2026 Bible Study Thread

[Tippy]

Exodus 11


God prophecies the final plague: the death of the firstborn. This will be the plague that will cause the Pharaoh to fully surrender. It is interesting that this plague should be so devastating that it would utterly defeat Pharaoh. If you recall Genesis, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his firstborn, and in the Gospel, God did sacrifice His own firstborn for you and me. The power of faith can set you free, to do things for God that otherwise would be impossible.

'Exodus 11
The Plague on the Firstborn

11 Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. 2 Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold.” 3 (The Lord made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh’s officials and by the people.)

4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.'

God killing firstborns? This is morally imcomprehensible!! How can an all loving God kill off first borns?

 

[Tippy]

Exodus 12


Here, God institutes the Passover. The Passover Lamb must be slaughtered and it's blood must cover the houses of the Hebrews so that the destroying angel will spare them. Anyone who does not have the blood of the lamb over their door will come under the curse. Obviously, this is one of the chief types or symbols of redemption in Christ. Jesus Christ is our Passover Lamb. When the Hebrews painted the blood over their doors, they would've been painting crosses over their doors if you think about it.


Here is when the concept of memorial/remembrance is introduced. The Passover is followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Hebrews were to immortalize their liberation from Egypt through this symbol. Likewise, Christ called the Lord's Supper a memorial when He instituted it. These Covenant ordinances function in very much the same way.


The final plague compels the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go. They plundered the Egyptians when they left Egypt. Later, they would use that gold to fashion an idol.


In Christian circles, this is what's called "guarding the table." The Passover is only for those who belong to the Covenant. Likewise, the Lord's Supper is only for those who belong to the New Covenant. It wouldn't make sense for a non-Hebrew to take the ordinance since God had only liberated the Hebrews from Egypt. Likewise, it doesn't make sense for a non-believer to take the Lord's Supper since Christ saves only the Elect. To take the Covenant ordinance when you do not belong to the Covenant is to turn the ordinance into an empty symbol, thus profaning it. This is why taking any of the Covenant ordinances is no light matter.

Exodus 12:

A few stray thoughts:

';The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.'

Interesting the idea of the Lord making people think a certain way. Kinda makes me think that there is no free will if GOd can actually enact mind control.

'48;“A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49;The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

All this obsession in Paul's writings about all these laws not being that important so why was it so important in the Old Testament exactly and how come modern Christians are allowed to revise these old rules?

 

[Wutang]

Posting this here since this is relevant to the 'I am' that was discussed earlier in Exodus:

Why Does God Call Himself “I AM”?

“I am who I am.” Yahweh. This is the name God gives to Moses. It is the covenant name of the covenant-making, covenant-keeping God of Israel.

www.crossway.org

The personal name God gave is a disclosure of the kind of being he is—and the “kind” of being he is, is one who cannot be considered in relation to anything but himself. He is absolute Being. One theologian helpfully says, “Strictly speaking, God can only be understood by reference to God. . . . Exodus 3:14 jolts us by saying that God is not grouped with others. God can only be known by comparison to himself.”1 This cannot be said of any of us. We describe who we are by describing ourselves in categories of genus and species. We learn about ourselves specifically in relation to others. To learn about me, you learn about human beings in general, males more specifically, married men and fathers of young children even more specifically, and so on. We fit within categories and are comparable to like kinds within those categories. But God cannot name his essence by locating himself in a broad category that he fits within. He’s not an object within the universe on which we can fit our attention. For God to be “I am” means he is absolute, incomprehensible, unbounded Being.

 

[Iakobos]

Not been able to keep up with this thread but The I AM epithet never made sense to me in the common renderings of "I am that I am" etc. until I learned about the Septuagint rendering of "I am the One who Is" which made a lot more sense. Especially in the context of e.g. Revelation 1:8 which references the Name and expands upon it: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, the One who is, who was, and who is to come.”

Orthodox Christian iconography writes "Ὁ ὬΝ ho ōn The One Who Is" in Christ's halo

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Posting this here since this is relevant to the 'I am' that was discussed earlier in Exodus:

Why Does God Call Himself “I AM”?

“I am who I am.” Yahweh. This is the name God gives to Moses. It is the covenant name of the covenant-making, covenant-keeping God of Israel.

www.crossway.org

Ontology and Exodus 3:14 (Edited Version of An Earlier Post)

The Ontological View of Exodus 3:14 Exodus 3:14 is one of the most debated scriptures in all of Jewish and Christian history. A question th...

fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com

For your reading consideration. I mentioned before that most of Christian history interpreted this passage in an ontological or Platonic way. However, if Exodus was written by who traditional Christianity has maintained wrote it, then to interpret Exodus with these categories would be anachronistic. The point of Exodus is not to import Parmenidean categories for the kind of god we worship. The fact is, people are importing and loading philosophical categories backwards into the term when it's not even the point of the text itself to get into these areas.

I had an even better article that really goes into this, but you'll have to give me some time to find it. I don't like that the author of this one above is a JW.

Edit: found it. https://kuyperian.com/god-repented-vs-greek-ontology/

 

[Iakobos]

Dare I say, could this be a case of not an either/or but a both/and?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Are you saying those movies present the pharoah as literally Moses' brother?

You should watch the films. They're pretty good. The Ten Commandments is super iconic, nothing will ever really take its place. Moses and Pharaoh are brothers by Moses' adoption. They're presented as bitter rivals of brothers. Nothing matched the spectacle of that movie in 1956. The Prince of Egypt was the first animated movie by DreamWorks, it was meant to rival Disney. Again, Moses and Pharaoh are brothers by adoption but in this movie they actually do care for each other so it injects more tension and internal conflict into the story. I actually find The Prince of Egypt to be better from a theological standpoint.

God killing firstborns? This is morally imcomprehensible!! How can an all loving God kill off first borns?

The constraints of classical theodicy do not apply to the God of the Bible since He is not the god of classical theology. The God of the Bible is not only loving, He is also wrathful. Not only forgiving, but also vengeful. Since the Egyptians are holding God's firstborn hostage and previously killed His firstborns, He was right to kill their firstborns. All is fair in warfare.

Interesting the idea of the Lord making people think a certain way. Kinda makes me think that there is no free will if GOd can actually enact mind control.

I believe the text means that God made the Egyptians favorably disposed to the Hebrews by means of the plagues. The Egyptians wanted the Hebrews to go and would've given them anything to go because they were sick of the plagues. It is not God "flipping their light switch" in a direct mind control situation, though He's certainly capable of doing just that. There is some free will, but if your will comes against God's, yours will lose out everytime.

All this obsession in Paul's writings about all these laws not being that important so why was it so important in the Old Testament exactly and how come modern Christians are allowed to revise these old rules?

The Law is God's eternal standard. Paul's theology is that no man has lived up to that standard so man must be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. If man is not under God's grace, then he will be judged by the Law and face the Law's penalties. The Law condemns and Grace saves, both are important to know God, who He is.

 

[Wutang]

I actually was going to ask about the hardening hearts thing so that's usually used as biblical support for arguing that there is no free will - either by Calvinists or by people arguing against Christianity.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I actually was going to ask about the hardening hearts thing so that's usually used as biblical support for arguing that there is no free will - either by Calvinists or by people arguing against Christianity.

I don't think anybody has ever summed it up better than the Apostle Paul:

Romans 9:

[17] For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this same purpose have I stirred thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my Name might be declared throughout all the earth. [18] Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

God's will is free to harden whomever He wants or to have mercy on whomever He wants. We should be grateful for this because if God were not free in this, none of us would be saved.

[15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on him, to whom I will shew mercy, and will have compassion on him, on whom I will have compassion. [16] So then it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy.

The question of whether man has a free will or not is so unimportant that the Bible never really dives into it, other than to say that salvation does not depend or come about by man's will. Whether speaking to Moses or Pharaoh, the message of God's sovereignty remains the same.

 

[Iakobos]

It's very Biblically clear that normatively, men have free will to obey or disobey God's commandments.

Hence Christ spending his entire ministry teaching how to exercise your will in alignment with God and His commandments.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Hence Christ spending his entire ministry teaching how to exercise your will in alignment with God and His commandments.

Jesus: No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him...

John 6:44

 

[Iakobos]

That's a cool verse bro but at the same time Christ spends his whole ministry preaching how to draw close to God by exercising your will to obey his commandments.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That's a cool verse bro but at the same time Christ spends his whole ministry preaching how to draw close to God by exercising your will to obey his commandments.

Is there any verse that says that or is that your interpretive lens you're reading into the text?

John 1:13
[The believing ones] were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Seems we are drawn close to God not by human will or fleshly will, but by Him.

 

[NSOE]

Jesus: No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him...

My understanding of the Catholic position is that God's drawing you doesn't mean you will be taken into heaven against your will. You don't have to follow, you can resist. You're in trouble if God stops pulling- in other words, He is hardening your heart. God of course knows how everyone will react and how much grace everybody deserves.

Some people seem to be opposed to God on every front, with their whole beings, the conversion of St.Paul was still his own choice- he could have said he didn't want to do what Jesus had requested of him. He was free to go either way.

God reaches out, but it's up to you to take His hand. If His hand isn't extended, then that's understood as the hardening of your heart, you're abandoned all alone in this sense.

When we pray for the conversion of sinners, an individual or a group, we request God to have mercy on them and to send them this grace.

You are sent the grace to see and to choose which way to go, like when you're sinning you know you're doing something wrong, and maybe you'll follow God's will, stop and repent. Whilst those whose hearts have been hardened just don't feel they're doing anything bad, they have blinders over their eyes.

The Bible says God will harden the hearts of those who will follow the Antichrist. I think if they have been denying Christ up to that point, they will not be shown mercy, God will deny them the grace to see the deceiver for what he is. Such people most likely will have been rejecting all the graces send their way throughout their lives, and choosing against God at every such opportunity, and so they will get no more.

 

[NSOE]

God killing firstborns? This is morally imcomprehensible!! How can an all loving God kill off first borns?

The world doesn't revolve around us, none of us is the center of the universe. You are dust and to dust you shall return. It seems we are only worth something because God loves us. God is the owner and lord of life, he created everything and can do as He pleases. God knows the future- what will become of everyone, so it's not for us to question His decisions. Ultimately all that matters is whether one ends up in Heaven or not.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

My understanding of the Catholic position is that God's drawing you doesn't mean you will be taken into heaven against your will.

Here is more of a full-orbed Reformed take:

Irresistible Grace - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

Irresistible Grace - is it biblical? If God elects us in His grace, do we have any choice in the matter?

www.gotquestions.org

A common misconception about the doctrine of irresistible grace is that it implies men are forced to accept Christ and men are dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. Of course, neither of these is an accurate description of the doctrine of irresistible grace as revealed in the Bible. In fact, the heart of irresistible grace is the transforming power of the Holy Spirit whereby He takes a man dead in his trespasses and sins and gives him spiritual life so that he can recognize the unsurpassing value of God’s offer of salvation. Then, having been set free from the bondage of sin, that man willingly comes to Christ.

 

[Iakobos]

The world doesn't revolve around us, none of us is the center of the universe. You are dust and to dust you shall return. It seems we are only worth something because God loves us. God is the owner and lord of life, he created everything and can do as He pleases. God knows the future- what will become of everyone, so it's not for us to question His decisions. Ultimately all that matters is whether one ends up in Heaven or not.

To add one thing onto this: atheists or skeptics often judge God for causing death on people in many Biblical cases; however, in a Christian lens, death is far from the worst fate possible... in fact, we are all consigned to death at a time only God knows! Death being the greatest evil is the atheist perspective. For us, and in truth, the worst thing can happen is eternal damnation and in many cases it is better for a man to die at a time we would consider premature or unjust, than to continue to live and commit greater sin.

Is there any verse that says that or is that your interpretive lens you're reading into the text?

I'll make it very simple for you.

Fact 1: Christ teaches people what to do and what not to do (ie to follow God's commandments and enter Heaven).
Fact 2: Choosing to do certain things and not do certain other things, is the exercise of the human will.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Fact 3: Christ teaches us to exercise our human wills to follow His commandments and enter Heaven.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'll make it very simple for you.

Fact 1: Christ teaches people what to do and what not to do (ie to follow God's commandments and enter Heaven).
Fact 2: Choosing to do certain things and not do certain other things, is the exercise of the human will.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Fact 3: Christ teaches us to exercise our human wills to follow His commandments and enter Heaven.

Fact 1 is fine. "Fact 2" is where you're going astray. If you're going by Jesus' actual teachings, then it would go like this:

Fact 1: Jesus teaches people what to do and what not to do.
Fact 2: Jesus also teaches that men do not choose Him, cannot come to Him, cannot be born again, unless by the will of God.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Christ teaches that whoever comes to Him through faith has been given to Him by the Father and will be raised up on the last day. Salvation is due to the divine will, not the human will.

 

[Iakobos]

Oh yeah that's why I don't bother debating you these days, because you never actually address my arguments. Cool story bro, keep playing rhetorical games to obfuscate plain and simple truths.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Oh yeah that's why I don't bother debating you these days, because you never actually address my arguments. Cool story bro, keep playing rhetorical games to obfuscate plain and simple truths.

I notice you tend to project what you're doing onto me. I literally addressed your argument. You haven't addressed any of mine. Whenever I show you Biblical evidence you just handwave it away as "cool verse bro" or completely ignore the citations.