The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1621) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1621) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1621 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions on Exodus Ch. 5 -- Moses and Aaron meet Pharahh
#1
Hello everyone,

Following up with my questions here, here, and here, I'm now posting my fourth question. It's not tied to a specific passage but to Exodus chapter 5 in general.

As I'm readying through, the first thing I notice is the use of the word "out" as opposed to "free", as in Exodus 5:2:

Exodus 5:2 Wrote:And Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord that I should heed His voice to let Israel out? I do not know the Lord, neither will I let Israel out."

Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo...pter-5.htm

In popular culture, most people assume the phraseology would use the word "free" instead of "out". We're all familiar with the 1956 Charlton Heston production of The Ten Commandments in which the phrase "Let my people free" rings loudly in our memories (or is it "Let my people go"? Either way, the choice of "out" is curious to me). This is undoubtedly a modern Western bias and I realize the choice of "out" is a matter of translation, but I have to assume that whoever the translators were (of my source at https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo...pter-5.htm) thought "out" was the best translation. Why?

One clue, which is emphasized heavily by Jordan Peterson in his series Exodus (https://www.dailywire.com/search/shows?query=exodus), is the often omitted addendum "...so they can sacrifice to Me in the desert." In other words, Moses is demanding not that the slaves be set free, but that they be handed over to a new "master", a master that would have them worship Him in the desert (though by all accounts, next to Pharaoh, this probably did count as freedom). After all, "exodus" means "out" (doesn't it?).

There's also this passage:

Exodus 5:12 Wrote:So the people scattered throughout the entire land of Egypt, to gather a gleaning for stubble.

Pharaoh certainly sent them "out" (it even emphasizes the "entire" land of Egypt). It's almost as if Pharaoh was trying to kill two birds with one stone--to satisfy Moses's demands while at the same time not losing a ounce of productivity. If it's "out" they want, why not get them to gather the stubble while they're at it, freeing up time and labor for the "stubble gatherers". But by no means are they "free".

Putting that interpretation aside, I'm also wondering if the changes imposed by Pharaoh actually are in response to Moses's and Aaron's demands to let the Hebrews "go" (out/free/whatever). The way the text reads, one *could* interpret it as simply coincidental. Exodus 5:4-7 says:

Exodus 5:4-7 Wrote:4. But the king of Egypt said to them, "Why, Moses and Aaron, do you disturb the people from their work? Go to your own labors." 5. And Pharaoh said, "Behold, now the people of the land are many, and you are stopping them from their labors." 6. So, on that day, Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their officers, saying, 7. "You shall not continue to give stubble to the people to make the bricks like yesterday and the day before yesterday. Let them go and gather stubble for themselves.

It doesn't say that Pharaoh ordered this change because of the demands of Moses and Aaron. It could have just been a coincidence. I realize that verse 6 begins with "So..." (implying, "therefore", "because of that...", etc.) but in this context I'm thinking of this passage as a historical document, not as the ultimate truth of what happened--in other words, the author may have interpreted these events as connected but they may not have been. The chapter definitely concludes not only by linking these two events together but clearly depicts the Hebrews as making the link as well. Is there any reason, however, to assume this link is accurate (other than that it seems highly likely--which I agree with BTW)?

And finally, one last question: why did Moses and Aaron initially demand a "three day journey"? Surely, the plan was for more than three days. Indeed, wasn't it to free the Hebrews from the Egyptians forever? To form a nation as promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph*? Was this merely a ploy on their part? Something to trick Pharaoh (if it was, surely they could have done better than that)?

Looking for answers to this, I skimmed chapters 3 and 4 looking for what God precisely said to Moses and He said and I found:

Exodus 3:18 Wrote:And they will hearken to your voice, and you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, to the king of Egypt, and you shall say to him, 'The Lord God of the Hebrews has happened upon us, and now, let us go for a three days' journey in the desert and offer up sacrifices to the Lord, our God.'

So indeed Moses and Aaron are simply following through with what God told them to do. But why did God tell them to say this to Pharaoh? And if this is what Pharaoh heard, what of the order for the Hebrews to gather stubble for themselves? Was this too limited to three days?

* BTW, one thing I've been noticing is that when God cites the Patriarchs, he always omits Joseph. Example from Exodus 3:5: "In order that they believe that the Lord, the God of their forefathers, has appeared to you, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Why isn't Joseph listed? Joseph was the son of Jacob, wasn't he? Did the Hebrew slaves not descend from him?
Reply
#2
Prehaps these links can answer your questions
Aish Torah
https://aish.com/respectful-dialogue/
https://aish.com/112471284/
https://aish.com/48937417/
https://aish.com/overcoming-setbacks/
Chabbad
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_c...-Egypt.htm
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c.../Aaron.htm
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c...Snakes.htm
Reply
#3
Jacob had twelve sons and a daughter. Why are you asking specifically about Joseph?
Reply
#4
On Exodus 5:2, the verb used is "to send out" (so I think that's why people translate with "out" versus "free".  Here's the start of 5:2

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֔ה מִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶשְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹל֔וֹ לְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

The verb "to send out" (שלח) is the 8th word in Ex 5:2.  The verse translated literally would go something like "And pharoah said 'who (is) the Lord that I should listen in his voice to send out Israel?' "

On your question about Joseph, he is just one of the 12 sons of Jacob (==> Israel).  So the descendants of Joseph is NOT the twelve tribes of Israel, but rather the twelve sons of Israel are the descendants of the inheritance (modulo Levi not receiving land, Joseph not receiving land but his two sons Mannaseh and Ephraim did receive land)
Reply
#5
Hello everyone,

Sorry for the late response. I've been super busy with... life.

COmentator Wrote:Prehaps these links can answer your questions
Aish Torah
https://aish.com/respectful-dialogue/
https://aish.com/112471284/
https://aish.com/48937417/
https://aish.com/overcoming-setbacks/
Chabbad
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_c...-Egypt.htm
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c.../Aaron.htm
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c...Snakes.htm

Thanks COmentator,

I read through all these articles but I fail to see the relevance to the questions I posed in my OP. I mean, they're "loosely" related but don't relate much to my specific questions. What did you have in mind when posting them?

rosends Wrote:Jacob had twelve sons and a daughter. Why are you asking specifically about Joseph?

It's probably my misunderstanding of what "patriarch" is supposed to mean, but from what I understand, the Torah tells the stories of Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Joseph. I've always assumed these were the "patriarchs".

Furthermore, and again this might be my misunderstanding, I understand that Joseph became king of Egypt, and I've always assumed this is how Egypt became populated with Hebrew slaves. Joseph's progeny multiplied under his rule, but at some point, power shifted from his lineage to that of a different dynasty, at which point Joseph's lineage became slaves. Is that wrong? If it's right, it gives one the impression (or just me in particular) that by "patriarch" is meant the son's of Abraham who eventually gave rise to the population of Hebrews in Egypt, and eventually the Hebrew slaves. Is that wrong?

Glenn2020 Wrote:On your question about Joseph, he is just one of the 12 sons of Jacob (==> Israel).  So the descendants of Joseph is NOT the twelve tribes of Israel, but rather the twelve sons of Israel are the descendants of the inheritance (modulo Levi not receiving land, Joseph not receiving land but his two sons Mannaseh and Ephraim did receive land)

Oh, I think I get it. I do recall that bit from the story of Jacob, that God "christened" him Israel. Does this mean that the nation of Israel officially begins with Jacob? And therefore, Jacob counts as the last of the "patriarchs"? That's interesting if I've got that right. It raises the question: why did God decide that Jacob was the one to receive the title of "Israel"? Why not Abraham from the beginning?
Reply
#6
gib65 -

As to COmentator - Let me say simply that even a stopped clock is completely accurate twice a day.

As to Jacob being given a new name, calling it a christening seems highly inappropriate, what does the Torah say about whynthe name was given?

As to why Joseph is not listed among the patriarchs, let me ask you if you noticed one key difference between Joseph and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Reply
#7
The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.
Reply
#8
RabbiO Wrote:gib65 -

As to COmentator - Let me say simply that even a stopped clock is completely accurate twice a day.

Ah, LOL, so I take it he offers overly-generalized links on the off chance that *maybe* one of them might be relevant--and sometimes it is!

RabbiO Wrote:As to Jacob being given a new name, calling it a christening seems highly inappropriate, what does the Torah say about whynthe name was given?

"Inappropriate" as in not quite accurate/fitting, or "inappropriate" as in offensive/rude? If the latter, you have my sincere apologies (though I would still like to ask why, if you don't mind).

As for your question about what the Torah says, I found this from the source above (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8230):

Genesis 35:9-12 Wrote:9. And God appeared again to Jacob when he came from Padan aram, and He blessed him.
10. God said to him, "Your name is Jacob. Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." And He named him Israel. 11. And God said to him, "I am the Almighty God; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a multitude of nations shall come into existence from you, and kings shall come forth from your loins. 12. And the land that I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, I will give to you and to your seed after you will I give the land."

So it seems the Torah says that God "named" him Israel, not "christened". I take it this is an important distinction if you're pointing it out. And I guess it hinges on what you meant by "inappropriate" so I'll await your response before speculating.

RabbiO Wrote:As to why Joseph is not listed among the patriarchs, let me ask you if you noticed one key difference between Joseph and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Between Joseph and Abraham? I'm afraid not. Between Isaac and Jacob? I'm afraid not again. You see, I'm not well versed in Genesis at all. Nor Exodus for that matter (hence my posts). Nor the Torah in general. Nor the Bible in general. The fact of the matter is, I'm not particularly religious. I have my own spiritual/philosophical beliefs, but when it comes to Judaism in particular, or any of the books in the Torah, I'm woefully uneducated.

I do however understand this (or if I don't, I'm sure you'll correct me): Abraham begat Isaac, who begat Jacob, who begat Joseph. So the only difference I know of between Joseph and Abraham is that Abraham is 3 generations Joseph's elder. And the only difference between Isaac and Jacob is that Isaac is 1 generation Jacob's elder. But if my response to Glenn2020 is at all right, then there is this significant difference between Jacob and the others: Abraham and Isaac both came before Jacob, and therefore are before Israel. Jacob is Israel. And Joseph came after Israel. It would make sense then that Joseph doesn't count as a patriarch because the patriarchs are the fathers who culminated in Israel (Jacob being Israel). Have I got that right?

rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?
Reply
#9
(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote: Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?

Jospeh was not a patriarch because he is not the progenitor of the people. The nation was composed of the members of all the tribes, not just Joseph, so none of the brothers is on the level of patriarch but the father of ALL the tribes is.
(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?


(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?


(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?



(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote: Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?


(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?


(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?


(01-30-2024, 06:13 AM)gib65 Wrote:
rosend Wrote:The "patriarchs" are accounted as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the matriarchs are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. The text tells stories about these people and others.

Ah, yes, I found where these matriarchs are mentioned in Genesis. I remember the story of Rachel from a childrens' Bible I read when I was a kid so at least that rings a bell.

Do you agree with my response to Glenn2020 about why Joseph is not included among the patriarchs?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)