EXODUS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Exodus 3:18-19 In this passage, it has been suggested that God was telling Moses to deliberately lie to pharaoh, indicating that the people would return to Egypt after a few days when they had no intention to do so. Is that correct?

There are at least two possible answers to this apparent moral lapse by God:

1. R. Alan Cole (Tyndale Commentaries) suggests that this was merely meant to be the first offer in a series of typical elaborate Oriental bargaining sessions (note the counter offers by pharaoh in Exodus 8:25, 8:28, 10:11, and 10:24).

2. Since it is stated that God knew beforehand that pharaoh would not agree to any form of exodus, no 

subterfuge was needed in the request. The purposefully modest offer of just a three-day journey, and a 

subsequent rejection of it, showed up clearly his hardness of heart from the very start. The only 

instance in which it might be argued that God taught deception is found in I Samuel 16:1-3, where God 

suggests a subterfuge, but not an actual lie, to keep Samuel from being killed by Saul.

Exodus 4:24-26 Why had God decided to kill Moses? I've never understood this. I did not see an 

explanation given. Also, why did the circumcision of Moses' son change God's mind about killing him?

Brevard Childs: “Few texts contain more problems for the interpreter than these few verses which have 

continued to baffle throughout the centuries.” “These verses are among the most difficult in the Book 

of Exodus, not in terms of their translation...but in terms of their meaning and their location in this 

particular context. (John I. Durham, Exodus, p. 56) Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that 

Moses and/or his son had failed to be circumcised, in clear violation of God's explicit command in 

Genesis 17:9-14.

“Before the establishment of a central sanctuary, circumcision served as the main symbol of God's 

covenant with Israel and as a symbol, in turn, of Israel's commitment to keep the covenant.” 

(Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 179)

Renewal of this covenant was especially crucial at this point in history. “Compare the ceremonial 

circumcision of the generation born in the desert, before embarkation on the 'holy war' against Canaan 

(Joshua 5:7). Circumcision is a symbol of putting away all that is unpleasing to God, and of dedication 

to God for the task ahead.” (R. Alan Cole, Exodus, pp. 78-79) Thus, “God attacks Moses [probably 

through an illness] to prevent his attempting to carry out the divine commission while his household is 

uncircumcised despite God's requirement for Israelites.” (NRSV Study Bible, p. 89).

Zipporah, a Midianite who appears to be more spiritually aware than her Jewish husband, remedies the 

deficiency by circumcising her son (and vicariously Moses also), thus averting God's just wrath.

Three other commentators may be cited who attempt to deal with this difficult story.

1. Brevard Childs: The child was circumcised by his mother because Moses did not do so. The foreskin 

was touched to the feet of the child (not Moses) to demonstrate that the circumcision was 

accomplished. The story is meant to stress the importance of circumcision for the people of Israel.

2. Walter Kaiser Jr.: Moses had neglected to perform the rite, perhaps in deference to his wife. God 

attacked him physically and his wife saved him by performing it herself. However, she gave Moses the 

foreskin and said “You are a bridegroom of blood to me” to indicate her disgust at the act.

3. John Durham: God attacked Moses because he had not been circumcised. Zipporah circumcised 

their son in his place instead because Moses otherwise would have been incapacitated and incapable of 

leading the people. By putting the foreskin on Moses' genitals, she was making this vicarious act 

obvious. Her phrase “bridegroom of blood” was an ancient formula used by her people, who practiced 

circumcision as a premarital rite.

4. Ronald B. Allen (Bibliotheca Sacra 153, pp. 259-269): Moses had an unpleasant close encounter 

with Yahweh (not described in the text) and was still feeling its effects. Yahweh was struggling with 

Moses but did not want to actually kill him. Any uncircumcised male was to be cut off from the people 

of God, and Moses needed to show obedience within his own family. He hadn't done it out of respect 

for his Midian wife's feelings. (There are hints of this in Genesis 4:25 indicating that an earlier child of 

Moses had in fact been circumcised.) After Zipporah completes the rite she angrily addresses the 

phrase “bloody bride-father” to God. At that point, God releases the grip he had on Moses (similar to 

Jacob wrestling with God or his angel).

Two comments concerning the placement of this strange story in its present location:

1. Moses has just finished expressing his fears to God concerning Pharaoh's response. 

   However, “it is the wrath of God (not Pharaoh) from which man needs protection.” 

   (New Bible Commentary, p. 124)

2. There is also a foreshadowing of how events will end up. “Zipporah's quick action 

   and the application of the blood of circumcision save Moses' life at the beginning of 

   the story, as the blood of the Passover will save all Israel at the end.” (NRSV Study 

   Bible, p. 89)

Exodus 5:22-6:5 Why does GOD say, “I remembered my covenant”? Did he really forget? Did GOD 

wait so long to save them because he wanted Israel to suffer a little?

The concept of remembrance is an important one in the Bible, but is usually applied to human beings 

remembering God. The reverse idea is a confusing one since we cannot picture God forgetting 

anything, especially the covenant he himself made. The problem arises in our inability to adequately 

translate the term in this passage (and in the similar statement in Exodus 2:24).

The Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (vol. 1, pp. 1100-1106) helpfully explains, 

“God's remembering has to do with his attention and intervention, whether in grace or in judgment.” 

Thus, the word is used in Old Testament narratives to “record God's favorable response to crises and/or 

petitions associated with it.” The NRSV offers the alternative translation “focused attention on” in 

place of “remembered.”

Regarding the second issue of why God made them suffer in the first place, the most probable 

explanation (but not the only one) is that God was waiting for them to ask for help. The repeating 

pattern we will encounter in the Book of Judges is one of “sin, servitude, supplication, savior, salvation 

and silence.” (Arthur Cundall, Judges & Ruth) Since the people were in servitude, we might assume 

(although it is not actually stated) that they were there due to sin on their part. And a savior will only 

come when they resort to supplication.

This same principle is seen in New Testament teachings such as the following:

    “Ask and it will be given you...for everyone who asks receives.” Matthew 7:7-8

    “You want something and do not have it...You do not have, because you do not ask.” James 4:2

And, of course, we should not assume that God is unaware of our needs until we point them out to him. 

As Jesus says in Matthew 6:8, “...your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Nevertheless, 

we are still told to come to him in prayer as a recognition of who the only supplier of grace and mercy 

is.

Exodus 7-12 It has been mentioned that the various plagues that God sent on Egypt are correlated to the pantheon of false gods the Egyptians worshiped. Any further information available?

Right before the tenth plague, God states (Exodus 12:12) that, “on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” As pointed out in The New Bible Dictionary, the last plague actually completes God's judgment on the Egyptian gods. One attempt at correlating the plagues with the gods (from Bernard Ramm's His Way Out and other sources) is seen below:

    The Nile god, Ha'pi, brought disaster instead of prosperity.

    The frog god of fruitfulness, Heqit, brought disease.

    Seth, the earth god, was defiled by lice on the earth.

    The fly may refer to sacred beetle god, Khepra.

    All the Egyptian livestock (sacred to Apis, Isis and Amon) were struck down.

    Ashes were used by the priests to bless the people. Instead it becomes a curse.

    Thunder and hail were supposed to be a good omen of awesome events.

    Isis and Serapis were supposed to protect the land from locust.

    The light of the sun god, Re', was blotted out.

    The last plague affected the family of Pharaoh himself, believed by the Egyptians to be a divine being.

Exodus 7:8-24 Why were the Egyptian sorcerers/magicians able to replicate (1) the staff-to-snake miracle and (2) the water-to-blood plague but not any of the subsequent plagues?

A point of correction to begin with: the magicians also duplicated the plague of frogs (Exodus 8:7).

One easy answer, but not necessarily the most satisfying, centers in on the identity of these men as sorcerers. They had access to demonic powers that were able to produce the same effects Moses produced through the power of God. However, the demonic powers were clearly trumped by God's power as seen by the fact that Moses' snake ate the others up, and the sorcerers were not able to produce anything equivalent to the last eight plagues even though they tried (Exodus 8:18-19; 9:11).

If, however, one believes that such demonic powers never existed, it is best to use the other designation for these court officials: magicians. As such, there have been logical explanations proposed for the so-called miracles produced in response to Moses' actions. The snakes may have been hidden in the magicians' hollow rods or the snakes were hypnotized into a rigid rod-like form and then snapped out of their trances. The water-to-blood trick (red dye in the wands) was obviously done on a very small scale, perhaps in a bowl of water, since all the significant bodies of water were already turned into blood. Producing a few frogs could be as easy as pulling a rabbit out of a hat for a modern magician, etc. etc.

The most telling example of the magicians' lack of true supernatural power is, however, shown by the fact that they could not reverse any of God's plagues, only add to them. And finally, they themselves were visited by the plague of boils (Exodus 9:11).

Exodus 7:8-13 If the Hebrews were so despised by the Egyptians, how was Moses tolerated at the Egyptian court?

In the first place, Moses was no ordinary Jewish shepherd. He had been raised in the Egyptian court as 

Pharaoh's adopted grandson.

Secondly, we should not suppose that Moses was constantly in the Egyptian court bugging Pharaoh. 

The plagues were spaced out over a period of time and the first nine occurred in sets of three:

    1. blood (7:14-24), flies (8:20-32), hail (9:13-35)

    2. frogs (7:25-8:15), plague on the cattle (9:1-7), locust (10:1-20)

    3. gnats (8:16-19), boils (9:8-12), darkness (10:21-29)

The literary pattern in each of the three cycles includes the following elements:

Plagues “1”: announced in the morning by the riverside using identical wording

            Plagues “2”: announced in the Pharaoh's palace using identical wording

            Plagues “3”: given without any prior warning, symbolic gesture employed

Thus, Moses was only in Pharaoh's court three times.

Lastly, Genesis only mentions that the Egyptians despised eating with the Jews, and Exodus 1 centers 

in on the Egyptians' fear of the Jews. Nowhere does the text imply that the Egyptians banned the Jews 

from their palace. The situation may be the reverse of the much later attitude of the Jewish people 

toward all gentiles. They labeled gentiles as uncircumcised dogs and refused to eat with them. 

However, even the Jewish priests frequented the pagan courts, and gentiles were allowed to enter the 

outer part of the Temple complex to worship.

Exodus 10:21 What is meant by the darkness that could be felt?

All modern translations use similar phrasing for this verse, and almost all commentators explain this 

phenomenon in the same way. The New Bible Dictionary (p. 1002) is typical of their comments: “This 

was a khamsin dust-storm, but no ordinary one. The heavy inundation had brought down and deposited 

masses of 'red earth', now dried out as a fine dust over the land. The effect of this when whirled up by a 

khamsin wind would be to make the air extraordinarily thick and dark, blotting out the light of the sun.”

The only dissenting voice is that of John Durham (Exodus, pp. 138-139), who translates the original 

Hebrew phrase somewhat differently as “a darkness so thick people will have to feel their way around.”

In either case, it was obviously an extraordinary event.

Exodus 19 Beginning in Exodus 19, we read about Moses climbing and descending Mt. Sinai many times. I'm trying to envision his doing so in sandals and a robe. Did he take goat trails? What is the height and terrain of the mountain?

Actually, this was the second time that Moses met God on Mt. Sinai. His first encounter is found in Exodus 3 with the incident of the burning bush. The location in that passage is given as Mt. Horeb, but almost all commentators are agreed that this is an alternative name for Mt. Sinai. The problem with determining the terrain of that mountain is that we don't actually know where it is located. Scholars are continuing to argue over which present mountain is being referred to as Mt. Sinai. It may not even be located in the Sinai Peninsula, according to some sources.

What we can learn from the Exodus 3 story is that Moses had led his sheep up the mountain to graze. 

From this, we can deduce that it was not that difficult or steep a climb at all. I am not nearly as sure 

footed as an experienced shepherd like Moses. However, if I knew God were waiting for me at the top 

of a mountain, I would climb it as many times as he liked no matter how hard the climb.

 

In a way you are also right in saying that this is the only commandment impossible to keep. That was 

possibly why God added it to the other nine—to keep people from being so self-righteous that they felt 

they were perfect. And since that still didn't stop the Pharisees from thinking they could maintain 

spiritual perfection, Jesus went to the root of the sins in the Sermon on the Mount rather than just the 

outward manifestations—to point out everyone's imperfections.

Exodus 20:26 Why no steps at the altar? Explain the statement about exposing your private parts.

Canaanite altars were often located on high elevations with steps leading up to them. In addition, the 

priests would sometimes practice ritual nakedness while offering their sacrifices. (The International 

Bible Commentary, pp. 171, 179) The provisions in this verse are to strictly distinguish worship of 

Yahweh from that of pagan gods.

To prevent the people who are offering a sacrifice from accidentally exposing themselves while 

walking up stairs or standing at the top of an elevation, the regulation specifies that the altar should be 

situated so that no steps are needed to lead up to them. The common clothing at the time did not really 

provide the type of modesty we are used to today. For example, remember that King David was 

castigated by his wife for accidentally exposing his private parts while dancing before the LORD (II 

Samuel 6). Actually, clothing that would adequately cover one up when at the top of a flight of steps 

was only introduced to the general populace of Israel in the 8^th century BC (Brevard Childs, The Book 

of Exodus, p. 467).

Since the priests were the most likely ones to perform sacrifices at the altar in subsequent years, 

provision was made for them to wear specially designed clothing to prevent them from accidentally 

exposing themselves during the ritual (Exodus 28:42-43; Leviticus 6:10). These Bible passages are 

actually the basis for the current practice of high-up officials in the Mormon Church (such as Mitt 

Romney) to wear “holy underwear.”

The general principle still holds today. We should dress modestly, especially when offering our sacrifices of prayer in the congregation.

 

Exodus 25-31 Explain the symbolism of the tabernacle details.

As Todd points out, there are a number of resources out there pointing out the meanings behind the 

details of the tabernacle. And some of them can be quite useful as devotional aids. But I would like to 

add a few cautions before anyone gets too caught up in looking for symbolism in every single little 

detail in the tabernacle (or the later temple):

There are three steps in determining the symbolism behind an image in the Bible -- (1) determine the 

literal meaning of the Hebrew (or Greek) word, (2) decide if the word is intended to have an additional 

symbolic meaning, and then (3) decide what that symbolism is. There are dangers in each step.

As an example, take the second type of skin mentioned in Exodus 25:5. It has been translated as fine 

leather (NRSV), badger's skin (KJV), goat skins (Living Bible), sea-cow hides (Word Biblical 

Commentary), dolphin skin (NJPS), dugong skin (Driver) or porpoise skin (NEB). If you don't even 

know what kind of animal is involved, you can't begin to find a symbolic meaning. This same 

translation problem occurs in the Bible for technical words of various animals, gemstones, perfumes 

and spices, etc. In many cases, we simply don't know the exact meaning.

Assuming that one knows the precise meaning of the word in question, the next thing to determine is 

whether there was any intended symbolic meaning. Although there are popular sources claiming that 

all the details in the tabernacle must have spiritual significance, scholarly writers are much more 

cautious. The latest academic book to be published on the subject of the symbolic meaning of images 

in the Bible is the 1,000-page The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, published in 1998, when it received 

Christianity Today's Book of the Year Award. Searching through their indexes, I could find no mention 

of any symbolic meaning for any of the hides, gemstones, spices, etc. in the tabernacle. And 

concerning the stones on the priest's breastplate, for example, they even state, "The individual jewels 

have no specific symbolism...The effect is a dazzling profusion of beauty, splendor, and value symbolic 

of the holiness of worship." 

So the intended effect of the tabernacle construction as a whole should probably be considered 

primarily before delving into all the minutia. Francis Schaeffer in his pamphlet Art & the Bible makes 

the same point; there can be value in art and beauty itself whether or not it serves a didactic purpose.

Assuming that I have not discouraged you enough already (and I really do hate to be negative) and you 

want to spend some time delving into this subject further, I would merely suggest that you consult 

several sources, not just one. You can then compare them to see if there is a 

consensus opinion. As we learn from allegorical commentators of past years, there is no end to possible 

"spiritual" interpretations of biblical passages, but few of those commentators agreed with one another.

Exodus 22:29b-30 I understood the first born was to be consecrated to God. Is that the same 

implication for this verse?

Yes. Each Israelite first-born male was consecrated to God from his birth since the Jews had been 

spared the Tenth Plague which killed the first-born of the Egyptians (Exodus 13:1-2, 11-16). Although 

this technically meant that they would be wholly devoted to the LORD's service, it was specified that 

they could be redeemed by substituting an animal sacrifice. After the golden calf episode, God 

accepted the service of the tribe of Levi as a substitute for dedicating the first-born of all the tribes 

(Numbers 3:11-13,40-51).