Truth Magazine

Through the years, most of us who preach have undoubtedly presented many lessons, which a lot of brethren have surely heard, on the threat of secular humanism or at least on worldliness and immorality in general. We certainly need to understand how these godless influences have been eating away at the very foundations of our society, especially as they seek to leave their mark on our children through their control of the educational system. One would assume that the purpose of such lessons is not to scare people, per se, but to make them aware of the dangers that we face, warn them of problems ahead, and encourage them to fight the good fight of the faith.

However, some people may react to hearing this kind of information with an attitude of discouragement and despair, throwing up their hands and saying, “Well, if the world is as evil as you say it is, then there is nothing that we can do about it and, therefore, there is no hope for us.” It is almost as if they have fatalistically resigned themselves to a failure in trying to bring up their children with faith in God and a desire to please God. And that which people believe is impossible to do they will probably make little or no effort to accomplish.

Yet, as evil as our world is today, and there is no argument from this corner that it is pretty bad, the first century was surely no better than our time and perhaps may even have been somewhat worse in many respects. But despite the dregs of Roman and Greek culture prevalent in that day, a woman, with the assistance of her mother, but apparently without the help of her husband, was able to raise a son whose praise was spoken of among all the brethren of his time. That young man was Timothy, and he grew up in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation to be a faithful Christian and proclaimer of God’s word.

Paul wrote to him, “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, that without ceasing, I remember you in my prayers night and day, greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also” (2 Tim. 1:3-5). This wonderful example shows us that raising moral children in an immoral world is possible. However, that does not mean that it will be easy. It is going to take some effort.

It Is Going To Take Teaching

God understood this fact and so gave commandments to the children of Israel regarding his words to them. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6.7). Have you ever wondered why so few Jews are ever converted? While Judaism today is not the same as Old Testament Judaism, most faithful Jews still follow some of the Old Testament principles, and one that they do follow is to teach, teach, teach their children what it means to be Jews in such a way that they lose a very small percentage, especially compared to the number of children growing up in homes of Christians who never obey the gospel or soon fall away. There are undoubtedly many reasons why we are seeing such a “drop-out rate,” but in a lot of cases (not all), it is most likely because the children were not taught sufficiently. The aim of parents should be to teach a child in such a way that he truly remembers his Creator in the days of his youth (Eccl. 12:1). Of course, this will not be accomplished solely by bringing children to two hours of Bible class and two hours of worship a week, and then attending two or three gospel meetings and perhaps a vacation Bible school each year. That is good, but in ad- dition to it there needs to be daily, constant teaching in the home about God, Christ, the Bible, and other important spiritual matters.

To illustrate the importance of this, remember Timothy. The faith of Lois and Eunice dwelt in him. How? These things did not come by genetic inheritance or mere osmosis, but by teaching he “learned them” so that Paul said, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:14-15). Parents cannot even hope to raise moral children in an immoral world without diligently teaching them God’s will.

It Is Going To Take Example

To illustrate this principle, consider Abraham. God knew that Abraham would command his children and his household after him to keep the ways of the Lord (Gen. 18:10). How did Abraham do this? Well, he certainly must have taught them. But how did God know that Abraham would continue to do this in the future? You see, Abraham had already established a pattern of reverence for, complete trust in, and obedience to God. When God told him to leave for a new homeland, he did (Gen. 12: 1-8). When God told him in his old age that he would have a child, he believed God (Gen. 15:1-6). And all of this occurred even before Abraham had any children. Then, when he did have children, he continued in the same way.

God told him to take his only son Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham did (Gen. 22:1-12). What kind of an impression must this have made on Isaac when he saw that his father obeyed God implicitly regardless of any personal feelings that he may have had in the matter? Not much is said of Isaac in the Scripture, but what is said seems to indicate that he followed his father’s example of faithfulness. And it is for this reason that Abraham is used throughout the New Testament as an example for us (cf. Rom. 4:16-24; Heb. 11:8-19; Jas. 2:21-23). Abraham was a worthy example for his own family and so is a good ex- ample for us. It is not enough just to tell our children what to do. They will be the very first to detect any hypocrisy between what we say and what we do. Raising moral children in an immoral world also requires that we show them the difference between right and wrong by our example.

It Is Going To Take Discipline

The word “discipline” in our English language literally refers to that which is necessary to make one a disciple. If a parent is faithfully serving Christ, then his goal should be to make disciples of his children (cf. Matt. 28:19). In the New Testament, the word “discipline” is translated from a term that means “the whole training and education of children.” It is the word that is rendered “admonition” in Ephesians 6:4, where Paul said, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” Thayer’s Lexicon notes that this term relates to the cultivation of mind and morals, and employs for this purpose now commands and admonitions, now reproof and punishment. Thus, everything that parents do in raising their children, including teaching and example, falls under this general category of discipline.

However, since the term does include reproof and punishment, there are contexts where it seems to be used with the more specific meaning of chastisement, yet still with the positive goal of correcting mistakes, curbing the passions, and increasing virtue. According to Hebrews 12:5-11, God chastens us as his children. We may not always know exactly how he does it, but it is justified on the basis that human fathers chasten their children if they wish to develop in them the peaceable fruits of righteousness. And the Bible has a lot to say about the need for chastisement — correction and punishment — of children. For example, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).

Also, “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Prov. 29.15). These and other such passages are not saying that parents should be beating their children silly and senseless, or should they be used to justify genuine child abuse. But they do teach that children, being young and immature, will make foolish mistakes, and it is the job of parents to use chastening, punishment, and correction to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, when those children are quite young and most susceptible to this chastening, the thing that they understand best and is in the majority of instances the most effective is the pain of using the rod of correction. The outright rebellion of youth so characteristic in our society is proof positive that one cannot raise moral children in an immoral world without some form of loving, yet firm, discipline.

It Is Going To Take Love

Parents are going to make mistakes. We may miss a golden opportunity at some special point to teach an important lesson to our children and have to make up for it in some other way. We have our own faults and weaknesses, and may not always act before our children in the way that we expect them to act, even though we may try. We may fail sometimes at discipline, either being too harsh on one occasion or being a little too soft on another. But in spite of all our mistakes and failures, the glue that can still hold a home together and provide a place of joy and peace where children can find a sense of stability and security now and later on a good basis for establishing their own homes is love. “But above all these things, put on love, which is the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14).

This passage is not necessarily talking about the home but the church. Yet, whatever is true of the need for love in the family of God should be true in our own human families as well. In our homes, as we relate to each other, we need to “put on love, which is the bond of perfection.” How can we apply this practically? First, the husbands (and fathers) are told, “Love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). It has been said that one of the greatest things which a man can do for his children is to love their mother. When children see that their father truly loves their mother, that example alone will teach them untold lessons about commitment, dedication, and faithfulness.

Next, wives and mothers are to be taught “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers . . .” (Tit. 2:4-5). Brethren continue to argue about whether it is good, let alone right, for a woman to work outside the home under any circumstances, especially if she has small children. I do not wish here to go into all the pros and cons on that because each family must do what is best for it. But consider this. We assume that God wants men to love their children too, but there is no specific command to do so. Yet here, Paul tells older women to admonish younger women to love their children. Because of her nature, the mother is the emotional center of the home, and her being there for her children is necessary for their emotional development and well-being. How do mothers do that? It is by being “homemakers” or as the King James Version reads, “keepers at home.” It may well be that at least one of the reasons for all the problems in the past several generations has been the fact that mom has not been home! “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” If we expect to raise moral children in an immoral world, we are going to have to show true love in the home.

Conclusion

Everyone, except the most rabid humanists and feminists, agree that the home is important. God established it for the good of mankind (Gen. 1:28; 2:24). It is in the home that God intends for two loving parents to raise children who will be capable of taking their proper place in life when they grow up. Of course, children are free-will moral agents, so there are no absolute, iron-clad guarantees. There are other forces and influences in children’s lives which can counteract good teaching in the home or even make up for bad teaching in the home in certain circumstances. But God has a plan for the family, and when it is followed we can be assured that he will be pleased with our efforts. And the outcome will doubtlessly have a lot greater chance of being more favorable than rejecting or ignoring God’s plan and going our own way. “Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (Prov. 29:17).

By Robert F. Turner

By some strange travesty those who cry loudest for liberty are often the ones who mean liberty for their opinions only; and “non-sectarian” preachers have a way of becoming the most “creed-bound” of all. The absence of an official written “discipline” is no guarantee of an “open pulpit.”

What is a “creed”? The word comes from the Latin “credo” which means, “I believe.” Many creeds of today retain the form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed, each article beginning with “I believe        .” They are concise statements of belief, or doctrine, which identify the “position” of the maker.

Perhaps the first creeds were formulated in an effort to combat what was believed to be error — to state with clarity some matter that was being questioned — or simply an unashamed affirmation of principles upon which certain ones stood. Today our brethren write little creeds in tract form, to show what “we believe”; or as clauses in deeds to church property, to keep a church building in the hands of men who gave the same “I believe” as the original owners. (This seldom works, because of the failure to apply yesterday’s principles to tomorrow’s problems.)

Are such “creeds” wrong? Not necessarily! After all, “we do believe” certain things, whether we write them or not. But should we claim to state that which must be believed, anything less than God’s word is too little, any- thing more than God’s word is too much, and anything different from God’s word is condemned by this fact. A Christian’s “creed” may be stated as his confession that Jesus Christ is Lord — which recognizes the Son of God as having “all authority,” and accepts everything taught in his covenant. We believe, accept, and practice — recognizing as a basis of fellowship with Christ and Christians — only those things which may be proven to be “by his authority.”

The error of “man-written creeds” (as we call them) is (1) man’s presumption to shorten, lengthen, alter, or better arrange God’s revelation of truth; and (2) the setting up and acceptance of some man’s “I believe” as a standard of right and wrong.

“Creed-bound” minds are minds tied to one’s own or some other’s “I believe” — no longer free to approach God’s word objectively, to be changed by this unchanging divine standard.

Creeds and sectarianism have moved hand in hand through history. Certain “beliefs” are accepted as “orthodox,” and become the standards for determining “fellowship.” Tradition, majority rule, big churches, papers, preachers, and such like take the place of God’s word and all who object must be marked and ostracized. These seem to think Romans 16:17 reads, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of our party and traditions.” This is sectarianism, whether in or out of the church, and it will send souls to hell.

But someone asks, “Should we not ‘believe’ something; and should we not have firm convictions, wanting others to accept what we believe to be the truth?” We should indeed! And, we may state, even write, what we believe about a matter without being a creed maker, or “creed-bound.” The difference lies in one’s attitude toward his beliefs. Have they become his standard, or is he still willing to “prove” them by God’s word?

Do we become angry if someone questions our “beliefs”? Are we unwilling to discuss them in the light of God’s truth? Do we refuse to consider any conclusion other than our own? Are we fair with ourselves in answering the questions of this paragraph? There is One who knows my heart and yours!

 

Homer Hailey, a brother in Christ, full of years and an old man, has done some good writing during his years of service. All would profit from his books on the Minor Prophets, Isaiah, and Revelation. In fact, I have told others in the past that almost anything Homer Hailey has written is worth having in one’s library. I say “almost” regretfully, because of his stand against the orphan homes and, within recent years, his book, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God.

In the preface of the afore named book, the second edition, he wrote, “I have no intention of entering into or carrying on a discussion of the subject.” But this is like a kid who throws the first punch and then says that he does not want to fight He entered the fray at least seven years ago when his first edition appeared. He has fired two rounds but, like the sniper, flees from the scene.

Hailey wrote:

It is neither said nor intimated anywhere in the New Testament that aliens who have been married, divorced and remarried, and now want to obey the gospel, serve God and attain heaven through faith, must separate, break up, or live in separate rooms while under the same roof. This was never even intimated by Jesus. At no time did He deal with the subject of an alien’s marriage, divorce and remarriage.

He wrote, “Therefore all mankind are under Christ’s jurisdiction, but only those who submit to the terms of the gospel are under His law of the new covenant” (51-52).

The word “jurisdiction” means “2: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate 3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised: CONTROL” (Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary 461).

If Christ’s jurisdiction includes all the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16), then, all men must submit to his will. Brother Hailey admits our Lord’s jurisdiction extends beyond the church, having cited several verses as proof (Ps. 2:8; Rev. 12:5; 19:15). Along this same line, David said of Christ’s reign, “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies” (Ps. 110:2). In the kingdoms of this world a monarch who rules in the midst of his enemies would mean that his enemies were obligated to submit. If they did not submit, they might suffer terrible consequences. Jesus rules now and is far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion (Eph. 1:20-21). Yet, alien sinners are not obligated to all of Christ’s law, according to Hailey. The Bible teaches otherwise.

If all men are obligated to the law of Christ, which includes Matthew 19:3-9, then, all men are obligated to Matthew 19:3-9. Paul argued concerning the obligations that a man would have to all the law of Moses if he would be obligated to part of it by saying, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). Therefore, anyone who is obligated to part of the New Covenant, which includes the plan of salvation, is a debtor to all of it, which includes Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3-10).

We are told that the “universal moral law” was made known to a degree at the time of Adam’s sin, was revealed more fully in the Mosaic law, and then was revealed in its fullness in the New Covenant under Christ (33). But later Hailey tells us that “only those who submit to the terms of the gospel are under Christ’s law of the new covenant” (52-53). Following his reasoning, if the universal moral law is fully revealed in the New Covenant and alien sinners are not amenable to his New Covenant, then, alien sinners are not even amenable to the universal moral law, which is fully revealed in the New Covenant.

If one is not obligated to a part of the law of Christ, then, upon what basis would he be obligated to any of it? If alien sinners are not obligated to Christ’s law on marriage, then, they are not obligated to his teaching concerning the Great Commission, which is part of the New Covenant (Matt. 28:18-20). But all men are obligated to his teaching regarding the Great Commission, which is a part of the New Covenant; therefore all men are obligated to Christ’s law on marriage.

Hailey denies that one can “live in adultery.” But does he not know? Has he not heard of Paul’s statements in Colossians 3:5-7? The inspired writer commanded, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: . . . In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” Lived in what? The aforementioned sins, one of which was fornication. They had lived in it. Fornication is a broad term that includes adultery. So, if one can live in fornication, as Paul states that he can, then one can live in adultery.

F. Lagard Smith cannot make up his mind as to Hailey’s view regarding divorce and remarriage. Smith wrote:

But Homer did make one big mistake. He wrote one book too many. Or at least the wrong book. Or at least a book in which he might have been wrong. Or partially wrong. Or maybe not wrong at all, but definitely on the other side of the fence from some other folks (Is Smith with Hailey or “other folks”?). And for this one mistake, Homer was immediately castigated as a false prophet!” (Who Is My Brother? 207).

Because of Hailey’s influence through his life and books, many will be persuaded to believe and follow his pernicious doctrine. Ezekiel wrote, “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and commiteth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die” (Ezek. 18:24). Hailey’s position is wrong, and Smith is wrong for sympathizing with the false teacher.

An Introduction

We are, obviously, discussing the ten plagues that God brought upon Egypt. These are recorded in Exodus 7-12. When one studies the Bible record, along with some his- tory of biblical Egypt, the plagues will be seen to contain more than one purpose — to convince Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt. At least two more purposes must be added to this one: (1) God would make sure the Egyptians knew who he was, and (2) God would, also, convince the Hebrews of his reality and position. In view of this, we of- fer a longer introduction than we otherwise might. Harry Rimmer’s book, Dead Men Tell Tales, furnishes some excellent material on the background to the plagues.

Hatshephut was the daughter of Pharaoh who drew Moses out of the waters of the Nile. The king of Egypt, Tuthmosis I, died and Tuthmosis II came to the throne. He was a weak monarch. Hatshephut married him, and he dies soon thereafter; but, she continues to reign as queen. Hatshephut had been pushing Moses toward power and prominence. To make her position more secure, she mar- ries her young half-brother, the rightful heir, Tuthmosis III. When he was 21 he forced Hatshephut to abdicate, and she soon disappears. This king, Tuthmosis III, ruled about 53 years altogether (1501-1447 B.C.); and, this would make him the Pharaoh of the oppression.

The elevation of Moses by Hatshephut would anger Tuthmosis III, and he, no doubt, would consider Moses a competitor. This could account for the hasty departure of Moses from Egypt when he killed the Egyptian.

The first basic idea which I wish to lay before you is this: All Old Testament events point toward or contribute to the bringing of Christ into the world. If this is so, the ten plagues must fit into God’s plan for that great future event. But, how?

Let us first consider the case of Abraham; he first enters the biblical picture in the chronology of Genesis, chapter 11. In chapter 12, God makes four promises to Abraham, repeating the land promise in Genesis 15:5-21. In verses 13 and 14 of this chapter God said, “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in the land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterwands they shall come out with great possessions.” This appears to be the first reference in the Bible to the Egyptian bondage. The reader may wish to compare these two verses with Exodus 3:18-22.

Now, let us return to Egypt for a few more thoughts. The “Land of the Nile” thought their Pharaoh had “inherent wisdom” and was descended from the gods. They appear to have been more religious than any other race of men, and were one of the most polytheistic nations ever known. It has been suggested that they had some 2200 gods and goddesses. What was the first of the commandments given at Sinai? “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Harry Rimmer refers to a time when they almost became monotheistic, in their worship of the sun (Amon-Re was the usual designation). Each of these gods had a particular theophany, or way to appear to the Egyptians. Usually this was in a form of some animal or creature depicted in art and statue as part man and part animal. This will later prove to be very problematic for both Egyptians and Israelites.

In contrast with the Egyptian gods, the Israelites accepted the idea of one true God. We cannot know exactly how well informed they may have been, since we know of no general law to them at this point. God directly spoke with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Genesis 46:1-4, God speaks with Jacob about going down into Egypt. Much time passes and the next person that God singles out with whom to speak appears to be Moses. So Jacob and his descendants, 70 of them in all, go down into Egypt (Gen. 46:27). Here, in Egypt, the Hebrews could observe the worship of the Egyptians with their many gods, sacrifices, and formalities. This, undoubtedly, contributes to some of their disobedience to Jehovah God at a later date.

With this information before us, we are ready to approach the plagues. In Exodus 3, is recorded God’s conversation with Moses. He sends him back into Egypt, with his brother, Aaron, as his spokesman. Concerning the plagues God said, “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand over Egypt” (Exod. 7:5). Here we see the second purpose in God’s plan behind the plagues. Each of the ten plagues will be seen to be a direct blow at some Egyptian god or goddess; and, sometimes more than one is involved. The stage is set for a real conflict — ten great battles. The “war of the gods” is about to begin.

In the introductory scene, we see 80 year old Moses standing before the younger king to request permission for a three-day’s journey to sacrifice to God (Exod. 3:18). The reasoning behind this three-days journey may be seen by reading Exodus 8:26; sacrificing animals that were sacred to the Egyptians could only cause difficulties for the Israelites. In Exodus 5:1-3, we have the first appearance of Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh; they were pointedly refused permission to make the three-day’s journey.

The Case of the Serpents Before Pharaoh

God said to Moses, “When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent” (Exod. 7:9). Now, Moses was educated in the learning of the Egyptians and Pharaoh knew this. Perhaps Pharaoh wanted to see just how Moses would operate after his being gone for 40 years. The Egyptian magicians did in “like manner with their enchantments,” throwing down serpents, but “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” This swallowing up proves the Egyptian gods to be powerless in the face of Israel’s one God and gives some hint as to what is ahead. After all the plagues have passed and the Israelites are in the wilderness, Moses said, “. . . upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments” (Num. 33:4). So, let us turn our attention to those ten great battles.

The First Plague — Turning the Water to Blood (Exod. 7:19-25)

This would be a blow at many Egyptian gods; the sacred Nile was the “bloodstream” of Egypt. Osiris (judge of the dead), was considered the source of the resurrection and everlasting life. He was the greatest of all the gods of the underworld. Osiris, along with the Nile god, Hapi, and the god of the annual inundation, Satet, were disgraced. Jehovah was greater than the Nile. There were some 30 other gods involved with the Nile River in some way. All fell before the Hebrew God.

Verse 22 says, “The magicians did so with their enchantments.” One is made to wonder why these magicians didn’t reverse the act of Moses. This would surely prove their power. The Egyptians are forced to dig for water to drink, and the condition stayed thus for seven days. They must have been wondering, “Where are our gods?”

We are told that this plague was called forth “in the sight of Pharaoh.” I challenge the reader with this question: Why was Pharaoh coming down to the river? If it was not to pay homage to that sacred stream, then for what did he come? He must have been made to wonder the where abouts of his gods. The first “battle” is over and the victory is clearly Jehovah’s.

The Second Plague — The Frogs (Exod. 8:1-14)

This second battle is to be after Pharaoh is plainly warned of the consequences of his refusal. The magicians apparently duplicated this feat also. Heqt was the frog goddess; and the frog was her theophany. The frog, among other things, was the symbol of fertility, insuring a fertile year for farm and family. Can one imagine this slimy creature crawling all over everything? What the Egyptians had reverenced, was now becoming disgusting. They could not live normal lives this way, and where is their frog goddess? She could give them no relief. The second battle is Jehovah’s.

Verse 8 is quite an admission for Pharaoh, “Intreat the Lord that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people.” His gods could not do the job. This compels him to make a promise to let the Israelites go, if he is given relief. He gets that relief, but changes his mind when respite comes. Another Egyptian deity hits the dirt. I can hardly imagine any Egyptian ever again worshiping Heqt.

The Third Plague — The Lice (Exod. 8:16-19)

I know of no particular god or goddess involved here; but it is obvious that it would involve any that cared for life and comfort. This plague seems, at least to this writer, to be a kind of follow-through on the previous two plagues. It certainly is a transitional plague; for the first time the Egyptian magicians fail and admit “this is the finger of God.”

The Egyptians were noted for their cleanliness; their priests were required to be absolutely clean when they approached their sacred altars. The lice would virtually make their worship impossible. How could they be considered clean with lice all over their bodies and clothing?

To add to this disgusting scene, the Egyptians could look across and see the Jews in comfort; while they, themselves, were busy fighting the lice. No doubt, they wondered “Where are our gods?” Alas, they have just been defeated by Jehovah God. In spite of this loss, Pharaoh refuses to permit the Jews to leave.

The Fourth Plague — The Flies (Exod. 8:20-32)

From this point on the Egyptian magicians retire from trying to duplicate Moses’ feats; though they do hang around for a while. There are several creatures included in this word “flies”: the Gadfly, cockroach, and the Egyptian beetle all appear to be included, though there were others. The Ichneumon fly is the one most probably under consideration; at least, swarms of these flies have been known to invade the land of Egypt. Uatchit was their fly-god; but he could bring no relief from the present swarms. Thus, their fly-god is disgraced. To those observing, just about any god would be preferred over their fly-god, even the God of the Hebrews.

Pharaoh does not call for the magicians, but calls for Moses and Aaron. He tells them to go “sacrifice to your God in the land.” This is Pharaoh’s first offer at a com- promise. We have already noticed (vv. 26-27) why this would be unacceptable; Moses demands permission to go as originally requested. Pharaoh bends a bit and offers another compromise, “ye shall not go very far away.” This seems to be the first time that Pharaoh offers a compromise with the original request.

Moses warns Pharaoh against being deceitful and the flies are removed. Pharaoh changes his mind again after relief came. But, another victory is chalked up for Jehovah. Are the Egyptians getting these great lessons? Better still, are the Hebrews getting them?

The Fifth Plague — The Animal Murrain (Exod. 9:1-7)

This battle will pit some of the most powerful of Egyptian gods and goddesses against the Hebrew God. Many Egyptian gods will here meet their waterloo; for this blow is at both the Egyptian worship and livelihood: cattle, horses, asses, camels, sheep, and oxen.

Hathor (cow-goddess) was worshiped throughout Egypt and depicted, for the most part, with a human body, but the head of a cow, since the cow was her theophany. She was supposed to be the “mother principle” of deity and to give nourishment to the soul of the dead. But, where is she now? If the mighty Hathor couldn’t protect her followers, what god could?

When Hathor fell so also did the god Apis (sacred bull symbol). He had temples scattered throughout Egypt and was thought to be of great power. But what happens to his followers now? He cannot protect them against Jehovah. Without boring the reader with too much detail, I would like to identify a couple more of the Egyptian deities involved in this battle. Mut, wife of Amon-Ra (king of gods), was associated with the life-giving sun. Mut, goddess of the sky and wife of Geb, produced the egg out of which the sun was hatched.

This is quite an array of Egyptian deities that fell in this battle, receiving the fatal blow with the coming of the murrain. Pharaoh sends to check on the cattle of the Hebrews and not a one had been lost. He still will not permit the people to go. To what god will he turn now? Another battle fought and another battle won by the one true God.

The Sixth Plague — The Boils (Exod. 9:8-12)

This plague can be best understood by noticing the Egyptian belief at the time. They had altars upon which they burned sacrifices and the ashes from these altars were thrown into the air to avert evil. One can easily see here the motive of God in ordering this plague. Instead of averting evil, the ashes thrown into the air brought boils with blains upon both man and beast.

Imhotep was the Egyptian god of medicine and prayers were offered to him for cures and protection from physical illnesses. But he failed the Egyptians here. Little comfort could be found by noticing that the Jews were resting with unblemished skins and in comfort.

We may notice that the magicians were still hanging around at this point, perhaps watching for an opportunity of their own; however, the boils and blains proved too much for them — “They could not stand before Moses.”

This battle was little more than a skirmish, but it struck a fatal blow at their god of medicine; he could not help them one bit. Another victory for the God of heaven! Yet, for all this, Pharaoh would not let the people go.

The Seventh Plague — Hail Mingled With Fire (Exod. 9:13-35)

Now, more of their livelihood is to be taken away, destroyed by hail and burned with fire. Reshpu and Qetesh were gods of storm and battle, controlling all the natural elements except light. Where are these gods now? Some of Pharaoh’s servants believed the warning and brought their cattle in from the fields, while others did not. The wheat and rye were not smitten, because they had not yet grown up.

There was no hail in Goshen, where the Hebrews dwelt. Can’t the Egyptians see that the Hebrew God is more powerful than all the Egyptian gods?

Pharaoh, for the first time admits, “I have sinned” and he promises to let the people go if he has relief. Alas, he changed his mind again and refused to permit them to leave Egypt. God’s plan is proceeding, more Egyptian deities have fallen. Battle number seven is over and won by Jehovah.

The Eighth Plague — The Locusts (Exod. 10:1-20)

With this plague God specifies another purpose for these battles. Speaking to Moses, God refers to his signs which he had wrought in Egypt and says, “. . . that ye may know how that I am the Lord.” The Hebrews needed much the same lesson as did the Egyptians.

Pharaoh’s servants, for the first time, begin to plead with him to let the Jews go, pointing out that Egypt was virtually destroyed. Pharaoh offers another compromise — the Israelite men could go and worship. Moses says, “No” and the locusts come. Now Pharaoh gets in a hurry and “in haste” sends for Moses and Aaron. And for the second time he admits to sinning, “I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you.” His gods could not remove the locusts, so he ask Moses and Aaron, “intreat the Lord your God.”

The Lord removes the locusts, not leaving even one in all the land of Egypt. Still the Jews are not permitted to leave as requested. But, another mighty battle has been won and God’s plans are still proceeding.

The Ninth Plague — The Darkness (Exod. 10:21-29)

Egypt did not have much rain; the sun, moon and stars were seldom obscured. Now Moses is going to call for darkness over this sunny land, darkness so thick that it could be felt. But there would be no darkness in Goshen. They were to have six nights in one. We should remember that light figured in their system of worship.

Recall Osiris and Isis, who controlled the movements of the sun, moon, and stars? They could not remove the darkness so they loose another battle. The most essential thing in all the physical realm is light, and the Egyptians seem to have realized this, ascribing to their gods the job of keeping it thus. Three days of darkness and the Egyptians didn’t venture out.

Noticing some other gods involved here will help us see the importance of this battle. Thoth was the arranger of the celestial system, to offend him was to invite eternal death. Now for Jehovah to engage Thoth in battle must have caused even the Hebrews to tremble. Sekhmet was the goddess of artificial light, but she could do nothing. Horus, a greatly reverenced god, was said to be at his best at noon-day when the sun was the hottest. Three noons had passed; where was Horus?

One more of their deities should be mentioned because he is going to play a big part in the next and tenth plague. Ra, the king of the gods, was at times said to appear in the form of the first-born of a cow, if that first-born was a bull. There were other gods involved here but these will suffice to show how God is dealing with this polytheistic nation of idol worshipers.

Nine great battles have been fought and the stage is set for number ten and last battle of this “War of the gods.”

The Tenth Plague — The Death of the First-Born (Exod. 11:l-12:12)

As the previous plague had come to an end, we hear Pharaoh tell Moses that if he saw his face again that he should die. Moses accepts this verdict and promises, “I will see thy face again no more.”

God told Moses, “Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you go, he will surely thrust you out hence altogether.”

Before looking at this plague, let us get a few facts that are obviously introductory to this plague. In Exodus 11:3, the attitude of the Egyptians toward the Hebrews has changed. The Egyptians would put on their best jewels for worship. Now, since the Hebrews were leaving to worship their God, the Egyptians would be loaning them their best, urging them to take it and use it. Thus, they are going to “spoil the Egyptians.”

In Exodus 12:1ff, the Passover is instituted. God said to Moses, You shall eat it, “with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and he shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s Passover . . . against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord” (vv. 11, 12).

When Moses threatened the life of the first-born in all the land of Egypt, he defied all Egyptian gods at once; all of them were interested in life and death. The first-born of the Egyptians were dedicated to their gods. What a challenge this was!

The Passover has been observed as God directed, and death of the first-born of all Egyptian families, as well as that of their cattle, has come. Pharaoh rose up in the night and hearing all the mourning, he sends a message to Moses and Aaron and commands them to leave as requested (vv. 31-32). “And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men”(v. 33). We see here the spoiling of the Egyptians and the enrichment of the Israelites, just as God had said would happen. Another mighty battle has been fought and the victory is obvious.

In Exodus 12:37, we see “six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside the children” leaving Rameses. The Egyptian gods were powerless and the Egyptian religion was defeated. Jehovah proved his supremacy and Israel was free. The Egyptians and Hebrews alike were to get these powerful lessons. But, do they? For how long? Is it any different with us today?

Whatever we might think of the Egyptians in their re- lying upon their false gods, these gods were very real to them. Now, what better evidence could one desire to show the folly of idol worship and the existence of the one true God to whom all men are accountable?