Exodus Faith Change and Learning

Exodus Faith

Change and Learning on the Road: Developing New Views of the Person and of God in Exodus

There is a clear and often mentioned difference between the view of God and Man as seen in the so-called Old and New testaments of the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Hebrew Scriptures that make up the Old Testament in general (though with some notable exceptions) present a view of God as a somewhat vengeful and highly authoritarian ruler of his people, setting out rules and laws and following through with punishment in epic (one could even say Biblical) fashion. Negative events that happen to individuals and the Hebrew people as a whole are seen as a response to their sins -- suffering is created by mankind through their sins against God, essentially. In the New Testament, while man is still seen as a sinner, this is not necessarily presented the cause of his own suffering, and through heartfelt repentance any individual can eventually escape the world of suffering and join with God.

The Hebrew Scriptures, then, see God as a figure of retribution while the New Testament presents God as a figure of redemption, according to the common view. This view is a gross oversimplification, however, and though it holds some merit the views of God and man in both books of today's Bible are both more complex and more dynamic than this view suggests. In this paper, some attempt will be made to demonstrate the changing perception of God and of man himself that is displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the different and dynamic relationship with God that this implies for mankind in Judeo-Christian faiths.

Due to the vast scope of possible commentary, this paper will limit itself to an analysis of the natures of God, man, and their relationship as presented in the Book of Exodus. The sort of "spiritual road-trip" that makes up the bulk of the narrative in this text s itself metaphoric of change and transition, and certainly signals a major practical shift in the history of the Hebrew people not only in their escape from slavery but also in their return to their homeland and their eventual creation of a full urban and politicized society. In addition to this larger narrative of transition, there are many key passages and incidents that demonstrate the smaller yet still significant changes that took place during the years the Hebrews spent in the wilderness in regards to their view of themselves and of God. Ultimately, Exodus shows a transition from a God that simply commands and controls and one who assists mankind in its pursuit of righteous and worthwhile objectives, guiding instead of commanding.

When Israel was in Egypt Land

The story of the Hebrew's exodus form Egypt necessarily begins with the conditions in Egypt that they felt a need to escape. Forced to work as slaves in Egypt's massive building projects and subject to other restrictions and humiliations, times had certainly taken a major turn for the worse since Joseph and his generations had died and "a new king, who did not know about Joseph" came to rule (Exodus 1:8). The initial description of the Hebrew's servitude is bad enough, but it is with the next phase of Pharaoh's evil towards them that really spurs the narrative onwards and creates the pressing need to flee.

Upon seeing the ever-increasing number of the Hebrew slaves Pharaoh becomes nervous and orders the Hebrew midwives, named Shiphrah and Puah, to kill all of the male children that they help to deliver. This is not yet a major problem for the Hebrews, for "the midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live" (Exodus 1:17). Here, it is a fear of God more than even a desire to good for their people that motivates these midwives. It also notably stirs them more than a fear of the Pharaoh's wrath; their faith seems to be built on a fear of what retribution will occur should they go against God's will, and they are sure that this retribution will take a harsher form than anything the Pharaoh could or would mete out. Though the midwives are in one sense strong for defying the Pharaoh's order and even lying about it to his face (they explain that Hebrew women simply give birth too quickly, before the midwives can get there), but at the same time this strength comes from an abject fear.

God does little to change this type of faith, or the view of held of God as a vengeful and aggressive ruler. On the contrary, the Bible clearly and explicitly shows God rewarding this attitude: "And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own" (Exodus 1:21). The right to have their own children and increase and extend their own families was not imparted to these women until they had shown their fear of God, and their relegation to a lower strata of society could only be overcome through this same fear, it is implied. This is God as seen in the traditional Old Testament light, as a force of punishment for sin.

Other commentators have viewed this story somewhat differently, suggesting that the tale does more to weaken Pharaoh than anything else. The midwives, according to this reading of the text, manage to "outwit" the Pharaoh in a "struggle over blessing and life" in which "Pharaoh is an angel of death" (Fretheim, p. 32). While it may be true that this is the ultimate thrust of the story -- though really, if the midwives were able to outwit the Pharaoh simply by lying to him, it is not necessarily evidence of great wit -- the phrasing of the story does much to demonstrate the view of God held by these women, and the view of these women that God held. The story's observable action can essentially be broken down thusly: Pharaoh commanded the midwives to commit a grievous sin in killing the male Hebrew children, implicitly demanding that they go against God's will, and in refusing to show such disobedience due to a fear of retribution they earned a reward from God that is normally bestowed on every woman.

The plagues also deserve some mention in this regard, though they show more about God's retribution against the Egyptians than against the Hebrew people. There is the obvious punitive nature of each of the plagues, causing torture, famine, and a host of other major disturbances to the masses due to their leader's continued breaking of a promise to let the Hebrews go and pray (Exodus 7-12). One can see the fearful vision of the "Old Testament God" quite clearly in his decision to punish an entire nation due to the stubbornness of one man. It is implied, of course, that the entire civilization is evil, and certainly they all profited to some extent by the work of the Hebrew slaves, but they are really punished for a sin that is not their own.

The sin may not even be fully Pharaoh's either, depending on how much weight is given to certain details in the text. As the plagues begin, Pharaoh remains stubborn: "he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said" (Exodus 7:22). This last phrase is very telling; God had foretold Pharaoh's stubbornness, and had Moses and Aaron start with the plague of blood knowing that it would not work. This means that God is therefore creating punishments for the Egyptian people and the Pharaoh without them even being corrective measures -- they will not change behavior and this is known before they are implemented, yet they are implemented anyway. Earlier in the narrative, in fact, while God is convincing Moses to return to Egypt and free his people, God assures Moses that, "I will harden [Pharaoh's] heart so that he will not let the people go" (Exodus 4:21). God is creating a platform on which to demonstrate his power, and he ensures that Pharaoh remains in a position to be continuously punished, which can be for no other reason than to strike fear into others (Binz, pp. 34).

Marching to Zion

The Hebrews in Egypt experienced life very much as if it was a constant punishment form God, with reprieves earned through good behavior. Punishment, that is, was pretty much the natural state of things, and anything one could do to relieve the suffering under this punishment was pretty much inherently righteous by definition: righteous acts remove one from God's retributive acts. This view of God and of man's relationship with God began to change in subtle yet significant ways on the Hebrew's journey through the wilderness.

This begins early on, with a story that does not appear in the written Bible as it currently exists but that is an interesting part of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash, the rabbinical commentaries and supplementary stories that have helped to steer the Jewish faith over the millennia. The setting is perhaps one of the most famous in the entire Biblical narrative: the side of the Red Sea, a crowd of fleeing Hebrew salves anxiously looking over their shoulders at the approaching army of the Pharaoh. According to rabbinical commentary, however, Moses doesn't just simply the raise his staff and part the waters -- more has to happen first, and the more that happens is hugely influential in shaping the new relationship that the Hebrews are forming with God, and the new role for man that this creates.

The Biblical narrative as it currently stands tells the story in the following manner: the people, trapped between the sea and the approaching army, begin complaining to Moses, "What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? Didn't we say to you in Egypt, "Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians"? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!'" (Exodus 14: 11-2). Moses tells them to trust in God, "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground'" (Exodus 14: 15-6). The text certainly suggest an exasperation on God's part, and a desire that Moses and the people try to do something to help themselves instead of solely and automatically turning to God.

This sense of God's desire for man's more active involvement in shaping his future is borne out by rabbinical commentary, which states that a man named Naschon ben Aminadav, hearing the bickering all around of him of who was to test the crossing first by taking an ultimate leap of faith into the waters of the sea, jumped in and began to sink. It is at this point that God tells Moses to stop praying and to see what is going on, and it is not until Naschon ben Aminadav is "up to his nostrils that the water was actually parted" (Peretz, par. 6). God was unwilling to help until man helped himself, and until man showed a proactive faith in assistance rather than a reactive faith of retribution. Naschon ben Aminadav did not act out of a fear of punishment, that is, but rather out of a hope of redemption.