kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (01/13/84)
This article is in response to Tim's recent objections to my comments on
someone's question/complaint about Exodus 8-15 not allowing Pharaoh free
will. I also have a general complaint at the end of this aricle, dealing
with the way this newsgroup works (or doesn't work). I am borrowing Tim's
quoting format, because it seems to make it a bit easier to see who is
saying what.
K Well, yes and no. Insufficient context was supplied. I discussed this
A with an Orthodox Jew with whom I work, and his description was this: the
R first 5 plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians with the Pharoah letting
L his own will run the show. Then, after the fifth plague, "the will of
. Pharoah was known," which is to say that it had become obvious that Pharoah
. wasn't interested in the least in letting the people go. During this time,
K Pharoah hardened his own heart. Once his will was known, and he was in a
A sense beyond hope, God continued to use the situation. In this instance,
R God maintained the hardening of his heart, but this was only after the
L Pharoah's own free will had been fully expressed. When the last 5 plagues
. had come and gone, and Pharoah's son had died, his will was broken. He
. could have used his free will any time up to the fifth plague, but chose
. not to; at that time, God took over the situation.
[I add editorially that I did not have a Bible with me at the time that was
written, and was writing largely from memory and from what my friend told me.]
T Hmm. Perhaps; that is at least mostly consistent with the text. However,
I Pahroah's son is not killed until the tenth and final curse; he is
M apparently in fine health at the time you claim he's dead. That is not the
. point of my response, though. Pharoah was NOT beyond hope. In fact, he
T actually recanted, completely willing to let the tribes of Israel leave
I Egypt, and Yahweh then hardened his heart, forcing the remaining plagues to
M be used! If Yahweh had simply not performed the actions of Ex. 10:20, the
. Israelites would likely have been freed without fuss. Pharoah says in Ex.
T 10:16-17, "I have sinned against Yahweh your God, and against yourselves
I [Moses and Aaron]. Forgive my sin, I implore you, this once, and entreat
M Yahweh your God just to rid me of this deadly plague." It is clear that
. Pharoah is repentant, ready to bargain...
First, I don't understand your objection in the second sentence ("However,
Pharaoh's son is not killed..."); I am reading Exodus 12:29-32, where it
is described in detail that the firstborn of Pharaoh was killed, and only
then did Pharaoh tell Moses to leave. But, as you said, that wasn't your
main objection; I think we just got our wires crossed a bit there.
You object to the fact that Pharaoh gives his permission and then the final
plagues are used anyway. This is certainly a reasonable point at which to
raise an objection, but I don't think the complaint holds water for long.
There are no less than seven times during this entire story that Pharoah
gives his permission for Moses and the people to leave, but then retracts
it. I won't bother quoting here, but for those inclined to check my refer-
ences: Pharoah gives permission after frogs 8:8, retracts 8:15; gives
permission after flies 8:28, retracts 8:32; gives after hail 9:27, retracts
9:34; gives *before* locusts 10:8, retracts 10:11; gives *after* locusts
10:16, retracts 10:20; gives after darkness 10:24, retracts 10:28. Even
after giving permission on the death of his firstborn (12:31-32), he
still goes after the people in 14:5.
My point here is that the fact that Pharaoh gave permission on the one
occasion just before the plague of darkness is of no major significance.
On the other occasions, he was willing to give permission because he saw
that there was relief from the plagues. No big deal, then, that he gave
his permission again after the plague of locusts (which wasn't even the
last time he gave permission).
Now I wish to question something else. In the opinion of Tim, men are
gods in and of themselves. I wish, then, to object to the fact that
Pharaoh had the people enslaved in the first place. Pharaoh was in a
position of more power than anyone else at the time, and he certainly
could have arranged for the people to be let go any time he wished.
Some of his advisors and officials told him to do so anyway; see 10:7.
Yet he (or, more accurately, they) persisted in this extremely long-
term abuse (430 years) of the people. In another recent article, Tim
claims that we must question every possible god, to see if he is moral
or not. I am questioning Pharaoh, represented as a god, to see what
sort of defense this god would have me believe.
While we're at it, since complaints are being made that the Hebrew
god is a hideous monster, let's put the same test to Pharoah. (Turn-
about is fair play, I believe.) In Exodus 1, Pharoah (apparently the
father of the one in the story of the Exodus itself) started getting
nervous about the fact that the Hebrews were becoming very numerous,
and therefore quite strong. He says (1:10), "Come, we must deal
shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if
war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave
the country" (NIV). Pharoah's solution to the problem is mass
infanticide as a means of population control (1:16 and 1:22). I
think this is at least as clear an indication that there is no
compassion in Pharaoh, and so is to be rejected as a god. I think I
could probably reject every human who ever lived on this basis,
since I think everyone at some time demonstrates a lack of compas-
sion. I am confused about what constitutes a moral god, in the sense
that a moral god would always demonstrate compassion. I'm not
particularly interested in throwing these sorts of accusations
around, but since Pharaoh has more power than anyone else, he also
has more responsibility, and he still attempts this mass murder.
..................................
I would like to finish this article with a general complaint about
net.religion as a whole. The following quote is provided solely as
an *example* of a problem that I think this newsgroup has. It is
not intended in any way to reflect on the author.
T I would like to thank both David Norris and Karl Kleinpaste for helping me
I to understand the Plagues. You may rest assured that the next version of
M the essay "Even If I DID Believe ..." will contain a longer and far more
. condemnatory treatment of the killing of the first-born, thanks to you.
As an example, I think this quote points out an attitude problem that I
think nearly everyone contributing to this newsgroup has, on every side
of every argument presented. (I have been guilty as well on at least one
occasion; but I don't contribute to net.religion that frequently. I prefer
to respond privately with mail.) These random, caustic comments that contribute
nothing to an argument, and which seem to have no purpose other than to anger
those who hold opposing viewpoints, is just too common here. Recently, when
things got particularly bad, umcp-cs!liz posted an article decrying the
genuinely hateful approaches which people take to one another here. I don't
think her plea for improved articles had much effect.
I had been keeping a list of quotes from net.religion articles where I
felt that the author made an unnecessarily rude comment, which indicates
more their inability to argue rationally about their subject matter.
My list got quite long. It was some 20K in size, and I have only been
keeping it for a couple of months. (I just rm'd it a little while ago.)
I don't think I made any such rude or generally condemnatory comments in
this article; if someone thinks I have, please point it out, I'll consider
it, and I'll probably post a retraction of the comment if it warrants it.
But could everybody (and I do mean everybody) who posts to this group
please take a look at the articles they're posting, and think about whe-
ther the comments contained therein are argumentative, or just plain hot?
Karl Kleinpaste
...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk