One could argue that the political and economic situation in Egypt at the time of Moses had reached an equilibrium. The Israelites found themselves stuck as victims of extreme oppression, including brutal slavery and genocide (Exodus 1:8-22). Despite their numbers, it is unlikely that they would have had the military might to launch a successful revolution and any attempt to do so would have risked making their plight even worse (suggested by the events of Exodus 5). Moreover, unlike in today’s world, there was no international community to put pressure on Pharaoh politically or militarily. Perhaps their only chance of salvation was to wait until the death of the current Pharaoh and hope that his successor might show more mercy. So what a time for the God of their fathers to reveal himself as a force to be reckoned with, overthrowing the oppressors and coming to the rescue of his people. In the language of economics, he did this by instigating a succession of supply shocks.
In a market or economy, a supply shock occurs when an external event causes a significant increase or decrease in the availability of an important resource. An example of a negative supply shock was the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 caused by the Arab Oil Embargo and Iranian Revolution respectively, where a shortage of oil led to price rises and stagnant economic growth across the industrialised world. A positive supply shock, on the other hand, might be caused by an increase in the number of people making themselves available for work (e.g. due to migration or a cut in out-of-work benefits). Bad harvests, such as those seen during the time of Joseph, are clearly negative supply shocks.
The plagues inflicted on Egypt, whether caused by natural or supernatural factors (see my previous post), can be considered to be supply shocks. Arguably the most important resource underpinning the prosperity of Egypt was the Nile river. Even today, the Nile is considered to be such an important resource to so many people that it is the subject of a high degree of political wrangling and even war between countries. A recent TV documentary series on Al Jazeera gave an excellent overview of the history of these conflicts (see http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/struggleoverthenile/). It is not surprising, therefore, that the first of the plagues targeted this key resource. From then on, we can see that each of the plagues attacked key resources (crops, livestock, people) within the Egyptian economy, causing the price of food and other items to rocket and ultimately leading to recession and human suffering.
Even the final plague, the killing of the firstborn male in every family, was essentially a supply shock. While Pharaoh’s personal grief over the loss of his son may have been the final nail in the coffin leading to his yielding to Moses, the sudden wiping out of the most skilled and productive workers in Egypt would have caused a supply shock from which the economy would take years, perhaps a generation, to recover. A 21st century equivalent of this plague is the HIV / AIDS epidemic currently blighting Africa. By incapacitating and killing adults in their prime, this virus delivers a “double whammy”. The direct personal suffering caused by losing a family member is only part of the story. The indirect cost of a family losing its breadwinner is economically devastating and, when multiplied thousands of times over across an economy, is enough to trap a country in poverty.
The severe shift in the economics of Egypt was enough to instigate political change. The Israelites were considered to be a curse on the Egyptians so, not only were they granted their freedom, they were sent away with a significant amount of Egyptian wealth (Ex 12:35-36).
Their troubles, however, were far from over. Acts of God were again required to rescue them from the pursuing Egyptian army at the Red Sea and then to ensure their survival in the desert. Ironically, even though they had in their possession vast quantities of jewels and precious metals, whilst in the desert they had no way of exchanging these items for food. The people soon realised that, in spite of their new-found political freedom, their economic situation had gravely worsened (Ex 16:3).
So God once again brought about a major supply shock, this time a positive one. The manna from heaven and water from the rock were sufficient to meet the people’s immediate needs.
Even today, the events of the Passover are considered to be arguably the most important period in the history of the Jewish nation and religion. It was instituted as an annual festival to ensure the Israelites continued to remember and celebrate their deliverance (Numbers 9:1-4). The people themselves played a very minimal role in their own salvation with external events (i.e. God) making the big difference. This was God demonstrating the covenant first made with Abraham. The success of the nation would be attributable to his intervention alone while the focus of the people should be on obeying him.
It is the concept of covenant that underpins the laws given by God to Moses. The LORD’s opening words to Moses as the law was given on Mount Sinai referred to the recent deliverance from Egypt and set out the terms of the covenant (Ex 19:3-6). In Deuteronomy 6, God reinforces the fact that the nation’s prosperity would be conditional on their obedience. He would provide them with “flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant”.
As I now turn my attention to the law of Moses for subsequent blog posts, starting with laws related to the Sabbath, it is important to keep this idea of covenant at the forefront of our minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment