| ||
There can be a big difference between the Bible stories you learned in Sunday school (or in the movies) and the details of the stories when you actually read them as an adult. Most of the time, the adult version is a lot cooler. So for example, we all know that Charlton Heston’s Moses demanded of Pharaoh: “Let my people go!” What’s interesting is that, in the Bible story, even though Moses does say those exact words, they are only the start of a sentence. And what he goes on to say makes a huge difference in the meaning of the story:
The catch is, the festival God instructs Moses to request is supposed to be for just a few days (see Ex 5:3), after which the Israelites will come back to Egypt and resume their slavery. But that clearly isn’t what God actually has in mind. As readers, most of us assume that Moses’ request is for a permanent exodus of the people; and this is natural enough, since God has already told Moses that they’re leaving for good (Ex 3:8); we assume God wouldn’t tell Moses to lie. But as the story goes on, it becomes clear that what Moses is asking for is quite different from what God has planned. None of this is particularly hidden in the story. Pharaoh clearly starts to catch on to what Moses is doing (e.g., Ex 10:10), and he tries to put restrictions on Israel’s departure. Moses, in response, manufactures excuses to cover up his true intentions. When Pharaoh tells them to sacrifice within the land, Moses claims that the Israelites’ sacrifices are too offensive to the Egyptians (8:26). When Pharaoh says they have to leave their children in Egypt—obviously an attempt to make sure the Israelites will have motivation to return—Moses insists that all the people must be present for Yahweh’s festival (10:9). And when Pharaoh says Israel must leave some of its cattle behind (10:24), Moses insists that they will only know which cattle to sacrifice once they arrive at their place of worship (10:26). We could try to construe each of these excuses as legitimate, but it looks far more like a shrewd game of cat and mouse between Moses and Pharaoh. The Sting This much, it seems to me, is fairly clear from a simple reading of the story, and even many casual readers have no doubt noticed it before. However, there’s another angle to the deception that most translations obscure. Exodus 12:35-36 describes how the Israelites leave Egypt:
I don’t know about everyone else, but this always seemed strange to me. Clearly God could manipulate the Egyptians into doing whatever God wanted, but still it seems as if it should make more sense. There’s a simple solution that I think makes far more sense of the story than the traditional interpretation. The words translated “asked” and “let them have” in the NRSV above take their meaning from context; in this context they can be better translated “asked to borrow” and “lent.” In other words, the Israelites were told to “borrow” their neighbors’ valuables when they knew––but the Egyptians didn’t know––that they would be leaving almost immediately. After the plague of the first-born, Israel would depart the country before the Egyptians had a chance to ask for everything back. That’s why it was called plundering Ancient and modern interpreters have often glossed over the passage to make Israel appear more honest, but that’s hardly necessary. The deception, as it turns out, is exactly parallel to the one God and Moses were attempting against Pharaoh: asking for something on loan, but planning all along to keep it permanently. Who is this God? The only real problem with this story is that it challenges some of our ideals about God. If God were going to bring Israel out by force, why use deception? And isn’t God supposed to be completely honest, by God’s very nature? God can’t lie, right? Isn’t that what Hebrews 6:18 says? For what it’s worth, there’s probably a better interpretation of that Hebrews passage, relating it to a particular oath God took toward Abraham rather than to divine honesty in general. However, that may be beside the point. Passages like the Exodus story challenge us to consider parts of God’s work that don’t fit with pious sensibilities. God isn’t, after all, Christian, and there is such a thing as a command for humans that God doesn’t have to obey. In this case, I think the point is that God’s triumph over Pharaoh and over Egypt is total. God is not content merely to free Israel from slavery, but rather God intensifies the situation to bring judgment and devastation upon Pharaoh and his people. And even then, God could have gone ahead with the plagues even if Pharaoh had let the Israelites go immediately. It seems, then, that God’s purpose was not to force Pharaoh’s hand but to humiliate him. God wanted Pharaoh to bring destruction upon himself, and if he wasn’t going to fall for God’s ruse, he was going to be brought down by his own stubbornness. The plundering of the Egyptian people just added insult to injury. That’s not the God we want to model our behavior (or our national policy!) after, but it appears that it is Yahweh, the God of the Bible. See James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 553–557. |
April 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Nicely explained.
It is interesting to consider that a slave people could ask to borrow something from their oppressors and gain anything but abuse. My guess is that the Egyptians weren’t so much benevolent slave owners (though it’s entirely possible; I’m no ANE scholar), as it is that they were sort of painted into a corner by the preceding plagues. By the time the Israelites asked for what they asked for, they had become a people you knew not to mess with.
Also pertaining to slavery, it seems like this duplicitous garnering of wealth can be seen as ‘backpay’ for the Israelites’ ‘work’ in Egypt.
But we still run into Christian problems here, as God immediately turned around and set up Israel with lax provisions for keeping foreign slaves. Slavery in the OT is not a golden rule or Good Samaritan situation.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Interesting that you bring up the question of backpay, because Philo (writing 1st century A.D.) made a similar point.
Always wanting to emphasize good virtue (Philo was extremely hellenized), he said they took the plunder “not in order to gratify any love of money, or as any userer might say, because they coveted their neighbours’ goods. (How should they do so?) But, first of all, because they were thus receiving the necessary wages from those whom they had served for so long a time; and, secondly, because they had a right to afflict those at whose hands they had suffered wrong with afflictions slighter than, and by no means equal to, what they had endured. For how can the deprivation of money and treasures be equivalent to the loss of liberty?” (Life of Moses 1.141)
April 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Interesting post. I’m not so certian that we can conflate Moses’ maneuvers with God’s ultimate intent here, and I also agree with j.burton’s objections on the ‘loan’ issue- well put.
But what prompted me to respond here was your statement that the passages like these challenge our ‘pious sensibilities.’ I might agree with you. We the church can often reduce the full glory and drama of God’s Word to a simplistic moral feel-good-ism that needs to be shaken up sometimes. But attacks on ‘pious sensibilities’ can also have a more sinister meaning, that is, to suggest that belief in the authority of the Scriptures and their accuracy in portraying God are unfounded products of an uncritical ‘piety.’ I’m a little unclear on which you intend here (or maybe a little of each?), especially given your concluding thoughts.
Sure, we absolutely have to approach Scripture with the understanding that God has greater power, understanding, prerogative than humanity. But given this caveat, we still need to conform ourselves to the pattern He lays out for us (according to the fullness of His revelation in Scripture, of course, not according to casual proof texts). And to the extent that Christians in a democracy comprise part of the body politic, I have to advocate that we should seek to influence national policy according to that pattern. Outside of the model given by God, can we really find a sufficient guide for life and action?
Thoughts?
April 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Hey Brian! Welcome to the blog.
b_egelston wrote: I’m not so certian that we can conflate Moses’ maneuvers with God’s ultimate intent here.
Seems to me you almost have to, since what Moses tells Pharaoh (5:1) is the same thing God told him to say (Ex 3:18-19). So if Moses was trying to deceive Pharaoh, God was too, right? Or maybe that’s not what you were getting at…
April 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
It is important that we not import our assumptions about God to the texts that we read, yet we are still forced to find ways to understand texts (which the church has affirmed as important) that seem contradictory. In an effort to do that, is there any merit in view this story not as God deceiving a human, but God challenging another god? Pharoah was considered an egyptian god, right? Take boxing as an analogy. Outside of the the boxing ring, it is not okay to hit people. But in the boxing ring, it is okay to hit the other person because you both know the rules and have agreed to them. Could it be the same in a confrontation of gods?
April 13th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Thanks, Scott!
Let me flesh out what I meant a little more here-
In 5:1, Moses repeats God’s message to Pharaoh. Pharaoh predictably says no. After that, the “Thus says the Lord” drops out of the dialog. Could that be an indication that Moses is now taking his commission and running with it, so to speak? It wouldn’t be the first or last time in the Pentateuch that Moses acts somewhat independently of what God intends.
I’m with you in your analysis that God’s intent here(beyond liberating His chosen people, that is) is to demonstrate a total triumph over Pharaoh and all the forces he represents (props to micah). Having the tricksy little Hebrewses get away by sneaking off into the desert wouldn’t really accomplish that. Pharaoh’s flat refusal (as in 5:2) plays into the scenario better than Moses’ machinations. It’s difficult to argue one way or the other from the text, but it seems probable that Pharaoh would have a good idea from the get-go that if he lets the Israelites leave, his chances of getting them back would be pretty slim.
As the interplay continues through the story, Pharaoh’s increasing desperation to strike a deal seems more like prevarication to me. He keeps coming up with reasons not to do exactly what God commanded him to do through Moses. Measuring the opposition, maybe? Trying to find a way out the corner he’d backed himself into? Might be that Pharaoh’s the sneaky one here. Either way, he doesn’t come out too well in the end. I think there’s theological implication in the history here. Humans shouldn’t try to play fast and loose with what God commands. In doing so, they are indeed setting themselves up as an alternate divine authority. But as the plagues show, if you can’t run the big Gods, you’d better just stay on the porch.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I think that’s a good point, that the story doesn’t tell us, after God’s initial lie to Pharaoh (as I would call it), whether God keeps feeding Moses the responses to give to Pharaoh, or whether Moses comes up with them on his own.
Still, when Moses makes excuses, isn’t he just covering for the lie God told him to tell? Pharaoh essentially calls his bluff when he tells the Israelites they need to leave their non-sacrifical cattle behind (10:24), and it seems to me that Moses’ response (which really is kind of comical) just continues that same line of deception. Since God doesn’t give Moses a different (more up-front) line of explanation to use, it seems God intends to go through with the deception. I agree that Pharaoh is smart enough not to buy it. Still, God never says to drop the charade, so I’m not sure we can pin any of the blame on Moses (if that’s what you were doing).
Also, the part about borrowing from the neighbors is there from the beginning (3:21-22) too. Although it’s not explicitly an act of deception, I think the way the story works (and especially the parallel to God asking to “borrow” Israel) supports the idea that it is.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
By the way, Brian, was “the tricksy little Hebrewses” an LOTR reference? Pretty sly intertextual move there, if the reference was to Pharaoh as an ultimately weak being who had gained apparent power through a possession that came to dominate his desires and lead to his ultimate self-destruction.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Micah–I love the boxing reference.
I think the idea that God plays by different rules than humans is one of the most overlooked points of biblical interpretation. (I try to argue for it here.) As I read it, God specifically commanded the Israelites to steal from the Egyptians, yet God has specifically commanded us (as I read the NT) to return good for evil and not even demand back what is taken from us.
Frankly, I think that defending God as matching norms of human behavior is dangerous, because it lulls us into thinking that our behavior and God’s behavior should look similar. At times this is true (be holy, as God is holy), but overall, I think we need to recognize a sharp divide between God’s behavior and ours, such that we don’t take it upon ourselves to do all the things God does. On this point, I think God’s statement, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Rom 12:19, quoting Deut 32:35) is key.
In that sense, places like this where God instructs people to do things that we would consider wrong might be intended to remind us that we are to obey the instructions that accompany the covenant God has made with us, not just read about God and take it upon ourselves to do all the same things God does. As they say (I heard it from Randy Harris), trying to act like God is how you get kicked out of the garden, not how you get back in.
God fought violently, and maybe even dirty, but God was making the rules. It’s a scary thought that God can use that kind of violence and call it “justice” (my friend Matt might have a field day with this); however, that belief is far less dangerous once we acknowledge that we have been forbidden to do the same thing.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hey Scott,
I just wanted to let you know that we discussed this blog post at Sunday night Bible study yesterday. THANKS. It was a great discussion. We all wished that you could have been there in the flesh to lead it… but, we will have to settle for you in blog form.
Hope you are doing well in Boston. Are you going to be down this way at all this summer?
April 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Kathryn-
Thanks for telling me about that –– I feel honored, and I would have loved to have been there.
Boston was a particularly great place to live today, since I got to walk 5 minutes down the street to Commonwealth Avenue and watch the mens’ leaders (and then probably 5,000 more runners) pass the 19-mile marker of the Boston Marathon. Very cool.
Most likely I’ll be down to NJ late in the summer––my quickly deteriorating car can’t handle a trip right now, but I should have another one in August.
Also, I got to see your blog for the first time the other day, and really enjoyed it; I look forward to reading.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
b_egelston wrote: But attacks on ‘pious sensibilities’ can also have a more sinister meaning, that is, to suggest that belief in the authority of the Scriptures and their accuracy in portraying God are unfounded products of an uncritical ‘piety.’
I can see how someone could read what I wrote and take it as affirmation of blowing off Scripture as if only simpletons try to obey it. I want to obey Scripture, but I’m also determined to pursue what I would call an honest reading of it. The “pious sensibilities” I’m talking about are the ones that lead people to do things like saying a passage means something different than what it seems to mean, just because we don’t think God would have done something a particular way.
Sometimes this is done for good (or rather, understandable) reasons, especially when it seems to contradict (or maybe really does contradict) other parts of Scripture. But one of my projects here is to argue that that’s not sufficient reason to reject an interpretation. Even if we eventually reject some perspectives of Scripture in favor of others, I think it’s important that we first try to read them for what they were originally written to say. Otherwise we’re likely to miss something.
This cuts both ways across stereotypical conservative and liberal approaches, in that pious people are just about as likely to say “God wouldn’t have killed all those people” as to say, “God wouldn’t have allowed contradictions in Scripture.” (That’s a point I tried to make recently in a post here.)
People act as if it’s safer if we just assume Scripture will be consistent and then try to show how it is so. Yet the push to harmonize things is just as likely to make us miss something that the story is saying––in this case (I think), that God used deception and theft to attack, plunder, and embarrass the Egyptians.
Someone might say that’s just my reading of the story, but it seems to me the only reason to read it otherwise is if we come in with the idea that God wouldn’t have lied. But what if God did lie, and wants us to know it? God sure seems to have said as much, at least in this text.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I guy in my home Bible study tonight said something pretty insightful, I think. We were discussing God sending an evil spirit to torment Saul in 1 Samuel 16. We were struggling through why God would do something so evil as to send an evil spirit. He basically said that he thinks we are meant to struggle with seemingly different/contradictory behavior from God. That is part of our relationship with Him. That sounds kind of like what you are trying to do in reading scripture.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Micah-
That’s cool, because last night after I read your comment, I got in bed and was reading C.S. Lewis’s A Grief Observed, and he says something kind of similar. He’s comparing the pitfalls in forming mental images of either God or his late wife:
I need Christ, not something that resembles Him. I want Joy, not something that is like her. A really good photograph might become in the end a snare, a horror, and an obstacle…Images of the Holy easily become holy––sacrosanct. My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself. He is the great iconoclast. Could we not almost say that this shattering is one of the marks of His presence? The Incarnation is the supreme example; it leaves all previous ideas of the Messiah in ruins. And most are “offended” by the iconoclasm; and blessed are those who are not. But the same thing happens in our private prayers.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Justin wrote (in the very first comment): But we still run into Christian problems here, as God immediately turned around and set up Israel with lax provisions for keeping foreign slaves. Slavery in the OT is not a golden rule or Good Samaritan situation.
Yeah, it’s tough to find explicit affirmation in the Bible that slavery is wrong; you have to start instead with the ethics of how we’re called to treat people, and then extrapolate that, according to how we understand the world and human relationships now, it’s impossible to own a slave and behave toward them as a Christian is called to behave.
As to the exodus story, I was teaching a Sunday school class to junior highers a few years ago (after Prince of Egypt came out), and I asked one of the students why God freed the Israelites from Egypt. He answered something like, “because a kingdom shouldn’t be built on the backs of slaves?”, which was the answer the movie had given.
But, as it turns out, there were plenty of other slaves in the world at the time, and God apparently didn’t set any of them free. As far as I can tell, the reasons given in Exodus for God to set the Israelites free are (1) that they are God’s people (Ex 3:7), and (2) that God remembers the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 6:5).
So God doesn’t set them free for the sake of justice so much as for the sake of a covenant and a promise.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
You are provoking me to read my Bible more.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Glad to hear it. I’m a big believer that interpretations are always provisional––we always notice new things––so I’d be interested to hear whether you think this one stands up to scrutiny. (As you would probably guess from the post and comments, I mean scrutiny within the story itself.)