Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Newbie]

Why did God kill innocent children in order to free the Israelites? Why not kill those directly responsible for their enslavement, or just put everyone to sleep until they made their escape?

[jimwalton]

The plagues were directed at the religious system of Egypt, as if it were a showdown between YHWH and their panoply of deities. For instance, the 9th plague was a plague of darkness. The Egyptians worshiped the sun god (Ra or Re), and so the plague of darkness showed their god to be powerless against YHWH.

On to the 10th plague. The pharaoh was considered to be a god on earth, and when he died, it was believed that he became Osiris, the god of the the afterlife, the underworld, and the dead. As such, however, Osiris was also considered the "King of the Living." He granted all life.
After having rebuffed YHWH nine times, and having been on the losing end 9 times, he is still stubborn against the request of Moses to free the people. The ultimate challenge, which was a challenge to Pharaoh's person, his kingship, and his divinity, was a showdown about life and death, over which the Pharaohs were believed to have ultimate control. The way to break the king, since the contest between every other divine notion of Egypt didn't bring about the freedom of his people, was on the pivotal and supreme issue of life and death.

[Newbie]

In another translation, however, it clearly states that god "hardened pharaoh's heart" in order to prove his point. This wouldn't suggest that Pharaoh willfully rebuffed YHWH.

[jimwalton]

The motif of Pharaoh's heart being hard is one that occurs about 20 times in Exodus 1-10. Several different verbs are used, though they are all translated "hardened." The concept has parallels to similar Egyptian expressions that convey perseverance, stubbornness, persistence, and an unyielding nature. These can be either good or bad qualities, depending on the situation, and on what type of behavior or attitude one is persisting in. God's action may strengthen Pharaoh's persistence, (hence God "hardens his heart") but it is still Pharaoh's evil inclination that leads him to persist in evil. Since about 10 of the 20 instances of hardening are ascribed to Pharaoh, the hardening was just as much his own doing as God. But when the two classes of expressions are analyzed, we find that when Moses and Aaron showed signs that they were messengers of YHWH, sent with a demand to let the people go, the hardening is invariably represented as Pharaoh's own. After every one of those miracles, it is stated that Pharaoh's heart was firm, or dull, insensitive to the voice of God, and unaffected by the miracles that were being performed. The bottom line is that Pharaoh would not bend his self-will to the will of God.

For instance, in Ex. 8.15 it says that "when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart." Here a different verb is used than had been used in chapter 4 & 7 when it spoke of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. This verb means "to make heavy," and is part of the language used in Egyptian religion, playing off the comments I made earlier. You see, in the judgment scene from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the heart of the person who died is weighed in a balance against a feather (which represents Maat, the god of truth and justice) to determine whether the individual will be ushered into an afterlife of happiness or be devoured. Pharaoh, increasing the weight of his heart at the sign of relief, is putting another nail in his own coffin, so to speak. It's a way of expressing that his afterlife doom is being sealed. Again, the author is showing that the actions being taken by YHWH were a direct confrontation to the whole religious understanding of the Egyptians as a people, and Pharaoh in particular.

[Newbie]

I remember my theist days and having to go through the kind of effort you did above to tap dance around uncomfortable passages and try to make them make sense to me. That was hard work and I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore. Having to explain the multiple possible translations of a word for the purposes of understanding and justifying infanticide as a punishment for the monarch's enslavement (of which we have no evidence) of an entire group of people is hard work.

[jimwalton]

That's a very odd interpretation. I didn't do any dancing at all. Certainly you understand that Exodus was written in a different language, a different culture, and a different era. Have you ever tried to read Beowulf in the original English? It's a struggle even though it's in English and is only 1000 years old. But in a document 3000 years old, written in the ancient Near East under very different cultural conditions, you expect to just read it and bingo—oh so clear? I think that's naive. It's a fact that different Hebrew terms are used that are translated by the same English word. Right there we have a comprehension and interpretive complication that a little explanation benefits. Is this a problem? Cliff Notes helps us understand Shakespeare. That's a good thing. Linguistics helps us understand the writer of Exodus, but you consider that a bad thing. Your logic somehow escapes me.

I'm sorry that you feel that if you can't read the Bible on a surface level it's a worthless document.

The Pharaoh was seen as the giver of life to all Egypt. He was considered the deity keeping all Egyptians breathing. The way to confront the lie of Egyptian mythology was to bring an opposing deity who could affect ALL of Egypt (as all 10 of the plagues did, not just the last one). Then and only then would the statement from YHWH be apprehended.

Regardless how you evaluate the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was designed to send a message to the Japanese government that assassination of their emperor and prime minister would not have accomplished. The judgments of YHWH (again, characteristic of all 10) had to effect the whole nation or they wouldn't mean anything.

As an aside, you all seem not to understand the Bible's teaching about infants. Everything the Bible teaches suggests that babies and infants go to heaven. Growing up in Egypt, their fate may have been quite different had their lives been spared. It's a curious interjection, but ultimately beside the point, but still adds to the discussion. The real point, though, is that the only way to speak to the deception and fallacies of their mythologies was to act in a way that included the entire nation.

That's not a dance, any more than Einstein having to walk people through his calculations to get them to understand his theory of relativity was a tap dance also. They're really no different; some things are just helped by a little explanation.

[Newbie]

I can think of two possible ways to go about responding, and can't choose, so I'll briefly cover both. The message of my response was a rather brief statement about the core question of whether or not god is moral, and whether his power justifies infanticide, genocide, etc. If I am to stay true to that original thought, getting caught up in multiple translations, historical context, metaphorical vs literal interpretation, etc gets far afield from the basic premise that I do not believe that infanticide is ever acceptable. There is no context or translation that would make it morally acceptable to do this. By the way, this includes my opinion about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that is a different conversation.

The second direction might be to engage on the content of your response (e.g., what was the meaning of the symbol of the plagues, etc.) I will not engage on that level, because there is no evidence to believe that the Exodus even occurred, so to me that would be similar to arguing on the different potential theories on how fairies came into existence, or the brand of tin foil that will most protect me from having my brain zapped by aliens.

In terms of reading the scripture in depth versus at a surface level, you are making a number of assumptions about me as a person. Since the question we are discussing is not about our personal journeys, I will not go on a lengthy digression. Suffice it to say, deep study has been a part of my journey, consideration of the many ways to interpret scripture has been a part of my journey. I don't feel the bible is a worthless document, I find it an entertaining work of fiction.

As you can see from my previous post, discussing the many possible interpretations of scripture, arguing over translations, etc was fine for my graduate theology coursework...but now is tedious to me. The core of the question at hand is about whether the act was moral, whether god (or the biblical message if one does not take a literal interpretation) is moral to engage in this behavior. Since I do not have enough evidence to believe a god exists, and do not have enough evidence to believe that the exodus happened, the core question I have is how could I (and others that still believe) permit myself to accept that the acts of the plagues were somehow moral, just, and righteous. In my study on this matter, there was absolutely no interpretation, linguistical argument, metaphor, or context that could make it moral.

[jimwalton]

Hey, thanks for a thoughtful response. I'm glad to hear that your conclusions are based on reasoned consideration and deep study.

While I understand perfectly that you disagree with me, God is not a zero-tolerance deity, but always gives people multiple chances (as here) to straighten out and fly right. As the people dig in in rebellion against him, determined to fight to the last breath, God issues judgment against them, primarily based in their own blasphemous religious system (to which Pharaoh admits in Ex. 9.27). If God never judges evil, we find fault in him for being weak and unfair. If he judges evil, we find fault in him for being immoral and unfair.

I know you disagree, as you've already stated, but I appreciate the honest discussion.