{"id":2632,"date":"2025-04-26T07:21:47","date_gmt":"2025-04-26T12:21:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/?p=2632"},"modified":"2025-04-26T07:21:47","modified_gmt":"2025-04-26T12:21:47","slug":"april-25-may-2-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/2025\/04\/26\/april-25-may-2-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"April 25 – May 2, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Friday, April 25<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 6: There are two distinct parts to the material in this chapter: the first (vv. 1-13) continues the dialogue between God and Moses from the precious chapter, and the second (vv. 14-27) provides a genealogy of the family of Levi, the tribe of Moses and Aaron.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stephen Langton and other medieval scholars showed a considerable measure of literary discernment, when they decided to place both these parts into a single chapter, even separating, thereby, the first section (the dialogue between God and Moses) from its \u201cnatural\u201d connection with the material in chapter five.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those Bible-readers, chiefly at the University of Paris in the late 12th<\/sup> century, discerned that all<\/em> the material they placed in chapter 6 somehow belonged together; it had the feel of a unified text, notwithstanding the obvious disparity between the two sections. Since, in most cases, those Scholastics read Holy Scripture only in a Latin translation, their sensitivity to the peculiarities of the text was remarkable and, perhaps, unexpected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studies by modern literary critics of Holy Scripture, however, throw further light on that discernment during the Middle Ages. In fact, the material in Exodus 6 shows signs (much clearer in Hebrew than in translation) of coming from a pre-canonical source commonly identified by historians as \u201cpriestly.\u201d That ancient priestly source is generally recognized by specific theological concerns and certain distinct patterns of vocabulary. On these I will comment in the observations that follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first section (vv. 1-13) continues the narrative from chapter 5; God responds to Moses\u2019s complaint: \u201c\u201cLord, why have You brought trouble on this people? Why is<\/em> it You have sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has done evil to this people; You done not a thing to deliver Your people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Lord\u2019s response that follows, the reader recognizes a repetition of the revelation in the Burning Bush. Thus, commanding Moses to take a message to Pharaoh, God identifies Himself, once again, as IHWH<\/em>, \u201cHe Who Is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In this instance, however, we perceive an important difference. This second disclosure of the Divine Name is placed within a gradual revelation; God reveals Himself in stages. Here the Lord says, \u201cI am IHWH<\/em>. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai<\/em> [God Almighty], but by My name IHWH<\/em> I was not known to them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the divine name El Shaddai<\/em> is found those patriarchal stories commonly thought to be from the priestly source mentioned above. Thus, in His covenant with Abraham God declares, \u201cI am El Shaddai.<\/em> Walk in My presence and be perfect\u201d (Genesis 17:1). Similarly, Isaac blesses Jacob with the words, \u201cMay El Shaddai <\/em>bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you.\u201d Likewise, when God changes Jacob\u2019s name to \u201cIsrael,\u201d He says,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am El Shaddai<\/em>. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and am assembly of nations shall come forth from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your seed after you I give this land (35:11-12; cf. 48:3; 49:25).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the scene in Exodus 6, the God revealed to Moses identifies Himself as this very El Shaddai<\/em> known to the Patriarchs. The stages in the revelation serve to make continuity clearer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saturday, April 26<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 7: Moses will be the wonderworker, and Aaron the speaker. (As a matter of irony, however, we will find Moses doing almost all the talking, while Aaron extends the wonderworking rod.) Deed and word go together in the Bible, as in any fine drama. Speaking and doing are the two components of God\u2019s revelation. Indeed, these two things sum up the whole activity of Jesus and the Apostles (cf. Mark 6:30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is described in verses 8-13 is not one of the plagues, but it is the beginning of a prolonged test of wills and skills. Pharaoh is not much impressed with Moses, since his own people demonstrate comparable skills. After his initial retaliation, however, Pharaoh will never again be in a position to retaliate. Moses and Aaron will keep him on the defensive, with his hands full of trouble. The most he can hope for from any encounter is to break even, and gradually this too will be taken from him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part of this chapter, vv.14-25, describes Egypt\u2019s first plague, during the course of which all the water of the country, beginning with the Nile River, is transformed into blood. This plague, sufficiently destructive in itself, also serves as an implicit warning of the tenth and final plague, when the avenging angel will slay the firstborn sons of Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few nations could survive the sudden destruction of its water supply, and Pharaoh\u2019s defiance in the face of this plague indicates the depths of his resistance to grace. Certainly, his is a hardened <\/em>heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the water of the Nile is turned into blood, this is a fitting retribution for murder of the Hebrew infants condemned to be drowned in that river (Ex 1:22). The propriety of this punishment was noted by the author of the Book of Wisdom, also known as The Wisdom of Solomon (and probably to be dated during the period of the Second Temple). He wrote that this plague came \u201cin rebuke of the decree to slay the infants\u201d (Wisdom 11:7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same idea appears also in the hymn that accompanies the third bowl of plagues in the Book of Revelation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then the third [angel] poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying: \u201cYou are righteous, the One Who is (ho On<\/em>) and Who was, O Holy One, for You have passed judgment on these things. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it! (Rev 16:4-6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This plague was also celebrated in a more ancient hymn of God\u2019s People, which describes how Israel\u2019s Holy One \u201cworked His signs in Egypt, \/ And His wonders in the field of Zoan; \/ He <\/strong>turned their rivers into blood, \/ And their streams, that they could not drink\u201d (Ps 78[77]:44).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many modern Western readers of this story, who take for granted a distinction between politics and theology (cf. Mark 12:17), do well to consider that neither Moses nor Pharaoh was familiar with that distinction. Ignorant of the true God\u2014indeed, boasting of that ignorance (Ex 5:1-4)\u2014Pharaoh thought of himself in divine terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his own person, Pharaoh was believed to be the living spokesman for the whole Egyptian pantheon. In Holy Scripture, the Egyptian king represents the perennial disposition of political authority to make ultimate and transcendent claims for itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the political order goes beyond its legitimate warrant\u2014when it presumes, in other words, to take in hand the things of God, as well as the things of Caesar\u2014it becomes idolatrous. It claims for itself a total authority; it becomes totalitarian<\/em>, even challenging the structure of God\u2019s Creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The struggle described here in Exodus, consequently, is not simply a political conflict between Egyptians and Israelites, much less a mere personality-conflict between Moses and Pharaoh. It is not a conflict to be worked out through arbitration, nor can it be smoothed over by recourse to an anger-management seminar. It is a fight-to-the death between the gods of Egypt and the true Lord revealed in the Burning Bush.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immediately, the suddenly-thirsty Egyptians begin digging new wells. Pharaoh, meanwhile, reluctant to admit defeat and eager to make a point, calls on his own sorcerers to turn this water, too, into blood! Hardness of heart, it seems, leads to dullness of thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saint Thomas Sunday, April 27<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 8: There are three notable points of irony in this story:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the insects are said to arise from \u201cthe dust of the land\u201d\u2014\u2018aphar ha\u2019arets<\/em>. It is the very \u201cdust\u201d of Egypt brings forth this plague. One thinks of the Creation of man, whom the Lord forms \u201cof dust from the earth\u201d\u2014\u2018aphar min h\u2019adamah<\/em> (Genesis 2:7). Indeed, when Adam falls, the Lord tells him, \u2018aphar \u2019attah ve-\u2019el \u2018aphar tashuv<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas man was formed from \u201cthe dust of the earth<\/em>,\u201d these insects come from \u201cthe dust of the land<\/em>.\u201d The land<\/em> in Egypt is contrasted with the earth<\/em> in Paradise. The Egyptian dust can bring forth only the instrument of pain and the symbol of mourning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, this is the first plague that the sorcerers of Egypt cannot duplicate; they see in it \u201cthe finger of God.\u201d From now on, Pharaoh is on his own; no forces in Egypt can help him Nonetheless, he hardens his heart; he resists any impulse to repent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, not one word is said about the removal of this plague. From a simply reading of the text, it appears that the mosquitoes stay around for the rest of Israel\u2019s remaining days in Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fourth plague, vv. 20-32 (16-28 MT); introduces a new and conspicuous element: it displays a distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites. These \u201cflies\u201d (\u2018arov, <\/em>literally \u201cmix\u201d or \u201cswarm) are said to do something rather unusual in the world of insects: they respect the border between Egypt and the land of Goshen. It is as though a swarm of insects, flying through Wisconsin should suddenly stop and refuse to cross over into Illinois.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this point on, the God who sends the plagues is explicitly said to send them only<\/em> on the Egyptians. Gradually, plague by plague, the Lord is separating His own People from the lot of the idolatrous Egyptians: \u201cIn that day,\u201d says the Lord,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will set apart<\/em> the land of Goshen, in which My people dwell, that no swarm shall be there, in order that you may know that I am<\/em> the Lord in the midst of the land. <\/strong>I will make a difference<\/em> between My people and your people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

God, who separated light from darkness on the first day of Creation and who will, in the ninth plague, plunge all Egypt into complete darkness, begins at this point to distinguish between the children of light and the children of darkness. In the plagues about to transpire, it is not the case that God \u201cmakes his sun to rise on the evil and the good.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This process will continue until the last plague, when the avenging angel, seeing the blood of the covenant on the doorposts of the Israelites, \u201cpasses over\u201d their homes on his way to slaying all the Egyptian first-born sons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monday, April 26<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Epistle of Peter: Peter\u2019s name, which is the first word in this longer of his two epistles, is immediately qualified by the noun \u201capostle.\u201d The absence of the definite article with this noun prompts most English translations to insert the indefinite article, \u201can<\/em> Apostle,\u201d indicating that Peter was one<\/em> of a group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this is grammatically correct\u2014nor, given the difficulty of translating from one idiom to another, can I think of an obvious alternative\u2014this rendering can be misleading. Although it is true that Peter was one<\/em> of a group, the absence of the definite article in that first verse implies something more and a tad subtle: The noun \u201capostle\u201d here, used without the article, points to the quality<\/em> of Peter\u2019s testimony, the proper note of the authority with which he writes; it modifies<\/em> Peter, much like an adjective, making his apostleship the foundation of the pastoral concern he expresses in this letter. Thus, as he begins to dictate the words to Silvanus (cf. 5:12), Peter formally and explicitly puts on his apostle-hat, as it were, and he wears it throughout the ensuing message. He is not sending his readers his good advice; he is speaking on behalf of, and with the authority of, God\u2019s Son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter has clearly come a long way since God\u2019s Son called him to the apostleship. Whatever schooling he received as a boy growing up in the synagogue, Peter could still be called, in those early years, \u201cunschooled and ignorant\u201d (Acts 4:13). Things had already begun to change, nonetheless, even then. At 9 o\u2019clock on the morning of Pentecost, Peter boldly emerged from that upper room with a singular display of eloquence and with an impressive command of the Holy Scriptures, enough to prompt 3000 souls to accept Baptism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the original Twelve, Peter is invariably listed first among them in the Bible. He was surely difficult to ignore. In the New Testament, he appears very much as an in-your-face apostle. It was he, for instance, who flung himself into the lake and swam toward the risen Jesus, while the others came rowing to shore in their boats (John 21:7\u20138). On that occasion Peter was at least swimming <\/em>toward the Lord and did not attempt, as he had earlier done, to walk to him on the surface of the water (Matthew 14:28\u201331)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though Peter often served as a spokesman for the others, one has the impression he may have over<\/em>done it on occasion. He sometimes seems to go out of his way to distinguish himself, to set himself apart from the rest of the Apostles\u2014\u201cEven if all are made to stumble, yet I will not be\u201d (Mark 14:29). A consummate alpha personality, Peter was like the very sun, a boisterous giant rejoicing to run his course; there was nothing hidden from his burning heat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Jesus called him \u201cRock\u201d (Kephas, Petros<\/em>), the name was more of a prophecy than a fact, for it would be some time before Peter acquired the qualities of solidity, steadfastness and dependability associated with that name. In the Gospels Peter displays traits widely at variance: he boasts, he remonstrates, he curses, he weeps. He is emotional, generous, impetuous, affectionate, and\u2014in the hour of crisis\u2014undependable. Only in the years to come would these traits be purified in the fires of trial and humiliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We see the beginnings of this transformation in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, where he assumes a special leadership in the Church. Peter it was who determined\u2014without prior counsel from the other apostles\u2014to receive the first Gentiles into the community of faith. Peter it was who encouraged his brethren to sanction the pastoral policies that made Paul\u2019s ministry so fruitful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of these decisions came easily, nor did Peter completely escape criticism from the other Apostles (cf. Acts 11:1-3); Galatians 2:11). The two epistles that bear his name, however, testify that Peter never compromised on, nor pulled back from, the threefold confession of love Jesus required of him that morning near the charcoal fire beside the Sea of Galilee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Peter wrote of hope, it was from his own experience of that virtue. Peter knew<\/em> the mercy of Christ first-hand. He had been assured that Christ prayed specifically for him<\/em> (Luke 22:32). And the Resurrection angel had sent a specific reassurance to Peter (Mark 16:7), just in case the Apostle\u2019s hope should falter. Peter\u2019s subsequent life was based on that reassurance of the love and forgiveness of Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tuesday, April 29<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Peter 1:13-25: This section is an invitation to hope (verses 13,21). Christian hope is sustained by a twofold consideration. First, it is inspired by the final goal of the life in Christ (verses 13-17), and second, by the initial grace of the life in Christ (verses 18-21).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to the first, hope is directed to the final \u201crevelation of Jesus Christ,\u201d his \u201cbeing made visible\u201d (apokalypsis<\/em>\u2014verses 7,13; 4:13). Relying \u201ccompletely\u201d (teleios<\/em>) on this hope, believers refuse to conform to the deeds of their past, aware of their responsibility to be holy, even as God is holy (verses 14-16; Leviticus 19:2; 18:1-5,30; Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians<\/em> 29.1\u201430.1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the New Testament the expression \u201cbe not conformed\u201d (me syschematizesthe<\/em>, in which we observe the English word \u201cschema\u201d) is found only here (verse 14) and in Romans 12:2\u2014\u201cAnd do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.\u201d (We observe in passing that both of these works are associated with the church at Rome.) No less than the Chosen People of old, Christians are called to be a holy people in the midst of an unholy world. The latter is characterized by \u201cignorance\u201d and \u201cpassions\u201d (verse 14). We may compare this passage with 1 Thessalonians 4:5\u2014\u201cnot in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Christians are reminded that God\u2019s judgment discerns the difference between His \u201choly ones\u201d (\u201csaints\u201d) and the world (verse 17). In view of this divine discernment, Christians are to be ever mindful of the coming judgment (Romans 14:10-11; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; 4:4; 2 Corinthians 5:10-11). Christian hope is not without this appropriate \u201cfear\u201d (en phobo<\/em>\u2014verse 17; cf. 2:18; 3:2,16; Acts 9:31).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The one who \u201cransoms\u201d or \u201credeems\u201d us is God (verse 18). This image is a figure of speech taken over largely from the Book of Isaiah, which habitually speaks of the Lord \u201cransoming\u201d or \u201credeeming\u201d His people from the Babylonian Captivity (Isaiah 41:14; 43:1,14; 44:6,22-24; 47:4; 48:17,20; 49:7,26; 51:10; 52:3,9; 54:5,8; 59:20; 62:12; 63:4,9). When the Lord \u201credeemed\u201d or \u201cransomed\u201d Israel from Babylon, it was not a commercial transaction. There was no <i>quid pro quo<\/i>. When the Lord is called Israel\u2019s \u201credeemer\u201d (go\u2019el<\/em>), therefore, the word is being used in a metaphorical religious sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is in this sense that the present passage, following the lead of Isaiah 53, speaks of our \u201credemption\u201d through the blood of Jesus (verse 19; Mark 10:45\u2014once again, both texts associated with the church at Rome). While we say that the blood of Jesus was the \u201cprice\u201d of our redemption, it would be a violation of the religious metaphor to inquire \u201cto whom\u201d the price was paid. Such an inquiry turns the image into a matter of commercial use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The redeeming by Christ was predestined in the very construction of the world itself (verse 20: Romans 16:25-26; Hebrews 9:26; Ignatius of Antioch, Magnesians<\/em> 6.1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 10: To an agricultural economy, few things are more frightening than a visitation of locusts, which can reduce all plant life, over many square miles, to absolute ground level in a matter of hours (cf. the first chapter of Joel).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In three respects this is the most effective of the plagues to date: (1) Pharaoh\u2019s servants, who had begun in support of him, and had come to see themselves bested (8:15), and had then retired from the combat (9:11), now come out to make a common plea with Moses against Pharaoh; (2) Pharaoh, for the first time, offers to release the Israelite men even before the plague starts; (3) Pharaoh himself asks for forgiveness. Even though the king\u2019s heart is still hardened, the inspired author takes note of the progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the sun god, Re, held a special prominence in Egypt, this plague of darkness is freighted with special theological significance; the Lord is in earnest doing battle with the gods of Egypt. The three days of darkness here should be seen as a type of the three hours of darkness that covered the earth on that afternoon when the new Moses did battle with the most ancient of the pharaohs of our slavery, himself the Prince of Darkness (Mark 15:33). There on Calvary, as here, the plague of darkness immediately precedes the death of the Firstborn Son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wednesday, April 30<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Peter 2.1-10: Having begun with hope, Peter now places the striving for holiness in its full context, which is life in the Church. Christian holiness is essentially incorporation into Christ, which is the being of the Church.  Life in Christ is a social life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason the Christian\u2019s initial effort is to purify all his social communications (verse 1). Peter\u2019s list of communicative vices contains several that pertain to insincerity, and, by way of countering this. Peter introduces the \u201cgenuine\u201d milk appropriate to newborn children (verse 2). Indeed, Peter\u2019s participle artigenneta<\/em> means \u201cjust now born,\u201d and their nourishment is associated with the new birth (1:3,23).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter\u2019s metaphor of milk was common among the early Christians and referent to the catechesis associated with Baptism (1 Corinthians 3:1-2; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; Hebrews 5:13; The Odes of Solomon<\/em> 8.13-16; 9.1-2). Very early (at least by the second century, but perhaps earlier) this image affected even the liturgical customs at Baptism, when the newly baptized were given a cup of milk mixed with honey (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition<\/em> 23.2; Tertullian, Against Marcion<\/em> 1.14; The Crown<\/em> 3.3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By means of this spiritual milk of Christian teaching, we \u201cgrow unto salvation\u201d (avxsehete eis soterian<\/em>).<\/em> Salvation has to do with growth (cf. Mark 4:8,20; 2 Corinthians 10:15; Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 1:10). Few texts in the New Testament are more emphatic that salvation is the term of a growth, not a once-and-for-all event that is behind us. Salvation still lies before us (1:5,7,9). Drinking milk, therefore, is more than an obligation; it is a need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Believers, having tasted this milk, know by experience that the \u201cLord is gracious\u201d (verse 3; Psalms 34 [33]:9; Hebrews 6:5). In Greek this expression, chrestos ho Kyrios<\/em>, differs in only one letter from \u201cChrist is the Lord\u201d\u2014Christos ho Kyrios<\/em>. The psalm cited here (Psalms 34, but 33 in the Greek and Latin texts used by the Church) has long been a favorite at the time of receiving Holy Communion (cf. Apostolic Constitutions<\/em> 8.13.16; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis<\/em> 5.20; Jerome, Letters<\/em> 71.6), nor is the imagination overly taxed to think that this may already have been the case at the time of St. Peter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter is describing, then, the experience of the Church, so now he turns his attention to describing the theological structure of the Church (verses 4-10). As though he has the entire Psalm 34 (33) in mind, Peter continues, \u201chaving come to whom [the Lord]\u2014pros Hon proserchomenoi<\/em>\u201d (proselthate pros Avton<\/em> in the LXX of Psalms 33;6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 11: In some sense, Moses and Aaron will now be \u201cout of the picture.\u201d This final and decisive plague will involve no activity on their part. This work will be accomplished without human mediation of any kind; the Lord will use only the angelic ministry. The chapter ends by saying that Moses and Aaron had done all they could do to prevent what was about to befall Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doubtless this is what accounts for the anger of Moses as he leaves Pharaoh\u2019s presence for the last time. Sign after sign had been ignored by an inveterately stubborn man seemingly intent on his country\u2019s destruction, and the inspired biblical author stands amazed at such hardness of heart. (Compare St. John\u2019s bewildered comments on the later hardness of heart that could not be softened by the many \u201csigns\u201d done by Jesus; cf. John 12:37-41.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commenting on this \u201cborrowing\u201d from the Egyptians by Israel, one observes two preoccupations among the Fathers of the Church: (1) Lest anyone think that this action on Israel\u2019s part was to be copied as a moral example, some of the Fathers took care to point out that the Israelites were, in fact, slaves and, as such, entitled to just remuneration for their coerced labor; (2) The silver and gold that the Israelites took from the Egyptians was understood allegorically, as representing the philosophical and cultural riches of Egypt. Thus, they used this example to justify the Christian use of classical pagan philosophy, law, and cultural ideals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This allegorical interpretation is not far-fetched; indeed, it is rooted in historical fact. Israel did, indeed, take from Egypt a massive inheritance of philosophy, law, literature, and other cultural wealth. Their own Semitic culture had become enormously enriched by their extensive sojourn in northeast Africa, surrounded by one of the oldest and richest civilizations the world has ever seen. Alas, however, so many of these trinkets would eventually be used in the construction of the golden calf, a fact indicating the dangers inherent in any \u201cborrowing\u201d from the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thursday, May 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 12: There are four features especially to be noted about this important text that interrupts the narrative sequence in order to place the whole into a more theological and liturgical context:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the paschal lamb is an example of \u201csubstitutionary\u201d sacrifice; like the ram that had replaced Isaac on Mount Moriah in Genesis 22:13, the paschal lamb\u2019s life is given in place of the lives of Israel\u2019s first born sons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, there is nothing in the text to suggest that this sacrifice is \u201cexpiatory.\u201d That is, unlike certain other biblical sacrifices, such as those associated with Yom Kippur, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb is not made in reparation for sins. Moreover, the Old Testament provides not a single example of an animal being sacrificed in place of a human being whose sin was serious enough to merit death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, the blood of this paschal lamb is sprinkled at certain points of the houses of those who are \u201credeemed.\u201d This sprinkling is explicitly said to be a \u201csign\u201d of covenant protection, parallel to the rainbow in the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:12-17 and circumcision in the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:19-27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, because this paschal lamb was a type or symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7), it was fitting that the meal celebrating the new covenant in His blood should be inaugurated in the setting of the paschal seder (cf. Luke 22:15-20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cthis day\u201d of verse 14 is the fifteenth day of the month Nisan, but it includes the night of Pascha. Pascha itself was to be the first liturgical day of an entire \u201cweek of sabbaths,\u201d that is, seven days of rest and festival continuing the celebration, during which Israel could eat unleavened bread as on Pascha itself. More regulations relative to this weeklong feast are to be found in 13:3-10. In the New Testament the two terms, Pascha and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, are used almost interchangeably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the lengthy and detailed instructions that prepare for it, the tenth plague is narrated very succinctly, to great dramatic effect. The Exodus itself follows at once. In the writings of the New Testament, the event especially served as a prefiguration and type of redemption, including all of the events narrated of that great week, both His death for our sins and His rising again for our justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So important was the liturgical observance of Pascha to the life of the early Christians that one of the major and most heated controversies of the second century Church concerned the proper dating of the feast. In spite of a venerable tradition held in Ephesus and the other churches of Asia Minor, it was finally determined that Pascha would always be celebrated on a Sunday, a rule that has been maintained by all Christians since the fourth century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In verses 43-50 we find more regulations relative to the preparation of the Seder of Pascha. As was noted above, there was no disagreement among the early Christians with respect to the deeper meaning of the paschal lamb. Indeed, verse 46 here, about not breaking the bones of the paschal lamb while preparing it, was seen by St. John as a prophecy of the body of Jesus on the cross, in that the soldiers did not break His legs (cf. John 19:36).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friday, May 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

John 3.22-36: The position of this section of John mat have been determined by the earlier reference to Baptism in 3:5. The evangelist now returns to John the Baptist for the last time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reference to Jesus baptizing does not mean that He did so with His own hands. From 4:2 we will learn that Jesus\u2019 apostles normally performed this rite. It is not easy to determine the exact nature of this baptism, and it is difficult to affirm that it was the Christian sacrament of Baptism of which John the Baptist had spoken earlier (1:33), because the Holy Spirit will not be conferred on the Church until much later in this Gospel. However, there is no need to be apodictic on the nature of the baptism here in John 3; we may leave the question as unclear as the evangelist leaves it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The place named in verse 23 is not identified with certainty, though we presume John\u2019s earliest readers recognized it. The name means \u201csprings,\u201d which suggests that it was not a site on the banks of the Jordan. Some archeologists identify it with a site in Samaria. If true, of course, it indicates that John the Baptist had some following among the Samaritans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In verse 24 the evangelist presumes his readers\u2019 familiarity with the story of the death of John the Baptist (cf. Mark 6:17-29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Verse 25 indicates the context of the words of John the Baptist. It is clear that controversies about Jewish cleansing rituals were not uncommon (cf. Mark 7:1-5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The disciples of John the Baptist were understandably disturbed that the prestige of their leader was being eclipsed by the growing notoriety of Jesus. In answering them, John the Baptist again affirmed his own preparatory and subordinate role with respect to Jesus. He knew the ministry and task given him from heaven and dared not attempt to transcend the limits of his vocation (verse 27). Jesus, as the Messiah (verse 28), was the bride\u2019s groom, whereas John was only His best man (verse 29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have here the first instance of what is a veritable mystique of the voice of Christ in the Gospel according to John. Here are some representative Johannine texts to demonstrate the richness of ideas associated with Jesus\u2019 voice (cf 3,29; 5,24; 10.2; 11.43; 18.37; 20.15).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In verse 30 we have the final words spoken by John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel. They not only formed a synopsis of the vocation of John, but they also served the early Christians as an apologetic testimony in their relationship to the disciples of John the Baptist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Lord\u2019s recent discourse with Nicodemus, the conversation gradually became a theological meditation. Nicodemus faded from the scene, and the reader was no longer entirely sure who was speaking. We witness now the same literary phenomenon in this conversation between John the Baptist and his disciples. By the time we reach verse 31, it no longer appears  to be a discussion, and it is difficult to say, any longer, that it is John the Baptist who is speaking. Both he and his disciples fade from the scene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, in verses 31-36 there is a repetition of certain ideas in the section associated with the discussion with Nicodemus. We may list and examine these:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, there is the image of \u201ccoming from above,\u201d along with a contrast between earthly and heavenly things. Thus, Jesus said earlier, \u201cIf I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven\u2014the Son of Man\u201d (3:12-13). In this later meditation we read, \u201cHe who comes from above is over all; he who is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaks. He who comes from heaven is over all\u201d (verse 31). In both places we have the contrast between heavenly things and earthly things, and Jesus is identified as coming \u201cfrom above\u201d or \u201cfrom heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, there is the mention of unbelief with regard to the testimony of Jesus. In the earlier meditation, we read, \u201cAmen, amen, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness\u201d (3:11). This idea appears again in the present text: \u201cAnd what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony\u201d (verse 32). In both places there is the crisis of unbelief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, both sections of John 3 speak of the Holy Spirit. In the discourse we Nicodemus, we read, \u201cAmen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . . The Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but cannot tell where He comes from and where He goes. Thus is everyone who is born of the Spirit\u201d(3:5,6,8). In the present section, we read: \u201cFor He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure\u201d (verse 12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John the Baptist had earlier spoken of the Holy Spirit as pertinent to the coming of the Christ: \u201cAnd John bore witness, saying, \u2018I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, \u201cUpon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit\u201d\u2019\u201d (1:32-33).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, both parts of John 3 speak of God\u2019s love. In the earlier section we read, \u201cGod so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son\u201d (3:16). In the present section we read, \u201cThe Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand\u201d (verse 35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifth, in both parts of John 3, Jesus is identified as God\u2019s Son. Thus, in the earlier section we read, \u201cFor God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him has not been judged but he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God\u201d (3:16-18). In the present section we read, \u201cThe Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him\u201d (verses 35-36).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jesus\u2019 title, \u201cSon of God,\u201d had already appeared, of course, much earlier in John: \u201cwe beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth\u201d (1:14). Also, Nobody has, at any time, seen God. The Only Begotten, God, He Who Is, in the bosom of the Father, He explained\u201d (1:18). Also, \u201cAnd I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God\u201d (1:34). Likewise, \u201cRabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!\u201d (1:49)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sixth, in both sections of John 3 there is the theme of eternal or everlasting life. Thus, we read earlier, \u201cAnd as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life\u201d (3:14-16). In the present section we read, \u201cHe who believes in the Son has everlasting life\u201d (verse 36). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seventh, in both sections of John 3 we find the theme of judgment. Thus, we read in the earlier part, \u201che who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil\u201d (3:18-19). And in the present section we read, \u201che who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him\u201d (3:36).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, both sections of John 3 are invitations to belief in Christ. The first part says, \u201cwhoever believes in Him should have eternal life\u201d (3:15). And the second section says, \u201cHe who believes in the Son has everlasting life\u201d (verse 36).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Friday, April 25 Exodus 6: There are two distinct parts to the material in this chapter: the first (vv. 1-13) continues the dialogue between God and Moses from the precious chapter, and the second (vv. 14-27) provides a genealogy of the family of Levi, the tribe of Moses and Aaron. Stephen Langton and other medieval … Continue reading April 25 – May 2, 2025<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2632"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2632"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2633,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2632\/revisions\/2633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}