Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:12

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

I already covered this verse with yesterday’s post, but as I was researching other commentaries I discovered a different read on it that I thought deserved some individual attention. When I first read the verse I only interpreted the phrase “he saw that there was no man,” as meaning Moses was checking for any other Egyptian guards who might witness and report his actions to the Pharaoh. However another interpretation that others have considered is that he was checking for any Israelite who was going to rise to the occasion and save their persecuted brother.

It could be that this verse is describing Moses coming to the realization that there was a void of leadership among the Israelite people. Perhaps he was realizing that they needed someone to fight in their behalf, and if no one else was going to fill that role then he would. This, of course, is another trait of great leaders. They do not elect themselves to greatness, rather they see a people in need, but none of them willing to stand up and do what needs to be done, and so the leader takes that responsibility out of necessity.

So which is it? Was Moses looking side-to-side out of caution, ensuring that he wouldn’t be caught, or was he merely looking to see if anyone else would help, and finding no one took the mantle upon himself? Frankly, I cannot tell, and in the greater scheme of things it probably doesn’t matter, but both interpretations do offer interesting possibilities for Moses’s development of character.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:11-12

11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

Moses “went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burden.” Before Moses could be a force of change for his people, he first needed to understand what their afflictions were. This, again, is a type for Christ, who came personally to Earth and “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Isaiah 53:4, Alma 7:12). It is also a hallmark for any good leader. If the problem is going to be fixed, if the situation is going to be improved, first one must care enough to really understand the nature of things as they currently are.

Moses then illustrates the second step of leadership that follows curiosity and concern. Attention to injustice naturally causes a compulsion to act. Having come to see the suffering, Moses saw a particularly egregious abuse occurring right then and there, and he was compelled to rush forward and slay the tyrant. Though, it should be noted, he was not perfectly bold. He did first pause to look “this way and that way,” and only acted “when he saw that there was no man.” Moses’s heart yearns for these people, but he has yet to grow into the totally fearless protector that he will ultimately become.

One final thought from this passage is that I wonder whether Moses knew at this point what his true lineage was. Did he go out to see the plight of the Israelites because he knew that they were his real people, or did he believe he was a genuine Egyptian, and was merely curious about these unfortunate people? The Biblical record never tells us when Moses first became aware of his true heritage. One thing is clear, though, even if he already knew where he came, he still had yet to throw in entirely with them. He was already a good man of conscience, but he had not arrived at his full destiny yet.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:10

10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Moses’s mother kept her end of the bargain. Though Moses was really her own child, to save his life she gave him to the princess to live as if he were hers. There is something very symbolic in this passing of the child to another, and also in the phrase “drew him out of the water.” This is clearly a baptism. Moses’s infant life was surrendered to the water, then he was drawn out as someone new. The destiny to live merely as a slave was drowned, and the destiny to live as a ruler was raised. And in conjunction with this rebirth, this baptism, there even comes a new name: Moses.

Much has been speculated about the name of Moses. The word “mose” is an Egyptian suffix that means “son of.” Much like how in English “Robertson” means “son of Robert,” in Egypt there were names such as Ramose which meant “son of Ra.” At the same time, the word “moses” was a Hebrew verb meaning “draw out.” Thus, it might be that Moses’s name was bilingual, having appropriate meanings in both his Egyptian and Israelite homes, a name that was very befitting to his dual identity.

Moses has special parallels to two other men in the scriptures. Like the patriarch Joseph, he was both a man of Egypt and Israel. This foreshadows his destiny to save the Israelites in their time of need, just as Joseph did. Joseph was a man of dual identity who saved the Israelites by bringing them into Egypt, and Moses was a man of dual identity who saved the Israelites by bringing them back out of Egypt. And, of course, both Joseph and Moses are archetypes for Jesus, another man of dual identity (son of God and son of woman) who would again save the Israelites, and also the entire world. In fact, the way Moses came into his Egyptian home is further reminiscent of the birth of Christ. Moses was presented to the daughter of Pharaoh as a gift from God, brought to her outside of the usual procreative act. Like Jesus, Moses came to the Egyptians, seemingly as a virgin birth.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:7-9

7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?

8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.

9 And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

It seems a bold move for Moses’s sister to approach Pharaoh’s daughter and ask if she needs a wetnurse for the baby. This is quite a coincidence, an Israelite maiden appearing immediately after the discovery of an Israelite baby, recommending an Israelite woman who has an active milk supply. I have to assume that Pharaoh’s daughter was able to put two-and-two together and knew exactly what was going on. Apparently, though, she had made up her mind to save the child, and so she consented to the proposal.

And if that really was the mindset of Pharaoh’s daughter, then her order for Moses’s mother to “take this child away, and nurse it for me” was really an act of great benevolence. She was restoring Moses back to his proper mother, at least for a time, letting the woman care for him in her own home as her own son. Not only this, but she was even paying Moses’s mother for the service as well! Thus, it is conceivable that the women were pretending to one story on the surface, but with an understood meaning between them. The unspoken offer from Pharaoh’s daughter might have been “I will save your son, and I will let you still be his mother for the first part of his life, and I will provide you money to help you better provide for your family, but in return, they boy must eventually become my adopted son and live under my protection.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:5-6

5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it.

6 And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews’ children.

Moses’s mother had surrendered her child to God’s mercy, committing her son to the unknown. One might think that being found an Egyptian, let alone the daughter of the very man who ordered the death of the Hebrew males, would be the worst possible outcome for that child! As we see in verse 6, the woman absolutely knew where this child came from, and it is inconceivable that she had forgotten her father’s directive. I would assume that she was able to put two-and-two together, and understood exactly why this baby had been abandoned to the river.

But then this situation took a surprising turn. She found compassion for the little boy, and I find it very endearing that the biblical record tells us why: the babe wept. I can only imagine the extreme prejudice that had been fostered in the Egyptians towards the Israelite people, the immense disdain with which they must have viewed these people who had been placed at the absolute bottom of the social ladder. Yet it would seem that all of that bigotry melted away when the daughter of Pharaoh was actually faced with a pure and innocent newborn in need.

One of the purposes for our sorrowful emotions is how they draw the kindness and compassion out of those around us. We see a person in distress and cannot help feeling moved to help them. Baby Moses’ helplessness and weakness ended up being his saving grace.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:2-4

2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.

4 And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.

Moses’s mother had to hide him because of the Pharaoh’s murderous decree. Every newborn male was to be killed by the Egyptians. I wonder how she managed to keep an infant, prone to sudden bouts of crying, unknown from the rest of the world. What terrifying days those must have been!

Of course, as the child grew he only became more and more difficult to conceal. Moses’s mother had a terrible choice to make: keep her child under her care and almost certainly consign him to death, or turn him over to God’s mercy. Her final gift to her son was a little ark, carefully sealed so no water could get inside. It seemed to be the last home she could provide him.

I think the final words in verse four illustrate the grim uncertainty with which Moses parted ways from his family. His sister watched to know “what would be done to him.” Starvation, drowning, being eaten by a wild animal, found and killed by an Egyptian guard…all manner of tragic endings were possible. As we will see tomorrow, though, God had other plans.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 2:1-2

1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.

2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

The Bible begins the story of Moses all the way at his conception! It might seem excessive for the record to provide such basic details, but I am personally quite pleased that this information was included. I feel that these details about Moses’s parents illustrate the hope inherent in every new birth. Though the hardships for Moses’s mother and father were immense, they still conducted themselves after the manner of love and hope: joining together in marriage, having a sexual union, and conceiving a new life. We often see such things as trifling because they are common, but every new birth is a miracle, with immense potential for good, and we should all be in awe of that. Moses’s parents would not themselves be the ones to free captive Israel, but just by living after the manner of love and intimacy they became the vessels that ushered in the one who would liberate their nation.

This refutes a concept that I find detestable in today’s society. Too often we hear the pessimistic view that people should not bring children into such a broken and pain-ridden world. What a depressing perspective, and one that ignores the virtually limitless potential force for good that children can be. Perhaps our world has severe problems, but these are only be made worse by humanity cutting short its future. Refusing to bring children into the world is to completely surrender, to say there could never be a solution in future generations, and to choose a miserable extinction rather than allow for potential change.

Posted on by Abe Austin

How Do You Identify?

I recently considered the markers we use to identify ourselves when meeting someone new. The most common descriptors seem to include what our work is, where we are from, what our race/heritage is, what religion we belong to, and what our family situation is. Of late, there has also been an increase in identifying oneself by one’s sexual and gender identity.

But why are these the sorts of markers that we use? Do these really represent the most fundamental qualities of a person? If I told you what I do for work, does that really tell you much about how I think and feel? If I disclosed my sexual preferences, would that really give you an accurate window into my soul?

I don’t think so. In my experience, most of these categories have little, if anything, to do with who a person is at their core. Really, I think we only use these because they tend to represent the smallest minorities that we belong to. The mentality seems to be “if you know what is most unique about me, you will know who I really am,” but I think this is a false assumption. Sometimes, it is the broadest of definitions that actually get the closest to the truth.

For example, the identification that I am “a son of God,” hardly puts me into a minority, but it is much more fundamental to who I really am. Descriptions like “I am a Software Developer,” or “my family is from Norway,” put me into smaller buckets, but those buckets are pretty shallow. Being “a son of God” has me in a bucket that is very wide, but also very deep.

I think it is therefore more useful to take those broader, wide-bucket categories, and then go deep with them. If I really wanted to introduce myself in a way that gave people a window into my soul, I might say something like “I am one of God’s creations, and I, in turn, share my Maker’s passion for creating new things. And not only am I a creation, but also a re-creation. I am one who has been redeemed by Christ, brought back from an addiction and loneliness that I thought I would never see the end of.”

Would this be an awkward way to introduce myself? Well, given that awkwardness is defined simply by whether it is how most other people do things, then yes, I suppose this sort of introduction would be unique and strange. Even so, I truly feel it would give a far better explanation of who I really am, it would point you to the parts of my soul that are most integral to who I am. I really think it would be a better, more interesting society if we all gave these sorts of introductions to who we are. Of course, before we could have a society where we all introduced in this way, we would first have to all know ourselves at this deep level, and that’s easier said than done. Lack of knowledge of self is probably the real reason why we fall back on the simpler, but shallowed definitions instead.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 1:20-22

20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

The midwives made a clear choice of who their master would be. Rather than fear the Pharaoh, who held their lives in his hand, they cast their lot with God, who held their souls. For their faithfulness, we are told, God rewarded them with houses. It doesn’t say how they came to possess those houses, but one would assume it wasn’t the Pharaoh, given that the midwives had failed to meet his demands. However it came to pass, the midwives were taken care of, and we are told it was because they were Godfearing and faithful.

As for Pharaoh, he only became more emboldened. Where he had conspired against the Israelite children in secret, now he expressed his desires publicly, proclaiming to “all his people” that they should grab any newborn Israelite son and cast him into the river! What a horrible realization this must have been for the Israelites, seeing that they would be denied the right to the lives of their own children.

And on this sober note we conclude Exodus 1. The stage has been set. We have had detailed for us the Israelites’ terrible bondage. They were hated of their neighbors, stripped of personal freedom, forced into heavy labor, and losing their lives at the Pharaoh’s whim. It is into this most hopeless of circumstances that Moses would be born, a most unlikely hero to be sure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 1:15-19

15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

In today’s verses the actions of the Pharaoh become even more horrifying. Not only did he subjugate and oppress the Israelites because of an unfounded fear, but now he seeks to commit mass infanticide! Seeing that he spoke to only two women, we must assume that they were overseers for all the other midwives, and it was expected that they would carry out their miserable orders by compelling the many under their care to do the terrible deed for them.

Of course what Pharaoh was asking was morally wrong, and also directly against the chief function of a midwife, which is to safely preserve the life of the child and mother through the birthing process. All that being said, by giving this command the Pharaoh had shown he was willing to kill even the most innocent to achieve his ends, so why not the midwives if they failed to obey him? Thus, Shiphrah and Puah showed great courage in defying his commands. The excuse they bring back to the Pharaoh is obviously false, and I find it hard to believe that he was fooled in the least. If so, these two women had just put their own lives on the line in place of the Hebrew sons.