“By this you shall know that I am the Lord.” (Ex 7: 17)
Nicolas Abou Mrad Since the very first moment, the Lord calls Abram/Abraham to be his servant and to walk the path which he has ordained as Pharaoh is depicted as the Lord’s counterpart who attempts to abduct Sarah into his Harem so that, through her, he would enslave the offspring the Lord has established after Abel’s death. Pharaoh wishes to subjugate this progeny to the powers of darkness that have resulted from Man’s obedience to the snake after it has tempted him and promised him to become like the gods. Pharaoh represents Man’s thirst for “the knowledge of good and evil” as it would enable him to be unbound and to act as he pleases driven by his lust for dominance. However, it would be a literary fallacy if the readers attempt to conduct a comparative reading between the story of Abraham and his progeny as a story of a people who is called and blessed by God, on one hand, and the story of Egypt and its pharaoh as being the ones who are cursed and rejected by God, on the other. Such perspectives in reading the Old Testament have contributed to a great misunderstanding of the Scriptures which has led to the emergence of several theories advocating a supreme chosen people which has been treasured as superior to other nations. This is not the writer’s intention as his primary intention is to highlight the Lord’s salvific plan after Man has rebelled against Him. The writer wants to promote the idea that the Lord wishes to restore Man to his initial Garden of Eden as it is clearly stated in His promise to Noah and in His covenant with him. It is for this reason that Abraham is chosen as a blessing unto all nations including Egypt and its pharaoh. The Lord’s plan is to save all the descendants of the first Man, the children of Ham to whom God sets Sam as an example; those are also the same people whom God has saved from slavery in Babel. Therefore, it is important that the readers are aware that the story of Abraham and his progeny is only understood when read parallelly to or congruently with the story of Pharaoh and what he stands for since Abraham and his son Isaac are the last hope for those who strive for their lives amidst evil and violence. Once saved; those people would be able to walk in the footsteps of a faithful and meek Abraham through whom the whole creation is restored to its initial state of goodness and being in God’s image. Thus, in Genesis, we read about a pharaoh who abides by God’s orders; he is aware that salvation from death would not happen unless he elevates the slave-Joseph, seats him on a throne, and accepts to listen to God’s words through his mouth. As Pharaoh accepts God’s words delivered by Joseph, life becomes abundant as both the pharaoh and the sons of Abraham learn to coexist on the same land and agree to share its riches which God has bestowed upon them through the one God has chosen, has freed from slavery, and has elevated so he would be a blessing onto both nations. The Book of Exodus actually starts when another pharaoh who does not know Joseph accesses to the throne. He is too vain to understand that such abundance wouldn’t have been possible unless through Joseph. The story of the Lord with this pharaoh, who knows neither Joseph, nor God through Joseph, actually starts with the story of the exodus. The purpose of this story is the message that God wishes to transmit to Pharaoh “By this you shall know that I am the Lord.” God sounds to be telling him “When I show you my signs, remember pharaoh son of the rebel that it is God who has formed your father from the dust of the ground.” In the Book of Exodus, there seems to be a duel between the Lord and Creator, who is the god of the heavens and the earth which He has fashioned from void, and between Man who has obeyed the snake and elevated himself to be the equal of the gods. Man’s weapon is his oppression, his arrogance and enslaving the weak; however, God’s weapon is a word he sends to Pharaoh in the mouth of Moses. Moses is that same man the pharaoh has ordered to kill, whom he has turned into a murderer but whom God decides to save and transforms into a humble herdsman. God sends a word to the Man-pharaoh so that he would know God and release the enslaved people as, by doing so, he would also be freeing himself from the lust of vanity and the atrocities of violence. It is the story of God and Pharaoh; it is also the continuation of the story of God and Man who is manifested in Adam, Cain, the sons of the gods, Nemrod and the builders of Babel. God calls Everyman to do an exodus and to give up his evil mindset just like Abraham has done when he left Ur of the Chaldees towards the vast land of God. In fact, the pharaoh and his Egypt are not the enemy, it is rather the oppression which they represent and which God wishes to annihilate in order to be replaced by peace which he has sent to the nations through Joseph. It is peace that has been the corner stone of a peaceful coexistence between Abraham and Abimelech, Isaac and Abimelech and the sons of Jacob and the Egyptians. The pharaoh who does not know Joseph, does not know peace either; therefore, God sends Moses in the hope Pharaoh would learn about peace and spare himself and the two nations a sad, long and harsh journey towards God who wishes to restore goodness to his land and to the whole earth. Unfortunately, the story would reveal that Pharaoh would not die, and he would still be remembered and heralded by humans. He would still lure humans and control their minds for as long as history would exist. Moreover, Man would forever remain the victim of his own lust for oppression till the Scriptures is fulfilled through the one who would stand humiliated as he suffers from the blows of those who sit on thrones blinded by arrogance. He would ultimately die and become the true image God calls people to emulate. He would be judged by Pilate, representing all those who would claim to be supreme humans, sitting on the throne of injustice. Oddly, Pilate would say about Jesus “behold the man” insinuating that He is the one who has fulfilled God’s words “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” “I am the Lord your God” (Ex 6:1-13) Nicolas Abou Mrad When Moses asks the speaker from the burning bush about His name and who He was, the speaker answers “I AM WHO I AM”, and asks him to tell anyone who seeks to know His name “‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Ex 3:13-14). This is what the Hebrew text says literally. The equivalent Hebrew verb to verb “to be” is “haya” with “yehyeh” as its imperfect form. The first person singular of the imperfect would be “ehyeh” (I am). The verb “hayah” (to be)” has two usages in Hebrew: As a predicative verb followed by a noun and a predicate, as well as an intransitive verb that denotes the state of being or existing (I am; I exist). In this pericope of Exodus, the writer uses verb “to be” in its first form as a predicative verb. This usage of the verb is further stressed in God’s answer to Moses “I AM WHO I AM” where the noun is the latent first person singular pronoun and the predicate is the relative clause “WHO I AM”. Through this perspective, it is now possible to translate this sentence into English as follows: “I AM WHO I AM”. According to this text, this means that the divine “I” is identified through only one predicate which describes God as He is “who He is”. As mentioned in a previous article, when God speaks about Himself in this manner, He makes it impossible for Moses to be able to identify God with a mere name, a source, or a quality and somehow prevents him from asking further questions regarding His identity such as “which civilization or city-state are you the god of?” or - in our modern language - “which religion are you the god of?” To affirm God’s resentment to being identified by a name like any other deity, or through a civilization, a king, a city-state or even a religion, and in his answer to Moses’s question about what he should say in case the children of Israel want to know “who He was”, God uses a sentence with a predicative verb that requires a noun and a predicate in order to announce who He was; however, the predicate is not prominent; it is rather latent. His answer contains a grammatical fallacy since predicative verbs do require a noun that announces the speaker’s identity and a predicate that modifies the noun or at least specifies some of its aspects. For one to use a sentence with a predicative verb but without a prominent clear predicate requires a high level of rhetoric and fluency on the side of the speaker since he or she would need to replace a definite and prominent predicate with an absolute and open-ended one for his or her speech or message to be effective. This open-endedness can suggest a wide variety of specifications about the identity of the speaker or even none at all. It suggests everything and nothing at the same time. It is just like when one says “the sea…” or “the sea was…” in a dangling, hollow noun phrase and does not complete it. It is as if one simply mentions the sea saying that” it is…” and then pauses leaving the ground for the listeners or the readers to fill in the gaps. This is what the writer of the Book of Exodus does when he uses verb “I AM” when referring to God. Thus, the scenario would be as follows: Moses would address the Children of Israel and would tell them that a god has sent him to guide them out of Egypt. They would definitely want to know who that god is and what his name is; therefore, Moses would deliver God’s answer to this question and would say “I AM…” or the god who has sent me is the one who says about Himself “I AM…” or “ I…”. In a way, Moses’s answer to the Children of Israel would be incomplete and void as he unveils no name, definition or specification. The word “YeHWeH” reflects a third person singular pronoun of the imperfect form of verb “to be”. However, there exists major difference between the word “YeWHeW” and this singular form in Hebrew which is “Yehyeh”. The difference resides in the fact that the third letter of the stem “Y” is replaced by “W”. Many scholars have tried to explain the etymology of the word “Yehweh”; however, in my opinion, the most reliable analysis that explains this difference has two dimensions - morphological and semantic. As far as morphology is concerned, in Semitic languages, vowels in the same word are interchangeable; this often occurs without affecting the meaning; they function as mere matris lectionis to help the reader use the appropriate vowel. Therefore, it can be inferred that the word “Yehyeh” and “Yehweh” are the same despite the natural difference in spelling the third vowel of the stem, which is “Y” and “W” in this case. As far as meaning is concerned, it is highly probable that the authors of the Old Testament have differentiated the word “Yehweh” from the word “Yehyeh”, since the former is associated with God who would declare in Ex 6:3 that “YHWH” is His name. In order to highlight the eminence of this word in the books of the Old Testament, in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (circa 2nd Century B.C), the word “the Lord” (Kyrios in Greek) has been used as a rightful translation of the word “YHWH”. This word has also been used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus. I would also like to point out the fact that the Jewish scholars of the early centuries have applied the vocalization of the word “Adonai” to “YHWH”, in order to invite the reader not to pronounce YHWH when it is encountered, but rather “Adonai”, which means, “my Lords” or simply “my Lord”. However, the main usage of this word remains as a predicative verb form followed by a noun but without a predicate that announces the news about the noun. It is the usage adopted in the Scriptures. However, one may ask, where is the predicate? What is the news? The best answer to this question remains that of God to Moses when He announces “I AM WHO I AM”. God should not be referred to with any other word but “HE IS…” Nevertheless, the writer would eventually announce some news about God through the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the story of Exodus in which He declares “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty… And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage …” (Ex 6:3-5). Accordingly, the best reference for the listeners or the readers who wish to know the news about God’s identity would be the Scriptures starting by Genesis and ending by the Book of Revelation. The authors of the New Testament seem to be aware of this fact, and it is for this reason that they make Jesus repeatedly use the words “I AM…” and “I…” to allude to the fact that He Himself is the absolute news about God as, through his death and resurrection, He has wrapped up the story of salvation that God would bestow upon the meek who follow Him. “I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go.” - Ex 5:1-3
Nicolas Abou Mrad Moses returns to Egypt; for all those who wanted to kill him are dead (Ex 4:19-20). in order to prove that it is the Lord who has sent him, he takes the staff of God in his hand through which he would perform all the signs the Lord has given him power to do before Pharaoh and the children of Israel. Moses starts back to Egypt accompanied by his wife and sons on the back of donkeys; he is alone, not accompanied by a marching army, carries no weapons nor war machines, and, as he is inhibited and slow of speech, even his tongue would not serve as a weapon in his defense. There, commissioned by the Lord, Aaron his brother would be awaiting him; he is ready to receive God’s words which Moses would put into his mouth so that he speaks forth before the people and the Egyptians. For Aaron, this is no easy task since the Lord has already promised that He would harden the pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the people go (Ex 4:21). Then, a dire clash would break up. Moses, who has nothing to fight with except for a few words he cannot even utter properly would defy the pharaoh, who has all the might. Aaron speaks to the people with Moses’ words and performs the signs of the snake and that of the white hand before them; the people believe, bow down and worship the Lord “who has seen their misery”. They believe indeed, but, unfortunately, it would be only for a short while since their faith is weak as we shall see later on. They would deny the Lord and would insist on staying in Egypt under slavery. However, this story is not about the people of Israel; it is rather about the pharaoh. The confrontation between Pharaoh and the Lord’s words delivered by Aaron and Moses starts in 5:1 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the wilderness.’” The purpose behind setting the people free is for them to be able to “celebrate” the festival of the lord in the wilderness. In the Hebrew origin, the word “to celebrate” has several connotations. The verb derives from the root word “Hag” which means “pilgrimage”. It is used as a technical word when referring to the celebration of Passover (Ex 12:14) which denotes the feast of salvation and liberation from slavery in Egypt. The fact that the children of Israel perform a “pilgrimage” for the Lord in the wilderness means that they would have to live the rest of their life in a constant celebration of Passover that symbolizes the crossing from a state of slavery and subjection to Egypt and its king to a different state embodied by the wilderness where the Lord has appeared to Moses as a caring God and a savior. Accordingly, the purpose behind exodus from Egypt would by no means be a mere leisure trip to the wilderness for the sake of celebrating a religious festival; it is rather a celebration through which the children of Israel would witness a major change in their lifestyle as they would now become pilgrims for the Lord as long as they shall live. This would necessitate a thorough understanding of the phenomenon and the concept of moving out from Egypt, on one hand, and into the wilderness, on the other, as they are two different geographical places and two different states that bear no similarities whatsoever. Egypt is a land of a sophisticated civilization ruled by a king who thinks he is god. As presented by the writer, he seems to be a merciless and oppressive murderer; however, this king’s rule does not stretch to the wilderness. Instead, the moment the Lord appears to Moses in a burning bush, the wilderness becomes the sacred place ruled by a god unbeknownst to pharaoh. “Who is the LORD..? I do not know the LORD….” (5:2) Pharaoh does not know the Lord because He is unbeknownst to the arrogant and the vain. Instead, He would only reveal Himself to the meek, the outcast and the humiliated. It is for this reason that the enslaved children of Israel are able to believe in Him when Aaron and Moses speak about His theophany and His concern about a people who are humiliated and subdued by an aloof king. This is exactly the reason Aaron and Moses do not speak a word about their god to the pharaoh except for telling him that He is “the god of the Hebrews”, the god of those who would cross from one place to another, the travelers in the desert, the nomads who have no shelter and are nameless just like Sem (the Name), Noah’s son. “The God of those who pass by [this is what the word “Hebrews” mean] has met with us” (5:3); this is what Moses and Aaron say in reply to the king’s question about their god’s identity. Pharaoh is unaware of Him because he is not a “Hebrew” nor a nomad and does not move to wherever the Lord is. He does not know the wilderness since he has never been to it. He has left it to live in his Egypt where he has built his magnificent cities as the Babylonians did in Gen 11:1-9 so as to make himself a name to be remembered by. To highlight this contrast between the wilderness and Egypt, on one hand, and between the god of the Hebrews and the pharaoh, on the other, Pharaoh orders his slave drivers to make the people’s work harder using the same words the people of Babel have used while they were building their fantastic city. Pharaoh gives this order to the taskmasters and overseers in charge of the people: “You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks.” In the Hebrew origin, the expression “making bricks” is the same expression used by the people of Babel in Gen 11:3 “come let’s make bricks”. If the comparison between Babel and the cities of the pharaoh were accurate, then the pharaoh himself would stand for the erected tower that reaches to the heaven and would enslave people. By ordering the people to leave Egypt, God would have put an end to the building of the city and to its arrogant tower - the pharaoh - and would have freed the enslaved people from arrogance and oppression. However, before leaving Egypt, evil would heighten and so would God’s retribution. The clash between the city and the wilderness and between an oppressive god who rules the city and one who is a savior of the oppressed “hebrews” would take an ascending motion. This confrontation would escalate and become more complicated before it culminates with all oppressors who are enslaved by arrogance would eventually fall. In the end, God would always walk behind and watch the steps of the walkers in the desert; in other words, He would watch over those who decide to listen to His words and abide by it. Such is a blessed pilgrimage. He will be a mouth for you, and you will be god to him - Ex 4:16
Nicolas Abou Mrad --------------------------------------------------------- As discussed in the previous article, Moses is worried about whether the children of Israel would actually listen to him once he tells them that the “God of their fathers” has appeared to him and chosen him to lead them out of Egypt. While talking to God who has appeared to him in the burning bush, Moses uses the expression “listen to my voice” when he states "But, look, they will not believe me, nor listen to my voice” (4:1). This is a Hebrew expression that means “listen to me / obey me”. The same expression is used in our colloquial Arabic language; thus, “to hear my word” would mean “to listen” or “to obey”. To counteract the feeling of inadequacy that Moses displays in response to God’s call, God gives him two signs for repentance followed by a third one that designates death and destruction; “if they will not believe also these two signs, neither listen to your voice” (4:9). Both Moses’s and God’s statements assert that if “Moses’s voice”, his words, are not heard, “the water you take from the river will become blood on the ground”. This is a warning sign about what would happen if the Moses’s signs are disregarded; the land would be stricken by destruction and barrenness. God warns that the land shall die if Moses’s voice is not heard; however, Moses is voiceless, wordless and is slow of speech and tongue! At least, this is how he describes himself as he states “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue” (Ex 4:10). He is like Jeremiah the “child” who cannot speak” (Jer 1:6), Isaiah with his unclean lips (Is 6:5) and the Lord’s “silent” Servant who “did not open His mouth” (Is 53:7). Hence, how is it possible for the voiceless and the wordless to be heard? We find the answer in Ezekiel; When called to deliver His word to a “rebellious nation” (Ez 2:1-7) God says to the terrified Ezekiel “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Do not be rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you.” Ezekiel says “so I opened my mouth, and he fed me the scroll, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth” (Ez 2:8- 3:3). When the Lord asks Ezekiel to warn against a pending penalty for Judah’s transgressions, Ezekiel becomes dumbstruck; he becomes a scroll that speaks God’s word and that of the Scriptures that has filled his stomach rather than a man who speaks his own word. Ezekiel becomes a living book and spreads the word that would become a judgment unto the rebellious nation. Towards the end of the book, the sweetness that has filled his stomach becomes God’s salvific plan to all the nations when the faithful would gather around Him in His city that comes out of heaven down to the new earth (Ez 48). The story of Ezekiel is but an answer to what happens in the story of Moses. God would do unto Moses what He has done unto Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah; Moses would also be given a book to eat. Moreover, he would himself become that open book in which God’s words are inscribed, “Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.” Thus spoke the Lord, “I will be your mouth with which you shall speak”. Read in the name of your Lord. What the writer has previously stated about Moses’s expectations - about the children of Israel and how they might not listen to his words - only suggests that Moses’s words, which are actually none other but the Lord’s, would be the Israelites’ judgment. This we shall see later in the book. Through this idea, the writer suggests that there now seems to be a higher level of harmony between Moses and the divine message. He reflects this idea through an ascending narrative style. Despite the fact that the Lord has promised Moses to be his own mouth, Moses still fights the divine call “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.” (4:13). Thus, the Lord’s anger burnt against Moses, and he asks him about his brother Aaron, the father of all priests and the founder of priesthood, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well”… “You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth” … “He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.” (4:14-16). Aaron the priest becomes Moses’s prophet while Moses the prophet becomes a god onto Aaron. Through these words, God establishes between Moses and Aaron a similar relationship as the one that exists between Moses and Himself. He is the God of Moses the prophet while Moses is Aaron’s god. Aaron would shift from being a priest into becoming a prophet. These words carry an intense meaning and reflect a major Biblical aspect that would unfold throughout the Bible where it is said that the ritualistic priesthood would shift into prophecy. Thus, Jeremiah and Ezekiel the priests would become prophets. The best Biblical example that illustrates this pattern is when Eli, the high priest of Shiloh, is replaced by Samuel the prophet who carries God’s word in 1 Sam 1-3. The writer of Exodus inserts this idea in a narrative about Aaron the first High Priest, and the founder and ancestor of the Israelite priesthood. When he was first mentioned in the Book of Exodus, Aaron was referred to as a “mouth”, a “prophet” of Moses the book! Accordingly, it is not surprising that the first and the most eminent gift second to apostlehood, one which Paul boasts about, is the gift of prophecy and speaking God’s words, that is to expound the words of Scriptures (1 Cor 12:28). Another important aspect of the Lord’s words to Moses is the task that is assigned to the Holy Book through Moses. Needless to say that Moses’s name is linked to the law “not even an iota will ever disappear from the Law as long as heaven and earth last”, since God’s law is but the embodiment of love as Jesus Christ teaches. If Moses were the book and a god unto those who speak the word, then, through the Lord’s words to Moses, the writer asserts the eminence of the divine book which derives its authority from the Lord Himself as the book is none other than His words. The divinity bestowed upon the Bible and the Lord’s words would accompany us in our journey of uncovering the meaning embedded in its books up until it becomes, through Jesus, “the Word that was in the beginning”, the one that was with God and the one that was God. “What if they do not have faith in me or listen to my voice?” (Ex 4:1)
Nicolas Abou Mrad When God first appeared to Moses and asked him to free the Children of Israel and lead them into the wilderness so they can worship Him, Moses was intimidated and afraid. He asks God “What if they do not have faith in me or listen to my voice?” In response to his skepticism, God graciously gives him three signs as proof that he has entrusted him with this mission, on one hand, and to help him instill faith in God within the people and to prove His might to Pharaoh, on the other. First, God turns the shepherd’s staff that Moses is holding into a snake and then restores it to its initial form. Second, God asks him to put his hand inside his cloak; he does so, but when he takes it out, it is leprous and white as snow. Then, God restores it like the rest of his skin. Third, He turns water into blood on the ground and orders Moses to perform it himself if the Children of Israel do not believe the first two signs. In this paragraph, it is worth noting that after doubting his own ability in standing against the pharaoh, Moses expresses his doubts about the kind of reaction the Children of Israel would exhibit when he tells them that God has appeared to him and has sent him to save them from slavery. He actually thinks they would not believe him. Therefore, it seems that the actual problem does not only reside in the pharaoh, but also in the Children of Israel themselves. This would be a major twist in the course of the narrative that would affect the whole story of exodus. Later on, it would be revealed that the main person who would disobey God is not Pharaoh as he would be a muppet in the hands of God. God seems to change him the way he wants to. In some instances, we are told that God softens his heart, in some others, He hardens it, but eventually it is God’s order that is carried out. As it unfolds, the story would reveal that the greatest disobeyers of God’s order would be the Children of Israel. This represents a major paradox since chapter 4 of the book suggests that despite the fact that God has seen their misery, heard their cries, and has been aware of their sufferings, the Israelites would refuse to follow Him. In fact, a major part of the exodus narrative would revolve around the rebellion of this people against God and his salvific plan. Therefore, the conflict would not be one between God and Pharaoh as God would easily win the battle; the real conflict would be between God and the Israelites themselves. God wants them out of Egypt while they would somehow insist on staying. The subsequent chapters would be full of stories about how this obstinate people would reject God’s work and His salvific plan. As far as the signs are concerned, the staff sign is actually addressed to the Children of Israel. "This," said the LORD, "is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob - has appeared to you." (Ex 4:5). This sign is highly significant; the staff and the snake imagery is a reminder of the first Man’s rebellion against God when the couple chooses to obey the snake in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3: 1-4). As previously stated, the snake’s temptation symbolizes Man’s arrogance and his desire to be like the gods and to renounce God who has formed him from the dust of the ground. When God gives the staff and the snake sign, He intends, through Moses, to highlight the snake imagery one more time in order to remind the Children of Israel, who refuse to leave Egypt, of the fact that Man, their great ancestor, has fallen for the snake’s temptation because he wished to become king and god. The Children of Israel discredit Moses; therefore, opting to stay in Egypt only indicates that accepting to remain slaves for the pharaoh is but a submission to power, arrogance and false glory. It entails that they have become lured and enslaved by temptations that have totally possessed them. Thus, being enslaved by labor is but a symbol of how Man is bedazzled by hegemony and the lust for authority. While the snake symbolizes kingship, the staff represents the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil from which Adam ate; the forbidden fruit of the tree made him full of himself and, in his own eyes, he was god. If the Children of Israel have rejected the staff and the snake sign, this only means that they wish to stay in Egypt, in the very arms of the pharaoh and, thus, refuse to undertake the journey God has planned for them. This is the same journey their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have undertaken when they decided to leave the great cities and walk towards the wilderness of the Lord in order to hear His word and believe in Him. In the story of the staff and the snake, verb “to believe”, which originates from the Hebrew stem “aman” connoting “to have faith in / to believe in”, only proves that the main topic this whole story revolves around is faith in the Lord and His word about the salvation He would offer. Moreover, the white hand sign is but a reference to the Lord’s word and His Laws. We are told that Moses’s face would become white and radiant after he meets the Lord on the mountain who would give him the two tablets of the covenant in order to transmit His commands to the Children of Israel (Ex 34: 29-35). The staff and the snake sign is but a call to the Children of Israel to obey the Lord whereas the white hand sign is a reference to His word which they should obey. Rejecting the two signs - in other words, disobeying God and not renouncing “the worship of the snake” and what it stands for - would entail God’s wrath; thus, the land which God has formed and has called out of the watery abyss to become a ground thriving with life would turn into a land flooded with blood. Such is the irreversible sign of the Lord. The staff and Moses’s hand would restore their original forms; however, the land would never heal once it becomes stained with blood, as the text implies. The imagery of the blood-covered earth is but a symbol of the outcome of Man’s arrogance and his disobedience. It is a symbol of violence, murder, and oppression; it is the blood of the innocent Abel uncovering his brother’s crime and shouting out for justice. The sign of the blood on the ground is an omen of destruction and death introduced into the world by an arrogant being. This blood would turn earth into a “wasteland”. However, as the story unfolds, we shall witness how the Lord would vanquish death and arrogance. God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" - EX 3:14
Nicolas Abou Mrad God continues speaking to Moses from within the burning bush. He is determined to send him to Pharaoh in order to bring his people out of Egypt (Ex 3:10). In response to this call, Moses shows reluctance and doubt; he believes he won’t be able to carry out this mission and states “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” Through this rhetorical question, Moses expresses his belief in the fact that the confrontation would be unfair as his lowly person is no match to the power of Pharaoh. Upon leaving the royal household, Moses has become the pharaoh’s exact opposite. The latter is a mighty king while the former is a runaway, an outcast and a poor shepherd. Despite Moses’s plea, God does not relent; He reassures him and says “I will be with you”; “it is I who have sent you” (3:12). God’s answer to Moses’s doubt in his own readiness to confront Pharaoh does not negate what Moses reveals about his helplessness and poorness. In this duel, Moses is indeed the weaker party. However, despite Moses’s weakness, God is resolute; He does not change his mind about choosing him as a messenger to the king. God knowingly intends to send the weak and the humble to stand against the mighty and promises “I will be with you”; “it is I who have sent you”. The opposition between the “I” of Moses and the “I” of God stands out in these verses. While Moses believes he is unable to carry out the mission by asking “Who am I”, God asserts “I am with you”, “I have sent you”. This is a preparation for the following verse, in which Moses will ask God "Who are you?" Later in the text, as Moses believes he is unsuitable for the mission, he says to God “I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue” (Ex 4: 10). Despite his plea, God does not relent, He would, nevertheless, send the weak, the humble, the inarticulate, the inhibited and the slow of speech and tongue to stand in the presence of the mightiest of kings and compel him to allow the people to leave Egypt into the wilderness where their God is awaiting. This is a typical Biblical pattern where God would usually call the prophets and send them to stand against kings, authorities, priests and people. For instance, the Lord sends Isaiah to tell the people "Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving” even after he has admitted his unworthiness in front of the Lord sitting upon His throne, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Is 6: 1-13). The Lord also chooses Jeremiah to be a “fortified city” and sends him to stand against the conspirators and the pitiless; in response to this, Jeremiah replies, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child" (Jer 6: 1-13). Similarly, the Lord sends Amos who is a sheep herder and a sycamore fig hunter to stand against the kings of Israel (Am 14:7), as well as the elderly Abram to stand against Pharaoh and Abimelech, Isaac against Abimelech, Jacob against Laban, and Joseph and Daniel against the tyrants of the earth. This pattern is the main characteristic of the Scriptures and the main feature of its narrative scheme and its depiction of the value of the human history. Even if mighty tyrants have always been triumphant in the history of humankind, the strange God, who appears in the burning bush, would write a totally different history, an anti-history, through the meek. This meek person, yet “strong in the Lord”, would be manifested through the face of the Christ of the Lord in Isaiah (Is 53) and through Jesus who would be crucified by the empire and the Jerusalemite leadership and priests. Yet, God would raise him from death and turn Him into a living Word till the end of days. He would become a Word that would defeat death in all its forms. While Moses laments his weakness, God would give him a sign that he would succeed in his mission “Certainly I will be with you; and this shall be a token unto you, that I have sent you: When you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain” (Ex 3:12). This is indeed an awkward sign, as it bears proof to a promise of success only after this promise has been fulfilled. In other words: The validity of the sign that God “is with Moses” can only be established after Moses has accomplished his mission! How is it possible to give you a proof that I will be with you through a mission impossible, if this proof can only be seen after you have accomplished this mission? Through this mysterious sign, the writer intends to confirm the fact that the purpose of the exodus and the freedom from an enslaving pharaoh is actually to “serve God upon this mountain”. Let us not forget that Moses has initially come to this mountain to attend to his father-in-law’s flock. God has appeared to him through a bush, which was supposed to be food for the sheep, so that He would later send him to bring in another flock that he would attend to. However, this new flock would feed on the words of the One who has appeared in the bush. That is indeed the true worship. I would like to signal the fact that the words “slavery / work” and “worship” originate from the same stem “’abad” in Hebrew, which means both to « serve » and to « worship ». In other words, the people in Egypt served the pharaoh, but they would be called out of Egypt to “worship the Lord”. So what is the difference then? The whole difference resides in the meek one “whom the Lord sends” to the pharaoh. Therefore, the people’s worship of the pharaoh is the harsh and demeaning worship of power whereas worshipping the Lord is the elevation of the weak and a sign of eternal love. Such is the journey of Exodus; it is a journey from working for the sake of power to working for the sake of freedom from oppression and walking in the shadow of the word that spreads light and a divine presence from within one of the lowliest plants! Moses asks God: Who are you? This god whom Moses addresses seems to be shrouded in mystery. Never has Moses been familiar with a god like him. “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” When Moses asks God about His name, he is actually assuming that the people would want to know this god’s name; thus, in doing so, he is expressing a long-held belief that gods cannot but have names, therefore, an identity, a temple, a land, and a king who represents them. For him, gods must have names that people usually use to call them with, but God’s answer to Moses’s question is simply “I am who I am”! Such is my name, God says, I am the one who “is who he is”. This name is as odd as the one who carries it, and instead of making God accessible to people who are wondering about His identity, this name shrouds Him in more mystery as if to say that the best way to know God is not to know Him at all. However, God chooses not to leave Moses in a state of ignorance as to His identity, He gives him as much knowledge as he can manage to understand “Tell Pharaoh that he one who is who he is, sent me to liberate the meek from you, Oh powerful!”. This means that, while God resides, as to His identity, in the darkest abyss of ignorance, He remains clearly known for being one who defends the meek and one who calls the mighty to worship Him by advocating love through which all human beings come to know “who He is”. For the place on which you are standing is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5)
By Nicolas Abou Mrad Moses becomes a dweller of the wilderness and gets to learn its ways; he attends to the sheep of his father-in-law, the priest of Midian who serves a foreign god. After having lived in the pharaoh’s palace, Moses learns how to foster life in lifeless, arid places. As mentioned in the previous article, sitting by the well symbolizes this life; Moses has ensured its continuity through the act of giving water to the girls’ sheep after he has annihilated it when he killed the Egyptian man. Immediately after the story of Moses with Reuel, the priest of Midian, the writer depicts a scene from Egypt (2: 23-25) which opens on the pharaoh’s death. According to the opening of the Book of Exodus, because this pharaoh did not know joseph, he enslaved the children of Jacob and forced them into labor to build his cities. With the death of the king of Egypt who wished to exterminate the Hebrews and ordered all their male newborns to be killed, the motion of the conflict between the tyrant and God reaches its climax. Hence, the very king who has ordered the death of the poor people dies, and the meek ones survive. God would save them as they have called Him from the depth of their anguish. This narrative scheme, in which a tyrant oppresses people and the meek are suppressed yet saved by God, would become a trend in writing the books of the Old Testament, notably, in the Psalms where the Christ of the Lord would represent the miserable whom God would elevate, and in whose presence the powerful would be stripped off their might. This narrative trend echoes the one in the beginning of Genesis where God the Creator defeats the watery abyss and the darkness and frees earth from their shackles so it would become a life-bearing place. God answers the call of the meek and remembers His divine covenant with Abraham, which was reaffirmed to succeeding generations through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob (Ex 2:25). In this covenant, God promises to make Abraham’s offspring inhabit the assigned land and become many. In my articles about Genesis, I have explained the value of such a promise through which the offspring that God would bless is the one which would carry the same faith of Abraham. This faith revolves around the belief that God is unlike the nations’ gods who advocate war and favor the powerful over the weak; he is rather a god who favors the poor and expects His followers to emulate Him in spreading love, justice and peace. This God who appeared to Abraham as a shepherd now appears to Moses the shepherd who is described in Ex 3:1 as the one who “led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God”. The scene of Moses leading the flock to the wilderness would recur in Exodus when Moses would lead the enslaved people out of Egypt to the same wilderness and the same mountain where God would appear and speak to him and entrust him with His commandments. Just like the mountain of God offers grass for Moses’s sheep to rest and graze after crossing the land of death, thus would the people who left Egypt feed on the word of God which He would deliver on the same mountain after they leave Egypt and cross the land of death. This text is highly liturgical. There seems to be a movement from outside the wilderness, across it, and then towards God’s mountain. Outside the wilderness lies the land of the tyrant pharaoh whereas, it is in the midst of this wilderness, where God would meet Man and offer him His word of life. It is in this light that the theophany in the burning bush should be viewed and understood in this pericope of Exodus. Why would God appear in a burning bush? Why would He appear in a bush that is intended to be food for sheep? Its burning flames indicate the bright light hosting God who decides to appear in it in a clear indication that the Scriptural God does not appear in city temples built by kings or by people. God appears wherever He desires; whatever place He speaks from, there He would be present. God’s presence through His word turns any place He dwells in into a land of holiness. His sacred place is not one that is designated by people; the Bible states that God refuses to dwell in places such as temples and shrines; in fact, there are many instances in the Scriptures that tell about how God rejected those places and even destroyed them, particularly those that were erected to His name (Jeremiah 7). His sacred place is one where no one would expect Him to appear in or speak from. For instance, this text says that He appears in a burning bush, yet it is not consumed by fire. Holy is this bush because the Lord dwells in it. It is not the place that is holy but rather that which “happens” in that place, and what really “happens” in this text is the fact that God speaks in this place and orders Moses to face the pharaoh and ask him to set his people free so that they would be able to worship the Lord on His mountain. Thus, the burning bush becomes God’s temple, His dwelling place and his powerful salvific presence. It is, therefore, essential to confirm that at this stage, the Lord would ask Moses to lead the people into the “land of holiness”. In the Book of Exodus, this land is not a geographical place but rather God’s presence through His word. This view would give the text a liturgical dimension. It is wrongly believed that living in the wilderness after being liberated from slavery is a transitional phase between the exodus from Egypt and entering the promised land. I believe that reaching the wilderness is already an aim in itself as it represents meeting God and listening to His word. Moses’s sheep would have no other pasture beyond God’s mountain in the wilderness; similarly, there would be no haven for those who have fled the oppression of cities and their rulers other than God’s word which would be delivered to them in the place of theophany. This word would call them to embrace great peace and love. "I have been a stranger in a strange land"
Nicolas Abou Mrad As Moses flees the pharaoh’s household, he shifts from being a murderer into becoming a shepherd. In my previous article (3), I have stated that this shift marks the onset of a radical change: Moses has relinquished the Pharaonic mindset that represents enslavement and the belief that the one who possesses power actually has the full right to rule over people’s lives as if they were mere slaves to his drives and desires. Moses becomes a shepherd and moves from living in a royal palace to living in the wilderness. The story of his marriage with the daughter of the priest of Midian (2: 16-22) is similar to that of the marriage of Isaac to the girl Abraham’s senior servant meets by the well (Gen 24). However, in this story, the one sitting by the well is not Moses’s wife-to-be but rather Moses who attends to the sheep of strangers. This is how Moses gets to be invited to supper by the Midianite priest and is offered one of the priest’s seven daughters as a bride. When carefully probed, this pericope (2: 16-22) reveals important implications. First, nothing much is said about the priest of Midian except that he is a shepherd, lives in the wilderness, and has seven daughters. The writer does not say which god this priest worships or which temple he serves in. Most probably, he did not serve the god who appeared to Moses since chapter 18 in the Book of Exodus relates that Moses tells the priest about what the Lord has done unto him, how He has guided the people of Israel out of Egypt. Moreover, it relates how Moses’s father-in-law instantly started believing in this God who set the people free and finally acknowledged Him as the greatest of all gods (Gen 18: 1-12). According to the narrative, this shepherd-priest is called Reuel which translates to “God is a shepherd" or “the shepherd of God". He has seven daughters with seven being a number which refers to divine perfection. This priest’s life seems to have been perfect as it lacked nothing except for the priest becoming aware of the existence of a god, who like him, tends and guards his people, just like a shepherd does to his sheep, and guides them to a shelter where the word of life overflows like the water from the well from which Moses has satiated his father-in-law’s cattle. The relationship that was eventually established between Moses and Reuel the priest indicates, on one hand, that the former, now, belongs to the latter since Moses has moved from Egypt to the wilderness and from being a member of the pharaoh’s household to one of the shepherd’s. On the other hand, it means that Reuel also belongs to Moses with regards to the faith that the priest would exhibit towards the God who has guided the people of Israel out of Egypt thus making him merit the salvation that has been fulfilled through the exodus even if he was not himself an Israelite and most probably worshiped a different god. This foreigner to whom Moses’s god is initially unbeknownst actually gets to live the story of the God of Exodus whereas Moses, who initially belonged to the pharaoh’s household and who seems to clearly belong to a god he thinks he knows well, becomes estranged in a strange man’s household. It is through this estrangement that God would encounter him and call him into the wilderness that would later become the place where God would guide the people into and molds them into a real nation. It is there where God would unite them not as a worldly nation, nor around a statehood, but rather around God’s word, the real spring of life. In fact, in this short story, we are in the presence of three” foreigners”: 1) Moses who is experimenting estrangement away from the pharaoh’s household, 2) the priest of Midian who worships a foreign god, and 3) God himself who is also estranged from the illusions people usually weave around the identity of their gods and the images they forge about them. These three foreigners meet in the wilderness, the land of estrangement by all means. It is in this wilderness where God would speak to all those who have long believed they belong to one of this world’s earthly entities and would invite them all to abandon arrogance and to show their belonging exclusively to the power of utmost love which was embodied in Reuel’s invitation to Moses the foreigner to live in his house and eat at his table. After the story of Moses’s marriage, God would call Moses through a burning bush in the wilderness and would tell him ,“the ground upon which you are standing is a ground of holiness” (Ex 3:5). This statement is also odd since sacred lands are usually defined as such by the people themselves within their civic environment and their kings and leaders’ capitals, whereas, here, God turns His very presence in the wilderness into a sacred land by its own right since it is on it that He stands and speaks. It is worth noting that the words “wilderness” and “the word” in their Hebrew origin are derived from the same stem and that the Hebrew word for wilderness also means “lips” out of which words are usually uttered. In this sense, God’s word becomes the very “sacred land” which sets fire and light; it guides into estrangement everyone who actually answers its call exactly like Abraham has done before (Gen 12). This land of estrangement would be dubbed by Stephan in a sermon he delivered upon his death “This is he (Moses) that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the living words to give unto us” (Acts 7:38). According to Stephan, this church, like its God, is estranged; however, it is estranged through His word; it is estranged from a world ruled by the gods of power, arrogance and dominion. This church refuses but to be a word advocating love even if martyrdom is the price which Stephan, the servant of God, has fully embraced emulating Jesus his lord who died on the cross. She named him Moses saying, I drew him out of the water" - Ex 2:10"
Nicolas Abou Mrad The order given by Pharaoh to kill all male newborn slaves is transformed, according to God’s order, into life given to the children of Jacob. This life will be brought forth on the hands of Moses, whose story starts here. In order to bring death upon them, Pharaoh orders every male newborn to be drowned in the river. Instead, the scene reveals that his order was divinely reversed. This reversal of the king’s decree is obvious in the story of the little boy who was born to a man from the house of Levi, and whose mother threw him into the water not to die rather to survive. In fact, the water imagery in Exodus is pretty much in line with what the writer of the Book of Genesis states about the symbolism of water in the story of Creation. If water was previously a symbol of death, it becomes a life-giving force, constituting one of the elements that make up an orderly universe. Pharaoh’s decision represents death and destruction whereas God, who controls the narrative without actually revealing Himself, defeats death and destruction, by transforming the act of drowning people in the river from a death scheme into a salvific and redemptive one. In this context, we come across an extremely important issue: The household of the one who planned to kill the enslaved people becomes the very place where the child who has been thrown into the river would end up living. This child would grow up to be the one whom God would choose to mediate between Himself and the pharaoh in order to fulfill His promise of liberating the enslaved people. God would take Moses into the desert, entrust him with his laws and give him the foundation to an existence God has intended for His people. That foundation shall be different from the one upon which humankind civilizations are established and maintained. The king of Egypt is an archetypal embodiment of such civilizations. Based on this, the writer narrates the story of how the daughter of the pharaoh saves the baby and raises him in the very household that had wished him dead. This story sheds light on extremely important aspects. Besides reversing the pharaoh’s order from an order to kill to one that gives and preserves life, the imagery of pulling someone out of the water represents a sign of life. We have already seen this motif in the story of Creation, where God brings dry land out of the watery abyss and makes it a land that fosters life. Amid the story of pulling the boy out from the water, God seems to be absent; nonetheless, He remains the One who controls everything. The pharaoh’s daughter becomes the means through which the boy is pulled out from the water. Through this act, the gift of life to the people is fulfilled and death is vanquished. Another important aspect of this story is the fact that the pharaoh’s daughter gets to name the boy who was saved, a name she interprets as “pulled out of the water” (Ex 2:10). This is a striking issue, especially because her father’s initial order was to throw the male children into the water. Ironically, it would be she, among all others, who would reverse the royal decree. So instead of leaving the baby to his fate to die in the river, she pulls him out and raises him in her own household, meaning the pharaoh’s. Thus, the baby boy survives. The very name of this boy - Moses - which means “the one who was pulled out of the water,” would remain forever present in the center of the pharaoh’s household, as a token of an order that God has abolished. It is also a sign that for those whom the pharaoh wished to drown in the water; water becomes a life they would enjoy inside his very household. However, the writer follows this narrative immediately with one about a colossal change that Moses himself would undergo after killing an Egyptian man who was beating a Hebraic slave (Ex 2:11-15). The way I see it, similarly to the story of pulling Moses out of the river, the story of Moses’ transformation functions within the same frame that highlights the contrast between the household of the pharaoh as a symbol of death and the action of God who turns death into life. This story takes us back to a topic we have already discussed in the Book of Genesis, namely the contrast arising between the “City” as a symbol of arrogance, killing, and violence and the wilderness as a place where God reveals Himself in order to grant life. It also calls back to mind the issue related to the boastful stability of a “City” as symbol of a lifestyle based on denouncing God and cattle raising, on one hand, and travelling as a symbol of walking in God’s footsteps and abiding by His word, on the other. In this story, Moses kills an Egyptian man, while he still lives in the pharaoh’s household. The writer affirms that the crime Moses commits is inconceivably horrible that even the Hebrews find the act despicable and start viewing Moses as a murderer, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” It is remarkable that the first story about Moses, after the one related to his upbringing in the pharaoh’s household, is the story of the murder. The writer depicts him as Cain the slayer; Moses kills a person, becomes terrified and flees his crime scene. I believe this story serves the writer’s purpose: The household of the pharaoh represents the “City,” which is founded on oppression and arrogance. Despite the life that has been granted to Moses in the pharaoh’s household after the latter’s order to kill all male newborns - including him, Moses ends up acting in a pharaonic manner. He kills a man just like Cain killed his own brother. However, God, who drew him out of the water of death, draws him once more out of the murder story and sets him into another story. He drives him out of the pharaoh’s household, thus out of the pharaonic mindset. He drives him into the wilderness, where he sits by a well - a symbol of life - and is transformed from a great prince and a murderer from the household of the king into a shepherd, one who is entrusted with life. As a shepherd, God would call Moses to face up the pharaoh until he finally manages to lead his enslaved people out of Egypt and into the wilderness in order to worship the Lord. The way I see it, this confrontation between Moses and the pharaoh is also a confrontation between Moses the shepherd and Moses the murderer. It is not Moses the murderer who frees the enslaved people, but rather the shepherd who represents God’s love to His sheep. He would ultimately guide them towards the lord and protect them against all evil. The two midwives feared God... and He built for them houses" - Ex 1:20-21"
Nicolas Abou Mrad The conflict between slavery and freedom, life and death, starts with the king of Egypt who is unaware of the story of Joseph and what God has done unto him. This king intends to hinder God’s work of salvation for the whole world as well as to undo His call for abundance in an attempt to abolish what God has fulfilled through Joseph. Besides humiliation, exploitation and slavery, violence is added to the scene, "So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with violence" (1:13). As indicated previously in the explanation of Genesis 11 (the building of Babel and its tower), the builders who have worked with bricks and bitumen to build Babel have actually unwittingly enslaved themselves to a cruel master, as well as to their own pride. Eventually, God puts an end to the building process and scatters the people as He does not wish them to keep on being vain, selfish, lustful, and self-glorifying. However, in the Book of Exodus, the king of Egypt enslaves the Israelites, forcing them to work in city-building and the production of bricks and bitumen; In doing so, he sounds as if he is trying to defy God’s will by making the people worship his own vanity - and his own glory. Pharaoh’s acts are driven by a desire to turn humans into means / tools so as to elevate himself and build his oppressive cities, founded on violence. Another underlying aspect of this king’s actions is him abolishing peace and harmony between the peoples that Joseph had previously catered to in Egypt. Through the power of the Lord, he turned a cosmic famine into a reason of life to all the peoples and he managed to make them coexist peacefully and harmoniously, rather than engaging in brutal conflicts. By contrast, through slavery and violence, the king turns peace into conflict; first, between the people of Egypt and the Children of Jacob; second between himself and the Lord who has cherished the meek person and appointed him to save the land from misery. Thus, this pharaoh, who does not know Joseph, reflects a shifting in the relationship between the nations: from a relation based on cooperation, collaboration, bread sharing, and fruitfulness, to a relationship based on animosity, war, and killing. Thus, Egypt ceases to be a blessing onto the nations. Similarly, the children of Jacob cease to be a blessing onto Egypt. Egypt engages in a conflict with the peoples and enslaves the Israelites who are forced to work for its king, and for what is seen as a sin in Genesis, i. e. to serve the arrogance of man in the image of building a city. Moreover, the king transforms the life that God has bestowed through Joseph upon Egypt and the nations into an order to kill. Thus, he orders two midwives to kill all male newborns, sparing only the female ones (1:15-22). His purpose is to put an end to the children of Jacob’s descendants and to turn their women into child bearers of Egyptian babies solely. By doing so, he would abolish diversity and alter it into oneness, which he would preside over. Through killing, confrontation reaches a new higher level: Genocide. Pharaoh wishes to spare only the life of the Israelite women. He wishes to exterminate the males, thus making sure the descendants of Abraham who carried the promise are totally eradicated. Pharaoh does not only go against god’s plan, he even wishes to downright undo it and to abolish any chance of its fulfillment. However, God remains faithful to his work and maintains the path of life that He has already drawn. The two midwives do not kill the newborn sons and save their lives, "And God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied and waxed very mighty" (1:20). God’s promptness in interfering to preserve life reflects the intention of the writer who depicts pharaoh as a weak person in front of the almighty God, who invalidates pharaoh’s orders to kill. The writer of the Book of Exodus draws a parallel between his words about how the people kept multiplying despite the pharaoh’s order to kill and his previous narrative in (12:1), where he states "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad" (1:21). In fact, neither slavery nor killing has deactivated God’s work. Pharaoh seems to be totally helpless and would remain so up until God drowns him in the Red Sea. This sea, according to the narrative, turns into a graveyard for the oppressors and a protective womb for the poor and the meek. While the king of Egypt was trying to undo God’s work, a work that fosters freedom, life, population growth, diversity, and collaboration towards goodness and peace, God, who defeated darkness and the chaotic primeval waters and brought life forth with His word, would eventually defeat pharaoh and would uphold the intended freedom. While Pharaoh’s scheme is to wipe out those whom God wished them to live, God’s will is to preserve this life which He intends to remain abundant. "And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them households" (1:21). In this verse, God comforts and reassures the midwives about the continuity of life and promises them that death would never come. Ultimately, the confrontation between God and pharaoh reaches its climax; Pharaoh’s weakness is exposed, and the absolute power of God is revealed when one of the male newborns, whom Pharaoh had previously ordered to be killed, lives and is brought up in his very house. This boy would become the one through whom God would save His people from slavery and would give the word to eternal life. |
AuthorNicolas Abou Brad Archives
August 2020
Categories |