Exodus 9:1-7

PLAGUE V

"Then Jehovah said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still, Behold, the hand of Jehovah is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks: there shall be a very grievous murrain. And Jehovah shall make a distinction between the cattle of Israel, and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that belongeth to the children of Israel. And Jehovah appointed a set time, saying, Tomorrow shall Jehovah do this thing in thy land. And Jehovah did that thing on the morrow; and all the cattle of Egypt died; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not so much as one of the cattle of the Israelites dead, But the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn, and he did not let the people go."

"Let my people go ..." This great imperative thunders again and again throughout Exodus like a mighty refrain. See Exodus 5:1; 7:2,7,16; 8:1,20. The entire episode of the Plagues was designed to demonstrate to Pharaoh that the Israelites were not his people at all, despite the fact of his abusing and enslaving them. They belonged to a greater King, and therefore they were required to serve that King.

"Thy cattle which are in the field ..." Some commentators do not notice this restriction as to which cattle were to be afflicted. Many of the cattle were stall-fed at that season in Egypt, but those were not to be destroyed. The understanding of this avoids the charge of "contradiction" based on Exodus 9:9,19, where it appears that there yet remained "cattle" subject to subsequent plagues.

"A very grievous murrain ..." Murrain was a pestilence among cattle, "Derived from the Latin `mori' (to die). There seems to be no basis upon which one can identify the pestilence, whether anthrax, as some claim, or another disease."[6]

If it is objected that there is nothing really miraculous about a fatal epidemic of some cattle disease, the answer lies in the fact that: (1) the onset of this epidemic was pinpointed in advance by Moses; (2) the cattle of the Israelites were spared according to Moses' promise; and (3) the severe intensity of it exceeded any natural occurrence. (4) Keil cited a fourth miraculous element in the plague's attacking all kinds of animals, not merely the cattle."[7]

Like all the plagues, this one also struck squarely at the pagan deities of Egypt. This one was "Ptah (Apis), the god of Memphis, represented as a bull, as well as other gods represented by the goat, the ram, the cow, and other animals."[8] Fields also identified another pagan deity that was discredited by this plague as "Hathor, pictured in the form of a cow ... and as suckling one of the kings, giving him divine nourishment."[9]

The Egyptian pantheon of pagan deities included the worship of an incredibly large number of creatures, such as:

"The goat, the serpent, the bull, the cow, the lion, the cats (especially female cats), crocodiles, scarab beetles, the ape, the ibis, the hawk, the vulture, the jackal, etc ... The sacred animals were in the eyes of the people more or less gods ... `Ra' was the sun god; `Shu' was the wind god; Nut was the sky goddess; `Geb' was the earth god; `Thermouthis' was the goddess of childbirth and of crops; `Nepri' was the corn god; `Tait' was the goddess of funerary vestments."[10]

And that is merely a very brief summary. It is not hard to see how all of the plagues were leveled squarely against the whole collection of pagan gods. It is true that there was hardly any living creature in Egypt that was not either worshipped or held sacred to some pagan deity.

It is also of great interest that this plague seemed to impress Pharaoh less than some of the previous ones, despite the fact of its inflicting very heavy property damage upon his nation. Rawlinson commented thus:

"The plague affected him less than the others had done, rather than more. He was so rich that an affliction which touched nothing but property seemed a trivial matter. What did he care for the sufferings of the poor beasts, or the ruin of those who depended upon the breeding and feeding of cattle?"[11]