Ethics of the Ten Plagues of Egypt

I am wondering what your views on the ethics of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Is it right for God to take it out on the Egyptian people for the stubbornness of their leader?

Dan4reason said:

I am wondering what your views on the ethics of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Is it right for God to take it out on the Egyptian people for the stubbornness of their leader?

Click to expand...

If it makes any difference, the Rabbis teach us in numerous midrashim that it was the entire populace of Egypt that was guilty, in that they all willingly participated in the oppression and abuse of the Israelites. There are also midrashim that talk about those Egyptians who sympathized with the Israelites, and rebelled against their own leaders and countryfolk to aid the Israelites because they knew it to be right; we are taught that God counted them amongst the Israelites during the plagues, and they were spared, too.

No. I don't think it is, but then I have heard a lot in the Bible that seems to be unethical and somewhat contradictory based on the message it seems to be trying to put forth. That and it seems to go against a commandment....Thou shalt not kill.... it is apparently ok for God to kill but thou shall not

"The God of the Hebrews... commands that you let his people go."

Sadly, the Bible makes a mention that God is the one who hardened the Pharaoh's heart, and that makes him entirely responsible, and I say entirely unethical since it's purpose is clearly just to show off.

But if you remove that detail, while the ethics aren't cleared up entirely, it becomes a bit less clear. If the Pharaoh's hardened heart was entirely his own, well, a King's duty is to serve the interests of his people.

Let's have an example of two human kings. King I has enslaved the people of King II. King II has recently obtained the ability to wage total/biological war on King I, and makes his demands to let his people go, or face the consequences. For the sake of his people's freedom, he wages biological warfare on King I's people and army.

Are such underhanded tactics justified when it comes to your peoples' well-being?

Levite said:

If it makes any difference, the Rabbis teach us in numerous midrashim that it was the entire populace of Egypt that was guilty, in that they all willingly participated in the oppression and abuse of the Israelites. There are also midrashim that talk about those Egyptians who sympathized with the Israelites, and rebelled against their own leaders and countryfolk to aid the Israelites because they knew it to be right; we are taught that God counted them amongst the Israelites during the plagues, and they were spared, too.

Click to expand...

And THAT pretty much changes my entire argument. ^_^

Gods got some nerve on that whole setup. Enslaving Israel and hardening the pharoahs heart just to display his glory and have followers.

Levite said:

If it makes any difference, the Rabbis teach us in numerous midrashim that it was the entire populace of Egypt that was guilty, in that they all willingly participated in the oppression and abuse of the Israelites.

Click to expand...

Exactly how does an infant willingly participate in oppression and abuse?

Levite said:

There are also midrashim that talk about those Egyptians who sympathized with the Israelites, and rebelled against their own leaders and countryfolk to aid the Israelites because they knew it to be right; we are taught that God counted them amongst the Israelites during the plagues, and they were spared, too.

Click to expand...

Let's consider those who didn't, though: would you agree that for violence to be just, it has to adhere to something like "just war" theory (i.e. it has to be for a good purpose, the violence has to actually work toward the just end, the good won has to outweigh the harm of the violence, etc.)?

Assuming you agree, why wouldn't the just action have been to simply change the Egyptians' hearts? In the story, God was depicted as all-powerful, and was described changing people's hearts as he saw fit (by hardening Pharaoh's for instance). Since God had less violent options available to him that would have accomplished the same (or better) ends, it seems to me that the violence perpetrated on the Egyptians in the story - even on the guilty ones - was unjustifiable.

Levite said:

If it makes any difference, the Rabbis teach us in numerous midrashim that it was the entire populace of Egypt that was guilty, in that they all willingly participated in the oppression and abuse of the Israelites. There are also midrashim that talk about those Egyptians who sympathized with the Israelites, and rebelled against their own leaders and countryfolk to aid the Israelites because they knew it to be right; we are taught that God counted them amongst the Israelites during the plagues, and they were spared, too.

Click to expand...

I do have one little question about that. Most Egyptians were primarily concerned with their families and their careers and had little or no contact with Israelite slaves. Most Egyptians were too poor to have slaves themselves. While most Egyptians may have supported this slavery, support for slavery was very common back then. Even the ancient Hebrews took slaves of the nations they conquered.

Before the Civil War a good percent of Americans supported slavery. So did these Egyptian people really deserve the death and destruction they got because of their support of the current system?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Exactly how does an infant willingly participate in oppression and abuse?


Let's consider those who didn't, though: would you agree that for violence to be just, it has to adhere to something like "just war" theory (i.e. it has to be for a good purpose, the violence has to actually work toward the just end, the good won has to outweigh the harm of the violence, etc.)?

Assuming you agree, why wouldn't the just action have been to simply change the Egyptians' hearts? In the story, God was depicted as all-powerful, and was described changing people's hearts as he saw fit (by hardening Pharaoh's for instance). Since God had less violent options available to him that would have accomplished the same (or better) ends, it seems to me that the violence perpetrated on the Egyptians in the story - even on the guilty ones - was unjustifiable.

Click to expand...

Actually, many of the classical commentators say that God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart really indicates that God was lending Pharaoh preternatural strength of will and resolve, so that he could exercise his free will even in the face of consequences that would cause anyone else to blindly obey Moses' message, whatever he truly wished, out of sheer terror.

In any case, we are also taught that the plagues affected only those Egyptians that did not repent of what they did, and did not abjure their former ways and seek forgiveness. So it seems that by that midrashic reading, there is some justification for the violence.

There is also an opinion I read-- I cannot recall for certain whose, though it might have been Rav Saadyah Gaon-- that the overthrow of the Egyptians had to be both awesome and terrible, so that the Israelites would understand not only God's power, but His anger at what had been done to them, and to prevent them from seeking their own vengeance on Egypt. Victims, he noted, thirst for blood vengeance, and cannot be bribed with overly lenient justice.

Wu Wei said:

That and it seems to go against a commandment....Thou shalt not kill....

Click to expand...

FWIW, there is no such commandment. The actual commandment is lo tirtzach, "Do not murder." There could be no commandment not to kill at all, since a number of the laws in the Torah expressly carry the death penalty.

The Rabbis teach us that the plagues are no different than a judge ordering the execution of the guilty.

Dan4reason said:

I do have one little question about that. Most Egyptians were primarily concerned with their families and their careers and had little or no contact with Israelite slaves. Most Egyptians were too poor to have slaves themselves. While most Egyptians may have supported this slavery, support for slavery was very common back then. Even the ancient Hebrews took slaves of the nations they conquered.

Before the Civil War a good percent of Americans supported slavery. So did these Egyptian people really deserve the death and destruction they got because of their support of the current system?

Click to expand...

Well, the midrashim tend to portray contact with Israelite slaves as fairly common among all Egyptians, and support for the oppression of Israel as endemic throughout Egypt. Also, the slavery of Israel was different than other ancient slavery, both because the entire people Israel were enslaved, and it was not at all usual that a whole nation faced slavery, and that they were all ill-treated and subject to capricious genocide, which was also very unusual at that time.

Ok...let's try God's point of view....
Really....yes you can.

The creature you've made has a short life span.
With precious time and not a clue.....
Man is that creature that will dominate all things...including his fellow man.

That part about domination was intended for the art of learning how this physical reality operates.
It wasn't supposed to be used upon your brothers.

But there you go.....
Time and time again Man takes off on the wrong foot and you have to sort through the mess.

Over and over again....thousands must die....just to stop a bad trend from spreading.

What's so hard to believe about that?

Levite said:

FWIW, there is no such commandment. The actual commandment is lo tirtzach, "Do not murder." There could be no commandment not to kill at all, since a number of the laws in the Torah expressly carry the death penalty.

Click to expand...

OK then, God sends plagues, one of those is sent to kill the first born. This shows intent to kill and in many cases intent to kill the innocent. Thereby it becomes murder based on intent.

Therefore the commandment "Thou shall not murder" is broken by God who wrote the 10 commandments. So it is OK for God to murder, but not man and again you run smack into a contradiction

You end up in the same place

Levite said:

In any case, we are also taught that the plagues affected only those Egyptians that did not repent of what they did, and did not abjure their former ways and seek forgiveness.

Click to expand...

Is there any detail on how that might have worked? If a repenter and a non-repenter lived in the same house, did the water change back and forth from blood to water depending on which one was using it?

Wu Wei said:

OK then, God sends plagues, one of those is sent to kill the first born. This shows intent to kill and in many cases intent to kill the innocent. Thereby it becomes murder based on intent.

Therefore the commandment "Thou shall not murder" is broken by God who wrote the 10 commandments. So it is OK for God to murder, but not man and again you run smack into a contradiction

You end up in the same place

Click to expand...

"First born" does not refer specifically to minor children or babies, it refers to any male who was first born of their mother. The majority of the plague victims, therefore were adults; and the midrash tells us that of the children who died, only those who had been taught by their parents to hate and oppress the Israelites, and embraced those beliefs and behaviors, were struck. And, of course, we presume that God, the supreme judge, is able to know the minds and hearts of those He condemns, to determine if they would or would not have been inclined to repent of their behavior.

AmbiguousGuy said:

Is there any detail on how that might have worked? If a repenter and a non-repenter lived in the same house, did the water change back and forth from blood to water depending on which one was using it?

Click to expand...

We don't know. Maybe. Anything is possible.

Levite said:

Actually, many of the classical commentators say that God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart really indicates that God was lending Pharaoh preternatural strength of will and resolve, so that he could exercise his free will even in the face of consequences that would cause anyone else to blindly obey Moses' message, whatever he truly wished, out of sheer terror.

Click to expand...

But you do agree that an all-knowing, all-powerful God would have been capable of fixing the problem in all sorts of ways, some of them presumably non-violent... or at least not as violent as mass slaughted, right?

In any case, we are also taught that the plagues affected only those Egyptians that did not repent of what they did, and did not abjure their former ways and seek forgiveness. So it seems that by that midrashic reading, there is some justification for the violence.

Click to expand...

I think that's a leap. Just because a person has some measure of guilt, that doesn't mean that it's justified to do anything and everything to them.

There is also an opinion I read-- I cannot recall for certain whose, though it might have been Rav Saadyah Gaon-- that the overthrow of the Egyptians had to be both awesome and terrible, so that the Israelites would understand not only God's power, but His anger at what had been done to them, and to prevent them from seeking their own vengeance on Egypt. Victims, he noted, thirst for blood vengeance, and cannot be bribed with overly lenient justice.

Click to expand...

So an all-powerful God committed mass slaughter because he wouldn't have been able to control an angry mob? I see some holes in this argument.



FWIW, there is no such commandment. The actual commandment is lo tirtzach, "Do not

Dan4reason said:

I am wondering what your views on the ethics of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Is it right for God to take it out on the Egyptian people for the stubbornness of their leader?

Click to expand...

Actually, the first three plagues affected the Israelites as well as the Egyptians. Later, those Egyptians that feared Jehovah were spared the effects of some of the plagues, including the final one. (Exodus 9:20,21) Jehovah held the entire nation of Egypt responsible for the mistreatment and enslavement of his people. This principle of community responsibility resulted in suffering of the entire nation. Jehovah was entirely just and righteous in judging that nation. (Deuteronomy 32:4,5)

It's a story.

Levite said:

"First born" does not refer specifically to minor children or babies, it refers to any male who was first born of their mother. The majority of the plague victims, therefore were adults; and the midrash tells us that of the children who died, only those who had been taught by their parents to hate and oppress the Israelites, and embraced those beliefs and behaviors, were struck. And, of course, we presume that God, the supreme judge, is able to know the minds and hearts of those He condemns, to determine if they would or would not have been inclined to repent of their behavior.

Click to expand...

I am aware of that. So then it is justifiable to kill a child who hates... who technically has "Honor your father and your mother" by listeing to them, no matter how flawed they might have been....interesting. And what about the adult first born who did not hate, were they killed to.... and was it justifiable because they were Egyptians...

We are at murder and now appear we have a breaking of he Honor your parents bit.... and since killing adults who are first born appears to be ok, even if they were not taught to hate we may also be heading for breaking "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

This is actually breaking more commandments that I originally thought

Levite said:

We don't know. Maybe. Anything is possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah. For me, that kinda takes the fun out of speculating about God and His business. When rationality hits a wall, all one has to do is build a little miracle ladder to get over it.

Where's the challenge.

There is a long tradition of making midrashim and reinterpretations to try and clarify our understanding of and feelings about texts that may seem problematic in one way or another.

But in the end, Jewish thought is a system like any other system, and will not work in the absence of a few fundamental presumptions. One of these presumptions is that God is just, and does what is right. Another is that we may not always completely understand the reasons, or we may be lacking information that God has which clarifies the reasons for some of His actions and decisions. Either we accept these premises and work accordingly, or we don't. When we don't, and we attempt to write Tanach stories off as pure fiction, without even a grain of truth, it becomes increasingly hard to use Tanach as a basis for tradition and spirituality. When we don't, and we write off God as unjustified and wantonly cruel, it becomes impossible to produce fruitful theological and spiritual practices from Judaism.

I choose to accept these presumptions. Other Jews are free to make their own decisions. And it doesn't really matter at all to Jewish tradition what non-Jews choose to believe, since their religions and philosophies are their business and not ours, and vice versa.

Dan4reason said:

I am wondering what your views on the ethics of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Is it right for God to take it out on the Egyptian people for the stubbornness of their leader?

Click to expand...

the people are the ones who give support to such leaders, they give them the power to make decisions for them. The leader made some bad decisions and the people suffered. Thats the nature of handing over the power to one person. His decisions will have an effect on you.

So yes, it was perfectly ethical for God to bring the plagues on the egyptions. They supported the Pharoh and allowed him to make the decisions. If they didnt like his decisions, they should have stood up and said so.