The Egyptian curse of mercy is a belief or superstition that originated in ancient Egypt. According to this curse, anyone who shows mercy or compassion towards another person will be cursed and suffer misfortune. In ancient Egyptian society, the concept of justice was highly regarded and closely tied to the belief in an afterlife. The Pharaoh, as the ruler and judge, was responsible for upholding justice and ensuring that the gods were satisfied. It was believed that if a person showed mercy towards a wrongdoer, they would disrupt the balance of justice and invoke the wrath of the gods. The curse of mercy was seen as a deterrent to prevent people from showing compassion, particularly in cases of crime and punishment.
Mercy and Khenti are trapped in the Ancient Egyptian Underworld and need Hunter’s help to escape. But while Hunter searches for a way to save them, other threats loom over Goodeville. Amphitrite is still around–and she wants vengeance against Hunter. With the gates weakening with every passing day, Amphitrite lures out some deadly creatures and sets them free on the residents of Goodeville. It will take everything in Mercy and Hunter’s power to stop the goddess and seal the gates once and for all.
seek to use the game to grow Christians in their knowledge of the Bible and bring the Gospel to gamers in his community that would normally not step foot in a church. 36 And everyone who is left in your house will come to bow down to him for a silver coin or a loaf of bread and say, Please assign me to one of the priest s offices so that I may eat a piece of bread.
The curse of mercy was seen as a deterrent to prevent people from showing compassion, particularly in cases of crime and punishment. The ancient Egyptians believed that showing mercy towards a criminal would only lead to further wrongdoing and chaos. This belief in the curse of mercy was also influenced by the Egyptian concept of Ma'at, which embodied the principles of truth, balance, and order in the universe.
(Ex. 12:29) Why would God slay the firstborn of the Egyptians?
CLAIM: Why are the people of Egypt held responsible for the actions of Pharaoh? Isn’t this cruel and unusual? They didn’t disobey God. Why would they be held responsible?
RESPONSE: A number of responses can be made:
First, the Egyptians were guilty of inhumane and horrific crimes. They committed infanticide (Ex. 1:22) and multi-generational slavery (Gen. 15:13; Ex. 5:14-16). God had promised to curse those who cursed Israel (Gen. 12:3). So, if God didn’t act, he would have been breaking his promise to Abraham.
Pharaoh had murdered all of the infant Hebrew boys by drowning them in the Nile River, and Pharaoh had “commanded all his people” to do this as well (Ex. 1:22). The Egyptian people were far from innocent when they followed these horrific orders from Pharaoh (contra Shiphrah and Puah in Ex. 1:15). Moreover, the Egyptians had grown rich by enslaving the Jewish people for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). While the pharaohs led these public policies, the Egyptian people benefited from his decision to enslave the Jews. At the very least, the Egyptian people were culpable for standing idly by while this was happening. Elie Wiesel—a survivor of the Holocaust—famously wrote, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”[1]
Second, Pharaoh killed every infant Hebrew boy, but God only judged the firstborn of Egypt. God’s judgment was mild in comparison to Pharaoh’s judgment. Moreover, the text never states that Pharaoh’s edict to kill the Hebrew infants was ever rescinded. So, it’s possible that the Pharaoh was currently killing the Hebrew boys at the time of the plagues.
Third, some Egyptians escaped from judgment with the Hebrews. The instructions for the Passover meal mentions the “alien,” who decides to participate in the Passover supper (Ex. 12:19). Therefore, when the text says that “all” of the Egyptian households were struck with a plague (Ex. 12:29), this no doubt refers to those unbelieving households. [2] Moses uses hyperbolic language when he refers to “all” of the people being struck with judgment. Earlier, the text states that “all the livestock of Egypt died” (Ex. 9:6). Yet, later we read about more livestock being judged (Ex. 9:24-26).
All of this explains why the Egyptians had turned to appreciate the Israelites: “The LORD had caused the Egyptians to look favorably on the people of Israel. And Moses was considered a very great man in the land of Egypt, respected by Pharaoh’s officials and the Egyptian people alike” (Ex. 11:3 NLT). Indeed, some of Pharaoh’s top advisors followed God’s words and were spared from judgment (Ex. 9:20-21). This explains why a “mixed multitude” or a “rabble of non-Israelites” (NLT) escaped Egypt alongside with the Israelites (Ex. 12:38).
Fourth, the last plague was a last resort. God warned Pharoah with nine straight plagues. Most of these plagues weren’t fatal—only extremely annoying or even painful. Yet, Pharaoh refused to relent. God patiently gave many chances to Pharaoh for repentance, but Pharaoh gave none (Ex. 1:22).
Fifth, the firstborn sons of Egypt were below the age of accountability. Scripture often describes how children are not held responsible by God because they are too young to be held responsible. Consider several biblical examples:
- Isaiah writes that there is an age before a child is able to “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa. 7:16).
- The children of Israel were not held responsible for the sins of their parents during the Wandering. Why? They had “no knowledge of good or evil” (Deut. 1:39).
- When David’s newborn baby died, he said, “I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23 NLT). Of course, David believed that he was going to be with God after death (Ps. 16:10-11), and the New Testament authors state that David is in heaven (Rom. 4:6-8). This demonstrates that his infant must also be in heaven.
- Jesus implies that little children will be in heaven (Mk. 10:14; Mt. 18:3; 19:14).
The text states that God took the lives of the firstborn at “midnight” (Ex. 11:4; 12:29). Ancient people went to sleep at dusk and awoke at dawn. So, the firstborn would’ve died in their sleep, which was “an act of grace.” [3] This would’ve resulted in bringing the children immediately into the presence of God in heaven. Of course, the Hebrew infants did not peacefully die in their sleep, but rather, they drowned in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22).
Sixth, God has certain moral rights over human life that we don’t. God is the author and creator of life. Therefore, he has unique rights over all human life. [4] To far lesser extent, a mother has certain rights over her child that she does not have over other people’s children (e.g. disciplining the child, making decisions for the child, etc.). Since God is the creator and sustainer of all people, he decides how long we get to live (Ps. 139:16). God takes everyone’s life at some point. It’s called death. We acknowledge this when a surgeon is bringing someone back to life. We say that he is “Playing God.” God allows everyone to die; the question is, When? We live everyday—not as a right—but by the mercy of God. When God took the lives of the firstborn in Egypt, he was acting on prerogatives that rightly belong to him.
Seventh, the God who took the firstborn son gave his firstborn son. We would be remiss if we didn’t point this out. While we might feel horror at the fact that God would judge the firstborn of Egypt, we need to remember that we’re dealing with the same God who paid this great and terrible price himself by giving up his “only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16). While God is willing and able to judge, he was also willing to take our place in judgment at the Cross of Christ.
[1] Elie Wiesel. U.S. News and World Report. 27. October, 1986. Cited in Elizabeth Knowles, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 816.
[2] Similarly, Exodus 9:24 describes the hail hitting “in all the land of Egypt.” However, verse 26 qualifies the fact that Goshen was spared.
[3] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 265.
[4] Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. 257.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by
Before we shout, “That’s not fair!”, we need to check our definition of guilt, innocence, and justice against Scripture. Psalm 51 is the contrite cry of repentance of King David after he was convicted of his sin of adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband to cover it up. David says:
Any act of mercy was viewed as a violation of Ma'at and could upset the cosmic balance. As a result of this belief, punishments in ancient Egypt were often severe and uncompromising. The Pharaoh and his judges were known to have a strict approach towards criminals, and compassion was rarely shown. The punishment for crimes could range from financial penalties and imprisonment to physical torture and death. However, it is important to note that the curse of mercy was a cultural belief and not a tangible curse that actually inflicted misfortune upon individuals. It was a tool used to maintain social order and enforce justice in ancient Egyptian society. The concept of the Egyptian curse of mercy sheds light on the values and beliefs of ancient Egyptian society. It reflects the importance placed on justice, balance, and order, and the fear of disrupting these principles through acts of compassion. Today, the curse of mercy is no longer believed in or followed. However, it serves as a reminder of the ancient Egyptian civilization and its unique worldview. It gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the people who lived thousands of years ago and how they sought to maintain order and harmony in their society..
Reviews for "Surviving the Egyptian Curse of Mercy: Tales of Luck and Fate"
1. Emily - ★☆☆☆☆
I was really disappointed with "The Egyptian Curse of Mercy". The story moved at a snail's pace, and the characters were completely one-dimensional. I found myself struggling to finish the book, as there was no real depth or excitement to keep me engaged. The plot felt predictable and lacked any originality. Overall, I would not recommend this novel to anyone looking for a thrilling adventure or well-developed characters.
2. Mike - ★★☆☆☆
"The Egyptian Curse of Mercy" was just okay in my opinion. While the concept of the curse was intriguing, the execution fell short. The writing was average, and there were several plot holes that left me scratching my head. The pacing was also uneven, with some parts dragging on while others felt rushed. I didn't feel a strong connection to any of the characters, which made it difficult to invest in their journey. Overall, it was a forgettable read.
3. Sarah - ★★☆☆☆
I had high hopes for "The Egyptian Curse of Mercy", but unfortunately, it failed to deliver. The story lacked depth and the characters felt superficial. The dialogue was clunky and awkward, making it difficult to become fully immersed in the narrative. I also found some of the plot twists to be contrived and forced, which added to my overall disappointment. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone looking for a captivating and well-crafted adventure.
4. John - ★☆☆☆☆
"The Egyptian Curse of Mercy" was a complete letdown. The protagonist was unrelatable and unlikable, and the supporting characters were equally as uninteresting. The plot lacked originality and felt like a jumbled mess of clichés. There were also numerous grammatical errors throughout the book, which was distracting and took away from the reading experience. Overall, this novel was a waste of time and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.