I’m re-watching the Prince of Egypt, and the whole God saying “totally, just kill a lamb and paint your door with it’s blood so I know not to kill your first born children” really strikes me as a ruthless Pagan God move…
So my question is… What the fuck?
Some secondary and follow up questions? are:
God sent plagues, but that feels like a lot more work than just saying “Hebrews grab your shit, revolt, and leave, you easily out number the Egyptians.”
God appeared to Moses as a burning bush… Why not something idk, more obviously god-like? He has ultimate power and chose to look like flaming shrubbery.
This story is so weird, because you could change the names of the people and places, then tell me it’s a fantasy story about some Pagan God that wants to deliver his worshippers out of bondage.
But also fuck everyone else who’s having a rough time? He doesn’t care about delivering anyone else, including future enslaved races? Just the Hebrews… That one time… Dude sounds like some choosy guy who has to use a surrogate… Must not have ultimate power if he can’t come down from his high throne and do it himself??
If someone can give me a real solid answer as to why God sounds just exactly like some Pagan Gods (with the lambs blood, water into blood, plagues and shit) then I will shut the fuck up. Until then, imma be questioning this
So these kinds of questions are always amusing from the Jewish perspective, because well…we talk about this all the time. Why bother killing the first borns? Dayenu. (It would have been enough to just let us go free.)
But basically, you’re approaching this from a heavily christian-normative atheist perspective. I don’t think asking Xtians about this story will help, because this is the most fundamentally Jewish story to be tackling.
Here goes:
“totally, just kill a lamb and paint your door with it’s blood so I know not to kill your first born children” really strikes me as a ruthless Pagan God move…
Animal sacrifice absolutely exists in the Torah and during the first and second temple periods. The fact that Judaism explicitly bans all human sacrifice is seen as (in historical context) a huge step away from pagan ritual sacrifice. Many scholars believe the shift to animal sacrifice in general is reflective of understanding man’s more primal urges, and redirecting it away from murder or human sacrifice.
At any rate, the sacrifice of the lamb and painting of the lintel with lamb’s blood could have any number of possible parallels or reasonings.
It’s worth noting that sacrificing a lamb would be considered to be inappropriate by the Egyptians, which is mentioned right there in the text of Exodus. (I assume you didn’t read it):
(Chapter 8) 21 Thereupon, Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron, and he said, “Go, sacrifice to your God in the land.” 22 But Moses said, “It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us? 23 Let us go [for] a three day journey in the desert and sacrifice to the Lord, our God, as He will say to us.” 24 Pharaoh said, “I will let you go out, and you will sacrifice to the Lord, your God, in the desert, but do not go far away; entreat [Him] on my behalf.”
The Egyptians had Sheep/Ram headed Gods, so it’s not surprising that sacrificing a lamb for God would indicate that the Jewish people are truly not Egyptians, especially if an Egyptian might be inclined to stone someone for doing this.
The choice of sacrificing a sheep might very well be completely intentional as an affront against Egyptian oppressors. We have corroboration historically about the importance of rams and sheep in Egypt:
Herodotus, in his survey of Egyptian customs, writes (Histories, 2:42):
Now all who have a temple set up to the Theban Zeus (=Amun) or who are of the district of Thebes, these, I say, all sacrifice goats and abstain from sheep… the Egyptians make the image of Zeus (=Amun) into the face of a ram… the Thebans then do not sacrifice rams but hold them sacred for this reason.
So this isn’t just a random “pagan” act, this is a group of people intentionally sacrificing an animal held sacred as representative of a pagan god, because that is what God requires and asks for. The Egyptians would never sacrifice a sheep, if the sheep represents some of their deities – but the Hebrews, who do not worship pagan gods, most certainly would.
If you read chapter 9, you will also see Pharaoh try and command that the Hebrews should leave behind their sheep and cattle (in part to prevent their sacrifice) – which they refuse to do.
The “sacrifice” of the lamb fulfills a few different purposes:
it is considered sacrilegious by the Egyptians, thus setting them apart from the pagans (and symbolically showing a willingness to destroy pagan gods)
the lamb is meant to be cooked and prepared so that the families can eat it. It’s a meal to be prepared in light of the fact that they’re preparing to flee.
Torah also tells us the blood is a sign for the Hebrews, and not the Egyptians. The blood is actually marked on the inside of the door (as per Rashi’s commentary on the Hebrew), and therefore the only people who can see the blood would be God (who is able to see all) and the Hebrews from inside their homes. It looks more impressive to do it the other way when you animate it, though.
The verse shows us this:
And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt.
Rashi explains: And the blood will be for you for a sign: [The blood will be] for you a sign but not a sign for others. From here, it is derived that they put the blood only on the inside. — [from Mechilta 11]
and I will see the blood: [In fact,] everything is revealed to Him. [Why then does the Torah mention that God will see the blood?] Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I will focus My attention to see that you are engaged in My commandments, and I will skip over you.” -[from Mechilta]
Your other questions are also interesting:
God sent plagues, but that feels like a lot more work than just saying “Hebrews grab your shit, revolt, and leave, you easily out number the Egyptians.”
Well, again, have you read a haggadah? We uh, talk about this once a year. If God had let us flee Egypt and not bothered with punishing our oppressors – that would have been enough!
So like, in general, you can’t attend a passover seder without questioning…why God bothered with the plagues.
God appeared to Moses as a burning bush… Why not something idk, more obviously god-like? He has ultimate power and chose to look like flaming shrubbery.
A bush that is on fire but does not get burnt is pretty impressive. But again, I guess you haven’t actually read exodus, because it’s not just a burning bush:
An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.
So Moses said, “Let me turn now and see this great spectacle why does the thorn bush not burn up?”
An angel appears in the fire, the thorn bush is on fire, but does not burn. Then God appears. But eh, maybe that isn’t as wild as you want it to be, so the following exchange between Moses and God is a bit more…miraculous. First God turns Moses’ staff and turns it into a serpent, and back into a staff. This is the first sign Moses can use to prove that God is here. And then…
And the Lord said further to him, “Now put your hand into your bosom,” and he put his hand into his bosom, and he took it out, and behold, his hand was leprous like snow.
And He said, “Put your hand back into your bosom,” and he put his hand back into his bosom, and [when] he took it out of his bosom, it had become again like [the rest of] his flesh.
…you might want to picture it a little bit like this:
– You best start believing in holy stories, Moshe. – you’re in one.
But again, you don’t need to believe in this literally or accept it as literal. But I think it’s a bit silly to say it’s not “miraculous” enough or something.
This story is so weird, because you could change the names of the people and places, then tell me it’s a fantasy story about some Pagan God that wants to deliver his worshippers out of bondage.
Except you couldn’t, which is why it’s a story about the Jewish monotheistic God. If you swapped out the name of God and the people, it would still be a monotheistic story.
You could take “In order that they believe that the Lord, the God of their forefathers, has appeared to you, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.“
and instead say “the King, the Ancient One of their forefathers, has appeared to you, the God of Maharba, the God of Caasi, and the God of Bocaj,” but you’re still fundamentally naming a monotheistic deity.
But also fuck everyone else who’s having a rough time? He doesn’t care about delivering anyone else,
Again, this isn’t true, and even PoE illustrates this! Watch it again, and you’ll notice Egyptians dropping their weapons and walking alongside the Hebrews, even crossing the sea! and why else would God give commandments before the Hebrews cross the sea about what to do with the converts and strangers living among them?
Exodus 12:37-38:
The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children. And also, a great mixed multitude went up with them, and flocks and cattle, very much livestock.
These are the others, fleeing with the Hebrews. Anyone who wanted to flee was able to do so, and join the Israelites.
including future enslaved races? Just the Hebrews… That one time…
Well there’s a few ways to look at this. But I don’t believe this is an issue of “just this one time.”
1.) the issue of the Jewish people being enslaved and kept from Israel is an issue because if the Jewish people fulfill their end of the covenant (contract) then God should also fulfill their promises. An exodus from slavery in Egypt had to occur for the return to Israel to happen. The covenant is a contract. God is making good on their end of that contract with the exodus.
So here, God intervenes lest they fail to uphold a contract.
2.) But also, ultimately, Judaism promotes the idea that in times of distress mankind should act as if there is no God, and do the right thing. We take action because it is up to us to take that action. It was ultimately up to the Israelites to leave Egypt, even if God made it seem more possible to do so. It was up to the Israelites to pack their things and prepare their rations and even up to them to bravely step forwards into the sea and keep going, even though it took time for the waters to part. (Some say the waters did not part until the Israelites were so far into the water that it would have drowned them.)
So have other people been liberated from slavery? Absolutely. You have two choices – you can say it was because of “God” or you can say it was because of the hard work of abolitionists and slave uprisings. It’s not a mystery why the African American community references Exodus so heavily in gospel music – Jewish freedom is a template for all freedom (and anyways, there are also black Jews!). So did God free black slaves, or did black men and women and abolitionist allies work tirelessly for that freedom? Couldn’t it be both? Shouldn’t we say, be capable of going “If God freed us then, then now our lives should be also dedicated to freeing everyone else?” Why would you assume mankind is free from the work of liberation? It is our job to work for freedom on behalf of others, not to just sit on our ass and expect God to do the work.
Again, no surprise that Jewish Americans were involved in abolitionism throughout the world and heavily involved in the US civil rights movements.
Dude sounds like some choosy guy who has to use a surrogate… Must not have ultimate power if he can’t come down from his high throne and do it himself??
…Choosy, absolutely. Not having ultimate power is endlessly debatable. One way or another, it happened, and certainly God sent down the forces to do so in Exodus. But also, uh, you realize a lot of this was a learning and teaching process, right?
If someone can give me a real solid answer as to why God sounds just exactly like some Pagan Gods (with the lambs blood, water into blood, plagues and shit) then I will shut the fuck up. Until then, imma be questioning this
Like I said, lamb’s blood is in direct contrast/opposition to local Pagan worship.
The Nile running red with blood is actually deeply symbolic – recall that in the beginning of the Exodus story, the first born Hebrew sons are being thrown into the Nile River. So what God is doing is illustrating the fact that the Nile was filled with the blood of the Hebrew people – specifically their firstborn sons – and this is the blood which Pharaoh was responsible for shedding. It’s similar to Macbeth, when Lady Macbeth hallucinates blood on her hands after her murderous act. Except here, the entire Nile turns to blood, haunting Pharaoh with the blood of the slaves his father had murdered. Talk about facing the reality of your actions. This is where the blood comes from.
Either way, none of these things make God more or less pagan? The issue of paganism is not how a God acts or behaves, but whether or not there are other Gods. Like that’s literally it. Hope that helped? Lmao. These questions aren’t that weird.
Shoot son, you sure rose to that challenge!
Ngl, you schooled me. Historical context was missing in the movie, so you’ll have to give me that one. The rest of that I never fucking learned in years of Sunday school, (and these kind of questions weren’t encouraged.) Thank you, @keshetchai I’ve learned a lot today!
Forgive me that I remain skeptical, it still boils down to having faith or not having faith; this isn’t a reflection of you though and thank you again for such a thorough answer 🙂
no problem! This is a big example of the massive differences between Judaism and xtianity as a whole. A lot of the questions you touched upon are built in to the passover seder, and are encouraged. We ask exactly a lot of these things!
There’s also a part of the seder where we discuss the four questions (why is this night different from all other nights?) and then we discuss the Four Children, each child covering a different attitude towards the story. To paraphrase:
The Wise Child asks: What does this all mean? What are the laws we are commanded, the customs and traditions we uphold?
The Wicked Child*** asks: What does this mean to you? [Why do you even bother with all this?] ***wicked isn’t like, “evil” it’s more like “challenging.” or “isolated” from the community by distancing themselves.
The Simple Child asks: What is it that we’re doing? What’s the seder about?
The Child Who Does Not Know How to Ask doesn’t ask a question at all, and instead can be prompted into thinking of questions to ask, being helped to understand things, or may just be too young to formulate the question– and yet we still must include them.
Each “type” of question is meant to be met with an answer. So asking these questions might be discouraged in xtianity, but is part of the Jewish tradition.
It’s okay if you don’t believe everything, or don’t take it literally. Honestly, that isn’t why I answered your questions – I’m not concerned about convincing you of the truth or literalism of the story. I just think it’s fair to want honest answers to interesting questions. Personally, whether or not it happened literally isn’t really a big deal for me, or even where i derive meaning when hearing the story. Faith means something different in Judaism than it does in xtianity, so I don’t have any kind of investment in trying to convince you to “just believe” because someone said so.
if you don’t want to believe in parts or all of it, it’s no skin off my nose. Frankly, I’m way more concerned with impressing the idea that “slavery is bad and we as people are obligated to help in the liberation of others.” 🙂 the times when these questions become an issue are when gentiles present the questions as if Jewish people are stupid/backwards/barbaric/etc. That would be an issue, but asking “what the hell was going on there??” earnestly isn’t.
Reblogging because:
(a) this is an excellent and thoughtful discussion of various theological issues;
(b) I really appreciate people doing what @keshetchai does here, giving questions serious, thorough, and kind answers;
(d) this is just a super sweet exchange all round; and
(e) I learned things from it! (I did not realize about the blood being on the inside of the doors, or about other Egyptians joining the Israelites in their flight.)
a friend of mine is a science educator. not a classroom teacher – he does the kind of programs you see in museums, fun experiments with lasers and dry ice and shit.
yesterday, a young girl asked him why he was allowed to pour liquid nitrogen all over his own arm but he didn’t want her doing it. I braced myself for some dumb “well I’m an adult so I’m allowed” non-answer, but instead he surprised me by giving some of the best science (and life) advice I think you can give a young person:
“well, it’s one of those rules designed to keep you safe. and following the rules really can help you stay safe, but they’re not perfect. sometimes, usually because they’re too simple, the rules let you do things that aren’t safe, or don’t let you do things that are safe if you know how to do them. one of the reasons I’m good at what I do as a scientist is I try to understand how things work so I can figure out my own rules for keeping myself safe. and sometimes my rules are little more complicated than what I might hear from other people, but they work better for me. like, I let myself play with liquid nitrogen, but only in really specific ways that I’ve spent time practicing. you should follow the rules you’re given at first, but if you take the time to understand how things work, maybe you can make your own, better rules.”
I loved this response. it’s a great encapsulation of two really important things I think people need to learn and re-learn all the time: on the one hand, listen to genuine authority figures; when someone knows more than you about a subject, don’t treat their expertise as “just another opinion” and act like your ignorance is just as good as their knowledge. but on the other hand, don’t obey anything or anyone blindly. recognize that rules and systems and established ideas are never perfect. question things, educate yourself, question things more.
and then, of course, a parent had to butt in and spoil this wonderful lesson by saying:
“but not the rules mom comes up with!”
everyone in the room laughed. except me. I gave her a death glare I’m pretty sure she didn’t notice.
because no. no. your rules are not above reproach if you’re a parent. the thing about the dictates of genuine authority figures – people who deserve to have power, and to have their positions respected – is that they are open to question. genuine authority figures are accountable. governments can be petitioned and protested and recalled. doctors must respect patients’ right to a second opinion. journalists have jobs terminated and credentials revoked if they fail to meet standards of integrity and diligence. scientists, to bring us back full circle, spend their entire careers trying to disprove their own hypotheses! you know who insists on being treated as infallible? megalomaniacal dictators, that’s who. oh, and parents.
I’m beyond sick and tired of this “my house my rules, this family is not a democracy, I want my child to think critically and stand up for themselves except to me ha ha” bullshit. my friend gave this kid the kind of advice that doesn’t just help people become good scientists – if enough people adopt the mentality he put forth to that girl, that’s the kind of advice that helps societies value knowledge and resist totalitarianism. and her mother shut it down because, what, she didn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of having someone question her edicts about whose job it is to wash the dishes on Mondays?
we already know you’re more likely to be a Trump supporter if you’re an authoritarian parent – and that this is a stronger predictor of your views on the current president than age, religiosity, gender, or race. I’ll say this another way in case you didn’t catch the full meaning: people who believe in the absolute, unquestionable authority of parents are more than two and a half times as likely to support Trump as people who don’t, and that’s just among Republicans. we can’t afford to treat the oppressive treatment of children or the injustice of ageist power structures in our society as a sideshow issue any longer. the mentality that parents should be treated by their children as beyond reproach and above dispute is a social cancer that has metastasized into the man currently trying to destroy the foundations of democracy in this country.
in short: parents, get the hell over yourselves before you get us all killed. and kids, learn as much as you can, and then make your own rules.
My mother is fond of quoting something that happened once at work (she’s the director of tourism for the neighboring county).
She was on the phone with my brother, who wanted to do something (I forget what, I think he wanted to go camping with some friends and she was worried it was going to be too cold that weekend or whatever)
And finally she got off the phone and sighed and said, joking, “When I taught them to question authority I must have laid it on thick, because now they’re questioning mine.”
And it got really quiet in the office. And then her secretary pipes up with “You taught your kids to question authority???”
And mom says that right there in that moment she realized what was wrong with a huge part of the world.
Teach your kids to question, people.
For a short while as a child I had sanctuary from an abusive home in a lovely home with good parents. One of the things that completely shocked my taraumatized little soul was how deeply the adults respected children’s thoughts, feelings, needs and wants.
Whenever a kid thought something was unfair, the adult would ask why it felt unfair and talk to them about it. Sometimes the reason for the rule or decision was immovable, like, “this isn’t safe” or “this isn’t possible with the time we have and the responsibilities that fill it”, or “homework has to be done even if it’s boring, because it helps you practice skills you will need later on.”
In those cases, the rule wouldn’t change but the child would understand why it was a rule, and feel listened to and respected. And best of all, sometimes even if the rule didn’t change, an adult might help the child brainstorm ways to make it easier to follow the rule, or find alternatives to the thing they couldn’t have.
Sometimes, the rule or decision was for more flexible reasons, like “We can’t do this because you need supervision, and I have work to do which means I can’t supervise”, in which case a child’s suggestions, like, “What if I call a grandparent and see if they’re interested in supervising?” were encouraged and listened to.
This taught the kids, me included, so much more than we ever could have learnt by being shut down by, “I’m an adult and I said so.” The system was designed to teach us to make good decisions and to give us as much information as possible about how to do that before we went out into the world. Teaching us the reasons for certain rules helped us respect them and to understand how to make good rules for ourselves going forward.
In my original household, the central rule was “Do whatever will keep you from getting hurt by the person with the most power.” From this we learned to make choices based solely on fear of consequences, no innate ethical system, so we learned to misbehave without getting caught.
We learned that if you can force someone to do something they don’t want to, you’re allowed to, because that’s how rules are decided, the most powerful person always gets their way.
We learned that asking questions of someone with power over you is dangerous and you have to figure everything out on your own. We learned to keep secrets about how badly we were hurt. There was no oppenness, no conversation, no negotiation or questions or teaching, just fear and hatred and a lot of pain.
Which household do you think taught me the best lessons, the ones I can use to build a healthy and responsible life for myself?
I know multiple adults whose abusive parents totally failed to teach them how to do things.
My parents were great. I learned the word “autonomous” by the time I was five, because it was an explicitly stated goal of their parenting that I should be autonomous. Somewhere around then, I asked them to make my bedtime later, and they said no. And I said “but how can i be autonomous if i don’t get to argue things?”
By first grade, teachers wouldn’t let me argue because they knew they would lose. My parents, being smart and competent, did not usually lose. But they did accept the basic premise: Argumentation is about learning what is true, not about winning or losing.
And here I am in my 40s, and when I run into people who want arguments to be “fair” in that both parties concede equal numbers of points, I am completely unable to understand them. Like, even if I understand that this is what’s happening, I’m pretty much blind to the thing. People often form the idea that I only listen to my friends, or that you have to have “social status” to make me listen to you. But that’s not true. Random anons have sent in one-sentence claims that were possible for me to evaluate, and gotten me to rethink significant positions because, well. They were right. And that’s what matters. It’s all that matters.
So when I’m dealing with abused people, I try extra hard to recognize their autonomy and talk to them about things. To such an extent that people on my forum periodically lose their shit because they are sure there are hidden rules I’m not disclosing that I’m secretly enforcing. But no, I actually just want people to be making their own calls as much as possible. It works so much better.
Dude sounds like some choosy guy who has to use a surrogate… Must not have ultimate power if he can’t come down from his high throne and do it himself??
just moving along like everyone else 