Bible Difficulties (25 page)

Now since Moses had been appointed for a responsible role of leadership, he was duty bound to serve as a good example to the people of Israel and to show faithfulness to the covenant obligations inherited from Abraham. The only way Moses could be forced into taking this step--against his wife's wishes--would be to afflict him with a potentially fatal illness. And so this is precisely what God did.

How could the Israelites have sojourned 430 years in Egypt if there were only three
generations between Levi and Moses (Exod. 6:16-20)?

In common with almost all the genealogies of this type recorded in the Pentateuch (cf.

Num. 26:28-34), the general practice is followed in Exodus 6 of listing a person's family tree by tribe, clan, and family group. As D.N. Freedman points out (in G.E. Wright, ed.,
The Bible and the Ancient Near East
[London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961], pp.

206-207), this type of classification was common in ancient Near Eastern practice. In Egyptian royal genealogies we find that several links are omitted between Rameses II in the Nineteenth Dynasty and the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty in the Berlin genealogy published by Borchardt (in Kitchen,
Ancient Orient
, pp.54-55).

It is quite obvious that if by Moses' time (according to Num. 3:27-28) the combined total of Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites came to 8,600--all of whom were descended from Kohath--the Amram who had perhaps one-fourth of 8,600

"children" (or 2,150) could not have been the immediate parent of Moses and Aaron.

They could hardly have had over 2000 brothers in that one family! While Moses' father may in fact have been named Amram, he could not have been the same Amram as produced that many descendants.

106

Fortunately in 1 Chronicles we have many genealogies that are more complete, and these indicate that there were nine or ten generations between the sons of Jacob and the generation of Moses. For example, (1) 1 Chronicles 7:25 tells us there were ten links between Ephraim and Joshua:
Beriah
to
Rephah
to
Resheph
to
Telah
to
Tahan
to
Ladan
to
Ammihud
to
Elishama
to
Nun
to
Joshua
. (2) Bezalel, who designed the tabernacle (Exod. 31:2-11), was in the seventh generation from Jacob (cf. 1 Chron. 2:1, 4-5, 9, 18-20). (3) Elishama, mentioned in Numbers 1:10, was in the ninth generation from Jacob (1

Chron. 7:22- 27).

Nine or ten generations between Jacob and Moses harmonizes very well with a 430-year sojourn for the Israelites in Egypt (i.e., between 1875 and 1445 B.C.). This would average out to 43 years per generation. (The 215-year theory, espoused by those who follow the Septuagint reading for Exod. 12:40, would yield only 215 years for the sojourn, for an average of 21 years per generation. In the case of Bezalel and Joshua, this is well nigh incredible. So also is the increase of the original 70 or 75 in Jacob's immigrant group to over two million souls by Moses' time.)

Do not Exodus 6:26-27 and 16:33 indicate a biographer of Moses other than Moses
himself?

Exodus 6:14-27 is a long paragraph giving the names of the first three of the twelve sons of Jacob and their first generation of descendants, who became the heads of the various subtribes through whom genealogical descent was reckoned by the time of the Exodus.

But most of the attention is devoted to the priestly tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron and Moses. The survey concludes with the following words: "It was the same Aaron and Moses to whom the LORD said, `Bring out the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their hosts.' They were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt about bringing out the sons of Israel from Egypt; it was the same Moses and Aaron" (vv. 26-27, NASB). These comments certainly sound like those of a historian rather than the personal memoirs of Moses himself, at least so it is supposed by most Bible critics of a subevangelical or liberal persuasion.

To specialist in the field of comparative literature, however, an author's use of the third person singular when writing of his own deeds is entirely a matter of established literary convention, depending on the genre involved. In some genres, such as the personal autobiography, it was quite customary to refer to one's self in the first person singular.

But in the case of a major historical account, it was more usual to refer to all actors on the scene in the third person rather than in the first, even though the author happened to be writing about an action in which he was personally involved.

The numerous historical records concerning the various kings of Egypt and their exploits were normally couched in the third person, except in instances where the words of the Pharaoh are directly quoted. The Greek historian Xenophon, in his
Anabasis
, characteristically refers to himself in the third person; likewise does Julius Caesar in his
Gallic Wars
and his
Civil Wars
as well. Yet no one questions that these were the genuine works of Xenophon and Caesar.

107

Furthermore, it would have appeared quite strange to the Hebrew reader (as well as to us modern readers) if in this genealogical account the author had suddenly brought himself into it with such wording as this: "These are the heads of the fathers' (household) of the Levites according to their families. It was actually
us
, Moses and Aaron, to whom the LORD said, `Bring out the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt....'
We
were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh the King of Egypt about bringing out the sons of Israel from Egypt" (Exod. 6:25-26). Nothing could sound more bizarre than this sudden intrusion of first person forms in the midst of an objective account of this sort. Hence a conformity to the usual conventions governing this genre of the historical narrative furnishes no evidence whatever against Mosaic authorship of such verses as these.

As for Exodus 16:33-34, the same principle obtains. "And Moses said to Aaron, `Take a jar and put an omerful of manna in it....As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the Testimony, to be kept" (NASB). Any normal historian, especially one who was not a boastful monarch of Egypt or Mesopotamia, would record actions in which he was personally involved in an objective style of speech just like this. Moses was writing an official record for the benefit of the entire nation; he had no intention of converting this record into a self-exalting personal memoir.

Why did the Egyptian magicians display the power (according to Exod. 8:7) of
performing miracles as Moses and Aaron did (cf. also Exod. 7:11, 22)?

Scripture indicates that Satan has power to perform "lying wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9) through his wicked agents for the express purpose of leading mankind astray. Christ warned that "false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24). From Exodus 7 and 8

we learn that Satan displayed this power and employed this strategem even in the time of Moses. Satan will continue to do so even in the final days of the Great Tribulation (Rev.

13:13), when his agent the False Prophet will perform "great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men" (NASB).

Counterfeit miracles, then, are Satan's stock in trade. Yet it should be carefully noted that Satan-empowered miracles are based largely on deception and illusion and generally involve some kind of clever trickery. Pharaoh's magicians showed a skill not much different from that of professional magicians today, who know how to produce rabbits or doves out of their hats. Their staffs that turned into serpents when cast on the ground may have been snakes that they had charmed into rigidity that made them look like staffs until their bodies hit the ground. Their frogs, apparently few in number compared to the overwhelming host that Moses' rod produced, may have been concealed at first like the rabbits in the Magician's hat. But when they failed in their attempt to reproduce the stinging gnats that Aaron's rod had brought forth, they had to admit to Pharaoh that their art was merely human (or merely satanic, at least); for this new plague could only be explained as "the finger of God" (Exod. 8:19).

108

More importantly, the magicians' power was utterly inadequate to cope with the blood and the frogs produced by the Hebrew leaders. Neither were the magicians able to remove them from afflicting the land of Egypt. Hence their clever trickery was completely valueless and impotent before the true miracles performed by God in the ten plagues.

Why did God slay all the firstborn Egyptians when the Egyptian people had no
control over Pharaoh's decision not to allow the Israelites to leave his country
(Exod. 12:29-30)?

There is no way for nations to be dealt with other than on a collective basis. The fortunes of the citizens of any country are bound up with the government that guides their national policy, whether that government be a democracy, a party dictatorship, or monarchy. A wise and successful government passes on its benefits to all its citizenry, as when its armed forces defeat an invading host on the battlefield.

A foolish or wicked government, like that of King Ahaz in the days of Isaiah the prophet, brings disaster and distress on all its subjects, regardless of personal merit. So it was with Egypt in Moses' day. The consequences of the decisions made by Pharaoh and his court were binding on all the people. Throughout history, ever since governments were first organized on the tribal level, it has been so.

Thus when Egypt's king decided to break his solemn oath by repeated acts of perjury and to set at defiance the almighty Lord of the universe, there could be no result other than the final, dreadful plague of which Moses had forewarned. By the terms of this judgment every firstborn male throughout Egypt, whether man or beast, was to lose his life, even as all previous nine plagues had affected the entire population of the Nile Valley.

Conceivably a coup d'etat might have toppled Pharaoh from his throne in time to avert this approaching catastrophe, but his subjects were content to let him make the fateful decision as their lawful ruler. A loss of life in the family of the king alone--or even in the household of his aristocracy--would scarcely have sufficed to compel Egypt to grant a release of the entire Israelite nation and all its cattle. Nothing short of an all-inclusive calamity visited on the entire people would serve to bring about the deliverance of God's people from the bondage they had suffered in Egypt.

How could the various plagues fail to affect the Israelites as well as the Egyptians if
they were imposed on the whole land of Egypt, as Exodus 8:16 and Exodus 9:22 say
they were?

Neither in the Bible nor in any other literary document are we at liberty to take terms like "all" in an absolute sense if the context clearly indicates a qualifying restriction. In Exodus 9:6, for example, we read, "So the LORD did this thing on the morrow, and
all
the livestock of Egypt died;
but
of the livestock of the sons of Israel, not one died"

(NASB). The exception is expressly made for the Hebrews living in Goshen, which was 109

apparently populated only by the Israelite population along with their household servants (some of whom were apparently non-Israelite; cf. Exodus 12:38).

No explicit exception is made for the Hebrews in connection with the first three plagues, the plague of blood (Ex. 7:17-25), the plague of frogs (Ex. 8:1-14), and the plague of lice (Ex. 8:16-19); yet there is no mention made of their afflicting the Israelites themselves. In the case of the first two, at least, it is stated that the Egyptians suffered their effect (Ex.

7:21; Ex. 8:4), without reference to the Hebrews. But in connection with the fourth plague, that of flies, a clear distinction is drawn in Ex. 8:21: "I will send swarms of insects [or flies] on you and all your servants and on your people and into your houses; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of insects, and also the ground on which they dwell" (NASB). Likewise, in the case of the murrain, "the LORD will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing will die of all that belongs to the sons of Israel" (Ex. 9:4, NASB).

As for the sixth plague, it is clearly stated that the boils came on the magicians and all the Egyptians, but their is no mention of Israelites (Ex. 9:11). As for the seventh plague, that of the hail and lightening, it is expressly stated (Ex. 9:25) that it struck "all that was in the field through all the land of Egypt, both man and beast....Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were there was no hail" (vv. 25-26, NASB). Likewise with the ninth plague, that of darkness, "there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days....But all the sons of Israel had light in their dwellings" (Ex. 10:22-23, NASB). As for the tenth plague, it is undisputed and unquestioned that the death of the firstborn took place in every household except those in Goshen that had sprinkled the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintel and doorposts of the front door (Ex. 12:29-30).

There is, then, no confusion or contradiction in the entire narrative. Those plagues that afflicted the rest of Egypt did not touch Goshen, where the Israelites lived. The struck
all
the land of Egypt and
all
the Egyptians
except
the believing children of Israel and their special enclave in Goshen.

Is there any evidence that any Pharaoh's son ever died in connection with the
Israelite Exodus?

Exodus 12:29 states the episode in the following terms: "Now it came about at midnight that the LORD struck 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 cattle" (NASB). The question arises as to whether there is any Egyptian evidence that might corroborate this tragic loss of the crown prince in a period corresponding to the Exodus itself. The answer to that question is affirmative, for it is implied in the Dream Stela of Thutmose IV.