You’ve got to love the title of this book. And David has shown me many truths and insights I definitely overlooked. This book has challenged me unlike most others. I loved it. I heartily recommend it. It is an easy read, and Rabbi Fohrman’s breezy style makes it fun.
Whether Rabbi Fohrman is correct in his insights about the Exodus or not, my main takeaway from this book is his approach to Torah. I feel challenged to stop skim-reading the Scriptures and discover what I’ve passed over.
First, some background.
Rabbi Fohrman is an Orthodox Jew and the founder of Aleph-Beta (https://www.alephbeta.org/), whose web page declares their purpose:
Fall in love with Torah – for the first time, or all over again – with Aleph Beta’s over 1,000 beautifully produced videos, podcasts, and printable guides.
I connected with Rabbi Fohrman through the Bema podcast (https://www.bemadiscipleship.com/) – which I also highly recommend. My grandson Alex recommended this podcast to his brother and our daughter, who, in turn, recommended it to me. Thanks, Alex. Fohrman and Bema will supercharge your love for the Bible. They have mine.
Acknowledgements
It is not very often that I quote from the acknowledgements. But that is the kind of book this is. There is much to learn – everywhere.
Rabbi Fohrman partnered with a computer scientist who:
has specialized in data mining — finding and analyzing hidden, often nested, patterns in seemingly random bursts of data.
Those who know me know that I would be at home here. Fohrman goes on:
Those patterns exist in our sacred texts, too, and we each shared a sense of elation at finding them and setting about the task of discerning what they might mean.
Those words summarize what this book is all about: finding hidden and often nested patterns in the Exodus story and then discerning what they might mean. I have loved what they found, but often disagree on what they mean. That’s okay. The key is finding these gems. And the secret is in not passing over the details.
In the acknowledgement, he highlights two of the questions I have passed over, which he will deal with in the book:
-
- Why does the end of the book of Exodus place so much emphasis on the child-care arrangements for Jacob’s funeral? Missed that!
- Why does the Torah detail the connection between the relationship of Joseph and Jacob and the Exodus? Missed that one too! Stay tuned!
Preface
What Kind of Book is This?
Quoting from that great book by Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book, Rabbi Fohrman tells us that we should know the kind of book we are reading before we start. If we think of a poetry book as history, we will be in trouble. Or I would say we are in trouble if we read the Bible as a science textbook. In this case, if we think of this book as a biblical commentary on the book of Exodus, you will be in trouble.
The Kind of Book This is Not
As a Biblical Commentary, it is not
-
- Critical Academic Scholarship
- Commentaries that deal with the Text from Personal Relevance – finding nuggets of truth that we can apply
- Anthology – where a vast array of scholars are quoted on the text to help us understand the text.
The Kind of Book This Is
Fohrman sees this as a guidebook that attempts to engage with the original Hebrew text to find what God was actually trying to say, and then to determine what we are to take away from it (meaning).
Part I – Taking Apart the Exodus Story
Chapter One – The Angel in the Backroom
Rabbi Fohrman teaches me by showing me how to slow down (and not pass over any details in reading the Bible). He asks questions that I have never asked. Like in this chapter: Why name the Jewish feast: Passover? Why not Freedom Day or Independence Day? Yes, the angel of death passed over the Hebrews on that night – but that wasn’t the essence of the story. Or was it? Here, Rabbi Fohrman poses one of the first of many questions that will pepper this whole book:
Perhaps the name suggests that we should adjust our sights somewhat. We tend to think of Passover the way I’ve just described it to you, as the holiday on which we got our freedom. And yet, the Torah’s own name for the night we went free doesn’t emphasize the “free” part; it emphasizes being “passed over.” Could it be that, somehow, the essence of the holiday really does revolve around the mysterious salvation that our firstborn experienced that night?
And because Fohrman is not a Messianic Jew, perhaps he also passed over the emphasis that followers of Jesus put on the Passover and its connection with Jesus’ death.
Next question I passed over: Why did God mandate[1] that the law-of-the-broken-necked donkey get put in the little boxes (tefillin) that Jews were to wear (Exodus 13:13)?[2] Why did God pick these specific aspects of the Torah to be bound to their bodies? Fohrman claims that God wanted them to remember that He spared their firstborn sons. Hmmm! I leave it to the reader who lives on this side of the cross to see if there is some significance there.
Then the Rabbi poses another question I never asked: Why does God refer to Israel as his firstborn son when He called Moses in the desert? (Exodus 4:22-23).
He concludes Chapter 1 with this:
Maybe, then, the Exodus story is about more than we ever suspected. Is it about freedom? Yes, it surely is. Independence and the birth of a nation? Yes, that, too. But it is about more than this. In this book, I want to argue that the Exodus story tells us who we are. It is a story that tells us not just about our past, but about our future. It speaks not only of our birth, but of our destiny. It speaks of why we are here and what we are meant to achieve. The story is about what it means to be a firstborn nation.
Chapter Two – The Exodus Game
Chapter Two takes us on a thought experiment in which he asks us to play the three primary characters in the Exodus story: God, Moses, and Pharaoh. I would add Israel, but that is another story.
Imagine You are God
Goal: Deliver Your People from Slavery: Or is that the goal?
If deliverance was the only or even the primary goal, why did He use 10 plagues? Wouldn’t plague 10 have done the job? Or the ninth plague: the plague of darkness for three days, where the Egyptians couldn’t see a blasted thing, but Israel could see fine. Why not tell Israel just to walk out? And of course, with God’s superpowers, He could have done anything to have zipped them out. Or even the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire that protected them. Just surround them before the Red Sea and march them out.
But there’s more! What about that duplicitous request to go worship in the desert for three days and then come back? If you were God, would You ask Moses to frame the request that way? No! I think if we were honest, we would just have delivered Israel and skipped the drama.
Rabbi Fohrman writes:
In the movies, by the way, that’s the way it always goes. From Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments to Steven Spielberg’s Prince of Egypt, Moses’s interaction with Pharaoh looks very different. In these Hollywood portraits of the Exodus, a stern-faced Moses sets forth a no-holds-barred ultimatum to Pharaoh: let my people go! Somehow, the rest of Moses’s speech — the word please, and the part about the three-day vacation — always gets left on the cutting room floor.
And how about the interaction with Pharaoh in Exodus 8:
25 Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God within the land.” 26 But Moses said, “It would not be right to do so, for the offerings we shall sacrifice to the Lord our God are an abomination to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us? 27 We must go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God as he tells us.” 28 So Pharaoh said, “I will let you go to sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only you must not go very far away. Plead for me.” 29 Then Moses said, “Behold, I am going out from you, and I will plead with the Lord that the swarms of flies may depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people, tomorrow. Only let not Pharaoh cheat again by not letting the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.” 30 So Moses went out from Pharaoh and prayed to the Lord. 31 And the Lord did as Moses asked, and removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; not one remained. 32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.
Fohrman writes:
It all seems faintly ridiculous, the squabbling back and forth. One wonders: Isn’t all this a little beneath Moses’s dignity? Isn’t it beneath God’s? God doesn’t need to bargain with Pharaoh. God doesn’t even need Pharaoh to say yes at all! The Master of the Universe is perfectly capable of delivering His people to the Promised Land, whether Pharaoh agrees to the plan or not. So why go through all of this?
One thing seems clear. For some undetermined reason, there appears to be an unwritten rule throughout the Exodus narrative, a rule that God is choosing to adhere to: the Israelites aren’t going anywhere unless Pharaoh says they are.
All of this is to help us see beyond the Exodus as Liberation Day or Independence Day. Did you notice these things in your reading of the Exodus? I sure didn’t.
Here is another thing I missed that Fohrman points out. I am sure all of us have seen the basic pattern:
-
- Moses asks
- Pharaoh says no.
- Moses calls down a plague
- Pharaoh says yes
- Moses calls for an end to the plague
- Pharaoh reneges
But did you notice what happens after this? Fohrman again:
Instead of Pharaoh changing his own mind, God seems to step in and do the mind-changing for him. In the words of the Torah, the Almighty “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 9:12).
Fohrman closes out the chapter with two dilemmas: a moral and a tactical.
-
- Moral: “To the extent that Pharaoh’s free will was compromised by God Himself, how can this same God hold Pharaoh responsible for his actions?”
- Tactical: “…it just doesn’t seem to add up. Here God is, sending Moses repeatedly to Pharaoh, enduring endless bargaining sessions with the Egyptian monarch, even coming up with a dubious three-day vacation offer — all in the interest of getting Pharaoh to say yes. Finally, it actually happens! Pharaoh says yes, and it really is yes; he’s not going to back down and change his mind. Why, at that very moment, would God interfere with Pharaoh’s free will and make him say no? Wasn’t this the moment we had all been waiting for?”
Again, Fohrman closes the chapter:
Does God care about Pharaoh’s free-willed consent, or not? If He does, then once Pharaoh gives that consent, the game should be over. And if the Almighty doesn’t care about that consent, why needlessly ask for it to begin with?
Stay tuned. There is more that we passed over!
Chapter Three – Power and Precision
Calculated Ambiguity – I certainly passed over this little morsel:
4 So Moses said, “Thus says the Lord: ‘About midnight I will go out in the midst of Egypt, 5 and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the handmill, and all the firstborn of the cattle Exodus 11:4-5
What? Does God have something on His calendar a little before midnight that might run shorter or longer? We later learn in chapter 12 that the angel of the Lord struck “at midnight” (Exodus 12:29). The Sages propose a solution that, since Pharaoh was so nit-picky, if Moses proposed an exact time, Pharaoh’s clocks and God’s clocks might not be synced, and this would be an excuse to deny the prediction.
Sounds to me like the Sages don’t have enough to do. But there is some method to their madness. Notice that when Egypt was overrun with frogs and the stench was intense, Moses asked Pharaoh when he wanted the frogs to go away. He says, “Tomorrow!” (Exodus 8:10). What! Your country is overrun with frogs, and you give Moses till tomorrow to get rid of them? Clearly, Pharaoh was interested in timing. The Sages point out one other odd request. When his cattle were destroyed, he did not ask how many. He wanted to know what happened to the children of Israel’s cattle (Exodus 9:7).
Perhaps Pharaoh is not so much interested in keeping the children of Israel as he is in the precision of God’s predictive power.
Chapter Four – The Tale of Two Speeches
Another detail I passed over. Look at the two speeches Moses makes to Pharaoh and note the differences:
5:1 Afterward, Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness.’”
3 “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three-day journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”
Speech 1 failed, so Moses tries again. Here are the major differences:
-
- What are the children of Israel called
- Direct or Indirect communication
- Celebration or Sacrifice
- What happens if Israel doesn’t go
- A command versus a please
- Limited departure of 3 days
- Yahweh versus the God of the Hebrews
Fohrman argues that two completely different pictures of God are portrayed:
-
- God of speech #1 wants to celebrate.
- The God of speech #1 identifies Israel as personally mine
- A God who has a specific name
- A God who addresses people personally
Look at it yourself and see if you agree that these are two different portrayals of God.
David doesn’t tell us why – Yet. Stay tuned.
Chapter 5 – Much Ado about Names
Fohrman claims that God doesn’t normally make a big to-do about His name. He rarely corrects someone about what they call Him. Perhaps this bothers you when a friend corrects someone about the name Allah. It got me wondering, when Jesus appears in dreams to a Muslim, does He say: “Oh, by the way, my name isn’t Allah. I am offended when you call Me that?”
But Fohrman claims that God does just that after the two speeches.
2 God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the YHVH. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the YHVH, I did not make myself known to them.
To a close reader of the Bible, they would see a couple of things that passed me by:
-
- The name YHVH was made known to the fathers. This text implies that it was not made known.
- God had already told Moses that His name was: “I am that I am” and “I am” when Moses asked Him straight out: What is Your name?
He leaves with this question, which he guarantees he will address – later.
Part II – The Exit Strategy
Chapter 6 – What’s in a Name
In this chapter, David looks at the difference between God Almighty (El Shaddai) and YHVH. He does that first by looking at the names as words. El is a Hebrew word for power (See Genesis 31:29). And when used in Elohim, it is a powerful force.
Have you ever wondered why God tells the Hebrews not to have any other gods before Him when He is the one true god? The 2nd commandment reads a little differently if you put “Elohim” in place of “gods.” No other powerful forces before me. What that means when we address God as El Elohim, we are addressing Him as a powerful God.
So, what does it mean when we address Him as El Shaddai? Shaddai doesn’t appear in the Scriptures apart from El Shaddai. But the Sages of the Mishnah give us a hint. As a combination of Hebrew words, as they put it – El Shaddai means “the god who knows how to say ‘Enough.’”
That brings us to the name change that God is invoking with Moses.
God makes it clear to Moses that power is not His name. It is not who He is fundamentally. God will make use of power, as He is about to do – but [power] doesn’t define Him. Instead, the essence of God is about something else. It is about YHVH.
Which he addresses in the next chapter.
Chapter 7 – Do you believe in Parker
In this chapter, David takes a look at the Hebrew word for Yahweh: (יהוה). He
tells us that we cannot know what the word means because it is only and is ever used for the name of God. But, undaunted, he attempts to figure it out anyway. He tells us that the last three letters of the name: הוה spell the Hebrew word for is or to exist. Three out of four of the letters spell the word “was.” And the word is close to the Hebrew word for will be. Then he says:
To summarize: this name of God is close, but not exactly equivalent to, each one of the three Hebrew words that denote past, present, and future existence.
He then makes a distinction between an eternal being and the God whose name is יהוה. To exist eternally means that you exist for a long, long time. But at any given moment, an eternal being exists in the now / in the present. But God’s name implies that God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously.
Finally, he has us overlay the Hebrew words for past, present, and future, and what you get is the Hebrew word for Yahweh. (יהוה)
In discussing the God who exists not just eternally but in the past, present, and future simultaneously, Rabbi Fohrman has us imagine a conversation between two board tokens in the Parker Brothers game of Monopoly. Imagine that one of them doesn’t believe in Parker. He has been around the board countless times, but never finds him. “My dear Little Hat, you’re looking for Parker in all the wrong places. Parker doesn’t live on the board. He made the board!” So it is with God. He isn’t “in” time. He made time.
God’s speech to Moses just before the Ten Plagues begin, God was saying that in the past, He had been revealed as a powerful force (an el), perhaps even an ultimately powerful force (el shaddai); but now, through the Exodus, He would be revealed for who He really was: YHVH, the one who is “off the board,” outside of time and space; the Maker of time and space. Parker. The Creator.
I had never looked closely at the Hebrew in this particular dialogue between God and Moses. The English translations actually had the detail, but I didn’t fully understand it until now. Here is my summary:
When God says, “I AM WHO I AM” in Exodus 3:14, there are actually 3 Hebrew words with the first repeated. As Fohrman points out, the repeated word for I AM ( היה) is very close to the Hebrew word for YHVH (יהוה). Later in the verse, when He says “I AM has sent you,” He is not saying YHVH but the Hebrew word for I AM. Then, in verse 15, when He says: “Say to the people of Israel: ‘The Lord … has sent me to you.’” the Hebrew word for YHVH is used. Then, in Exodus 6:4, when God says, “But by my name, the Lord, I did not make myself known to them,” He uses YHVH.
This is where I never made the distinction between the three distinct names that God uses in this short section: I AM WHO I AM; I AM; and YHVH. But what does it all mean? Stay tuned. Fohrman keeps us in suspense.
Chapter 8 – More than a Numbers Game
The point of this chapter is to contrast polytheism and monotheism. He claims that it is more than just believing in one God and believing in more than one god. Concerning polytheism:
The bottom line is that every god had its realm of power. Conversely, every deity had its own area of vulnerability: pagan deities had needs, and if you were clever enough, you could use those needs to get a god’s attention.
Furthermore, polytheism
means nothing around me is the product of anyone’s intention — pitiful little me least of all. My job, then, as a human, is to make my way in this cold universe as best I can. I am not thrust into a relationship with any transcendent force who can claim responsibility for my existence.
By contrast, monotheism means:
the universe is not the product of blind chance, but was created by a sentient being, well, that means there is intention behind existence. The universe is here because that being wanted it to be here, and willed it into existence.
If I really have a Creator, then my life is not just the byproduct of cold, blind chance. Someone wants me to be here, brought me into this world, and gave me the wherewithal to make something of myself here on earth. Love seems an entirely fitting response to that.
Fohrman asks us to:
Imagine a household where children were somehow deluded about the identity of the grownups in charge of the family. They thought the grownups were just “powers” who, for some unexplained reason, controlled all the goodies in the house.
Then he asks us to picture what it would be like to be a child in such a household. That is how it is to be a pagan. And relative to the Exodus story, God’s purpose was in part to contrast for the Egyptians what a monotheistic God was like compared to their polytheistic gods.
Chapter 9 – The Hidden Agenda
David asks us to imagine we were God and wanted to demonstrate to the world that there was a single Creator. How would we do it?
Maybe, he says, that was what God was doing with the Exodus. Exodus 7:5 says as much:
And Egypt will know that I am YHVH, as I stretch My hand out over Egypt, and deliver the Children of Israel from their midst
The Exodus was not just about delivering Israel but demonstrating that He was YHVH.
Then, as he challenges us to come up with a plan to accomplish this two-fold objective, he tells us to remember that we have to counter all of these pagan powers. Remember our original question about why all of the different plagues were required.
I had been taught that each of the plagues was an attempt by God to show His power over all of the other pagan deities of Egypt. And in one sense, that is what Fohrman is saying. But, in Fohrman’s inimitable way, there is more to it than that.
Chapter 10 – The Case for Monotheism
Rabbi Fohrman notices (another thing I passed over) the Pharaoh’s request for precision with respect to the time the plague would strike, as opposed to power in the proposed plagues. He asks:
Why would the precision with which a plague came and went — whether Moses could turn off the frogs at precisely the moment you picked, or whether a given plague distinguished precisely between Israelites and Egyptians — matter so much to you?
In a polytheistic universe, you would see lots of power, but very little control.
That Moses can do this suggests a hitherto unheard-of entity. It suggests a Creator whose control over the forces of nature is complete and absolute. It suggests a Force that does not share power with any true competitors.
He then points out yet another factoid I passed over that was a counter to paganism. In a pagan worldview, there were competing powers over the elements. One might control the rain. One might control the frogs. But look at this:
And there was hail — and fire encased inside the hail (Exodus 9:24)
There was a god of fire and a god of ice – but they never worked together. This is more evidence I overlooked of God’s purpose in the plagues. It wasn’t just to let the people go; it was also to convert the nation of Egypt to monotheism. In Fohrman’s words: “by causing diametrically opposed natural forces to work in harmony toward a common end.”
Fohrman restates his theory:
the Exodus had a dual goal — free the Hebrews from slavery, but do so in a way that educates Pharaoh in the nature of the force he is opposing. That power is not a mere god in a pantheon of divine beings, but the one and only Creator. If the most established civilization of the ancient world, entirely devoted to paganism, were to embrace the idea of monotheism, if its leader were to accept the truth that the world contains a Creator to whom he is subject — that would certainly be a historical testament to the truth of monotheism.
Chapter 11 – Stubbornness and Courage
Next, Fohrman addresses the question of free will. Why does God harden Pharaoh’s heart to prevent the successful completion of His plan?
Fohrman proposes that the plagues might convince Pharaoh to let Israel go, but not acknowledge the Power behind the plagues. Then he heads down another path and asks if someone encourages another to continue on with a struggle, are you violating their will? I think most of us would say: No. Fohrman sees this hardening of the heart in just that way. Pharaoh was ready to give in to the request to let Israel go, but not accept YHVH as the creator. So, hardening the heart was a way of encouraging Pharaoh to persevere in accepting God as the monotheistic creator. But then the question is: Is that in the text? Let’s listen to David:
Pharaoh has many changes of heart over the course of the plagues, but the Torah doesn’t always use the same verb to characterize a change of heart. It switches off between two different verbs. One comes from the Hebrew root כָּבַד (k-b-d),[3] and the other, from the Hebrew root חזק (ch-z-k).[4]
חזק (ch-z-k) – carries the sense of to be strong, to strengthen, to harden, to prevail, to take hold of
Thus, in David’s words:
if, in reading through the plagues, you ever find that God is the one to change Pharaoh’s mind, and the phrase used to describe that change of mind is chizuk halev [חזק (ch-z-k) ]— then that, right there, is an instance of God lending courage to the embattled Egyptian leader,
כָּבַד (k-b-d) – carries the sense of stubbornness or heaviness or even glory (and thus the “weight of glory”).
we need to consider a second problem that could interfere with God’s plan to reveal Himself through Pharaoh’s free-willed recognition of a Creator-God. … What if, instead of giving in too soon, Pharaoh never gives in and recognizes the Creator, even when the evidence is absolutely overwhelming? We might call this the problem of stubbornness. As it happens, Pharaoh does occasionally act with something akin to blind stubbornness. The Hebrew word for that is [כָּבַד (k-b-d) ].
A bit of the fly in his ointment here is Exodus 10:1, where God puts the stubbornness in Pharaoh. Will he discuss that in his musings? Keep reading.
So there are two kinds of reversals of Pharaoh’s will in the text. Sometimes it occurs when he gives in to the request but doesn’t acknowledge God. And then there are the times where he doesn’t give in or acknowledge God as YHWH.
Again, David:
Perhaps there is a Plan A, a nonviolent sign of some sort that overwhelmingly indicates the existence of a Creator. Perhaps there is a Plan B, an effort to educate Pharaoh, over time, as to the existence of a Creator. But if these efforts fail, there has to be a Plan C. Was there a Plan C? And did it ever have to be implemented? These are questions we will look to answer as we read through the story of the Ten Plagues together. We’ve developed some theories about Plans A, B, and C — what they might have been, and how they might be executed. But the ultimate litmus test is the text. As we return to the biblical text and actually read through the Exodus story, it will be time to see how theory translates into reality.
Read on.
Part III Putting the Exodus Story Back Together Again
Chapter 12 – The Path not Taken
David kicks us off:
The story of the plagues is, to some extent, the story of a protracted negotiation between Moses and Pharaoh, a process marked by constant changes of mind on the part of the Egyptian king. As we noted, those changes of mind are characterized by two different Hebrew phrases, chizuk halev and kibbud halev, which we have rendered as “strengthening of heart” and “hardening of heart,” respectively.
Where does all this begin he asks. In the tale of two speeches, he presented in Chapter 4. Revisit that if you forgot about that. Given what we learned about polytheism earlier, David visits the two speeches and proposes:
But looking at the speeches now, it seems evident that the God of Moses’s first speech is God-as-He-truly-is, whereas the god that Moses presents in the second speech seems to portray the Almighty in terms we might use to describe a mere “power” within a larger pantheon of powers.
David then paraphrases Moses’ second speech:
Let me make things a little easier for you. Forget about that YHVH name that you found so confusing. Let’s at least agree that this god who sent me is no less than an ‘el,’ a power. You know about powers. And forget, at least for the moment, the idea that there’s some sort of precious relationship between this deity and a people He knows by a special name, Israel. Let’s just call them Hebrews. And forget about that whole celebration thing. Let’s just say we’re really worried that our ‘el,’ our power, might get angry with us if we don’t go into the desert to sacrifice to it. You can understand that, can’t you? Arbitrary and capricious deities we must appease with sacrifices, who might strike us down if we don’t obey? You know, sort of like your sun god? All we’re asking for, Pharaoh, is a little religious freedom; a three-day break to appease our god, the same way you would appease yours.
Thus, the education process has begun.
Next, he asks why Moses stooped to lying about a three-day pass rather than letting the slaves go. He concludes that it may not have been lying. If Moses saw the need for an incremental approach to having Pharaoh accept YHVH as Lord of all, perhaps there might have been another step after Israel came back. However, Pharaoh’s response crushed the possibility of a plan A – a non-violent conversion of Pharaoh away from his many gods to YHVH. The educational process will continue but in a much harder way.
Chapter Thirteen – A Journey to Tomorrowland
In this chapter, Fohrman takes us through the plagues – looking in particular at
the various hardenings and the use of power versus precision.
I have always been upset that the magicians turn their staffs into serpents. And though I did not pass over that Aaron’s staff swallowed the magicians’ staffs, I did not see it as evidence of monotheism. One God (one staff) is over the many.
He then points out to us something I passed over. After the serpent demonstration, Exodus 7:13 tells us that Pharaoh’s heart was strengthened (chizuk halev). But 7:14 has God telling Moses that his heart was hardened (kibbud halev). Which is it? David says it is a matter of perspective. Pharaoh sees his heart strengthening. God sees Pharaoh hardening his heart.
Yes, Pharaoh might obstinately choose to see this fight as nothing more than a match of dueling magicians. He might believe that hardening his position counts as nothing more than “strengthening his resolve.” But in fact, he is being stubborn. He is blinding himself to a truth he does not want to see. He is hardening his heart, not strengthening it.
The first plague also results in the magicians duplicating it, and again, we see in Exodus 7:22 that Pharaoh’s heart is strengthened.
The frog plague follows, which includes the strange request for precision. Following this plague, we hear for the first time that Pharaoh hardened his heart. What was previously seen as strengthening is now hardening. Fohrman claims that it is because of the precision of the use of power that this YHVH is something different.
He blinds himself to the implications of what he’s just seen, and continues his struggle against the God of the Hebrews. All of a sudden, Pharaoh has a new enemy. It is no longer just Moses, or even Moses’s God, that Pharaoh opposes. He is now at war against the ancient and timeless enemy of all stubborn men: reality itself.
Chapter Fourteen – Escalation
In this chapter, the Rabbi takes us through plagues 3-6. We have seen the blood and the frogs, and now we have the lice, the wild animals, death of livestock, and boils. He sees a pattern (which I obviously passed over) in these plagues. “They are intensifying along alternate lines: power and precision.” The lice mark the end of the astrologers’ ability to duplicate and their acknowledging that it is the finger of Elohim (Exodus 8:15). The power is greater than any of their gods. But still not the power of YHVH. Pharaoh strengthens his heart to this one. Then come the wild animals. The precision is the exact location of the plague. The frogs showed a precision of time. The wild animals a precision of space. Why? “’ So that you shall know that I am YHVH in the midst of the land.’ Precision, in time and space, is the unmistakable signature of the Master of both these realms, YHVH Himself…” Now Pharaoh hardens his heart (Exodus 8:28).
The precision and power axis escalate. Now, the death of the livestock is predicted in time, but the precision in space is further refined. Not just a specific locale, but to the inhabitants within that locale. Just as God “wondrously distinguished” the land of Goshen (Exodus 8:18), now He “wondrously distinguishes” the people of Israel within the land. (Exodus 9:4). Pharaoh’s attention to this precision is caught, and he sends for verification and gets it (Exodus 9:7). No Hebrew livestock is affected. The final escalation is an escalation of power. The power of the plague of boils was so great that the astrologers lost their ability to even stand before Moses. (Exodus 9:11).
In all of these, God did not enter Pharaoh’s heart. In this last plague, God enters the realm of Pharaoh’s heart. Of course, all of this I have passed over.
Chapter 15 – Hail to the King
We read that following the sixth plague, God strengthens Pharaoh’s heart. We have already discussed the commentator’s view that:
God, however, did not wish the Egyptian king to capitulate out of mere expediency. If it was courage that Pharaoh was lacking — well, God would supply him with the courage to pursue his vision.
Enter the seventh plague.
For this time, I will send all My plagues into your heart…so that you shall know there is none like Me in all the world (Exodus 9:13–14)
What does that mean?
The ground to be conquered in this plague is nothing less than Pharaoh’s heart itself.
And it is more than that:
God is telling the Egyptian king that there is a reason he is still here, a reason larger than Pharaoh himself. He is part of a momentous drama — the revelation of the Creator to humankind.
Exodus 9:16 It was only for this that I’ve allowed you to stand: it was to show you My strength, so that My name will be told of, all over the world
Only for this?
Allowed you to stand?
This clearly is a climactic section of the story (which of course I passed over). This seems to be God revealing that there is indeed a Plan C. This plague has a new, unique feature. God gives the Egyptians a way to avoid the plague. (Exodus 9:19). Fohrman claims that this is God’s way of demonstrating His power. He is so assured of His ultimate victory that He can afford to warn His enemy. Not too long ago, when the U.S. attacked Iran, we saw just that. The U.S. gave advanced notice as to when and where they were going to strike. Many questioned this. Yet here is God doing the same thing.
Previously, we mentioned the fire inside the ice. What was it to accomplish? Let’s look at how Pharaoh responds.
And Pharaoh sent and called to Moses and Aaron and said to them: I have sinned this time. YHVH is the righteous One, and my people and I are the wicked ones (Exodus 9:27)
Fohrman points out that this is new and moral language. You don’t sin against impersonal gods. Pharaoh finally acknowledges the personal and moral nature of YHVH. One would think that this would end the story. God has accomplished His goal. But the story is not over. Why? Stay tuned.
Chapter 16 The Desecration of Remorse
After the hail, Fohrman points out that Pharaoh changes his mind yet again. But (no surprise here), there is something I passed over. Fohrman calls it the tipping point of the whole Exodus story. Even though Pharaoh had admitted sin, the Torah says that he sinned. He claims that ignoring evidence is a “subconscious act of resistance.” He claims that this is not a sin. In effect, Fohrman sees Pharaoh saying:
I know there is a Creator, that I am duty bound to listen to Him, and I know what He wants from me. But I just don’t care. I’m keeping my slaves anyway.
This is the essence of sin.
The other unique thing I passed over, Pharaoh both hardened his heart, but he also strengthened his heart. (Exodus 9:34-35). Fohrman sees this as what he calls the “desecration of remorse.”
Remorse is a noble and sublime product of the free and unfettered human will. Once you cynically mock it, it doesn’t come easily anymore.
Pharaoh will never again see the truth as clearly as he does now.
In the great drama of the Exodus, he has chosen, in effect, no longer to be an actor, but a pawn.
I don’t know about you, but I passed over this major turning point in the great drama.
Fohrman sees this as the beginning of Plan C. God uses language never before seen in the story:
And YHVH said to Moses: Go to Pharaoh — for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might establish My signs in the midst of them. And so that you will be able to tell your children, and your children’s children, how I played with Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them. [I have done this] so that you will know that I am YHVH. (Exodus 10:1–2)
Notice what I passed over. The goal is not so that Pharaoh would know the YHVH is God, but so that the children of Israel would get to know YHVH. Plan C!
And what’s this business about toying with Pharaoh? According to Rabbi David, Pharaoh will have free will for the rest of the story, but God will see to it that Pharaoh “endlessly pursues his lost cause” by toying with him the rest of the story.
Chapter 17 Pharaoh’s Last Refuge
Per Fohrman, Pharaoh has now adopted a “damn the torpedoes” approach to ignoring the stubborn fact that God is the supreme creator. If you doubt man’s ability to act like this, just look at politicians who refuse to acknowledge the polls (or even the votes) in an election. Stubbornness can soon become a fortress as he will soon see. We mentioned that normally, Pharaoh has been hardening his heart. But at this transition, now we see God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. (Exodus 10:1). And this will not end well for Pharaoh. As Fohrman says:
Denial of reality is never a strength; it’s always a weakness.
I was once confronted by a dear friend about something I had supposedly done. But when I brought up the facts, he said, “I don’t care about the facts.” I was shocked. This was a “Joe Friday” kind of guy – “Just the facts, ma’am!” As John Adams once famously said: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” And for Pharaoh, denial of the reality of YHVH will catch up to him.
Normally, we think of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart as some kind of supernatural internal move of God on Pharaoh’s heart. But perhaps not, says David.
Maybe God was making use of an entirely natural process to influence Pharaoh. Maybe God was using Pharaoh’s own stubbornness against him as a weapon that would force the Egyptian king deeper and deeper into a prison of his own making.
He points us to Exodus 10:3:
And Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and said to him: Thus says YHVH, the God of the Hebrews, ‘How long will you withhold yourself from bowing in submission before Me? Send out my people that they may serve Me!’ (Exodus 10:3)
This is quite a bold way to speak to the most powerful leader in the world. Any chance this will work? Not with Plan B or Plan A. But:
God has declared that he would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 10:1), and this is exactly how He is going about it. In Plan C, God has a secret weapon. It is nothing fancy, nothing supernatural; the secret weapon is Pharaoh’s own pride, the root cause of his stubbornness.
From now on, Pharaoh’s pride will be God’s primary target.
After Pharaoh’s servants pleaded with him to let the Hebrews go, Torah tells us that Moses and Aaron “were returned” to Pharaoh. By whom? Some kind of “Deep Throat” within Pharaoh’s servants? Of course, you can imagine that I passed over that detail.
Pharaoh offers a face-saving question to Moses that could have allowed Pharaoh to save face. But Plan C would not allow that. And Moses is sent packing, and the locusts are sent plundering.
With the next plague, Moses is summoned back and again offered a way for Pharaoh to save face. Just leave some cattle. Moses response? Absolutely not! You are going to provide us with the cattle for our sacrifices. This ticks off Pharaoh, who threatens Moses with death if he ever sees his face around here again.
Okay. Are you tired of me telling you what I passed over? Hold on. This plague has a major miss. I never noticed that the last plague (death of the firstborn) did not exempt the Hebrews automatically, as did all of the other plagues. Why? Stay tuned.
Chapter 18 Birth Night
David starts this chapter with a question asked earlier. Why did God call Israel his “firstborn” even before the first plague? And what is the significance? He proposes a possibility in the form of a question: What if Israel was not His firstborn but was to become His firstborn?
Fohrman develops the concept of the bechor (firstborn) as the one in the family who transmits the family values to the rest of the children. On the night of the last plague, Israel became a nation and accepted the role of the bechor. And it did it through the blood of the goat. All of God’s children (including Egypt) are in God’s family. But you choose to become part of it. This is why the holiday is called Passover and not Freedom Day.
Passover looks at the events of the Exodus as significant not in terms of history but in terms of destiny. When you think about becoming free, you think about where you are now, in relation to an awful past. When you think about becoming a bechor, you think about where you are now, in relation to the future you must help bring into being.
Chapter 19 Creation and Uncreation
In this chapter, Rabbi David attempts to explain why the Jewish sages portray fruit trees on both sides of the walls of water as the Hebrews pass through the Sea of Reeds on dry land. He points us to four parallels between the Exodus Sea of Reeds crossing and the Creation story.
| Creation (Genesis 1) | Exodus |
| Spirit moving across the waters | Wind is blowing to separate the water |
| Let there be light to separate the light from the darkness | Pillar lit up the night (14:20) |
| Sky divides water from water | Sky divides water from water (14:22) |
| Let dry land appear | Water recedes and dry land appears |
But the next thing missing from the creation story is the vegetation – the fruit trees. So the sages put them there. But what does this mean? No question I passed this one over, but Fohrman says that by this parallel, God was ratifying His role as Creator.
Okay!?
As the Egyptian army is crushed under the wall of water, Plan C draws to a close.
Preface to Part IV
The Exodus that Might Have Been
Fohrman supposes:
Even if we were to accept that Plan A or B had originally been on the table, should we care that those plans never materialized? Was it not enough that the entire nation of Israel came to know YHVH? What, if anything, was lost when those plans failed to come to fruition? And if something terribly important was lost, is that loss permanent? Is there some sort of unrealized potential in the Exodus whose loss we should mourn, or perhaps seek to recapture?
Part IV Joseph and the Phantom Exodus
Chapter 20 – All the King’s Horses
Of course, David starts with something I missed (see, I don’t always have to say passed over).
And I (YHVH) will strengthen the heart of Pharaoh, … and he will chase after you. (Exodus 14:4)
Thanks, God! But what really bothers David that I truly passed over (“There you go again”), is that God says He is going to derive honor by killing Pharaoh’s army. If that doesn’t bother you, you can stop reading.
But the Sages of the Talmud recognize the problem and have a scene where the angels want to sing and celebrate this great victory, but God says, “My own creations [the Egyptians] are drowning in the Sea, and you want to sing before Me? (Megillah 10b).” What is going on here? Which is it? Did the Sages get it wrong, or are we interpreting the verse incorrectly?
Before David answers this, he wants to take us on a journey back to the story of Jacob’s burial. Buckle your seat belt.
Chapter 21 – A Moment of Truth
The lynch pin of this piece of the puzzle comes from Genesis 50:8:
And the whole house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s house [all went up to bury Jacob]; only their little children, their sheep and their cattle did they leave behind in the Land of Goshen (Genesis 50:8)
Herein lies the big takeaway from this book. It has to do with the way I read the Bible. I feel like I have always skim-read it when I am with Rabbi Fohrman. Take a minute and see if you can see what I passed over in that passage.
Ready? Why do we care about the child-care provisioning for Jacob’s burial?
Through a series of fine points that I clearly missed (Hey – this isn’t the Exodus story anymore – or is it?), Fohrman builds several points:
-
- Oddly, Jacob makes Joseph swear that he would bury him with his fathers in Canaan.
- Oddly, Jacob did not realize that Joseph remained loyal until this moment.
- Jacob had concerns about Joseph’s loyalty despite significant evidence to the contrary
- This odd request uncovers an intriguing triangle between Joseph, Pharaoh, and Jacob.
Ah – but you need to read on to unravel this intrigue.
Chapter 22 – The Triangle
Rabbi Fohrman raises some troubling questions about Joseph in this chapter:
-
- Why did Joseph never write home during his stay in Egypt? One rabbi suggested that Joseph may have been the victim of a terrible misunderstanding.
- What did Joseph know about what his brothers told his father?
- Assuming nothing, what misunderstanding about what happened might Joseph come to?
- After Jacob got mad at Joseph for the dreams, he sent him on a dangerous trip. Why did Jacob send Joseph to check on his brothers? What misunderstanding did Joseph have about that?
- Given what Joseph knew, why didn’t Dad send out a search party?
- From all this, is it unreasonable for Joseph to think he was thrown out of the family?
- What role did the precedence of throwing Ismael out of the family play in Joseph’s speculations?
- Why does the Torah use the word “pit” (same as where Joseph was thrown) to describe what Pharaoh pulled Joseph out of? Could it be that the Torah is painting an inverse chiasmus?:
- A Father rejects the dream’s interpretation
- B Stripped of Clothes
- C Thrown in a pit
- C Extracted from the pit
- B Given new clothes
- B Stripped of Clothes
- A Pharaoh accepts dream interpretation
- A Father rejects the dream’s interpretation
Fohrman brings up Joseph’s allegiance to his family compared to his new family (Pharaoh). He never questioned Joseph’s allegiance to YHVH. This seems to be confirmed by the naming of his first child (okay – I won’t mention it): “God has caused me to forget my travails, and all my father’s house” (Genesis 41:51). All of these speculations could explain the inexplicable way Joseph initially toys with his brothers.
Chapter 23 – The Land of Nearness
Playing on the theory that Joseph believed his father Jacob had thrown him out, Fohrman has Judah’s speech (Genesis 44) turn Joseph’s world around. He puts these words in Joseph’s head:
This whole time, my father thought I was dead! For all these years, Father had somehow been deceived. He never threw me out of the family, no! Every moment I’ve been away, he has been mourning me…
This chapter provides us with the background of Jacob’s request to Joseph. We see:
-
- God spoke to Jacob on the way to Egypt that he need not fear. We didn’t know that Jacob was afraid. (Genesis 46:3)
- Joseph deeded (ancestral holdings) the land of Goshen to Jacob’s family – they were not just visitors (Genesis 47:11) but now landowners.
- Jacob whined about not having settled in Canaan as God had told him in his discussion with Pharaoh. (Genesis 47:9)
All this helps us understand that Jacob is wondering how we will ever get back to Canaan – our destiny.
Chapter 24 – Fence of Thorns
We now know why Jacob requires an oath that he be buried in Canaan. Jacob was saying in so many words:
Look, Son, Egypt is nice, and Pharaoh is very gracious — but, at the end of the day, Egypt is not our place. Home is Canaan, the land God promised to us. That is where our family has an achuzah waiting for us, an ancestral holding…. Are you on board with that vision?
Another point Fohrman makes is that Jacob, being the father of the savior of Egypt (Joseph), meant that he was royalty (he was mourned for 70 days by all of Egypt – Genesis 50:3 – following his death). His funeral will be a state funeral. Burying him in Canaan would be like burying Queen Elizabeth in Madagascar.
He closes with an account from the Talmud that is so loosely based on the Torah that we will skip it.
Chapter 25 – A Conversation, Delayed
David gives us a little background about embalming. For the Egyptians, burying an embalmed body would make no sense. Embalming is to prepare the body for the afterlife. We learn that Joseph waited until after the mourning to tell Pharaoh about his promise to his father. Even then, he didn’t speak directly to Pharaoh but asked members of the court to talk to Pharaoh. It certainly appears as if Joseph is afraid to tell Pharaoh about Jacob’s request.
Chapter 26 – Honor Guard
Much to everyone’s surprise (Pharaoh, his court, Joseph, and even the residents of Canaan), Egypt sends an honor guard to attend the family for the burial. It must have looked odd to all involved. And yet, now it is time to tie this forward to the story of Exodus.
Chapter 27 – Take the Long Way Home
Fohrman provides 3 connections back to the Exodus in this chapter:
-
- Both took the long way around to get to Canaan[5]
- Both involved child-care arrangements (Genesis 50:8)
- In both, Pharaoh dispatches chariots and archers (50:9)
- Both had the Canaanites looking on
Thankfully, David doesn’t leave us there.
The Torah appears to be asking the reader to line up and connect these two journeys from Egypt. But why?
Why indeed? Maybe, he proposes, the two stories are, in essence, the same. Huh?
Chapter 28 – Convergence
He takes us back to Plan A. Just let us go out and celebrate YHVH. What if Pharaoh had responded positively to Plan A? Here is where we see the convergence.
The stories of Jacob’s burial and the Exodus really do converge; their essential theme is one and the same. In each, a grand procession was supposed to take place, to honor Father the way Father wanted to be honored.
In this chapter:
… we retold the story of Jacob’s burial and the story of the Exodus from the “child’s” perspective in each story: how Joseph acquitted himself in the great choice facing him, and, centuries later, how the Children of Israel made their choice in the decision facing them.
In a lengthy section, David ties the two stories together. I leave it to you, the reader, to do it yourself – or buy the book.
But it doesn’t end there. The stories don’t converge except in our minds as rejected Plan A. Why do they diverge? Stay tuned.
Chapter 29 – Divergence
A successful Plan A would have resulted in Pharaoh saying at the first sign:
There’s a deeper parent than me, and these Hebrews owe Him their allegiance. That parent wants them back, for His own purposes. How can I stand in the way of that?
And just as the first Pharaoh sent Egypt out to honor Jacob, he would have sent an entourage to honor this father.
In the end, Joseph’s Pharaoh didn’t just go along with the idea of the burial procession; he wanted Egypt to be part of it. He sent dignitaries, multitudes of Egyptians, a military escort of chariots and archers, to accompany the burial procession. It didn’t matter that Israel wasn’t doing things the Egyptian way. Jacob was their father, too.
Now we have a deeper insight into our question: What does it mean for God to be honored by the presence of Pharaoh’s army? God had intended to be honored in Plan A as Jacob was honored. So the chariots and archers will come and bow before Me. And honor Me.
I shall be honored through Pharaoh and all his army; through his chariots and through his archers (Exodus 14:17)
The Exodus was supposed to be a uniting of Gentile and Jew. But Pharaoh made it a dividing line in the sand. Genesis 50:9 and Exodus 14:20 show how one camp has become two camps.
Chapter 30 – The Unfinished Journey
Rabbi Fohrman concludes that the Torah was painting an Exodus that could have been a guide to us.
Judaism has always insisted that the Torah wasn’t written to be merely a history book. Instead, the Torah is meant to be a guidebook. That is what the name Torah implies: it teaches. It guides. Sometimes the Torah guides by telling us laws. Sometimes it guides by telling us stories about our past.
The Exodus is not just a story about setting slaves free and birthing a nation.
Exodus was about other things as well. It was about a Father who, like Jacob long ago, needed to make His presence known to a child. It was about a potential bechor (firstborn), who, like Joseph, had to summon reservoirs of strength to recognize that Father as his own, deepest parent. It was about a nation, Egypt, who had to recognize, like Joseph’s Pharaoh long ago, that this was their Father, too, and act accordingly.
But also, it teaches us about the future:
It will be the destiny of Jew and Gentile to one day realize the promise of that journey as it should have taken place: to march side by side and join hands, proclaiming in unison the oneness of a Father they both share. (See Isaiah 56:6-8)
Appendix A – God, Moses, and the Worst-Case Scenario
Appropriately, David starts with something I passed over in this entire book. He tells us that one of the things he is trying to teach us in this book is not to read the Bible with the end in mind. He calls that folly. Read the Bible without presupposing how it is going to end. You will find things you would otherwise have missed.
Since God foretold Moses that Pharaoh would not let Israel go at the burning bush without a strong show of force on God’s part, how can we not read the story with its ending in Plan C as a foregone conclusion? How can there even be a Plan A? Using Jonah as one example
I’d like to suggest that, strange as it may seem, the “mere” fact that the Almighty broadcasts a future occurrence to one or more human beings does not mean that those events must, of necessity, occur.
He goes on to provide some guidance from Rabbi Rambam:
Rambam writes that if the prophecy the person delivers foretells some future act of compassion, mercy or beneficence on the part of God, and this event does not materialize, then the supposed prophet is surely a charlatan, because God would never renege on a promise of good tidings. If, however, the prophecy promises bad tidings — famine, destruction, or the like — then the failure of the prophecy to materialize cannot be taken as evidence that the prophet is a liar. This is so even if the prophecy of bad tidings was given unconditionally, because, Rambam argues, there is no such thing as an unconditional promise of bad tidings; the possibility of reversal always exists, even if the prophet doesn’t explicitly state this.
Why tell Moses in the worst-case scenario if Plan A is the real plan? Because it allows for free will on the part of Pharaoh, and not to discourage Moses. If Plan A had worked out, do you think Moses would have gotten upset as Jonah did? In effect, God is saying:
Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it, no matter what. Even if everything else we try here fails, I have the ability to do this unilaterally. You need not fear a thing.
Fohrman concludes:
on rare occasions in biblical history, God may prophetically warn someone of a worst-case scenario, to help the prophet, or future generations, withstand that worst-case scenario, should it ever come to pass.
Appendix B – One Coat, Two Coats
Previously, David brought up the fact that Joseph had two coats. One reason
for this is from the Torah, which says that the bechor (firstborn) should receive a double portion. And if that is true, it means that Jacob was treating Joseph as the bechor. This isn’t as unusual as it sounds since Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel – Jacob’s “1st” wife.
However, the Torah expressly addresses this issue in Deuteronomy 21. But it has some strange phrases that don’t make a lot of sense. And those strange phrases show up in the Genesis 37:32 story. Perhaps the brothers brought the 2nd coat to Jacob and, using the same phrasing as Deuteronomy 21:17, asked Jacob, “Shouldn’t this coat belong to Reuben?”
Rabbi Fohrman uses this to show that the Torah was declaring that Jacob considered Joseph his bechor – or firstborn.
Notes:
[1] The four sections of the Torah that command the Hebrews to place the following inside the tefillin are:
-
- Kadesh (Exodus 13:1-10): The duty to remember the redemption from Egypt.
- Vehayah Ki Yeviacha (Exodus 13:11-16): The obligation to instruct children regarding this commandment and the law of the broken necked donkey.
- Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9): The declaration of the unity of God and the commandment to bind them.
- Vehayah Im Shamoa (Deuteronomy 11:13-21): The assurance of reward for following the commandments.
[2] 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck.
[3] Exodus 8:15, 32 (Pharoah); 9:7, 34 (passive – was hardened). 10:1 (God)
[4] Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4,8,17; (God); 7:13; 7:22; 8:19; 9:35; (passive)
[5] He notes that the burial party stopped on the east of the Jordan. He tells us that if we look at the geography, this means that they really went the long way around. It reminds us of what? The Exodus.


I met George and Vi in 1973. They were teaching on marriage during a Wednesday night service. I had walked with Jesus for about 2 years, but despite my youth, I was duly impressed. As you will see from some of the quotes, Vi has suffered from memory loss for a long time.


it does no good to speak to the iron and say “Iron this shirt.” You first have to plug it in. She says that it is the same as connecting to the healing power of God. We cannot just speak to an illness and see it change. We need to speak to it out of our connection with God. This is reminiscent of Luke’s (the physician) words when he makes the enigmatic statements: “And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.” (Luke 5:17) and “all the crowd sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all.” (Luke 6:19). Why these statements? Isn’t the power of the Lord with Jesus to heal at all times? Yes, because He was connected to the source. And is this power to heal something that flows like electricity? Luke seems to think so. So, even though her terms are a bit strange, there is some Scriptural basis for this terminology. Her central point in these opening chapters is that this healing power is none other than God Himself.
body (duh – that’s why we take X-Rays). But hardly any visible light passes through the body completely. If the skin is thin enough, you can see some light passing through our fingers. Our eyes can see some bright light shining through our eyelids. So, watch out for: “Sunlight penetrates the open spaces of the body”
uncomfortable with but here is one:

that it
Hoover to Reagan. Gerald Ford kept a copy of this book on his desk in the Oval Office during his presidency.

attention is pointed and where ours should be:
y. All apparent contradictions come together in the infinite heart of God.
the heavenlies. Seated with God. “You are born of God. You have the eagles’ wings. You may not have known it: you may not have used them; but God can and will teach you to use them.”


the price paid is emphasized by the extraordinary size of the sheep. Clearly Christ’s passion is foreshadowed in this text and in these representations of it.

