Brilliant reconstruction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness

Stephanie Solberg has written beautifully on the tabernacle as a type of Jesus Christ: https://makinghimknown.tv/the-tabernacle-as-a-type-of-christ-part-1/ “I am a truth seeker by nature. My passion is studying God's Word and sharing His Truth with others”. The Tabernacle as a Picture of Christ: Part 1 – The Outer Court Introduction – The Tabernacle as a Foreshadowing of Christ What if I told you that the Tabernacle was more than an ancient place of worship but that its very design and function were meant to point us to Christ? In this two-part series, we will examine the Tabernacle closely and how every detail foreshadows Jesus. In Part 1, we will explore the outer court—from the gate to the brazen laver. Next, in Part 2, we will step into the inner court and uncover even more meaningful connections to Christ. God instructed Moses precisely on how to design the Tabernacle because because it was both a copy and shadow of God’s sanctuary in Heaven (Hebrews 8:5). But He also intended everything in the Tabernacle to foreshadow Christ. God has always desired a relationship with us. The Tabernacle was part of His plan to be with us. After the fall of man but before Jesus, God dwelt in the Tabernacle, then the Temple. After Jesus’ death, we became God’s ” tabernacle.” Later, when we are in heaven, God will dwell with us face to face, as in the Garden of Eden (Revelation 21:3). Jesus fulfilled God’s purpose for the Tabernacle – He is God with us (Matthew 1:23). The Tabernacle and all that was in it is a beautiful picture of Christ. Each piece of the Tabernacle represents a truth about our Messiah that will draw us closer to Him. The Tabernacle’s Structure – The Outer Court and the Inner Court (Exodus 26:33-34) God designed the Tabernacle as two parts: the outer court and the inner court. The outer court was open to all Israelites. It had one gate, an altar, and a laver. The inner court had two sections, divided by a veil: the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Only priests could enter the Holy Place, and only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. The Outer Court – A Place of Preparation In Part 1, we focus on the outer court, where people prepare to meet with God. The Gate – The Only Way In (Exodus 27:16-19, John 10:9, John 14:6) The Gate of The Tabernacle There was only one entrance into the Tabernacle, a gate (Exodus 27:9-19) which faced East, the same direction as the entrance into the Garden of Eden, God’s first dwelling place with man. Anyone seeking God’s presence could enter the gate into the courtyard. Jesus, the Only Way As there was only one way into the Tabernacle, there is only one way to God: through Jesus (John 14:6). He is the gate. Jesus tells us: “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved” (John 10:9). “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) All are welcome through the Son! The Brazen Altar – A Symbol of Sacrifice (Exodus 27:1-8, Romans 12:1) The Altar and the Burnt Offering After entering the Tabernacle gate with their sacrifice, a person would first encounter the altar (Exodus 27:1-8). The fire on the altar never went out; it was continually burning. At the altar, the priests offered the sacrifice as a burnt offering, which would be entirely consumed by fire. There, the blood of the sacrifice was shed to forgive sins. Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice The altar foreshadows the Cross and the once and for all sacrifice that Christ would make on the altar of the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. At the altar of the Cross, we also lay down our old life and our disobedient will. Just like the fire consumed the sacrifice, we must let God consume us. “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1). The Brazen Laver – Cleansing Through the Word (Exodus 30:17-21, Ephesians 5:26, Hebrews 10:22) The Priests and the Laver The next thing a person would encounter after the brazen altar was the brazen laver, a sizeable water-filled basin crafted from the women’s bronze mirrors. The priests washed their hands and feet at the laver before entering the Holy Place (Exodus 30:17-21) The Word of God and Spiritual Cleansing The laver is more than just a basin; it represents the Word of God. It is like a mirror showing us our true selves. “For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The Word is also like water that washes and cleanses us (John 15:3). Jesus is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1, John 1:14). He died to make us clean and lives to sanctify us. “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (Ephesians 5:26). “Draw near [to God] with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22). Conclusion – Jesus, Our Tabernacle Jesus is the gate to the Father’s house. All are welcome at the altar of the cross. He is our perfect sacrifice, the only one we will ever need. When we come to Jesus, we are washed by the Word of God. We are made clean. But what lies beyond the outer court? In Part 2, we will step into the inner court, where only priests could enter. We’ll explore the Holy Place, the veil, and the Holy of Holies – each revealing even more about Christ’s role as our High Priest. Flavio Barbiero and his brother Claudio, who worked with professor Emmanuel Anati in the Negev, around (Mount) Har Karkom, have brilliantly reconstructed the ancient Hebrew Tabernacle from the very ground upon which it stood. This verifies the veracity of the biblical account about the Tabernacle, and it also assures that the region of Har Karkom is where the Exodus Israelites had dwelt. Flavio Barbiero writes (pp. 55-63): THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB (1) THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB [I, Damien Mackey, cannot reproduce some of Flavio Barbiero’s illustrations] …. The Tabernacle …. One day, Moses came down from the sacred mountain with good news: the Lord had asked that a sanctuary be built for him, a mobile tent in which he could reside and follow his favourite people in all their movements: "This is the thing which the Lord commanded: take ye from among you an offering unto the Lor: whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering on the Lord; gold, and silver, and brass, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and rams’ skins died red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood, and oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, and onix stones to be set for the ephod and the breastplate. And every wise hearted Among you shall come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded; the tabernacle, his tent, and his covering, his taches and his boards, his bars, his pillars, and his sockets, the ark and the staves thereof, with mercy seat and the veil of the covering, the table and the staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread, the candlestick also for the light, and the incense altar, and his staves, and the anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the door at the entering in of the tabernacle, the altar of 55 the burnt offering, with his brasen grate, his staves and all his vessels, the laver and his foot, the hangings of the court, his pilar, and their sockets, and the hanging for the door of the court, the ins of the tabernacle, and pins of the court, and their cords, the clothes of service, to do service in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister the priest’s office." (Exodus 35,4 - 35) Thus begins one of the most detailed and elaborate accounts of the entire book of Exodus: the construction of what the Hebrew text calls "miqdas", i.e. holy or sanctuary, and "Mishkan", dwelling. These terms are variously translated as Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, Tent of Assembly, Sanctuary, and Dwelling in the desert. Many terms to indicate what was a real mobile temple. The temple-tent had exceptional importance in the history of Israel. The entire people worked for eight months on the realisation of the project and used all their technical resources and all the materials brought from Egypt for this purpose to do something truly grandiose, worthy of a people who aspired to conquer their territorial state. It was a great effort, but around that temple, the tribes of Israel acquired awareness of their identity and strength and found the determination and energy to conquer Palestine. In short, it was thanks to the tent temple that the tribes of Israel became a nation, and the Mosaic law became a religion. I was impressed by the importance given by the biblical text to this extraordinary artefact, but I was above all struck by the accuracy with which all its components are described, reporting their dimensions and function with precision, to the point of making it irresistible for me, an engineer, the temptation of making a model of it. …. I made each single piece on a scale of 1 cubit = 1 cm and then assembled everything, following the instructions provided by the text. The result was the model shown in the following figure: …. 56 Figure 21 - Original reconstruction of the tent temple made based on data provided by Exodus. (Plan published in the author's book "The Bible without Secrets", Rusconi 1988) A large tent of 50 x 100 cubits, sustained by 48 supports, with a courtyard in front of equal size, divided into two parts; the first of 50 x 15 cubits, where the altar of the burning offerings and the basin for sacred ablutions were positioned, the second, of 50 x 85 cubits, where the people could attend the sacrifices. Everything fitted perfectly with the description, was technically flawless, and correctly accounted for every single piece described. In short, I did not doubt that this reconstruction was correct, except for a few details that do not appear in the text, like the exact arrangement of the supports, the precise positioning of the objects inside, and so on.26 … Figure 22 – The model in scale 1 cubit = 1 cm of the temple-tent of Moses, built by the author by assembling the individual components described in Exodus. The model gave the idea of a temple worthy of a great God, as was precisely Moses' intention. It was very different from the models proposed by classical exegesis, of which countless examples can be found online and in literature, representing it as a strange construction of 10 x 30 cubits inside an enclosure of 50 x 100 cubits. I was sure that my reconstruction was correct, also because I had discovered that the models proposed by traditional exegesis all originate from an inaccurate reconstruction by Flavius Josephus 27, who heavily forces the biblical text to obtain a 1 to 2 scale model of Solomon's temple. The gold, silver and textiles procured in Egypt were used to build and embellish the temple-tent. The 48 supports were covered with gold, as well as the four columns that supported the "veil" and the five columns at the entrance, and all of them were placed on silver bases. The bases of the 60 columns delimiting the courtyard, instead, were made of copper. The altar of sacrifices was also covered with copper, as well as the basin for ablutions. The Ark of the Covenant was covered in gold, as well as the table of the loaves and the altar of incense, while the seven branched candlestick was made of solid gold. In short, a real treasure, even if the total weight was ten times less than what a certain tradition would like to credit.28 When the Jews left the mountain, they took the temple with them to Palestine. But such an artefact, erected on a terrain like that of Har Karkom, must necessarily have left a clear imprint. I had to look for the imprint of the Tabernacle rather than the treasure of the Jews to be sure that this was the right place for our search. The imprint of the tabernacle29 The hammada30 preserves unchanged the imprint of every tent that has been erected there in the last tens of thousands of years. If Har Karkom is really the place where Moses led the Jews and if the biblical account really has historical content, then necessarily the imprint of the Tabernacle as described by Exodus had to be found there. This assumption has guided my brother Claudio and my research since our first arrival in the valley. According to Ex. 33, 7, the Tabernacle had been erected "out of the camp, away from it." In addition, it had to be close to the water, not far from the only well in the valley, Beer Karkom. Figure 23 - The print of the Tabernacle at Beer Karkom The area in which to concentrate the research, therefore, was rather narrow, and the results were immediate. It was enough to climb a hill near the well to identify, on the edge of the wadi, the imprint of the tabernacle, clear and unmistakable. My brother and I outlined the print with a plastic ribbon, following the plan of construction of the temple-tent obtained from Exodus. The match turned out to be perfect. The centre of the tabernacle, on the back, was marked by a small pile of stones. The alignments of the supporting stanchions show up clearly; the Holy and the Holy of Holiest were perfectly squared and cleaned of stones, as well as the courtyard in front, in the centre of which there was a stone about twenty centimetres high, that was put next to the altar of sacrifices to allow priests to easily access the grill. Even the passages most frequented by the priests were evident because they had been cleaned of the stones that had been moved to the sides and at the back of the Holy of Holies. The position and the size of each object, from the brazier to the basin of ablutions, the table of the loaves and the altar of incense, was marked by pebbles that had been placed around them. The menorah, instead, was placed on a large boulder in the centre of the left nave (shoulders to the entrance), in front of a gap in the row of supporting stanchions. At the same height, there was also a gap in the opposite row of stanchions that delimited the right nave, with the table of loaves positioned in its centre. At dawn and dusk, the plastic ribbon shone, tracing the plan of the Tabernacle on the ground with light. It was a fantastic, almost magical vision: an artifact erected in that same place more than 3,000 years ago was resurrected before our eyes. It was an indescribable emotion. Those lines had been traced on the ground by Moses himself, and in that rectangle of light, the destiny of all mankind had been changed. Figure 244 - Reconstruction of the Tabernacle on the original imprint …. Figure 255 - A ribbon stretched along the alignments of the imprint outlines the exact plan of the tabernacle Thanks to the imprint on the ground we were able to reconstruct the Tabernacle in its true dimensions and shape, exactly as and where it was erected by Moses for the first time. Therefore, I could correct the minor errors inevitably committed during my first reconstruction (Fig. 21). …. Figure 26 - Exact plan of the temple-tent of Moses obtained from the imprint left in the place where it was first erected, near Beer Karkom From the imprint, the measurements of the tabernacle could be established with an error of a few centimetres, which allowed us to determine the value of Moses' cubit precisely". The imprint gave the following measurements for the tabernacle: a width of 14.6 metres and a length of about 29 meters. The inner courtyard was about 4.5 meters long and 14.5 meters wide. According to the account of Exodus, the Tabernacle was 50 cubits wide and 100 long, so Moses used a cubit of about 29.2 cm in size. The length of the supporting stanchions, and consequently the height of the tabernacle, was thus about 2.9 meters. The size of all objects in the temple, from the Ark to the altar of sacrifices, is also scaled down accordingly. The following day we took Prof Anati to the hill from which the plan traced by the light of the rising sun could be seen, explaining to him what it was. He took some photographs, and then he made a single comment: "It looks like a UFO." Anati obviously knew those imprints well but, due to their square shape, he had classified them as "prints of Roman military tents." We never knew what he meant, but we felt we had achieved a significant result for our research. The print's position, shape and other characteristics were such that there could be no doubt that it had been left precisely by the tent described with such detail and accuracy in Exodus, that is, by the Tabernacle of Moses. The probability of a casual coincidence was practically nil. It finally gave us certainty on two fundamental points: 1.- that the Exodus account is based on actual facts and is reliable 2.- that the Karkom valley is precisely where the events narrated by Exodus took place, and therefore, the sacred mountain of Moses had to be located in the valley itself.

Kenneth L. Gentry’s new book on the Apocalypse

“A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas …”. Phillip G. Kayser Divorce of Israel, The The Divorce of Israel presents a “redemptive-historical” approach to Revelation. In it John presents a forensic drama wherein God is divorcing his old covenant wife Israel so that he can take a new wife, the new covenant “Israel of God” composed of Jew and Gentile alike. Thus, Revelation presents the vitally important redemptive-historical transition from the land-based, ethnically focused, temple-dominated old covenant economy to its worldwide, pan-ethnic, spiritual new covenant fulfillment. And it does so by highlighting God’s judgment upon first-century geo-political Israel. Hardcover Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. April 23, 2024 A Review of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry ' s New Commentary, The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation Phillip G. Kayser, PhD - August 15, 2024 info@biblicalblueprints.com Biblicalblueprints.com A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas, including: • The main message of the book • The structure of the book • The practical value and application of the book A lot is at stake when it comes to understanding Revelation rightly or wrongly — our doctrine of Scripture and prophecy; whether we walk in fear or confidence about the future; whether we make use of Revelation's amazing amount of practical guidance on civics, economics, personal holiness, spiritual warfare, and a host of other issues. I believe the right understanding of this book unlocks incredible hope, missionality, and confidence in responding to persecution and tyranny. Revelation, understood rightly, is a practical manual on occupying and overcoming in crazy times; truly a book for our times. I have been studying Revelation for most of my adult life; Dr. Gentry's commentary is the 114th full-length commentary I have studied. I have also read several hundred studies that bring light to the interpretation of Revelation, including extensive exegetical studies and very recent discoveries in archaeology, seismology, meteorology, meteoritics, ancient astrology, Jewish idolatry, ancient iconography and other studies that open up the book in a whole new way (many of which studies were apparently not available when Dr. Gentry wrote his commentary). The main message of the book The structure of the book The practical value and application of the book (For those of you wondering about my general theological training, I have an M.Div from Westminster Seminary California, and a PhD from Whitefield Theological Seminary, and am a mentor for Masters level and Doctoral level dissertations in theology.) …. Dr. Gentry and I have similar approaches to the book of Revelation, so I was reading Gentry with friendly eyes and with a receptive spirit to be corrected in my thinking at every point. Indeed, I was hoping that Dr. Gentry's commentary would be the last one needed and that I would not need to finish my layman's commentary and academic commentary on the book. We are still in the infancy of Revelation studies, and the more we can challenge each other as "iron sharpening iron" (Prov. 27:17), the more advancements we will see in our understanding of this book. I am writing this review in that spirit of wanting to keep advancing such studies. I always welcome exegetical challenges to my own conclusions. The text should always dictate the system, not vice versa. Dr. Gentry has promised to follow this commentary up with a layman's edition, and I am hoping he will benefit from the critique below and strengthen his conclusions in his next work. First, the strong points. What I Really Like About This Commentary It's extremely well researched and interacts extensively and fairly with other views Though even more could be said for the contributions and strengths of some eschatological positions than Gentry says, [1] I appreciate that he presents the strengths and weaknesses of all of the other eschatological approaches to Revelation very fairly. Gentry graciously interacts with many eschatological viewpoints (even very obscure ones) and does a good job of dealing with most of their credible arguments. He outlines the options, systematically eliminates the options he disagrees with by presenting detailed exegetical reasons why (in his opinion) they will not work, and then presents his own opinion with strong exegetical proofs. It is a solid enough commentary that academics of all eschatological persuasions will likely need to interact with Gentry's arguments, if for no other reason than to answer his critiques of their positions. It's based on a solid hermeneutical approach • Gentry does a masterful job of showing the Redemptive-historical nature of this book, the Hebraic nature of the book, and Revelation's extensive use of the Old Testament. With regard to John's use of the Old Testament, Gentry approvingly quotes McKelvey saying, "when reading the book of Revelation, one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is as saturated with the Old as in the Apocalypse" (p. 120). The extensive way that Gentry demonstrates John's uses of earlier books of the Bible makes this commentary well worth owning. Even those who strongly disagree with Gentry's particular brand of partial preterism[2] will benefit from those discussions. • I was pleased to see that Dr. Gentry avoided the interpretive maximalism that marred David Chilton's approach to Revelation. • I was also very pleased that (for the most part) Gentry avoids the kind of dependence on Jewish non-canonical apocalyptic literature that so many commentators have. For the most part, he simply interprets Scripture with Scripture. For example, he denies that Revelation is "steeped in Jewish apocalyptic literature" (p. 119) and correctly states that "When we detect apparent parallels between Revelation and apocalyptic literature, the parallel is due to the common ideological ancestor, the Old Testament" (p. 125). He later states that "the source of Revelation's bold imagery is not first-century Jewish apocalyptic, but Old Testament era canonical apocalyptic prophecy" (p. 184). Though Gentry for the most part stays consistent with this solid hermeneutical approach, I found him to occasionally deviate from this stance. [3] It is my contention that Revelation is not apocalyptic literature at all, but prophetic literature in the genre of Old Testament prophecies. When closely examined, the two genres are quite different. Because of the confusion that can result from the different definitions of "apocalyptic literature," I prefer to avoid the term "apocalyptic" altogether. But Gentry is certainly within mainstream thought when he uses the term. In contrast to Gnostic apocalyptic literature, the images found in Biblical prophecies are grounded in actual, literal, historically verifiable events — a fact that Gentry from time to time notes. It's solid on authorship His arguments for the Apostle John being the author are spot-on, and he deals well with all the objections. I highly recommend his argumentation on this subject. It's solid on dating and immanence clues Another strength of the book is that it insists that there must be an imminent fulfillment (or at least a partial fulfillment) of all the major sections of Revelation [4] since John insists that these speak about events that are "soon," "near," or "about to happen" (v. 1i; cf. 1:3,7,19; 2:5,10,16; 3:10,11; 6:11; 11:14; 22:6,7,10,12,20). …. Gentry dates the composition of the book of Revelation to somewhere between AD 65 and 66, a position that I also hold. This makes his constant refrain of "imminent fulfillment" much more credible than the distant historical "fulfillments" proposed by the bulk of historicist and futurist commentaries. While I believe he pushes the imminence of fulfillment way too far by overapplying almost the entire book to AD 66-70 (see my critique below), any other approach will have to deal with his numerous arguments that the repeated phrases, "soon" and "the time is at hand," are literally true. It's open to the symbols being literal historical events I appreciate the fact that Gentry repeatedly insists most of the symbols [5] in the book also likely took place in a literal way in history. On page 874 he rightly notes: Nevertheless, Barr (1998: 199) is surely wrong to assert that 'everything in this story is symbolic.' Not everything in it is symbolic, for if it were we would not be able to understand it at all. Symbolic images require a point of contact with literal realities for them to convey meaning, and John certainly intends to convey meaning to his audience (1:3). (p. 874) On page 708 he says, "A symbolic sum does not demand a symbolic people, whereas a symbolic sum can apply to a literal people." With regard to a prophesied famine, he says, "the symbolic nature of Revelation does not prohibit all literalism" (p. 756). Gentry sadly misses the documentation for many of the literal fulfillments because his chronology is messed up (by over-applying virtually everything to AD 66-70. More on this later.). In those situations he has to go to great lengths to explain why a literal fulfillment is unnecessary and impossible, even though there are many historical, seismological, meteoritic, and other proofs that the "impossible" actually did happen in history. In Gentry's defense, much of this evidence has been rediscovered in the years since he finished his commentary. (As I understand it, most of his writing was finished in September 2005, and about six years ago Dr. Gentry handed his work to Jay Culotta, to do final editing and layout. Sadly, Jay died with the password to his computer unknown to anyone else. This meant that everything Jay had done needed to be redone.) But even though he misses the literal fulfillment of numerous prophecies, he is at least usually correct on the symbolic import of the prophecies. Overall, I appreciate his openness to a literal fulfillment of many prophecies that might appear to be hyperbolic. And his exegetical uncovering of what was symbolized is usually correct and helpful. It's strong on the meaning of γῆς To understand where the action happens in the book of Revelation, you have to interpret γῆς well. γῆς is usually translated as "earth" in most translations, but Gentry recognizes that in Revelation it's usually better translated as "land," and refers specifically to Israel. He rightly sees "all tribes of the land" as being a reference to the tribes of Israel (in light of the quote from Zech. 12:10-14). The whole book makes more sense when you read the word γῆς/γῆ this way. However, as will be seen below, Gentry fails to see that many of Revelation's prophecies are spoken against Gentile nations (including Rome). [6] As a result, his interpretation does not adequately show how Revelation's judgments establish a pattern for Christ's redemptive judgments against Gentile nations throughout New Covenant history. It's beautifully laid out and printed and a pleasure to read This two volume set (consisting of 1764 pages of commentary, 98 pages of bibliography — one of the best bibliographies out there — and 106 pages of index: a total of 1968 pages!) is beautifully laid out. The two volumes have a Smyth Sewn binding, which will not only make the book last a lifetime, but will also make it a pleasure to read. Moreover, despite its length (and the depth of the academic research), this is a very readable commentary. Dr. Gentry writes in accessible language even when dealing with difficult concepts. He even occasionally throws in a bit of dry humor. I found it a pleasure to read. The Weak Points of this Commentary I will not take the time to list all of the areas of disagreement that I have with Dr. Gentry, but the following will show why I consider the commentary to be majorly marred. Complete fail on the structure of the book First, Gentry admits that he doesn't know the exact structure of the book. Of course, he insists that no one else has managed to come up with an adequate structure either (pp. 170-173). So he chose to avoid structural controversies altogether. He says: In light of all the apparently insoluble difficulties in discerning Revelation's structure, I will not attempt a formal, detailed outline. Basically, I will proceed through Revelation verse-byverse, noting significant structural questions as they arise. Thus, as I follow the order of Revelation's text, I will employ only the most basic framework structured around John's four "in Spirit" (en pneumati) experiences (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10), three of which are closely aligned with the visionary "come and see" commands (4:1; 17:1; 21:9). (pp. 173-174) Why does this matter? I believe the structure is critical to understanding Revelation since the structure of a Biblical book always influences the interpretation of that book, and Revelation's structure in particular provides interpretive clues to many of the trickiest parts of the book, and reveals the main message of the book. …. [Etc.]

Hebrews envious of Moses may have turned him in to Pharaoh

by Damien F. Mackey “Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not” (Acts 7:25). Moses, like the patriarch Joseph, was a man of destiny. He had been specially selected by the Lord to lead his people, the Hebrews, out of the “iron furnace” that was Egypt, away from a cruel slavery enforced by hard-hearted Pharaohs, into the Promised Land of freedom and abundance. In this Moses resembles Jesus Christ, who was sent by Almighty God, his Father, to save souls from the fiery iron furnace of Hell, from a cruel slavery driven by demons, to open the gates of Heaven for perfect, everlasting freedom. Like with Egypt, ‘Heaven had been shut, with no one to open it, Hell had been opened, with no one to close it’. Moses would be the agent for freedom from slavery in Egypt. Jesus Christ would be the Key to unlocking the Gates of Heaven. But, just as Jesus ‘came to his own people and his people received him not’ (John 1:11), so would Moses immediately encounter obstacles from his fellow Hebrews. And this would persist for the remainder of his life, for, as Moses would harshly learn, ‘it may be possible to take the Israelites out of the heart of Egypt, but it was well-nigh impossible to take Egypt out of the hearts of the Israelites’. Moses, who edited (not wrote) the Book of Genesis, must have realised that the time told to Abram (Abraham) about the length of sojourn in Egypt was coming to an end (Genesis 15:13): “And [God] said unto Abram, ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years’.” While some take this as meaning a 400-year servitude in Egypt, the most astute (my estimation) biblical chronologists would split this figure between (the Patriarchs in) Canaan and only 215 years in Egypt. And Moses must have realised, too, that he was the one best fitted to deliver this - himself a Hebrew, of the priestly Israelite family of Levi, who had even served for a time as pharaoh (as Djedefre-hor-ptah/Userkare) before abdicating in disgust of the royal crown (cf. Esther 4:17), had successfully led Egypt’s armies, and was proficient in all Egyptian learning and protocol. Moses knew how to converse with Pharaohs. Moses must have thought that the time had now come when he had courageously intervened to protect a fellow-Hebrew who was being beaten by an Egyptian overseer, and he killed the Egyptian (Exodus 2:11-12). The trouble was, the Hebrews were at war amongst themselves (v. 13): “The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, ‘Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?’” “Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not” (Acts 7:25). The fact was that the 40-year old Moses himself was not yet ready for this onerous task. He would need yet another 40 years for a spiritual detoxification, to become de-Egyptianised. Jannes and Mambres/ Dathan and Abiram Some Jewish legends can be mighty helpful, such as the one providing the information that the two squabbling Hebrews, un-named in Exodus 2:13, were the contentious Reubenite brothers, Dathan and Abiram. Their ancestor Reuben, the oldest of Jacob’s many sons, had been the only one who had not wished for Joseph to be killed (Genesis 37:21-22, 29-30). His descendants, Dathan and Abiram, though, were, like certain others, extremely envious of Moses. Instead of showing any sort of gratitude to this “… very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), the Reubenite pair steadfastly resisted Moses. Even after the Exodus. Perhaps they, too, like Moses, had been officials of some repute in Egypt. Dathan and Abiram, as Reubenites, offspring of Jacob’s oldest son, may perhaps have aspired to leadership - according to what I read recently - rather than this Levite priest, Moses. Whatever the cause of their underlying resentment, one of them barked back at Moses (Exodus 2:14): “‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?’ Then Moses was afraid and thought, ‘What I did must have become known’.” Exodus 2:15: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well”. We are going to read that Dathan and Abiram themselves had notified Pharaoh. Surely, the troublesome pair, Dathan and Abiram, must be the two to whom Saint Paul will refer, poorly transliterated, as “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]” (2 Timothy 3:8): “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith”. They will become a complete thorn in Moses’s side right until their terrible demise. While these two pairs of names, Dathan-Abiram/Jannes Jambres, do not square up very well, some names in the Bible can be slaughtered when transliterated. To give another instance, the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, was slain by two of his sons while he was worshiping the god Nisroch (2 Kings 19:37) (some hopefully think that this was a piece of Noah’s Ark). The actual god that Sennacherib was worshipping, the god of light and fire, was Nusku (Mercury as the evening star?), badly transliterated in 2 Kings as “Nisroch”. The tendency, a natural one, is to suspect that the two characters to whom St. Paul referred were Egyptians (e.g., magicians) who had ‘resisted Moses to his face’ when Moses was back in the land of Egypt. I, in the course of my attempts over the years to set Moses in an historical Egyptian dynastic setting, have generally tried to take into account “Jannes and Jambres” as Moses’s contemporaries. But to identify them had turned out to be far from an easy task. Were Jannes and Jambres, as according to long-standing tradition, Egyptian magicians, a pair of brothers? Or were they themselves actual rulers of Egypt? The latter was the conclusion to which I had initially come, that Jannes and Jambres must have been separate Egyptian kings, both of whom had been inimical to Moses. Jannes In my revised context, Unas (Manetho’s Onnus, Jaumos, Onos), who fitted into my scheme as an alter ego of Moses’ foster/father-in-law, Chenephres (= Chephren, Neferkare/Pepi, Sesostris), and who appropriately was a magician king: “It was Unas who created the practice of listing some magic spells on the walls of the tomb” (https://www.ask-aladdin.com/egypt-pharaohs/unas/), had a name that accorded very well linguistically with Jannes. This has often been pointed out. Jambres (Mambres) This name it seemed to me, as Mambres, had something more of an Egyptian ring to it, say e.g., Ma-ib-re. By now I was locked in to thinking that Mambres, too, must have been a ruler of Egypt, and the most likely candidate for him - a standout, I thought - was the “stiff-necked” king who had refused to let the people of Israel go away from Egypt. He “opposed” (Gk. antestēsan) Moses and Aaron even in the face of the Ten Plagues. That scenario meant that I now must identify an Egyptian ruler of the Plagues and Exodus who had one of his names resembling Mambres (or Jambres). That, I then thought, had to be Maibre Sheshi of the Fourteenth Dynasty. Jannes and Jambres identified This pair I now consider, however, to have been actual Israelite (Hebrew) personages, who had opposed Moses even in Egypt, and who would continue to oppose him most bitterly during the Exodus. “Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, ‘We will not come! Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness? And now you also want to lord it over us! Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you want to treat these men like slaves No, we will not come!’” Numbers 16:12-14 Dathan and Abiram, two Reubenite brothers, were the pair, “Jannes and Jambres” of whom Paul wrote so disparagingly in 2 Timothy 3:8. Nahum Sarna well describes the troublesome pair in his article, “Dathan and Abiram”, for: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dathan-and-abiram DATHAN AND ABIRAM (Heb. דָּתָן, cf. Akk. datnu, "strong"; and Heb. אֲבִירָם, "my [or 'the'] father is exalted"), sons of Eliab of the tribe of Reuben, leaders of a revolt against the leadership of Moses (Num. 16; 26:9–11). According to these sources, they joined the rebellion of *Korah during the desert wanderings. Defying Moses' summons, they accused him of having brought the Israelites out of the fertile land of Egypt in order to let them die in the wilderness (16:12–14). Moses then went to the tents of Dathan and Abiram and persuaded the rest of the community to dissociate themselves from them. Thereafter, the earth opened and swallowed the rebels, their families, and property (16:25–33). Apparently Dathan and Abiram had ‘form’, going back to their days in Egypt, they being traditionally “… identified with the two quarreling Israelites (Ex. R. 1:30) …”: In the Aggadah Dathan and Abiram are regarded as the prototype of inveterate fomenters of trouble. Their names are interpreted allegorically, Dathan denoting his violation of God's law, and Abiram his refusal to repent (Sanh. 109b). They were wholly wicked "from beginning to end" (Meg. 11a). They are identified with the two quarreling Israelites (Ex. R. 1:30) and it was they who caused Moses' flight from Egypt by denouncing him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian taskmaster, and revealing that he was not the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Yal., Ex. 167). They incited the people to return to Egypt (Ex. R. 1:29) both at the Red Sea and when the spies returned from Canaan (Mid. Ps. 106:5). They transgressed the commandment concerning the manna by keeping it overnight (Ex. R. 1:30). Dathan and Abiram became ringleaders of the rebellion under the influence of Korah, as a result of the camp of their tribe being next to that of Korah, and on this the rabbis base the statement "Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor" (Num. R. 18:5). When Moses humbly went to them in person in order to dissuade them from their evil designs, they were impertinent and insulting to him (mk 16a). In their statement to Moses, "we will not come up," they unconsciously prophesied their end, as they did not go up, but down to hell (Num. R. 18:10). …. Clearly, Dathan and Abiram had an inflated sense of their own self-importance. But, can these names, Dathan and Abiram, be merged with Jannes and Jambres? I think that perhaps they can – though not without difficulty. We read above that, in the Aggadah, the names Dathan and Abiram are interpreted allegorically. The other pair of names, Jannes and Jambres, can be rendered as “John and Ambrose”, according to R. Gedaliah (Shalsheleth Hakabala, fol. 7. 1): https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/2-timothy-3-8.html “It is commonly said by the Jews … that these were the two sons of Balaam, and they are said to be the chief of the magicians of Egypt … the latter of these is called in the Vulgate Latin version Mambres; and in some Jewish writers his name is Mamre … by whom also the former is called Jochane or John; and indeed Joannes, Jannes, and John, are the same name; and R. Gedaliah … says, that their names in other languages are John and Ambrose, which is not unlikely”. In this case, Dathan would better be rendered as Jathan, a contraction of Jonathan, hence Ἰωάννης (Iōannēs) in Greek. We can easily see the connection here with Jannes (Iōannēs). Ambrose, obviously not a Hebrew name: “The later Jews distorted the names into John and Ambrose” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/3-8.htm), is a very good fit for Jambres. But less so a fit for Abiram. It first occurred to me on 18th December, 2019 that Jannes and Jambres may be identifiable with Dathan and Abiram. I had not, then, had time to read if, and where, others may have expressed this same idea. From the following, which rejects any such connection, it would appear that some have proposed that the two pairs might equate (“as some have thought”): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/3-8.htm …. These were not Jews, who rose up and opposed Moses, as Dathan and Abiram did, as some have thought; but Egyptian magicians, the chief of those that Pharaoh sent for, when Moses and Aaron came before him, and wrought miracles; and who did in like manner by their enchantments, Exodus 7:11 upon which place the Targum of Jonathan has these words: "… and Pharaoh called the wise men and the magicians; and Janis and Jambres, the magicians of the Egyptians, did so by the enchantments of their divinations.'' Moses forced to flee from Pharaoh Owing to his action of killing the Egyptian, Moses had had to flee Egypt from Pharaoh. It would not be the last time that he would have to do so (in the Exodus). But different Pharaohs were involved in each case. The Story of Sinuhe, which shares “a common matrix” with the Exodus account (professor Emmanuel Anati), rightly tells that the ruler from whom the hero fled was Sesostris. This Sesostris I have identified with “Chenephres”, the traditional husband of Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother, “Merris” (Meresankh). The coronation name that Sesostris took was, according to Nicolas Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, p. 164) Neferkare (“Beautiful is the Soul of Re”), which can be inverted as Kanefer[r]e (of the same meaning). From Egyptian Kanefer[r]e is derived the Greek “Chenephres”. By now our “Chenephres” is a golden thread linking Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms. Thus we have for this second Oppressor Pharaoh, after the “new king” in Exodus 1:8: Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty: Khafre (Kanefer[r]e), Greek “Chephren”; Fifth Dynasty: (Unas), Neferirkare (Neferikare)”; Sixth Dynasty: Pepi (Neferkare)”; ‘Middle’ Kingdom Twelfth Dynasty: Sesostris (Neferkare)”; Thirteenth Dynasty: Sobekhotep so-called IV (Khanefer[r]e)”; According to the textbooks, from Chephren (c. 2500 BC) to Sobekhotep IV (c. 1800 BC), constituted a massive 700 years of ancient Egyptian history. But the life of Moses, radically re-defining Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms, has Chephren (Khafre) “Chenephres” and Sobekhotep (Khanefer[r]e) “Chenephres” as being just the one, same Pharaoh, at just the one point in history.

Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty

by Damien F. Mackey Moses was the Twelfth Dynasty’s Vizier and Chief Judge, Mentuhotep (also Sinuhe, and, perhaps, Iny). Recently I wrote that: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (2) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel That, though, is only part of the story, because, with the necessary folding of the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom into the Old Kingdom (suggested by Dr. Donovan Courville, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971), the oppressing Twelfth Dynasty must have also its Old Kingdom manifestations: as the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth dynasties. The first Oppressor Pharaoh, the dynastic founding “new king” of Exodus 1:8, was, all at once: Snofru-Khufu (Cheops) – Fourth Dynasty; Djedkare Isesi – Fifth Dynasty; Teti (Merenre) – Sixth Dynasty; Amenemhet – Twelfth Dynasty. The second Oppressor Pharaoh, the one who “tried to kill Moses” (Exodus 2:15), was all at once: “Chenephres” (Eusebius-Artapanus); Khafra (Chephren) – Fourth Dynasty; Unas – Fifth Dynasty; Pepi Neferkare – Sixth Dynasty; Sesostris – Twelfth Dynasty. The Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “pharaoh’s daughter” (Exodus 2:5-6), was, all at once: “Merris” (Eusebius-Artapanus); Meresankh, wife of Khafra (Chephren) – Fourth Dynasty; Meresankh so-called IV – Fifth Dynasty; Ankhesenmerire – Sixth Dynasty. Moses himself was, all at once: Djedefre-Djedefhor-Djedefptah, Kagemni – Fourth Dynasty; Ptahhotep – Fifth Dynasty; Userkare, Weni (Uni), Vizier and Chief Judge, Kagemni, Chief Justice and Vizier – Sixth Dynasty; Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge (Sinuhe, Iny) – Twelfth Dynasty.

Realisation of who was the Egyptianised Moses

by Damien F. Mackey “[Wisdom] entered the soul of a servant of the Lord, and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs”. Wisdom 10:16 ------------------------------------------------------- Important Note: Previously, I have been adamant that Moses was not a king (Pharaoh), having recently written: “… another legend that has Moses as “a king” is misleading. Though great, Moses was definitely subservient to the two pharaohs who had the power of life and death over him. Indeed, “Chenephres” will even seek the life of Moses …” (Exodus 2:15; cf. 4:19). Moses, “… mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22), was the Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt (cf. Exodus 2:14: ‘… Who made you ruler and judge over us?’), and we have found him exercising this twin office of enormous significance both as Weni (Uni) of Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty, and as Mentuhotep (also Sinuhe, Iny?), of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty. However, in recent weeks I have stumbled across a handful of new identifications for Moses all within my revised context – Djedefhor/Djedefre (Fourth Dynasty); Kagemni (Fourth-Sixth dynasties); Ptahhotep (Fifth Dynasty); Userkare (Sixth Dynasty). On these, see e.g. my articles: Moses in Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (5) Moses in Egypt's Fourth Dynasty Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt’s Fourth and Sixth dynasties (5) Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt's Fourth and Sixth dynasties Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (5) Moses in Egypt's Fifth Dynasty Was Moses indeed a King of Egypt - albeit briefly? (5) Was Moses indeed a King of Egypt - albeit briefly? These largely tell of Moses as having been a wise sage who wrote down Instructions, or Maxims (Proverbs). But they also indicate that Moses had actually been designated as Crown Prince, and had even served as Pharaoh for a brief period before abdicating (the only one ever to have done so?) – a likeness to the Buddha. This would support what Saint Paul wrote about him (Hebrews 11:24-27): By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible. There is also that pious tradition that has baby Moses, not so much spitting the dummy, but throwing the royal crown out of his cot. So, slightly (but importantly) re-ordering our main players, we have: 1. The dynastic founding, oppressive “new king” (Exodus 1:8): Khufu (Cheops)/Teti/Amenemhet. His daughter, 2. “Merris” (Eusebius via Artapanus): Meresankh/Ankhesenmerire. 3. Moses, as pharaoh Djedefre (the sage Djedefhor)/Userkare. 4. “Chenephres” (Artapanus): Chephren/Pepi Neferkare/Sesostris. ------------------------------------------------------- Reconsidering Moses through a Sixth Dynasty lens We read this of the briefly-reigning Userkare, my Moses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkare Userkare (also Woserkare, meaning "Powerful is the soul of Ra"; died c. 2332 BC) [sic] was the second king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt, reigning briefly, 1 to 5 years …. Userkare's relation to his predecessor Teti and successor Pepi I is unknown and his reign remains enigmatic. Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and usually report the names of the kings whom they served. Furthermore, the figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". My comment: Moses had ceased to live in Egypt and had gone of necessity into exile in the “desert” of Midian, near the Paran desert. Egyptologists thus suspect a possible Damnatio memoriae on Pepi…'s behalf against Userkare. My comment: This would make sense if Pepi (Neferkare) was the same as the “Chenephres” (Kanefere), who was so envious of Moses. In addition, the Egyptian priest Manetho who wrote an history of Egypt in the 3rd century BC states that Userkare's predecessor Teti was murdered but is otherwise silent concerning Userkare. My comment: Likewise, Teti’s alter ego, Amenemhet (Merenre?), was murdered. Consequently, Userkare is often considered to have been a short-lived usurper to the throne, possibly a descendant of a cadet branch of the preceding Fifth Dynasty. Alternatively, he may have been a legitimate short-lived ruler or a regent who ruled during Teti's son Pepi…'s childhood before his accession to the throne. My comment: That last remark comes closer to the truth: “Alternatively, he may have been a legitimate short-lived ruler or a regent who ruled during Teti's son Pepi…'s childhood before his accession to the throne”.

Was Moses indeed a King of Egypt – albeit briefly?

by Damien F. Mackey There was … Kagemni, which name occurs in both the Fourth and Sixth dynasties. Egyptologists, with their lengthy chronological separation of the Fourth from the Sixth dynasty must assume that two Viziers Kagemni are involved here. No need for that if, as I think, the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were contemporaneous. My search for the historical Moses • Phase One Initially, inspired by a legend that Moses was “a king” (was this clue from Artapanus?), I searched for him amongst whichever pharaohs I considered to be chronologically reasonable for Moses. This took up a lot of time, with no positive result. • Phase Two Much later, after I had to my satisfaction identified Moses as Vizier and Chief Judge of Egypt (cf. Exodus 2:14) - a high office, but clearly subordinate to Pharaoh - I came to reject any notion that Moses could have been a King (Pharaoh). And I decried legends that, whilst often helpful, can sometimes be highly misleading. See e.g. my article: ‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt (6) 'Chenephres' drives Moses out of Egypt Moses was, I now confidently concluded: Sixth Dynasty: Weni (Uni), Vizer and Chief Judge; Twelfth Dynasty: Mentuhotep, Vizer and Chief Judge, and the semi-legendary Sinuhe, whose story shares “a common matrix” with that of Moses (professor Emmanuel Anati). I also liked Moses as the Sixth Dynasty’s general and trader, Iny, a name very like Weni (Uni), and who, like Weni, was nautically involved in both war and trading. • Phase Three Now, jJust in the last several weeks (late March 2025), a handful of likely Moses types has come to my notice. These were all writers and teachers of Instructions and Maxims. But, most significantly, a briefly reigning Pharaoh is amongst them. See Phase Four. There was (i) Kagemni, which name occurs in both the Fourth and Sixth dynasties. Egyptologists, with their lengthy chronological separation of the Fourth from the Sixth dynasty must assume that two Viziers Kagemni are involved here. No need for that if, as I think, the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were contemporaneous. Kagemni wrote Instructions. (Cf. Acts 7:22: “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds)”. And he, like Weni-Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge, was “Chief justice and vizier”. There was also (ii) Ptahhotep. Many, myself included, have been hypnotised by his supposed life span of 110 years, like Joseph of Egypt (Genesis 50:26): “So Joseph died at the age of 110”. And we have tried to make of Ptahhotep the biblical Joseph. But, although he is sometimes mentioned in a Third Dynasty (Joseph’s) context, he properly belonged to the Fifth Dynasty (Moses’s). Dr. Ernest L. Martin, who was absolutely convinced that Ptahhotep was Joseph, mistakenly mentioned him in a Third Dynasty context: “This Egyptian document is often called “The Oldest Book in the World” and was originally written by the vizier in the Fifth (or Third) Dynasty”: https://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040501.htm Ptahhotep handed down wise Maxims. There was (iii) Djedefhor (Hordjedef), another wise writer of Instructions during the Fourth Dynasty. Summary of One to Three Moses, as Weni(Iny)-Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge (Fourth/Twelfth dynasties), combines nicely with Kagemni, Chief Justice and Vizier, Fourth/Sixth dynasties, also greatly strengthening my case for the Fourth and Sixth being just the one dynasty. And Kagemni, as a writer of Instructions, combines nicely with the Vizier Ptahhotep (Fifth Dynasty), a famous sage and writer of Maxims – both of these now connecting with Djedefhor (Fourth Dynasty), for all of the same reasons. Now, this is where Moses as a briefly-reigning king comes in. • Phase Four The wise Djedefhor was actually a son of Khufu, our dynastic founding “new king” of Exodus 1:8). Like Weni (my Moses), known as “the Elder” - pertaining to scholarship? - Djedefhor was called “the Old”. And like Moses, who renounced the Crown (Hebrews 11:24-26): By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter when he was grown up. He chose to be mistreated with God’s people instead of having the temporary pleasures of sin. He thought that the abuses he suffered for Christ were more valuable than the treasures of Egypt, since he was looking forward to the reward …. Djedefhor disdained to become Crown Prince. And he later abdicated. Here is the Moses-like Biography of this scholarly prince: https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Djedefhor_I_(Pharaonic_Survival) Djedefhor I (Pharaonic Survival) …. Djedefhor, called the Old and the Scholar, was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty during the Old Kingdom. He is also known as Hordjedef. Djedefhor was the son of Khufu … and successor of Bakara, his nephew, and his mother was Meritites I. He is notable for being one of the few Egyptian Pharaohs to Abdicate …. Biography Djedefhor was a son of Pharaoh Khufu and brother of pharaohs Djedefra … and Khafra … his mother was Queen Meritites … making him a full brother of Djedefra …. The Teachings of Djedefhor, a document of which only fragments remain, is attributed to him. Djedefhor was deified after his death. …. As a prince, Djedefhor dedicated himself to scholarly pursuits, showing a profound interest in education and intellectual growth. His elder brother Kawab's untimely death left a vacancy in the line of succession. Their father, Khufu, initially intended for Djedefhor to ascend the throne, recognizing his wisdom and capabilities. However, Djedefhor declined the offer, feeling that his contributions were better suited to other roles. Consequently, his younger brother Djedefra was named Crown Prince. Djedefhor continued to cultivate his reputation as a learned and highly respected individual. His counsel was sought after and greatly valued during the reigns of his brothers, contributing significantly to the governance and intellectual climate of the time. Upon the premature death of King Bakara, Djedefhor was elected king by the Great 20 of Upper and Lower Egypt. [End of quote] A few clarifications are necessary here: Djedefhor’s presumed mother, Meritites, would likely be the same as Meresankh (Ankhesenmerire), Moses’s actual Egyptian foster-mother, “Merris” (Artapanus). His supposed half-brother, Djedefra, who reigned for a short time, would be Djedefhor himself. The names are identical, except for the altered theophoric, where ra (the Sun god, Ra) is replaced with hor (the falcon god, Horus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djedefre Djedefre (also known as Djedefra and Radjedef; died c. 2558 BC) [sic] was an ancient Egyptian king …of the 4th Dynasty during the Old Kingdom. He is well known by the Hellenized form of his name Rhatoisēs (Ῥατοίσης) by Manetho. Djedefre was the son and immediate throne successor of Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza …. Finally, since the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were one and the same, Djedefre would be the same as the short-reigning, Userkare, who, most interestingly, was erased by Pepi (one of my versions of ‘Chenephres’ who pursued Moses out of Egypt), with the word “desert” (to where Moses fled) inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkare Userkare (also Woserkare, meaning "Powerful is the soul of Ra"; died c. 2332 BC) [sic] was the second king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt, reigning briefly, 1 to 5 years, in the late 24th or the early 23rd century BC. Userkare's relation to his predecessor Teti and successor Pepi … is unknown and his reign remains enigmatic. Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and usually report the names of the kings whom they served. Furthermore, the figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". Egyptologists thus suspect a possible Damnatio memoriae on Pepi I's behalf against Userkare. ….

Were the Ten Plagues in Exodus aimed at Egyptian gods-goddesses?

“Again warning is given before the enactment of the plague takes place. Pharaoh is warned of the impending doom that will be faced if he does not listen to the Lord, and forget his own Egyptian gods and goddesses”. This interesting idea has been developed at various sites, one of these being: https://www.stat.rice.edu/~dobelman/Dinotech/10_Eqyptian_gods_10_Plagues.pdf- Ten Egyptian Plagues For Ten Egyptian Gods and Goddesses The God of Israel is greater than all other Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. Moses was a great prophet, called by God with a very important job to do. As an instrument in the Lord's hand he performed many signs, or "wonders", attempting to convince Pharaoh to allow the Israelites freedom from their bondage of slavery to the Egyptians. These "wonders" are more commonly referred to as "plagues" sent from the God of Israel, as a proof that the "one true God" was far greater than all of the multiple Gods of the Egyptians. These Egyptian Plagues were harsh and varied to correspond to the ancient egyptian gods and goddesses that were prevelant [sic] during Moses time in Egypt. The number ten is a significant number in biblical numerology. It represents a fullness of quantity. Ten Egyptian Plagues Means Completely Plagued. Just as the "Ten Commandments" become symbolic of the fullness of the moral law of God, the ten ancient plagues of Egypt represent the fullness of God's expression of justice and judgments, upon those who refuse to repent. Ten times God, through Moses, allows Pharaoh to change his mind, repent, and turn to the one true God, each time increasing the severity of the consequence of the plagues suffered for disobedience to His request. Ten times Pharaoh, because of pride, refuses to be taught by the Lord, and receives "judgments" through the plagues, pronounced upon his head from Moses, the deliverer. The Ten Egyptian Plagues testify of Jesus the Anointed One and His power to save. Moses and Aaron are sent as messengers of the Lord, to Pharaoh, to instruct him to let the children of Israel go "so that they may serve the Lord." It is further stipulated that they must be allowed to travel a three days journey so that they may offer their sacrifices as a means of worship. Pharaoh responds simply, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Soon however, Pharaoh will find out who this God is, and why he should obey His voice. He will understand His power over all the other Egyptian gods and goddesses. These ten Egyptian plagues not only demonstrated the power of God to Moses, the children of Israel, the Egyptians, and Pharaoh, but they were of such magnitude that they would be remembered for all generations, throughout the entire world. They again testify, as does both the Old and New Testament alike that salvation, from beginning to end, is only accomplished through Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of our faith." (Heb 12:2) Corresponding Egyptian God and Goddess to the type of plague: Hapi- Egyptian God of the Nile This Egyptian God was a water bearer. Egyptian Plague- Water Turned to Blood The first plague that was given to the Egyptians from God was that of turning the water to blood. As Aaron, the spokesman for Moses, touched the "rod" of the Lord to the Nile River it immediately turned to blood, all the fish died, and the river stank. Partially able to duplicate this miracle, the magicians of Pharaoh also turn water into blood, leaving Pharaoh unimpressed with this great wonder from God. Seven days the water throughout all the land of Egypt remained in this state, unsuitable for drinking, the perfect length of time to demonstrate that the Lord was superior to all the other Gods of Egypt. Heket- Egyptian Goddess of Fertility, Water, Renewal Heket the Egyptian Goddess, had the head of a frog. Egyptian Plague- Frogs coming from the Nile River Still, Pharaoh refused to let the children of Israel go from the presence of Egypt. The second plague that was extended upon Egypt, from the "rod" by Aaron, was that of frogs. The frogs came up from the river and were in their houses, in their food, in their clothing, in every place possible. From the greatest to the least, no one in Egypt escaped the plague of frogs. Pharaoh's magicians were able to bring more frogs in their attempt to imitate the power of God, but only Moses was able to make the frogs go away. This was another attack on a famous Egyptian Goddess, Heket. Geb- Egyptian God of the Earth The Egyptian God Geb, was over the dust of the earth. Egyptian Plague- Lice from the dust of the earth Still Pharaoh would not concede, even after this display of power from the Lord, or magnificent plague, he would not let them go. At the command of the Lord to Moses, Aaron was told to stretch forth his rod and smite the dust of the earth. When he did the dust became lice throughout all the land, on both people and beasts. The very dust that was referred to in the creation process of man is now used to plague men, as a reminder of his mortality and sin which both lead to death. Finally, the magicians of Pharaoh are humiliated, being unable to compete with this power that was so much greater than themselves and the powers that they had from their Egyptian gods and goddesses, and they profess, "this is the finger of God." This was the last plague that required Aaron's involvement, as the next set of three plagues are issued by the word of Moses himself. Khepri- Egyptian God of creation, movement of the Sun, rebirth Khepri, the Egyptian god had the head of a fly. Egyptian Plague- Swarms of Flies With the fourth Egyptian plague, which consisted of flies, begins the great miracle ot separation or differentiation. Moses met Pharaoh at the Nile River in the morning and made the demand, speaking on behalf of the Lord, "Let My peole go, that they may serve Me." Again, Pharaoh hardened his heart and disregarded the request, resulting in a pronouncement of swarms of flies. This time, however, only the Egyptians are affected by the judgement, or plague, and the children of Israel remain unscathed. This wonder also moves the Egyptian plagues to a different level, adding destruction as well as discomfort to the consequence of their decisions. Plagued by flies, Pharaoh tried a new tactic and begins bargaining with the Lord, showing his desire to maintain power and authority over God. He tries to dictate the terms and conditions of the offer, telling them they may sacrifice but only "in the land" clearly not complying with the requested "three days journey" that the Lord required. Moses wouldn't budge, and Pharaoh relented allowing them to leave, but telling them not to "go very far." This temporary allowance is made solely to have Moses "intreat the Lord that the swarms of flies may depart", at this point Pharaoh has learned in part who the Lord is and asks for His assistance over the Egyptian gods and goddesses. As soon as the request is granted by the Lord, Pharaoh reneges on his promise and will not let them go, and continues to worship his Egyptian Gods. Hathor-Egyptian Goddess of Love and Protection Usually this Egyptian Goddess was depicted with the head of a cow. Egyptian Plague- Death of Cattle and Livestock Moses once again demanded of Pharaoh, "Let my people go, that they may serve me", revealing also the next Egytian plague to occur on the condition of continued disobedience to the request. This plague was given with an advanced warning, allowing a period of repentance to occur, which goes unheeded. "Tomorrow" the hand of the Lord would be felt upon all the cattle and livestock, of only the Egyptians, as"grievous murrain." This means that disease and pestilence would fall upon their livestock with so severe a consequence as to cause them to die. This plague affected the Egyptian by creating a huge economic disaster, in areas of food, transportation, military supplies, farming, and economic goods that were produced by these livestock. Still Pharaohs heart remained hard and he would not listen to the Lord but remained faith to the Egytian gods and goddesses. Isis- Egyptian Goddess of Medicine and Peace Egyptian Plague- Ashes turned to Boils and Sores Unannounced the sixth Egyptian plague is given, for the first time, directly attacking the Egyptian people themselves. Being instructed by the Lord, Moses took ashes from the furnace of affliction, and threw them into the air. As the dust from the ashes blew all over Egypt, it settled on man and beast alike in the form of boils and sores. As with the previous two, throughout the remaining Egyptian plagues the division is drawn between the Egyptians and the children of Israel, as God gives protection to his covenant people. The severity of the judgment of God has now become personal, as it is actually felt by the people themselves. Cleanliness being paramount in the Egyptian society, this plague pronounces the people "unclean." The magicians who have been seen throughout the previous plagues are unable to perform ceremonially rituals to their Egyptian Gods and Goddesses in this unclean state, not allowing them to even stand before Pharaoh; they are seen in the scriptural account no more. It is great to notice the contrast shown as Moses and Aaron are the only ones left standing in front of Pharaoh, with the "One True God" as their support. Nut- Egyptian Goddess of the Sky Egyptian Plague- Hail rained down in the form of fire Again warning is given before the enactment of the plague takes place. Pharaoh is warned of the impending doom that will be faced if he does not listen to the Lord, and forget his own Egyptian gods and goddesses. Hail of unspeakable size and ability to destroy, would rain down from the sky and turn to fire as it hit the ground. The Lord, in showing Pharaoh that "there is none like Him in the Earth", allows those who are willing to hear His word, and do as He commands, to be saved. A division is now felt between the Egyptians in the form of those "converted" to the Lord, as shown by their obedience and willingness to escape to the protection of their "houses." Similarly we are warned to make our houses a place of refuge from the world today, we have been warned. Interestingly enough, the crops that were destroyed by the hail consisted of flax and barley, which were ripening in the fields. These two particular crops were not the mainstay of their diet, but were used more specifically for their clothing and libations. This destruction would make their life uncomfortable, but as far as effecting their food supply , the wheat still survived. This gave the Egyptians still another chance to turn to "the One True God", and forsake their own Egyptian gods and goddesses, thus showing His mercy and grace even yet. Seth- Egyptian God of Storms and Disorder Egyptian Plague- Locusts sent from the sky Still Pharaoh would not listen to the message of the Lord, still he relys on his own Egyptian gods and goddesses. The eighth plague issued by the Lord had an even greater purpose than all the others, it was to be felt so that Pharaoh would tell even "his sons and son's sons" the mighty things of the Lord, thus teaching even future generations of the power of the "strong hand of God" over all the other Egyptian gods and goddesses. Moses and Aaron approached Pharaoh with the same request, "Let my people go so that they may serve me", and pronounced the judgment of locusts if not heeded. This is the second wave of destruction to follow the hail, and whatever crops were left in tact after that display, were now completely consumed by the swarms of locusts that were unleashed from the sky. This wonder definitely affected their life source. By hitting them in their food supply, the Lord displayed the possibility of eminent death if a change of heart did not occur. Yet still, Pharaoh would not listen. Ra- The Sun God Egyptian Plague- Three Days of Complete Darkness Darkness now fell upon Egypt, unannounced, as a prelude to the future fate to be felt by the Egyptian empire when the message of the Lord was not heeded, and they still turned to their own Egyptian gods and goddesses. Three days of palpable darkness, that was so immense it could be physically felt, covered the land of Egypt. The sun, the most worshipped God in Egypt other than Pharaoh himself, gave no light. The Lord showed that he had control over the sun as a witness that the God of Israel had ultimate power over life and death. The psychological and religious impact would have had a profound influence on the Egyptians at this point. Darkness was a representation of death, judgment and hopelessness. Darkness was a complete absence of light. Pharaoh- The Ultimate Power of Egypt Egyptian Plague- Death of the Firstborn Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, was worshipped by the Egyptians because he was considered to be the greatest Egyptian God of all. It was believed that he was actually the son of Ra himself, manifest in the flesh. After the plague of darkness felt throughout the land was lifted, Pharaoh resumed his position of "bargaining with the Lord" and offered Moses another "deal." Since virtually all of the Egyptian animals had been consumed by the judgments of the Lord, Pharaoh now consented to the request made, to let the people go, but they must leave their animals behind. This was a totally unacceptable offer, as the animals were to be used as the actual sacrifice to the Lord. The Lord is uncompromising when He has set the terms. Enraged by the refusal, Pharaoh pronounced the last deadly plague to be unleashed upon the land from his very own lips as he warns Moses, "Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die." And Moses said, "Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more." At this point the passive obedience that the children of Israel have shown is now moved to a level of active obedience. They are given strict instructions to follow so that they do not also feel the judgment of this last plague sent by the Lord. These instructions are known as "The Feast of Passover", "The Feast of Unleavened Bread", and "The Law of the Firstborn." In these rituals are displayed the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, and the law of consecration, all necessary requirements to receive ultimate salvation from spiritual death. "Let My people go that they may serve Me" As God's children today we have learned through this great show of power that ultimately it will require "active obedience" to receive salvation from the "One True God." Looking back over the instructions that were given to Pharaoh to "let my people go that they may serve me", this principle is manifest throughout. Service to the Lord is the requirement of His people, and the blessing for this show of obedience and sacrifice is the ultimate salvation not only from physical death but from spiritual death as well.