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.
15 Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river’s brink against he come; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thine hand.
16 And thou shalt say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto thou wouldest not hear.
17 Thus saith the Lord, In this thou shalt know that I am the Lord: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.
When Moses showed the miracle of water turning to blood to the Israelite elders, he had merely scooped some water from the river and poured it out on the soil. This time he was to turn the entire river red, causing the land to literally flow with blood. As discussed earlier, this blood is both the blood of the innocent Israelite sons who were cast into the river, and also a sign of the future Egyptian blood that would be shed in retribution.
Of course this miracle would also be mirrored in the future by Jesus turning the water into wine, and wine is a very similar image to that of blood. Thus, the miracle that Moses performed for Pharaoh had direct application to the situation in which it was conducted, but the fact that its same imagery appeared in entirely other contexts shows us that there must also be a larger, more universal interpretation of it also.
One possible interpretation is that of God creating life. The water to blood shows how the Lord is able to turn base material into part of a living thing. And not just living, but also dying. Blood is, after all, both an emblem of life and death. Thus it is God creating the entire mortal experience, from one end to another, birth to death. God draws this existence out of the base materials: dust to body and water to blood. Just as God created the Earth with its bodies of continent and veins of river, he authored the human body of flesh and vein of blood as well.
10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
There is much speculation as to how the wise men and the sorcerers were able to turn their rods into serpents. Some suppose that it might have been sleight-of-hand, where they somehow replaced the rods with serpents. This explanation would suggest that even the author of Exodus was fooled, though, for it is written “and they became serpents.” Some see this as an actual power effected by a perverse connection to the devil. Without a doubt, Satan does have a real power in and over this world, just ask any person who has been driven by fear, anger, jealousy, or lust.
In either case, whichever way the wise men and sorcerers did their miracle, God allowed it. Whatever their method, God could have frustrated it, but He didn’t. The reason seems to be evident: He let the sorcerers have their moment and show their power, so that then He might kill, break, and consume their work with his own serpent. God let the mystics show their full power so that He could show that He had greater. He was showing to Pharaoh a clear picture of what was coming, and that the Pharaoh did not have the power to prevent it. Would Pharaoh regard the sign and comply with the Lord to avoid the full fruit of this disastrous prophecy? We will see in tomorrow’s verses.
4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.
5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
These verses further explain how Pharaoh refusing to let the Israelites go served the purposes of the Lord. The Egyptians had denied the Lord’s sovereignty, taken away His peoples’ dignity, enslaved them, and murdered an untold number of their children. Their crimes were immense, and God was not only coming for deliverance, but also retribution. God was here to have a war against the Egyptians, and He wanted them to stand up to the fight long enough to receive the full punishment. Pharaoh capitulating quickly would not have served God’s purpose “that I may lay my hand upon Egypt.” Of course, God could have punished the Egyptians whether the Israelites had already been released from their captivity or not, but keeping the Israelites present would ensure that the Egyptians understood who it was that punished them and why.
“The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord,” God further declared. The Egyptians would be converted to the fear of Him, even if not to the worship of Him. Remember that Pharaoh had previously asked “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?” Because the Israelites were weak, the Egyptians were dismissive of their God. Now, though, they would learn that a lack of power and prosperity in the Israelite people was in no way a reflection of their God.
This is actually another theme that can be found throughout the Bible. Even at the height of their strength, the Israelites would never become a world superpower like other nations, but they would still punch far above their weight class! Against far stronger foes, such as the Philistines and the Assyrians, they would prevail. Their God would win the respect of pagan nations, not because of the people’s great strength, but because of how they were preserved and progressed in spite of their weakness.
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
3 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
As mentioned previously, these verses seem to repeat the events that we already read of in Exodus 4 and 5, so I will not rehash the same commentary that I made previously, but there are two new details that are worth making note of.
The first is in verse 1, where Moses is said to have been made “a god to Pharaoh.” The first time we heard of Moses being given this role, to stand in the place of God, it sounded as though he was being made a god to Aaron. Here the roles are clearly Moses as God, Aaron as the prophet, and the Pharaoh as everyday people. And this reframing emphasizes why Moses should not have stressed whether Pharaoh was persuaded by his words or not. It is not for God to worry whether the people believe Him or not, and so it was not for Moses to worry about that either. God commands us in what is right and true, and if we do not accept it, it is we who have failed, not God. Like God, Moses’s only concern was to dictate the truth, Aaron’s was to communicate it, and Pharaoh’s was to obey or be damned.
And that leads to the second difference between this account and the first. These verses seem to suggest that Aaron alone spoke to Pharaoh. The first time around it said “Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh,” but these verses suggest that while both men went in together, Moses might have stood there completely silent, or only spoken to Aaron, and Aaron delivered the message to Pharaoh all on his own. And given the roles mentioned above, why not? Usually we people do not hear God directly, but only through the mouths of his prophets. And if Moses was a god to Pharaoh, then why not only be heard indirectly through the mouth of Aaron?
13 And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.
The Lord gave great detail to Moses for how the delivering of captive Israel would go. He explained exactly what miracles to perform, that Pharaoh would not listen to him, and how the Lord would work wonders to finally secure the Israelites’ freedom. He also described how Moses would return with the Israelites to Mount Horeb and there serve the Lord.
But what we do not hear is an exhaustive detailing for how Moses would lead the people forty years in the wilderness, becoming their prophet/father for the rest of his life, and the law and legacy that he would leave to them for countless generations. All we hear in this verse is that God “gave them a charge…to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.”
Sometimes God details our paths out exhaustively, but typically it is only to a point. Much is often left unsaid, to be discovered at the time of facing it. Moses had a sense of his purpose and his calling, but not necessarily the full vision of whom he would become.
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
We previously read of Moses asking the Lord what His name was so that he could tell it to the Israelites, and God told Moses to introduce Him as “I AM,” which is a translated form of YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah. In today’s verses we learn the additional detail that the patriarchs did not, themselves, know this name. Though God had an extremely close relationship with these historical men, apparently He never disclosed to them His actual name. He was just their “God,” or their “Lord.”
However, this fact is not reflected in the earlier text of the Bible. This is not at all that the first time that the name of Jehovah has been used. It first appeared in Genesis 2:4 (the English translation writes this name as “the LORD” instead of Jehovah), and there are also verses where the patriarchs are said to speak the name of “Jehovah” (written in English as all-caps GOD). The simplest explanation is that the patriarchs did not actually use God’s name, but when their account was written, the name was inserted by the author, since at that time the name would have been common knowledge.
And if this is the case, then for Moses to have information revealed to him that the patriarchs never had would signify how pivotal his role was to the Israelite people. Put simply, Moses was the single most influential figure sent to the Hebrews until the birth of Christ. Of course, at the time of this conversation with the Lord, Moses had not yet done anything remarkable for the people of Israel. God already knew Moses’s destiny, though, and entrusted him with information that was befitting of who he would become, not who he already was.
Spiritual Wanderings 