Moses and the Israelites - Day 1

So, hello everyone. My name is William Haines, and I'm very happy to be here with you today. The title of this workshop is 'Moses and the Israelites: Lessons in Leadership and Community Building'. I'm sure you're all interested in that and would like to learn, so I'm pleased to see your enthusiasm. We will meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, with a break on Wednesday and the weekend. I hope this will be a valuable experience for everyone.

Moses was an extraordinary leader. He took people out of Egypt, where they were slaves, and went through a terrible time with them. Yet, together, they were able to build a sustainable community that, three thousand five hundred years later, is still flourishing despite many challenges. This community was not fixed; it was flexible, based on certain principles that allowed the people to adapt while maintaining their identity and social cohesion. There is no other community in the world that has lasted this long.

Moses wasn't the greatest general or leader of mighty armies, yet he created a community that is still strong today. So, what were they trying to achieve? They were moving from slavery into Canaan, and God wanted to restore the kind of world that should have existed originally—one with God-centered families and communities. This is what Moses and the Israelites were trying to establish, a foundation for what Christians might call the Kingdom of Heaven.

To create this kind of community, certain basic things are necessary. We often talk about the foundation of faith, foundation of substance, and foundation to receive the Messiah. For Adam and Eve, the foundation of faith was to keep the commandment not to eat the fruit, which meant maintaining sexual purity and living a life according to their conscience. They needed to grow spiritually and morally mature, living a life of prayer and worship.

The foundation of substance for Adam and Eve was to become mature beings, achieving completeness. This maturity would allow them to interact with others in a healthy way, without anger or resentment. The course of restoration is about restoring this foundation of faith and substance for fallen human beings, which involves living a moral life and overcoming fallen nature in all relationships. This is what we tried to do when we were working with people, overcoming our fallen nature and getting blessed in marriage.

On a community level, God wants to establish a spiritual community that lives a life of prayer, study, and worship. This way, when the Messiah arrives, they will understand his teachings because they are already engaged in a relationship with God. The foundation of substance on a community level means having freedom of thought and speech. Disagreement is acceptable, but cancelling or harming others for their beliefs is not. A society needs laws to protect these freedoms, allowing for debate and discussion without fear of persecution.

Today, we must reflect on our society and consider where we are headed. The cancel culture we see today raises concerns about freedom of expression. How can God dwell in a society where there is no freedom for Him to express His will? This is what Moses and the Israelites were trying to create three and a half thousand years ago—a national foundation to receive the Messiah, a place where God can dwell and work. Generally speaking, they were very successful in this endeavor.

To delve deeper, we know that Jacob took his family down into Egypt after Joseph was sold into slavery. Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt, and during a famine, he invited his family to settle there. They prospered and multiplied in Egypt, particularly in a place called Goshen, where they became very successful. However, the narrative continues with the challenges they faced.

In the Bible, there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. He became afraid and frightened of the Hebrews because he said to himself and to the other leaders of Egypt, 'They are multiplying; they are incredibly prosperous. They are going to become so powerful that they may take over our country.' This raises the question of why they thought that. This is something I didn't address at the end of the last workshop, which is about Joseph's economic policies.

When the famine started, Joseph met Pharaoh and interpreted Pharaoh's dream, predicting seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine due to a drought. Pharaoh then asked Joseph what he should do, and Joseph advised him to appoint someone who could manage the impending ecological and economic catastrophe. Consequently, Pharaoh appointed Joseph as prime minister, and his job was to prepare Egypt for what was to come. During the seven years of plenty, Joseph collected all the excess grain and built huge storehouses to store it. After the seven years, when the drought began and crops started to fail, the people came to Joseph, pleading to buy grain from him.

In the first year, people withdrew money from the bank to buy grain. In the second year, they took out loans, but eventually, they could no longer secure bank loans. Joseph effectively collected all the money in exchange for the grain. When the people ran out of money, they approached Joseph again, saying, 'We still need to eat.' Joseph then offered to sell them food in exchange for their livestock. They brought cows, sheep, and pigs, and Joseph exchanged ownership of the livestock for food. This continued for about a year or two until all the livestock belonged to Pharaoh.

As the drought persisted, the people again came to Joseph, saying, 'Please, we still need to eat.' Joseph then instructed them to bring the title deeds to their land and houses in exchange for grain. The people responded, 'Exchange us and our land for food, and we and our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh.' Essentially, they were selling themselves into servitude, akin to becoming indentured servants. This practice was not uncommon in Europe not long ago, where people would sell themselves to work off debts. As a result of Joseph's economic policy, all the people of Egypt were reduced to servitude, and all the land and possessions came under Pharaoh's control.

On one hand, Joseph's policies saved Egypt during a time of crisis, making him a better minister of finance compared to many governments today. When economies are booming, governments often spend excessively and accumulate debt, leading to crises when austerity measures are needed. Ideally, governments should have paid off debts during prosperous times to prepare for future difficulties. However, Joseph's approach created a state of dependency on Pharaoh, reducing the people to servitude. The only group not affected in this way were the Hebrews, who were shepherds and lived independently.

Joseph's character is complex. He was loyal to his father and ingratiated himself with Jacob, becoming his favourite. However, he also turned Jacob against his brothers by telling tales about them, which led to his being sold into slavery. Despite his skills and ability to serve those in power, he maintained a moral standard, resisting the temptations of Potiphar's wife. This led to his imprisonment, but he continued to serve and was eventually promoted to serve Pharaoh. Joseph was adept at manipulating power to achieve his ends, demonstrating a practical understanding of reality and economics.

However, Joseph's policies ultimately resulted in injustice. He should have recognised that concentrating wealth in Pharaoh's hands would lead to the oppression of the people. Instead of standing up to Pharaoh, he may have simply executed the pharaoh's wishes without considering the long-term consequences. This situation mirrors the story of Solomon, who was also politically capable but needed to ensure that his actions served good ends. Joseph lost his way, moving from a shepherd's life to one of dependency on power, introducing forced labour and failing to advocate for his people.

When Jacob died, he insisted on being buried in Canaan, and you would think that as prime minister, Joseph could easily arrange this. However, the text reveals that he could not even approach Pharaoh directly to request permission. Instead, he had to ask someone else to approach Pharaoh on his behalf. Ultimately, Joseph did not take the opportunity to move his family out of Egypt and back to Canaan. The situation illustrates the Pharaoh's fear of the Hebrews, who were fruitful and multiplied greatly, leading to concerns that they might join Egypt's enemies and escape.

The Pharaoh's response to this fear was to engage in large building projects, such as the construction of the city of Ramesses. This situation can be seen as an early form of anti-Semitism, where a minority group that is successful becomes the target of envy and hatred. A hated group must be a minority, or people will fear attacking it. Additionally, the group must be successful; otherwise, it will only be looked down upon with contempt. The Egyptians envied the Hebrews, who were industrious and contributed significantly to Egypt's wealth.

This dynamic of envy and fear has historical parallels, as seen in the treatment of various minority groups throughout history. In the 1970s, for example, the Unification movement faced similar challenges, being a minority that was both successful and conspicuous. The narrative raises questions about the nature of societal dynamics and the treatment of minority groups, prompting reflection on whether the current state of affairs is a positive or negative sign.

The Pharaoh initiated a building project and employed the Hebrews as builders, paying them well. However, he later introduced legislation that restricted managerial positions to Egyptian citizens only. This forced the Hebrews to make a difficult choice: assimilate into Egyptian society and risk losing their identity or remain distinct and face a glass ceiling in their careers. Some chose to take Egyptian citizenship to advance, while others resisted. Gradually, the Pharaoh reduced their wages, and when they sought to return to their previous occupations, they were coerced back to forced labour. This systematic oppression led to the Hebrews being reduced to a state of slavery, where they had no freedom and were compelled to obey arbitrary orders from the Pharaoh and the slave drivers overseeing their work.

Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed, was born into this oppressive environment. Amram, a leader of the synagogue, faced a moral dilemma when the Pharaoh ordered the killing of all Hebrew boys. He initially believed it was best to stop having children to avoid the risk of losing them. However, his daughter Miriam argued that ceasing to have children would lead to the extinction of their people. She persuaded him to allow parents to continue having children, trusting that God would provide a solution. Consequently, Amram and Jochebed had another son, Moses, whom they risked their lives to protect.

When Moses was born, Jochebed hid him to save him from the Pharaoh's decree. The Pharaoh noticed that the Hebrew boys were not being killed as ordered and summoned the midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, to explain why they had disobeyed. The midwives, respecting God more than the Pharaoh, let the boys live. They cleverly explained that Hebrew women were vigorous and gave birth before the midwives arrived. Their actions exemplified civil disobedience, demonstrating that there are moral limits to power. Just because the Pharaoh commanded it did not make it right, and the midwives chose to follow their conscience instead of conforming to unjust laws.

This story marks the birth of civil disobedience, showing that moral principles can supersede the law. The midwives' refusal to obey the Pharaoh's orders illustrates that justice is not determined solely by human laws. Their names, Shiphrah and Puah, are remembered in the Bible for their bravery, establishing a legacy of standing up against tyranny. They acted at great personal risk, embodying the principle that one should not surrender to unjust authority.

Moses' mother, Jochebed, placed him in a basket on the Nile, where he was discovered by the Pharaoh's daughter. Despite the law commanding that Hebrew boys be drowned, she chose to disobey her father and adopted Moses. This act of defiance against the Pharaoh's decree highlights the theme of divine providence through disobedience. The Pharaoh's daughter, known as Bitya, meaning 'daughter of God', is celebrated for her righteousness and courage in saving Moses, thus changing the course of history.

Moses grew up in the palace for 40 years, receiving an education befitting a leader. Unlike the Hebrews, he did not have a slave mentality; instead, he was accustomed to responsibility and authority. His mother, as his nursemaid, instilled in him a sense of identity and connection to his Hebrew heritage. One day, as a grown man, he witnessed an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave. Recognising the injustice, he intervened and killed the Egyptian, hiding his body in the sand. This act was a pivotal moment, reflecting his internal struggle between his identity as a Hebrew and his position as a prince of Egypt.

Moses intervened when he saw an Egyptian mistreating a Hebrew. I don't think he was a murderer; rather, he likely acted vigorously to separate them, which may have led to the Egyptian accidentally falling and hitting his head. This incident raises questions about moral choices and decisions. Moses faced a dilemma: should he walk away and be a bystander, or should he take responsibility for what he witnessed? This theme of moral choice is prevalent throughout the biblical narrative. Often, when bad things happen, people avert their eyes and pretend nothing is occurring. They may wait for someone else to act or blame others for inaction, while some simply complain about the state of the world. However, true leadership emerges when individuals take responsibility and act, rather than waiting for others to intervene. Moses exemplified this by taking initiative and acting when he saw injustice.

God does not intervene directly in history; instead, He acts through us. He seeks individuals willing to take initiative and responsibility, acting as sons rather than servants or slaves. Servants may have some initiative, but they often refrain from fixing problems, choosing instead to complain about the situation. A leader, on the other hand, acknowledges the reality they face and asks how they can improve it. Moses was distinctive because he took action; he did not accept the world as it was but sought to change it. People often question why God does not intervene in crises like the Holocaust or starvation. However, God desires individuals who are willing to take responsibility and work towards making the world a better place, even if it is just in their immediate surroundings.

Moses had a strong sense of justice, which motivated his actions. He intervened not only when he saw an Egyptian mistreating a Hebrew but also when he witnessed two Israelites fighting. His sense of justice compelled him to act against violence and oppression. God abhors violence and injustice, which is why Moses felt compelled to intervene repeatedly. After fleeing Egypt, Moses found himself in Midian, where he encountered Jethro's daughters being harassed by men. Instead of waiting for the situation to resolve itself, he drove the men away, defending the vulnerable. Moses consistently stood up for the oppressed, regardless of their background, demonstrating a profound commitment to justice.

After fleeing Egypt, Moses spent 40 years in the wilderness, where he developed his spiritual life in solitude. This period of silence allowed him to connect deeply with God, free from distractions. At the age of 80, he encountered a burning bush, where God revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This introduction highlighted the personal relationship God had with Moses' ancestors, emphasising that God cares deeply for His people. God expressed concern for the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt, indicating that His heart breaks for those who suffer. This revelation of God's character is crucial; He is not merely a distant creator but a caring presence who desires to alleviate suffering and lead His people to freedom.

God's call to Moses was clear: He wanted him to confront Pharaoh and demand the release of the Israelites. Moses, however, was hesitant and questioned his own worthiness for such a task. At 80 years old and living a life of retirement as a shepherd, he felt unqualified to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. This moment illustrates the theme of divine calling, where God chooses unlikely individuals to fulfil significant roles in His plan. Moses' reluctance reflects a common human response to divine assignments, highlighting the tension between self-doubt and the call to leadership. Despite his initial shock and uncertainty, Moses was about to embark on a journey that would change the course of history for his people.

Moses questioned his ability to approach Pharaoh and lead the Israelites out of Egypt. He felt insignificant and lacked authority, thinking, 'Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?' God reassured him, saying He would be with him and provided a sign: once Moses had brought the people out of Egypt, they would worship God on the mountain. However, Moses was sceptical, as he could not see God and felt that the only proof would come after the fact. He also worried that the Israelites would ask for God's name, to which God replied, 'I am who I am,' or more accurately, 'I go on being as I go on being.' This indicates that God is not fixed but is a free being in process and development. God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, emphasising His personal relationship with the people.

God instructed Moses to assemble the elders of Israel and share His message. He assured Moses that the elders would listen, but Moses doubted their belief in him. He feared they would think he was making everything up and demanded proof. In response, God provided Moses with signs: first, he was to throw down his rod, which would turn into a snake and then back into a rod. This symbolism harkens back to the story of Adam and Eve. Next, Moses was to put his hand in his bosom, which would turn leprous and then return to health. This act foreshadowed the consequences of derogatory speech, as seen later in the story of Miriam. Despite God's assurances, Moses remained unconvinced, recalling his negative experiences with the Israelites, which made him doubt their willingness to listen.

Moses was given a third sign: taking water from the Nile and pouring it out, which would turn into blood. Although these signs seemed persuasive, Moses still felt inadequate, claiming he was not eloquent and slow of speech. He envisioned himself stuttering before Pharaoh and expressed his reluctance to take on this role. God reassured him, saying He would be his mouth and teach him what to say. However, Moses continued to resist, asking God to send someone else instead. Frustrated, God suggested Moses' brother Aaron, who could speak well and was already on his way to meet him. This was significant, as it marked a positive relationship between the brothers, contrasting with many biblical sibling rivalries.

Aaron's willingness to support Moses was crucial for their mission. Together, they would confront Pharaoh and lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Their partnership exemplified a harmonious leadership team, with Moses as the voice of truth and Aaron as a voice for peace. They complemented each other, with Moses delivering God's commands and Aaron managing the practical aspects of leadership. This collaboration was essential for their success, demonstrating the importance of teamwork in leadership roles. The Bible illustrates their unity, often referring to them collectively, highlighting their shared mission and the absence of hierarchy between them.

As Moses journeyed to Egypt with his family, an unusual incident occurred where God sought to kill him. This perplexing moment was interrupted by Zipporah, who circumcised their son and touched Moses' feet with the foreskin, declaring him a 'bridegroom of blood.' This act was significant, as it related to the covenant of circumcision established with Abraham. The Divine Principle explains that God does not extend grace without a necessary condition, which is often a test to prevent accusations from Satan. Moses had just received a great grace, and to qualify for this blessing, he needed to meet certain conditions.

Circumcision, therefore, symbolises a change of lineage and the removal of the blood of death, reflecting a commitment to God at the risk of one's life. It signifies restoration and dominion, as seen in Abraham's covenant, where his name was changed from Abram to Abraham, indicating his role as a father of many nations. The numerical values of the letters in Hebrew reveal that Abraham gained control over additional limbs after his circumcision, symbolising complete dominion over his senses and desires. This transformation underscores the significance of circumcision as a sign of the covenant, representing a deeper commitment to God and the responsibilities that come with it.

As I said, it's all to do with a change of identity. For Jewish people, when they circumcise their boys on the eighth day, they are putting their children through this life and their situation. It's the way through which they are introduced into the people of God. They are making their own personal covenant with God through circumcision, introducing them to the covenant of Abraham. For Christians, it's akin to baptism, which carries a similar meaning. There are three types of circumcision: mind, flesh, and spirit, and I will discuss these from a Jewish point of view.

The idea of circumcision is that when a man gets circumcised, he becomes a complete person. What is cut off is just the floppy bit at the end of a man's penis, not the whole thing. This is the rabbinic interpretation of God's command to Abraham, who was told that all his disciples should be circumcised. Abraham responded that it would be difficult to persuade people to join his faith if they had to undergo circumcision. God replied, 'Thou hast no defect, but this foreskin—remove it, and the defect will be gone. Hence, walk before me and be thou whole.' This suggests that a person becomes a co-creator, completing their physical body.

Interestingly, when you look at the language, the word 'allah,' which means foreskin, also refers to a tree, as noted in Leviticus. By extension, 'allah' can refer to the member that produces offspring or fruit. Just as a tree produces fruit, the male sexual organ is seen as the source of offspring. This play on words led the rabbis to interpret God's covenant with Abraham as being made through his sexual organ. It's intriguing that God refers to it as the holy place, the holy of holies, indicating the significance of this covenant.

Circumcision is intrinsically bound up with the idea of covenant and identity. For Jews, it is a matter of life and death. You can often tell who the Jews are in public spaces because they are all circumcised. This practice, rooted in anti-Semitism, carries a significant risk. Parents know that by circumcising their sons, they are affirming their identity, even at the risk of their lives. This act of identity transformation is similar to how people join a gang; they often get a tattoo or wear specific clothes to signify their membership.

In essence, if you want to join God's 'gang,' God said to Abraham, 'If you want to join my gang, you get circumcised.' This act serves as the sign that you are part of the covenant that I make with you.