Arthur King
Active Member
Let's start with what God says to Moses in Exodus 4:22 -
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’
This is a fascinating verse, and essential for understanding the rationale behind God’s judgment upon Egypt. Israel is God’s firstborn son. Egypt has enslaved Israel, which would be understood in the Jewish mind as slavery to death. Jewish scholar Robert Alter notes the parallelism in the Biblical language between “Sheol, the underworld, and Egypt, that alien land to the south famous for its monumental cult of the dead.” (Art of Biblical Narrative, p.212) Israel is in slavery to death not only symbolically, but their sons are literally subject to mass extermination. God’s act of judgment in slaying the firstborn of Egypt is an act of retribution, He is bringing Egypt’s own sinful standard of behavior back on Egypt’s head. Not only this, but as Christians we have to understand that Egypt’s treatment of Israel in the eyes of God is a crucifixion event. It is the death of God’s firstborn son. God comes to judge Egypt as the father of a murdered son. Just as the enslavement of Israel is a crucifixion event, so the Exodus of Israel is a resurrection event. He is going to enact restitution and retribution for the wrong done: The Father is going to bring his own son back to life, by bringing Israel out of Egypt through the Exodus, and The Father is going to make the dead son belong to Pharaoh. Just as the dead animal becomes the property of the person who killed it in laws like that of Exodus 21:33.
The Passover Lamb cannot be a “substitute” for the firstborn of the houses of Israel, because God’s firstborn son, Israel, has already been put to death by the Egyptians—that is, the death of God’s firstborn by the Egyptians is the entire basis for the judgment upon Egypt in the first place. The blood of Israel has already been shed. The narrative is not “Israel has sinned and deserves punishment, so God sends the Passover lamb to suffer their sins in their place as their substitute.” Rather, it is that Egypt has sinned by killing Israel. Israel is the victim of Egypt’s sin, so Egypt deserves punishment, and Israel deserves restitution. And the death of the Passover Lamb is the death of the Israelites under the Egyptians. The death of the Passover Lamb is a recapitulation of the death of Israel.
So just as Egypt brought death to God’s firstborn son, God is going to bring death to the firstborn sons of Egypt. The angel of death passes over the houses of the Israelites because, obviously, innocent victims don’t deserve punishment, they deserve restitution. And as is always the case, retribution is not the main action in bringing justice to the victim. God is also going to enact restitution on their behalf and raise his firstborn son Israel from the dead. Israel will be resurrected out of her deadness in slavery, freed from the Egyptians, and even receive a bit of restitution monetarily through the plundering of Egyptian goods.
And yet, it is a fair question to ask, “How can Israel be regarded as God’s firstborn son? We, having read the book of Genesis, know that none of the Israelites are any more moral or righteous than anybody from another nation. How can God be just in enacting restitution and retribution for a nation of people that are by no means innocent?” The answer is the Passover Lamb, the innocent party that suffers alongside Israel. The new thing that the Passover Lamb introduces into the situation is not death. Israel has suffered massive amounts of death. They are enslaved to the empire of death and their firstborn sons have been drowned. The new thing that the Passover Lamb introduces into the situation is divine innocence. God, in sending the Israelites the Passover Lamb, and in sending Jesus the true Passover Lamb, has sent a figure that is truly innocent and righteous, to suffer death along with humanity. What is unique about the suffering of the Lamb, and of Jesus, is that the suffering is unjust, whereas fallen humanity has no basis for saying their suffering is unjust.
The blood over the doorway says “innocent blood has been shed here.” It is a sign of solidarity with innocent suffering, and choosing to side with the victim rather than the victimizer. We see this to a much lesser degree today, when after a tragedy makes the headlines, people will change the picture of their social media profile to a picture of the victim. Recall the shooting at the headquarters of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, after which people all over the world posted the French Flag as their profile picture and wrote “Je Suis Charlie,” meaning “I am Charlie.” Similarly, Christians will often set the Arabic letter “N” as their profile picture, which stands for Nazarene, in order to express solidarity with Christians who are being persecuted and killed.
Marking the doorpost is also a sign of choosing sides. It says “I am with Israel” and not Egypt. I am with the weak, not the strong. This choice of loyalty confronted Israel while they were in Egypt, as they fell into temptation to worship the Egyptian gods. The choice of loyalty will also confront the Israelites throughout their wilderness wandering, as they are constantly tempted to return to their bondage to Egypt.
There is a further argument to be made on the exact nature of the ritual. On a vicarious punishment system, we should expect the Israelites to tie the lamb outside the house for the night in expectation that God (or His “destroyer”) would come by and kill the lamb instead of the firstborn of the household. But this is not what happens. Instead, the Israelites themselves, the sinners in need of redemption, slay the Passover lamb. The blood of the lamb then averts the wrath of God when He comes by, but the function of the lamb is not to bear or exhaust the wrath of God in place of the Israelites. This is important data towards the Biblical understanding of “propitiation.” Again, modern Penalty Substitution advocates define propitiation as “wrath satisfying” or “wrath exhausting,” but the Biblical data indicates that propitiation simply means “wrath reversing” or “wrath averting.”
In many ways, the Passover and the Exodus were the gospel story of the Old Testament, the story of God’s mighty act of redemption to save His people. But the Old Testament Jews never would have included as part of this story, “God punished (or satisfied His wrath) on the Passover lamb instead of us.” If Old Testament Jews would not have thought this, then New Testament Christians should not believe that God punished or exhausted wrath upon “Christ our Passover (1 Cor 5:7).”
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’
This is a fascinating verse, and essential for understanding the rationale behind God’s judgment upon Egypt. Israel is God’s firstborn son. Egypt has enslaved Israel, which would be understood in the Jewish mind as slavery to death. Jewish scholar Robert Alter notes the parallelism in the Biblical language between “Sheol, the underworld, and Egypt, that alien land to the south famous for its monumental cult of the dead.” (Art of Biblical Narrative, p.212) Israel is in slavery to death not only symbolically, but their sons are literally subject to mass extermination. God’s act of judgment in slaying the firstborn of Egypt is an act of retribution, He is bringing Egypt’s own sinful standard of behavior back on Egypt’s head. Not only this, but as Christians we have to understand that Egypt’s treatment of Israel in the eyes of God is a crucifixion event. It is the death of God’s firstborn son. God comes to judge Egypt as the father of a murdered son. Just as the enslavement of Israel is a crucifixion event, so the Exodus of Israel is a resurrection event. He is going to enact restitution and retribution for the wrong done: The Father is going to bring his own son back to life, by bringing Israel out of Egypt through the Exodus, and The Father is going to make the dead son belong to Pharaoh. Just as the dead animal becomes the property of the person who killed it in laws like that of Exodus 21:33.
The Passover Lamb cannot be a “substitute” for the firstborn of the houses of Israel, because God’s firstborn son, Israel, has already been put to death by the Egyptians—that is, the death of God’s firstborn by the Egyptians is the entire basis for the judgment upon Egypt in the first place. The blood of Israel has already been shed. The narrative is not “Israel has sinned and deserves punishment, so God sends the Passover lamb to suffer their sins in their place as their substitute.” Rather, it is that Egypt has sinned by killing Israel. Israel is the victim of Egypt’s sin, so Egypt deserves punishment, and Israel deserves restitution. And the death of the Passover Lamb is the death of the Israelites under the Egyptians. The death of the Passover Lamb is a recapitulation of the death of Israel.
So just as Egypt brought death to God’s firstborn son, God is going to bring death to the firstborn sons of Egypt. The angel of death passes over the houses of the Israelites because, obviously, innocent victims don’t deserve punishment, they deserve restitution. And as is always the case, retribution is not the main action in bringing justice to the victim. God is also going to enact restitution on their behalf and raise his firstborn son Israel from the dead. Israel will be resurrected out of her deadness in slavery, freed from the Egyptians, and even receive a bit of restitution monetarily through the plundering of Egyptian goods.
And yet, it is a fair question to ask, “How can Israel be regarded as God’s firstborn son? We, having read the book of Genesis, know that none of the Israelites are any more moral or righteous than anybody from another nation. How can God be just in enacting restitution and retribution for a nation of people that are by no means innocent?” The answer is the Passover Lamb, the innocent party that suffers alongside Israel. The new thing that the Passover Lamb introduces into the situation is not death. Israel has suffered massive amounts of death. They are enslaved to the empire of death and their firstborn sons have been drowned. The new thing that the Passover Lamb introduces into the situation is divine innocence. God, in sending the Israelites the Passover Lamb, and in sending Jesus the true Passover Lamb, has sent a figure that is truly innocent and righteous, to suffer death along with humanity. What is unique about the suffering of the Lamb, and of Jesus, is that the suffering is unjust, whereas fallen humanity has no basis for saying their suffering is unjust.
The blood over the doorway says “innocent blood has been shed here.” It is a sign of solidarity with innocent suffering, and choosing to side with the victim rather than the victimizer. We see this to a much lesser degree today, when after a tragedy makes the headlines, people will change the picture of their social media profile to a picture of the victim. Recall the shooting at the headquarters of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, after which people all over the world posted the French Flag as their profile picture and wrote “Je Suis Charlie,” meaning “I am Charlie.” Similarly, Christians will often set the Arabic letter “N” as their profile picture, which stands for Nazarene, in order to express solidarity with Christians who are being persecuted and killed.
Marking the doorpost is also a sign of choosing sides. It says “I am with Israel” and not Egypt. I am with the weak, not the strong. This choice of loyalty confronted Israel while they were in Egypt, as they fell into temptation to worship the Egyptian gods. The choice of loyalty will also confront the Israelites throughout their wilderness wandering, as they are constantly tempted to return to their bondage to Egypt.
There is a further argument to be made on the exact nature of the ritual. On a vicarious punishment system, we should expect the Israelites to tie the lamb outside the house for the night in expectation that God (or His “destroyer”) would come by and kill the lamb instead of the firstborn of the household. But this is not what happens. Instead, the Israelites themselves, the sinners in need of redemption, slay the Passover lamb. The blood of the lamb then averts the wrath of God when He comes by, but the function of the lamb is not to bear or exhaust the wrath of God in place of the Israelites. This is important data towards the Biblical understanding of “propitiation.” Again, modern Penalty Substitution advocates define propitiation as “wrath satisfying” or “wrath exhausting,” but the Biblical data indicates that propitiation simply means “wrath reversing” or “wrath averting.”
In many ways, the Passover and the Exodus were the gospel story of the Old Testament, the story of God’s mighty act of redemption to save His people. But the Old Testament Jews never would have included as part of this story, “God punished (or satisfied His wrath) on the Passover lamb instead of us.” If Old Testament Jews would not have thought this, then New Testament Christians should not believe that God punished or exhausted wrath upon “Christ our Passover (1 Cor 5:7).”
