People vs. Pharaoh
I. Civil Disobedience of women
A. The Midwives
One act that stands out in the story of Exodus is the civil disobedience exhibited by the midwives. In fact, this act was the first act of civil disobedience in the Bible and, it might be argued, the first act in the process that led ultimately to the final act of disobedience, the actual exodus from Egypt. Based on this, and other acts which will be discussed below, it could be argued that it was the women who led the way out of Egypt.
In Exodus 1:15-19: “The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah[1], saying ‘When you deliver the Hebrew women, look at the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl let her live’. The midwives, fearing God, did not do as the king of Egypt had told them; they let the boys live. So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, ‘why have you done this thing, letting the boys live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous. Before the midwife can come to them, they have given birth.
This appears to be one of the most courageous acts in the Bible. It is also the first act of civil disobedience in the Bible. To understand the importance of this act, examine it.
1. Under the conditions, the only people in a position to kill these children were (a) the mother or (b) the midwife.
2. It seems certain that under these circumstances, the mother would not kill her own child.
3. That leaves the midwife.
4. However, it seems to be equally certain that, under the circumstances existing in Egypt at the time, no mother would ever employ a midwife that she even suspects will kill her child.
5. Children of the Hebrew slaves continued to be born. Something does not add up.
6. Answer: The Midwives were not killing the children.
7. If one thinks about this, the magnitude of the act becomes apparent. These women were given an order from the highest and most powerful authority in the world, an authority who would not even think twice about killing them for insubordination, yet these women knew the order was immoral so they refused to carry it out.
How often have we heard of someone carrying out an immoral act and then saying “I was following orders?”
These women had a direct order that they knew was immoral, yet they stood up and said “This order is immoral and I will not do it” They did this at incredible personal risk.
To emphasize the point, the Bible story pits the women against the strongest and most powerful segment of society and has the women stand up to the power. The issue is further emphasized in the Bible by having the order applying to slaves ….not to powerful members of society, but to slaves at the bottom of society and who were not even considered to be humans. Yet, these midwives knew the order was immoral and refused.
The Bible does not name the Pharaoh or the king, yet actually names these heroes (Shiphrah and Puah) to further emphasize the heroism of their acts.
This civil disobedience is carried further (and the irony is used to further emphasize it) by actually having Pharaoh’s own daughter decline to carry it out when she found Moses. She knew it was a Hebrew child and she was aware of the order regarding such children, yet she followed the lead of the midwives and refused to carry out the immoral order (going so far as to bring the child into Pharaoh’s own house with the child’s mother and sister as his midwife and care taker). This irony is further emphasized by having the baby Moses saved from the very fate Pharaoh wanted: in response to the disobedience of the midwives, in Ex 1:22, Pharaoh charged “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile,” The midwives, and Miriam, followed this order, but modified it in ways the Pharoah never intended. The disobedience continued, but as a loophole in the order.
If the weakest and most vulnerable members of society can stand up to the most powerful and vindictive member of society at risk of death to refuse to carry out an order that they know is immoral, then certainly we can refuse in instances which carry far less personal risk.
The story and its moral are stunning: “I will not carry out an order that I know is immoral.” It is stunning because this was written over 2000 years ago, yet it is so applicable today.
It is too bad the twentieth century Nazis did not follow the lead of the Midwives of the Exodus from Egypt.
B. The wives
It should also be noted that it was the women who prepared the first Passover Meal. Thus, they had to be complicit in the plan. As discussed in the essays in the section “Women of the Bible,” one of the main themes of the essays in this work is that the men of the Bible consulted their wives regarding important matters concerning their families and that any action taken was a result of an agreement between the husband and his wife. Following this theme, it would seem that the men of the Exodus had consulted with their wives and the wives had agreed with the plan. Thus, the wives of the Exodus exhibited bravery and faith at least equal to that of the men of the Exodus. As will be discussed below, since Miriam was Moses’s older sister and had a history of anarchy, a case can be made that it was Miriam who recruited and persuaded Moses and thus it was Miriam who was the initiator of the movement. As will also be discussed below, Miriam was the leader of the women (see the episode retold in the “Song of the Sea” where Miriam is the leader of the women). Perhaps the wives had been influenced by Miriam. Following this line of reasoning, it might be concluded that the wives were the first to believe in the plan and they were the leaders who persuaded their husbands to follow Moses.
Furthermore, the wives defied Pharaoh by meeting their husbands beneath apple trees in the fields and seducing them, feeding them warm food and anointing them with oil, then stealing off to deliver their children. Rabbi Akiva gives full credit to the women who did this and recognizes the women’s unwillingness to forsake love and sensuality in the midst of degradation as a triumph of human spirit and optimism over evil.
II. Moses’s civil disobedience
1. He kills an Egyptian overseer who is beating a slave (with the overseer having the apparent authority to do so).
2. After fleeing, he returns to insight a revolt among the slaves.
3. He challenges the authority of the Pharaoh’s magicians.
4. He makes a request of Pharaoh that he had to know would be denied (“let my people go so that we might worship our God” – which worship would include sacrificing a lamb which was an abomination to the Egyptians, of course that request would not be granted).
5. He uses the Pharaoh’s refusal as an excuse to further incite the people to rebellion and exit.
6. He actually leads the people in an act of total rebellion (Passover meal) and then leads them to escape from Egypt.
7. Finally, he leads them in an encounter which results in the destruction of the Egyptian army.
If ever a person owed a ruler gratitude, it is Moses, he was saved from death by an Egyptian princess and raised in the royal palace. Yet, Moses killed an Egyptian thereby violating the laws of the state, then faced with punishment for a crime he actually committed, he fled the country thereby rejecting the country that raised him, certainly he rejected its laws. Then, he came back and raised a rebellion against this country.
Characterizing Moses’s acts as “civil disobedience” is far too mild.
III. The civil disobedience of Miriam
Miriam may have been the original anarchist.
1. She may have encouraged her parents to remain married and have children in spite of the trend of Hebrew slaves to not have children.
2. It may have been Miriam who devised the scheme to save Moses by the Pharaoh’s daughter and handmaidens (Ex 2:3-5).
3. Miriam devised the scheme to have Moses’s own mother be his midwife in the palace in spite of protocol which would forbid a Hebrew slave from serving in such capacity (Ex 2: 3:6-9)
4. Miriam may even have been behind the revolt of the midwives to refrain from killing the sons born to Hebrew slaves.
5. Miriam was the older sister. It is possible that it was Miriam who taught her brothers, Moses and Aaron, the skills of rebellion and planted its seeds.
6. Miriam was in charge of the women immediately before and during the Exodus. Without the women, the Exodus probably would not have occurred.
7. Of course, it was Miriam who led the women in the Song of the Sea (Ex 15:20-21).
It might even be stated that without Miriam, the Exodus would not have happened.
IV. The civil disobedience of Moses’s mother
Moses’s mother, in defiance of Pharaoh’s order, hid her son and then participated in his escape. But for this act of disobedience, Moses would have died as an infant.
V. The civil disobedience of the Hebrew slaves
A. The acts of the slaves
The acts of the Hebrew slaves began with civil disobedience, but ultimately became, arguably, the greatest act of heroism and faith in the Bible.
Exodus 12:3- 11:”Speak to the whole community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household. But if the household is too small for a lamb, let him share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons; you shall contribute for the lamb according to what each household will eat. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You shall keep watch over it until the fourteenth day of this month; and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it at twilight. They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they are to eat it. They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted – head, legs, and entrails – over the fire. You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.”…”This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall heat it hurriedly; it is a Passover offering to the Lord.”
B. The consequences of the acts
The magnitude of these acts can be realized by first noting that sacrificing a lamb was an abomination to the Egyptians[2]. Anyone sacrificing a lamb was likely to receive severe retribution, perhaps even be killed for the act. Anyone associated with such an act was subject to such retribution. Thus, God was instructing the Hebrew slaves to commit an act which would surely have resulted in severe retribution, if not in their deaths. After carrying out such an act, these people would certainly have to run away to escape the severe consequences of the action. They would have to leave their homes and travel to an unknown future. Not only the people who actually committed the act, but all those who were associated with them would have been required to leave.
The instructions included steps which would make the abomination manifest to all: cooking the lamb over an open fire with herbs. The smell of the cooking lamb flesh would permeate the entire vicinity and notify any and all what was being done. To further make the act manifest, the people were instructed to mark their houses with the blood of the lamb so there would be no doubt in which houses the act was being carried out. It should be noted that marking of the doorposts with the blood of the lamb is often understood as identifying which houses have Israelites living there so the angel of death will know that Israelites live in those houses and pass over those houses. However, this understanding is proved wrong by the fact that God knew exactly who the Israelites were and protected them from the effects of the plagues. See, for example, Ex 8:18 ; 19 “But on that day, I will set apart the region of Goshen, where My people dwell, so that no swarms of insects ahsll be there…And I will make a distinction between My people and your people” Since God knew that His people lived in Goshen, He surely would know which houses to pass over. Furthermore, with the plague of darkness, “People could not see one another, and for three das no once could get up from where he was; but all the Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings.” (10:23). Hence, the “sign” on the doorpost was not a sign to God or to the Angel of Death, it was a sign to the Egyptians that an abomination had occurred in the thus-marked house.
The people were instructed to be ready to flee at a moment’s notice….which should be no surprise given the magnitude of the ac, its implications and the manifest nature thereof.
C. The people’s act was an act of faith in their god as opposed to the Egyptian gods
The people committing this act thus were required to leave their homes and the lives they had made. Even though the Bible tells us the lives of the Hebrews were hard, it was still their lives and what they knew[3]. They were being asked to leave these lives for an uncertain future in the desert. They were asked to do this based on their faith that God would protect them.
This seems to be the greatest act of faith in the Bible. This is an act of faith that is even greater than Abraham’s act of faith in the Akedah. Abraham’s act and its consequences concerned only himself, Sarah and Isaac; this act of faith and its consequences concerned every single family and all the people. Only Abraham and Isaac had to participate in the Akedah. This was an act of faith even greater than Isaac’s at the Akedah where he submitted to possible death by sacrifice because he had faith that God would not allow his father, Abraham, to go through with it and kill an innocent, especially one who was designated as the link between Abraham and the great nation God had promised to him. At the Akedah, only Abraham and Isaac (and Sarah collaterally) were involved, at Exodus here every single family and every single person had to participate. This was an act of faith even greater than Jacob’s act of faith of entering the desert after he received Isaac’s blessing. Again, only Jacob was involved, at Exodus the entire nation was involved. These people were committing an irrevocable act of abomination which was certain to result in their deaths or, at the very least, severe consequences. Yet they did it based on their faith in God[4].
As discussed in the essays “Partners,” “Jacob’s Ladder” and others, at each turning point in history when the previous patriarch or previous generation was about to leave the stage, God had to test the next patriarch or next generation to satisfy Himself that the new patriarch or new generation would be a loyal and faithful partner in the covenant. He tested Abraham, He tested Isaac, He tested Jacob; now He was testing the nation. As was clearly evident by the Passover Feast and their entry into the desert, the people of the nation passed the test.
It might be noted that it appears that this faith was earned by God as opposed to being simply given. First, God persuaded Moses to have faith in Him[5]; then through Moses, God persuaded the people to have faith in Him.
God persuaded Moses through the wonder of the burning bush. However, Moses was unsure how to persuade the people that he had been contacted by God to lead them out of their homes. This would be a more difficult task. Therefore, God set up a situation in which He could demonstrate His power and, specifically, His power over the Egyptian gods. At this time, if a people defeated another people, the god of the winners was considered to be the more powerful god as the victory demonstrated this.
God told Moses to go before Pharaoh and ask for permission to go into the wilderness for three days to perform a ritual in honor of their god. The specific purpose of the ritual is never detailed. However, the ritual would include the sacrifice of a lamb, which as discussed above, was an abomination to the Egyptians. This would be the equivalent of a group of civil servants asking permission of their government to go into a wilderness and burn and desecrate the flag. Of course, permission would not be granted. This really has nothing to do with God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, of course Pharaoh would not allow this. It has everything to do with setting up a situation where Moses could prove that his god was more powerful than the Egyptian gods – certainly to the Egyptians, but most of all, to the Hebrew slaves who would be asked to leave their homes based on their faith in God[6]. The acts would be escalated until there would be no doubt. For this to occur however, Pharaoh had to participate by doubting each act so another, more significant, act could be performed. Therefore, God was using Pharaoh as a tool to prove Himself to the Hebrews[7].
First, Moses performed several “magic” tricks (turning a staff into a snake and vice versa, etc) which were matched by Pharaoh’s own advisors. Thereafter, the acts were escalated into turning the Nile into blood, frogs, vermin, etc all of the Ten Plagues[8]. The last of the plagues, the killing of the Egyptian first born, was of course the final and most powerful demonstration for both the Egyptians and the Hebrew slaves. If God could kill the first born of the Egyptians, surely He was more powerful than the Egyptians and their gods. Thus, the Hebrew slaves could count on God to free them and protect them. They could have faith in God.
God earned the faith of an individual, Abraham, through many acts; He earned the faith of the entire nation through the acts of the Ten Plagues. Abraham demonstrated his individual faith during the Akedah; the nation demonstrated their collective faith at this first Passover. This faith would be tested (such as the episode of the Golden Calf at Mt. Sinai, and during the desert wondering), but God never doubted the Israelites because of their great act of faith at the first Passover.
D. Questions
(1) What was the occasion the Israelites were commemorating with the sacrifice?
Apparently, God had commanded them to conduct a sacrifice – why?
The Hebrews knew the sacrifice would be an abomination to the Egyptians and may cause the Egyptians to kill them. Therefore, they requested that the ceremony be conducted outside of Egypt. Pharaoh suspected that if the Israelites were permitted to leave Egypt, they might not return; plus he may have had reason to doubt the “miracle” nature of the plagues since he might reasonably tie the events were naturally occurring events associated with the Nile. Allowing the slaves to leave under these circumstances was unacceptable for at least two reasons: (1) it might set a precedent and even if the Israelis kept their word and returned, others might not be so honorable; and (2) the Israelis might not return, thereby depriving Pharaoh of a large number of slaves. Therefore, Pharaoh refused. God had to know that he would refuse. Moses asked several times, and each time Pharaoh refused thereby confirming his resolve to not permit the ceremony or the movement. This serves to emphasize how serious Pharaoh was and how serious the consequences were if he is disobeyed. This is not God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, it is God showing the Hebrews how serious the game was.
God then required the Hebrews to conduct the ceremony in Egypt. This serves at least two purposes: (1) as discussed above, this was a test of faith as great as, if not greater than, the test of faith given to Abraham and Isaac at Mount Moriah as that test involved an act of faith from one single person, Abraham (and it was not even his life he was risking), or two (if one considers the test to be of Isaac’s faith as well), or three at most if Sarah is included; whereas, this test required every single person in a collective to agree and have faith that God would deliver them from evil (and they were risking their own lives as well as the lives of their children); and (2) by conducting the ceremony, the fate of the Hebrews was sealed: they absolutely had to leave Egypt; therefore, any Hebrew that was reluctant or was sitting on the fence about whether or not to leave would be forced to leave (this is what is meant by “with a strong hand” – God forced any reluctant Hebrew to leave Egypt)[9].
Therefore, the answer to the question of what occasion were the Hebrews commemorating is: The occasion was – nothing. It was a test for the Hebrews to test their collective faith, and it was intended to irrevocably sever the ties between the Hebrews and Egypt. It was also a show to demonstrate the strength and power of Moses’s god. There was nothing to commemorate – it was an “in your face” act to Pharaoh.
Thus, it might be said that the Passover feast represents the greatest act of faith in our history.
(2) Legal question
This raises a significant legal question. If God forced the Hebrews’ hand by means of the sacrifice and thereby forced them to flee, God really provided no true consideration[10] on which to base the contract (the Jews must accept God in return for His act of freeing them from Egypt). If God had not forced them to flee, they would not have fled and, hence would not have needed His help with the Egyptians. Hence, there was no consideration given by God since He placed them in the situation from which He rescued them. Perhaps this quandary can be solved by saying that most, but not all, the Hebrews wanted freedom and the “strong hand” was only needed for the reluctant ones. But this raises the question of why didn’t God simply rescue the ones who wanted out while leaving the others? And why did God need to test the faith of the ones leaving?
Of course, the answer to this legal question is that legal definitions and laws of men, especially the legal definitions and laws of American jurisprudence, may not apply to the biblical situation of the Exodus. This question is raised merely as a thought provoker.
(3)The Moses questions
As discussed elsewhere (see the essay “Partners”), before God agreed to a partnership with any human(s), He tested that individual, and likewise, before the human(s) agreed to form a partnership with God, he (they) tested Him. Exodus is no different. First God tested Moses: would Moses agree to go back to Egypt since he was a fugitive and if apprehended he might be put to death for killing the Egyptian, next would Moses agree to try to persuade the Israelite slaves who may not trust him since he was a foreigner and a fugitive, next would Moses agree to confront Pharaoh? Moses passed all of these tests. He nearly failed in a test of leadership when he did not circumcise his son, and for that, God nearly killed him thereby ending the partnership, but Zipporah saved the day.
However, the severest test of Moses’s resolve was the faith Moses placed in this entity calling itself God. Moses never asked the entity what it planned to do, or how it planned to persuade the Israelitie slaves to leave their homes or how it planned to persuade Pharaoh to set these people free. Moses received only a broad outline of the plan and assurances. However, why should Moses believe this entity based solely on the magic trick of maintaining a bush in continuous combustion? Moses passed the first test by having faith.
The consequences of the plagues, especially the last one, raise an interesting question. Had Moses known that this entity’s plan including killing innocent children, innocent animals, the soil, and the ecology (all of which God had created in Genesis and charged man with exercising dominion over, hence implying that man was to protect these entities), would Moses have gone along with it?
Still further, this issue is relevant to modern times. In modern times there have been many totalitarian dictators who do not care about their people and who foment terror and war against innocent citizens of other countries. One way to bring down a rogue regime is by blockading them and preventing other countries from doing any business with them. This, in effect, cuts off food and supplies to the rogue’s country[11]. But by cutting off such food and supplies innocent citizens of the rogue’s country are placed in harm, and some may die as the dictator is likely to ignore the sufferingof the citizens of his country and be strong enough to survive an attempted coup. This presents a conundrum for the nations of the world: endanger innocent civilians or allow a rogue dictator to continue creating havoc and endangering citizens of other countries. This problem was ignored in the story of Moses and the plagues so the Bible gave no guidance. The Bible’s solution was to say the solution is simply to allow innocents to die for the greater good of the nation. But this solution was tempered by attributing the solution to God so Moses was, in effect, protected from responsibility.
A further question is raised. Why didn’t Moses argue with God when he found out that the plan included killing innocent animals, and then when he found out that the plan included killing innocent children? Abraham did not hesitate to argue with God about God’s plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:23-25: “Abraham came forward and said, ‘Will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?…will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the judge of all the earth deal Justly?”)[12]. Further, Moses did not hesitate to argue with God regarding the Golden Calf episode (see Ex 32:11). Perhaps he did not question the plan initially because he was naïve. However, naivete will not excuse the failure to argue, or at least question, the second action of killing the Egyptian first born. Perhaps Moses had made the calculation that killing the Egyptian first borns was the price that had to be paid for getting the Israelite slaves out of Egypt and saving the religion.
VI. General Observation
A
theme which seems to run through all of these acts of disobedience, and in fact
runs through many other stories in Genesis, is that one may reject the state or
the laws of the state or the ruler of the state if those laws violate the
well-being of the individual and the members of his household who depend on
him. This seems to be the ethics of a nomad – which the early patriarchs were.
Once this basic requirement is met, the individual can then consider other
ethical duties such as caring for the less fortunate, assisting those in
distress, loyalty, and, importantly: willing to admit an error and own a
transgression. This theme might even be applied to the nation that was founded
by the Exodus: the nation of Israel refused to accept the laws of a state or
ruler over the nation if those laws imperiled or violated the well-being of the
individuals of the nation. Could this be the essence of nationalism (see the
essay “Judaism and Nationalism”)?
THE PEOPLE VERSUS PHAROAH
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- There were some pretty brave people detailed in the Exodus account. Could you have done what any of them did?
- Can you think of any similar other acts of bravery in Exodus? In other parts of the Bible?
- If you would have been on the Egyptian side, what would you have thought of these rebellious slaves? What would you have thought of their God?
- It is stated in the essay that “God was using Pharaoh as a tool to prove Himself to the Hebrews”. This appears to be interfering with Pharaoh’s free will. This is justified in the essay by saying that God uses individuals and thus interferes with their free will if there is a greater purpose to be achieved which outweighs the violation of the basic ground rule that man has free will. The greater purpose here seems to be gaining the confidence of the people so they will follow Him and leave Egypt (for, by staying, the Jewish nation would be lost through assimilation into Egyptian society). Thus, the greater purpose seems to be, as it is in other instances where God interfered with man’s free will, that of saving the entire nation. Can you think of any other reason that would support God’s interference with Pharaoh’s free will?
- Were the midwives Jewish or not?
- Pharaoh’s daughter, Bitya (she pulled Moses’s basket out of the water), was spared when God destroyed the Egyptian’s first borns and she went on to marry Caleb, the only spy sent into the Promised Land who reported truthfully. Why do you think the Bible has Bitya marrying Caleb?
- When the last plague, the killing of the Egyptian first born, occurred, it is said that the Angel of Death would pass by the houses marked with a sign that Hebrews dwelled inside. If you were a Hebrew during that time and an Egyptian came to you and asked you to hide their child in your home, what would you do? Would you hide the Egyptian child and defy your god, or would you turn the Egyptian away because you were either angry at the Egyptians for the way they had treated you (recall the Pharaoh’s order to kill the Hebrew’s first born children) or because you were afraid that God would find out your attempt to circumvent His order and take it out on you?
8. In examining questions revolving around Moses, the essay raises a question about the balancing of evils between the evil of killing innocent children and innocent animals and the evil of allowing the Nation of Israel to die through assimilation into Egyptian society. In modern times there have been many totalitarian dictators who do not care about their people and who foment terror and war against innocent citizens of other countries. One way to bring down a rogue regime is by blocading them and preventing other countries from doing any business with them. As discussed in the essay, this presents a conundrum for the nations of the world: endanger innocent civilians or allow a rogue dictator to continue creating havoc. How would you answer such a difficult question ?
9. Compare and contrast Abraham and Joseph. Do they have the same ethics?
Do they view the state in the same way? Do they view their obligations to the
state in the same way? Do they view their families the same way? Do they
protect their families the same way? Are the ultimate results of their actions
the same? When faced with adversity, did they act the same way? Were they both “free”?
How did each react to and interact with the entity having authority over him?
How about the other patriarchs: Jacob, Cain, Moses?
[1] The Talmud identifies these women as Yokheved, Moses’ mother, Miriam, Moses’ sister, or Elisheva, Aaron’s wife. Josephus contends that these women were Egyptian.
[2] In Exodus 8:21-23, the sacrifice that was being proposed for the Hebrew slaves when they went into the desert was being discussed between Moses and Pharaoh. Pharaoh suggested that the sacrifice be made within the land, and Moses stated: “It would not be right to do this, for what we sacrifice to the Lord our God is untouchable to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice that which is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes, will they not stone us! So we must go a distance of three days into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God as He may command us.” Furthermore, Rashi explains in the Joseph story as to why Egyptians found it distasteful to eat with Hebrews: … are an abomination to Egyptians because sheep are a deity to them. …
[3] While it is generally assumed, and assumed in the Bible, that the lives of the Hebrew “slaves” were difficult, this may not have been the case at all. In “The Pyramid Effect” Scientific American, November 2015, Volume 313, number 5, pages 32-39, author Zach Zorich reports the thesis that the building of the enormous structures in Egypt, such as the pyramid for Khudu (sometimes known as Cheops), was performed by organized labor forces who lived quite well in complex cities. Zorich suggests that the great addition to society from these pyramids was not only the engineering but the sociological benefit from organizing labor. He suggests that the laborers initially came to such a project because they believed the pharaoh was god (not merely a representative of God, but an actual god) and thus believed they were performing a religious act which is far more motivating than force or even money. Zorich suggests that it was this ability to organize labor far from the central location of power that helped to sustain Egypt’s prosperity. This theory has several implications on the Bible’s story of Exodus: (1) leaving the labor force to worship another god would be blasphemous for those who were religiously motivated to serve the pharaoh-god; (2) leaving the labor force would leave large gaps in the network; (3) it also makes the sacrifices of those leaving that much greater because they may have been leaving quite comfortable lives (and not the abject lives of slaves as the Bible reports). Thus, this article sheds new light on why pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews leave to worship in the desert. This view seems to be supported by the statement in Ex 3:22 in which God instructs the Israelite women to “borrow from her neighbor and the lodger in her house objects of silver and gold, and clothing…” Slaves would not have lodgers nor would they live in neighborhoods wealthy enough to have objects of silver and gold. This seems to support the conclusion that the Israelite slaves were actually fairly prosperous and lived in fairly affluent neighborhoods; hence they were not “slaves,” but middle class workers.
[4] Still another act of faith on the part of the people occurred at the shore of the Sea. With the Egyptian army closing on them from behind, the people, based on Moses’s assurance that God would protect them, entered the sea. According to Midrash, the sea did not split until they came right into it, up to their noses (Shemoth Rabba 21:9). This echoes the Akedah where God waited until the very last instant, when the act of faith was a fiat accompli before intervening.
[5] Like nearly every other human contacted by God to conduct a mission (see, for example, Abram, Jacob, Judges), Moses (“Who am I?) had to be persuaded that God was who He said He was and this was achieved through acts by God to show the human that He was God and worthy of the human’s trust (the initial acts of the burning bush, the staff being turned into a snake and the leprosy being cured proved to Moses that God was who He said He was). And the human had to prove to God that he was worthy of God’s trust (Moses’s acts of picking up a deadly snake and allowing his hands to be infected with Leprosy were acts which showed God that Moses was willing to trust Him). This pattern follows the theory propounded in the essay “Partners” that God does not know the outcome and had to test the humans and the humans did not know that God was who He said He was and thus both parties had to prove themselves to the other. This theory would require God to prove Himself to the people before they committed to leaving their homes. Obviously, God proved Himself with the plagues and the defeat of Pharaoh. However, even then, the people did not totally trust God as they continued their questioning until the miracle at the Reed Sea where God finally proved himself to them by drowning the Egyptians. Even then, there was much complaining and questioning during the time in the desert.
[6] In Exodus 10:1-2, God instructed Moses go to Pharaoh whose heart God had hardened along with the heart of his couriers “in order that I may display these signs among them, and that you may recount in the hearing of your sons and of your sons’ sons how I made a mockery of the Egyptians….” “Sons and sons’ sons” could easily be interpreted as being the Hebrew slaves themselves. The signs were to demonstrate who the slaves were being asked to follow. In fact, the Egyptians saw Pharaoh, himself, as a god. By hardening Pharaoh’s heart at will, God was clearly manipulating this “God” for His own purposes. In fact, in Exodus 9:15-16, God specifically says to Pharaoh: “For this time, I will send all My plagues upon your person and your courtiers, and your people, in order that you may know that there is none like Me in all the world. I could have stretched forth my hand and stricken you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been effaced from the earth. Nevertheless, I have spared you for this purpose: in order to show you My power, and in order that My fame resound throughout the world.” Thus, Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart was not a sign of weakness on the part of the Hebrew God, but, on the contrary, a demonstration of His power over other “Gods.” It can also have a double meaning to the later people living at the time the Northern Kingdom, and soon the Southern Kingdom, were about to be overrun by polytheistic people, see the essay on Monotheism.
[7]This is not the last time that God will use a people or a person to prove His point to the people. God will use the Babylonians and the Assyrians to punish the Jews in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms for their sins.
[8] One might wonder why it took so many meetings for Moses and Aaron to persuade the Pharaoh. In some contexts, the term “Pharaoh” might be considered as being equivalent to the term “White House.” Thus, “Pharaoh” is no more a single person than the “White House” is when we speak of “actions from the White House.” In such a view, perhaps Moses and Aaron were conducting meetings with different individuals and different departments within the “Pharaoh” so they might receive permission from one department, but not from another. Thus, “Pharaoh” might seem to grant permission, but harden “his” heart when another department stepped into the situation. Much like obtaining permission from our government today, one may have to go through several agencies before permission is finally granted. Could there have been bureaucracy even in Biblical times?
[9] In Mekhilta and Rashi on Exodus 13:18, Rashi suggests that only twenty percent of the Jews in Egypt vacated when they had the opportunity. That means that some eighty percent of the Jewish slave population were reluctant to leave. Of course, leaving one’s home is traumatic, but sometimes it must be done. This situation might be similar to the situation in Pre-WWII Europe when some Jews saw the danger in the changing political climate and opted to leave their homes, while others were reluctant and stayed, with disastrous consequences.
[10] The definition of “consideration” is: The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract. The reason or material cause of a contract. An act or forbearance, or the promise thereof, which is offered by one party to an agreement, and accepted by the other as an inducement to that other’s act or promise.” Black’s Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co, St. Paul, MN, 1968). The consideration must be something that the other party does not already have in order to be a benefit to that other party.
[11] Some such actions make exceptions for medical supplies. But this provides a huge loophole for the dictator to define supplies as “medical” and bring in whatever he likes. Even without this redefinition, the allowance of medical supplies places other countries on a slippery slope: if medical supplies are permitted, why not also permit food for the starving, and so forth? Thus, to be fully effective, such a blockade should be total and absolute.
[12] It should be observed that there were upright people who wanted to do the right thing in Egypt at the time and would seem to qualify as the type of innocents that should be saved as they were trying to persuade and teach Pharaoh the proper way (see the essay “Guilt” here the concept of punishing innocents is discussed), see Ex 9:20: “those among Pharaoh’s courtiers who feared the Lord…” and 10:7: “Pharaoh’s courtiers said to him, ‘How long shall this one be a snare to us? Let the men go to worship the Lord their God! Are you not aware that Egypt is lost?”