The Fall of Egypt (No. 36)

The Fall of Egypt: The Prophecy of Pharaoh's Broken Arms Page 3

Christian Churches of God

No. 36

The Fall of Egypt

The Prophecy of Pharaoh's Broken Arms

(Edition 4.5 19940618-20000820-20100629-20101017-20161231)

The prophecy of the Fall of Egypt is examined in five sections from Ezekiel chapters 29 to 32. This little understood prophecy has enormous implications for the last days and the wars of the end. The four part series consists of an overview with four sequential developments explaining in detail the time-frame presented in the overview. The nations mentioned are examined. Egypt is seen to have experienced a detailed prophetic sequence of activity, which shows that God is going to deal with that country as part of a sequence in the subjugation of the nations shortly to occur. Understanding of this prophecy is important to the general framework of the return of Messiah and the wars of the Host and the end of the times of the Gentiles.

Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Email:

This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.

This paper is available from the World Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org or http://www.ccg.org

The Fall of Egypt: The Prophecy of Pharaoh's Broken Arms

The Fall of Egypt: The Prophecy of Pharaoh's Broken Arms Page 3

The prophet Ezekiel was given a vision of a pivotal prophecy in world history. It concerned the nation of Egypt. Egypt was used as a key nation in world history for a number of reasons. Firstly it was one of the most ancient of kingdoms and secondly because it represented the conflict of world systems, which were typified in Daniel under the headings the king of the North and the king of the South. The prophecy concerning Egypt is found in Ezekiel 29:1 to 32:32. This prophecy is followed immediately by the warning of the watchmen in Ezekiel 33:1ff. This is a warning to Israel following on from the prophecy concerning the fall of Egypt. This is done to reinforce the point that the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning Egypt is pivotal to the last days. The prophecy has been held up to be a failed prophecy for reasons that shall be explained.

The real reason behind such assertions is because the meaning has been hidden in a key, which is understood in the last days and revealed to the nations by explanatory warnings. This is of itself a prophecy given in Jeremiah 4:15f., as coming from the mountains of Ephraim.

This prophecy interrelates to a series of other prophecies. Any of the well-known prophecies, for example Daniel chapters 2 and 7, could have been chosen to illustrate the sequence and this work could have formed an explanatory rather than a framework text. This was not done in that manner precisely because this text is considered by modern scholarship to be the weakest of the prophecies. For that reason it is used to show the power of prophecy and the far reaching nature of the word of God.

The prophecy concerning Egypt follows on from the prophecy concerning Tyre in Ezekiel 28:1ff. This prophecy relates to the fall of the anointed Covering Cherub (Ezek. 28:14), the Morning Star Azazel or Satan (the RSV etc. attempts to make it appear that the entity was placed with a guardian cherub, but the KJV is correct; see also The Interlinear Bible). Thus the fall of Satan is preliminary to the problems of Egypt, but also becomes interrelated to the fall of Babylon as we will see from Isaiah 14:1ff. below.

Phase 1 – Part 1

The interrelated nature of the prophecies is perhaps exemplified by the placement of the text of Ezekiel 28:25 to 29:21 between Exodus 9:35 and 10:1 in the Soncino commentaries. There are a number of important observations to be linked with this text. Ezekiel 28:25-26 talks of the restoration of Israel and the restoration is seen as being linked to the fall of Egypt from these texts. The commentaries by Kimchi on verse 25 hold that it declares the retribution of the Lord on those who had harmed Israel. Rashi holds verse 26 to My servant Jacob to refer to:

Exiled Israel who will be restored to their land, a land spacious and ample with undefined borders, as promised by God to the patriarch Jacob (cf. Gen. 28:14).

The warning to Egypt commences in Ezekiel 29.

Ezekiel 29:1-3 In the tenth year [of the reign of Zedekiah (Kimshi)], in the tenth month, on the twelfth day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt; 3 speak, and say, Thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it.'

The great dragon was held to refer to the king of Egypt with the Nile representing Egypt itself (by Rashi and Kimshi, Soncino). We are thus dealing with the concept of rulership of Egypt. The real rulership of Egypt stemmed from the angelic Host as they were given dominion over the nations by God (see below). The rulership of Egypt rested in Prince Mastema according to the midrashim and traditions (see esp. Jubilees 48:13ff.). Thus Yahweh fought the battle between the forces of God and the forces of the fallen Host under Mastema. The Canaanite rulership was in Prince Yam and the battles in the wilderness and for Israel occurred between Yahweh and the Host on behalf of God.

The concept of the El Elyon as Yahovah (Jehovah) of Hosts being superior to Yahweh (or Yahovah) is a very old concept from the Pentateuch and which is painstakingly disguised. Hayman, Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Studies, Journal of Jewish Studies 42, 1991, pages 6-7 and also Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, Harper, San Francisco, 1990, page 7, both note the texts in question. Smith contends that the original God of Israel was El. This is because El is not a Yahwistic name. Hence El was the original chief God of the group named Israel. Smith finds support from Genesis 49:24-25, which presents El names separate from the mention of YHVH in verse 18. Also he notes that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 casts YHVH in the role of one of the sons of El here called El Elyon:

When the Most High (elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when [H]e separated humanity, [H]e fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage (Smith, p. 7).

The Soncino translates the Masoretic Text (MT) as according to the number of the children of Israel. Thus the nexus is confined to the twelve tribes and the Canaanite territories.

Rabbi Rashbam holds that The Most High assigned to the peoples their allotted territories separating them after the death of Noah. No mention is made of the size of the territory belonging to the other descendants of Noah. Thus, the extensive nature of the allocation is acknowledged even by the MT and commentaries. However, the text appears to have been altered. The MT reads bene yisrael where the LXX reads aggelon theou and the Qumran reads bny 'ilhym [or beny eliym] (cf. Smith n. 37 noting also Meyer, and Skehan BASOR 136 (1954): 12-15). Hayman also (p. 6) in claiming support for a transition from Yahweh to Elohim holds the original text to have probably read:

When the most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the gods ( / ). And Yahweh's portion was his people Jacob, Israel his allotted heritage.

Hayman notes that:

… the MT has removed the reference here to the gods or the angels and substituted 'the sons of Israel'...

Footnote 23 has the assertion that it identifies the number of the nations (Gen. 10) with the number of Jacob's (Israel's) sons (Gen. 46:27).

That is not the interpretation of the commentaries. The number of the sons of Israel was 12. The number was also that of Canaan and his eleven sons (Sh). From above, Rashbam clearly distinguishes the other territories. Hayman is thus in error. Hayman also holds verse 9 of the MT to identify Yahweh with Elyon by reading    whereas the LXX presupposes a Hebrew text which had   . Hayman notes Lemche as saying:

The Hebrew text identifies the "Most High" (Elyon) with Yahweh, while the Greek version apparently ranges Yahweh among the sons of the Most High, that is, treats him as a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon (Hayman, p. 6, quoting Lemche Ancient Israel, p. 226).

Hayman sates that:

In post-exilic and later Jewish sources, of course, there is no awareness that El Elyon [used only in Deut. 32:8; Gen. 14:18 and Num. 24:16] was ever anything other than Yahweh himself, but the pattern of belief revealed in this text persisted.

Hayman thinks the idea that God assigned the nations is of Canaanite origin having similar ideas in Greek religion. He supports this by reference to the seventy sons of Athirat in the Baal/Anat epic, (J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Edinburgh, 1977, p. 63). The association with Greek religion is drawn from Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, London, 1974, Vol. I, p. 187. This idea that God assigned each of the seventy nations of earth to one of the angelic Host is not Canaanitic in origin. From the references the Greeks also held the view. The Israelites also used the structure to establish their system of government at Sinai before they entered Canaan. The entire system was designed as a copy of the celestial structure as we see from Hebrews 8:5. The seventy elders were modelled on the concept of the outer council of the Host. This number itself forms the basis for the allocation of the nations. The idea is also exilic being found in Daniel. Michael was held to be one of the chief princes (Dan. 10:13). Messiah is prince of princes (Dan. 8:25). Hence if Messiah has a name in the OT it is Michael.

There was held to be a prince of the nation of Persia who withstood the Angel of God for twenty-one days (Dan. 10:20). These princes are part of the fallen Host as they fight against the Lord's messengers, establishing in sequence the empires prophesied to occur in Daniel 2 and 7. Daniel 10:20 states there was also a prince of Grecia that would come after the prince of Persia. The being that spoke to Daniel had only Michael in support.

Hayman says the knowledge of who these angels originally were is lost in the tradition, although Enoch seems explicit enough. He seems to incorrectly limit the concept. Moreover, the use of Yahweh is not confined to one entity as we have seen from the texts above. There is also a superior Yahweh of Hosts and a subordinate Yahweh of Israel. This subordinationist concept runs throughout the Bible. It is expressed in the terms Son of God or Sons of God. There is no doubt that the God Most High is held to have had sons from Genesis 6:4 and Job 2:1 where Satan is among the Sons of God. Job 38:7 shows the elohim were in ranks of Morning Stars and Sons of God generally. Certainly from Proverbs 30:4, God has a son in particular. From Proverbs 30:5, God is identified as Eloah. From Job 40:2, Eloah is the Almighty. From Job 37:22-23 Eloah, the Almighty is terrible majesty. Thus the word for God in the singular refers to God the Father. Job 37:14 appears to relate El and the works of El to the disposition of Eloah who caused the light of His cloud to shine. Thus the El here is the El of the cloud who is subordinate to Eloah. Hence El who is the cloud of Israel (and hence the Angel of YHVH) acts at the disposition of Eloah or Elyon.

Thus the later rabbinical commentaries appear to seek to elevate the Yahweh of Israel. Hayman translates the text on the Shema from Oxford MS. 147 as edited by Saul Lieberman (Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Jerusalem, 1940, p. 65):

Hear, O Israel (Deut. 6:4). This refers to Lam. 3:24 - 'the portion of the Lord, says my soul'. What is 'the portion of the Lord'? When the Holy One, Blessed be He, shared out his world to the nations of the world, as it says, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance (Deut. 32:8), and they each chose their own god, one chose for itself Michael, one Gabriel, yet another chose the sun and the moon. But Israel chose for itself the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is said, For the Lord's portion is his people, etc. (Deut. 32:8).

Two points follow from this text. The first is that from the text was understood the allocation of the nations to the Host as being beyond the twelve tribes where it is attempted to be confined by a superficial view of the MT. This seems to show that the MT has been altered post-Qumran. Also the commentary seems to reverse the allocation from the nations to the princes to that of the nations choosing whom they would worship and more particularly that Michael and Gabriel would allow such activity in areas of their concern. Hayman points out the danger of the identification of Michael and Gabriel with pagan gods. The text in Daniel clearly states that Michael stands for Israel; hence, the rabbinical commentary may perhaps be an observation of an aberrant practice elsewhere.

Also the Midrash (and also from Deut. R cf. Lieberman, p. 68; cf. P. Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, Berlin, 1975, pp. 47f.) as quoted by Hayman noted that Holy One as descending to Sinai. Thus the Holy One of Israel is confused with the subordinate Yahweh (Yahovah) of Israel that is being discussed.