Overlooked Details of the Red Sea Crossing
God rescued his people and closed the door to any possible return to Egypt. In tangible ways, the Lord fought for his people as he promised.
The crossing of the Red Sea is one of the most memorable and cinematic events recorded in the Bible. This brief section of history has been captured in several films as well as in thousands of Sunday school lessons and coloring pages.
So if we were asked to recount this story, we could probably list many of the highlights without consulting Scripture. However, because the episode is so famous, and depictions of the event are so numerous, we will inevitably miss some details. The story is perhaps too familiar.
This was certainly the case for me! I recently reread this portion of Exodus and felt like I was reading this passage for the first time.
Four Important Details
Peter has written extensively and deeply on all of Exodus and on this passage specifically. To learn how this event fits into the whole book of Exodus, and for a razor-sharp look at this particular episode, I encourage you to read his article.
Here I will highlight some aspects of Exodus 13–14 that I had not remembered. These details are not just interesting—they help guide us to the main point of the passage. (Remember: good observation fuels accurate interpretation!)
Israel Crossed at Night
For understandable reasons, all pictures and video depicting this event happen during the day. (That makes for a much better coloring page!) But this event happened in the dark of night. (See Exodus 14:24 and Exodus 14:27 where it seems that the Israelites crossed during the night, with their path illuminated by the pillar of fire, and then the Egyptians started their pursuit at first light of the morning.) As we will see below, God aimed to confuse the Egyptians, and the nighttime setting was an important ingredient.
The Wind Blew All Night to Part the Sea
Yes, Moses “stretched out his hand” in order to divide the sea, but the way this happened was that “the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided” (Exodus 14:21). This miracle did not happen in an instant but rather over the course of several hours. Imagine waiting by the side of the Sea while this was happening!
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
To Confront or Not to Confront? That Is the Question
Never underestimate a well-informed conscience. The decision to lovingly confront or to lovingly overlook will ultimately come down to our conviction of what we understand and are persuaded to do out of a heart of worship. The desire to make the right choice is usually motivated by not wanting to make the wrong choice. In the end, the only choice is the one where we act in a manner that seeks to be faithful to God and His Word. That is always the righteous choice.
In everyday life, there are interactions with loved ones that are difficult. Issues of life that are impacted by personal sin and hardships create tension in relationships and could directly harm others. The question often asked is, “Should I confront this issue or overlook it?” That is a good question, and as we look to the Bible for God’s revelation on the issue, there seems to be visible tension on how to answer it.
There are commands in Scripture for believers to address sin in the lives of those they love (Eph. 4:29; Col. 3:16). This command makes the directive that as a connected body of believers, we have a responsibility to pursue holiness together (Heb. 3:12-13). We take responsibility for our own pursuit of holiness but also bear the burden of caring for others toward that same goal. On the other hand, there are directives in Scripture that promote overlooking sin as an act of mercy (1 Pet. 4:8; Prov. 19:11). This command also considers the process of change that requires interpersonal longsuffering and patience in walking with others through areas of sin and spiritual growth (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Cor. 2:5-8). These commands do not condone sinful actions but offer another pathway to help in the spiritual development of our fellow Christ-followers; namely, that we would not confront the instance of transgression but rather overlook it, giving room for immaturities to be developed over time.
What are we to do? I asked the question under consideration to Chat GPT (an artificial intelligence chatbot), and this was the response: “As a language model, I cannot offer a definitive answer on how Christians should approach confronting or overlooking sin, as this can be a complex and nuanced topic that can vary based on individual circumstances and personal convictions.”
Even AI can identify that this issue is a place to apply wisdom to each circumstance and not a one size fits all approach. Many try to resolve the tension by over-correcting on either side of the issue: confronting every issue or overlooking every offense. There is a better way. The Bible gives a framework that helps us as the people of God to faithfully walk through every circumstance in a manner that is worthy of the calling that we have been called. The following are some principles for discerning when to confront or when to overlook sin or weakness.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Rise of Ethical Cannibalism
Written by Edward J. Erler |
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Transgenderism seeks the ultimate victory of technology over nature—the goal of science at its very origins, “the conquest of nature.” You can ask my friends (if I have any left) whether I predicted that transgenders would soon outrank gays in the new morality, a morality which judges based on who is most committed to the denial of the relevance of nature and all standards of nature. But has transgenderism succeeded? Has it driven out nature with its virtual pitchfork of technology? Or is it merely deluding itself? Isn’t cannibalism a greater denial of human nature? Doesn’t cannibalism outrank transgenderism in the new morality?The flagship publication of Hillsdale College, Imprimis, which the College claims has a readership of more than six million, has recently published an article by the current enfant terrible of conservatism, Christopher F. Rufo, entitled “Inside the Transgender Empire.” The article explores the question of how transgenderism became so successful, and especially how the transgendered and Drag Queens became so celebrated among the ruling elites. Rufo rehearses all the horrors that have been visited upon American society and politics by the transgender movement and, I believe, he thinks his analysis of that danger goes to the radical source of that danger.
It does not! His analysis is not radical enough; it ignores the fact that the triumph of the transgender movement will inevitably lead to cannibalism. If you think that statement is too harsh for polite readers, read on.
The Los Angeles Times has published not one but two rave reviews of a movie celebrating cannibalism. Glenn Whipp, reporting from the Telluride Film Festival in September of 2022, describes Bones and All as “a tender story of young love” starring two “fine young cannibals trying to negotiate their natures and doing their best to ethically source their next meal.” What makes the cannibalism ethical, one supposes, is that the movie’s two cannibal stars are “people on society’s margins” who are stigmatized and shunned. Whipp seems to think that this brings ethical issues into the equation. In this clash, the ethical conundrum seems to be a choice between the right to life of the victims of cannibals, and the cannibals’ desire to pursue the food of their choice; who is the real victim?—those who are eaten by the cannibals or the cannibals whose way of life is considered unacceptable and stigmatized by society?
The second review, by Mark Olsen describes the film as “part horror film, part coming-of age tale, part romance.” He explains part of the movie’s plot as “two young ‘eaters’” “attempting “to stake out a semblance of normalcy and stability.” But, of course, it is difficult to imagine normalcy and stability developing among cannibals, and the reviewer observes that “the film is driven by a sadness, a mournful, haunted quality that covers even moments of freedom and joy.” The “freedom and joy” presumably breaks forth from the mournful gloom when then cannibals have stalked and succeeded in consuming their next meal.
We should have been prepared for the praise of the morality of cannibalism. I, for one, have been prepared for it for years. Friends, casual acquaintances, and bystanders have endured my discussions, sometimes polemics and even screeds, on how the result of progressive thought would ultimately be cannibalism. All those many years ago, it sounded utterly fantastic, but when I first heard the claims from anthropologists and other social scientists that opposition to cannibalism was merely western food aversion—in other words, an irrational prejudice—I knew that cannibalism was coming.
Liberation movements from the very beginning sought to free human beings from the restraints of nature and of nature’s god. Marx, of course, wasn’t the first, but his simple account is the easiest to explain. We create God to put moral restraints upon ourselves. Creating this non-human or divine source gives the restrains greater authority. But once we realize that God is only a myth or creation, it loses its authoritative power as a tool of oppression for the ruling classes. Once the proletariat seizes power in the inevitable dialectic of history, God, will be exposed as a fraud foisted on the people and can be dismissed. A new, secular morality will be designed to support the party of the working class. Today’s secular religion of the “woke” resembles that party, but it no longer has its roots in the working class, even as it demands the same loyalty and metes out the same harsh discipline as Marxist-Leninism.
Feminism was a successful liberation movement. Once feminism realized that there are no significant or relevant natural differences between the sexes, it became obvious that there were no grounds in law or politics for any inequality. Elimination of classifications by sex for civil rights issues—equal opportunity in employment, voting rights, etc.—were certainly warranted and just, but once the natural distinction between the sexes was deemed irrelevant for civil rights, then it was almost inevitable (and here I paint with a broad brush) that it became irrelevant for all purposes.
Read More
Related Posts: -
When the Shorter Catechism Was Recited from Memory At Westminster Abbey! Really!
Once inside the room, the two women who had hoped for this moment, Elaine Edwards and Karen Scheibe, recited the first 10 questions. The lady in charge watched and listened and suddenly seemed to be interested. I then asked if these women, who had worked so hard for this time, could recite the entire Catechism? It would take only about 30-40 minutes? She said “yes.” By this time, she was on our side and listened intently.
When I married into the Horton Family in 1969, I realized quite soon that Joyce’s parent’s were quite serious about The Westminster Standards. My father-in-law, Frank Horton, was a very successful defense attorney, a godly man, and one of the six original founders of Reformed Theological Seminary in 1966. He told me once, “When you know and understand The Shorter Catechism, you know theology, PERIOD!” My mother-in-law, Joyce Horton, who was the greatest Christian I ever knew, wrote a book entitled, “How To Teach The Catechism To Children.”
As we raised our five daughters with this story, we told them that they had to learn, memorize and recite at one sitting The Children’s Catechism and The Shorter Catechism; of course, each at different times and ages. This was certainly not easy; and required that Joyce and I help and encourage them often. And one very motivating factor when they were teenagers was, “No driver’s license until you say the Catechism.” It worked and they all did it. There was a great celebration each time, as well as public recognition in our church’s worship services; there were even and some Christian periodicals that reported their accomplishment.
When I was an Associate Pastor with John Sartelle at Independent Presbyterian Church in Memphis in the 1990s, there was an amazing time of growth for that church both spiritually and numerically. And during that time, Joyce started a study group for women on The Shorter Catechism. It became very popular and was greatly blessed by God during those years.
Out of that group and from her Senior English teaching time at Evangelical Christian School in Memphis, we began to lead tours to the United Kingdom from the mid-1990s through 2010. During an adult tour, while we were at Westminster Abbey, I discovered that two of the women in our group had recently memorized the Shorter Catechism. They asked me if it would be possible for them to recite the Catechism from memory in the room, of course, referring to the Jerusalem Chamber, where the Westminster Assembly met, wrote, and eventually adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism, in 1648.
Most people do not know the origin of that name, the Jerusalem Chamber. It dates from the 13th Century when Henry IV was King of England. He had been planning a trip to Jerusalem when he had a stroke in Westminster Abbey, nearly died and was semi-comatose. It was a very cold winter and the king was moved to a side room near the front of the building where there was a fireplace. He soon awakened and asked immediately if he was in Jerusalem? Since that day, the room has been known as The Jerusalem Chamber.
So early one morning after a brief tour of the Abbey, I inquired at the Visitors Desk if we could see the Jerusalem Chamber. I was told “NO” that it was not open to the public that day. I then said that we were a group of “16 Presbyterians on a Pilgrimage from America,” and that it would mean very much to us if we could step into that room for a few minutes where several of the most meaningful documents in our church history were written. After a long pause, the lady in charge said, “yes.” Once inside the room, the two women who had hoped for this moment, Elaine Edwards and Karen Scheibe, recited the first 10 questions. The lady in charge watched and listened and suddenly seemed to be interested. I then asked if these women, who had worked so hard for this time, could recite the entire Catechism? It would take only about 30-40 minutes? She said “yes.” By this time, she was on our side and listened intently. My wife Joyce, and another lady, Candy Denton, asked and listened to each answer. The rest of us watched in awe!
When they finished, the Abbey official stood and said in British fashion, “Brilliant! I have never seen anything like that before. We must celebrate! I will be back shortly.” When she returned, she brought a tray with about 18 little glasses and a bottle of Sherry. She then said, “We must all take a “nip” in celebration and congratulations.” And we all did! It was such a happy, joyous, and God-glorifying occasion.
I have always wondered if anyone else in history had recited entire Shorter Catechism at one sitting in the room where it was written and adopted?.
The Westminster Assembly was like none other in church history. Those men had prayed, fasted and studied together for many days over several years (1643-1649), and produced unique materials that have served as an anchor for “true truth” through the centuries.
So remember: “If you know and understand The Shorter Catechism, you know theology, PERIOD!”
Wayne Herring is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America living in Raymond, Miss.
Related Posts: