Exodus 11- 13:16

[Josh]

3/27/06:

Does the fact that God killed every firstborn in Egypt (presumably 'innocent' children) present us with a moral difficulty? (A good God committing an immoral act?) How could a loving God take the life of countless children because of the sin of one man?

Anyone?

[douglas]

3/31/06:

Something that Karen and i ran into on our travels helped me to understand this a little more. Most northern cultures, North America, Western Europe, etc, find identity as individuals. For example, it is very important what the individual thinks. Some of our gatherings in the past have been a great examples as well. We all find it very important to be heard and to express our own opinion of a matter.

On the other side, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, China and other find identity in their group. This means that people may think of themselves as individuals but never seperate from the group. Who they are as people is identified by the group. We read an example of a intercultural meeting where North American and Bolivians were present. The people in charge asked for an opinion on a subject. Many North Americans stood up and gave different opinions but only one Bolivian stood. It appeared that the majority opinion was that of the North Americans. However what had happened was the Bolivian was speaking for his entire group and actually represented the majority.

This has been difficult to get my brain around because i value my individuallity so much. Egypt is Middle Eastern culture which means that it is group orientent. As well it was an anchient culture which also adds to this way of thinking. The older a culture the more they tend identify themselves it.

There are several other expample of this in the OT. The Sons of Korah, I can't remember the reference, somewhere in Numbers I think. Also Aachan in the book of Judges. In each of these stories entire families where killed for the sin of the men. These stories have always given me trouble. But now i begin to understand. The men in these cultures where the clan leaders and repesented the identity of the rest of the clan or tribe. Pharah is no exception. He was the king of Egypt. Although many people suffered for his decision he was the representative of the whole county not only in the eyes of the author of exodus but also in the eyes of his own people. I do not think that this situtation would be an issue for someone from Eygpt at that time but rather expected and just.

This is not as much a philosophical argument as a cultural one but i hope it adds to the conversation.

Douglas

PS i just cranked this out and didnt check spelling or anything so go easy on me.

[Josh]

3/31/06:

I find this issue to be highly complex in Scripture. I think you are very correct in identifying representative or corporate responsibility in these cultures and in these bible stories.

I find this idea in the statement from the 10 commandments:


Exodus 20:
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


Although I think the kind of 'punishment' that children receive for the sins of their fathers is of a different sort than the 'punishment' that the individual who commits the sin- sort of an intrinsic negative repurcussion that the kids have to deal with, a repurcussion 'dropped' in their lap. The reason for this is not that God is cruel, but that we can never sin in isolation.

This notion of corporate responsibility is challenged in Scripture: especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Apparently the people of Israel had used the idea to become somewhat fatalistic. These prophets announce that the time is coming when the distinction between a father's sin and a son's sin will be made much clearer:


Jeremiah 31 (NASV):
29"In those days they will not say again,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30"But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.


This change is associated with the New Covenant God will make with Israel (that is, the Church)- in the Kingdom of God that Jesus would announce.

Ezekiel goes way more into detail on this topic (a whole chapter expands on Jeremiah's declaration):


Ezekiel 18 (NIV):
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
5 "Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right....
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.
10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things 11 (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
14 "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things...
17 He withholds his hand from sin...
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.


The rest of the chapter goes on to talk about how a righteous man willl die if he rejects righteousness, and a wicked man will live if he repents of his wickedness and concludes with the ideas that God is just and doesn't wish the death of anyone. If anyone's not familiar with Ezekiel 18, I would seriously suggest a thorough reading of the entire chapter-- it's powerful.

At this point it appears that God's standards were in a state of transition. If in the time of Moses and Joshua and even David, corporate responsibility was the norm, it seems that by the time of the prophets and clearly by the time of Jesus (remember him telling the man born blind that it wasn't because his parents sinned), this individual responsibility of the New Covenant was in full swing.

Does God change his mind? Well, I don't think a dynamic like this makes God less than God. I guess I think He knows what works with what people at what time.

All that said, I did uncover something a little perplexing. You mentioned the death of Achan and his family in Joshua 7 and passages like that where whole families or towns were killed for the sins of the father(s). Well, I found a verse in Deuteronomy (from the time of Moses and Joshua), which seems to say the same thing that Jeremiah and Ezekiel would later say:


Deuteronomy 24:
16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.


Now this seems to explode the theory of an evolution in God's approach from corporate to individual responsibility, AND, in light of this, how could the death of Achan's family (just one example) have been justified?

Are we missing something?

[Josh]

3/31/06:

I found a webpage by a “Dr. North”, who covers this topic. His contention (at least from a cursory reading) is that there were specific sins (sacrilege) in which corporate responsibility applied (examples: destruction of all the population in some situations, the killing of Achan and his family, some examples in the life of David, etc..) but that the general rule that “fathers should not be killed for the sins of their children” and vice-versa applied to all other infractions of the law. Here are two of the most interesting paragraphs, and then the link to the whole article at the bottom.


“Because the text of Joshua 7 is not specific regarding the knowledge of Achan's sons and daughters regarding their father's act of sacrilege, we cannot be sure that they did not know and understand what their father was doing. The fact that the family's animals were stoned does indicate that a comprehensive ban -- hormah -- had been placed by God on his whole household, irrespective of their knowledge or consent. If Deuteronomy 24:16 is accepted as a universally binding standard for Israel's civil government, then we must conclude that they both knew and understood. If they did not know and understand, then we must conclude that Deuteronomy 24:16 did not apply in cases of sacrilege. The text of Joshua 7 does not definitively prove one interpretation over the other, but the execution of the animals does suggest that sacrilege was a unique crime and therefore outside the judicial boundary of Deuteronomy 24:16 regarding innocent sons and guilty fathers.”

“By stealing holy objects in Jericho -- goods that God had appropriated for Himself -- Achan had not only stolen from God; he had also united himself and his family covenantally with Jericho. By stealing part of God's required first-fruits offering, Achan became a citizen of Jericho. He also became profane: the violator of a sacred boundary placed by God around the city of Jericho. He was therefore required to suffer the judgment of every citizen in Jericho: death. Achan's covenantal citizenship extended down to his children and his property: the animals and the stolen goods. Just as Rahab had become a citizen of Israel by hiding the spies and placing the red string publicly in her window, so did Achan become a citizen of Jericho by hiding the banned goods. Just as Rahab's family had survived because of her covenant, so did Achan's family perish because of his covenant. Achan and his family became Canaanites, and therefore the entire family came under the covenantal ban: hormah.”

Dr. North

[Josh]

4/5/06:

I really found Andy's suggestion of a paradox here to be helpful. It will be the cause of further thought, but basically he suggested that both individual and corporate responsibility are essential, but there is no easy way to logically reconcile the two, so we are left with a paradox. This paradox serves to remind us of, and stress the importance of, both individual and corporate responsibility.

[andy]

4/9/06:

Ever seen a book about it? I would be interested in reading if authors have ever written about this. This does not seem to be a topic that is too popular in the U.S. or in mainstream culture here, but we might have something here that does need a second look. What do you think???

One more comment about it--for me most paradoxes are significant but do not hold daily life implications, that is, they seem to be more theoretical (i.e. predestination vs. free will) than practical. This kind of paradox seems like it it could have more implications in how we view our relationship not only with God, but with others. If our survival truly relies on both being held up consistantly and at all times (which I think it does), that means that I should act accordingly. I think our community is a lot closer than many others in finding ways to incorporate both sides. Another reason why I like our church...

[Josh]

4/9/06:

Although I might argue that one's opinion of concepts such as free will are actually extremely practical in everyday life, I think you rightly emphasize this one. You've got me thinking about how our group does (or does not)incorporate the concepts of corporate and individual responsibility.

So far, here's how I see our group in regard to this:

Corporate Responsibility:

Prayer for each other, which has been genuine and we've put our time into. I think we need to guard this quality, and even increase our dedication to it, because it could easily become a stale ritual.

Helping each other out when in need- realizing that we are responsible in some small ways for the meeting the needs of others, or having our needs met by others.

Also, I really appreciate it when people do their homework and inform me ahead of time whether they'll be coming on Sunday or Tuesday. I think we have to some degree learned that showing up and putting in the time isn't just something we do for ourselves, but something we do for others. This really isn't said to be critical of times when that doesn't happen. I just think it is especially true that we need each other's presence and input because we are such a small community (and I guess that's both the difficulty and the blessing of small, intimate community).

Individual responsibility:

I think we do this, but could do much more: exhorting each other in our own individual spiritual journeys. This means taking the time to ask where someone is at, and spurring them on to pursuing God when it's just them and God (during the week, for example)

Something related to this all is how we share the 'work' load of the community. I think we've (I've) come a long way toward this goal since we started as a Church, but I think we've got a long way to go.

A friend of mine asked me when we had just started the Church whether the Church could survive without me. I said at the time that I didn't think so, but that that was the goal. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, but at that time we were so used to the 'TNT' model- the 'one man show'. Since then I think we've seen growth: we have divided up a lot of responsiblity and people have been very faithful to those tasks. But I don't think we've arrived (of course things will always be changing, so will we ever?). I want to encourage this further by helping others step up in various capacities.

I'm open to suggestions as to how we can further that process. It's very important to me that people step into responsibilities only in proportion to their spiritual maturity. There's nothing worse than getting in over your head in Christian ministry. But there are certainly things any of us can do, as we've seen beautifully.

[Josh]

3/31/06:

You know, as I've been studying this topic, the more I must also stress your point. If a modern reader doesn't get "corporate responsibility" much of the OT will seem nonsensical-- in fact, our sin in Adam and Jesus' redemption of all mankind will not make any sense! Thanks, Douglas

[Josh]

As a side note, we're talking about 3% of the total population dying in the 10th plague (which would be about 70,000 people). That's a lot of first-born males, though probably much less of a percentage than one might at first think.

www.christian-thinktank.com/killheir.html

[Josh]

Click here for a pretty thorough response to this dilemma by Glenn Miller. I think a lot of his argumentation stands up, but my only quibble is that he goes with the 1-2 million Israelite population interpretation (while I think 20,000-250,000 is much more likely). That issue would alter one element of his argument significantly, but I really like a lot of his other suggestions.

Death of the Firstborn


www.christian-thinktank.com/killheir.html

[Josh]

4/8/06:

Part of this conversation might center around Who is doing the killing here? At first it seems that God is going to actively and personally strike down the firstborn:



Exodus 11: 4 So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

see also Exodus 4:23 and Exodus 12:12-13,29.

But then we are told something slightly different in Exodus 12:23:

When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

Here, the agent actually doing the destroyer seems to be something other than God Himself. Although God has been saying that He is ultimately responsible for the action, He doesn't seem to be the one who carries it out. Not only that, He doesn't even seem to be commanding this 'destroyer' to do it, but God's role is in 'permitting' or not 'permitting'.

Who is this destroyer? Well, some have thought it was Satan, being permitted to accomplish the fell deed by the 'permission' of God. Or perhaps it was an 'angel of death'.

Not that this solves the dilemma, but it does seem to me to indicate that whatever exactly is happening to the firstborn of Egypt is coming at them only indirectly from God.

[michelle]

4/5/06:

I wonder why it took Pharaoh so long to reach his breaking point. I find it interesting that some of his officials began to fear the Lord before Pharaoh reached this poing (Exodus 9:20 Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the LORD hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. 21 But those who ignored the word of the LORD left their slaves and livestock in the field.) Surely, those that feared the Lord would have tried to convince Pharaoh to give Moses and Aaron what they were asking for, right? Or would the officials have feared Pharaoh in this hardened state and left him alone?

Exodus 7:1 says, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.'" I find this preface to the plagues interesting especially when drawing symbolic parallels from the plagues. How often does God gently nudge people to get their attention? And how often to those nudges go unnoticed or ignored? So he tries a little push and that too goes unnoticed or ignored. He has to make his attempts at reach people stronger and more profound. Even some very drastic attempts go unnoticed. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes something devastating to wake us up. Does that speak to God's love for us and his desire to be in a relationship with us? Or does that speak of a malicious side to him?

[Josh]

4/5/06:

The homework for April 11th is to read Exodus 12-13:16 (which is instructions about the Passover feast) and see if you can identify elements that might be foreshadowings of Christ.

[michelle]

4/11/06:

I think the most significant and most prominent forewshadowing is the blood of the lamb used to save the firstborn of the Israelites. I think it is also significant that the lamb is required to be a "male without defect", just as Jesus was. I think it is also foreshadowing that the Lord called for the lambs to be slaughtered at twilight, the same time that Jesus' life left Him.

One of the restrictions on Passover is that no bones can be broken on the animal that they eat. This is significant because Jesus too had no broken bones when He was crucified. John 19:33 "But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."

One verse that really stuck out for me was Exodus 13:2 "The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me". Jesus was the first offspring of Mary (an Israelite) and He "literally" belonged to God.

Another verse that got me thinking was Exodus 13:13 "Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons." There are several definitions of the word "redeem" like: "To set free; rescue or ransom" or "To save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences" or "To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of". I think that all of these are what our Lamb does for us. Without redemption through him, we may as well have our necks broken.

Josh, can we sing "One Name" tonight? It just seems to fit with the theme of Passover.

[Josh]

4/11/06:

Great stuff, Michelle. I think that's 5 easter eggs! So far you win the hunt! (I note you have a lot of competition). But, if others submit Easter Eggs by hand, I'll post them here.

Yes, these really are the key foreshadowings. Other ones, of course, are a little more obscure or tentative.

I've got about 26 to share tonight (I cheated, though), which I'll post here afterwords for any further comment people want to make- I'm sure some will be debatable.

And sure thing on One Name.

[Josh]

Here's the link to my analysis of the Christological significance of Exodus 12/13:

Passover Foreshadowings of Christ


www.aletheiacf.com/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=2432&cpage_id=5925

There have been even more additions to this document since I presented it on 4/11/06. It seems the connections just keep coming.

Please respond here with comments and questions.

[Josh]

4/12/06:

Jeremy submitted the following questions:

"What is the significance of the break w/o yeast? It's mentioned about 17 times i believe (yeast or unleavened).

Why the exclusivity/restrictions on the passover feast?"