16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
Not only did God specify the duration of the feast and the diet for it, He also mandated that “no manner of work shall be done in them.” This was to be a rest and respite from the daily toils, and the only labor that God allowed for was the necessary work to have food for that day. There are a number of reasons and symbols that can be seen in this instruction.
This would help to keep a remembrance of Israel being liberated from their slavery in Egypt. Their daily toil had been the hard labor of making bricks for Egypt’s construction projects, and they were beholden to their taskmasters for any rest and respite. Now, though, God would free them, and every year they would be reminded that they now had the pleasure of being able to take an entire week off with none to tell them otherwise.
Setting aside one’s work also calls to mind when God rested the seventh day, after creating the Earth. This feast was initiated as the Israelite people were being led into a new chapter, and it was to be observed forever after at the beginning of each new year. This calls to mind themes of new creation, fresh starts, the end of one phase and the beginning of a new and better one.
Finally, the Israelites were specifically being instructed to set aside their worldly work. They weren’t to spin, or craft, or sell. They weren’t to try and gain worldly wealth, or collect on worldly debts. They were to be focused on only doing the work they had been given by the divine. They would sacrifice their lambs, make the Passover meal, share with their neighbors, and burn the excess before the new day. A much lesser load than the usual workday, and a sign that they would sanctify their efforts to the Lord and He, in turn, would provide for them.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
Verse 14 shifts back to detailing the observances that are to be held by the Israelites each year at the Passover. The first thing that stands out to is that God tells the people that they are to observe this ritual “by an ordinance for ever.” Then He repeats that detail a second time in verse 17.
Of course, in my Christian faith I don’t keep the Passover as one of my religious observations, because I am not Jewish. Any Israelite blood that has entered my family line is probably very minimal, and I do not claim the captive Hebrews as my ancestors. On the other hand, today’s practicing Jews do still observe the Passover. The sacrificing of the lamb does not occur anymore, as there is no temple for them to perform those offerings, but they are still quite meticulous about meeting God’s directions on what types of food to eat, the absence of leaven, and the dates to be observed.
Of course there are some rituals, beliefs, and observations that have been continuous from the Jewish people to the Christians. For example, both groups have a form of baptism and both believe that we are God’s children. Others, however, seem to have been specific to the Israelite people and their direct descendants today, such as the Passover and the law of circumcision. Thus there are two types of religious observation, the specific and the universal. Each are sacred and have their place, but it is good for us to understand the distinction between them. Just because something is sacred and mandated by God does not necessarily mean it is mandated for everyone. Some of them are and some of them are not, and it is expected that we will each make ourselves aware of which category we fall within, and what is expected of us.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
Here, at last, God explains the curse He is about to bring upon Egypt and how the blood of the lamb will save the Israelites from it. In many of the prior curses, God also put a separation between the Israelites and the Egyptians, but in each of those cases there was not anything that the Israelites had to do to receive that protection, it just came for granted. This final curse is unique in that the Israelites will still be separated, but only so long as they meet the requirement that God has given to them.
We see this same sort of idea in the Christian theology, where we believe that some gifts come to all, and some don’t. All people are saved from death by the resurrection, and no effort is required of us to receive this free gift, but at the same time Christ calls us to become perfected in him, and do the work that he gives us, that we may enjoy a oneness with him and the Father in heaven. Of course, even in the cases where some effort from the faithful is required, God’s grace is always still a factor. Even though the Israelites did the work of following God’s commands to kill the lamb and put its blood on their posts, there isn’t anything inherently life-saving in those actions. They only worked because God made them work by His grace. It is the same with our efforts to become more like Christ. They only work because of a miracle of transformation that God brings to our hearts.
Also, note in verse 12 that God is not merely doling out His judgment upon the Egyptian people, but also upon their gods. He had made mockery of their pagan beliefs before when He sent the murrain that slew their sacred flocks, and now He had His people slaying those same lambs, eating their flesh, and painting their blood on the doors for all to see. The Egyptians would consider all of these acts a spiritual desecration, yet the Israelites would blessed and preserved for doing it. God would therefore justify what the people of Egypt denounced, and He would denounce what the Egyptian gods had justified.
In short, there were multiple layers of destruction and humiliation facing the Egyptians this night, and when they awoke they would become a profoundly broken people.
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
Israel might not have been released from Egypt’s control quite yet, but God already began setting down the laws and traditions that they were to follow as a free nation. And so, even as Moses was coming to the end of his role as Israel’s deliverer he was beginning his new role as Israel’s lawgiver.
The first instruction that the Lord had for Israel was that the current month was now to be the beginning of their calendar year. Clearly this was because Israel was about to have a new beginning. This month would be the month of their rebirth, the month of their re-creation. Every year after this would begin with a celebration and a reminder of when God had redeemed and reformed them, giving back their life and freedom when they were perished and lost.
We’ve all heard the classic dilemma, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Most people merely see this as an amusing puzzle, and quickly discard it as having no suitable answer.
But really, it is a very serious question, one that was posed by Aristotle himself over 2,400 years ago! The fact that we are still talking about it to this day, and still shrug it off without any clear explanation is a very alarming fact!
Now, to the creationist, the question really isn’t that troubling. If God created the Earth, the atmosphere, the seasons, and the universe as we know it, is it really any stretch to say that He could have architected the egg-bearing chicken also? And whether He did that with an egg or a mature fowl doesn’t really matter, He could have begun with either without any paradox.
But the materialist throws out the idea of an omnipotent creator, and puts in His place the forces of undirected, spontaneous evolution. Darwinism states that neither the chicken nor the egg came first, but a single-celled organism which, through a lengthy process of mutation and natural selection, developed into the species that we now call the chicken.
And I might concede that this would be a possibility, if we could agree that the evolution would have to have been a tool purposefully directed by the hands of an intelligent creator. But if one insists that this evolution occurred totally at random, which is the position of modern science, well that’s just plain ridiculous.
The Requirements)
Again, the proposal is that the chicken would have had to originate as some sort of single-celled organism, one which reproduced by dividing itself in half, but eventually it evolved into a creature that reproduced itself via a fertilized egg. This would mean that at some point in between there would have been a creature that still reproduced asexually, but which was also gradually developing sexual organs. Organs that eventually were able to produce and lay an egg, but initially this egg would not yet have been functional.
This means that the pre-chicken was expending energy and effort, giving up nutrients of its own body, subjecting itself to a more vulnerable state, all to produce something that was—for the time being—useless. And again, this might be acceptable if some Higher Power was requiring the life form to undergo this process, but it according to the laws of natural selection, this would mean that the species had a detrimental mutation which would have led to its extinction, not to its flourishing. This unnecessarily-handicapped pre-chicken simply would have been overrun by all the other variants that weren’t wasting energy laying undeveloped eggs.
And that’s just the matter of the chicken and the egg. But by itself, a female chicken still cannot produce a fertilized egg. Just as the species would have had to evolve from a replicating cell into a chicken that had embryonic and adult stages, it also would have had to evolve itself into male and female forms also. Thus it had go from being sexless to having sexed versions, but at least for a time those two halves would still have been reproducing asexually until they evolved into full sexual maturity. That means that there would now be two separate strands of random mutation, each evolving separately from one another, but somehow also in perfect tandem, developing in complementary ways, remaining compatible with one another once they both reached full sexual capability.
A Valid Question)
So as it turns out, the childhood question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” is actually a very weighty matter. It has all manner of scientific and metaphysical implications. 2,400 years later it still pokes holes in the most airtight theories of man and leaves us either with a stronger belief in our divine creator, or else a greater confusion of this inscrutable world.
The Bible’s descriptions of the final days have struck fear into the hearts of many people. Even those who are otherwise unacquainted with the stories and messages of the Bible are still familiar with its visions of fire and brimstone raining down upon the world, destroying all the wicked, administering God’s judgment before the return of Christ. The passages also describe the terrible persecution that will first afflict the faithful, and that the world will ultimately reject the gospel message before they feel the wrath of heaven.
Given all this, it can be easy to feel pessimistic about ministry efforts in the world today. We’ve skipped ahead and read the end of the story and we already know that the world as a whole does not become convinced by the missionary efforts of the righteous. So why bother protesting evil? Why speak against the ways that society is moving towards its own destruction? The world is just going there anyway, so why not just separate yourself from it and live as a faithful hermit?
The Many and the One)
If, indeed, we are in the last days, there is a sort of logic to all those cynical, nihilistic questions. If we are fast approaching Armageddon, then no matter what we do the world is still doomed to fail, and so any effort on our part to save it are also doomed to fail.
But saving the world or abandoning it aren’t our only options.
Maintaining the light of hope and optimism, even in the midst of a world falling apart, only requires us to shift our perspective from the many to the one. I have made this point previously, that anyone who is focused on saving the whole world will be disappointed, but anyone who is focused on saving the individual may yet find success.
We could see ourselves as firefighters standing before a blazing building. Perhaps the fire has spread through too much of the structure to save it. Perhaps the whole thing is coming down no matter what we do. But what about the individuals that are trapped inside? There may yet be time to rush in and get as many of some of them as possible out to safety before it all comes crashing down!
Even if the earth is going to hell in a handbasket there is still a work for us to do, a challenge for us to meet, and a success for us to achieve. We can follow Christ’s admonition to stop fixating on the ninety-and-nine, and to go in search of the one, bringing it back with great rejoicing!
The fate of the world is already known, but the fate of you, your loved ones, and your neighbors still hangs in the balance.
7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.
8 And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down themselves unto me, saying, Get thee out, and all the people that follow thee: and after that I will go out.
God had sworn to slay all of the Egyptian firstborn, but as with the previous curses, He would set a division between the Egyptians and the Israelites. The phrase “shall not a dog move his tongue” must be an old expression, and most scholars agree that it meant that things would be so peaceful that not even a dog would bark in the streets. Thus it not only illustrated safety from physical harm, but even from anything alarming or distressing.
God also prophesied that this curse would be the one that finally broke Egypt. “These thy servants” appears to be referencing the Egyptian leadership, who would demand that the Israelites go. God further foretold that Pharaoh wouldn’t go back on his word this time, as given by “and after that I will go out.”
There is one other sentence at the end of verse 8 that I have omitted. “And he went out from Pharaoh in great anger.” This doesn’t make a lot of sense in the current setting of Moses describing the coming curse to the Israelites, and I believe that this last sentence actually belongs with the next two verses. I will therefore include it in tomorrow’s study.
Carl Jung is known for his quote “The brighter the light, the darker the shadow.” By this he meant that the more a person fixated on trying to be better, the more the darkness inside of him would lash out in defiance, leading to a pendulum swinging back-and-forth between periods of extreme good and extreme evil. Jung therefore recommended a sort of gray area, a place where a person could embrace both his vices and virtues, letting neither get out of balance.
The first time I heard this perspective I was struck by how it contradicted some of the most sacred experiences I have ever been witness to. In the twelve step group I attend we frequently express how good it feels to finally shine a light on the darkness and feel it dissipate from us. Men come to the meetings and confess all manner of temptation and unholy desire, and then tearfully express gratitude that the darkness is leaving their hearts even in the telling of it. There is no sense of the shadow growing darker, for the light is permeating all the way through and coming out the other side.
But as I gave Jung’s words a second consideration, I realized that I knew a few instances where I would agree with his assessment. I think that Jung’s perspective does have value, but that it is incomplete. In my experience, there are three types of shining a light on a problem, each with different degrees of usefulness.
Outer Light)
The first kind of light is one that one person shines on another. An example of this would be getting caught in a lie, or with incriminating evidence, anything that exposes one’s secret wrongs. There was no intention in the guilty to expose his secrets, but exposed they have been!
This light could be useful, depending on how the exposed person reacts to it. Ideally he would turn this embarrassing exposure into a wake-up call. Maybe he was horrified when he first got caught, but later on he says that he is so grateful that it happened. Having been seen at his worst, he could finally begin the work of becoming his best.
Alternatively, though, he might be resentful at being caught. Perhaps his exposer gives him an ultimatum and he does recovery work, but only begrudgingly. In this case he will have no gratitude for the light that shone upon him, and he will take the first opportunity to recede back into the darkness. He will pretend that he is cured, but all that he really learned was to be more careful in his lying. This therefore leaves him worse off than before.
The Light in the Cave)
The second kind of light is when a person fixates on his own problems. He is still in denial towards the rest of the world, but not towards himself. Silently, in his own head, he continually berates himself for failing to live in harmony with his conscience. He launches many campaigns against the darkness, trying to force himself to be better by sheer force of will, but these efforts always end in failure.
A person can white-knuckle his way to some length of acceptable behavior, but he hasn’t actually destroyed the darkness inside. Sooner or later it comes back, and this time with a vengeance. Inevitably the person slips back into his old ways, and usually delves deeper into them than before.
This is the sort of light that Jung was able to observe, and he was correct to be skeptical of it. However, his conclusion that there was no appropriate way to change one’s life was incorrect. A better conclusion would be that repentance was never meant to be an isolated experience.
Bringing Into the Light of Others)
The third kind of light is the one that I mentioned at the start. This is when the guilty freely confesses his wrongs to another. The key difference between this light and the first is that the person wasn’t caught against his will. This time the person is bringing his shame to trusted friends of his own volition, not trying to face the darkness on his own.
All throughout the scriptures we are told that we must confess. Confession is only confession when it involves another. We do not confess to ourselves, or by being found out. We confess by taking the initiative and sharing the darkest parts of our soul with another trusted person. Because of our shame, most of us would suffer in silence for years rather than take this step. Some will suffer in silence for their entire lives, feeling in their hearts as though being truly honest would kill them!
And in some sense it would. It would kill the dark self and replace it with the light. This effect might be difficult to accept by a modern psychologist, but only because it isn’t a natural, measurable thing. It is a miracle. It is absolutely real, but it defies intellectual explanation because God is in it. God is the light that dissipates the darkness, where our own light often only hardens it.
Exactly why God’s light shows up when we confess to one another could be a topic of study in-and-of-itself. For now, let us content ourselves with the fact that one reason why God shows up in these moments is simply because He promised that He would:
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. -James 5:16, Matthew 18:20
I have mentioned before how I lived many years under the power of an addiction to lust. Though I hated myself for it, I did things that I felt ashamed of, that I knew were wrong. I never was under the delusion that my objectification of women was an okay thing, yet I did it anyway. Because of my guilt, I would try to compensate in other areas. I would try to balance out my evil with extra kindness and devotion in my community and church.
But I never felt satisfied. In fact, I believe I was experiencing what it means to be cursed. To me this means that all of your actions, no matter how good on the surface, simply do not count. You may strive and flail, but it is as if you are running on a treadmill, all your energy leaving you in the same place. Like Cain, I tried to bring my fruits to the Lord, but He just would not accept my offering.
All of this changed, though, when I finally made confession. I told my wife what was going on in my secret life, I told my church authorities, I joined a recovery program, I went through a process of repentance, and I truly felt the atonement of Christ wash away my uncleanness.
And then I felt a sudden change. I felt the reality of God’s words to Cain: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” I felt the curse lifted, and now anything good that I did actually felt like it mattered.
Surrendered to Christ)
Sin is one thing that can keep our good works from reaching their full potential, but so, too, can refusing to surrender to the Lord. During my study of Pharaoh’s interactions with God and Moses, I have been thinking about this concept of surrender. Genuine surrender to the Lord is the first and fundamental basis of any true discipleship. Trying to do good while still holding back a part of your heart will always lessen the value of that good.
I know many who want to be basically good people, but who resent any notion of surrendering their will to another. In their desire to retain autonomy, to be their own master, they refuse to give themselves fully to God. They expect God to be content with the gifts that they decide to give Him, never seeking to understand what gifts He actually wants them to give. As a result, they live uninspired lives. They never experience the joy of being moved by the spirit to approach someone they normally never would have approached and saying to that person what they normally never would have said. They live according to their assumptions, not according to His genuine knowledge.
Surrendering ourselves, heart and soul to God, is necessary to be a part of His kingdom. And being part of His kingdom is necessary to having our good works sanctified for the building up of that kingdom. Trying to do good autonomously is like a swirl in an ocean, not necessarily worthless, but ultimately dissipating before it can accomplish much. Trying to do good as a pure vessel of the Lord is like being part of a flowing current, permanently and meaningfully changing the world for the better.
It is good to do good, but it is best to do the best good. And the best good can only be done by one who has repented of sin and fully surrendered to the Lord.
27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.
28 And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die.
29 And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well, I will see thy face again no more.
At the start of this conversation Pharaoh had seemed quiet and subdued, but his follow-up in today’s verses makes me wonder if that quietness had actually been stifled rage. As soon as Moses reiterates his demands, that all of the Israelites must leave with all of their animals, Pharaoh drops all pretense of compliance and compromise. He gives a vicious threat: “Get thee from me…in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die!” Moses was now banished from the Pharaoh’s court on pain of death!
But Moses was not alarmed. Instead he approved Pharaoh’s words, foretelling that the two men would indeed no longer look one another in the face. There was only one curse yet to come upon Egypt, and this time Moses would not forewarn Pharaoh of its coming nor repeat God’s demands to Pharaoh. Pharaoh already knew everything he needed to know. There was nothing more to be understood, promised, or threatened. All that remained was for the breaking to occur.
Spiritual Wanderings 