Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
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?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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?
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.
Exactly how does an infant willingly participate in oppression and abuse?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.
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.)?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.
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.
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.
That and it seems to go against a commandment....Thou shalt not kill....
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
"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.
We don't know. Maybe. Anything is possible.
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?