, and a public vote of approval isn’t necessary. As I have heard others state, if God were to tell me that the way for me to fulfill my design and purpose in life was to stand on my head from this moment on, then that would be what I needed to do. As a creation, living in a greater universe that I do not perfectly understand, I have no basis to disagree. What He says I must follow.
So if God pronounces certain behaviors evil, and other behaviors good, and asks me to live by these principles and testify of them, then that is what I need to do. No matter of social rejection should dissuade me, for society did not fashion my innermost being, nor know the core purpose for which I was made.
The World’s Basis for Judgment)
But what basis does modern society have for the things it condones and the things it condemns? What justification does it have for judging certain behaviors as worthy and others as unacceptable? If we have rejected the belief that we are creations of God, living according to His revealed precepts, then our basis for judgment must be derived from either the individual or the society.
If it is derived from the individual, then there can be no universal truth, for no one believes all the same things as another person. Every conviction that you hold, somewhere there is another person that feels just the opposite, and their “truth” would be just as valid as yours. Or, if you deem their disagreement to not be valid, then there must be something greater that your “truth” is anchored in that theirs is not, in which case what would that be? This line of logic quickly falls apart.
Correct judgment must be based in society then. Whatever the current society has decided is right, then for today that must be what is right. Truth is therefore a matter of popular vote, and no one who lives against the popular consensus can be right. Activists who seek to change society are in the wrong, until they are able to convince a majority of the people to agree with them, and then they are right.
Past generations must have been right in their time, but they have no vote today, so today we judge them to have been wrong. In the past, homosexual marriage was considered reprehensible, but today we are ready to accept it, so now the past generations were wrong in their views. So, too, we will be in the wrong once a future generation votes against the values that we hold today. Thus, if the future societies are willing to accept pedophilia, self-mutilation, or the killing of undesirables, then they will be right to do so, and we will then be wrong to have ever stood against such things.
Are you willing to accept this view? If not, what outer principle can you point to that would still make these behaviors and lifestyles wrong, and would condemn an entire future society that feels otherwise?
A Sandy Foundation)
If we reject the notion that God is our creator, that we are made according to a particular design, and that the principles or right and wrong come from a universal truth which is interwoven through our beings, then what better foundation could we tie our principles to? What universal anchor does the man who denies he is a creation of God have for decrying any of the practices he considers abominable?
None. Once we let go of the fundamental truths of who we are and what we have come from, then all morality is transient. Our principles are not set in stone, but in sand, an obscure outlier in the greater scheme of things.
Christ saw this very conundrum two thousand years ago. We will finish today with his famous illustration in Matthew 7:
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
I finished yesterday’s post by pointing out that if man tries to make himself the final power and authority in the universe—which would be to make himself god—then he must supplant his connection to actual divinity. If he would exalt himself, he must pave a ceiling between himself and heaven.
The Inner Voice)
But let’s look back even further than yesterday’s post. I mentioned at the start of this series that our society has developed a strong emphasis on everyone needing to “listen to their own heart,” and be “true to themselves.” Once I might have agreed with this notion wholeheartedly, but the words inside of these phrases have gradually changed their meaning. We used to mean that people needed to listen to the conscience as their heart, that they needed to be true to their divine selves. But today we’ve taken away the notion of an external voice that whispers within us, and now when we tell people to look inward, they think we mean narcissistic navel-gazing.
The fact is, there have always been two voices inside of us: the divine influence and the selfish desire. “Listen to your heart” was only useful advice when it pointed towards the first of those two inner voices. It becomes a great misguidance when attributed to the second. This misguidance is pernicious in that it so closely resembles what actually would have been good advice.
Spiritual Without God)
This subtle shift can perhaps be seen most clearly in society’s shift away from organized religion. “I’m spiritual, not religious,” we hear parroted over and over, but what does that really mean? From what I see, it appears to mean that the person still has a sense that she has a spiritual element, but she does not accept that she is a creation of God.
Yet each of us is a creation of God. This is the fundamental belief that we have lost, and that is very concerning, for it is the fundamental belief. The most fundamental, core principle of our identity must be where we are from. If we are from God, then it absolutely behooves us to understand who God is, what He is like, and what He created us for. And if He has told us these things, and if His voice is one of the influences that lives inside of us, then we must assume that following His instructions would bring us, His creations, the greatest fulfillment and purpose that we are capable of. If we truly are from God, then there can be no coherent argument to abandon Him just because society has decided something else.
To say that you are spiritual, but not religious, to say that you believe in the divine self, but not the divine creator, is to appreciate the beauty of the tree while cutting it off at the roots. It is to lay hold of something that is true and good, but to sever it from its sustenance, and before long it will wither and lose what originally attracted us to it. We can live without the belief that we are a creation of God, and we can even convince ourselves that it is so, but none of that will change our soul from still needing Him.
Yesterday I started to speak about the difference between humanity and machines. It makes no difference to a machine whether they are used for their intended purpose or an adulterated one. Machines do not even care if they are used in such a way that destroys themselves. Machines do not have any objective truth ingrained within them.
Humanity, on the other hand, possesses all these things. It matters that we function as designed, that we do not destroy ourselves, that we are in alignment with the truth that we are built from. Misalignment in any of these categories causes frustration, depression, and culminates in real tragedy. Real hearts become broken, real potential becomes lost, real tears are shed.
Our society is taking apart its own foundation under the logic that there is no such thing as objective truth, that no principle is sacred, that every belief can be discarded without consequence. But if this is true, then by that same logic, all of the new philosophies being championed today also have no objective truth, are not sacred, and can be discarded without consequence. If you argue that Christianity has to go to make a better world, then you are conceding that there is such a thing as better, which is also to concede that there is an ideal, which would bethe end result of following every “better.” And what would the ideal be based on if not objective truth? What would the ideal be if not sacred? What would the ideal be if not undiscardable? To claim that there is a better, is to claim that there is an ultimate destination, and that must be sacred.
Of course, this isn’t to say that all traditions must be sacred, or all traditions must be superfluous. To be sure, the world does at all times and in numerous ways need to change. There really are traditions that are not aligned to truth, that are not sacred, that can be discarded. Sometimes massive overhauls have been necessary to bring mankind closer to objective truth and the ideal. All of this is true, but then these changes ought to be grounded in universal truth and the ideal. Historically, our greatest reformers understood that the only reasonable justification for change was to show that it was tied to the divinity that encompasses us all. Just look at a few key examples here in America: the founding of our nation with its basic freedoms, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. These were all based on the notion that some tradition or status quo needed to change to bring humanity closer to the universal truth that it was created from. Most of the main figures in these movements justified the new principles by showing how they were based in scripture or theology, that they were principles given by God Himself, thus showing that the change was bringing us closer to what was universally right.
Sadly, this is not the mindset that much of the social change in the western world takes today. The 1960s represent a turning point in how we have justified change and social “improvement.” Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the last of a dying breed, a spiritual man who sought changes based on a reasonable understanding of universal truth. He is deservedly revered today, but we do not follow his example well. Even during his lifetime, a more base template for effecting change was emerging, coming into full swing as the sexual revolution. Here was a fundamental upset to the established order, based not on alignment with God, but with the self.
Things have only continued in that deplorable strain. Our society has since championed all forms of promiscuity, infidelity, sexual perversion, identity confusion, and self-worship. To accomplish this, society has cast down principles of self-control, public decency, innocence of the youth, the life of the preborn, religious tradition, responsibility and duty, and love of country. Society has not made these changes in the name of alignment to some higher power or greater truth, but by claiming that the self is the highest power and greatest truth. Man has become his own god, and in so doing, denied his connection to true divinity.
Spiritual Wanderings 