50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.
In the final verses of this chapter we hear that the Israelites did all that they were instructed by the Lord. Of course, it is easier to be faithful when one has just been redeemed. In the flush of victory, obedience can become effortless. The Israelites had just gone from slavery to absolute freedom literally overnight. At this point there was no wilderness, no hardship, and no temptation to be doubtful or stubborn. But all of those hardships would come, and then faith and compliance would be far more precious.
Of course, we do anticipate a time when we all worldly burdens will finally be taken from our shoulders forever. We will have a respite from hardship and sin without end, and then being faithful should be perfectly effortless. But that time will only come in the next life, whereas here on earth refuge and peace are only fleeting. We can have the occasional season of “all is well,” but things always darken eventually. We are not here to learn how to be faithful when unburdened, we are here to learn how to be faithful no matter what. In every situation. And if it ends up taking forty years in the wilderness for us to get to that point, then so be it.
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
In these verses we have the first instances of God providing a path for a any person, even one who was not a direct descendant of Abraham, to become a part of His covenant people. Previously, God had chosen specific individuals to extend His promises to. Isaac was chosen and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau. Now, though, any outsider could enter into the fold of God through the sign of being circumcised. Then they would be “as one that is born in the land.”
“As one that is born in the land” means to receive the same rights, privileges, and covenants that chosen people enjoyed. They would receive the same promises that God had given to Abraham, with all of its accompanying blessings, both in this life and the next, culminating in the promise of eternal salvation. This was the most generous and hopeful gift imaginable, a path to salvation for all, an opening of the doors that Jesus would expand further many years later.
But it was, of course, necessary for the outsider to sincerely take on the Hebrew covenants and obligations to receive these promises. Too often it is argued that since the gospel is freely offered to all people that it cannot then have any requirements of those people. But the thing that is being freely offered is a law, while obtaining the positive outcomes of that law depend on it being followed. The gift from God is the opportunity to first accept His terms and then receive His rewards.
God reinforces this in verse 49 when He says “one law…to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” One law, but God has described two different outcomes: one where a person becomes a part of the covenant through circumcision and one where a person remains a outsider by declining God’s offer. God is not contradicting Himself by stating “one law,” but with two outcomes, as every law necessarily separates people into different categories. Having a legal age limit to drive, for example, is just one law, but it dictates two outcomes depending on a citizen’s age. So, too, God’s law is freely given to all, but that doesn’t mean that the positive side of it is in force for all, only for those who meet the terms for it. That is still a gift, though, because it is a path for us to claim God’s greatest blessings, where otherwise we would not have any means to do that.
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
God instructed how the Passover feast was to be conducted in relation to those who were not natively part of Israel. This would include both foreigners and servants, and servants were further divided between owned servants and hired servants. Only the owned servant were eligible to participate in the Passover, and only if the servant had been circumcised, thus making him an official part of the Israelite household. He would then live under the umbrella of the lord of the house and would observe the same rituals that his master did.
Hired servants and other foreigners would still be free men under their own jurisdiction. As such, they were not to be included in the feast, and were, in fact, forbidden from participating.
Meanwhile, of the native Israelites God instructed that “all the congregation shall keep it.” There were to be no exceptions, regardless of age, gender, position, or status. Each family was responsible to host the meal in their own house (or in the house of a neighbor if both families were small), but not to pass food from one abode to another.
In all of this I see the Passover as being symbolic of receiving the testimony of the gospel. The foreigner and the hired servants represent the outside unbelievers, who the true disciple may otherwise associate with, but which are still distinct and do not hold the same convictions and responsibilities. The owned servant is the new convert, temporarily borrowing from the testimony of other believers, relying upon the nurturing of the experienced faithful. The native Israelites are the disciples who have fully come into their own testimony, no longer relying on the faith of another to be imparted to them. The Israelite household is the sphere of faithfulness that the true disciple maintains, capable of nurturing and sheltering all who dwell within its borders. We are all meant to progress from the foreigner, to the servant, to the native as we receive our first testimony, increase it from the strength of others, and finally come to a fulness of our own.
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
42 It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
In these verses we learn that the Israelites lived in Egypt for a total of 430 years. Of course, not all of that time was spent in servitude. There is an unspecific gap of time between when Jacob and his sons came into the land and when a later Pharaoh decided to subjugate the Israelite people. It seems likely that most of their time was spent in freedom, as they were not put under Egyptian oppression until they had grown to a mighty number, and the population growth would have started relatively slowly, becoming exponentially greater with each passing generation.
430 years was long enough to make all the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the great patriarchs, distant history to the current generation. Consider that 430 years before today’s date would have been 1593, which was the time period of William Shakespeare and Galileo Galilei. Shakespeare is as far removed to us as Jacob was to Moses. Not completely removed, still well known and with a clear line of connection in between, but removed still the same.
Thus, it was a new Israelite nation that emerged from Egypt, far different from the one that went in. This new Israelite nation was one that knew nothing of its forefathers’ land of inheritance. It was one that had become accustomed to living under another’s rule. It was one that had been surrounded by all manner of false gods and strange practices. But in spite of all this they were being called to reconnect with their foreordained place in the world.
35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
36 And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.
37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
I pointed out earlier that when God instructed the Israelites to take the jewels of their Egyptian neighbors, it had the appearance of a conquering army taking the spoils of war. Verse 36 makes this interpretation concrete by saying the Egyptians were indeed “spoiled.” Though the Israelites had not raised a single hand against their overlords, yet they carried the trophies of their triumph over them.
Moving on, in verse 37 we hear exactly how large the Israelite nation had become. Back in Exodus 1, we were told that there were only 70 souls when Jacob and his family first entered into Egypt. Since that time, just their men were nearly 10,000 times greater in number! If their men “on foot” were 600,000, then presumably there were approximately 600,000 women, and probably more than 600,000 children, bringing their total up and to and even exceeding 2 million! One can see why the Egyptians had been worried about their growing strength. The “on foot” description of the 600,000 men seems to mean men who were still strong enough to travel forward under their own power, and therefore also fit to carry a sword. It was justifiable that Egypt would be concerned about this potential army within their borders, though their solution to that problem was certainly not justified.
Verse 38 tells us that they also took up all of their flocks, herds, and cattle, which of course Pharaoh had previously tried to deny them. Also of interest is that “a mixed multitude went up also with them.” This might have been the remnants of other nations that had been conquered by the Egyptians and made to serve alongside the Israelites. It might have been Egyptians who had intermarried with the Israelites or been converted to the Lord by His miracles.
Of course, we will see a theme soon enough of the Israelites being seduced from God by the strangers in their midst. It is possible that this “mixed multitude” was the first group to tempt them to sin. Though we will not have it spelled out to us in Exodus, a later recounting in Numbers shows that it was this group of foreigners who first began to complain to Moses in the wilderness, leading the way for the Israelites to also tempt the Lord. Thus, even in this moment of triumph, there are already the seeds of a downfall.
34 And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.
We just read how the Egyptians were anxious to hurry the Israelites out of their land. Today’s verses explain even more of this haste, describing the Israelites as being “thrust out, and could not tarry,” with no time for even their dough to rise. Hence the wisdom in God telling them beforehand to prepare all of their bread to be unleavened. He knew the great hurry that would soon be upon them.
I mentioned yesterday that it sounded like Pharaoh had summoned Moses and Aaron in the very same night that all the firstborn of Egypt had been slain, and given today’s verses it sounds like the Israelites had to be out of their homes by the very next morning. Waiting for the dough to rise would only have been a matter of hours after all, not days, and they apparently didn’t have that long to spare. An immediate departure would also explain why God told them to have staff in hand, shoes on feet, and to burn any leftover lamb.
To sum up, it seems most likely to me that on the evening of the tenth day of Abib the Israelites had their Passover feast, the Egyptian firstborn were killed during the night, that same night Pharaoh commanded the Israelites to leave, and all the camp was gone in the morning. I never realized before how rapidly all these events might have transpired, and if it was this way then it shows just how quickly God can change everything, accomplishing the impossible in an instant!
We’ve all heard the admonition to reflect on “what would Jesus do” and then conduct ourselves in the same manner. This advice brings up the question, though, of how do we know what Jesus would really do in our particular situation? In some cases he showed compassion and reservation, such as when he spared the woman caught in adultery. At other times he showed judgment and passion, such as when he turned the tables of the money-changers in the temple. How can we really know which way he would deal with each situation, or even the things he would do that don’t even occur naturally to our minds?
Anticipating the behavior of another person typically requires a deep and intimate knowledge of that person. This is something else we are encouraged to develop: a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus. We are told that we ought to know his personality, his manner, his attitude. But once again, how do we do that when he isn’t here in the flesh?
Of course, we can glean some of Christ’s personality and pattern of behavior from the Biblical account, and we might gain further insights through personal, spiritual experiences, but there is also a third way that is perhaps the most reliable method of them all. Jesus told his disciples: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). Paul later confirmed to the Corinthians that he had sensed this light of Christ shining within him: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). This light of Christ is in all of us, even in those who have not yet accepted Christ. It is the conscience that always persuades us to do what is right. And this conscience is the key to learning who he is.
When we feel our conscience whisper in our hearts and we follow its counsel, we are at the same time both learning the nature of Jesus Christ and also doing what he would do. The conscience is telling us how he would behave in this instance, and as we do the same we feel his emotions and desires come alive in our own hearts. Thus, the prick of the conscience is an invitation to actually be Christ for a moment, and we are educated to his nature from within our very own selves!
Of course, this is also why following our conscience typically feels so strange and unnatural to us. It almost always means setting aside our own personality and choices, and stepping into an entirely different personality and pattern of behavior. This is a hard thing to do, but the more we practice it the more natural it becomes. Bit-by-bit we will be transformed from our old nature into Christ’s, taking on his attitude and likeness until we become his true representative. Thus, we can come to a deeper and more intimate knowledge of Christ than any other person. We will know him even as ourselves, because we will ourselves be as him.
If you truly want to know who Christ is, the tool to do so is already there in your heart. Practice bending yourself to the light he has put in you, and you will become a foremost expert on who the man really is. And then, everyone who sees you will also see the image of their Savior, and learn of him by you.
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.
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
