biblical economics - gary north - exodus

8/15/2019 Biblical Economics - Gary North - Exodus

1/307

AUTHORITY AND D OMINIONAN E CONOMIC C OMMENTARY ON E XODUS

VOLUME 1

REPRESENTATION AND D OMINION


2/307

Other Books by Gary North

An Economic C ommentary on the Bible, 31 vo ls. (1982 – 2012) Marx’s Religion of Revolution ( 1968, 1989)

An Introduction to Christian Economics (1973) Puritan Economic Experiments (1974, 1988)

None Dare Call It Witchcraft (1976)Unconditional Surrender (1980, 2010)

Successful Investing i n an Age of Envy (1981)Government by Emergency (1983)

Backward, Christian Soldiers? (1984)

75 Bible Q uestions Your Instructors Pray You Won’t Ask (1984)Coined Freedom (1984)

Conspiracy: A Biblical View (1986) Honest Money (1986)

Unholy Spirits (1986, 1994) Dominion and Common Grace (1987)

Inherit the Earth (1987)

Liberating Planet Earth (1987) Healer of the Nations (1987)The P irate Economy (1987)

Is the World Running Down? (1988)When Justice Is Aborted (1989) Political Polytheism (1989)

Judeo-Christian Tradition (1990)The H oax o f Higher C riticism (1990)

Victim’s Rights (1990) Millennialism and Social Theory (1990)

Westminster’s Confession (1991)Christian Reconstruction (1991), with Gary DeMar

The C oase Theorem (1992)Salvation Through I nation (1993)

Rapture Fever (1993)

Tithing and the Church (1994) Baptized Patriarchalism (1995)Crossed Fingers (1996)

The Covenantal Tithe (2011) Mises on Money (2012)


3/307

AUTHORITY AND D OMINION

Gary North

P ART 1: R EPRESENTATION AND D OMINION

An Economic Commentary on Exodus 1 – 19


4/307

Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus Part 1: Representation

Formerly: Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion

Copyright © Gary North, 2012

Published by:Point Five P ressP.O. Box 2778Dallas, GA 30132

All rights reserved. Written permission must be s ecured from thepublisher t o use o r reproduce a ny p art of this book, except for briefquotations i n critical reviews o r art icles.

Printed in the U nited States of America.


5/307

This book i s dedicated to

Julian Russell

the most rhetorically g ifted pastor I ever h ad.


6/307


7/307

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume 1: Part 1, Representation and Dominion

Prefa ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiIntroductio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.Population Growth: Tool of Dominion (Ex. 1:5 – 7) . . . . . . . 122.Imperial Bureaucracy ( Ex. 1:8 – 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313.Rigorous W aste an d Rigorous Socialism (Ex. 1:13 – 14) . . . . 534.Illegitimate State P ower ( Ex. 1:15 – 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665.Envy, Rumor, and Bondage ( Ex. 2:11 – 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726.Cumulative T ransgression and Restitution (Ex. 3:21 – 22) . . 827.The Optimum Production Mix (Ex. 5:5 – 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918.Covenantal Judgment ( Ex. 8:19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079.Original Ownership (Ex. 9:29 – 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

10.Total Sacrifice, Total Sovereignty (Ex. 10:24) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12811.Separation and Dominion (Ex. 11:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13612.Discontinuity an d Continuity ( Ex. 12:10 – 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14613.Unconditional Surrender (Ex. 12:30 – 32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18314.The Rule of Law (Ex. 12:48 – 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19415.The F irstborn Offering ( Ex. 13:1 – 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23016.The Psychology of Slavery (Ex. 14:12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

17.The M etap hor o f Growth: Ethics ( Ex. 15:17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24618.Manna, Predictability, and Dominion (Ex. 16:4 – 5) . . . . . . . 25819.Imperfect Justice ( Ex. 18:21 – 22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26720.The O ath-Bound Kingdom of Priests (Ex. 19:3 – 6) . . . . . . . . 280

Conclu sio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Volume 2: Part 2, Decalogue and Dominion

Prefa ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

In tr oductio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28921.The G od of Liberation (Ex. 20:1 – 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30522.Graven Images an d Rival Civilization (Ex. 20:4 – 6) . . . . . . . . 315

vii


8/307

A UTHORITY AND D OMINION

23.Lawful Title (Ex. 20:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34524.Rest and Dominion (Ex. 20:8 – 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

25.Family Capital (Ex. 20:12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37226.God’s M onopoly of Execution (Ex. 20:13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38727.The Y oke o f Cooperati ve Service (Ex. 20:14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40028.The Rights o f Private Property (Ex. 20:15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41329.The Value of a Name (Ex. 20:16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45230.Covetousness an d Conflict ( Ex. 20:17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

Conclu sio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494

Volume 3: Part 3, Tools of Dominion

Prefa ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiIn tr oductio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

31.Servitude, Protection, and Marriage ( Ex. 21:2 – 4) . . . . . . . . . 54132.Wives and Concubines (Ex. 21:7 – 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56833.Executing a Rebellious S on (Ex. 21:15, 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59834.Kidnapping (Ex. 21:16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60235.The C osts of Private C onflict (Ex. 21:18 – 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

36.The Human Commodity (Ex. 21:20 –

21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63537.Criminal Law and Restoration (Ex. 21:22 – 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . 65038.The A uction for Substitute Sanctions (Ex. 21:22 – 25) . . . . . 68239.Freedom for a n Eye ( Ex. 21:26 – 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70440.The R ansom for a L ife ( Ex. 21:28 – 31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71741.The U ncovered Pit (Ex. 21:33 – 34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74742.Knowledge an d Responsibility ( Ex. 21:35 – 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75743.Proportional Resti tution (Ex. 22:1, 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76644.Pollution, Ownership, and Responsibility ( Ex. 22:5 – 6) . . . . 80145.Safekeeping and Liability ( Ex. 22:7 – 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870

Volume 4: Part 3, Tools of Dominion

46.Caretaking an d Negligence ( Ex. 22:10 – 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89747.Seduction and Servitude ( 22:16 – 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90748.Oppression, Omniscience and Judgment ( Ex. 22:21 – 24) . .93449.The P rohibition against Usury (Ex. 22:25 – 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . 97350.Impartial Justice (Ex. 23:1 – 3, 6 – 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102651.Finders should not be K eepers (Ex. 23:4 – 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104352.Bribery and Oppressi on (Ex. 23:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105453.Sabbatical Liberty (Ex. 23:9 – 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108154.Feasts and Citizenship (Ex. 23:14 – 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1095

viii


9/307

55.The C urse of Zero G rowth (Ex. 23:25 – 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111856.God’s L imits on Sacrifice ( Ex. 25:3 – 8, 36:5 – 7) . . . . . . . . . . . .1143

57.The Economics of the T abernacle (Ex. 25:8 – 9) . . . . . . . . . . .1 16258.Blood Money, Not Head Tax (Ex. 30:11 – 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . .117359.Sabbath Rest vs. Autonomy (Ex. 35:2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118460.The Ability to Teach (Ex. 35:31, 34a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1190

Conclu sio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1199Conclusion to Authority and Dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1236

Volume 5: Appendixes

APPENDIX A – The R econstruction of Egypt’s C hronology . . . . . .1259APPENDIX B – The Demographics o f Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1287APPENDIX C – The Labyrinth and the Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1325APPENDIX D – The R ule o f Law and the F ree Market . . . . . . . . . . .1345APPENDIX E – The E conomic I mplications of The S abbath . . . . . . 1370APPENDIX F – Timing the Lord’s D ay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1449APPENDIX G – Macaulay on Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1454APPENDIX H – The E pistemological Problem of Social Cost . . . . .1460

Volume 6: Appendixes

APPENDIX I – Pollution in the Soviet U nion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1539APPENDIX J – Lots o f Free T ime: The E xistentialist Utopia o f

S. C. Mooney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1547APPENDIX K – Slavery in the American South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1562APPENDIX L – Maimonides’ Code : Is it B iblical? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1579APPENDIX M – Victim’s R ights v s. the Messianic State . . . . . . . . . .1644

APPENDIX N – Covenantal Law and Covenantal Love . . . . . . . . . .1685APPENDIX O – Social Antinomianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1701APPENDIX P – The Hoax of Higher C riticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1718APPENDIX Q – The Restorati on of Biblical Casuistry . . . . . . . . . . .1741APPENDIX R – What i s C ovenant L aw? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1777APPENDIX S – What a re the Case Laws? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1802

ix


10/307


11/307

PREFACEThis b ook was ori ginally the rst section of volume 2 of my ser ies,

An Economic Commentary on the Bible . The f ocus of this volume i s onthose as pects of Exodus 1 – 19 that r elate to economics. Nevertheless, itis b roader t han a n arrowly d ened economic analysis, for b iblical eco-

nomics i s b roader t han strictly economic analysis. The early nine-teenth-century term, “political economy,” i s cl oser to the b iblical normfor eco nomics; the late eighteenth-century term, “moral philosophy,”is c loser yet.

It would be u nwise f or me t o repeat the f oundational material thatI covered in Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary onGenesis . In that book, I made t he st rongest case t hat I could for t he ex -istence of a uniquely Christian economics, especially with respect t oepistemology: “What can we know, and how can we know it?” This

volume is based on the ep Sover-eignty a nd Dominion . For t hose w ho are u ninterested in epistemology

— and there ar e a lot of you in this cat egory — I can only res tate m y o ri-ginal position: it is n ot that there i s a m eaningful Christian economicsamong all other eco nomic sch ools o f thought; it is t hat there is onlyChristian economics. There i s no other sure foundation of true kn ow-ledge ex cept the B ible. The o nly rmly grou nded economics is Christi-an economics. All non-Christian approaches ar e simply imitations o f

the truth: imitations that can not b e logically supported, given theirown rst principles concerning G od, man, law, and knowledge. Biblic-al economics i s t herefore at war ep istemologically with all other eco -nomic systems.

We ca n see t his in the con ict between Moses and Pharaoh. Thisconict w as a conict w hich involved every aspect of l ife, includingeconomics. We n eed to understand the t heological issues t hat dividedEgypt from Israel in order t o understand similarly d ivisive approaches

to economics and political theory t oday. Economic d isagreements t o-day are cl osely related to the same theological divisions t hat separat edMoses from Pharaoh.

xi


12/307


There is no d oubt that Pharaoh knew some t hings about econom-ics. If we d o not assume t his, we can make n o sense o f his actions. He

also knew a great deal about biblical law. But this kn owledge only ledto his co ndemnation, just a s i t does i n the case of all other f orms o fnon-Christian knowledge. The an ti-Christians have en ough knowledgeto condemn them eternally, but not enough to construct a p rogressivelong-term civilization. They have occasionally c onstructed long-termstatic civilizations, most n otably Egypt an d China, but o nly throughthe i mposition of tyranny. 1

A. Using H umanists to D efeat HumanismSimilarly, modern economists h ave con siderable k nowledge ab outthe w orkings o f the m arket and the f ailures as sociated with all forms ofcentral economic planning. But again and again, the officially neutral,

value-free economists appeal ity. The idea of value-free science is a myth. So, it i s t ime to take upwhere M oses left off: with a ch allenge t o h umanistic econ omics.

Readers w ill nd that I cite t he w ritings of many eco nomists an d

social t hinkers. I u se their i nsights —

insights t hat are stolen from the Bible when they a re cor rect. When men come t o conclusions that arealso the conclusions of t he Bible, we should use their discoveries.These discoveries ar e our p roperty, not theirs. God owns t he world;the d evil owns nothing. We ar e G od’s adopted children; they ar e G od’sdisinherited children. Therefore, I am quite willing to cite secularscholars at l ength, since I kn ow that most r eaders h ave neither t hetime n or ac cess t o the sou rces t o follow up on every i dea. I do not ex-pect the m ajority o f my read ers to master t he i ntricate d etails of everyscholar’s ar gument, nor m aster m y ref utations o r ap plications o f theirinsights.

When we r ead Christian refutations of this or that writer in bookswritten a generation ago, let alone a century or a m illennium ago, wend that the reading is slow going. “Why did the au thors spend somuch space d ealing with such dead issues?” we as k ourselves. The an -swer is simple: because w hen the b ooks were w ritten, those i ssues werenot dead. Similarly, a h undred years f rom now, any r eaders who may

stumble across t his b ook will skim over m ost of its ext ended quota-tions. Few works of scholarship in one generation survive into the

1. Karl Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative St udy of Total Power (NewHaven, Connecticut: Yale U niversity P ress, 1957).

xii


13/307

Preface

next, and the w riters I cite o r r efute w ill be l ong-forgotten for t he m ostpart. Indeed, many of them are n ot well-known today. I am not devot-

ing time simply to refute every erroneous i dea in sight; I a m usingthese citations as examples, as springboards to introduce explicitlybiblical interpretations. The scholars I cite are very o ften foils f or m e; Iwant readers t o know that such ideas exist and need refuting or r ein-terpreting.

The m ost important thing is ho w well I integrate s uch humanisticinsights i nto my b iblical reconstruction of economics, without (1) los-ing the i mportance o f these i nsights or ( 2) becoming a s lave o f the h u-

manist p resuppositions w hich officially undergird such insights. Butthis i s t he most important task in any eld. Every C hristian faces t hisproblem. We bu y an d sell with pagans i n many marketplaces, and oneof these m arketplaces i s the m arketplace f or ideas. We m ust use t heirbest ideas against them, and we m ust expose t heir worst ideas in orderto undermine m en’s condence i n them. In short, in God’s universe, itis a q uestion of “heads, we win; tails, they lose.”

B. The O utrage o f the C hristianClassroom Compromisers

It i s i mportant t o understand from the beginning that the per-spective expounded in this b ook is u npopular i n academic Christiancircles. Two economic ideas d ominate the thinking of t he modernworld: the idea of central economic planning, and the idea of t he“mixed economy,” m eaning interventionism by the civil governmentinto the eco nomy: Keynesianism, fascism, or t he corporate st ate. Menhave had great condence in the economic wisdom of the state, atleast until the 1970s. Most Christian academics i n the social sciencesstill go along enthusiastically with some variant of this st atist ideology.Thus, when they ar e con fronted with what the Bible rea lly t eaches i nthe eld of political economy, they react in horror.

Most amusingly, one o f these i nterventionists h as ac cused me o fholding Enlightenment ideas, 2 not realizing that h e and his ass ociatesare t he t rue h eirs of the d ominant Enlightenment tradition, the t radi-tion which exalts the st ate. When these “ radical Christian” critics t hink“Enlightenment,” they t hink “Adam Smith.” They ob viously do not un-derstand the E nlightenment. When we l ook at the h istorical results of

2. Ronald Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, rev. ed. (Downers G rove,Illinois: Inter-V arsi ty P ress, [1977] 1984), p. 102.

xiii


14/307


the Enlightenment, we sho uld think “French Revolution, Russian Re- volution, and President F

think “the glorication of the state. ” The Enlightenment had its right wing, of course, and Adam Smithwas i n it, but he w as h eavily inuenced by t he m oral ideals of Deism,which were i n turn a p ale r eection of Christian theism. 3 But this i ndi-

vidualistic tradilightenment heritage. What the successful bearers o f the torch of theEnlightenment di d was to set Europe o n re — in the name of liberty,fraternity, and equality. James Billington’s b ook has descri bed it w ell:

Fire in the Minds of Men (1980). It was t he l eft wing of the E nlighten-ment which t riumphed. When m en d eify mankind, they almost alwayswind up deifying the st ate, the h ighest collective of mankind, the a po-theosis of man’s power. They beco me ad herents of the p ower religion.

I r eject a ll Enlightenment t hought. This i s w hy I r eject m ost o fwhat is t aught in your t ypical Christian college. The b aptized human-ism of the m odern Christian college classroom, especially i n the socialsciences an d humanities, has l ed many p eople ast ray. This i s on e r eas-on why I wrote my little book, 75 Bible Q uestions Your I nstructors

Pray You Won’t Ask ( 1984). It is subtitled, “How to Spot Humanism inthe C lassroom and the P ulpit.” T here i s a l ot of it to spot. The b ook isan antidote t o baptized humanism.

What t he typical Christian college course in the social sciencesteaches i s l eft-wing Enlightenment thought: naïve Kantianism, warm-ed-over D arwinism, armchair M arxism (especially his t heory of classconsciousness an d the innate disharmony of interests), and the dis-carded economic p olicies of some P residential administration of a d ec-

ade and a half earlier. It i s al l taught i n the name of Jesus, in the in-terests o f “Christian social concern ” an d “relevant C hristianity.” T heyght that great bugaboo of 1880 – 1900, Social Darwinism (which hard-ly a nyone h as ever b elieved in), in the n ame o f Christianity, but theydo s o b y m eans of the s ame a rguments that the founders of the do min-ant i ntellectual stream, Darwinian central planning, used against t heSocial Darwinists. 4 T hey ad vocate t he co nclusions of the r eally d anger-

3. Adam Smith, The T heory of Moral Sentiments (1759), with a n ew introductionby E . G. West (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty C lassics, 1976).

4. The best introduction to the history o f this s ubject i s S idney Fine, Laissez Faireand the General-Welfare St ate: A Study of Conict in American Thought, 1865 – 1901(Ann Arbor: University o f Michigan Press, 1956).

xiv


15/307

Preface

ous brand of Darwinism — the so cial Darwinism of the p lanning elite 5 — in the n ame o f Christianity.

The hue and cry against m y explicitly revelational Christian eco-nomics h as b een raised in the unread little journals o f the Christianacademic community. 6 What has offended t hem most is the heavy reli-ance I place o n Old Testament law. On this po int, they ar e i n agree-ment with the an tinomian pietists: all such laws are n o longer b inding. 7

Why this hostility to Old Testament law, or even New Testament“instructions”? Because Old Testament l aw categorically rejects theuse o f taxes t o promote st atist social welfare p rograms. It categorically

rejects t he idea of state power in coercive wealth-redistribution pro-grams. Samuel warned the people against r aising up a king, for t heking would take 1 0% of their i ncome ( I Sam. 8:15, 17). He p romisedthat t he state would, in short, extract t he equivalent o f G od’s t ithefrom the hapless ci tizenry. Today, most modern industrial civil gov-ernments ext ract four to ve t imes G od’s t ithe. The t ax policies of themodern welfare state are t herefore immoral. More t han this: they ar edemonic.

“Proof texting, proof texting!” cr y t he c hurch-attending Darwinistsof the college classroom. (“Proof texting” apparently means ci ting abiblical passage w hich undercuts their position.) These m en think thatJohn Maynard Keynes’ General Theory (which, in fact, they h ave neverread, since practically no one ever h as, so convoluted are its l anguageand arguments) is the es sence of permanent truth, on a p ar with New-

5. Gary N orth, Sovereignty a nd Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 20 12), Appendix A. 6. See, for exam ple, the es say by Thomas E. Van Dahm, professor of economics a tCarthage C ollege (which I had never bef ore h eard of), “The C hristian Far R ight andthe E conomic R ole o f the S tate,” Christian Scholars Review , XII ( 1983), pp. 17 – 36. Hepresen ted another d iatribe, this t ime a gainst the b iblical case f or t he g old standard, toThe J ournal of the A merican Scientic Affiliation , XXXVII (March 1984): “The C hristi-an Far R ight and Economic P olicy Issues.” T his j ournal originally d evoted its s pace toessays cri tical of the si x-day creati on position, but then it branched out, publishing art-icles t hat deny the legitimacy of applying Old Testament biblical standards i n manyother aca demic areas besides geol ogy an d biology.

7. Van Dahm wrote: “This ar ticle d id not deal with the b asic i ssue o f whether O ld

Testament laws and even New Testament ‘instructions’ are b inding on Christians — and others — in contemporary society. A recent treatment o f t his issue, offering adenite ‘no’ answer I f ound persuasive is W alter J . Chantry’s God’s R ighteous K ing-dom . . . .” p . 35, footnote 4 4. Here w e have it: the defenders o f power rel igion (statistplanning) j oin hands w ith the defenders of escapi st r eligion (antinomian pietism) i ntheir op position to dominion religion (biblical law).

xv


16/307


ton’s Principia (which they al so have n ever read). On the o ther han d,they r egard the O ld Testament as “the W ord of God (emeritus).”

Perhaps t he most notable example of this s ort of thinking is t he“Keynesian-Christian” econ omist, Professor ( emeritus) Douglas V ick-ers. He ad opted Keynes’ economic t heories i n the n ame of Jesus, buthe d id not adopt Keynes’ economy o f language. He d id his best to re-fute m y ap proach to economics with arguments such as this one: “ . . .it is t he eco nomist’s t ask so to understand the d eeper d eterminants o feconomic conjectures an d affairs t hat his p olicy prescriptions can beintelligently and properly shaped toward their proper ordering, or,where i t is co nsidered necessary, their co rrection and resolution. Thisshould be d one in such a way as to accord with the dem ands of boththose deeper caus al complexes n ow perceived in the light of G od’sword and purpose, and the r equire m ents a nd basic d esiderata o f eco-nomic thought and administration.” 8This i s w hat he substituted for“Thus s aith the Lord!” H is b ook did not go into a second printing. Ican u nderstand why not.

These scholars r egard the Old Testament as a k ind of di scardedrst draft. Now that God has w isely seen t to revise it (that is, nowthat He h as co mpletely rep laced it), they a rgue, it is w rong t o appeal toit as the basis for the construction of a Christian social order. 9 ButChristian Reconstructionists co ntinue to appeal to all Old Testamentlaws t hat have n ot been explicitly revised by t he New Testament. So,the classroom scholars ar e outraged; they are incensed; they threatento hold their breath until they turn blue if R econstructionists keepwriting books l ike this on e. They h ave s ounded the al arm. But nobodypays m uch attention to them. This enr ages t hem even more. Their

temper t antrums probably will get eve n worse. It i s best t o ignorethem. They h ave bet on the wrong h orse — the w elfare st ate — and theyresent anyone w ho tries t o embarrass, let alone sh oot, this agi ng horse.

C. The End of an EraThe res of the Enlightenment a re beginning to burn low. The

civilization of the E nlightenment is l osing condence in its o wn prin-ciples. Perhaps even more i mportant, it is b eginning t o lose f aith in the

future . The A merican historian-sociologist Robert Nisbet put it well:

8. Douglas V ickers, Economics and Man: Prelude to a Christian Critique (Nutley,New Jersey: Craig P ress, 1976), p. 90.

9. See, for example, Vickers’ remarks t o this effect: ibid ., pp. 47 – 48.

xvi


17/307

Preface

It was be lief in the sacr ed and the m ythological that in the b egin-ning of Western history m ade p ossible b elief in and assimilation ofideas o f time, history, development, and either p rogress o r r egress.Only o n the b asis of condence i n the exi stence o f divine p ower wascondence possible with respect to design or p attern in the worldand in the h istory o f the w orld. . . .

But it is abs ent now, whether e ver t o be re covered, we can notknow. And with the abs ence of the s ense of sacredness of knowledgethere i s no w to be seen in more an d more ar eas absence o f real re-spect for or condence i n knowledge — that is, the k ind of knowledgethat proceeds from reason and its intrinsic d isciplines. From the E n-

lightenment on, an increasing n umber of people cam e t o believe t hatreason and its works could maintain a m omentum and could pre-serve t heir s tatus i n society w ith no inuence sa ve w hich they t hem-selves g enerated. But the present age of the revolt against reason, ofcrusading irrationalism, of the almost e xponential development anddiffusion of the occult, and the constant s pread of narcicissm andsolipsism make evident enough how fallible w ere an d are t he s ecularfoundations of m odern thought. It i s inconceivable that f aith ineither progress as a historical real ity or i n progress as a possibilitycan exist for l ong, to the degree that either co ncept does ex ist at thepresent moment, amid such alien and hostile i ntellectual forces. 10

The leaders o f this s taggering humanist civilization have now ad-opted the strategy of every dying civilization which has ev er l ost t hecondence o f its citizens: they resort to the ex ercise o f raw power. Thiswas the s trategy o f the R oman Empire, and it failed. 11 This substitutionof power f or ethics is t he essence of the satanic delusion. It i s t he es-sence of the p ower rel igion. It also is t he e ssence of failure.

What will replace this p hase of humanist c ivilization? S ome ver-sion of the soci ety which Solzhenitsyn called the G ulag Archipelago?As a f orm of judgment, this is possible. God used Assyria an d Babylonas r ods o f iron to bring Israel to repentance. Or w ill it be the steadygrinding d own of freedom by t he W est’s massive b ureaucracies? Thiswas Max W eber’s vision of the f uture o f the W est, and it is not a p rettypicture .12 It has al so come progressively true ever s ince he wrote his

10. Robert N isbet, History of the Idea of Progress (New York: Basic B ooks, 1980), p.355.

11. Charles N orris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical C ulture: A Study ofThought and Action from Augustus to Augustine (New York: Oxford University P ress,[1944] 1957). (http://bit.ly/cn ccacc). Reprinted by L iberty F und.

12. Gary North, “Max Weber: Rationalism, Irrationalism, and the BureaucraticCage,” i n North (ed.), Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Per-

xvii


18/307


warnings f rom 1905 to 1920. Or w ill it be a n ew society b ased on a r eli-gious r evival? N isbet saw this as a r eal possibility: “Much more p rob-

able, I believe, is t he a ppearance of yet another f ull-blown ‘awakening,’even a m ajor r eligious reformation. For some t ime n ow we h ave beenwitnessing what might pr operly be called the beginnings o f such atransformation, beginnings which range from popular t o scholarly,from eruptions o f fundamentalism, pentecostalism — and, even withinthe Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant establishments, millennial-ism — all the w ay t o what has to be regarded as a t rue effl orescence o fformal theology.” 13

The time has com e for a program of C hristian reconstruction.Something new must replace hu manism, from the bot tom up, in everysphere of hu man existence. The dominion religion must replace thepower r eligion. Humanism’s w orld is d isintegrating, both intellectuallyand institutionally, and it w ill drag the compromised Christian aca-demic world into the abyss w ith it. That is w here they both belong.Weep not for their passing. And if you happen to spot some as pect ofhumanism which is begi nning to wobble, take an appropriate act ion.Push it.

D. Liberation from the S tateLiberation theologians i n the 1970s an d 1980s kep t appealing to

the B ook of Exodus as their ver y speci al book. Michael Walzer’s s tudyof Exodus cal led this ass ertion into question. Walzer’s earl ier st udies o fthe P uritan revolution established him as an authority i n the eld. Hisstudy o f Exodus ar gues t hat this s tory h as aff ected politics i n the W est,especially radical politics, for m any centuries. But i t i s a story whichdoes not t the m odel used by l iberation theologians, whose en emy isthe free market s ocial order. As h e said, the Israelites “ were not t he

victims of the market but pharaohs. Hence, Samuel’s warning to the elders o f Israel againstchoosing a king. . . . Egyptian bondage w as the b ondage o f a p eople t othe a rbitrary p ower o f the st ate.” 14

The m isuse o f the ex odus story b y l iberation theologians is anotherexample of the misuse of the Bible generally to promote anti-biblical

social, political, and economic views. This i s w hy practical comment-

spective (Vallecito, California: Ross House, 1976).13. Nisbet, op. cit . , p. 357.14. Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York: Basic B ooks, 1985), p. 30.

xviii


19/307

Preface

aries d ealing with specic d isciplines ar e n eeded. The B ible st ill com-mands g reat au thority, and this p ublic perception of the Bible’s au -

thority i s i ncreasing, especially re garding social issues. This w illingnesson the p art of social critics t o appeal to the Bible is i tself a major b reakwith the recen t past, yet a ret urn to a m ore d istant past.

Prior to 1660, it was common for conservatives and radicals to ap-peal to the B ible t o defend their vi sions o f a ri ghteous s ocial order. Al-most overnight, in 1660, this ap peal to the B ible en ded. Defenders o fthe f ree m arket appealed to logic o r experience rat her t han “debatable”religious o r m oral views. 15 Socialists an d reformers al so dropped their

appeal to the Bible after 1660, again, almost o vernight. Shafarevichwrote: “The d evelopment of socialist ideas d id not cease, of course. Onthe contrary, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, socialistwritings l iterally ooded Europe. But these ideas w ere produced bydifferent ci rcumstances and by men of a different m entality. Thepreacher and the w andering A postle gave w ay t o a p ublicist and philo-sopher. Religious exa ltation and referen ces t o revelation were r eplacedby ap peals t o reason. The l iterat ure o f socialism acquired a p urely sec -ular an d rationalistic character; new means o f poularization were de-

vised: works on this te w voyages to unknown lands, in 16

The exo dus was a t ime of liberation — liberat ion from the statistsocial order t hat had been created by ad herents o f the p ower r eligion.The spiritual heirs o f those statist Egyptians ar e now coming beforethe sp iritual heirs of the I sraelites w ith a n ew claim: the need to be l ib-erated from the institutions o f the once-Christian West. They offerchains in the n ame o f liberation, bureaucracy i n the n ame o f individual

freedom, and central economic planning in the name of prosperity.They offer men a r eturn to power religion in the n ame of the God ofthe B ible. What this commentary offers, in contrast, is a cal l for men toreturn to dominion religion — the religion of biblical orthodoxy.

E. How to R ead this BookThere i s a n old line t hat asks: “How do you eat an elephant?” The

answer: “One b ite at a t ime.” That rule sh ould be ap plied to this bo ok.

15. William Letwin, The O rigins of Scientic Economics (Cambridge, Massachu-setts: MIT Press, 1963), ch. 6.

16. Igor Sh afarevi ch, The Soc ialist Phenomenon (New York: Harper & Row, [1975]1980), pp. 80 – 81.

xix


20/307


This i s a d etailed book. Some o f its ch apters ar e l engthy, but theyare b roken down into convenient sections an d subsections. The i dea i s

not to memorize each chapter. The idea i s t o get a general sense ofwhat hap pens i n the eld of economics w hen rival religions cl ash: power religion vs . dominion religion . If you want to follow up on any

particular i dea, footnotes are p rovided at no extra charge at the bot-tom of the p age, so that you will not spend extra t ime ipping to theback of the book. Footnotes ar e there to help you, not to intimidate

you.Read the co nclusions of each chapter bef ore yo u read the ch apter.

Then skim over i t rapidly. If it seems worth your t ime, reread it morecaref ully. You can read this b ook a ch apter at a t ime, since i t is a co m-mentary. It deals w ith one o r two verses at a t ime. The b ook developsits ch ain of arguments on ly i nsofar as the ve rses s how a p rogression. Ithink they d o reveal a p rogression, but not so rigorous a p rogression as

you would nd in a logic text(Keynes’ General Theory excluded, since it s ubstitutes c onfusion forprogression). 17

Subsequent sections of this commentary o n Exodus will cover t heTen Commandments and the b iblical case laws t hat apply the p rin-ciples of the T en Commandments to society. 18

17. One o f the r easons w hy I am sure t hat his General Theory i s a c lassic e xampleof deliberate “d isinformation” i s t hat most of Keynes’ other bo oks are m odels o f logicand clarity. But the General Theory i s n early u nreadable. He w as w riting n onsense, andthe book reects i t. For a good introduction to this cl assic example of jargon-llednonsense, see Henry Hazlitt’s b ook, The F ailure of the “New Economics” (Princeton ,New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1959). (http://bit.ly/HazlittKeynes) Hazlitt n ever w ent t ocollege, so he w as no t fooled by Keynes, something t wo generations of Ph.D.-holding

power rel igionists can not say f or t hemselves. For m ore t echnical scholarly c ritiques,written quite ear ly i n response t o Keynes by eco nomists w ho were n ot po wer r eligion-ists, see Hazlitt (ed .), The Critics of K eynesian Economics (Van Nostrand, 1960).(http://bit.ly/HazlittCKE)

18. See also James B . Jordan, The Law of the C ovenant: An Exposition of Exodus21 – 23 ( Tyler, Texas: Institute for C hristian Economics, 1984). (http://bit.ly/jjlaw)

xx


21/307

INTRODUCTIONThis bo ok is abo ut a cl ash between two religions, with believers in

a t hird religion standing on the si delines, waiting to see t he o utcome o fthe cl ash. The B ible p resents the s tory o f Moses and Pharaoh as the ar-chetypal clash in history between these two religions: dominion reli-

gion vs. power r eligion. This co nfrontation has b een going on eversince t he gar den of Eden.The rst of t he conicting religions w as p ower r eligion, the reli-

gion of Pharaoh, who was S atan’s r epresentative in the battle. Thesecond was dominion religion, the r eligion of Moses, God’s r epresent-ative in this m ighty battle. The testimony of the Book of Exodus i sclear: rst , those who seek power apart from God are doomed to com-

prehensive, total de . Second, those w ho seek G od are cal led to exer-cise d ominion, and they shall be victorious o ver t he enemies of God.But t his vi ctory t akes t ime. It i s n ot achieved instantaneously. It i s t heproduct of l ong years o f self-discipline under God’s authority . Thepower r eligionists d o not want to wait. Like A dam in his r ebellion, sin-ners ch oose t o dress themselves i n the ro bes o f authority, so that theycan render instant autonomous j udgment. 1They do n ot want to sub-ordinate t hemselves to God.

The th ird form of religion is w hat I call esca pist religion. This r eli-gion proclaims the inevitability of ext ernal d efeat f or the corporate

people of God. The defenders of temporal corporate impotence f orcovenant-keepers thereby become the allies of temporal pow er-seekers. This r eligion was d ominant in the lives o f the Hebrew slaves.They b ecame eas y p rey f or the p ower religionists. But when the p owermanifested by dominion religion overcame the pagan power r eligion,they g rudgingly f ollowed the vi ctors.

1. Gary North, “Witnesses and Judges,” Biblical Economics Today , VI ( Aug./Sept.1983), pp. 3 – 4. Reprinted in Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An EconomicCommentary on Genesis (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five P ress, 2012), Appendix E .

1


22/307


Before discussing the specics of t he clash between Moses an dPharaoh, it i s n ecess ary to survey briey the rst p rinciples o f these

three religious o utlooks.

A. Power ReligionThis religious viewpoint affirms that the m ost important goal for a

man, group, or species i s the capture and maintenance of po wer.Power i s s een as t he ch ief attribute o f God, or i f the rel igion is o fficiallyatheistic, then the chief attribute of man. This p erspective is a sat anicperversion of God’s command to man to exercise d ominion over all

the creation (Gen. 1:26 – 28) .2 Power religion is the attempt to exercisedominion apart f rom covenantal s ubordination to the true CreatorGod .

What distinguishes bi blical dominion religion from satanic p owerreligion is ethics . Is t he p erson who seeks p ower doing so for the gl oryof God, and for h imself secondarily, and only to the extent that he isGod’s l awful and covenantally faithful representative? I f so, he will actin terms o f God’s et hical standards an d in terms of a p rofession of faith

in the God of the Bible. The church has r ecognized this t wo-fold re-quirement h istorically, and has est ablished a dual requirement f ormembership: profession of faith and a g odly l ife.

In contrast, power r eligion is a rel igion of autonomy. It affirms t hat“My power and the m ight of mine h and hath gotten me t his wealth”(Deut. 8:17). 3It seeks p ower or w ealth in order t o make credible this

very claim.Wealth and power are as pects of both religions. Wealth and power

are covenantal manifestations o f the success o f rival religious v iews.This i s w hy G od warns H is peop le n ot to believe t hat their a utonom-ous actions gained them their blessings: “But thou shalt remember theLORD thy G od: for i t is h e t hat giveth thee p ower to get wealth, thathe m ay establish his cov enant which he sw are u nto thy f athers, as i t isthis d ay” (Deut. 8:18) .4 God’s opponents also want visible con rmationof the val idity o f their covenant with a r ival god, but God warns themthat “ the wealth of the sinner i s l aid up for t he just” ( Prov. 13:22b). 5

2. Ibid. , chaps. 3, 4.3. Gary N orth, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-

nomy , 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012) ch. 21.4. Ibid. , ch. 22.5. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs ,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 41.

2


23/307

Introduction

The entry of the Hebrews into Canaan was supposed t o remind themof this f act: the C anaanites h ad built homes an d vineyard s t o no avail;

their enemies, the H ebrews, inherited them (Josh. 24:13). Those w ho believe i n power religion have r efused to see t hat long-term wealth in any soc iety i s t he p roduct of ethical conformity t o bib-lical law. They have sought t he blessings of God’s co venant w hiledenying the validity and eternally binding ethical standards of thatcovenant. In short, they have confused the fruits o f Christianity withthe r oots. They have at tempted to chop away t he r oots yet somehowpreserve the fruits.

B. Escap ist ReligionThis i s t he sec ond great tradition of anti-Christian religion. Seeing

that the exerc ise o f autonomous po wer is a s nare an d a d elusion, theproponents of es capist re ligion have sought t o insulate themselvesfrom the g eneral culture ― a cu lture m aintained by power. They h aveed the responsibilities of w orldwide dominion, or even regionaldominion, in the vain hope t hat God will release them from the re-

quirements of the gen eral dominion covenant. The Christian version of the escap ist religion is s ometimes cal led“pietism,” b ut i ts t heological roots can be traced back to the ancientheresy o f mysticism . Rather than proclaiming the r equirement of eth-ical union with Jesus Christ, the perfect m an, the mystic calls formetaphysical union with a m onistic, unied god. In the earl y ch urch,there w ere m any t ypes of mysticism, but the m ost feared rival religionwhich continually inltrated the ch urch was gn osticism. It proclaimedmany d octrines, but the ess ence o f gnostic f aith was radical personalindividualism ― personal escape from matter ― leading to radical im-

personal collectivism : the abolition of human personality through ab-sorption into the Godhead. It pr oclaimed retreat from the materialrealm and escape to a higher, purer, spiritual realm through various“Eastern” t echniques of s elf-manipulation: asceticism, higher cons-ciousness, and initiation into secret mysteries.

Gnosticism survives as a way of thinking and acting (or f ailing toact) even today, as Rushdoony p ointed out. The ess ence o f this faith isits a ntinomianism. Gnostics despise biblical law. But t heir h atred ofthe l aw of God leads t hem to accept the l aws of the s tate. Rushdoonyput it this w ay.

3


24/307


Gnosticism survives t oday i n theosophy, Jewish Kabbalism, oc-cultism, existentialism, masonry, and like f aiths. Because G nosticismmade t he i ndividual, rather t han a d ualism of mind and matter, ulti-mate, it w as e ssentially hostile to morality and law, requiring oftenthat believers live b eyond good and evil by d enying the v alidity o f allmoral law. Gnostic gr oups which did not openly avow such doctrinesaffirmed an ethic o f love as agai nst law, negating l aw and morality i nterms of the ‘higher’ law and morality o f love. Their con tempt of lawand time manifested itself also by a willingness t o comply with thestate. . . . The usual attitude was o ne of contempt f or t he materialworld, which included the s tate, and an outward compliance an d in-difference. A philosophy calling for an escap e f rom time i s n ot likelyto involve i tself in the b attles o f time .6

Their d enial of the co ntinuing validity o f biblical law has l ed themto deny the relevance of earthly time. By denying biblical law, theythereby forsake the chief tool of dominion ― our means of using t imeto subdue t he ear th to the gl ory o f God. The b asic i dea t hat undergirdsesca pist r eligion is the denial of the d ominion covenant . The escapistreligionists b elieve that t he techniques of self-discipline, whether un-der God or apar t from God (e.g., Buddhism), offer power over onlylimited areas o f life. They at tempt to conserve their p ower by focusingtheir et hical concern on progress ively (regressively) n arrower areas o fpersonal responsibility. The “true believer” t hinks t hat h e will gainmore co ntrol over himself and his narr ow environment by r estrictinghis s elf-imposed zones o f responsibility. His co ncern is self , from startto nish; his at tempt t o escape from responsibilities b eyond the nar-row connes o f self is a p rogram for gai ning power o ver sel f. It is a r eli-gion of works, of self-salvation . A man rst “humbles” himself by ad-mitting that there are l imits t o his p ower. He t hen insists t hat there aremajor l imits t o the range of his r esponsibilities. He does t his i n orderto elevate h imself to a position of hypothetically God-like sp irituality: abeing un concerned w ith dominion or power.

Escapist religion proclaims institutional p eace ― “peace at anyprice.” E zekiel responded to such an assertion in the n ame o f God: “. . .they h ave s educed my p eople, saying, “Peace; and there w as no peace”(Ezek. 13:10a). Patrick H enry’s inammatory words in March of 1775

― “Peace, peace ― but there is n o peace”7

― were taken from Ezekieland also Jeremiah: “They h ave h ealed also the h urt of the d aughter of

6. R. J. Rushdoony, The O ne and the Many: Studies in the P hilosophy of Order andUltimacy (V allecito, California: Ross H ouse, [1971] 20 07), pp. 136 – 37. (http://b it.ly/rjroam)

4


25/307

Introduction

my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is n o peace” ( Jer.6:14). This r ival religion proclaims p eace b ecause i t has l ittle i nterest in

the systematic efforts t hat ar e always req uired to purify institutions as a prelude to social reconstruction.In short, escap ist r eligion calls f or ight f rom the world, and be-

cause m an is i n this w orld, it calls f or a ight from humanity .8 Its a d- vocates may hide their

world supposedly so corrupt t hat nothing can be done t o overcomewidespread cultural evi l. They invoke their moral r esponsibility of“sharing Christ to the w orld” or “ building up the C hurch” r ather t han

also rebuilding civilization. Their ultimate concern is personal ight

from responsibility . This i s a rev olt against maturity .9

C. Dominion ReligionThis i s t he o rthodox faith. It proclaims t he so vereignty o f God, the

reliability of the historic cree ds, the necessi ty of standing up for p rin-ciple, and the requirement that faithful men take risks f or G od’s s ake.It proclaims t his t estimony: “Through the exercise of saving faith, and

through ethical conformity to biblical law, regenerate men will in-creas e the extent of their d ominion over t he eart h.” I t is a rel igion ofconquest ― conquest by gr ace t hrough ethical action . The goal is et hicalconformity to God, but the res ults of this con formity involve d omin-ion ― over lawful subordinates, over ethical r ebels, and over nature.This i s the m essage of Deuteronomy 28 :1 – 14. It is al so the message ofJesus Christ, who walked perfectly i n God’s statutes an d in God’s Spir-it, and who then was granted total power over all creation by t he F ath-er ( Matt. 28:18). 10 I am not speaking here o f Christ’s d ivine nature asthe Second Person of the Trinity, who always had total power; I am

7. Norine Dickson Campbell, Patrick Henry: Patriot and Statesman (Old Green-wich, Connecticut: Devin-Adair, 1969), p. 130. The sub stance o f Henry’s famous St .John’s Church speech, which m obilized t he Virginia A ssembly, was reconstructed b y alater historian, William Wirt, but i s generally considered representative. This wasHenry’s famous “Give m e liberty or gi ve m e d eath” speech, one o f the m ost famousspeeches i n United States h istory.

8. R. J. Rushdoony, The Fl ight from Humanity: A Study of the Effect of Neoplaton-ism on Christianity (Vallecito, California: Chalcedon, [1973] 20 08). (http://bit.ly/rj rffh)

9. R. J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity: A Biblical Psychology of Man (Valle-cito, California: Ross H ouse, [1971] 1987). (http://bit.ly/rj rram)

10. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew ,2nd ed (Dallas, Georgia: Point Fi ve Press [ 2000] 20 12), ch. 48; Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.,The G reatness of the G reat Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World(Tyler, Texas: Institute for C hristian Economics, 1990). (http://bit.ly/GentryGGC)

5


26/307


speaking of H is nature as p erfect m an, who earned total powerthrough ethical conformity t o God and through His deat h and resur-

rect ion. Dominion religion recognizes t he relationship between righteous-ness and authority , between covenantal faithfulness and covenantalblessings. Those w ho are f aithful in little t hings are g iven more. This i sthe meaning of Christ’s p arable of the talents ( Matt. 25:14 – 30) .11 Theprocess o f dominion is a function of progressive sanctication , bothpersonal-individual an d also institutional ( family, ch urch, b usiness,school, civil government, etc.: Deut. 28:1 – 14).

D. Moses vs. PharaohPick u p any com mentary on the Book o f Exodus. Read its account

of the rst 15 chapters. You will nd a lot of discussion of H ebrew vocabulary, Moses’ theology, you will not nd a detai

analysis o f t he theology and culture of t he society that p laced theHebrews under bondage. You will not nd a d iscussion of the r elation-

ship between Egypt’s t heology and Egypt’s econ omic and political in-stitutions.These ar e r emarkable o missions. It is not that commentators have

no knowledge about Egypt. Rather, it is t hat they have failed to under-stand the theological an d political i ssues that w ere inherent i n thisconfrontation. Sufficient information is ava ilable t o construct at leastan outline o f Egyptian society. While E gyptology is a h ighly sp ecializedand linguistically ri gorous eld of study, there are n umerous s cholarlysummaries of the rel igion and social institutions of Egypt. I am no spe-cialist in this eld, and I have no immediate a ccess t o a l arge universitylibrary of bo oks and manuscripts r elating to Egypt, but t he WorldWide W eb, interlibrary l oans, and normal intelligence are s ufficient to“open the closed book” of at l east t he bare essentials of Egyptianthought and culture. The bare essentials ar e sufficient to enable any-one t o draw some s imple con clusions concerning the d ifferences be-tween the g ods of Egypt and the G od of the I sraelites. Furthermore, itis n ot that difficult to make other com parisons: socialism vs. market

freedom, bureaucracy vs. decentralized decision-making, the omnis-cient s tate vs. limited civil government, static society vs. future-ori-ented society, stagnation vs. growth. Yet the co mmentators, as f ar as I

11. North, ibid ., ch. 47.

6


27/307

Introduction

have been able to determine, have systematically refused to discusssuch issues. They ha ve been blind to t he a ll-encompassing n ature of the

confrontation . To a g reat extent, this is because t hey h ave been blind tothe implications o f biblical religion for b oth social theory and institu-tions.

E. ChronologyThere ar e o ther topics that need to be d iscussed. One o f the m ost

important is the p roblem of chronology. You can nd Bible com ment-aries t hat attempt t o deal with this i ssue, but I have yet t o nd onewhich openly faces t he o verwhelming difficulties posed by t he al mostuniversal acceptance o f the co nventional chronology of Egypt.

What these co mmentaries never a dmit is t hat Egyptians di d notbelieve in chronology. The historical records t hat modern (and evenclassical Greek) historians have u sed to reconstruct Egypt’s chronologyare woefully decient. The Egyptians si mply did not t ake seriouslytheir o wn history. They d id not believe i n the i mportance of linear time .The records t hey left beh ind reect this l ack of concern. A century

ago, historian George R awlinson began his chap ter on Egyptian chro-nology with this s tatement: “It is a p atent fact, and one that is b egin-ning to obtain general recognition, that the chronological element inearly E gyptian history i s i n a state o f almost hopeless o bscurity.” 12 Hewas i ncorrect, however, concerning the coming “general recognition”of the p roblem. Only t he m ost scholarly an d detailed monographs onEgypt bother to warn readers about the p roblem.

There are s everal kinds of chronological documents, including theactual monuments. “The ch ronological value o f these vari ous s ourcesof information is, however, in every case slight. The great d efect o fthese m onuments i s t heir i ncompleteness. The Egyptians h ad no era.They dr ew out no chronological schemes. They ca red for n othing b utto know how long eac h incarnate god , human or bovi ne, had condes-cended to tarry o n the eart h. They reco rded caref ully t he l ength of thelife o f each Apis b ull, and the l ength of the rei gn of each king; but theyneglected to take note o f the i ntervals bet ween one A pis bu ll and an-other, and omitted to distinguish the s ole r eign of a m onarch from his

joint reign with ot 13

12. George R awlinson, A History of Egypt , 2 vols. (New York: Alden, 1886), II, p. 1.13 . Ibid ., II, p. 2.

7


28/307


Commentary read ers are al so not informed of this crucial fact: vir-tually all ch ronologies of t he ancient N ear East an d pre-classical

Greece ar e co nstructed on the as sumption that the co nventional chro-nology of E gypt i s the legitimate standard. Modern scholars believethat the chronology o f Egypt should be i mposed on the chronologies ofall other ci vilizations o f the ancient N ear E ast , including the biblicalchronology of the Hebrews. Thus, when the Bible says exp licitly thatthe exodus t ook place 480 years bef ore Solomon began to constructthe t emple ( I Kings 6 :1), 14 historians i nterpret this i nformation withinthe framework of the hypothetical Egyptian chronological scheme.When they e ven admit that the p haraohs of the supposed d ynastic e raof the fteenth century before Christ were extremely powerful kings― men l ike T hutmose I II ― whose m ummies still exist, 15 they a re t emp-ted to ignore these difficulties, or even to ignore the c lear t eaching ofthe B ible. Many o f them date t he exo dus c enturies l ater. They al low ahypothetical ch ronology of E gypt t o dictate their interpretation ofScripture. This i s n ot the w ay that Christian scholarship is s upposed tobe con ducted.

In the early 1950s, Immanuel Velikovsky, a genius ( or f raud, hiscritics say) b egan to publish a series of s tudies that reco nstructed(among other t hings) t he chronologies o f t he ancient w orld. Veli-kovsky began his r econstruction with a discussion of an ancient Egyp-tian document, long overlooked by historians, which contains re fer-ences t o a series o f catastrophes t hat look remarkably similar t o thosedescribed in early ch apters of the B ook of Exodus.

Then, in 1971, an amateur h istorian named Donovan Courvillepublished a book that was bas ed in part on Velikovsky’s w ork, but

which went far b eyond it. Courville’s bo ok has be en systematically i g-nored by Egyptologists and Christian scholars alike. I know of one casewhere a sem inary p rofessor absolutely r efused to discuss the b ook withhis students, either p ublicly o r privately, when asked about it. Why t hehostility? Because Courville’s b ook, like Velikovsky’s b ooks, offers afrontal assault on the reigning presuppositions o f historians r egardingthe rel iability o f Egyptian reco rds an d the rel iability o f the c onclusionsbased on them. In Courville’s cas e, the aff ront is w orse: he w as s aying

14. Gary North, Disobedience and Defeat: An Economic Commentary on the His-torical Books (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press , 2012), ch. 17.

15. Photographs of the mummies of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II appear inDonovan Courville, The Exodus Problem and Its Ramications , 2 vols. (Loma Linda,California: Challenge Books, 1971), I, p. 37.

8


29/307

Introduction

that C hristian specialists i n the eld of ancient history have acceptedthe t estimony o f humanist (Darwinian) scholars a nd humanist (Egyp-

tian) records in preferen ce t o the cl ear t estimony o f the B ible. Conser- vative scholars resent their s cholarship in order t o seek recognition from (or avoid confront-ation with) t he conventional, dominant h umanist ac ademic com-munity. Thus, I have seen no commentary on the Book of Exoduswhich refers to (let alone p romotes) either V elikovsky or Courville, nordo the st andard Christian encyclopedias.

This co mmentary is t he ex ception. For t his r eason, it represents a

break with prevailing scholarship concerning the circumstances o f theexodus. It may be i ncorrect, but it is i ncorrect in new ways ― ways thatdo not begin with the p resupposition that conventional humanist his-torical scholarship is b inding, or t he presupposition that t he biblicalaccount of history is i nferior t o the Egyptian record. My position isclear: it is b etter t o make mistakes w ithin an intellectual frameworkthat i s go verned by th e presu pposition of the B ible’s i nfallibility than itis to make mistakes t hat are go verned by t he p resupposition that Dar-winian scholarship is t he et ernal standard of truth.

F. ConfrontationThe rst 15 chapters of the Book o f Exodus deal with the con front-

ation between G od and Egypt. This confrontation was comprehensive.It involved a d ispute b etween two radically d ifferent worldviews. It in-

volved a war between the God of Pharaoh. Every a spect of civilization was at stake. It was n ot “merely” awar over theology as s uch. It was a w ar over theology as l ife . This com-mentary b rings i nto the o pen several areas o f confrontation that previ-ously have not been discussed. These subordinate areas of confronta-tion were i nescapably linked to the m ain confrontation between Godand Pharaoh. Amazingly, the t erms of even this primary co nfrontationare s eldom discussed.

Essentially the same confrontation has con tinued from the b egin-ning, meaning from the garden of Ed en. It h as m anifested itself inmany w ays, but the es sential question never ch anges: Who is God ? Sec-ondarily, what is t he r elationship between God and His c reation ? Theanswers gi ven by t he rulers of Egypt were es sentially the sam e answerproposed to man by Satan by w ay o f the s erpent: “ye s hall be as god s”(Gen. 3:5). Because t he m odern world has come t o a s imilar theologic-

9


30/307


al conclusion ― that, in the abse nce o f any o ther god, man must be theonly reliable candidate ― the m odern world has come t o similar social

and economic con clusions. The ri se o f totalitarian bureaucraci es i n the t wentieth century c anand should be discussed in relation to the rise of a humanistic vari-ation of E gyptian theology. It i s not t hat h umanists have adoptedEgypt’s polytheism (though modern relativism sounds suspiciously l ikepolytheism), but rather that they h ave, as Darwinians (or worse), adop-ted Egypt’s theology of the continui , with the state, as themost p owerful representative of “collective mankind,” ser ving as t heprimary ag ency o f social organization. The r emaining chapters i n theBook of Exodus desc ribe t he co ntinuation of this s ame co nfrontationwith Egypt. In this cas e, however, the departing slaves o f the now-smashed Egyptian civilization replaced their f ormer r ulers as t he de-fenders o f the old order. God dealt w ith them in very similar w ays,though with greater m ercy, as a re sult of Moses’ prayer on behalf ofthe integrity of God’s n ame and God’s p romises ( Ex. 32:9 – 14; Num.14:13 – 16).

Therefore, it should not surprise u s t hat there are s till many C hris-tian defenders o f that same old statist order i n our cu rrent wildernesswanderings, especially i n the b arren wastes of the co llege an d seminaryclassroom. These p eople ar e slaves who have n ot yet recognized thefreedom that God has offered to His people t hrough His Bible-revealedlaw-order. When covenant-keeping people si t too long as householdslaves b eneath the table of the Satanists, hoping for a few crumbs ( oracademic d egrees ) to fall from their t able, they nd it difficult to ima-gine that it is the enem ies of God who are supposed to sit beneath the

table of t he righteous , begging for s craps u ntil the day of judgmentprovides t hem with no further opportunities for repentance. Let us notforget that it was a C anaanite w oman, not a r uler of Israel, who rst ar-ticulated this p rinciple of biblical government.

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came ou t of the s ame coa sts, andcried u nto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of Dav-id; my d aughter is grievously vex ed with a d evil. But he an swered hernot a w ord. And his di sciples c ame an d besought him, saying, Send

her a way; for s he cr ieth after us. But he an swered and said, I am notsent but unto the l ost sheep of the h ouse o f Israel. Then came sheand worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he an swered andsaid, It is n ot meet t o take the c hildren’s b read , and to cast it to dogs.And she sai d, Truth, Lord: yet the d ogs eat of the cr umbs w hich fall

10


31/307

Introduction

from their masters’ table. Then Jesus a nswered and said unto her, Owoman, great is t hy f aith: be i t unto thee even as t hou wilt. And herdaughter was made w hole f rom that very h our (Matt. 15:22 –

28).16

Israel’s leaders w ere sitting at t he table of t he Romans, begging.Christian leaders si t at t he table of t he humanists, begging. 17 Somethings have n ot changed.

ConclusionThree and a hal f millennia ago, Moses was commanded by G od to

confront the P haraoh. The r esult was the exo dus, the ar chetype h istor-ical event in the life o f Israel, the event to which the p rophets ap pealedagain and again in their co nfrontations w ith the reb ellious H ebrews oftheir day. This s ame co nfrontation goes on in every er a, and the co n-temporary Christian critic must b e equally willing to confront t hepharaoh s o f his d ay with the same theological distinctions: sovereignGod or s overeign man, God’s r evelation or m an’s r evelation, biblicalsociety o r the b ureaucratic S tate, God’s l aw or ch aos. “Choose t his da ywhom ye w ill serve.” Serve G od or perish.

16. North, Priorities and Dominion , ch. 34.17. The m ost egregi ous f orm of this i nstitutional begging i n my d ay i s t he requ est

by Christian seminaries t o be accredited by the God-hating humanist l iberal theolo-gians w ho control the sem inary accre ditation system.

11


32/307

1

1

POPULATION GROWTH:TOOL OF DOMINION

And all the souls that came out of t souls: for Joseph was in Egypt albrethren, and all that g eneration. And the children of Israel were

fruitful, and increased abundantly, ceeding m ighty; and the l and was lled with them (Ex. 1:5 – 7).

The theocentric principle here is dominion through biologicalmultiplication . This passage i s an extension of the d ominion covenant.“And God blessed t hem, and God said unto them, Be f ruitful, and mul-

tiply, and replenish the eart h, and subdue i t: and have d ominion overthe sh of the sea, and over t he fowl of the air, and over ever y livingthing t hat moveth upon the ear th” (Gen. 1:28). 1

The words r elating to growth are repeated in verse 7: fruitful, in-creased (teemed), m ultiplied, w axed (numerous), w ith exceedingstrength, strongly, and lled — a seven -fold representation .2 Bible-be -lieving commentators have s eldom focused much attention on these

verses, possibly because their u sual assumption, namely, that only 7 0 people o riginally d escen -ded into Egypt. How could it be t hat 70 people an d their spouses mul-tiplied to 600,000 men, plus w omen and children, by t he t ime o f theexodus ( Ex. 12:37)? A probable ex planation is t his on e: the 7 0 were n otthe only source of the original population base. Presumably, theybrought with them many household servants who had been circum-cised and who were t herefore co unted as part of the co venant popula-

1. Gary N orth, Sovereignty a nd Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis(Dallas, Georgia: Point Fi ve Press , 2012), ch. 4.

2. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus , trans. Israel Abrahams ( Jeru-salem: The M agnes P ress, Hebrew University, [1951] 1974), p. 9. He sai d that the “ sev-en expressions f or i ncrease are used in this vers e, a number i ndicative of perf ec-tio n. . . .”

12


33/307

Population Growth: Tool of Dominion (Ex. 1:5 – 7)

tion. We do not know for ce rtain how many of these circumcisedhousehold servants came, but it may h ave been in the t housands.

We s hould also bear i n mind that “70” i s a s ignicant number i nScripture, in terms of age, chronology, and also in terms of numberingpeople. In Genesis 10, 70 peoples of mankind are l isted, 14 f rom Japh-eth, 30 from Ham, and 26 from Shem. 3 At the feast of tabernacles i nthe seve nth month, beginning on the fteenth day, the p riests w ere t obegin a w eek o f sacrices. For seven days, a d escending n umber of bul-locks w ere t o be sacriced: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7, for a t otal of 70bullocks. Then, on the eighth day (the beginning of the next w eek),

one nal bullock was to be sacriced (Num. 29:12 –

36). Presumably,these w ere sacri ces f or al l the nations o f the world, plus I srael. Therewere 70 elders in Israel at the t ime o f God’s conrmation of the co ven-ant at Sinai (Ex. 24:1). God at one p oint took His Sp irit from Mosesand gave i t to the 7 0 elders ( Num. 11:16). Also, when the I sraelites d e-feated Adoni-Bezek after the d eath of Joshua, he co nfessed that he h adslain 70 kings ( Judges 1 :7), presumably a number r eferring symbolic-ally t o the w hole w orld. Seventy m en were s ent out by Jesus t o evan-gelize southern Israel (Luke 10:1, 17). 4In Christ’s d ay, there were 70members of the Sanhedrin, plus t he President. 5So the number “70”meant for t he H ebrews s omething like “a w hole p opulation,” a lthoughthis do es n ot deny t he val idity o f 70 as t he n umber of lineal heirs w hocame dow n into Egypt.

The gr owth of the H ebrew population has to be considered a r e-markable expansion. How long did it t ake? T his q uestion has al sobaffled Bible-believing commentators. When did the exod us occ ur?When did Jacob’s f amily enter E gypt? W ere the Israelites i n Egypt a

full 430 years? D onovan Courville, the S eventh Day A dventist scholar,called this ch ronology question “the ex odus p roblem.” 6

3. Frederick Louis G odet, Commentary on t he Gospel of Luke , 2 vols. (Grand Rap-ids, Michigan: Zondervan, [1887]), II, p. 17. Godet discussed the p roblem of 70 vs. 72,which occurs i n this es timation, and also in the d iffering N ew Testament references t othe 70 or 72 sent out by Jesus (Luke 1 0:1).

4. Some m anuscripts r ead 72. Godet argued that 70 is t he co rrect reading: idem .5. Alfred Edersheim, The Life an d Times of Jesus the M essiah , 2 vols. (Grand Rap-

ids, Michigan: Eerdmans, [1886]), II, p. 554. C f. “Sanhedrim,” in McClintock andStrong, Cyclopaedia of B iblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York:Harper & Bros., 1894), IX, p. 342.

6. Donovan A. Courville, The E xodus Problem and Its Ramications , 2 vols. (LomaLinda, California: Challenge Books, 1971). Courville’s o riginal insight co ncern ing theneed for a reconstruction of E gypt’s ch ronology came from Immanuel Velikovsky’sstudy, Ages in Chaos (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1952), which presents t he

13


34/307


A. The Problem of ChronologyExodus 12:40 reads as follows in the K ing James Version: “Now the

sojourning of the ch ildren of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hu n-dred and thirty years.” Fact number one : a sojourn of 430 years. TheSamaritan Pentateuch and the Sep tuagint (the G reek t ranslation of theOld Testament dating from the s econd century B.C.) both say “Egyptand Canaan,” 7 rather t han just “Egypt,” w hich indicates t he l ikely so lu-tion to the exod us problem.

We can see t he n ature o f the p roblem in Stephen’s testimony, justprior to his martyrdom. It includes this statement: “And God spoke o n

this w ise [in this w ay], That his s eed should sojourn in a strange land;and that they s hould bring them into bondage, and entreat them evilfour hundred years” (Acts 7:6). Fact number two : bondage o f 400 years .This was also the period promised by God to Abraham: “Know of asurety th at t hy see d shall be a stranger i n a land that is n ot their’s, andshall serve t hem; and they s hall afflict them four hu ndred years; Andalso that n ation, whom they shall serve, will I j udge: and afterwardshall they co me o ut with great substance” (Gen. 15:13 – 14). Fact num-

ber t hree : deliverance i n the f ourth generat ion. “But in the f ourth gen-erat ion they shall come h ither aga in: for t he i niquity o f the A morites i snot yet full” (Gen. 15:16). 8 Did God mean the fourth generation of cap-tives? If the p eriod of bondage w as 430 ye ars, how could only four gen-erations have lled up the en tire p eriod assigned to them?

Paul provided additional crucial information: “Now to Abrahamand his s eed were t he p romises m ade. . . . And this I say, that the co v-enant, that was conrmed before o f God in Christ, the l aw, which wasfour h undred and thirty years a fter, cannot d isannul, that i t s houldmake the promise o f none eff ect” ( Gal. 3:16a, 17). Fact number four : i twas 430 years f rom the co venant to the exo dus. This f urther complic-

case a gainst the traditional chronologies o f t he ancient w orld. Velikovsky identiedthe H yksos r ulers ( “shepherd kings”) of Egypt as t he i nvading A melekites. He arguedthat modern scholars have i nserted a 50 0 – 700 year p eriod into all the h istories o f theancient world (since al l are b ased on Egypt’s s upposed chronology), a p eriod whichmust be el iminated. Velikovsky w rote t hat “we s till do not know which of the t wo his-tories, Egyptian or I sraelite, must be readjusted” ( p. 338). Courville’s b ook shows t hat

it i s m odern scholarship’s vers ion of Egypt’s ch ronology which is d efective, not t hechronology of the O ld Testament. See A ppendix A: “The Reconstruction of Egypt’sChronology.”

7. Note in the New International Version (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,1978), p. 83.

8. North, Sovereignty and Dominion , ch. 23.

14


35/307


ates the p roblem: the ent ire p eriod, from Abraham to the exod us, was430 year s — a p eriod which encompassed Isaac’s l ife, Jacob’s, Joseph in

Egypt, the arrival o f t he brothers and their families, the years ofprosperity and population growth in the land of G oshen in Egypt,Moses’ birth, his d eparture at age 40, his 4 0 years i n the wilderness,and the e xodus i tself. Paul’s l anguage is u nambiguous. What, then, arewe t o make o f the o ther three ac counts?

1. The Patriarchal Era: 215 YearsThe b est place t o begin to unravel this problem is with the ch rono-

logy o f Abraham’s f amily. We ar e t old that he w as c alled out of Haranwhen he w as 75 years ol d (Gen. 12:4). Isaac w as bo rn 25 years l ater,when A braham was a hu ndred (Gen. 21:5). Jacob and Esau were bor n60 years l ater, when Isaac w as 60 years ol d (Gen. 25:26). Finally, Jacobdied at age 1 30 in Egypt (Gen. 47:9). Therefore, from Abraham’s en -trance into a foreign land until the Israelites’ descen t into Egypt, about215 years e lapsed (25 + 60 + 130). If we as sume t hat the es tablishmentof the co venant took place i n the rst year or s o of Abraham’s s ojourn

in Canaan, with 25 years in between the coven ant (Gen. 15) and thebirth of Isaac ( Gen. 21), then we can begin to make sense of the d ata.God said that A braham’s h eirs would be in bondage for 40 0 years ,while Paul said it was 430 years from the Abrahamic covenant to the

giving of the law . If we s ubtract 25 from 430 — from the coven ant to thebirth of Isaac, the promised son of the covenant l ine — we get 405

years. This is very Genesis 15:13 – 14 an d mentioned b y Stephen i n Acts 7:6. We are no warguing about only ve years, from the b irth of Isaac t o the p eriod inwhich the captivity “in” Egypt — under Egypt’s d omination — began.Genesis 21 says t hat it was on ly after I saac w as w eaned that Ishmaelmocked him — “laughing” i n the H ebrew (vv. 8 – 9). This c an be u nder-stood as t he beginning of the period of Egyptian persecution, for I sh-mael was half Egyptian. 9 It was t he t ime o f Isaac’s you th, perhaps ab outage ve. Abraham then exp elled t he Egypt ian w oman an d her son, whotravelled into the wilderness ( 21:14). Thus, it w as n ot t he bondageperiod in geographical Egypt t hat God had in mind, but the entire

period of pilgrimage , during w hich they w ere affl icted by s trangers.

9. I am indebted to James J ordan for t his i nsight. If it i s i ncorrect, then we wouldhave to adopt Courville’s ap proach, namely, to argue t hat it seems l egitimate t o under-stand the 40 0 years of Genesis 15:13 as a r ounding off of 405.

15


36/307


2. Residence in Egypt: 215 YearsThe culmination of this p eriod of rootlessness, or l ife in foreign

lands, was t he nal era of outright bo ndage in Egypt ( Gen. 15:14).Courville’s comments are ap propriate, that

the p eriod of affliction began back i n the t ime o f Abraham and notwith the d escent. Actually, the affl iction in Egypt did not begin withthe d escent but only w ith the r ise o f the ki ng “who knew not Joseph.”That the “sojourn” also began back in the t ime o f Abraham is c learfrom the s tatement in Hebrews 11:9, which reads:

By faith he [ Abraham] sojourned in the l and of promise, asin a st range country, dwelling i n tabernacles w ith Isaac andJacob, the h eirs with him of the s ame p romise.

Others of t he ancients t han Paul thus u nderstood the 4 30-yearsojourn. The translators o f the Hebrew Scriptures i nto Greek haveadded a p hrase t o make cl ear t he m eaning of Exodus 12: 40 as theyunderstood it. The S eptuagint reading o f the ve rse i s:

The sojourning of the children and of their f athers, which

they s o journeyed in the land of Canaan and in the land ofEgypt. . . .

Josephus, as a Hebrew scholar o f antiquity, thus u nderstood the verse:

They l eft Egypt in the m onth Xanthicus, on the fteenth dayof the l unar m onth; four hu ndred and thirty years after ou rforefather A braham came into Canaan, but t wo hundredand fteen years on ly af ter J acob removed into Egypt. 10

This ci tation from Courville’s b ook indicates t hat it was l ong agounderstood that the 4 30 years of Exodus 12:40 must be i nterpreted interms of the ent ire p ilgrimage e xperience, Abraham to Moses . The ref -erence to “the children of Israel” m ust be understood as Hebrews in

general , not simply t o those born of Jacob. It includes A braham andIsaac. This means that P alestine was an Egyptian vassal r egionthroughout the P atriarch al era o f Exodus 12:40. It also h elps to explainwhy Abraham journeyed to Egypt d uring the famine (Gen. 12:10).Egypt was the cap ital.

10. Ibid. , I, p. 140. For J osephus’ statement, see Antiquities of the Jews , II:XV:2, in Josephus: Complete Works , William Whiston, translator ( Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Krege l, 1960), p. 62.

16


37/307


Consider C ourville’s ch art of his p roposed reconstructed chrono-logy of Egypt a nd Israel .11 Understand that Courville’s b ook remains

almost unknown in Christian circles, and even less kn own in academiccircles. His reconstructed chronology is n ot taken seriously b y arch ae-ologists an d historians, any m ore t han Velikovsky’s ch ronology in Agesin Chaos was ( or is) taken seri ously.

Correlation of Scriptural Incidents with Egyptian History b y t he T radi-tional and Reconstructed Chronologies

Incident or Era Traditional Background o rDate

Reconstruction Background orDate

NoachianFlood

Not recognized as factual. Theproper background for theimmediate p ost-diluvian peri-od is t he M esolithic p eriod,dated c. 10,000 B.C. or earl ier.

The M esolithic backgr ound forthe immediate po st-diluvianperiod is accep ted, Date c. 2300B.C.

Dispersionfrom Babel

If recognized at al l, the i ncid-ent is s et far b ack in the p re-dynastic.

Dated 27 years before t he u nific-ation of Egypt under Mena.Date, c. 2125 B.C.

Abrahamenters Canaan

Commonly set in early Dyn-asty X II dated c. 1900 B.C.Earlier d ates are entertained.

Dated very soo n after t he b e-ginning o f Dynasty I V; 1875 B.C.

Famine ofJoseph

No f amine i nscription datableto the era o f Joseph as p lacedin the H yksos p eriod.

Equated with the f amine i nscrip-tion in the rei gn of Sesotris I oftwelfth dynasty. Dated 1662 B.C.

Enslavement ofIsrael

Eighteenth dynasty t heory o fExodus m ust recognize a nearl y k ing of this d ynasty a sthe p haraoh initiating t he en -slavement. This would beAmenhotep I or Thutmose I.

Enslavement initiated by S es-ostris I II of Dynasty X II. Date, c.1560 B.C.

The Exodus Eighteenth dynasty theorymust recognize t he po sition

either at the en d of the rei gnof Thutmose I II or early i n thereign of Amenhotep II. Date c.

The r econstruction places t heExodus at the en d of the f ive year

reign of Koneharis, secondprimary ruler o f Dynasty X III,but 26th in the T urin list. Date i s

11. Taken from The Journal of Christian Reconstruction , II (Summer 1975), p. 145.

17


38/307


1445 B.C. 1446 – 1445 B.C.

Period of theJudges

Encompasses the per iod ofDynasty XVIII from Amen-hotep III, all of XIX as cu r-rently co mposed, and the f irsthalf of XX. Dates: 1375 – 1050B.C.

Falls i n the H yksos p eriod, c.1375 – 1050 B.C.

UnitedMonarchy ofIsrael

Backgrou nd is in DynastiesXX and XXI. Dates, 1050 – 930B.C.

Background is in early D ynastyXVIII ending n ear the b eginningof the sol e rei gn of Thutmose I II.

Dates, 1050 – 930 B.C.Sacking o fSolomon’sTemple

Shishak identified as S hes-honk I of Dynasty XXII. Dateis 92 6 B.C. in fifth year o f Re-hoboam.

Shishak i dentified as ThutmoseIII of Dynasty X VIII. Date 9 26B.C.

Fall of Israe l toAssyria

Must be p laced in the back-ground of Dynasty XXIII toretain the e stablished date722 – 721 B.C.

Falls i n the f ifth year o f Mer –

neptah d ated 7 21 B .C. Synchron-ism indicated by i nscription ofthis yea r t elling of catastrophe toIsrael.

Fall of Judah toBabylon

In Dynasty XXVI. Date c . 606B.C.

In Dynasty XXV, Date c . 606B.C.

Courville produced a creative reconstruction of E gypt’s chrono-logy in terms o f the 215 – 215 division. He pinpointed the famine ashaving begun 217 years b efore the exodus. 12 Using this es timate inconjunction with my dating calculations, with I K ings 6 :1 as a datemarker, 13 this w as 1710 B.C. He p rovided evidence f rom Egyptian in-scriptions of a f amine i n this era, and he eve n identied the P haraoh ofthis era, Sesostris I . He thought that r eferen ces t o a vizer o f Sesostris I ,Mentuhotep, refer t o Joseph. 14 The fact that a tombstone exists d oes

12. Courville, Exodus Problem , I, p. 151.13. Gary North, Disobedience and Defeat: An Economic Commentary on the His-

torical Books ( Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press , 2012), ch. 17.14. Ibid ., I, p. 141. George R awlinson wrote o f Mentuhotep: “This offi cial, whose

tombstone i s am ong the t reasures of the m useum of Boulaq, appears t o have held arank i n the ki ngdom second only t o that of the ki ng. He lled at one an d the s ame t imethe offices of minister of justice, home secr etary, chief commissioner of public w orks,director of public w orship, and perhaps of foreign secret ary an d minister of war. [Hecites B rugsch ’s History of Egypt .] ‘ When he arrived at t he gate of the royal residence,

18


39/307


not necessarily m ean that the b ones of “Mentuhotep” were s till underit when it was di scovered. Joseph’s bo nes w ere r emoved from Egypt

and taken to Israel (Ex. 13:19). It is p ossible t hat the H ebrews d ecidedto leave t he t ombstone b ehind as a r eminder to their former taskmas-ters, and that the Egyptians, in the confusion of the Amalekite inva-sion, subsequently n eglected to dispose o f it. Later E gyptians m ay nothave remembered who this o fficial really w as. The possibility exists, ofcourse, that C ourville was incorrect con cerning the Joseph-Men-tuhotep identity.

His t hesis i s si mple, though complex in its d emonstration: the

three conventional lists o f ki ngs —

Manetho’s l ist, the Turin list, andthe Sothis l ist — are i n error w hen they as sume t hat each king’s r eignfollowed another. Courville demonstrated that many of these “kings”were not ki ngs at al l, but l ower o fficials w hose rule overlapped thereign of t he true pharaohs. In short, the conventional histories ofEgypt h ave o verestimated the age of Egypt’s ki ngdoms b ecause theyhave relied on a false assumption, namely, that the k ings o n the v ari-ous l ists d id not frequently h ave o verlapping reigns. Thus, among oth-er p roblems, Courville’s r econstructed chronology solves t he p roblemof the conventional dating of the origins o f Egypt thousands o f yearsprior t o a Bible-based estimate of the date of the Noachian ood. Inshort, Courville’s book indicates that Christian scholars are still i nbondage t o Egypt. He offered them a m ethodological exodus. But, likethe slaves o f Moses’ day, they cry out against the proposed deliveran ce.They p refer to remain in bondage. The l eeks and onions of Egypt — Ph.D. degrees, tenured teaching positions, and intellectual respectabil-ity am ong t heir heathen masters — still entice them.

B. Jacob’s HeirsUnquestionably, the gr owth of the H ebrew population was rapid.

If the sons o f Jacob, which included each family’s ci rcumcised bond-servants, came d own to Egypt 215 years bef ore Moses l ed their h eirsout of Egypt, then the Hebrews exp erienced long-term populationgrowth unequaled in the r ecords of man. Remember, however, thatpeople lived longer i n Joseph’s era. Kohath, Moses’ grandfather, livedfor 1 33 years ( Ex. 6:18). Levi, Kohath’s f ather, died at age 137 (Ex.

all the ot her great personages who might be p resent bowed down before hi m, and didobeisance.’ He w as j udge, nancier, general, administrator, artist.” G eorge R awlinson,

History of Ancient Egypt (New York: John B. Alden, 1886), II, p. 83.

19


40/307


6:16). Moses’ brother Aaron died at age 12 3 (Num. 33:39). Moses diedat age 120 (Deut. 34:7). Nevertheless, Moses ackn owledged that in his

day, normal life s pans were d own to about 70 years: “The d ays of our years ar

biblical economics - gary north - exodus

Documents