The Exodus A commentary on Exodus 1 15 G. The final plague and the Passover (Exodus 11 13) Part 5: The journey out Exodus 13:17-22 Mark Vincent

Transcription

1 The Testimony, December Exposition EDITOR: Eric Marshall, The White House, Lynn Road, Castle Rising, King s Lynn, Norfolk, PE31 6AA. Tel./Fax ; testimony@marshalle.co.uk The Exodus A commentary on Exodus 1 15 G. The final plague and the Passover (Exodus 11 13) Part 5: The journey out Exodus 13:17-22 Mark Vincent The format of the commentary The narrative has been broken down into several major sections, of a chapter or two each; some of these will be covered in one month, others will take longer. An Introduction is provided for each of these major sections, which sets out the major events and themes dealt with in those chapters. Each major section is broken into subsections or episodes (these are typically between five and twenty verses each). For each the AV text is followed by a Comment, which draws out the major lessons and items of interest from the text. The AV text also contains Footnotes, in which additional oneoff points are made for those wanting to work through Exodus more slowly. THE FINAL portion of the Passover account tells of the manner and route of Israel s departure from Egypt. This is an appropriate point for a brief discussion about the identity and location of the Red Sea, prior to dealing with the record of the destruction and deliverance which takes place there, as recorded in chapters 14 and 15. The journey out 13:17 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: 13:18 But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed 1 out of the land of Egypt. 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you. 13:20 And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: 13:22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people. Comment Though they had witnessed such a great deliverance, Israel s spiritual state when they left Egypt was fragile. God anticipated their weak will and lack of vision, however, and planned a route which, though longer, would not lead them into temptation. Because of their lack of conviction in Him and in the enterprise they were undertaking, they had to take the long way round. In this there is both comfort (that God considered their weakness and made provision for it) and reproof (that we can punish ourselves with a more tiresome journey because we do not have the belief we should in the goal we are pursuing).

2 438 The route taken by the Israelites has been the source of some debate, largely because the identity and location of many of the places mentioned is disputed, but also because many scholars are seeking a non-miraculous explanation of the sea crossing. From this passage we learn the following: 1 The route did not involve the way of the land of the Philistines (v. 17), the most direct route. The phrase probably refers to a particular highway towards and through Philistine territory. 2 They went the way of the wilderness of the Red sea (v. 18). This then involves a debate about the identification of the Red Sea. 3 They went from Succoth to Etham in the edge of the wilderness (v. 20). And from chapter 14 we have the following concerning the crossing of the Red Sea: 4 They turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon ; they encamp by the sea, and the wilderness... shut them in (vv. 2,3). There are several candidates for possible routes out of Egypt, and several possible identifications for the Red Sea. I shall now try to provide some differentiation between these, with the caveat that I have no expertise in the geography of any area, let alone the Middle East, and am reliant upon material prepared by others. a Point 1 above allows us to exclude one of the potential routes, a northern one that takes Israel to the top of the Nile Delta where it meets the sea (round about the area of Lake Menzaleh and modern Port Said). Such a theory often identifies the Red Sea with Lake Sirbonis (also known as Lake Bardewil) or one of the other lagoons on or close to the Mediterranean shore. This route keeps Israel close to the Mediterranean coast and takes them right through the heart of Philistine territory. Any suggestion that this was the route would be in flagrant contradiction of the statement that God did not take them the way of the land of the Philistines. b Although four place names are mentioned following the reference to the departure from Succoth, the locations of each are so uncertain that they contribute little to our route discussion. A cynical but perhaps accurate view would be that scholars tend to decide on where they want the crossing to take place, and then identify possible candidates for the place-names. Instead we must proceed to the term Red Sea. In Hebrew this is Yam Suph, the term yam The Testimony, December 2003 meaning sea, and suph being an Egyptian loanword meaning reed(s). (Suph becomes the standard Hebrew word for reed.) The point is made that the Red Sea is not necessarily what we think of as the Red Sea with its two associated gulfs of Aqaba and Suez, but may instead be the Reed Sea (or for some the Weed Sea ), some other expanse of water. If we are right to draw a connection between our sea and reeds, then it is unlikely that the Red Sea as we know it today is meant, as an inflow of fresh water would be necessary. Assuming for a moment that we are correct to pursue the reed idea, what alternatives are there? If not Lake Sirbonis (as above, already rejected, though it and the other lakes around the Nile delta do support reeds), what else is there? Perhaps we should look to one of the Bitter Lakes or some place nearby, roughly halfway between the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean, on the line of the modern-day Suez Canal. This area would not be all that far from the heartland of Egyptian papyrus (the reed) and is an area which can be affected by strong east winds. However, before the Suez Canal flooded them with sea-water, the Bitter Lakes lay dry for centuries, and it is not known from whence they were once filled. They may have been saline with no fresh water inflow, for instance, and thus not have supported reed growth. A number of ancient sources indicate that there has been a canal route from the Nile at various periods, through Wadi Tumilat to Lake Timsah (just north of the Bitter Lakes), then south through the Lakes and on into the Gulf of Suez. c Under such a scenario, a b c Three articles previously published in The Testimony are helpful: A. E. Jones, Some Theories as to the Route of the Exodus, July 1940, p. 210; Tony Benson, Where is Mount Sinai? April 1997, p. 125 and May 1997, p. 170; Debbie Hurn, Red Sea or Reed Sea?, (Nov. 2002, p. 423). I am grateful to Sister Hurn for personal correspondence on this section of the Exodus route. She is currently working on a book on the wilderness routes. Note that this is stated before the account of the Red Sea crossing; it is thus difficult to argue that they crossed water up in the north and then headed south to avoid the way of the land of the Philistines. The implication is they headed south in the first instance on departure from Egypt. Note that, while this raises the possibility of the Bitter Lakes supporting reeds, it does not necessarily confirm the view that the Sea was thus named, since one can derive Yam Suph from soph, end, as I set out later.

3 The Testimony, December it is conceivable that fresh water did flow into the Bitter Lakes at least seasonally (and possibly by implication the Gulf also), and that the Bitter Lakes would consequently have supported reeds. It is also possible that at the time of the Exodus the Gulf of Suez extended further northwards than it does today, and may have joined up with the Bitter Lakes area, as indicated by raised beaches around the head of the Gulf. But are we pushing a point too far to insist on finding reeds at our Red Sea crossing location? It is clear from 1 Kings 9:26 and elsewhere that the term Yam Suph is indeed used in the Bible to refer to what we call the Red Sea, for the place referred to in that passage is the modern Eilat, on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. d There are several ways in which one could then get around the reed issue: 1 Deny that the meaning reed is relevant to the identification of the sea. There does not have to be a link between a place-name and its strict etymological derivation; 2 Claim that there once were reeds on the Red Sea, or that there is some other reason, now lost to us, why the term reed should come to be associated with the Red Sea; 3 Argue that the term Red Sea is not derived from suph, but rather soph, end. This merely involves a change of vocalisation (vowel point), and would result in a meaning of terminal sea, sea [at the] end [of the world] or some such. (Others have suggested sea of extinction, though the Dead Sea sounds like a better candidate for such a meaning!) This is not a widely held view, but it does have its supporters, and is not unreasonable. (The place Suph mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:1 (RSV) and Numbers 21:14 (RSV) is at the end, or the furthest extent of, the Amorite border see the immediate context of Numbers 21:14.) One might compare the ancient name for the Mediterranean, hinder sea (Zech. 14:8), as indeed it is if one stands in Israel and faces east. In inter-testamental times the Red Sea was considered as a continuous body of water spanning the Arabian and Persian Gulfs and including all the connecting oceans to the south. Under such a scheme, end sea sounds appropriate enough. Whatever the origin of the term Yam Suph, there is no doubt that on at least some of the occasions on which it occurs it refers to the Red Sea. For those who accept this for the Exodus too (and if one does, this interpretation then covers all the Biblical references), there are still two possibilities. The first is the traditional view that Israel crossed the Gulf of Suez and then proceeded to Jebel Musa in southern Sinai; the second and more recent suggestion is that the Israelites journeyed north of the Gulf of Suez, heading southeastwards, so that the Red Sea crossing involved a traversing of the Gulf of Aqaba (two possible locations where this could have taken place have been identified, one at the top and one at the bottom). The Gulf of Aqaba suggestion seems unlikely, however; Brother Tony Benson provided what seems to be a compelling critique of it in the April 1997 Testimony article referred to in footnote a. To cite just one fact, the Gulf of Aqaba is extremely deep, and although it is no obstacle to God to heap up the waters and drain it, it would be an obstacle to Pharaoh s chariots simply to ride down into those great depths as though on a highway; the Gulf of Suez is relatively shallow by comparison. The understanding that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Suez, as has traditionally been thought, seems to be a good one. There are plains on either side of the north end of the Gulf of Suez which could accommodate the size of encampment that Israel required, and which would provide an appropriate setting for the events that Exodus relates. Here the waters are four miles across, and the maximum depth is about 140 feet. The main difficulty is the length of time it would have taken to get there. The three stops for encampment at Succoth, Etham, then Pihahiroth (here and Numbers 33), probably indicate that it took Israel three days to arrive at the shores of the sea, and may correspond to the three days journey into the wilderness which Moses speaks of in 8:27. But even the northernmost tip of the Gulf of Suez, if in the same place as it is today, would have been quite far for a company containing children and livestock to reach in three days. This is where the suggestion that the sea may once have extended further northwards might help out. Several options have been presented, and it is time now to draw things together. Whichever d Incidentally, the Septuagint does indeed use the literal expression Red Sea to translate Yam Suph. It did not translate the expression literally as Sea of Reeds. It could be argued that the absence of the definite article before suph supports such a reading; if we were to translate literally Sea of Reeds then we might expect the presence of the article.

4 440 view be selected, one thing is clear, and makes the choice quite different from what it would be for the average scholar: the destruction of Pharaoh s host and the opening of a way through the sea is a supernatural event, and any diminution of it is to be rejected, particularly given the graphic language the Scriptures choose to describe the miracle. We are not talking here of a trifling patch of water which might dry up in drought or if winds are strong; we are talking of something incredible and unparalleled. Passages such as Isaiah 43:16; 51:10 and 63:13, as well as Exodus 14 15, emphasise the remarkable and sizeable feat that God accomplished. I would suggest there are three main alternatives, and I mention the disadvantage of each. 1 The Red Sea crossing took place somewhere in the region of the Bitter Lakes, which may or may not once have supported reeds. This involves having the term Yam Suph mean Bitter Lakes in some passages and Red Sea in others; if there were no reeds or if the Lakes were independent from the Gulf then there is no particular reason why they should be referred to as Yam Suph. 2 Yam Suph means the Red Sea, and the crossing took place at the north end of the Gulf of Suez as we now know it. This involves the camp travelling a rather large distance in three days. 3 The Gulf of Suez once extended further north, possibly even incorporating the present Bitter Lakes area. It would be nice to have conclusive evidence whether or not it did. Considerably more could be written, and much more research undertaken, but it is hoped that the foregoing at least gives a flavour of some of the issues and options. If anything, I am personally probably inclined to favour option 3, or possibly 2. TO RETURN now to the passage of Exodus under discussion, the exit from Egypt provided the fulfilment of a prediction Joseph had made at the end of his life. The loop back to Genesis is made emphatically, through the use of an explicit quotation from the words of Joseph on his deathbed: And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which He sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall The Testimony, December 2003 carry up my bones from hence (Gen. 50: 24,25). Joseph had made the point with an oath, and the vehemence with which he had instructed his brethren to carry forth his bones had not been forgotten. Throughout their journeys the Lord was with the children of Israel. His continuing presence was symbolised in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. He gave Himself no rest, His presence was continuous, and, though it took different forms (whether cloud or fire), it was always there. Thick cloud and fire are frequently associated with theophany in Scripture, the cloud serving to obscure or mask something of the penetrating splendour of His presence, too great for the eyes of man. It is as if during the day the angel of God s presence (who looks out through the pillar in 14:24) cloaks His glory in the cloud, whereas at night, under cover of darkness, something of the radiance of the glory is permitted to shine through to illuminate the way for the Israelites. It looks as though, for this initial part of the journey at least, the Israelites (including the little ones) were to journey nonstop so as to put as much distance as possible between themselves and Egypt: to go by day and night (13:21). But they did not go unaccompanied. God went before them through His angel enshrined in the pillar of cloud and fire, He prepared the way before them, He provided leadership and gave them something on which they could focus, something to fix their eyes on as they journeyed. 1. v. 18 harnessed. There are two possibilities concerning the meaning and derivation of this term. The first takes it from the number five, and has Israel travelling in some form of configuration involving fives (alternatively, it has been understood to mean on the fifth day, or even as a reference to the fifth generation, but these seem less likely options). Some repoint the Hebrew term to derive it from the number fifty, perhaps translating it as by units of fifty, which might make more sense than five, given the great number of people who left Egypt. Intriguingly, if one assumes that a thousand soldiers were in a unit (compare the Hebrew eleph, which some have argued has a military connotation in some contexts), and that there were fifty such units per tribe, and twelve tribes, one

5 The Testimony, December arrives at 600,000, the number of adult males who left Egypt. However, there would not have been the same number of males in each tribe, so the connection would be symbolic at best. The second possibility is to take the term in the sense of well girt, armed, equipped (so the Syriac, the Targums, etc.; the term apparently carries this sense in modern Hebrew as well). It would be derived from the noun for belly, appropriate given that the soldiers midriffs would be girt. Propp s commentary suggests that both terms may go back to a root meaning be resolute ; this makes good sense, and the meaning of well girt, equipped (compare the eating of the Passover with loins girt), is appropriate here. Other occurrences are in Joshua 1:14; 4:12 ( armed ) and Judges 7:11 ( armed men ). A comparison of Deuteronomy 3:18 and Joshua 1:14; 4:12 suggests the meaning armed, since all three passages are about the same thing, and the Deuteronomy verse uses a different word that definitely means armed. Water, wine and the red heifer 3. Blood and water Sarah Joiner HAVING CONSIDERED in the previous issue the significance which the third day and the seventh day have in both the ritual of the red heifer and the miracle of turning water into wine, we move on now to another connection between Numbers 19 and John 2. Ashes of blood The first point made about the heifer is very significant: she had to be red (Num. 19:2). It is the only animal used for Mosaic ceremony that had to be a specific colour. Why? Red has connotations of life, health, sin and salvation. However, the most compelling reason why a red animal and no other had to be used is that it was a reminder of blood. A Scriptural analogy here would be with Exodus 35:7 and the specification that the tabernacle coverings were to be made of rams skins dyed red.* The red dye symbolised blood, and looked back to the ram caught in the thicket, which in turn signified Christ s sacrifice. This emphasis on blood is compounded by the following facts: the red heifer was the only animal, under the law, to be burned with its blood scarlet was also to be burned with the animal. Whilst the animal was burning, then, red would be the predominant colour seen. This still leaves us with the conundrum of why blood should be underscored so repeatedly. Wenham offers this suggestion: What is important here is producing ash with purificatory properties. It is for this reason that the blood is burnt, something without parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament. Blood is the most potent cleansing and sanctifying agent in the Bible (cf. Heb. 9:22). For the same reason, other traditional cleansing agents are thrown into the fire to fortify the ash: cedarwood, hyssop... and scarlet stuff... Presumably, similar reasons lay behind the insistence on a red heifer. Normally the animal s colour did not matter. This one had to be red to resemble blood. 1 * All Scripture quotations are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated. Citations of articles from The Christadelphian are from the electronic edition produced by Logos Library Systems on behalf of the Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association. 1. Gordon J. Wenham: Numbers (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, IVP, 1981, p. 146). Brother C. C. Walker also highlights the connection between the colour red and blood: We briefly ponder the elements of the case separately. The heifer was red. Why red? Red is the sin colour, blood colour; it is used in the symbolism of the Bible in that connection, Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. But then this red heifer was to be without spot, and having no blemish. There, in the antitype Christ we have the spotlessness of his character, not of the flesh the flesh was the same as any other flesh but the blood of Christ, as has been remarked, was the only blood of all the human race that never energized a man to sin, and in his obedience in pouring out his soul unto death, there is the preciousness of the blood of Christ. It is the moral aspect of the case, the spotlessness of his character, sealed by his obedience unto death. C. C. Walker: The Water of Separation (The Christadelphian, vol. 52, 1915, p. 205).