Exodus, the Plagues, and the Cosmic Battle

February 9, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

Exodus, the Plagues, and the Cosmic Battle

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

In my last post, we looked at the “cosmic battle” motif in the Old Testament. This is where Yahweh is involved in some epic struggle at creation with “sea” (or the waters or the sea monsters Rahab or Leviathan). That battle is seen clearly in several Psalms and in Job. It is also reflected in other portions of the Old Testament, like Ezekiel and Genesis 1.

I also mentioned that both Psalm 74 and 77 (to give two examples) use cosmic battle language to describe the exodus. That brings us to today’s post. The Israelites thought of the exodus from Egypt as another cosmic battle—sort of a reenactment. The “back then” creation battle is taking place here and now—against Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt.

I don’t want us to get lost in the details, and I don’t want anyone to think that discussing the exodus is off-topic for BioLogos. So let me take a step back and explain why it is important.

At BioLogos we are trying to encourage fruitful conversations between faith and science, and especially those between Christianity and evolution. It is obviously important to spend a lot of time discussing the scientific data. But it is also important to deal with the biblical data.

Why?

Because our expectations about the Bible affect how we handle the scientific data. Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are very different movements, but they share a root theological problem. They expect from the Bible things that the Bible does not deliver, namely something like “scientific” information.

That is why we are spending some time looking what the Bible delivers about creation. We need to hear what the Bible really has to say. Then we can adjust our expectations in light of the biblical evidence.

I have chosen the “cosmic battle” motif in the Bible simply as a way of getting at this larger issue of the biblical view of creation. It is only one angle, not the only angle. In the weeks and months to come we will explore different angles. But for now, we will continue to focus on the cosmic battle in the Old Testament and today we will begin to look at the book of Exodus.

Got it? Good.

The exodus was the formative experience for ancient Israelites—it is what made them a nation. Creation language permeates the exodus story. This is because the biblical writer understood the exodus as another “act of creation,” which even included a “cosmic battle.”

We see the creation theme already in Exodus 1:6. The Israelites arrived in Egypt and were “fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous” (1:7). That is creation language (Genesis 1:28). We also see God’s people “increasing and multiplying” throughout Genesis (e.g., 8:17; 17:2; 26:4; 28:14). Multiplying is God’s command at creation, and it is what God’s people do—even in Egypt.

This is how the book of Exodus starts and this is why Pharaoh enslaved the Israelites. He wasn’t grumpy or anti-Semitic. He was afraid. He enslaved the Israelites because there were too many of them (Exodus 1:9).

The very beginning of the book lays out for us the conflict of the entire book. Yahweh says “multiply,” and Pharaoh says “no.” And it will help to understand that in Egyptian religion, Pharaoh was an earthly representative of the Egyptian high god—god incarnate, so to speak.

The conflict in Exodus is a divine struggle, between Yahweh and Pharaoh. And the question is: which “god” do the Israelites belong to, Pharaoh or Yahweh? This is why Moses and Aaron confront Pharaoh. They are there to claim ownership of the Israelites for Yahweh: “Let my people go so that they might worship me in the desert” (7:16) But Pharaoh did not want to let them go. They were his slave force. They were there to serve him.

In Hebrew, the word for worship and serve is the same: `avad. This is another way of describing the conflict in Exodus: whom will Israel `avad? Will they `avad Pharaoh by being enslaved to him or will they `avad Yahweh by worshipping him on Mt. Sinai? By trying to reduce the number of Israelites and then refusing to let them go, Pharaoh is putting himself in direct conflict with Israel’s God.

This is where the plagues come in. They are not a random hissy fit. Rather, they are a sustained attack on Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt. It is Yahweh saying to Pharaoh, “Fine. If you want to set yourself up as my enemy, let’s do battle. I’ll take you on and all of your gods, too.” And he takes his time about it, over ten plagues and destruction of the Egyptian army in the sea. The plagues are a drawn out “cosmic battle.” This is what indicated in Exodus 12:12. Yahweh is about to kill the firstborn of Egypt in the tenth plague. In doing so, Yahweh says “I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt.” The tenth plague, the killing of the firstborn, is a battle scene.

This “battle of the gods” characterizes the entire plague narrative. It begins already in the first plague. The Nile was the source of Egypt’s life and was also divinized by the Egyptians. Turning it to blood is not just yucky and inconvenient. It is the first defeat of the Egyptian pantheon. Another example is the plague of frogs. Frogs come out of the Nile and multiply like rabbits. Why frogs? The Egyptian goddess of fertility was depicted with the head of a frog. Yahweh controls this goddess and turns her against the Egyptians. The goddess is a puppet on a string. Another example is the ninth plague, the plague of darkness. This is a direct affront to the sun god Ra, the high god, and the father of Pharaoh. Yahweh can make it dark and light as he pleases. Ra is another plaything for Yahweh, the true God.

The plagues are not just a random series of weird cosmic and ecological disturbances. They show Israel’s God, the God of slaves, marching into the home turf of the superpower of the day, and, basically, beating up their gods.

This may sound silly to us, but this is how the Israelites understood the supremacy of their God in an ancient polytheistic world. As Psalm 95 puts it “Yahweh is the great God, the great king above all gods” (v. 3). This supremacy is one reason why the Israelites declared Yahweh as worthy of worship. He redeemed them from Egypt by putting Pharaoh and the gods in their place. And this was to be a reminder to them not to follow the Canaanite gods once settled in the land.

The exodus from Egypt is the cosmic battle revisited. If we miss this cosmic battle we will have an impoverished understanding of the theology of Exodus. The biblical depiction of creation is not remotely about contemporary scientific issue. It cannot be “harmonized” with modern cosmology or biology because is telling a different story. The plagues are a window onto a rich, truly biblical theology of creation. We will look at other aspects of this theology in Exodus in my next post.

Filed Under:
science, religion, Scripture, Exodus, theology, reading, Christianity, cosmic battle, faith, God, myth, meaning

Comments (27)

Share |

  1. Charlie - #4155

    February 9th 2010

    Peter Enns,

    You stated: “Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are very different movements, but they share a root theological problem. They expect from the Bible things that the Bible does not deliver, namely something like “scientific” information.”

    Do you believe in a divine creator?  If yes, don’t you draw your conclusion from the Bible?  How are you not treating this like the Bible delivering “scientific information” to you, just like the ID and Young Earth people do?  Why is believing in God a justified belief while frogs falling from the sky is not?

  2. Pete Enns - #4158

    February 9th 2010

    Charlie, drawing conclusions from the Bible a about God as creator is very different than drawing scientific conclusions from the ancient idiom the biblical authors use to talk about creation. Rejecting the “science” of Gen 1-11 or the Psalms on creation does not mean I am committed to rejecting the more general confession of God as creator.

  3. Charlie - #4162

    February 9th 2010

    Pete Enns,

    Then you agree that your belief in a creator is unscientific?

  4. Glen Davidson - #4163

    February 9th 2010

    [IDists] expect from the Bible things that the Bible does not deliver, namely something like “scientific” information.

    My caveat regarding this is that, while religious, ID is not necessarily Christian or necessarily concerned about what the Bible states.  Practically, most IDists with whom we are familiar are Christian, with a few being Jewish, and are concerned about the Bible.

    However, one could definitely be Muslim and IDist (if they do care about the Bible, generally not as a science text).  Presumably, one could not adhere to any Abrahamic faith and be IDist (if very confused, perhaps you could even be agnostic and be IDist, although the whole “space alien as designer” thing is rather disingenuous).  Is this perhaps true of more traditional creationism as well?  Yes, although I think that young earth creationism is almost exclusively Biblical.

    Glen Davidson
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  5. Glen Davidson - #4164

    February 9th 2010

    continuing from #4163:

    This is perhaps not all that important in a sense, as few IDists with whom we argue fail to be concerned with the Bible.  But IDists make much of the fact that one needn’t be Christian to be IDist (also true of old earth creationism, so not much of a point), and technically that is true.  I do not think one can be coherently irreligious and IDist, however, and the mere fact that one need not believe the Bible to be IDist/creationist hardly changes anything.

    Glen Davidson
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  6. Brian - #4165

    February 9th 2010

    Pete,

    You’ll have to forgive me for not immediately grasping the connection between the biblical writer’s understanding of the exodus as an act of creation and how this supports the modern neodarwinian synthesis…

    But I agree that the bible is not a science text.  I also agree that “our expectations about the Bible affect how we handle the scientific data.”

    Given this, I’m wondering how your expectations synch up with a passage like Romans 1: “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

  7. Brian - #4166

    February 9th 2010

    —2—

    To me, this seems pretty clear.  The writer believes: that God has created everything that exists; that this fact is (or should be) obvious to an honest observer; and that this line of evidence alone is sufficient to know God, to the extent that there is no excuse for denying it. If you have a different way of interpreting this, I’d love to hear it. 

    So yes, my own view is that it is reasonable to reason from creation to creator.  The Biologos message, on the other hand, seems to be that all the evidence from modern science contrubutes nothing whatsoever to this line of evidence.  While I expect this from the likes of Dawkins and Dennet, I have to admit that I’m a little mystified when it comes from a committed xian.  This, when Paul clearly expected a first-century man with only a naked eye to observe the created order and consequently recognize that the universe is, in fact, designed by a personal God.

  8. Jeremy Suess - #4167

    February 9th 2010

    Dr. Enns,

    I have been thoroughly enjoying your posts here, including today’s.  Very enriching and interesting!
    I do agree with the above posters, however about this statement you made:

          “Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are very different movements, but they share a root theological problem. They expect from the Bible things that the Bible does not deliver, namely something like “scientific” information.” 
          I would agree that Old Earth Creationism, seen in Hugh Ross, for example, expects to get scientific information from the Bible.  ID does not necessarily do this.  Compare Hugh Ross’ books to books by Behe or Steven Meyers.  Ross from what I have seen, has attempted to distance himself from ID at times. 

    At any rate, thank you for your helpful posts.  I look forward to your next one!

  9. Sam Sutter - #4186

    February 9th 2010

    Dr Enns,
    So I was teaching from exodus this week - actually I’m talking about the Plagues this Sunday - the class asked questions about how the magicians were able to duplicate some of the plagues. I had already started to talk about the cosmic polemic going on.

    Their question to me, last Sunday was - “Does Exodus teach that there are actually lesser gods doing stuff?”  I said I’d answer it this week. grin I tried your whole “the world is a complicated place” answer.. they think its a cop out. Better ideas?

  10. Nancy Janisch - #4189

    February 9th 2010

    Thanks for this series of posts.  Keep up the good work!

  11. Daniel Mann - #4190

    February 9th 2010

    Peter,

    While I appreciate your exposition of the Divine combat in the Exodus account, you seem to be committing a logical error. You state, “They expect from the Bible things that the Bible does not deliver, namely something like “scientific” [physical-world] information.”

    Instead, I’d like to suggest that your very significant exposition depends upon the scientific, physical-world events. It is precisely because these plagues actually did take place that the higher, more figurative narrative emerges. No plagues – no triumph over the Egyptian gods! No story! No historical legacy for Israel! No exhortations to remember the Exodus!

    Hence, it’s not a matter of science or theology. It’s a matter of both!

  12. Norm - #4191

    February 9th 2010

    It is interesting how the NT frames the New Creation as a New Exodus. The New Creation often has typology from the old Exodus in sight and develops a 40 year desert wandering before the establishment of the church was completed from Christ resurrection to the desolation of the Temple that spanned 40 years.

    Rev 12:6-17 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.  (7)  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels ….  (9)  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.  … 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

    This was prophesied in Isaiah concerning the defeat of the Devil.

    Isa 27:1 IN THAT DAY the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

  13. beaglelady - #4195

    February 9th 2010

    “It is interesting how the NT frames the New Creation as a New Exodus.”

    Yes, it is; the Church has long seen the Exodus as foreshadowing our greater liberation from sin.  That’s good to keep in mind as Ash Wednesday is fast approaching.  The Easter Hymn “Come ye Faithful, Raise the Strain” gets it right…..

  14. beaglelady - #4196

    February 9th 2010


    Come, ye faithful, raise the strain of triumphant gladness;
    God hath brought forth Israel into joy from sadness;
    Loosed from Pharaoh’s bitter yoke Jacob’s sons and daughters,
    Led them with unmoistened foot through the Red Sea waters.

    ’Tis the spring of souls today; Christ has burst His prison,
    And from three days’ sleep in death as a sun hath risen;
    All the winter of our sins, long and dark, is flying
    From His light, to Whom we give laud and praise undying.

    Now the queen of seasons, bright with the day of splendor,
    With the royal feast of feasts, comes its joy to render;
    Comes to glad Jerusalem, who with true affection
    Welcomes in unwearied strains Jesus’ resurrection.

    Neither might the gates of death, nor the tomb’s dark portal,
    Nor the watchers, nor the seal hold Thee as a mortal;
    But today amidst the twelve Thou didst stand, bestowing
    That Thy peace which evermore passeth human knowing.

    “Alleluia!” now we cry to our King immortal,
    Who, triumphant, burst the bars of the tomb’s dark portal;
    “Alleluia!” with the Son, God the Father praising,
    “Alleluia!” yet again to the Spirit raising.

  15. Craig Robinson - #4261

    February 11th 2010

    Interestingly, over 50% of the language of Gen 1 is found in the first nine plagues.

    Also, while Exod 12:12 speaks of gods of Egypt, the rest of the larger passages never mentions them. Many scholars I believe miss the point by by appealing to info outside the text and suggest battles between YHWH and the gods of Egypt. I believe the bigger point of the passage is that there are no gods in Egypt. God is the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt. The passage speaks of creation because God is removing the good gift of creation that he himself gave. He gives everything Egypt has. He is not just the God of Israel, but also the God of Egypt and the whole earth. He wants Pharaoh to know him and Israel to know him. He is Egypt’s god also.

  16. Pete Enns - #4265

    February 11th 2010

    Craig, what do you mean “50% of the language”? As for your own understanding of Exod 12:12, it is a nice idea but you would have to give some reasoned account for why you reject what “many scholars” say. You are making more of an assertion here, and it seems based on a reluctance to go “outside the text” for information.

  17. Charlie - #4269

    February 11th 2010

    Pete Enns,

    Do you agree that your belief in a creator is unscientific?

  18. Pete Enns - #4288

    February 11th 2010

    Charlie, I don’t understand the question—as straightforward as it not doubt appears to be from your point of view.

  19. Craig Robinson - #4295

    February 11th 2010

    Dr Enns,  a little over 50% of the vocabulary (Hebrew words of course) from Gen 1:1-2:3 is used in the 9 plagues of Exod 7:14-10:29. I figure this out manually. Takes a little effort, but it is correct.

    I didn’t give my explanation of 12:12. It would be basically in agreement with yours. What I am saying is for all the emphasis given by scholars to the battle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt in commentaries, the text is very silent on naming any of these gods. The writer never speaks of them. I am not sure the Israelite readers would know anything more of the Egyptian gods than we would. Impossible to flush out in this post, but I believe the emphasis in the passage is that there is only one God and Pharaoh and the Egyptians need to believe in him as well as Israel. Part of the way the writer accomplishes this is by not mentioning the Egyptian gods at all.

  20. Pete Enns - #4297

    February 11th 2010

    I don’t know, Craig. In the pre-computer days I would be impressed with your statistical analysis, but in a wold of Accordance and Bible works, you could whip that off in an hour grin

    All kidding aside. the creation connections in the plague narratives are very clear, and your statistical analysis would bear that out (although, as I am sure you know, there are words in Gen 1 that are not statistically revealing, so likely “50%” does not tell the whole story.

    Not sure I agree with the last part. Not mentioning the gods does not lead to the conclusion that there are no other gods from the writer’s point of view. Acknowledgment of gods other than Yahweh is so very prevalent in the OT—not just ins Psalms, etc., but historical lit. Moreover, you have the overt mention of gods in 12:12. I think they are not mentioned for the same reason Pharaoh is not mentioned—functionally, they are non-players in the drama.

  21. Craig Robinson - #4298

    February 11th 2010

    Dr Enns, I did the analysis last year. I forget exactly what I looked at, but I believe it was just nouns, verbs and adjectives. Obviously the prepositions, suffixes, prefixes, etc. would be in both narratives almost by definition.

    In terms of the second part, I hope to write a paper eventually. It takes a lot more to flush out the idea. But I would say that your point actually supports my point imo. The fact that other gods are mentioned frequently throughout the OT but not here seems very intentional by the writer. He doesn’t want them to be mentioned. So when scholars start naming Egyptian gods in their interpretation of the passage, I immediately think that they are bringing in their own views and not trying to discover the viewpoint of the writer who left out the names on purpose. The commentators and writer don’t seem to be on the same page.

  22. Pete Enns - #4299

    February 11th 2010

    Well, maybe we should wait for the fuller version of your thoughts, Craig. But, just so we are clear, the absence of naming the gods does not mean the writer is trying to say that they do not exist, especially since he says they do in 12:12. There i another reason not to name them, analogous, as i said, to not naming the Pharaoh and not naming the divine council in Gen 1:26. Other gods exist but it is a one-man show.

  23. Craig Robinson - #4300

    February 11th 2010

    Just to clarify. Yes, Egypt had a plethora of gods. But they are not real gods. I believe the author is not trying to show that YHWH is superior to the gods of Egypt, but rather that YHWH is the only God, and that he is THE God in Egypt who gives them the good gifts of creation - “in order that they may know that I, the Lord, am in the midst of the land” (Ex 8:22b).

    So in a sense, we agree that it is a one-man or rightly one-God show. So then why do commentators bring in the names of all these other gods? The writer didn’t.

    I am not sure what you mean by not naming Pharaoh since he appears throughout. Do you mean not giving his actually personal name? If that is what you mean, then obviously you are correct in that sense. But I am not sure it is analogous since “gods” is very general and only mentioned once, while Pharaoh can only refer to one specific person and he is mentioned throughout and is a distinct identifiable individual within the narrative.

  24. Pete Enns - #4302

    February 11th 2010

    But Craig, surely the Israelite thought they were real gods.

  25. Jordan - #4305

    February 11th 2010

    Craig,

    For me being basically your average Joe Christian, I thought it was very valuable to have commentary on why the specific plagues might have been chosen. I’ve heard people (Christians and non-Christians) ask things like “why was God so random with the plagues? they don’t make any sense”. Even if you are right (seems plausible to me) and the names of the Egyptian gods were intentionally left out in order to magnify the idea that there is only one true God, the Egyptians and Israelites would have obviously known what was going on whereas we don’t have the benefit of living in that culture today.

  26. Craig Robinson - #4307

    February 11th 2010

    Dr Enns, the generation that was there may have believed they were real gods, but I don’t know if the future generations who actually heard or read the Law thought they were or even cared. Nonetheless, I am not sure it matters. In my way of thinking that would even highlight all the more the missing names. If the writer wanted to name them he could have. He didn’t. Therefore, I don’t think we should either. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, I am a Sailhamer student and follow his thinking fairly closely, so we are probably at an impasse. I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion though, and appreciate you taking the time to interact.

    Jordan, I definitely don’t think the plagues are random. There is a lot of structure to the text that isn’t obvious at first sight. On one level, most commentators will point out that within the first nine plagues, there is a 3 x 3 pattern. Three cycles of three plagues which parallel each other. I believe there are also other layers of structure in the text.

  27. Brandon - #4963

    February 20th 2010

    There is a documentary called Exodus Decoded that explains the natural ways in which the plauges could of happened.

    • Add Your Comment