Today I read about the first Passover in Exodus 12 and I was struck by a number of things.
Firstly the fact came home to me again how this, one of the first sacrifices, and perhaps one of the most important for the Jews, was actually an invitation to eat a meal together. The lamb to be slaughtered was not just to be killed, that was not God's requirement. It was to be killed, and to be eaten together, on the same night. And if a family was too small to eat a whole lamb, they were to invite friends/neighbours to eat with them. Anything that remaind of the lamb was to be burned before morning.
So this first sacrifice, which was to ensure them safety from "The Destroyer", was an invitation to a feast, in community, as a pre-emptive celebration of God's deliverance.
How often do we mistake the sacrifices as wasteful of animal life, as barbaric and bloody? I think that the majority of sacrifices demanded by God, at least where animals were concerned, were actually eaten by someone. (Need to check that out). If that's so, the sacrifices God required were actually invitations to eat together and remember God and his acts towards and for us. Sacrifice in this case could probably be synonymous with celebration/party!
This seems emphasised even more in verse 14-16 where God tells the Jews to celebrate and remember this event with an annual Festival of Unleavened Bread, which should take place for 7 days, during which time "No work of any kind may be done . . . except the preparation of food." (v16 NLT) Wow! In effect God's telling the Jews to have a week-long holiday where the only requirement should be to prepare food, which also implies eating it. Kind of like God's saying "To celebrate and remember what's taking place this night, take a week off work each year, and spend the time preparing food, eating together and talking about this night. Party! In remembrance of what I'm doing this night." (Worship!!!)
Also, look at the animal God requires: a one-year old lamb without defects. Why a lamb? Well perhaps one reason is that the Jews came to Egypt (in the time of Joseph - check out the last chpaters of Genesis) as shepherds. Lambs would have been the animals to which they would have had easiest access. We don't read of the Hebrews raising cows, or pigs, etc. So God asks from them that which they can easilly provide, or God asks them to use what they have at hand, something which is familiar, something they know to deal with, and which even in terms of it's size is easy to deal with. (Obviously there's a prefiguring of Jesus and his sacrifice in all this too, but Jesus being called the Lamb of God has perhaps more to do with the fact that God chose the lamb at this moment . . .)
Also, it's cool to see that God says to the Jews, take the best lamb you've got, and eat that lamb together as a family, in community, don't use a raggedy lamb that you can do without. Chose the best one. Good meat, good sacrifice, good meal, good night! (There's also the notion that it's along feast, as the Destroyer was to arrive around midnight, which could imply that the Hebrews were to be feasting together into the night.)
And the notion of the blood across the doorposts. God or The Destroyer (not convinced they're the same person reading through chapters 12-15, but maybe I'm wrong) passes over those houses who have blood-stained doorposts. What actually is going on here? Is it the blood that saves the people in the houses? Or is the blood merely a sign?
When reading this passage today I was struck by the idea of baptism in this passage. The blood on the doorposts is an outward sign of what is taking place inside the home, the people have slaughtered a lamb, and are celebrating God's imminent deliverance by sharing a meal together. While it's important that the blood be on the doorposts, because that's what God told them to do as a sign, it's as important that the meal is being shared. And actually in the whole of it, the most important is that those in the house have believed what God said to them, and demonstrated their trust and belief in God by celelbrating this meal and stainging the doorposts. It's almost as if God says to the Destroyer "Take the first-born from every house except where the inhabitants are my people. You'll know who my people are because they will have done what I said and stained their doorposts. Any doorposts not stained are not my people."
Is that so? Or is that pushing it? Seems to me pretty accurate. God informs his people what he's going to do to Egypt for having kept them in slavery for 430 years! And to ensure that no mistakes take place, God's people are to stay in the safety of their homes, and to make it clear where they are, they should have a meal together and use the blood to identify their houses.
It's about believing what God says. It's about trusting and having confidence in God, and then following through on what he says, because of that trust and confidence.
What if someone were to follow what God said whilst having major doubts? Doubts as to whether it was all true, doubts as to whether it was enough? Well, to doubt but still follow through on what God says, is still trusting in what God says. Even if a family had tried to do other things to protect themselves, such as getting under the table, or whatever, so long as they had done what God said, and stayed in the house, they would be saved from the Destroyer.
The only families who would not be saved from the Destroyer are those who did not do what God said, those who didn't slaughter a lamb, or share a meal, or stain their doorposts with blood. And for a Jew to do that, they would have been saying, in effect, "God has not spoken, so I'm not doing it." Or "What a load of rubbish, I'm not doing that." Or "God wouldn't do that, so I don't need to get the lamb ready." Whatever the case, it demonstrates a lack of trust in what God says, a disbelief in God's words and plans. So the houses to be touched by the Destroyer were those who weren't prepared to listen to God and weren't prepared to trust him, weren't prepared to put into effect what he had told them.
Coming back to baptism, it's not just the baptism that saves. It's a sign of what's going on inside. Getting baptised because you believe that's what God wants for you to be saved, isn't it a demonstration that a. you want to be saved and b. you want to do what God asks? In a sense that's trusting in God.
So is baptism enough to be saved, even if there's no faith, or relationship with God behind it? Was it enough to stain the doorposts with blood, just in case? I don't know. Maybe. Mabye not.
It's one thing to believe, it's another to disbelieve. I believe God so I follow through on what he says. I disbelieve what I've heard, and so am not interested in following through, so no meal, no celebration, no stained doorposts.
But maybe there are different shades, as mentioned before. The person who's not sure, who has enough doubt about the truth of it all, but is still willing to paint the doorposts - which is in some measure trusting and obeying what God had said. And the person who's not sure, who has enough doubt that pushes hims to doing nothing about the situation - which is to the same measure not trusting and not obeying what God had said.
Does it come down to whether we're willing to trust God, had confidence in him, and follow through on his words, even though we may be riddled with doubt and fearful of the results? Or do we choose to ignore him?
And of course, it's worth bearing in mind that this was not the end of the road, but the beginning in some senses. This one evening was the beginning of the deliverance from slavery and oppression, but it would be followed by a long road which would eventually take around 40 years or so.
Being saved from the Destroyer was no guarantee of leaving Egypt, just of being saved from the Destroyer. To leave Egypt meant following through on what God said afterwards, it meant following through on what God said in terms of direction, timing, etc.
And even being saved from the Destroyer, it could either be a time of celebration and community, or it could be a time of fear and loneliness. That was the choice of each individual and each family.
Can we experience the salvation of God, the deliverance by God in the same way? We can celebrate being saved from slavery and saved from the Destroyer, or we can be saved whilst cowering in fear because of doubts about God's trustworthinss, faithfulness, strength, power and love.
The invitaion to the Hebrews was to celebrate together God's deliverance from slavery and the Destroyer. Bad news for the Eyptians but good news for the Jews. But let's not forget that everyone in the house was "passed over". So if there had been any friendly Egyptians towards the Jews, would they have had the opportunity to share in the meal too? If they believed what their Jewish slaves told them, would they have the opportunity to join them?
The text doesn't say. But it's a possibility, if the foreigners (the Egyptians) demonstrated faith and trust in God (meaning circumcision and being in the house of a Hebrew - Exodus 12:44-48).
But that's assuming there were even Egyptian sympathisers with the Jews, of which there is only very limited evidence. And you have to take into account that for 430 years the Egyptians had watched and let the Hebrews become oppressed, mistreated, enslaved, etc. Begs the question: even if you're not in agreement, if you do nothing you're just as guilty, whether from fear or apathy. Can't help but think of the Jewish situation in the times of Hitler, and have to wonder what I would have done as a non-Jew?
So, this is certainly an interesting passage with regards to baptism, to the nature of sacrifices and celebration and remembering. Also interesting concerning how we're saved, and how we can experience our own salvation and deliverance.
