Exodus, the Plagues, and the Cosmic Battle

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?

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.

Pete Enns,

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

[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

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

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.”

—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.

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!

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. I tried your whole “the world is a complicated place” answer.. they think its a cop out. Better ideas?

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

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!

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.

“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…..

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.

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.

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.

Pete Enns,

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

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

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.

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

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.