Home   Exodus

The story of the Exodus (2)

Exodus – Time for Christianity to Exit?

There are many issues raised by our sacred book but being specific in this paper, I believe it is very necessary for the church to ‘call out’ and repudiate the violent activity of the God, putting it into its historical and theological context.  Violence by God is depicted on so many of the Bible’s pages, particularly of the Old Testament but also to a much lesser extent of the New.  Hence this paper on the Exodus story.

Embracing and articulating a ‘different perspective, version, understanding, interpretation’ about the past, different to that which is ‘usual’ or sometimes ‘official’, can often be very difficult and painful, because it can bring to the light those parts of history we might wish to ignore or forget; parts that we may not wish to discuss with, or teach to those who may not know.  It can raise those parts of history about which many of us take a very different posture today, but it can also raise guilt feelings which we find very uncomfortable and to a degree, sometimes wish to ignore. 

When Jesus involved himself in this exercise about his Jewish history in the Hebrew Scriptures, he got himself into strife. Early in his ministry, we are told, he was in the synagogue at Nazareth, teaching. The reaction of those listening was,

And all spoke well of him and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth ;…(Luke 4:22.)

However, the gospel writer tells us that Jesus continued his teaching with,

And he (Jesus) said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country.  But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon to a woman who was a widow.  (Referring to a story in 1 Kings 17:8-24.)  And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha; and none of them were cleansed but only Naaman the Syrian.  (Referring to a story in 2 Kings 5:1-14.)  (Luke 4:24-27.)

Jesus certainly knew his Jewish scriptures.  Very selective in his quoting, but the stories are there and may have been avoided by the current religious leaders and teachers. He was confronting in doing this. Was this exposing a side of their history his fellow Jews did not want to hear? The stories he was referring to, were suggesting that foreigners were respected and even cared for more than their own Jewish ancestors. What was the result?

When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath, and they rose up and put him out of the city and they lead him to the brow of a hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.  But passing through the midst of them he went away.  (Luke 4:28-30.)

I find it worrying that this can be the reaction when other than status quo understandings and attitudes are articulated. The fear of persecution or ostracization may even lead to the avoidance of this activity, particularly if it is thought that this persecution could be carried out by members of one’s own ‘tribe’.  It may also lead to unwanted division within the ‘tribe.’

So, I hope you find this paper useful.  It is my honest attempt to put before you this ‘different perspective, version, understanding, interpretation’, of the Exodus story.  I have tried very hard to put behind me, my own prejudices and opinions, so that I can look at the biblical text of the story objectively and concentrate on that text itself. I have made 89 direct references to the story from the book of Exodus, and 31 indirecrt references, in my effort to let the text speak for itself.   You can be the judge of how successful I have been.

The God-concepts in the Exodus story.

Although extremely difficult for me, I feel I need to construct this paper using the concepts of God that are nearly universal in the church and certainly promoted right throughout the Bible, and in particular, in the story of the Exodus.   These concepts include the anthropomorphic characterization of God, that God is a being, a person, who ‘does things’.  This biblical God intervenes in human history to execute God’s will and purpose, very evident in the Exodus story.  

Being a panentheist, I find these concepts unhelpful, so I have quite different images when speaking of God.  My concept of God is that God is in everything, and everything is in God, so for me, the life force, the inherent underlying foundation of all that is, the divine/sacred dimension of everything, is ‘involved’ but not intervening as a ‘person’ from ‘outside’. 

In this paper I use biblical images and concepts to try to connect with regular churchgoers, because I think this is where they start.  But, by using them, I do not wish to convey the impression that I like using them, or that they are the foundational images and concepts of God that I embrace.  Not so!

In this paper I refer to ‘Reader-Response interpretation’.  Because of the study I have done regarding the numerous Bible references I make throughout this paper, I recognise my interpretations can differ from other people’s interpretation.  I have found that very different interpretations are given by various biblical commentators when they deal with the same text. 

‘Reader-Response interpretation’ is reading into the text one’s own experience of one’s own day and culture, rather than reading the text itself, taking note of what the text states and then learning from it, always taking into serious consideration its 1st Century middle eastern cultural context.

I think those who have preached, using the Bible as their prime resource, have indulged in this ‘Reader-Response interpretation’ a great deal, and in extreme cases, have created their own text and then proclaimed it as being what the Bible teaches. I have been and still am certainly involved in this sort of interpretation, hopefully not to an extreme.

Moises Silva expounds on this matter.

Insofar as every reader brings an interpretive framework to the text, to that extent every reader generates a new meaning, and thus creates a new text.  [1]

 Edgar McKnight, a respected proponent of Reader-Response theory, suggests that since we cannot completely break out of our self-validating system, ultimate meaning is unreachable. All we can hope for is to discover and express truth ‘in terms that make sense within a particular universe of meaning’.  We may, therefore, continue to discover or create meaning, ‘which is satisfying for the present location of the reader’.  [2]

In this paper I am claiming to express a ‘different perspective, version, understanding, interpretation’, of the Exodus story, different to that which I have been taught by the church as well as I can remember it.  I hope I am not indulging in ‘Reader-Response interpretation’ to any great extent.

Violence and the biblical God who uses it and commands its use.  

For me, one of the very troublesome issues is violence in the Bible. 

Violence must have a place in talking about humanity’s past and the church’s past.  However, when talking about the past in the Bible involves talking about a God being violent and commanding humans to be violent, I have a huge problem.  Not only because it is there, but also that it is often either just accepted, explained away, ignored or avoided.  

For years I have been faithfully questioning many parts of the Bible as to whether they really teach me about the God of love that I perceive Jesus taught and reflected in his life.  I have no right to expect all the stories in the Old Testament to teach me about this God, however, being a follower of Jesus and a member of the church, I have the whole Bible, including the Old Testament with its stories and its teachings in front of me.  In every church service, at least one, and sometimes up to four Bible passages are read.  This is solid evidence that the Bible is extremely important in the instruction of Christian beliefs and a true guide for how we should live.  However, I need to determine whether particular biblical stories and teachings help my spiritual growth or hinder it.  I believe this dilemma is shared by many regular churchgoers, but many who think about this issue of violence, put it out of sight because it is just too difficult. Why is it difficult? Because the Bible is revered as authoritative, but it has stories in it that speak of a God demanding the slaughter of infants and children!

The other day I was sharing with a friend in my congregation, my concern about violence in the Old Testament.  She is one whom I regard as a faithful follower of Jesus.  She is a regular churchgoer like me. She said to me, “Well George, just don’t read it.”  Maybe sound advice.  However, the whole content of the Bible is still available for everyone, including us churchgoers, to read and study. So my concern remains.  When such issues are addressed, and when followed by essential, competent teaching, this helps us, regular churchgoers, address issues. 

So, to my endeavor, regarding the story of the Exodus.

At the outset, I wish to say that in the Bible, the violence of God and God’s commands to be violent, are nearly always God’s response to idolatry, worshipping other Gods, linked together with the practice of injustice and corruption by the Israelites and or their national and religious leaders. 

As an example, a quote from Jeremiah.

For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed blood in this place, and if you do not go after other Gods to your own hurt, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever.  (Jeremiah 7:5-7.)

This connection of the worship of other Gods and the practice of justice in society are linked continuously throughout the Bible, is that which incurs God’s judgement, and consequentially, particularly in the Old Testament, God’s violent punishment. 

However, it must also be acknowledged that the violence of God is sometimes directed at the enemies of God’s chosen people. This is often very excessive, as, I believe, it is in the Exodus story. 

The violent activity by God is a huge problem for me, particularly as it is a significant part of what many early stories of the Bible tell me about God.  It takes the Bible only about 100 verses, not counting verses which are just lists of names in genealogies, for this biblical God to impose and carry out the death penalty on all humanity except one family and a few animals; Noah plus; see Genesis 6:7.  This God burns to death all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah except one family; see Genesis 19:24-25.  And this God systematically inflicts death and destruction on the whole land of Egypt, including innocent men, women, youths and children; see Exodus chapters 7 to 14. 

These stories are the product of a theology of about 3000 years ago, and I take none of them literally but for me, the image of God presented in them is abhorrent. 

This violent image of God continues throughout the early books of the Old Testament but later, there are many references to this God of wrath and vengeance in the prophets, fighting against idolaters and God’s enemies. 

And the angel the Lord…slew 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians.  (Isaiah 37:36.)

The violence of God also continues in the later books of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea and Micah.  These prophetic books are often appropriately quoted about God’s love, mercy and forgiveness and about God demanding justice and mercy from human beings in the exercise of their personal relationships with each other.  An important example of this is in the Book of Micah, in which there is the familiar text of significant moral challenge.  Notice again how the exercise of justice is linked to the peoples’ relationship to God. 

He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.  (Micah 6:8.)

However, only nine verses before this injunction, God says that God will act very violently.

I will root out your Asherim from among you and destroy your cities. And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance upon the nations that did not obey.  (Micah 5:14-15.)

Asherim refer to Gods, other than Yahweh, Israel’s God, who were worshipped.

This violent image of God is not absent in the New Testament, as is clearly demonstrated in certain texts in the gospels and other parts of the New Testament, especially the Book of Revelation.

Along with most regular churchgoers, I do not believe in a violent or punitive God.  I think this is because I do hear in most church services, a lot of the good content of the Bible.  The violent image of God is by no means the only image of God presented in the Bible and in particular, in the Old Testament.  Far from it, however, in my experience, as I remember it, there has been a skewed instruction about our sacred book, which can be pinned down to a lack of reading from the ‘dark’ side of its content. 

At this stage I need to say that I believe this violent image of God plays little to no part in the message of Jesus, as I understand it, and I find it significant that Jesus seems to avoid using parts of this ‘dark’ side of his Jewish scripture, in his preaching.  I give examples of this a bit later.

Probably the worst story.

It is the notorious story in 1 Samuel 15.  It deals with the first command the Lord gave, through the prophet Samuel, to King Saul after he had been anointed king.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt.  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’  (1 Samuel 15:3.)

Saul did not follow the commands of the Lord, to the letter. He took Agag, the king of the Amalekites, a live prisoner, and did not kill the best of the animals. This story concludes with how Samuel kills Agag, by ‘hewing him in pieces before the Lord’; see. 1 Samuel 15:33.

I believe this whole story is a disgraceful story regarding the image of God contained in it.  Not a story to be read in a church service, especially if it is concluded with, ‘In this is the Word of God. Thanks be to God.’  Also, not a story for Sunday School children.

The Exodus story.

The Exodus story is significant to me because it is taught as an important part of my Christian heritage, and it still features in some church liturgies and sermons.   This particular story is a pivotal story for the Children of Israel, told as the biblical history of their great national liberation.  Marcus Borg writes,

For the people of ancient Israel, the story of the exodus from Egypt was their ‘primal narrative’. It was the most important story they knew.  [3]

Also,

…as Israel’s primal narrative, the exodus account is a paradigmatic story of God’s character and will.  [4]

Also, I pick on the Exodus story because it is considered by some as a paradigm story for the whole of the Old Testament, and beyond.  Father Richer Rohr states,

One of the great themes in the Bible, which begins in the Hebrew Scriptures and is continued in Jesus and Paul, is called ‘the preferential option for the poor’; I call it ‘the bias toward the bottom’.  We see the beginnings of this theme about 1200 years before Christ with an enslaved people in Egypt.  Through their history God chooses to engage humanity in a social and long-standing conversation.  The Hebrew people’s exodus out of slavery, through twists and turns and dead ends, finally brings them to the Promised Land, eventually called Israel.  This is a standing archetype of the perennial spiritual journey from entrapment to liberation.  It is a universal journey.  [5]

My ‘perspective, version, understanding, interpretation’.

Reasonably recent translations of the Bible are what many regular churchgoers have, and I am trying to put this paper together as one of those, a regular churchgoer.  So, in my study of this Exodus story, I have concentrated very much on the biblical text in the Revised Standard Version.  

The Story.

The Exodus story, as I understand it and interpret it, presents a particular image of God within it.  It presents an image of God as a separate, supernatural, very powerful Being, intervening in human history to execute God’s will and purpose. At the time of writing, ‘the Lord’ was understood to be the Hebrew’s God.

In a nutshell, this is the story I have been taught, as I remember it.

The Hebrews, called the Children of Abraham, were a large group of oppressed slaves in Egypt and their cries of suffering were heard by God, so God came down to earth and sent Moses to announce God’s work of liberation.  God sent ten plagues to demonstrate God’s power in ‘signs and wonders’, and through them, punished Egypt because Pharaoh would not let the Hebrew slaves, God’s people, go.  The first nine plagues in the story are; water in the Nile River and all over Egypt, turned into blood; frogs; lice and gnats; flies; cattle death; boils; thunder, hail and fire; locusts and darkness for three days. These plagues caused untold death and destruction in all the land of Egypt, the death of all animals and the total destruction of all vegetation, fruit, plants and trees. 

The last and most devastating plague was that of the human death of the first-born of all Egyptian families thus causing the death of countless humans, some infants, as well as many older children and adults.

At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle.  (Exodus 12:29.)

After this, Pharaoh, wanting to rid himself and Egypt of these Hebrew slaves, submits to the Lord’s demand to let them go, but as they are escaping, Pharaoh turns on them again.  The Hebrews slaves get caught at the edge of the Red Sea, with a sea of water in front of them and Pharaoh with his warriors behind them.  The Hebrews are terrified.  But God, in a show of almighty power, ‘divides’ the waters, enabling the Hebrew slaves to go forward on ‘dry land’.

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.  And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry land, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.  (Exodus 14:21-22.)

The Egyptians had their hearts ‘hardened’ by God so that they pursued the escaping slaves. All the Egyptians in chariots and all Pharaoh’s horsemen get drowned when God ‘returned’ the water to its natural position.  Thus, God demonstrated, yet again, God’s power in this final ‘sign and wonder’.

And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, so that they shall go in after them and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots and his horsemen.  And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.  (Exodus 14:17-18.)

Also,

The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained.  (Exodus 14:28.)

As a consequence of this final and most powerful ‘sign and wonder’, the people of Israel are at last liberated from their bitter slavery and continue their journey as God’s chosen people, freed from the oppression of Pharaoh.  God’s power is greater than Pharaoh’s, so the Hebrews’ great liberation is achieved.

This is how I remember the story.

I read the story again, for the First Time.

With the above biblical introduction to the story, I read the story again ‘for the first time’.  Thanks to Marcus Borg for that phrase.  Initially I was delighted that the Lord was on the side of the desperately suffering slaves.  At last, they had someone who was concerned about their suffering and wanted to do something about it.  Apparently, they could not do anything about it for themselves.  Their life had been so wretched for so long!  They needed help.  But now, being on their side, God was going to do something.  That was all very positive. 

But alas, as the story continued, I became more and more disillusioned with the Lord, who inflicted so much suffering and destruction on all the land of Egypt and its inhabitants, eventually killing thousands of Egyptian men, women and children, in order to free the slaves

Five interwoven themes of the story.

So, to my analysis of the story.  After a close reading of the Exodus story itself, in chapters 7 to 15, there seems to me to be five different, but intimately connected themes running through the whole story.

1.     God’s self-promotion suggests to me that the Lord insists, ‘I am the Lord’, to be acknowledged universally.  This recognition was to be given throughout all the earth.  This Lord is determined to ‘gain glory’.

2. The Lord intends to free God’s people from the cruel, oppressive rule of Pharaoh.

3. God enlists human agents, Moses or Aaron or both, to communicate with Pharaoh and to cooperate with the Lord in performing the Lord’s ‘signs and wonders’.

4. The Lord ‘hardens’ Pharaoh’s heart and the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will resist God’s power.

5. Pharaoh is very brutal and is continually obstinate in refusing to obey the Lord’s commands and to recognize the Lord as ‘Lord’.

The text is saturated with all five.

I use both ‘God’ and ‘the Lord’ throughout this paper, because I believe there is no distinction between the two in the minds of regular churchgoers, and, more importantly, in the minds of the writers of the story.  ‘The Lord’ is ‘God’ and vice-versa.

1.     God gaining glory.

I cannot ignore the self-promotion by the Lord.  The story is full of it.  In my interpretation, ‘I am the Lord’ is a short, emphatic proclamation that demands an immediate response.  This self-promotion as well as self-identification, occurs 15 times.  ‘I am the Lord.’ occurs in the text as spoken by the Lord or by Moses, quoting the Lord to Pharaoh and others.  Seven times in the text it is stated that something will happen ‘so that they will know that I am the Lord’.  God’s intention is for God’s name to be known throughout the earth and be acknowledged as its Lord; see Ex. 9:14,16,29.  This emphasis on God ‘gaining glory’ is stated several times late in the story, notably as the reason for the last ‘sign and wonder’; see Ex. 14:4,17-18.

Brueggemann states in his commentary about this last ‘sign and wonder’ that,

The reason for Yahweh’s action is crucial for our interpretation.  The last confrontation will be staged so that “I will get glory over Pharaoh.”  Yahweh arranges the confrontation as an exhibition of enormous power, not for the sake of Israel.  The final decisive intention is not Israelite freedom, but Yahweh’s glory, which is decisive.  The outcome of the struggle (which Yahweh will win) is that Pharaoh in all his recalcitrance shall come at last to know “I am Yahweh.”  [6]

In other words, in the final ‘sign and wonder’ of God, this first theme, that of the Lord wanting to ‘gain glory’ and be recognized as Lord of all, totally overshadows the second theme, mentioned below, that of the emancipation of the Hebrew slaves.  Parting of the waters is the final act which secures the successful escape of the slaves, yet that is not mentioned as the reason for this last ‘sign and wonder’.  It all has to do with God ‘gaining glory.’

2.     God freeing the Hebrew slaves.

From the very beginning, God’s intention to free the Hebrew slaves is made abundantly clear; see Ex. 3:7-10.  The Lord is aware of God’s peoples’ situation of suffering; see Ex. 3:7-8, 6:5; and God demands the freedom of God’s people by commanding Pharaoh to “Let my people go.”  This demand occurs six times in the text; see Ex. 7:16, 8:1,20, 9:1,13, 10:3, however, every one of these is linked to the first emphasis above, because the full demand is “Let my people go that they may worship me.”  For me, the purpose as stated in the text, is not specifically to give freedom to the slaves, which is vital and obviously intended by God, but that ‘they may serve me’, thus giving the Lord more glory.  Was the Lord’s main intention the freedom of the slaves, or the worship they would give the Lord after their liberation?  Obviously, both were important.  Freeing the Hebrew slaves is certainly a major intention of the Lord.  God chose to be on the side of the oppressed and because they were God’s people.  God also intends to make good God’s promise in the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; see Ex. 6:4-8. 

3.     God enlists Moses’ and Aaron’s cooperation.

The Lord uses Moses or Aaron as God’s agents to communicate all God’s messages and demands to Pharaoh, sometimes at great risk to their own safety; see Ex. 10:28.  The Lord never speaks directly to Pharaoh.  God enlists Moses’ and Aaron’s cooperation by constantly being the Lord’s mouthpiece, and also by doing certain things like using Aaron’s rod; see Ex. 7:9,20, 8:5,17, 9:25, 10:13, 14:16, throwing ashes skyward; see Ex. 9:10, raising their hands to the sky; see Ex.9:22,33, 10:22, or stretching out their hands; see Ex. 14:21.  In the text, God constantly executes God’s ‘signs and wonders’ with the assistance of Moses or Aaron throughout the story.  Moses is told by the Lord to perform the miracles; see Ex. 4:21, and he and Aaron perform them; see Ex. 11:10.  At one point, Moses seems to have the power to perform miracles without the Lord’s involvement, in that, by stretching out his hands, he stops the thunder and the hail; see Ex. 9:29,33.  This may be the case, but it is God who gives Moses this power. 

Even though Moses and Aaron are important ‘agents’ of God, I still believe that accountability for all the ‘signs and wonders’ always and ultimately rests with the God of the story.  For the story, it could be no other way.  God is the initiating force behind what happens and without the Lord nothing would have happened.

4.     The ‘hardening of pharaoh’s heart.

Before the story of the actual Exodus begins, the situation and purpose of ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’ is made explicit; see Ex. 4:21, ‘so that he will not let the people go.’, then halfway through the story; see Ex. 10:1, ‘that I may show these signs among them.’, and near the end of the story, see Ex. 14:17, ‘so that they will go in after them.’  There are 19 times stated in the text when this ‘hardening’ occurs; ten of which state that it is the Lord who does the ‘hardening’; seven times where no attribution is made and twice where it is stated that Pharaoh ‘hardened’ his own heart.  These numbers strongly suggest to me that the ‘hardening’ in the story, is God exercising God’s unopposable influence on the decision-making ability of Pharaoh.

5.     Pharaoh is brutal and recalcitrant.

Near the beginning of the story, and even before the Lord performs any ‘signs and wonders’, Pharaoh slaps a further severe edict on Hebrews, in that they are to gather straw for themselves as well as continue to make the same quota of bricks: see Ex.5:10-13.  Previously the slaves had been given the straw.  Pharaoh is a merciless slavedriver, even before we are told his heart is ‘hardened’.

Pharaoh is totally unwilling to bow to the Lord’s demands or to recognize the sovereignty of God.  Even after God has consistently shown that God has much superior power, Pharaoh refuses to accept he is the loser, and that in the end, all he will do, is incur more determination by God, and thus eventually leading God to inflict death on all Egyptian families.  12 times it is stated in the text that Pharaoh would ‘not let the people go’, several times associated with ‘he would not listen to them (Moses or Aaron)’; see Ex 7:4,13, 8:15,19, 9:12.  Near the end of this saga, just prior to the warning about the last plague of the death of the first-born of all Egyptian families, Pharaoh threatens Moses that, if he comes back into Pharaoh’s presence, he will be killed; see Ex. 10:28.

Comment on 4 and 5.

For this story, I try to sort out the puzzle raised by Nos 4 & 5 above, as to who is the real force behind Pharaoh making his decisions.  On the one hand there is the Lord’s ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’, which is dominant in the text, but on the other hand Pharaoh does ‘harden his own heart’, twice in the story.  Also, the Lord knows what Pharaoh’s reaction will be to the Lord’s demands; see Ex. 7:22, 8:15,19, 9:12,35.  Probably this is quite predictable to anyone who knew the way Pharaoh exercised his authority so ruthlessly and without fear.  Several times in the story Pharaoh makes hostile decisions without any mention of God ‘hardening his heart’; see Ex.5:10-11, 10:10-11.

Even though the Lord’s influence on Pharaoh’s decisions is unmistakably evident and extremely compelling, irresistible, I think Pharaoh would have welcomed such influence because it confirmed what he was going to decide anyway.  This, of course in no way excuses the way God uses God’s powers of influence. 

For me, the puzzle remains.

So what for me now?

With the above as my understanding of the content of the story, although difficult, I must be honest with myself and ask the questions, ‘What does the story actually say to me?’ and ‘What is the image of God that I perceive, is being conveyed to me in the story?’ 

I know I can answer questions only from within my own prejudicial predisposition, whatever that prejudice is.  I suppose my prejudices and predispositions are fairly obvious, however, I have desperately tried to avoid my pre-thinking and let the text itself have dominance, speaking for itself.

I am trying to look at meanings within the story.  I am not taking the story literally. 

I believe I have looked at the actual content of the text in close detail and have given it, I think, little expansive interpretation.  I have given what I think is a logically simple interpretation, while still regarding it all as story, albeit told at particular times, in particular situations, to a particular group of people in a particular culture, all very different to my own.

For example, if the words in the text say, ‘Let my people go, that they may worship me’, I have given the interpretation that the reason for God wanting God’s people to be let go from the oppressive rule of Pharaoh, is ‘that they may worship me’.  If this is repeated through the story in the text, then I have understood that the storyteller is trying to emphasize that this is the reason.  If the command elsewhere in the text, to ‘let my people go’, is not immediately followed by some other reason, then I understand this to mean that, ‘that they may worship me’ is the only reason for slaves’ liberation.  There is no other.  I think this is logical, reasonable and may well be correct.

However, underlying the actions of the Lord in the story, is the intense and resolute intention to free the Hebrews slaves.  As I have already said, God has chosen sides because God’s purpose is to liberate the oppressed slaves, who are God’s people.  This is also determinative, in God wanting to keep God’s promise made to Abraham; see Ex. 2:24, 3:7-8,17, 6:2-8.

I came away from the story feeling alienated from the Lord because of all the destruction, terror, suffering and death the Lord inflicts.  This feeling however, made me confused because the Lord had to do something major to free the slaves.  Violence seemed the only possible way to accomplish this.  Pharaoh was so obstinate and recalcitrant.  One might even say the Pharaoh ‘forced God’s hand’.  But the violence of the God involved was excessive and God was responsible for it all.

I am in a bind because the more I look at this story and try to understand its teachings, the more I become confused.  The image of God it portrays, I think, is of a power-hungry, self-indulgent, violent individual who will use any strategy to extract total submission from an adversary. 

If the Lord in the story was a human being, I think most people would agree, but this main character is God!  God, in the story, is more violent than Pharaoh.  My problem increases.

Are there times when being confronted with the violent abuse of power, the only way to prevent it is by using stronger violence?  Is the teaching of Jesus about enemy love always adequate and appropriate?

God of the Exodus and Jesus.

Richard Rohr states;

I believe the Exodus story is the root of all liberation theology, which Jesus fully teaches and exemplifies, especially in the three synoptic gospels; see Luke 4:18-19.  Jesus is primarily a healer of the poor and powerless.  That we do not even notice this reveals our blindness to Jesus’ obvious bias.  [7]

Carol J. Dempsey, Associate professor of Theology at the University of Oregon, USA Portland, states,

Christians came to understand themselves as "the new people of God"; see, 1 Peter 2:9-10; Exodus 19:6, and thus heard the Exodus story of liberation in relation to their own lives and to the Christ event.  Release from the tyranny of sin became analogous to the freedom gained by the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage.  Within the gospel tradition all the stories that depict Jesus healing people of their infirmities; see Luke 10:1; forgiving their sins; see, Mark 2:1-12; and working for their benefit in the midst of rigid political, social, and religious institutions and mindsets; see Matt 12:1-14, embody the spirit and theology of liberation first heard in Exodus, where God is depicted not only as hearing the people’s groans but also as committed to doing something about their pain and suffering.  [8]

But what was Jesus on about, regarding the underlying meanings I see in this Exodus story?  What is my understanding and interpretation of it?  I make four points.

1.     Unlike the God of the Exodus, Jesus was non-violent in his work of liberation.  He acted with acceptance and hospitality, and thus liberated the poor, the diseased the outcasts and oppressed. And he was ridiculed and criticized by the people, including the religious leaders of his day, for associating with the oppressed and the outcasts. 

…the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’  (Matthew 11:19.)

and,

Now the tax-collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him.  And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”  (Luke 15:1-2;)

and,

And when they saw it, they all murmured, “He has gone to be a guest of a man who is a sinner.” (Luke 19:7.)

2.     Jesus was not interested in ‘gaining glory’ or having ‘his name known throughout the world’ or ‘showing his power’ through violent, destructive ‘signs and wonders’.

Jesus’ third temptation as recorded in Matthew’s Gospel.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, “All these I will give you if you fall down and worship me.”  Then Jesus said to him, “Begone Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’  (Matthew 4:8-10.)

and, when people wished to make Jesus their king, thus giving him glory, he would have none of it.

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself.  (John 6:15.)

and again, about being known throughout all the world.

Then he (Jesus) strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.  (Matthew 16:20.)

and yet again, Jesus seems to turn his back on ‘signs and wonders’ when speaking to an official whose son was ill.  He seems to rebuke him.

“Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.”  (John 4:48.)

Then there was the enquiry from John.  If Jesus was interested in ‘signs and wonders’, they were totally opposite to those used by the God of the Exodus.

Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him (Jesus), “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”  And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.  (Matthew 11:2-5.)

3.     On leadership and the exercise of authority, Jesus taught his disciples the opposite to the way in which the God of the Exodus acted.  The God of the Exodus, as I perceive that Lord, fits perfectly into the mold of the Gentiles.

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”  (Matthew 20:25-28.)

and again,

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel.  Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.  (John 13:3-4.)

4.     The teachings and the actions of Jesus go in the opposite direction to all the killing and the violence displayed by the God of the Exodus.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’.  But I say to you, ‘Do not resist one who is evil.  But if one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.  Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.”  (Matthew 5:38-42.)

also,

“You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”  (Matthew 5:43-44.)

The Lord of the Exodus is on the side of the slaves, the same as Jesus is on the side of the oppressed.  This is extremely significant, but there seems to be practically nothing else about the God of the Exodus that reminds me of Jesus.  It is nearly all, the exact opposite.  When I look at the behavior and not the intention of the God of the Exodus, I think the opposite and then say, “Yes. That’s Jesus!”

I know these above New Testament texts are quoted hopelessly out of their context, but I still think they all point to the way by which Jesus worked to achieve his goals.  For me, they are symptomatic of his whole message.

However, and it is a big HOWEVER! 

Jesus seems to act only on an individual basis.  There seems to be no activity on his part to initiate or organize, on a group basis, any resistance to systemic oppression and abuse of power.  He speaks out repeatedly about the systemic oppression of the poor and the hypocritical abuse of power, particularly by the religious leaders of his day, but these are individual disagreements that he has with his adversaries.  He also does teach a great deal about what our individual response as disciples should be to violence against our own person, but for me, it all seems to concentrate on individual action.

But the Exodus story is about systemic oppression against a nation!  I ask the question, “What would Jesus have said to all the Hebrew slaves?”  I wonder.  I wonder what his attitude to Pharaoh would have been.  I wonder what he would have said to him.  I wonder how, or if, he could have persuaded Pharaoh to let the people go.  If Pharaoh still would not let the people go, I wonder what Jesus’ reaction would have been.  I wonder if he would have led, or at least encouraged some sort of resistance or even revolt against Pharaoh. 

Jesus did warn his disciples to expect that both individual and systemic violence would be used against them when they went out to preach his message; see Matthew 10:16-23, 28-31.  BUT he didn’t seem to have any strategy, non-violent or otherwise, for protesting against systemic oppression that might bring about regime change.  Some may suggest that he didn’t pay much attention to this way of protesting.  In the Matthew text referred to, there is no comment about how to correct, or even counter the unjust treatment that the disciples would most likely receive.  There is only an encouragement for the disciples not to be fearful, to endure and then in the end, God will make all things right.

So have no fear of them…..Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul…Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.  (Matthew 10:26,28,31.)

and,

… he who endures to the end will be saved.  (Matthew 10:22.)

and,

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next…  (Matthew 10:23.) 

and,

So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,…  (Matthew 10:32.)

All this is an individual response. 

There is no mention of organized resistance to systemic oppression.  Jesus advocates non-resistance to evil, but this is very different to non-violent resistance to evil. 

With Jesus, we do get a public action of protest against systemic power?  The incident in the temple, when he overturned the tables of the money changers and herded the cattle and the sellers of pigeons out of the temple, see Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:13-17, could be cited.  Different commentators mention different things that Jesus was actually protesting against, and they also give different meanings to the Old Testament quotes that are used by the gospel writers in the passage.  However, none question the protest itself.  Some commentators suggest this act of Jesus was violent and indeed, the ‘trigger’ that quickly precipitated his crucifixion. 

There is no mention of any of his disciples being actively involved, and no organization for a group protest. 

This line of questioning leads me to ask, “Why did Jesus teach nothing about slavery.”  It was part of his society’s system and had been so for millennia.  I have little doubt that the exercise of masters over slaves in Jesus’ day, would have been, in some cases, similar to that of Pharaoh in the Exodus story.  Slavery, as always, would have been an example of systemic oppression in Jesus’ day but he says nothing about it.  Why?

The Exodus story itself, teaches me that systemic violence must be dealt with by stronger violence.  It teaches me that, ‘Although violence loses, it also finally wins.’  About how to deal with evil, the story seems to me to give the opposite instruction to that which I am given by Jesus and most of the New Testament.

Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.  (Romans 12:21.)

Back to the story.

Death at the center.

The Exodus story has death as the principal feature in most of its content.  The land is saturated with the stench of death; see Ex.7:21, 8:14.  Fish in the Nile die; see Ex. 7:21. All cattle of the Egyptians die; see Ex. 9:6.  All green plants, tress, fruit, man and beasts are all struck down or shattered; see Ex. 9:25.  The locusts complete the task; see Ex. 10:15.  Even frogs died; see Ex. 8:13, and locusts are driven into the Red Sea; see Ex. 10:19. Flies seem to escape death because they are just ‘removed’; see Ex. 8:31. All first-born humans of Egyptian families die; see Ex. 12:29.  All Pharaoh’s warriors die; see Ex. 14:28.  This is what the text says.  Right through the story, death is result of the Lord’s ‘signs and wonders’.

On four occasions God makes a 'distinction' between Egypt and the Land of Goshen, where the Hebrews live, as well as between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, regarding what they owned; see Ex. 8:22, 9:4,26, 10:23.  Using this ‘distinction’, God inflicts death only on the Egyptians and what they own, but protects the Hebrew slaves and what they own.   All very partisan.

In the story, we are not told that Pharaoh tried to retaliate by destroying the Land of Goshen, like the ruin brought on by the flies on the Land of Egypt; nor killing the Hebrew owned cattle; nor striking down all the Hebrew men, beasts, plants and trees, as inflicted on the Egyptians and Egyptian life, by the hail.  In the story, Pharaoh does not retaliate to the plagues with any increased harsh edicts on the slaves, nor striking out at what the slaves owned or where they lived.

I am not trying to say anything good or bad about Pharaoh. I am just relaying what the story in the text, does and does not tell us. 

However, Pharaoh continues through all this, to not let the Hebrew slaves go. There is also Pharaoh's probable intention to kill the escaping Hebrews or at least recapture them to make them all slaves again, see Ex. 14:5-10, but the story tells us that this was unsuccessful because of God's protection, see Ex. 14:19-20.

I read little of this detail in what I have read in many modern commentaries, and I hear nothing of this in what I am taught today, by the church. 

Theological context.

I have been told on numerous occasions, “You must look at the story in its historical and theological context.  How did people back then think about God and humans?  What did storytellers emphasize in the stories they told?  You must realize that back then people had very different ideas about Gods and their activities, when compared with what most people think today.  All this must be taken into consideration.”  Yes.  I agree totally.

About 3000 years ago is when this story was most probably written down first.  As such, the theology of this tradition determines, to a large extent, its theological meaning.  

In this tradition, humans looked on Gods as tribal Gods, with only limited tribal interests.  These interests were also geographically limited.  It was thought that these Gods improved their status among the Gods, sometimes by demonstrating their power and that of their tribe, by winning armed conflicts against rival tribes.  These tribal Gods were thought to have supernatural powers, and sometimes gave these powers to particular leaders of their human subjects.  These Gods were jealous of other Gods.  These Gods could be totally dominant in the human sphere of existence, rewarding, punishing, demanding allegiance, and setting rules for human behavior.  These Gods were thought of as living in a separate and different sphere of existence. 

This, I believe, is the theological context of the Exodus story and it helps me enormously in trying to understand the story.  Many of the above features are abundantly evident in the story. 

1.     In the story ‘the Lord’ is referred to as a tribal God many times. ‘The God of the Hebrews’ is mentioned five times; see Ex. 5:3, 7:16, 9:1, 9:13, 10:3, ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ is mentioned once; see Ex. 4:5, and ‘the God of Israel’ once; see Ex.5:1.   These names denote the name of a tribal God.

2.     The story presumes there are many gods. ‘The gods of the Egyptians’ are referred to; see Ex. 12:12, and in the Song of Moses, the text asks, ‘Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?’; see Ex. 15:11. 

3.     The God in the story has a lot of status among the Gods, at least in the minds of the Hebrew slaves; ‘Who is like thee, O Lord, among the Gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds doing wonders?’’; see Ex. 15:11. 

4.     The story tells of the conflict of the God of the Hebrews and the Egyptian Gods; ’and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements’; see Ex. 12:12. 

5.     The story portrays the Lord as constantly violent and in pursuit of glory; see Ex. 9:14,16,29.  The people of Israel praise this violence; ‘In the greatness of thy majesty thou overthrowest thy adversaries; thou sendest forth thy fury, it consumes them like stubble’; see Ex.15:7.  The emphasis on God ‘gaining glory’ is stated several times late in the story.  It is the reason for the last ‘sign and wonder’; see Ex. 14:4,17-18. 

It’s all there in the text.

BUT I believe that very few regular churchgoers know or have ever been told about this theological context.  So, I believe it is very dangerous to use this story or teach it to anybody, without identifying this theology which formed the theological context of the story.  I think teaching this story without explaining its theological context, is irresponsible. 

This, I believe, is an example of an important principle when teaching about the Bible as a whole.  The historical, theological context of the passage or story must be incorporated.   This, of course, is very difficult to incorporate in a liturgy.

Scientific credibility of the story.

I now turn to some historical and geographical research into the possible origins of parts of the story.

One suggestion made is that a volcano, maybe on Crete, erupted, sending clouds of ash drifting towards Egypt, causing the sky to darken.  Volcanic ash could have precipitated a sudden plague of lice.  The water when polluted, could have caused various sicknesses, like boils.  The pollution of the ash in the water may have even caused a plague of frogs, when they tried to escape the filthy water; etc.  Also, the Nile has been known on occasion to turn red, maybe because of its banks of red sand. 

The number of Hebrew slaves with their families could reach 2&1/2 million if certain texts are taken together.  This number is unrealistically huge, particularly when considering the crossing the Red Sea, and striking a rock to give the thirsty millions a drink.  There are other texts which, when taken together, give far more realistic number of escaping slaves.

For the actual crossing of the Red Sea, it is suggested that this could have taken place at the Reed Sea, a marshy stretch of land near the mouth of the Nile.  If this were the case, the Hebrew slaves could have progressed, but the wheeled chariots of the Egyptians and their horses would have become bogged.  The soldiers in the chariots as well as the horsemen would then have presented no real danger to the escaping Hebrews, walking or running on foot.

This may be fascinating for those interested but I find it all quite irrelevant to the theological issues raised by the story.  I think this historical, geographical distraction goes in the wrong direction, thus trying to answer, what are irrelevant questions for me.

Walter Brueggemann in his very instructive 50-page commentary on this Exodus story in the New Interpreters’ Bible, states in his overview,

It goes without saying then that the prospect for asking critical questions about what happened in the plagues, is irrelevant.  Greta Hort has provided the classic modern attempt to make the plagues scientifically credible.  While her analysis is careful, disciplined and discerning, in the end it does not touch the dramatic issues that are at the center of the narrative.  [9]

Being frank and far more brutal about this, I am as interested in these possible scientific explanations as I am in knowing the name of the Good Samaritan.  Totally unimportant and irrelevant!  The real question for me is, ‘What meanings are communicated by the story?’.  When looking for guidance from our scriptures, I think this is a question that must always be asked.

So what more for me now?

As I have already said, I have been taught in my past church experience that this story is all about freeing the Hebrew slaves from oppression.  I think that is what most regular churchgoers think.  ‘Liberation’ is the word I have been given that is most closely associated with the story.  This being the case, I need to look at theologies built on this word to see if this Exodus story is used in any way, and if so, How?

As I have quoted previously, Richard Rohr states.

I believe the Exodus story is the root of all liberation theology, which Jesus fully teaches and exemplifies, ….

My response to what I know of liberation theologians.

My overall response to what liberation theologians teaches me, is that the Exodus story is a paradigm for a response to systemic oppression and as such, violence is not only permitted but often necessary.  The fact that many of them do not mention the violence of the God in the story, suggests to me that liberation is all important and the means by which it can be achieved is far less important.  Their recourse to Karl Marx is very telling for me, because in maybe, that having looked to Jesus for some teaching on the matter and finding little if any that they think is helpful, they have looked at class struggle in society as being the way to liberation and not individuals’ responses. 

My study of liberation theology has not been extensive however, a possible exception to my overall response is that of Carol Dempsey.  She states in her paper,

The book of Exodus, then, speaks of liberation from oppression.  The way the liberation is accomplished, however, is prime material for ongoing critical theological reflection.  First, liberation for the Israelites happens in a manner that does harm not only to the perpetrators of injustice but also to the community, as well as to the rest of creation that plays no role in the oppression caused by humans in power who wield their power unjustly.  Second, the one causing such devastation is said to be Israel's God, the creator of all, who had once established an everlasting covenant with all creation (cf. Gen 9:8-17).  Third, the image of God as warrior in the context of the Exodus event communicates to readers then and now that the divine work of liberation is accomplished through violence, which the text, if read and received uncritically, both sanctions and legitimates.  

Thus the story of Israel's liberation as recorded in the book of Exodus creates tension within the communities that continue to hear the text today.  Biblical scholars have long recognized that the stories of the plagues reflect the grand imagination of the ancient biblical writers who wrote the stories from a certain perspective, for particular communities, and for particular theological purposes, namely, to assert that Israel's God is sovereign and Lord over history and creation.  Much of the Exodus story reflects the culture and religious thinking of its day and that of its authors and later editors.  [10]

My response to the Exodus God.

I realize I am making a 21st Century response, but in this story the Lord deliberately targets innocent men, women, youths and children for death.  Today, this God would be convicted as a terrorist, committing crimes against humanity, or even worse, and when found guilty in an International Court of Criminal Justice would be given multiple life sentences.  (I’m not quite sure what a ‘life sentence’ for God looks like.)

Maybe I am looking too much for things in the story I wish to reject.  I deny I am deliberately doing this even though I am highlighting the nasty parts.  I just keep looking at the text itself.  I am not inventing the negatives within it.  They are there for all of us to read.  I find it quite disturbing that such an image of God is presented in our Christian sacred book as a paradigm of how to bring about liberation and thus used as such by many liberation theologians.

What I am being taught today, about this story.

In my earlier church education, the Exodus story was never identified as probably the most violent story in the whole of the Bible.  In my reasonably recent past, I had this story described to me by a member of the clergy, from whom I learnt a great deal, as one of the most wonderful stories of liberation.  When I heard this comment of praise, I had to voice my disquiet. 

The film - The Ten Commandments.

Not as a joke, but seriously, I go to the film, The Ten Commandments, when beginning my research for present-day instruction about this Exodus story.  I go there because I think the vast majority of churchgoers as well as numerous members of the non-church public, maybe tens of millions, have seen this film; far more than will ever read commentaries or theological comments about the story, or even read it in the Bible.  I go there because I continue to try to speak from a regular churchgoer’s position.  

It is stated that this film, which was released in 1956, features one of the largest sets ever created for a film, and, at the time of its release, was the most expensive film ever made.  It is also one of the most financially successful films ever made, grossing approximately $122.7 million at the box office during its initial release.  According to Guinness World Records, in terms of theatrical exhibition, it is the 8th most successful film of all time.  Although released over 60 years ago, it is still screened today.  Network television has aired the film in prime time during Passover, Easter season, every year since 1973.  So a lot of people have seen it, maybe more than once.

The first 2 hours of it (It is a long film, over 4 hours.) deal with the earlier life of Moses when he was brought up as a prince in Pharaoh’s palace.  In typical Hollywood style, interest is maintained by a love triangle involving Moses, Pharaoh’s son Rameses and Nefertari.  According to the film, Nefertari becomes Rameses’ wife, but she loves only Moses, who, while living at the royal court returns that love.  Interest is also maintained by the growing hostility between Rameses and Moses.  They are presumed to be related because Moses, as a baby, was plucked from the Nile River, and secretly taken to be the previous Pharaoh’s daughter’s son.  Rameses in the film, is depicted as the ambitious, ruthless villain.

The second half of the film tells how Moses learns of his Hebrew roots and reluctantly becomes the ‘deliverer’ of the Hebrew slaves.  The filmmakers employ several special effects to portray God’s call to Moses out of the burning bush, some of the plagues, the protection of the escaping slaves by God’s pillar of fire, the crossing of the Red Sea, and at the end of the film, the giving of the Ten Commandments.  Looking at this film, it appears that the filmmakers take the story literally; that it all actually happened.  I found it almost convincing.  It would comfortably fit with a belief that God is an almighty Person who intervenes in human history in supernatural ways to enact God’s will.

My reaction to the film was mixed.  I found the spectacle created was amazing and enthralling.  The harsh servitude of the Hebrew slaves is graphically portrayed and no wonder they dreamt of freedom.  I think the film mirrors well, much of the biblical story.  Rameses, Egypt’s Pharaoh, was certainly brutally ruthless and would not bow to God’s demands.  God speaks directly to Moses but never to Pharaoh.  Moses often says to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord…”  The wrath of God is certainly taken seriously because at one point in the film, Moses cries out, “Turn from thy fierce wrath, O Lord.”  Some of the ‘signs and wonders’ pictured by special effects, pointed me to the Lord’s supernatural powers as depicted in the Bible.  Pharaoh’s capitulation is definitely portrayed with him admitting, “I cannot fight the power of (Moses’) God.”, and “His God is God.”  The praise of Israel’s God is evident many times and particularly after crossing the Red Sea, with the emancipated Hebrews shouting, “The Lord is one.”

However, my reaction is also such, that I think there are important biblical emphases which do not feature in the film and vice-versa.

1. The early life of Moses, growing up in Pharaoh’s place, is not depicted in the Bible.

2. In the film, God is never portrayed as ’hardening‘ Pharaoh’s heart.  At least twice it is stated in the film that Pharaoh’s heart is ‘hardened’ but no initiator of this ‘hardening’ is identified.  God is never stated as ‘making sport’ or ‘making fools’ of the Egyptians, as in the Bible story.

3. In the film, the plight of the Hebrew slaves is given much graphic presentation, but the death and destruction incurred by the plagues is not.  This is a major theme as told in the Bible.  For me, it is not in the film.

4. Moses, in the film, speaks continually about the evils of slavery and that all men should be free.  This strong emphasis from Moses is not found in the biblical story.

5.     Most of the plagues are given just a two-sentence mention in the film.  They are not depicted at all.  Frogs, flies, boils, lice, gnats, animal death and locusts are given no film footage.  In the film no devastating results of the hail and fire are given.  We are shown the hail falling with its accompanying fire, but only on the porch of Pharaoh’s palace.  No destruction of all the plants and trees is shown in the film.  

6.     The negotiations, mentioned on several occasions in the Bible, about the conditions by which the slaves could go and ‘serve’ the Lord, and the requests of Moses to the Lord to relax or stop a plague, are not mentioned in the film.

7.     God’s aim to ‘gain glory’ is not mentioned in the film.

8.     In the film, only two deaths of the first-born Egyptians are pictured, thus lessening the devastating impact of this on the film viewers.  We do hear the cries of anguish in the background.  However, the ‘agent’ of God or God being personally involved in the killing, is avoided in the film.

9.     Even the death by drowning of all Pharaoh’s warriors and horsemen is not very graphically presented in the film.  The viewer does see the water engulfing the chariots, but it is just a fleeting view.  Viewers are not shown all the Egyptians dead on the shore.

Thus, my perception is that the film producers wanted to present God as not doing anything extremely terrible.  The film presented the Lord as doing what the Lord did do, for the only purpose of freeing the slaves.  The film did not want to portray the Lord as being ultra-violent.  Even after the death of Pharaoh’s son, the boy’s mother, Nefertari, shouts at Rameses, “You let Moses kill my son.”  No mention of God.

My impression of the film, is that it wanted to emphasize that liberation was the main message of the whole story.  The film also made capital out of the awesomeness of God’s supernatural power.  I think provided good viewing!

All this would ensure the film’s general acceptance by the public.  It had to be successful, financially.  I think this film’s emphases are what regular churchgoers understand as the basic meanings of the biblical story.  Being viewed by millions of people both inside and outside the church, I believe the film has exercised significant influence on how the story is generally understood. 

I know many people, who are not churchgoers, regard the story, what they know of it, as a great tale of liberation.  I think this is how most, if not all regular churchgoers view it.  I do not believe the film helps in portraying the story as it is told in the Bible.  I think it presents a better slant on the story and of the God involved, and in doing so, it is not all that biblical.

Modern commentators.

I now look to some modern commentators for instruction.  I have looked at what Brueggemann, Fretheim, Borg, Wright, and Flood amongst others, teach me about the Exodus story.  While I appreciate what I have learnt from them, here is not the time or place to debate their comments with which I disagree.  (If you wish to inspect my contribution to the debate, go to https://sites.google.com/view/george-stuart and then follow the Red Underlined links Exodus and then The story of the Exodus (3).)  However, I do quote from some scholars, whom I think have made other significant contributions to the subject.

Karen Armstrong.

Karen Armstrong in her book, The History of God, when commenting on the story of Abraham being directed by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, states,

Yet to modern ears, this is a horrible story.  It depicts God as a despotic and capricious sadist, and it is not surprising that many people today who have heard this tale as children, reject such a deity. [11]

Commenting on the Exodus story, she states,

The myth of the Exodus from Egypt, when God led Moses and the children of Israel to freedom, is equally offensive to modern sensibilities. ….  This is a brutal, partial, and murderous God, a god of war who would be known as Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Armies.  He is passionately partisan, has little compassion for anyone but his own favorites, and is simply a tribal deity.  If Yahweh had remained such a savage god, the sooner he vanished, the better it would have been for everybody. [12]

I believe Karen Armstrong is correct.  I believe this Exodus story is a source of great difficulty to most regular churchgoers if they think about it and its content.  It is my experience that the church does not encourage us to think about the violent side of its content.

John Shelby Spong.

I turn to Spong to see if he has anything to say about the story.  He does not address this issue in his book, The Sins of Scripture, as I thought he might.  However, I looked further and, in a lecture, reported in the Chautauguan Daily on June 27th, 2012, in answer to question as to whether God changes, he answered,

In the second lecture of his weeklong series entitled ‘Re-claiming the Bible in a non-religious world’, Spong evidenced the changing Judeo-Christian concept of God through an examination of biblical text and the stories of the four minor prophets; Hosea, Amos, Jonah and Malachi.

“The Bible begins with a world marked by tribal religion.”, Spong said.

“There are two things that are always true about a tribal deity. First, the tribal deity always has a chosen people.  And secondly, the tribal deity always hates everybody that the chosen people hate.”, he said. 

“That early understanding of God as a tribal deity is evident in the Book of Exodus.” Spong said. “In Exodus, God hates the Egyptians because the Egyptians enslaved God’s chosen people, the Jews.” 

“This God decides to attack the Egyptians with vengeance and with power. We call that the story of the plagues.” he said.  “God hits the Egyptians up one side and down the other.” 

“This understanding of God as a vengeful, violent deity that would murder the first-born son of every family, and thoughtlessly drown Egyptians in the depths of the Red Sea, is not a friendly identification.” Spong said.

“The understanding of God as a tribal deity appears in Exodus, the Book of Joshua, and again in the Book of Samuel, when the prophet Samuel orders King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites.”, he said. 

“Tribal religion is part of human development, it’s part of our history, it’s part of the Bible, and yet if you read that entire book, you will discover that this God changes dramatically.”, Spong said.  “The same God who sends plagues on the Egyptians, and stops the sun in the sky to kill more Amorites, and calls for genocide of the Amalekites is also quoted as having said, ’You are to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ ” [13]

Sadly, this tribal God in the story, is far from dead.  God is always on our side.  During the two world wars, listen to both the opposing armies singing in the trenches and praying to their tribal Gods for victory. 

Jesus’ own use of the Bible.

Because the violence of God in the Bible raises serious questions, I think Derek Flood gives good advice, because in his book, Disarming Scripture, he deals with Jesus’ own use of the Bible and comes to the conclusion that,

Jesus expects his disciples – expects you and me – to be making these same calls of knowing what to embrace in the Bible and what to reject. [14]

This conclusion comes from Flood’s examination of the story of Elijah in combat with Moab.  Halfway through that biblical story, Elijah calls fire down from heaven on his enemies.

And Elijah answered the captain, “If I am a man of God, may fire fall from Heaven and consume you and your company.”  And fire fell from Heaven and consumed the officer and his fifty men. (2 Kings 1:10.)

Flood states,

Hoping to follow Elijah’s example, James and John, ask Jesus in response to opposition they were experiencing, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy them.” (Luke 9:54-54.) …  Luke tells us that the response of Jesus was not to affirm this narrative, but to sternly rebuke his disciples.  In that rebuke of Jesus is an implicit yet clear rejection of the way of Elijah as well.  Later manuscripts include the response of Jesus, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them (Luke 9:55-56.).* In other words, Jesus is essentially saying that the way of Elijah was not of God, but instead belongs to the spirit of the one who seeks to destroy, that is, of the devil. 

While Elijah claimed that his actions proved he was a ‘man of God’, this passage in Luke’s gospel makes the opposite claim; the true ‘man of God’ incarnate had not come to obliterate life, but to save, heal and restore it (Luke 19:10 & John 3:17). Jesus not only recognizes this himself as the Son of God, but rebukes James and John for not coming to this conclusion on their own.

In other words, Jesus expects his disciples – you and me – to be making the same calls of knowing what to embrace in the Bible and what to reject.

Flood has a footnote which states,

*Even if this verse is a later addition, representing a sort of biblical commentary by the early church, it certainly reflects the ethos of Jesus as well, who consistently rejected violent force as a vehicle of the Kingdom. [15]

Flood’s book has clearly shown me an important reason for, ‘knowing what to reject in the Bible’.  If it teaches violence, then I ‘reject’ it.

I would like to add some positives regarding criteria for ‘knowing what to embrace in the Bible’.  If it teaches generosity, forgiveness, love, hospitality, inclusiveness, peace, respect, justice, equality, and hope, and if it teaches me to challenge any power that practises the opposites, then I ‘embrace’ it.  For me, these all point to Jesus and likewise, Jesus points to all of these.  I deal with this in my book, Starting all over again? Yes or No?, in chapter 6, with many comments on the teachings ‘of’ Jesus.  (By the way, you can purchase my book directly from me, for $20.00 plus postage.  If you want a copy, just contact me.)

I have deliberately underlined above, what I believe is a very valid way to approach the Bible.  I believe Flood has a point when he implicitly suggests that Jesus faithfully rejects the underlying teaching of the Elijah story. I believe this is an example of Jesus making a call of ‘knowing what to embrace in the Bible and what to reject’.

Another example of Jesus’ use of the Old Testament and making a call of ‘knowing what to embrace in the Bible and what to reject’, is a well-known passage, where it is said that Jesus read from the Old Testament, but he stopped short when, in the synagogue, reading from the Book of Isaiah.  Luke 4:16-17 states that Jesus went into the synagogue in Nazareth and was given a book with Isaiah in it.  The text states that he opened it and found the passage he wanted. Jesus said,

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19, quoting from Isaiah 61:1-2a.)

But Jesus stops short.  He omits the last part of the last verse of that Isaiah reading, which is,

..and the day of vengeance of our God. (Isaiah 61:2b)

After he finished reading, he closed the book and gave it back to the attendant.

Whether this is actually Jesus speaking in the synagogue, or the gospel writers telling a story about him, I believe this omission from Isaiah is not a slip, inconsequential nor a mere oversight either by Jesus or the gospel writers.  The part dealing with the vengeance of God was not read.  Jesus did not read it.  I can even imagine Jesus thinking that, when he came to that last statement about vengeance, he could have said to himself, “No!  This is not what the spirit of the Lord has anointed me to preach.  I won’t read it.”

Jesus omitted the Exodus story.

Jesus does not refer to the Exodus story in his preaching and reaching. 

Is Jesus’ omission of the Exodus story from his teaching and preaching yet another example of him making a call of ‘knowing what to embrace in the Bible and what to reject’?  Was his omission deliberate?  I think it probably was.  As stated previously, this Exodus story was the most revered and celebrated story of the Jews.  This story was the most important story in all of the Old Testament

In the Cross-reference Bible I have, there is no cross reference in any of the gospels to the Exodus story.  Even though there are well over 500 cross-references in the four gospels to the Old Testament, there is not one to the Exodus story.  It seems to me more than strange that this is the case.  The larger story of Moses is alluded to many times in the early chapters of Matthew; in the Jesus’ birth stories, his baptism and temptations, and the Sermon on the Mount.  Some commentators have said that Matthew portrays Jesus as the second and greater Moses.  But no mention of the Exodus.

It has been commented that the Passover has been re-interpreted by Jesus and New Testament writers, presenting it as the basis for the Last Supper and the church’s sacrament of Holy Communion.  However, I believe that Jesus turns the Passover meal from being one which celebrates being saved from death at the hands of God, into being a remembrance of one who was willing to die with strength, integrity, and love for what he believed.   

If his omission of this Exodus story was deliberate, his non-use might have come down to two significant reasons.  First, it could have been because ‘the Lord’ in that story is pictured as so partisan, so discriminatory against one race and nation and in favour of another.  This is certainly opposite to a major thrust of Jesus’ teachings.  A second reason could have been that the image of ‘the Lord’ is so violent that Jesus, of necessity, had to avoid using it in his message and preaching of non-violence.   

It is my contention that these both are good reasons why Jesus could have deliberately omitted using the story, but I believe it was probably the second.  ‘The Lord’ in that story was just too violent.

Does this stance make me Anti-Semitic?

For me, all this reaction to the Exodus story does not make me anti-Semitic.  When I come across Jews, Muslims, anti-Christians, of anyone else with whom I disagree, or who is ‘different to me’, I always try to follow my non-violent, non-racist Mentor by respecting and accepting them.  I’m not anti-Semitic; I am just anti the Exodus story.

I have been told on occasions that my stance will be ‘very offensive’ to Jews, many of them.

Analogies always have deficiencies but when used appropriately, they can add to an emphasis being made in a discussion. So, I use, what I believe to be an appropriate analogy, of what ‘white Australia’ has done in the past regarding our history telling, and what is happening now, regarding this matter.

Little, if any, of the ‘dark’ side of the history of colonisation, and the treatment received by the 1st Nations’ peoples during the early ‘settlement’ of British nationals and convicts, was told for many years.  However, as more stories are told from the memories of the first inhabitants, this ‘dark’ side becomes even more darker.  This is now being acknowledged by the present Australia community, albeit somewhat reluctantly by some .

For those who are reluctant to accept the 'dark' side of our history and the truth of these stories, would, I believe, find the concentration on them as ‘offensive’. Some, who do accept these stories as authentic, find the continual referrals to them as both unnecessary and ‘offensive’.

My comment is, that if people find truth-telling about the past ‘offensive’, then so be it. They have the problem. I believe they should do some objective thinking about the past and re-consider their stance. 

I accept as authentic the stories being told by 1st Nations’ people, but in so doing I am not being anti-Australian.   I am not being anti-Australia. I am accepting that part of our national past as ‘dark’ and is something about which we Australians should be ashamed. That is accepting the truth and as such, I believe, being Australian. 

So, in pointing to the ‘dark’ side of the Exodus story, I am not being anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic.  I am accepting it as, what I believe it to be, an important part of the ‘truth-telling’ about Jewish history, seldom, if ever, raised.

One of the usual costs that one needs to pay if one departs from the usual understanding of a matter, is to be misunderstood by others, sometimes many others.

If people think I am anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish because of my stance on the Exodus story, and from that perceive me to be ‘offensive’, then I have been misunderstood. By the way I live, and the attitudes I have to Jews, and indeed everyone, I demonstrate I am not racist, or anti any race or nation, and I speak up about these attitudes.

I know virtually nothing about the 3–4000-year histories of any continents of the world and the different nation-states which may have existed over time, so I cannot make any comparisons between any other nation-state and Israel. 

However, it is my understanding that no other European or Middle Eastern nation-state has had a history so saturated with exploitation, outside domination and discrimination against it, as Israel.  Very unfortunately, this disgraceful attitude is still alive and well in our present day.  It would thus be no surprise to me, and I would find it quite understandable, if sometimes, even currently, that Israel’s foreign policy was influenced to an extent by this Exodus story, particularly in the minds of ultra-conservative, orthodox Jews.  I will leave it there because I am not qualified to say any more.

Living the Questions – DVD .

Walter Brueggemann, at the beginning of the series of lectures on a DVD, Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today, on which I have commented previously, states,

The Bible is an act of imagination.  It is not a package of certitudes.  It is an act of imagination that invites our faithful imagination which makes it possible for us to live faithfully. [16]

For me, these are the most important things Brueggemann says in all five sessions in the DVD.  They are certainly not the only important things he says.

I understand him to be saying that the Bible does not say things that are all correct and unchangeable.  I think he is saying that the Bible is full of stories and statements about God, humans and reality that cannot be taken as actually true for all time.  They are molded by the imaginations of the authors and storytellers.

We must make our own faithful imaginative response and thus changes in understanding the text may occur.  The Bible has statements and stories created by its authors working within the limitations of the information and knowledge they had.  What they said, was said within the framework of their limited, sometimes very limited, information and knowledge.  Their imaginations were linked inseparably to their own time.  It could be no other way.

With this Exodus story originating in the ancient period of Hebrew religious history, I suppose then, I might be able to accept it for what I think it is, a story driven by an out-of-date theology regarding its image of God.  But it is dangerous if we use this image of God to instruct us about how we should think about God today.  I can also accept it as a story pointing in the opposite direction to which Jesus points.

As an alternative, I can reject the story as being unhelpful for me, concerning my journey with Jesus.  I can also urge others to reject it as well.

My conclusions.

I have tried to give a comprehensive set of arguments and reasons why I question the Exodus story as being helpful for my journey with Jesus.  It points me in the wrong directions when compared with the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.  As such, I do not believe it should be given any voice in liturgies of the church, as presently is the case.  I believe it is best left unmentioned, following the example of Jesus. 

This story belongs to the age in which it was written; maybe about 3000 years ago.  Even though we should not criticize nor ridicule the authors or storytellers, and even though we might lose some positive and important insights from the story, I can do without it, and I believe we all can.  Although not given total vindication for my stance, I think I have a very strong, significant precedent in Jesus and the gospels.

So, my analysis gives me three strong reasons for rejecting the story. These three are different but inseparably entwined.

1.    I reject the story because the image of God in it is so violent and seeks to guide me in the opposite direction to the way Jesus lived and taught.

2.    I reject the story because the image of God in it, comes from a totally outdated theology, from 3000 years ago when people actually believed there were many Gods and these Gods, being tribal deities, were often in conflict, to gain glory over each other.

3.   I reject the story because it is a story which Jesus omitted to use in his ministry and his teachings.  The gospel writers never mention it.  Jesus doesn’t mention it and for good reason.  I believe it is because of its ultra-violent image of God.  He achieves his goals of liberation by totally different means to those used by the God of the Exodus story.

 Grace and Peace   George

[1] Moises Silva, New Interpreter’s Bible Volume 1 118.

[2] Ibid 118.

[3] Marcus Borg,  Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 122.

[4] Marcus Borg,  Reading the Bible for the First Time, 103.

[5] Richard Rohr,  Internet  Theology Center for Action and Contemplation  Liberation Theology  20/3/16.

[6] Walter Brueggemann, New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1, 792.

[7] Richard Rohr, Internet  Theology Center for Action and Contemplation  Liberation Theology  20/3/16.

[8] Carol Dempsey  Internet  Cambridge Papers  The Exodus motif of Liberation  Its Grace and Controversy.

[9] New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1, 722.

[10] Carol Dempsey  Internet  Cambridge Papers  The Exodus motif of Liberation  Its Grace and Controversy.

[11] Karen Armstrong  The History of God, 18.

[12] Ibid, 19.

[13] John Shelby Spong..Internet..Chaufauguan Daily 27th June 2012.

[14] Derek Flood  Disarming Scripture, 43.

[15] Ibid, 42-43.

[16] Living the Questions  DVD Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today, The Way Out.