Why Did God Harden Pharaoh’s Heart? | Sunday Fireside Chat

Life Audio.

On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom.

I don't hesitate to be critical of aspects of Jewish life. One thing Jews can say, and with general pride, is that physical aggression, as opposed to verbal aggression, is not a general Jewish characteristic. Judaism has done a stupendous job In domesticating its males. In fact, one may argue it did too good a job. A little more macho among Jewish men couldn't hurt. Okay. In some cases.

That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

When someone you love is hurting, what do you do? We're often quick to say, if there's anything I can do, just let me know. But what if we stopped waiting to be asked? and simply showed up. On the If There Is Anything I Can Do podcast, Pam McConnell shares real stories, biblical wisdom, and practical ways to walk alongside people through grief, loss, and life's hardest moments. Learn how to show up and make a difference. Subscribe now at klovpodcast.com, YouTube, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, Go to DennisPrager.com. Thank you.

Bravo! Thank you, maestro.

Thank you.

There are those who feel that if Endrick could have played for Pharaoh, the Jews would have been allowed out sooner. It is just a theory, but I thought I would try to combine the two ideas in our session. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, thank you again, Andrew. That's a beautiful way to open. You know, when Bach wrote his music on his manuscripts, frequently, if not always, Uh, was a little inscription to the greater glory of God. And, uh, one would hope that that would, uh, resonate in our Torah session. Uh, how many of you have never studied with me? Okay. Has anybody ever seen me in his life?

Okay.

How many of you are from Los Angeles? I know we have a big visiting crowd. Oh, so about a little more than half of you. And are most of you here because of my mentioning it on the radio? Is that— or most— all right, radio, raise your hand. UJ, raise your hand. Other reasons, raise your hand. Not sure why at all, raise your hand. Okay, just to try to get an idea of who's here and what we do. One final question. I'm told that some of you We're informed that it was an 8:15 beginning, is that right? It said that in the catalog. It said that in the catalog, so it works out actually well because it's 8:14. Okay, let me give you a very brief introduction. For those of you who want an idea of how I regard the Torah in any detail, I have an entire lecture on the question of who wrote the Torah, and I won't get into that now at all. However, you should know I regard it as a holy book. And therefore, when I study it or teach it, I wear a kippah. And that is— always do that at the beginning of each term. Purple represents a certain rank in the Catholic Church. I think Monsignor, if I'm not mistaken. So I'm gradually moving toward Cardinal and eventually a zucchetto from the Pope. Is it zucchetto or zucchetto? Zucchetto. Any Catholics here?

Good.

Ex-Catholics? They're always ex-Catholics, everywhere I go. Unbelievable. I used to call Religion on the Line, my Sunday night show that I— well, not mine, but the one that I moderated for 10 years— the Ex-Catholic Hour. For the first few years of my show, everyone would call up, well, you know, I was a Catholic, but, you know—

But?

But, you know, one nun bugged them and that was it. You know, there's always a deep reason for leaving religion that people have. The nun in 3rd grade He'd hit me. Oh, I understand. What are you gonna do? Anyway, so, uh, welcome to you. I, and I'm glad— I know it's, uh, a fairly eclectic group. A lot of Jews here, therefore a lot of atheists are represented, and, uh, that's, that's always a healthy sign, uh, to have. So, uh, so we got everybody— ex-Catholics, atheists, Any believing Jews in the audience? Remarkable. This is really eclectic. That's really something. Alright, uh, we're, uh, we're continuing with Exodus 4. My, uh, to give a very quick, uh, summary, uh, God created the world, was not pleased with what he did, destroyed it, then chose a person for reasons we do not know whose seed That would carry certain ideas into the world. However, first they would be enslaved in Egypt. They are enslaved in Egypt, and then God picks another man for whom we have excellent reasons, which I went through in detail in the last semester, named Moses, or Moshe, whom God chooses to lead the Jews out of slavery— the Hebrews, as they were known then— out of slavery. And that is really where we're up to now. Moses is about to— Moses is about to be born. My approach to Torah text, very briefly, is that there is an immense amount of relevance to our time in it. Otherwise, I would certainly not waste mine or your time, especially on a night of a World Series game where there are only a 2-run difference between the teams. I mean, for me to give that one— Maybe it isn't worth it. Really? I can't believe it. It kills me. All right. Anyway, I do— I believe that there is enormous— it is the more— for me, one final prefatory word. For me, the study of Torah is a religious act and gets me in touch with God and my religion more so than prayer itself, which is not Heretical, since, uh, that in Judaism is the classic way, in fact, to, uh, get in touch with God, and that is through study, more so than through prayer. I'm not knocking prayer, but for this individual, study of biblical text is a religious act more— that touches me more deeply than prayer itself. Alright.

Well, the—

I, uh, I ended at chapter 4, verse 17, where God finally, finally convinces Moses to go back to Egypt and tell Pharaoh to let the Jews out and take them out of Egypt. It takes a great deal of persuasiveness on God's part. Moses does not want this role for every conceivable reason. He's a coward. And it turns out that he was right. It is not an easy role. He had a very good life in Midian with his wife. He liked his father-in-law. He liked his life there. Nobody was trying to kill him, and he didn't have to lead Jews. That in and of itself could render one crazy. You know the old saw, Was it Dwight Eisenhower? And the late President Eisenhower and the late Prime Minister Ben-Gurion— I don't know if it's true or not, but it's been told so many times it might as well have been. But it may very well be true. He was meeting with the first Prime Minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, David Ben-Gurion, and the President mentioned the strains and difficulties of being president of 150 million— I think that was the number then— Americans. At which point, the story goes, that Prime Minister Ben-Gurion said, yes, but it is even more difficult to be the prime minister of 2 million prime ministers. And it's— that is what Moses learned very rapidly on. All right, verse 18. Moses went back to his father-in-law Yeter, who was really Jethro. Jethro has a number of names. And said to him— now, what does it mean he went back? He went back from having met with God. God tells him he now must go back to Egypt, and he now goes to his father-in-law. He goes to his father-in-law because he needs the official permission of his father-in-law to let— allow Yeter, or Yitro, to allow— or Jethro to allow his daughter to leave. That's the way things worked in those days, even though he is still— the daughter is now married and under the protection and control, to the extent that that is a proper word for those times, and it probably is to a certain extent, under the husband's control. Nevertheless, he goes back for permission and to tell him what in fact is happening. So he goes back to his father-in-law Jethro and says to him, Let me go back. You see, it is, in fact, in Hebrew, it's actually please. Na is used, the word please. He says, please let me go now, and I'll return to my brothers who are in Egypt, and I will see how they are faring. The literal Hebrew is, I'll see if they're still alive. But that is not— that's the literal. He knew they're alive. You mean he didn't assume they had all been killed?

No.

But I'm just— I try to give you a literal translation to get a flavor of the, of the text. Okay, now you will notice, however, what is missing. What isn't Moses telling his father-in-law? I met God. I met God. It's a big deal, folks, I'm gonna tell you. And, uh, God told me, uh, what I should, uh, that I have to take the Jews out of, uh, The Jews out of Egypt. Now, you— your laughter immediately tells me you know exactly, probably, one reason he didn't tell him. What if your son-in-law showed up and said, uh, Dad, uh, God and I met, and, uh, he'd like me to go to Syria and to take the Jews out of Damascus? Right? You wouldn't be thrilled. You'd wonder whom your daughter married. And I really believe that there may be a real element of that here. Even if the God part would not shock his father-in-law, the part of going back to Egypt to lead the Hebrews out would shock him. I mean, you know, first of all, you? I mean, you know, who has that exalted a view of their son-in-law? You? You know, uh, uh, that's— you see, I— well, the reason that I talk this way is, is because I believe that that's what's operating here. You would think he'd come back and say, you know, I— there was a burning bush that wasn't consumed, there— I had a— an epiphany, I, I met the Creator of the universe, And against my will. You could just imagine the person's reaction. So all he does is, please let me go back and see if my brothers, the Hebrews, are doing well. The pull of brothers, of tribe, as it were, is very understandable to Jethro. That he can totally relate to. And therefore, at the end of verse 18, there is no problem. And he says, and Jethro says, To Moses, "Lech leshul shalom." Excuse me, "Lech leshalom." Go for peace. It doesn't actually mean go in peace, but but it doesn't matter. It's it's very simple. Go in peace. Go for peace. Okay, nineteen. And God said to Moses in Midian. Midian is where Jethro is. He's a priest of. He's a Midianite priest. Go, go back to Egypt because all the men who are seeking to kill you have died. The reason my hesitance is I try to do the translation rather than always read from the English. Now, that's very interesting. I thought God had already told him to go back to Egypt. Doesn't this seem either chronologically out of order, right? That this was already told to him, go back. Or it's in chronological order, which I believe it is, and there is something being said here. And that is probably that he dawdled. Even after all of that, he packed very slowly. He wants this job like you would like to have been a juror in the O.J. Simpson trial. I can't think of a more appropriate analogy. Thanks, but somebody else. He doesn't want to go back for another reason, aside from the leadership that he's being asked to perform. He doesn't want to go back. He's afraid that he'll get killed. Pharaoh wants to kill him. There might be a Hebrew who still wants to snitch on him, or whoever is Chasing him, uh, he's worried. So God reassures him, since God knows our thoughts, which, by the way, when you think about it, is a very humbling sort of thing and can drive you mad. I mean, to think that there really is a being that knows all your thoughts is, is a little scary, since not all of our thoughts are pure. Is that a fair statement for all of you? I just— Uh, he's worried, and God God knows that he is worried, and so he says to him, don't worry, the people who want to kill you are dead. Verse 20, and Moshe, or Moses, took his wife and his sons. Only one son is reported born, but— and there are even those traditional commentators who think there might have been a— not somewhat traditional, not the, not the rabbinic. Kasuto, for example, that the Hebrew might have been mistaken. But in any event, all of a sudden there's another son, and he takes his wife and son and he mounts them on a, on a donkey or ass, and they return to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the rod of God in his hand, the rod which God told him to use in the performance of the miracles and the signs that he will have to show. Okay? Okay. Now, ladies and gentlemen, comes one of the most difficult verses in the Torah, and, uh, one, uh, almost every session affords me an opportunity to deal with one issue at some length. In this case, it is, uh, 4:21. And God said to, uh, Moses, when you go to return to Egypt, and see that you perform all of the signs that— and marvels, or really marvels— that I have put in your hand, and you will do them, perform them in front of Pharaoh. And here comes the, the very difficult For many. I personally have never been troubled by this, but many have. And I will strengthen his heart, and he will not send out the people. This happens 19 or 20 times that it says, and God strengthened or hardened Pharaoh's heart. It will happen 19 or 20 times, half exactly Exactly. If it's 20, either it's 10:9 or 10:10, different countings. Half the time it says that Pharaoh's heart was strengthened, and half the time it says God strengthened it. For those times that it says, like here, I will strengthen Pharaoh's heart and he will not send out the people, what is the obvious problem? Where is Pharaoh's freedom of will? Freedom of choice. I am going to strengthen Pharaoh's heart, and he's not going to allow the Hebrews to leave. Well, how— why is that fair? Right? I mean, that's the question. This is an age-old question. It is certainly not new to us. It's been asked throughout Jewish history. How is this fair? That's a credit to the fact that it was even asked, because Pharaoh was not obviously a Jewish hero. But whether Pharaoh is a good guy or a bad guy is irrelevant, seemingly at least, to the question of freedom of will and God strengthening somebody's heart. And here are a number of approaches to answering the question. Number 1, and this is, uh, this is the simplest response, And it is not, incidentally, an unfair one. I don't like— there are times, those of you who have taken this course with me, I will say, I simply don't know, and I could not find an answer to the following problem. In this case, this is a legitimate answer. Of the 4, I have 4 for you, or 3 plus a 4th note. In the Bible, it is common for the statement to be made, and God did this, meaning that it happened. For example, and God closed her womb is a biblical way of saying she couldn't have children, because to the biblical mind, God is always involved. All right? Simple as that. So, uh, to give you a, an example that would have no emotional impact, Uh, there would be, there would be theoretically in the Torah 2 ways of saying the leaf fell from the tree. One, the leaf fell from the tree. 2, and God made the leaf fall from the tree. Okay, that's so that answer number one is that Pharaoh will have a strengthened heart. Okay. But not that God is intervening to make him incapable of choosing to send the Jews out. Alright? That is one, and it's an honest answer because we have so many examples of God doing something, and it just means it happened. Number 2— excuse me, this wasn't open when I tried. I'm going to use a cup. Uh, yep. I have a question. It's terrible that, you know, 300 people watching me spritz water in a cup, but you learn not to be terribly self-conscious.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's U.S. energy production by nearly 60% in the past 3 years. Helping fuel national energy security and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Is, uh, the third answer is the one I buy most. But let me give you, or to me, the most powerful. So we're moving in order of power. The second response to this problem is that Pharaoh deserved to be punished. Now I'm gonna— now this is an interesting issue. Let us say Moses shows the signs, a plague or two, and Pharaoh goes, whoa, This is very heavy stuff. I'm letting them out. I don't want to get hurt. Wouldn't you be troubled morally that the guy got away with all those years of torture and slavery and murder? Right? For example, what if somebody had gone to Hitler and convinced Hitler after 4 million Jews had been slaughtered, not 6 million, Uh, and, uh, with a lot of signs, and Hitler goes, you know what? I'm stopping the Holocaust now. Okay, stop the trains to Auschwitz. And that's it? Wouldn't there be a part of you that goes, hey, wait a minute! This guy deserves to be punished! The fact that he is stopping now because he's afraid of getting hurt is very nice for the people that are not going to get hurt, but it's not fair that he's not being punished! for what he's done. You with me?

Yes.

That is an— a reason, therefore, that even if God strengthened his heart doesn't merely mean his heart was strengthened and utilizes God because it's biblical poetry, that I could buy the idea of God literally interfering to strengthen Pharaoh's heart and Not let the Jews leave? Because he deserves to be punished. Okay, that is a reason. Moreover, there, there is, by the way, uh, a lot to that in, in the Bible itself. He deserves it, and God wants to demonstrate to him and the Egyptians who the real God is. God also wants to demonstrate to the Jews who the real God is, because the Jews had, as I have shown already, lapsed very, very much from the faith of their ancestors and had definitely taken on trappings of Egyptian ideas and thought, which is very logical after hundreds of years in slavery and your God doesn't seem to be doing much for you. Okay? No, I have no problem with the Israelites in that regard. So reason number 2 that I could justify God strengthening Pharaoh's heart And, and therefore, I am not troubled by the issue of, well, what about Pharaoh's freedom of choice? Is that God wanted to punish him, period. He deserved to be punished. He can't get away with, oh boy, Moses has great miracles, I'm going to let the Jews go. Number 3, which to me is the most important response, and the one that you would least perhaps, uh, you know, automatically, instinctively think up, but if you think about it for a while, I think it is, it is the best answer. Not only does God not deprive Pharaoh of freedom of choice by strengthening Pharaoh's heart, only by strengthening Pharaoh's heart does he enable Some of you already pick up why, but let me elaborate. If I want you to do something, and I start beating you up, and while I am beating you up, while I am twisting your arm, you go, okay, absolutely, whatever you want, do you have freedom of choice?

No.

You don't have freedom of choice. Of course not. You're being beaten up. But what if I let go of you and then give you a feel-good pill, that your arm no longer hurts, your bruises are, are recovered, and I have strengthened your resolve all over again? Then and only then do you have freedom to do yes or no, right? There is no freedom. freedom while under coercion. Your spirit is broken and you're physically being coerced. God strengthening Pharaoh's heart gives Pharaoh freedom of choice. So I have always held that the question is incorrect. God strengthening Pharaoh's heart gives him freedom. It does not take away freedom. So when he says God says to Moses here, I will strengthen Pharaoh's heart and he will not send, uh, will not send out the nation. God is merely predicting what is happening, not saying, I will force him not to do it. Do not read it that way because that's not what it says. I will strengthen him, and when I do strengthen him, he will resolve not to send you out.

Okay?

So if you ever read the Book of Exodus and come across, and God hardened his heart, and God made his heart heavy, there were 3 verbal usages: I will harden, I will make heavy, and I will strengthen. Those are not to take his freedom away.

That's right.

But rather to give him freedom. As to the question of, does he have freedom of choice, Pharaoh, if God predicts what he'll do? I think I have already dealt with that in, in a previous class, so I will simply tell you that God knowing the future does not mean that we do not have freedom to do what we want to do. God being outside of time time, which post-Einstein at least we can accept. It doesn't make any sense to me, I admit it. I don't understand the idea that time begins and ends, because what happened before it began? You know, what happened 12 minutes before it began, right? That's what our non-Einsteinian mind asks. At any rate, at least now we can in fact know that God does stand outside of And very quickly, the analogy I give in our own lives. You're driving on the freeway, you're going north on the San Diego Freeway. South, there is an accident. Cars come to a stop. You're driving to the cars on the other side, let's say a half mile away. They're driving at regular 55 miles per hour. You know—

75.

It is a joke, you're right. 75. And, uh, they are, they are coming south, you're going north. You know that within a minute they will stop. Have you deprived them of freedom of choice? No, they still have the freedom to crash into other cars, but essentially you know what they will do. Or even, even more specifically, you know they'll either crash or stop. Okay? So knowing the future does not That freedom of choice is deprived. Just wanted to make that clear in what God is saying. One final word about, I will strengthen Pharaoh's heart. In biblical Hebrew, the heart is the seat of the mind and psyche, not the seat of the emotions. The seat of the emotions in ancient Hebrew are the kidneys. Which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. But that is the way it worked. The psyche and the mind were located poetically, as we— metaphorically, not poetically— in the heart. So literally, in modern English, it would be, I will strengthen his mind, or better, as I said earlier, I will strengthen his resolve. Okay?

Okay.

Just thought that would be of interest to you. That answers to me the question of, uh, Pharaoh's freedom of choice. Verse 22. Again, this is God telling Moses what he will do to Pharaoh, what he will say to Pharaoh, and go to Pharaoh, and what will happen. Uh, and you will say to Pharaoh, thus said God, or Jehovah. And it's important that I note that because God's proper name known to the Jews is Jehovah. It's not the exact Hebrew pronunciation, which we are strictly speaking forbidden to say. It's just a yod in the beginning rather than a joh. At any rate, and you will say, you will go to Pharaoh and you will say, thus said God, Jehovah, Israel is my firstborn. This is very important, and I'll come back and tell you why it's important. Let me just do verse 23. And I tell you, and I say to you, send, send out, or let my son Go to worship me, and, uh, and if you refuse, I will kill your firstborn. Are you with me?

Yes.

Okay, there's a lot on the firstborn here, but there is something more important even than the firstborn itself. This is a remarkable statement for a reason that would elude an initial reading. If Israel is God's firstborn, what does it say about all other nations? It says 2 things. The obvious is they're not the firstborn. But far more important, what does it say? They're all God's children. That is critical, critical that that be understood. When God, and I made a big deal of this in Genesis, when God appears to Abraham, he says to Abraham, "Vivarhu b'cha kol mishpachot ha'adamah." Through you, all the families of the earth will be blessed. The inception of the Jews is. Universal. There is, there is no idea that God only cares about Jews, or God is a Jewish God, or anything like that. Yes, it's my firstborn. That's true, because I revealed myself according to Judaism, and indeed according to atheist history. The first people in history to bring God into the world were the Jews. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant a historical fact. Jews brought God into the world, and you will see that, by the way, in this chapter very dramatically in the way Pharaoh reacts to Moses the first time they meet. But this is important. It is my firstborn. That's true. Now, why does— why should Moses say to Pharaoh that God says that Israel is his firstborn? Because it was understood at that, at that time that firstborns have specific religious cultic obligations. So that when in fact it says, let my people go so that they may worship me, he can understand, oh, this people is this god's firstborn, then I understand why they have to go and worship. And more, as you will see in a moment, because if you deny the firstborn the ability to do what he has to do religiously, there is a punishment brought upon everybody. Okay? And that is explained at the end of verse 23. If you refuse this firstborn's right to its religious obligations, your, your Pharaoh's firstborn, That is language that Pharaoh conceivably can understand. This firstborn, if you don't protect this firstborn, God won't protect your firstborn. You get? That's the symmetry here. And as you know, of course, the 10th plague is against the firstborn. The firstborn idea starts here.

They are my firstborn.

They are my firstborn. You are hurting them, I will hurt your firstborn. God in the Torah is a, is a just God. This is, this is to me the greatness, or not the only, there's innumerable greatnesses, but I resonate to that. I believe in the idea of justice, I believe in the idea of punishment, so long as it's just punishment. In fact, if There is no punishment, I don't think it's just. We don't have to get into a debate on that. Others feel otherwise, and certainly people from other religious traditions are more forgiving of injustice. That's a separate issue. All I'm saying is this is the God of this Torah that I— and I relate to that. Okay, now comes about the strangest 3, uh, verses in the Torah. And when I prepared for this session, I spent more time on the next 3 verses than I did on the entire chapter. They, they are— I'm happy to say that they confused me no more than they confused far greater scholars than I. So much so that I will show you a debate. They don't debate each other. One is dead, and so they're not debating. They're not debating. But 2 of the greatest Jewish scholars of the Torah in the 20th century, Umberto Cassuto from Italy, who then was professor of Bible at Hebrew University, and Nachum Sarna, the great modern-day scholar who was the commentator of the first 2 volumes of the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah. They have opposite views. Opposite views, not on, you know, what ultimately is the meaning. No! What the text means, the very words themselves. Opposite, as you will see. It's only 3 verses, and it seems to come out of nowhere.

Okay.

By the way, the reason that it's so obscure according to Sarna is, These various obscurities arise primarily because the account here is only a truncated version of a larger popular story that circulated orally in Israel. That's what is believed. It so doesn't make full sense in and of itself that it was probably understood by ancient Israelites. For example, let me explain this, because Because it's very important to reading any biblical text. If I, if I said to you, um, remember— oh, I did. Remember I said to you earlier, uh, Moses wants to be leader like you would have liked to have been a juror at the O.J. Simpson trial? To somebody 3,000 years from now, if they only had that sentence and nothing else, like we only have this and nothing else, we don't have the oral tradition, they wouldn't know What does that mean? Every one of you knew exactly what it meant. Ancient Israelites knew exactly what these 3 verses mean. We don't. We have an idea. You with me? Okay, just want to make it clear what I mean by that, by there being an oral— we have an oral tradition. We have a written one, it's called newspapers. But if, let's say, you know, all newspapers blew up and somebody just had this tape 3,000 years from now, What would they know? They go, what, what is that strange reference that he made to a juror in an O.J. Simpson trial? Okay, that's how we feel with these 3, uh, verses. At a night encampment, uh, on the way, God encountered him and sought to kill him. I'll just read you the 3 verses and then show you, uh, the, uh, 412 difficulties with these verses.

Next.

So Zipporah— that's Moses's wife— Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched his legs with it, saying, you are truly a bridegroom of blood to me. I'm sure you're following this totally. And when he let him alone, when God let him alone, she added, a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision. That's to clarify the first 2 verses. It's, it's not only difficult to understand, we don't even know who God tried You heard the sentence, and at a night encampment on the way, literally it would be, and it was on the way in an encampment. The malon in modern Hebrew is hotel. I don't think there were hotels in Midian. I may be wrong, and I'm not being facetious. Maybe there were. So maybe there was motel, 7 plagues. I don't know, you know what. Uh, at any rate, and it was on the way, on a— in a lodging, and God encountered him, or met him, and sought to kill him. The most obvious him is who? Moses.

Moses. Pharaoh.

Pharaoh. After I'll see you after class. Uh, they are, they are on their way. Remember, remember what I said? And God— when it says God wanted or God did or God anything, it means that something happened, right? Literally it means, and he got very ill. Okay, but it's ascribed to God. You with me? But who is the he? Well, there are only two possibilities. Right, the son or Moses. Exactly. I'm sorry. The unborn son. Well, yeah, it's him with two sons, and it never mentions the other on the trip. So let's leave it with one son. Basically, we have one son.

Pharaoh.

Pharaoh. You got me going with Pharaoh. Once, right, uh, one son and, uh, and Moses and Zipporah his wife. Okay, now hold on. So therefore it could only be the son, the infant son, or the young son, and, uh, or, or Moses. God meets him, whoever the him is, And, and gets him extremely ill. I will show you now, since I have not resolved which it is, as of this moment, ladies and gentlemen, at my, uh, major years of 47 on this planet, I do not know which one it is. Okay? I will show you Excellent arguments for either, thanks to Sarna, who says it's Moses and was absolutely certain it's Moses, and Casuto, who's absolutely certain it's the sun. Okay. All right. Uh, oh, excuse me. Sarna says it's the sun, not Moses, and Casuto says it's Moses, not the sun. Sorry, got it backwards. All right, Sarna is convinced it is the sun, not Moses, and Casuto says it's Moses. Okay, God met and sought to kill him means that Moses got gravely ill. Why does that make sense? Because it would— it was— which am I explaining to you, the sun or Moses?

I got confused.

Let me start all over. Sarna says it's the sun, not Moses.

Okay.

This makes sense because, Sarna points out, just as the Egyptian firstborn will die if Pharaoh disobeys God, Moses' firstborn will die if Moses disobeys. In other words, he is tying these verses directly to what precedes them, and I think you have to do that in the Torah. Why does this verse follow the preceding verse? Okay, remember, firstborn, I told you, plays a role here. In other words, it makes sense in that you think that I will only punish, uh, that I will only punish the non-Jew for disobeying me. No way. I will punish you too. And if, if, if you don't obey what you have to do with your firstborn, you lose your firstborn, just as Pharaoh will lose his firstborn. That's what Sarna is saying.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's U.S. energy production by nearly 60% in the past 3 years, helping fuel national energy security and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now, back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

The other argument for it being the son is this: how would Zipporah know the reason for the sickness if it were Moses and not the son who got sick? If Moses got sick, it seems a bit bizarre. Moses gets sick. Ah, the solution? Circumcise my son. Right? Doesn't it strike you as a non sequitur? That is the argument for it being the son. whom God meets on the way and seeks to kill. And so she, um, she, uh, circumcises the son. This is Casuto. He says it's, it's Moses that God gets sick. The purpose of the story— I'm paraphrasing, these are not his words— is to underscore the significance of circumcision. This makes sense, since why would Zipporah perform the circumcision If Moses weren't sick. In other words, if Moses were not sick, he would be the one to perform the circumcision. That's a very powerful argument, that it's Moses who got sick. Mothers don't perform circumcisions on their boys, fathers do. And that is why I haven't a clue. Because they are Both so— when you heard that it was the sun, did it not make total sense?

Yes.

Right. And that's, that's the problem with this, with this. It's not often in the Torah, it isn't often in the Torah that we really don't know, and that the arguments for 2 totally different ways of reading it are equally valid. But this is one of those mysterious verses. In either case, uh, in either case, it does underscore a number of things. Whether it is Moses who is deathly ill or the child, it underscores, A, the centrality of circumcision to Jewish identity that the Torah is, is noting here, and I will talk about that in a moment. And B, the centrality of the And B, that it holds that leaders are not exempt from obeying the law, and in fact they have to obey it even more strictly. A very deep belief in Judaism. Leaders are not exempt from laws. Something that we have tried to inculcate in our society, the idea that leaders have to live by laws. It's just this past year that Congress passed a law that it has to Okay? It probably struck you as odd that that wasn't the case prior to that. At any rate, that, that whether it is the child or Moses makes sense. Why is, why is circumcision central? Uh, is, uh, is, is obviously a very large subject, and let me just, uh, say briefly, That circumcision was known in that part of the Middle East and practiced there. It is not original to Judaism, the cutting off of the foreskin of a male penis. It is not new with the Jews. And by the way, Zipporah herself is Midianite and would know how to do it. In that regard, there's a very interesting A note here about it being flint. This was post-flint, post-using stones to cut. This is not that ancient a story that, you know, we're talking about like Cro-Magnon man. They had tools, metal tools, etc. They had knives. Why did she use flint? Which is— I know all of you were curious when I read it to you. Uh, and I'm aching, just aching to get the, uh, the answer. So let me read it to you.

Okay.

Casuto, uh, says, she used a flint knife, just as Joshua later in his day circumcised the children of Israel with knives of flint. Thus the ancients were accustomed to use stone implements for every sacred rite, owing to the conservatism inherent in the sphere of worship. They were even conservative back then, which is very conservative when you're conservative 3,000 years ago. Which, you know, of course he's not making light of it, but it is funny in a way. You know, it's like, did you ever— I'll bet you every one of you has some, some silly thing you carry on from a grandmother or a grandfather, let's say, which is pointless, but your grandmother did it, so you do it. And it is especially true in religious affairs. People in religion are inherently conservative. So it's funny to think of Jews 3,000 years ago as conservative, but you know, they did it with stone for my great-grandfather, it's good enough for me, right? It's not so great for the kid, but hey, happened to me, why should you have it better? Thus the ancients were accustomed to use stone implements for every sacred rite, owing to the conservatism inherent in sphere worship. Even when men had learned to make metal tools and to use them in everyday life, they still continued to employ flint instruments for ritual purposes in order not to deviate in such matters from the traditions of their fathers and forefathers. The Egyptians too were accustomed to use flint knives for circumcision, which, by the way, If nothing else, tells you how far back circumcision goes. If they were using flint knives, you can only imagine how far that idea goes back. This is an important aspect of Judaism. Judaism, and for that matter, most great religions or philosophies, but especially religions, don't create new forms nearly as much as they create new content. They pour new wine into old vessels. That's very important to understand, and I'll tell you why. It is— I hear this all the time, whether on my radio show when I talk about religion, or Or just people generally, a dismissal of a religious practice because they find its origins in the pagan world. Okay? As for example, you know, there will be ex-Catholics, ex-Christians in general, who will say, oh, December 25th, oh, it was a pagan holiday and all the church did is a squat ascribe it to Jesus, but it was pagan, which may very well be. But so what? I could show you constantly, uh, in Judaism where pagan rituals are changed. The form is identical, the meaning is changed. But that's what matters in this world. It is the meaning of ritual, not the ritual itself, that is the issue. And so I don't— I don't not only regard that as a negative, I regard it as a positive. To remake something into something elevating that was primitive is a great thing. It's not a bad thing, it's a great thing. I know among the Chabad Hasidim in Judaism, it was a matter of great joy and pride To take the melodies of their oppressors and make them into Shabbat songs, into Sabbath songs. So they—I remember communist—the big communist melodies that ultimately became Hasidic nigunim, Hasidic tunes. Okay, I know that in our home, the melody that we use for the opening paragraph of the. Grace After Meals is an old Hungarian, uh, uh, beer hall melody. Okay, that's great that we could use that for now. One of the Psalms is terrific. You don't need new music, you need new content. I mean, it's nice to have new music too, but you understand the point I'm making. So the fact if you say to me, oh, this comes from pagan times, circumcision. This isn't a Jewish creation. You're absolutely right, but that doesn't tell me anything. I want to know what it means now. And, and it is obviously a rite that is considered central to the Torah, as obviously this, this story tells you, and, and has been central to Judaism throughout its history. It is very quickly It is not called circumcision in Hebrew. It is called the covenant of circumcision. Brit milah. You most of you have heard the term bris or brit, whether it's B'nai B'rith or oh so and so had a boy next week is the bris, right? Okay, or the brit. Brit means covenant. It's brit milah, covenant of the circumcision. It's the covenant that you engage in with God to say, that is how deeply I am immersed in continuing being your firstborn, being your child, being your chosen people, being a Jew, whatever you will make of it, that I am doing this. Now, you will say, there are those who say, but isn't it barbaric?

No.

Let me tell you that, to the best of my knowledge, the scars in my life are minimal. I seem to have developed fairly well. Life has treated me pretty darn good. I have not desired to enter a foreskin restoration movement, which not only exists in America, as anything else And, uh, this, uh, I, I, I stand in awe of people for whom this is a, a big deal. Now, I—

Amen.

In other words, a big deal to the point of leading a movement against it and so on. Let me, let me tell you something. thing a dear friend who's a psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen Marmer, UCLA, had said about this. And I hasten to add, I may be getting him not fully, because I'm not a psychiatrist. But he spoke of the profundity of it. Elementally, in the male brain, as you probably know, males are innately aggressive. It is not taught by cowboy and Indian movies. Okay? Well before television, men were aggressive. Okay. It is, it is in the most primitive level of the male psyche, apparently, and not— we're not terribly in touch with it because we are sophisticated moderns. An immediate threat to the male dominance of the father And there is therefore, and it almost, it makes sense when you realize the antiquity of circumcision and that fathers did it to their sons, it is in effect almost a subliminal desire to kill the child, to sacrifice the child, which was of course universal. And that's what circumcision is. When it is done this way though, the father looks at this and goes, oh my God, I can never do that. And therefore it is almost a total change. He comes from aggressor to the child to protector of the child as a result of that act, when done properly. And certainly, while I am— I have— I, I and I don't hesitate to be critical of aspects of Jewish life, one thing Jews can say, and with general pride, is that physical aggression, as opposed to verbal aggression, is not a general Jewish characteristic. Judaism has done a stupendous job in domesticating its males. In fact, one may argue A little more macho among Jewish men couldn't hurt, okay, in some cases. So, but, but it is a fact that, that Judaism did successfully suppress the, the aggressive, physically aggressive aspect of the male, which if every culture did, the world would be a hell of a lot better place. I think that's a very good point. A lot better, obviously. Second, circumcision is done on the organ that, the reproductive organ of the male. It is therefore logical, as it were, that the reproductive organ is going to be the organ where the covenant is inscribed. You are reproducing Jews, reproducing the covenant. And, the firstborn of God, as it were. And as it is innocuous in any event, unless infection sets in, etc., etc., and might I add finally, the pain to an 8-day-old boy, especially with modern implements, is— I have been to many circumcisions in my life. The average crying that it is virtually a non-issue. And the mother is horrified in many instances, and correctly so. We videoed our son's recent circumcision 3 years ago, and my wife can't look at it. She can't look at it? I mean, he's not only healthy, he's driving her into an early grave. You know, I mean, he's healthy, she's getting sick. You know, I mean, you know, at our age, having a 3-year-old is a serious workout, to put it mildly, especially with a boy. And so he's fine. She can't handle the film. And we don't— and it's not like we have a close-up. We're not into that sort of thing. I'm not into that sort of thing. But just the mere nyeh, nyeh that came from him, which was all that did, is enough to send my wife, you know, back into the room, you know, with her head under the pillow. And I understand that, and it is dramatic in that way, but it is also a way of saying, I take this very seriously, being a member of this group. And to this day, it is, it is a way of saying, I'm here. It is demanded of a male convert. Maybe one of the reasons there are far more female converts to Judaism than there are male converts. And if already circumcised, then a drop of blood merely is taken as a symbolism. Whatever you do think of it, it remains central to Judaism and to the Torah, and that is why it brings in this story at this part, and again to emphasize for a leader to have the child done as anyone else. Note, by the way, that it says that it was when they lodged that he got sick, not while they traveled. That too is important. In the book of Joshua, chapter 5, verses 2 to 7, the Jews were absolved from the ordinance of circumcision.

That's right.

It says the Jews wandering in the desert were absolved from circumcision. Bet most of you didn't know that. The only time in Jewish history that we know of, because it would have been dangerous and not a time to do it. And that generation was absolved wandering in the desert. Perhaps Moses thought that he was absolved during his wanderings in the desert and during his sojourn in Midian. Or perhaps the child was just born prior to the trip. One more. Now, the next difficulty comes in the next sentences. She, uh, okay, she cut off her son's foreskin. This is 25. And then touched his legs with it. Whose legs?

Of the child.

It might be, it might be Moses's legs. Even that isn't clear here, okay? I would just want you to know that. Uh, and then said, you are truly a bridegroom of blood to me. In Hebrew— She cannot say to her son, you are my blood.

She can.

She was saying, because you know Hebrew, Right? Yeah. And the word is groom, right? The the the word here is literally a groom or bridegroom of blood. Who is she talking to and what does it mean? It is extremely difficult to know except to say it could again she could again be speaking to either you my husband are a bridegroom of blood. On the other hand, you You, in some ways— remember, chatan doesn't only mean, I am your bride, you are my groom. Chatan, for example, there's chatan Torah. You have in Judaism a lot of terms, bridegroom of, means the owner of, the participator in. So then it becomes more complex. Who is the participator in blood?

The bride.

Who was the owner of the blood? It could mean, it could mean many things. I just want you to understand that, uh, in, in, in, uh, in this. And the third one makes it even more complex. When God let him alone, she added, a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision. You see? So that is why it could be the child. A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision. How could Moses be a bridegroom of blood because of his circumcision? Because he was a child. You're a bridegroom of blood. Okay, right. So all I'm saying is, I agree, it could be Moses or the child. That's all I'm saying. Uh, and so there is, uh, it is extremely difficult to know, uh, what, um, uh, which it is. The, the traditional English rendering— this is Sarna, very quickly— the traditional English rendering of the unique Hebrew phrase chatan damim, which is bridegroom of blood, for which so far no parallel has been found in ancient Near Eastern literature. If chatan possesses its usual meaning of groom, it would hardly be applicable to Moses, who by now has been married for some time. He's already a groom. Conceivably, it might be a term of endearment addressed to the child, and so on and so forth. And I'm not going to bother you with more Akkadian things. In Arabic, khatan denotes to circumcise as well as to protect. Okay? This would mean— and it's also in Akkadian, which I don't know. Hence, the enigmatic phrase could convey, you are now circumcised and so protected from me by means of the blood of circumcision. That's a very interesting interpretation. And that makes sense to me in light of the Arabic and ancient Near Eastern literature, what she has said. Whatever it might be, it was a very traumatic event, obviously, at the lodging there. I want to read you one more thing from him. Zipporah turned to Moses and, he says, said to him— again, Sarna says it's to the child.

To him.

Kasuto says it's to Moses. Surely you are a bride— blood bridegroom to me, meaning I am delivering you from death. Indeed, I am restoring you to life by means of our Son's blood. Again, both make perfect sense, and maybe the Torah wanted to be totally ambiguous. That is also possible. And your return to life makes you, as it were, my bridegroom a second time. Just the opposite of what Sarna said. He's already a bridegroom. How could she be talking And Kasuto says, no, she's talking to him. You're a second time my bridegroom. Okay, but this time through blood. Yes? You're quoting 2 scholars, Sarno and Kasuto. Yes. Does Kabbalistic interpretation find some subtlety in the meaning or the— Do you know? I don't know. Do you know what the Kabbalistic interpretation is? I don't check Kabbalistic interpretations. You are studying with one of the last pure rationalists on earth. I am. I don't have any problem with Kabbalah. It's just we all have our own tendencies. Mine is, what does the text say and what can I learn from it as the text says it? I would love to know, frankly, if anybody does know what the Kabbalah would say about it. Now let me try to finish. I thought I'd get much further. I don't know if we need to go much further, but I often think that, which is why we're on Exodus 4, 4 years later. Okay, let's see now, where are we? 27. Okay. And God said to Aaron, go to meet Moses in the wilderness. This is now God speaking to Aaron, Moses's brother, right? Remember, he had told— God had told Moses, you're going to meet Aaron and the elders, and you're going to go and so on to Pharaoh, and so on. Okay. Go to meet Moses in the wilderness. He went and met him at the mountain of God, and he kissed him. Okay. Mountain of God is where he had already been earlier, where he had had the epiphany.

Theophany.

Or theophany. That is the appearance of God at the bush. Moses told Aaron about all the things that the Lord had committed to him and all the signs about which he had instructed him. Alright, he tells him the entire story. He tells to Aaron, Moses does. Then Moses and Aaron went and assembled all the elders of the Israelites. Aaron repeated all the words that God had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people, and the people were convinced.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom has been brought to you by The rest of it will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's U.S. energy production by nearly 60% in the past 3 years, helping fuel national energy security and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now, back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Now, here is something that just occurs to me. Was the— were the signs before all of the Jews or just in front of the elders? It says ha'am, which means the whole people. So, uh, but that's not possible unless they are already there. Well, it's an interesting— I'll have to look that up anyway. Uh, and the, and the people were convinced. 31. And they listened. Uh, oh, excuse me. And they heard that God remembered the children of Israel.

And he remembered them.

and that he had seen their suffering, and they bowed down, uh, in homage. Okay, now notice who does the speaking in verse 30.

Aaron.

Exactly as God had predicted. Aaron will do the speaking for you. And sure enough, Aaron does the speaking, uh, for him. Uh, now we— again, it's very interesting. Uh, in 30 it says, and he performed the signs in the sight of the people. Who?

Aaron.

It seems like Aaron because it's the same verse, but it would be odd to me if it was Aaron, not Moses, because God sent Moses and Moses needs The credibility here.

Yes.

See? So the odds are it is Moses, even though grammatically it would seem to go to the, to the subject of the sentence, which is Aaron. And he does the signs. What are the signs, by the way? The signs were the rod went into the serpent, became a serpent, and then back into a rod. And the hand became scaly. And then returned to normal, and water turned into blood. Remember? Those are the 3 signs in the desert. Now he performed them. I find this terribly human that that's the only thing that worked. Right? I mean, you know, here he gets the elders of Israel Together and says, I want you to know that God sent us, specifically my brother. And, you know, these guys are going, give me a break. Basically, that's what is implied here. They only believed after they saw these 3 signs. And, you know, it's very human. They're suffering all these years. Can you imagine somebody says, you know, I'm going to save you now? Oh, really? Yeah, sure. And he needed all the signs he could get, as you will see later, because things get worse, uh, before they get— they actually get better. My, uh, I wrote in my notes here, would we be different if someone came along claiming to speak on God's behalf? Or are we more sophisticated, or at least expected to be more sophisticated? If somebody claimed to to speak on God's behalf and had a great message and said all the right things, you wouldn't, you know, you wouldn't really believe him either. You would, you would need signs also. And I will tell you frankly, if somebody had these signs today, I don't even think that would work. Today we are so— I don't know, I was thinking of the word cynical, but I, I don't true in certain cases, but I don't know what we are. I don't think we are receptive. We are burned a little bit. Our receptors have been burned after the Holocaust, after so much suffering, after what we know about the world, seeing so many gimmicks in this world. I think if someone with the right message didn't have a way of getting through to us, we wouldn't listen. I think that's a very good point. come along, make scaly hands, and get this, you'd say he's a magician. He's, you know, that's what you'd say. You know, I got a great place for you at the Magic Castle on Sunset. You really have a future in that work. That's what would be said today rather than, rather than, I take you seriously. You wonder then, you know, because people ask, why don't people come today? Messengers from God. Maybe there are, but who, who would believe them? And if you do believe them, you're considered a cult. And some are cults. Certainly when you look at the, uh, at what was taught. I mean, when David Koresh said he has a messenger, he was a messenger from God, and it was, among other things, essentially to be able to sleep with everybody's wife. Okay, I mean, men will do anything to sleep with enough women, you know. And, uh, he won. There were enough foolish men and women who believed, uh, who believed him, and, uh, and, and it worked. What if somebody came along, though, with great, uh, uh, charisma and ability to attract people like Koresh, and said, And his message is that you all have to treat each other really nicely. I mean, can you imagine? Which is exactly what God's message is according to Judaism. But that person could not get a cult together, you know, the nice cult, right? These people believe in treating people really nicely. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. decently. God, are they sick! No, it's— isn't that fascinating though? In other words, the only people who will be believed today who speak in God's name, about speaking in God's name, are people who say crazy things. People who would say absolutely wonderful Bible-based, moral-based ideas would, would be yawned at. So why don't you know what? What is left if the only ones who are believed claim, I'm the Messiah, I'm the new incarnation? I have very little against the Reverend Moon and his— and the Unification Church, what is derogatorily called Moonies. That's why I even give them the benefit of calling them the right name. But the Reverend Moon says he is the new embodiment of Jesus on this earth. He is a divine being. He has a large following. Koresh said he's a divine being. What if you just say, God sent me to tell you that, you know, X, Y, and Z? You don't get a following.

Mm-hmm.

It's a fascinating dilemma that we've put ourselves into, that only if you claim wild things are you taken at all seriously, at least in the name of God. I thank you so much, and I will see you next week.

On tomorrow's Sunday Fireside Chat.

So this is a chance to talk to you about what is on my mind. It's completely spontaneous. And then take your questions from literally all over the world. And thank you for watching. My guest today is a woman who makes this all possible. I don't exaggerate when I say that. The CEO Of PragerU.

I, I'm going to say something very serious before we start.

Marissa— she's Marissa Streit— and I have always debated the question, how much does God intervene in our lives? I'm a very big believer in God, but I, I, I don't know if you can know when God intervenes in your life. People say it, and they may be right. But I'm very, very, very rational. It's why my Bible commentary is called The Rational Bible. And so I, I don't know when something happens, did God intervene or not? But I can say this: if God did intervene in sending Marissa to me, it sounds very reasonable.

It's a good assumption.

I can't say it for sure. I don't know God's mind, but it's as pretty— as close as you can get.

Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the podcast. Go to lifeaudio.com to find dozens of other faith-centered podcasts in their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.

Once in a generation, a podcast comes along with the power and eloquence to inspire us all. This show will entertain you while you wait for that one. Join 2 best friends, author and former history teacher John Driver and comedian Johnny W., for hilarious and authentic conversations about life, history, culture, faith, and everything in between. You can listen to Talk About That wherever you find your podcasts or at lifeaudio.com.