Green Baggins

The seventh plague is the plague of hail. This is the first plague in the third cycle. Again, Moses rises up early in the morning (cf. 7:15 in the first, and 8:20 in the fourth). In the third cycle of plagues, the ante is up. Death makes its first appearance with this plague. Notice that the Lord tips His hand. He tells Pharaoh exactly why He is doing all this (9:16, quoted in Romans 9:17). What is remarkable here in this plague, however, is that the Lord provides a way of escape in verse 19. Those who wished could escape this judgment. We read of many people in the actual exodus going with the Israelites. They were not Israelites, but went up with them (see 12:37-38). So, even now, the strand of Egypt’s redemption has started, and will end with Egypt being God’s people (Is 19:19-25, noted by Ryken, p. 283), when Jesus the Messiah comes to save His people from their sins.

Pharaoh does not really repent. He says “this time,” but what about all the other times he has sinned? He should have confessed his sin directly to God, and begged forgiveness.

The message is dire for us today, since a greater plague awaits those who will not trust in the way of escape, Jesus Christ. See this plague described in Revelation 16:17-21. Only this time, the hail will be far more severe than the Egyptian plague, the hailstones being about 100 pounds each. And God will offer no chance of escape this time, either. There wilol not be two possible reactions of getting out from under God’s judgment versus undergoing God’s judgment. There will only be the hardness of heart that curses God because of the plague. Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!

The pictures above are of Tefnut, the goddess of moisture, and Shu, the supporter of the heavens, both of which gods were utterly defeated by the Lord God of Israel.

Leithart next looks at Psalm 35. his main point here seems to be that, since the language of courtroom and battlefield are so mixed here, that therefore forensic language “is not always strictly tied to ‘forensic’ situations” (p. 219). However, he only cites verses 2-3 as evidence of a military setting. But this is no different from what we might say today, “I fought a courtroom battle today.” The question here is this: how is the language metaphorical? Which set of metaphors is more basic/more prevalent? I believe that the clear answer with regard to Psalm 35 is that the courtroom language is far more prevalent and controlling than the military language. Therefore, the military language is metaphorical of the courtroom. First of all, the Psalm starts with the courtroom imagery, as Leithart notes (p. 218). But surely, the idea that “coutroom language emerges now and then throughout the Psalm” is an understatement. Witness (!) the following data: “put to shame” (vs. 4); “malicious witnesses” (vs. 11); “look on” (vs. 17); “you have seen” (calls on God as witness, vs. 22); all of verses 23-26 are clearly determined by courtroom language, with such words as “vindication,” “righteousness,” “shame,” and “dishonor” occuring regularly. Through and through, this Psalm is riddled with courtroom imagery. It is certainly the most prominent set of images. Leithart’s argument here makes me feel that he is trying to jumble up all the metaphors so that everything describes one act. The language does not force that to be the case.

Two other things must therefore be argued: firstly, the other metaphors do not have to be interpreted in such a way that the courtroom imagery has to include the others within its own conceptual framework. Again, Leithart has not proven his point here by excluding all the alternatives. Even if his claim were true that the imagery was so mixed, that would not justify (!) us in saying that the metaphors have to be all jumbled together. For instance, an unfavorable verdict for David’s accusers results in deliverance from them. The text nowhere forces us to say that they are the same act. The one can be the perfectly logical and ordinary result of the other. This leads us to the second point: being vindicated in a courtroom results in dignity and honor commensurate with the confirmed status of being innocent. This is not the same thing as being delivered from sin. It is the same as being delivered from guilt. So, here, to a certain extent, I can use Leithart’s term “deliverdict,” as long as it is understood of deliverance from guilt, and not deliverance from power or presence.

In this post, I will address 1 Samuel 24:1-22. This is the amusing story of how David had Saul in his power, when Saul was “relieving himself,” but did not take advantage of the situation in order to make himself king, but honored the Lord’s anointed. David’s righteousness is surely defined by verse 6: “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord’s anointed.” I will argue that this is an application of the fifth commandment and is thus primarily about David’s relationship to the law of God. Leithart’s position is that this use of tsedeq counts as an example of the meaning “count as a friend.” Leithart’s own words: “David did not count him as an enemy, but as a friend, and that witnessed to David’s undiminished loyalty to the king” (p. 210). I don’t doubt that Leithart would acknowledge that the fifth commandment is involved. But I think that he would draw different conclusions from that fact than I would.

The fifth commandment has traditionally been interpreted as including submission to the proper authorities in government (as being ordained by God). This is why verse 6 is so crucial. I am a bit puzzled, frankly, as to why Leithart does not discuss this verse in connection with his claim, since I believe it challenges his claim. Verse 6 clearly connects David’s contemplated action with his relationship with the Lord and with the Lord’s law. The Lord God Himself ordained that Saul should be king. He is the Lord’s anointed, mentioned twice in verse 6. And surely the phrase “the Lord forbid” should clue us into the fact that David believes it is unthinkable for any attack to be made on the Lord’s anointed. In fact, the Lord did forbid any attack upon Saul. He forbade it in the fifth commandment. So, David’s relationship to the law is clearly the substance of verses 17-18, where Saul acknowledges that David upheld the law. The law is never far away from Saul’s speech here in this chapter. Now, surely we can see that interpersonal relations between Saul and David are surely important here. That is evident from verse 17, where the reasoning for Saul’s declaration is that David has upheld the second great commandment by loving Saul, his neighbor, as himself. However, it is the conclusions that Leithart draws from this that I challenge. His argument goes like this: tsedeq is here used in a broader way than a judicial setting (although he clearly acknowledges that this is at least somewhat judicial: his term is “quasi-judicial”); it is used in an interpersonal setting; if justification terms can be used in broader settings than judicial, then justification itself has more dimensions than judicial. There are two things that need to be said here. First of all is the hermeneutical point that I have already made: just because a term is used in broader senses than just one meaning does not mean that the doctrine of justification needs to be broadened. Words are not equal to concepts. Justification can be explained without any reference to tsedeq the term. I could say ”Christ’s law-keeping, or merit is imputed to us and our sins are imputed to Christ when God graciously gives us faith.” The word-concept fallacy is a fundamental fallacy that Leithart makes here. It is tightly related to the illegitimate totality transfer explained in previous posts. Secondly, the setting is more than quasi-judicial here. David explicitly calls on God to judge (vs. 12) between Saul and David. How much more judicial does it need to be? Are we assuming that it has to be in a courtroom in order for it to be completely judicial? The Lord doesn’t need a courtroom! Furthermore, it can be argued that many if not most judicial scenes in the OT don’t actually take place in a courtroom. Think, for instance, of the standing stones. They are placed in whatever location it was thought to be needed, and they served as a testimony (see Joshua 22:10-34, for a good example). So, the Samuel passage does not prove what Leithart thinks it does.

(update): I agree with Pastor Shaun. I hope some FV guy takes it up, since these are really, really good questions.

I am now going to start the exegetical challenge to Leithart’s article. I plan on covering most of the passages which Leithart deals with in any depth. I will cover them in the order in which they appear in the article. First up is Genesis 30:33. The immediate context has clear boundaries, stretching from verse 25-43. The setting is Laban’s trickery, and Jacob’s “honesty.” Laban is motivated by greed, as is clear from the entire context of the Jacob story. He is only in this relationship for himself. He wants to keep Jacob as a hired hand, since Jacob has done such a good job, and “the Lord has blessed (him) because of (Jacob)” (vs. 27). Then follows a deal-making discussion where Laban desires to keep Jacob, whereas Jacob wants to have his own property and provide for his own family, rather than taking care of someone else’s (vs. 30). Jacob makes a condition that allows him to start providing for an estate of his own, while still looking out after Laban’s property. That condition is that any sheep that was spotted, speckled, or black, would belong to Jacob, whereas all the white sheep would belong to Laban. This would be a very easy way to tell whose sheep were whose. This point is crucial, since it informs the meaning of “honesty” (tsedeq). Laban would be able to judge Jacob’s integrity by whether there were any white sheep in Jacob’s flock. It is as sure a method of differentiation as branding would be today. The evidence of Jacob’s integrity would be the differentiation of the flocks (vs. 33).

Now, Leithart argues (pp. 210-211 of _Federal Vision_) that this passage does not take place in a courtroom setting, an opinion which is not quite as evident as Leithart believes. Jacob is invisaging the possible accusation of Laban that Jacob had stolen sheep from Laban. Jacob could, at that time, point to his innocence by pointing to his sheep. He would then be in the right in the court of common opinion. Again, there is other evidence of courtroom language here as well. The word “stolen” often appears in a judicial context. Gen 31:19 is judicial, arguably (especially after Laban tries to police Jacob into humility), and Gen 44:8 is quite judicial, as is Exodus 21:16, and Exodus 22:11. This raises the question as to whether this passage really is “covenantal” or “ethical-social,” or whether it is judicial in Genesis 30:33. However, even if we were to grant Leithart’s point here, that still does not negate the fact that he uses improper hermeneutics to arrive at a broader definition of justification. He says quite explicitly, “‘Justification’ in these passages is flexible enough to include not only ‘counting someone as legally innocent’ but also ‘counting someone as a loyal friend/servant’” (p. 211).  This claim is demonstrably false. Jacob is concerned about his own integrity when accused of stealing by Laban (hardly an unlikely event, as the outcome proved). Jacob is not concerned here at all with being counted as Laban’s friend. Leithart has not proved his point with Genesis 30:33.  

Exodus 9:8-12

The sixth plague concludes the second set of three plagues. As in plague 3, there is not interview with Pharaoh, no rising up early in the morning. Instead, God just tells Moses to do something, and it is done.

This plague has loads of poetic justice. The soot comes from a kiln, one used to make bricks. Moses almost certainly took soot from a kiln that the Israelite slaves had used to make bricks for the Egyptians. As John Currid says, “The furnace, then, was a symbol of the oppression of the Hebrews, the sweat and tears they were shedding to make bricks for the Egyptians. Thus the very soot made by the enslaved people was now to inflict punishment on their oppressors” (p. 196).

In addition, throwing soot into the air was something that Egyptians priests used to do (Ryken, p. 273). They did it to signify blessing. God turned it into a curse. As Ryken says, “God was making Israel’s curse a blessing and was turning Egypt’s blessing into a curse” (p. 273).

There were several gods against which this plague was directed. Amon Re (a creator god) was a god who was supposed to heal diseases. Thoth was a god of healing arts. Imhotep was the god medicine. “But the most common deity for dealing with disease was Sekhmet, whose priests formed one of the oldest medical fraternities in antiquity” (Ryken, p. 272, quoting Currid).

Ah, the poor, foolish magicians! Not only were they impotent when it came to dealing with the plague; they could not even protect themselves!

Many scholars say that the boils were a form of anthrax. Whatever they were, they were impure. In fact, such illness was usually seen as demon-possession by the Egyptians of that time. That was a distressing to them as the physical pain.

And notice that although many passages in Exodus say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, it is also true to say that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. There is always mystery when it comes to the intersection of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. But at the least, we can say that Pharaoh’s self-hardening was part of God’s plan in such a way that it can also be said that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

So, in our day, do we worship medicine? You bet we do. But as Ryken notes, Jesus Christ alone is Lord of the (B)body (p. 272).

Exodus 9:1-7

In the fifth plague, God strikes the livestock of Egypt. However, as Numbers 33:4 tells us, God was also striking at the Egyptian gods. There were many gods and goddesses represented by various forms of livestock. Foremmost among them is Apis (pictured here), a bull-god who represented vitality and life (Currid, pg. 192). Currid also lists Buchis, Mneuis, Isis, Hathor, and even Ptah and Ra as gods and goddesses which were occasionaly, or even normally represented by various forms of livestock. It comes as no surprise then, when the Israelites first go astray in the wilderness, that their idolatry takes the form of a golden calf (Ryken, pg. 263). They were doing what they already knew: and Egyptian solution to their problems. Ryken also notes that Apis represented sexual prowess, and Hathor (a goddess) represented female glamor (pg. 264). We worship these same gods and goddesses today in our sex-crazed culture. They are empty of meaning, since they divorce sex from God and from relationship, and from its proper place in marriage.

Notice the addition of “God of the Hebrews,” a quick reminder to Pharaoh of the identity of the God whom he is fighting (Currid, pg. 191). This God of the Hebrews is ratcheting up the severity of the plagues in this fifth plague. Not only is it now an attack on life itself (Enns, pp. 215-216), but also it is now the hand of Yahweh, not just the finger (as in 8:19), which is involved (Currid, pg. 192). This, of course, does not imply that Yahweh had to use any more effort to strike the Egyptians. Rather, it means that the severity of the plague is increasing. Lastly, the plague is just as heavy as Pharaoh’s heart. The word used in verse 3 is the same as that used to describe Pharaoh’s heart: the punishment fits the crime (Currid, pg. 193).

One difficulty this text raises is the identity of the “all” in verse 6: did every last one of the Egyptian livestock die? If they did, then how could there be any livestock to suffer in the plague of hail, which Scripture plainly says there were (9:19)? I like Currid’s and Ryken’s explanation the best. Currid notes that the word “all” can often mean “all kinds” of livestock, rather than every single one. Furthermore, the livestock described here is specifically that of “the field” (verse 3): they had been put to pasture. Thus the livestock closer to home had not been affected.

Pharaoh notices that a distinction between Egypt and Israel has been made. He sends out his agricultural agents (though he will not send out the Israelites). The remarkable thing, as Durham notes, is that, although Pharaoh is faced with the knowledge of the Lord’s hand against him, but not against the Israelites, and has proof of such a distinction, he will still not give God the glory. This proves that it doesn’t matter how much evidence an unbeliever can face with regard to the claims of the Gospel: with an unbelieving heart, they will still reject such knowledge. May we not.

John Goldingay had an extremely interesting thought in the second volume of his Old Testament Theology (pg. 129). He notes that when we think about the future and the past, our orientation is usually that we look ahead to the future, and look behind to the past. He doesn’t think that the Hebrews thought this way. For the Hebrews (says Goldingay), they look forward to the past, and look behind them to the future. Imagine, then, a person walking backward into the future (which he cannot see), being able to see the past, because he is facing it. Goldingay argues that this helps explain Psalm 51:3. It is certainly an interesting thought. It is more logical than the way we normally think about it. Food for thought.

Exodus 8:20-32

The fourth plague starts the second cycle of three. Again Moses is directed to go down to Pharaoh at the Nile (where Pharaoh is probably back worshiping his own already-defeated gods); again Moses rises up early in the morning. However, there is a textual difference starting in this plague: the Lord makes a difference between the Egyptians and the Israelites (Enns). Literally, the text of verse 23 says that the Lord will set a redemption between my people and your people. This has to do with election. Just as God set a distinction between Egypt and Israel, so also He now sets a distinction between those who are in Christ and those who are not. The distinction now is based on Jesus Christ’s redemptive work, in which we now have the fulness of spiritual redemption, whereas the OT redemption referred to here is a physical redemption that points to the more important spiritual redemption in Christ (proleptically enjoyed by OT believers).

There are two possibilities for Egyptian gods against whom this plague might be directed (and the plague could actually be directed at more than one god). The first is Kheprer, whose emblem is pictured at the beginning of this blog. This interpretation sees the insect as a scarab (a flying, biting beetle), which was Kheprer’s symbol. Kheprer was the god of resurrection in ancient Egypt. Ryken explains (quoting Barnhouse in the process) that scarabs cleaned up dung from various places in temples, etc. They would form the dung into round balls, which would then be rolled back into their holes. From this, the Egyptians inferred that a giant beetle rolled the sun back into its hole. Thus the scarab became an emblem of the sun, and of the resurrection that the sun enjoyed every day. Kheprer was this god, depicted as a beetle. The other possibility is more simple. The Egyptians also worshiped the god who took care of the fly population: Beelzebub. Enns thinks that this is less likely. However, Ryken notes that the Egyptians did actually worship this god. The territory of these two gods probably overlapped somewhat. Therefore, it is possible that God is attacking and defeating both these gods.

Pharaoh now knows that his magicians are defeated: he does not even call for them! Instead, he starts to rely on his own cunning (Currid). He wants to soften the Lord’s (the law’s) demands, making a bargain with Moses and with the Lord. The fine print of this deal vitiates the whole purpose of what the Lord had given to Moses. Sacrificing within the land was a compromise that could not be, since the Israelites would be sacrificing animals which were sacred to the Egyptians. As Ryken puts it, “sacrificing bulls among the
Egyptians would be like holding a pig roast at a synagogue or cooking burgers in front of a Hindu temple” (pg. 255). In other words, there would be riots and lynching of the Israelites, if they were to accept this compromise. Moses, in effect, is saying that the riots would then be Pharaoh’s fault.

The last part of verse 28 is rich: Pharaoh has been wanting compromise, such that he is still in control of the situation, and then has the audacity to try to “cover all his bases” by asking Moses to pray for him! After doing everything in his power to humiliate the God of Israel, he then asks Moses to pray for him!

Notice that the ending of this plague is just as miraculous as the instigation of it: at the beginning of the plague, not only were there a supernatural number of flies (or perhaps scarabs; we are not quite sure what kind of flying insect it was), but there was a separation: none were in Goshen. Then, at the end of the plague, the Lord simply removed them. Period. “Not one remained” (vs. 31).

Exodus 8:16-19

This plague comes without any warning, as do the sixth and ninth plagues. Furthermore, this plague is not said to cease. Maybe each triad of plagues has a third, permanent reminder of that triad (Enns, pg. 210). The plague of darkness might cease because there is no triad to follow (Enns, ibid).

It is not certain what kind of bugs these were. Various translations could be given: flies, gnats, lice, mosquitos. But they were irritating, scratchy bugs that left even the magicians unclean (and therefore unable to pursue their offices; see Ryken, pg. 242, quoting John J. Davis). But what may be more important than what they are is where their origin is (Enns, pg. 209). They come from the earth. Possibly this is an attack on the god of the earth Geb, pictured above (Ryken, pg. 240). The earth itself, a power over which the Egyptians did not claim the same kind of power as it did over the Nile, is now turned against the Egyptians, as the water had already. We will also see the air turn against the Egyptians.

Pharaoh had the responsibility to keep ma’at in the world (Ryken, pg. 241). This word means “order.” By decreating Egypt, God, in showing the Egyptians the logical outcome of their idolatry, shows Pharaoh that Pharaoh is not the keeper of ma’at, Yahweh is. The magicians recognize this, at least partially, when they say that “this is the finger of god(s).” It is not certain whether they are affirming their own pantheon, or the God of Israel. At any rate, they acknowledge that they are out of their depth.

We expect certain things like money, pleasure, and power to keep our lives in good order. At the very least, our schedule ought to keep us in order. However, God only keeps the timetables. Jesus Christ has broken the power of all so-called gods in His death and Resurrection. Therefore we should trust in the One who has conquered.

Exodus 8:1-15

I was not able to find a picture of the Egyptians goddess Hekhet to show you all, but she takes the losing stage in this plague. Hekhet was the goddess of fertility. She was usually depicted as a female with a frog’s head. “Hekhet also had the responsibility of controlling the multiplication of frogs in ancient Egypt by protecting the frog-eating crocodiles” (Currid, pg. 173). So, when the frogs over-run Egypt, Hekhet has obviously lost her power to protect the land. In fact, “images” of Hekhet, in the form of frogs, have completely over-run Egypt. It is rather ironic that the very goddess supposed to protect the land from frogs, has herself been multiplied to the point of being a curse. It is rather fitting that the Egyptians, who worshiped many different gods, would have images of this goddess multiply: if they wanted more gods, they could have them!

From another perspective, Egypt, being a form of humanity, is cursed with a reversal of creation. The text says that the frogs “swarmed,” the same word used in Genesis 1 to describe the swarms of creeping things on the earth. Instead of man having dominion over the creation, the creation had dominion over man. Of course, this did not render the frogs outside the control of God. That much is plain by the fact that the instant God gave the word, they all died out (or returned to the Nile).

What is amazing about this plague is that the frogs come out of the Nile which had just been rendered unfit for any marine life by being turned into blood. And yet, here come all these frogs! This gives the lie to any naturalistic interpretation. 

Pharaoh is now starting to know this Yahweh, whom he said he didn’t know (5:2). He doesn’t know Yahweh well enough to repent of his sins, and turn to Him for salvation. However, God’s purposes in raising Pharaoh up are being fulfilled (see Romans 9:17).

The whole point of the plagues in general is given to us in verse 1: God wants the people to serve Him, not Pharaoh. Of course, at this point in the story they are still serving Pharaoh. Therefore, verse 1 is a direct challenge to Pharaoh (Currid, pg. 172).