The Song of the Sea: An ANE Taunt

Peter Craigie wrote a great little article in Vetus Testamentum (vol. 20, #1, 1970: pp 83-86) called  “An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea (Exodus XV.4).”  In this article, he argues that Ex 15.4 contains a word of Egyptian origin (šälìšäyw; “chosen officers” ESV); others have argued similarly for other words in the Song of the Sea (Ex 15.14 & 15 for example).

This isn’t a boring textual/critical note just for scholars.  What Craigie is saying is that the author of the Song of the Sea used “a Hebrew form of a foreign title in an accurate sense” (p. 85).  Craigie notes that the author wasn’t doing this to be historically accurate per se, but probably as a deliberate way to taunt Egypt in a poetic way.  “One aspect of victory songs as a genre in the ancient Near East is the use of taunt.  The use of Egyptian-type phraseology in a Song celebrating Israel’s victory would be an effective sarcasm and taunt, in a rhetorical sense, of the Egyptians” (p. 85-6).  This adds some depth to the song/poem, a richness that sits next to the narrative exodus account in chapter 14 in a wonderful way.

Of course, the Israelites weren’t foreign to Egyptian language of the day, so “the use of Egyptian expressions or formulae in a context describing the Egyptian military disaster would be most suitable” (p. 86).  In other words, this victory song celebrating the omnipotence of Yahweh over Egypt was also a ridicule of the enemy using the enemy’s own terms (like we do when we use the opposing football team’s own name to mock them).  This Ex 15 poetry is Nehemiah 4.4 worked out: they were turning the enemy’s taunt (Ex 15.9) back on their own head (Ex 15.4) in their song of praise to Yahweh.

A “praise song” like this probably wouldn’t make the top 40 today!

Side note: Craigie wrote the WBC commentaries on Psalms 1-50 (2nd ed.), Jeremiah 1-25, and Deuteronomy for the NICOT series, along with others.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs on Exodus 6

Brevard Childs has a great “theological reflection” on Exodus 6 – the ’sermon’ Yahweh gave to doubting and mutinous Moses.

Perhaps the greatest theological significance of Ex. 6 in the context of the canon is the tremendous theocentric emphasis of the Biblical author’s understanding of the exodus.  Although the shape of a call narrative is still present in ch. 6, interest in the manner of God’s appearing or the human reactions to a theophany have receded to a vanishing point.  Rather, the whole focus falls on God revealing himself in a majestic act of self-identification: I am Yahweh.  Although there is a history of revelation which includes a past and future, the theocentric focus on God’s initiative in making himself known tends to encompass all the various times into the one great act of disclosure.  To know God’s name is to know his purpose for all mankind from the beginning to the end.  Ezekiel pursues the same line of thought even more consistently when he sees all of God’s intervention into human history arising from this concern for his name (20.9).  In his testimony that nothing in human history shares the glory which belongs alone to God, the writer reduces Pharaoh to a pawn on God’s great chess-board, and Israel, far from being viewed as a partner in the plan of God, is judged for consistent disobedience and allegiance to the idols of Egypt (Ezek. 20.8).

Childs ends the section rightly in the NT, explaining how John’s understanding of Israel’s history “centered in the great act of self-revelation in Jesus Christ.”  Read the above quote again (and again!), with Christ in mind.

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 119-120.

Exodus 4.24-26: The Bloody “Bridegroom”

Though the brief and “bloody” episode of the circumcision that Zipporah performed is tucked away in the OT, there have been scores of articles and essays written on it.  It would be too tedious to list them all here, but for the record the ones I found helpful were written (in various commentaries and journals) by William Propp “That Bloody Bridegroom,” Ronald Allen “The ‘Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24-26,” Bernard Robinson “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6,” Julian Morgenstern “The ‘Bloody Husband’ (?) (Exod. 4:24-26) Once Again,” and commentaries by Brevard Childs, Peter Enns, Nahum Sarna, Terrence Fretheim, John Calvin, and a few others.  One should also consult Wellhausen’s etiological description, as well as important Jewish commentaries.

We  note from the outset that the Hebrew text is anything but crystal clear:  On whose “feet” does Zipporah wipe (nagah) the bloody foreskin?  Does ‘feet’ (regel) mean legs, feet, or private parts here?  Which son does Zipporah circumcise?  Who is the ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) of blood?  What does ‘bridegroom’ (hatan) mean here – relative, in-law, or wife’s father?  Who let whom go?  Certainly there are more questions that are not so easy to answer; the LXX is only somewhat helpful on this passage.

Here are a few things from the passage that can be stated with relative certainty: 1) Yahweh is angry with Moses and put him in a death grip.  2) Zipporah circumcised her son.  3) Zipporah’s bloody actions rescued Moses from death.

Here are two major OT episodes that parallel this passage grammatically and theologically: 1) Look back – Gen 32.24-30 – Jacob wrestling with the man/angel.  In the Moses episode and in the Jacob episode, there was a struggle (someone held someone), both struggles happened during a return journey, both involve a “touching” (nagah), both involve resistance to God’s call, both are followed by a favorable meeting with and kiss from a brother (Esau, Aaron).  You’ll find more parallels as well, making the connection quite tight.

2) Look forward – the Passover.  Both the Moses episode and the Passover involve the anger of Yahweh against sin, cutting, a son(s), blood, smearing (nagah) blood, and death being avoided by the shedding of blood.  Again, you’ll find more parallels, making the connection even more striking.

As Enns and Childs both note, circumcision here is quite important, also making the reader recall Gen 17, where the penalty for being uncircumcised was to be “cut off” from the covenant community.  Perhaps Yahweh is angry with Moses for unbelief and disobedience (cf. Ex 3.1-4.17, esp. 4.14), perhaps he is angry with Moses for not circumcising his son (possibly Gershom).  Perhaps both.  Either way, Yahweh was angry with Moses for sin, there was a cutting and a blood-shedding; the wiping of the bloody foreskin on (possibly) Moses may symbolize a cutting off in the stead of Moses.  Again, this has Passover written all over it.  Ultimately then, though maybe indirectly, it points to the first Passover. Then it brings us through the first Passover to the last, the final shedding of blood for sin in the “cutting” of the Lamb, the Son of God, the Messiah.

One more interesting interpretation – another plausible one, perhaps even complementary – is how Moses represents Israel.  Moses really pre-lives Israel’s journey, from a birth-deliverance through water to Mount Sinai in the wilderness, to this episode of Yahweh being angry with a recalcitrant child.  More specifically, in Fretheim’s terms, “Just as Moses was saved by the blood of his firstborn, so Israel would be saved by the blood of the Egyptian firstborn” (Exodus, p. 80).  In Isaiah’s terms, “I give Egypt as your ransom (kofer)” (43.3).  As still one more interesting side note, a few verses before this episode, Yahweh calls Israel his firstborn and declares that he will cut off Egypt’s firstborn to save his.  Yahweh’s sermon before this instance of the bloody briedgroom should help contextually interpret it.

This is just one tiny step forward in discussing this difficult text while noting and summarizing the scholarly positions.  Again, see the above named authors for more detailed information.  My presuppositions are akin to Enns’: the fact that Christ has risen from the dead profoundly affects our interpretation of the OT (Exodus, 26).  In other words, there are glimmers, shadows, types, symbols, events, prophecies, hints, and arrows in the OT that bring us to the cross, empty tomb, and session of the Messiah.  In Jesus’ own terms, Moses wrote about me.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

What Does Open Theism Sound Like? Moses and Open Theism

I knew Terence Fretheim’s name was attached to the Open Theism camp; I see why now in his commentary on Exodus (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991).  In discussing Yahweh’s dialogue with Moses in Exodus 3-4.17, Fretheim writes this: “God treats the dialogue with Moses with integrity and honors his insights as important ingredients for the shaping of the task.  God has so entered into a relationship with him that God is not the only one who has something important to say.  God will move with Moses, even adapting original divine plans … in view of Moses’ considerations.”

“God’s way into the future is not dictated solely by the divine word and will.  God places the divine word and will into the hands of another for him to do with what he will.  That is for God a risky venture, fraught with negative possibilities.  God will now have to work in and through Moses’ frailties as well as strengths.  This will mean something less than what would have been possible had God acted alone; God is not in total control of the ensuing events.”

Fretheim then explains how God lacked “initial success” in trying to persuade Moses to follow his call.  “God’s best efforts do not meet with instant success.” “…But God goes with what is possible…God must often work with options that are less than the best.  God often has to accept what people do with the powers they have been given” (p. 53; emphasis original).

Wow. Ironically, this text (3.22) talks about Israel “stripping” (nzl – Piel) Egypt of her wealth; Fretheim turns the tables and strips God of his omniscience and omnipotence.  Fretheim’s portrayal of God is like Ironman fighting his nemesis, surprised by a few secret weapons and quick shots, but able to adapt in the end to overcome the surprisingly strong enemy – all while taking a few hard hits.  Makes for a fun movie, but a worthless redemption story and a pitiful redeemer.  Or, in another analogy, Fretheim’s portrayal of God is like a cosmic dancing with the stars (see the words “moves with” above): God is the lead dancer, but Moses sometimes pulls a few tricks of his own, to which God adapts and utilizes to win the contest.

Notice: the text does speak about Yahweh’s omniscience and omnipotence (as does the entire Exodus event!): v19 notes that Yahweh knows that Pharaoh will not let Israel go (future) except by a strong hand (future Exodus “wonders of God;” cf. Jesus’ interpretation of this passage as proving the divine power of Yahweh in Mark 12.26, Luke 20.37, and Matt 22.29).  How can Yahweh (I AM WHO I AM) make a promise to deliver his people if he’s not sure how they’ll react or what Pharaoh will do?

Good commentary, but this section puts a red flag on the whole thing; read it and use it, but do so with care.  Also, now you know what Open Theism “sounds like” on the popular level, in case you haven’t heard it so clearly before.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Exodus 2.23-25: Yahweh Heard, Saw, Knew, and Remembered

In the New Bible Commentary: Revised Edition (edited by D. Guthrie, A. Motyer, A. Stibbs, and D. Wiseman), Hywel Jones wrote the brief commentary on the book of Exodus.  It is one of the jewels in this one-volume commentary (other authors include D. Kidner, M. G. Kline, R. K. Harrison, F. F. Bruce, Joyce Baldwin, O.T. Allis, E. J. Young,  and so forth).

Jones has a great comment on Exodus 2.23-25:

“The clear teaching of this brief but important passage is that God hears His people’s cry and sees their need in tender compassion, but not as a helpless, saddened spectator.  He is one who in sovereign love and power acts on the need He sees and the cry He hears, because He has taken a covenant oath upon Himself in respect of these people.  God had begun to prepare a deliverer before His people had cried for deliverance, however, and with the death of Pharaoh the time arrived for the deliverer to return to Egypt.  Thus plainly is the Lord of history a God of grace, and the God of grace is the Lord of history” (p. 122).

I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the commentary as I make my way through the Hebrew text of Exodus.  Stay tuned!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Exodus: Moses, Israel, and Jesus

Terence Fretheim (Exodus [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991]) makes several excellent observations concerning Moses, Israel, and Yahweh from Exodus 2.11-22.  Fretheim writes first that “Moses embodies Israel in his own life experience.”  How?  He 1) enters into conflict with the Egyptians, 2) becomes the subject of Pharaoh’s murderous edict, 3) has to flee from Egypt to the wilderness where God meets him at Sinai, and 4) testifies to having been/become a sojourner in a foreign land [his son's name means "foreigner"].  Notice that all four of these are true of Israel and Moses – Moses does it first in a real way.  He could not properly identify with Israel from birth, since he grew up in the courts of Pharaoh.  He had to first personally and intimately identify with the Israelites to be a proper deliverer and redeemer.  He did, as Fretheim notes, “become one of them by virtue of his own experience” (p. 42).   Of course this brings us to Christ, who became like his brothers in every way, sin excepted.  Moses is an OT “shadow” of Christ.

Furthermore, Fretheim also emphasizes how Moses’ action anticipates or foreshadows Yahweh’s soon-to-come actions.  Both Moses and Yahweh see and feel Israel’s oppression, both confront a wrong/injustice, both are rejected by Israel, both strike Egypt, both give water to thirsty people.  Moses’ own name means “draw out;” Yahweh will “draw out” his people as Moses was drawn out, as Moses drew out Israel, as it were.  Moses does these things in a creaturely, imperfect way, while Yahweh does them in the way of a Creator-Redeemer, perfectly.  Moses cannot do it; “God will have to become directly involved” (p. 44).  Again – Moses points us to the true Savior as his own life anticipates the mighty wonders of God in deliverance.

Stay tuned for more from Fretheim in the upcoming months.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More Sarna: Exodus 2.2

Of what significance is the note in Exodus 2.2 where we read that Moses was a “beautiful” (NKJ) or “fine” (ESV and NIV) child?

Sarna says this: “Hebrew tov, usually ‘good,’ might also here connote ‘robust, healthy.’  The entire clause stirs immediate association with a key phrase, seven time repeated in the Genesis Creation narrative, ‘God saw that…was good’ (tov).  This parallel suggests that the birth of Moses is intended to be understood as the dawn of a new creative era” (Nahum Sarna, Exodus [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 9).

Enns draws on Sarna’s emphasis: “The birth of Moses, in keeping with the re-creation theme in chapter 1, is not merely about the birth of one man, but represents the birth of a people.  The savior of God’s people is born, and through him they will receive a new beginning.  Their slavery will end and their savior will bring them safely into their rest, the Promised Land” (Peter Enns, Exodus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 62-3).

This is helpful, especially in light of other comments of Enns as well as Fretheim, noting that the ten plagues and the crossing of the Sea were in many ways a de-creation and re-creation.  It wasn’t a localized instance of one god fighting another god; it was a cosmic battle between Yahweh and the anti-god, Pharaoh.  Yahweh moves creation and recreates it to keep his Abrahamic covenant.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Deuteronomy and Jesus’ Farewell Discourse: Not a Parallel Coincidence

Not only do Exodus themes run throughout John’s Gospel, they are concentrated in Jesus’ farewell discourse.

“Most obvious is the fact that both [Moses' final speech and Jesus'] are composed as fare well discourses, spoken by leaders who are about to be separated from those they have led.  Conversely, they are spoken to groups who are about to lose the leaders on whom they depended.  The immediate future of these groups is also similar: the Israelites are about to enter Canaan to establish themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people; the disciples of Jesus are about to become his definitive community.  Both the Israelites and the disciples are in need of consolation in their loss, and of encouragement in the struggle against their enemies that is about to begin.  Finally, both groups require instruction and warning about how they are to act towards one another within each group (the bases of their social structure), and toward the enemies who will surround them: the ‘nations’ for the Israelites, the ‘world’ for the disciples.”

Of course, there are more parallels; this is but a small taste.

The entire excellent article is by Aelred Lacomara “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31-16:33)” Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1974), 36, p. 66.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Elijah: “The Prophetic Hinge”

Ronald B. Allen wrote a nice article (“Elijah the Broken Prophet” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 22.3 [1979], 193-202) on Elijah’s life and ministry. Though I do not fully agree with each point Allen makes, the essay is helpful. I’ll put the best part of the essay here:

“…It is not just in miraculous displays that Elijah points forward to Jesus. It is pre-eminently in the fact that ‘Elijah the second Moses’ is still not the Prophet greater than Moses…; he is rather the hinge-figure that keeps that hope alive. Just as Moses with manna, and Jesus with the multitudes hungry on the shore of Galilee, so Elijah is connected with miraculous provisions of food…. Further, he portends the resurrection miracles of our Lord when he is used of Yahweh to bring back to life the dead son of his benefactress…, whereas, she, in turn, is the Syrophonecian believer in the OT…. Elijah’s role in the rain controversy is also recalled in the many instances of Jesus’ control over weather phenomena: Baal is still a fake!”

“Finally, may we not see in Elijah’s despair in the wilderness something similar to Jesus’ ordeal in Gethsemane? In both cases there was a time of tumultuous decision-making in determining to drink the cup of the Father’s will. Though a broken prophet, Elijah does not remain broken. His ministry continued in the record of the book of Kings. His name became a messianic designation…. And he – with Moses – talked with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration – fades before him, so that the three disciples on looking again ’saw no one except Jesus himself alone.’”

Here’s how Allen closes the essay: “…Elijah was seen in in a heilsgeschichtliche continuity to be the prophetic hinge between Moses and Jesus. He is a second Moses who still ranks lower than the great prophet Messiah.”

I like that term “prophetic hinge.” While Allen didn’t go too far into it, there are so many parallels between Moses/Israel and Elijah. I’ve counted around 10; there are no doubt more, which in turn again brings us to the Messiah.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

John’s Gospel: Moses, Jesus, and Signs

Many scholars split John’s Gospel into two major parts: chapters 1-11 and 12-21.  Scholars differ on the main themes of these parts and the exact location of the “middle,” but generally speaking the first part is about Jesus’ public ministry and the second is his journey to the cross.  Narrative time goes rather quickly in the first part but slows down considerably in the second.  Signs are concentrated in the first part, but not in the second.  The division is a legitimate one to make.

Craig Keener has a great observation on the structure of the first part of John’s Gospel.  He notes that the signs in the first section begin in chapter 2 and end in chapter 11.  They contrast with Moses’ “signs” (the plagues) quite significantly:

“The opening sign (2.1-11) recounts Jesus’ benevolence at a wedding; the last involves a funeral [ch. 11]….  Whereas Moses’ first sign was transforming water to blood, Jesus benevolently transforms it into wine.  Likewise, whereas the final plague against Egypt was the death of the firstborn sons, the climax of Jesus’ signs is raising a dead brother-provider.”

This structure is witness to John’s earlier comment contrasting Moses and Christ – The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1.17).  Or, in other words, as the Pharisees thought Moses would do them well, Jesus used Moses as legal evidence against them: There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.   If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me (4.45-6). 

If John used OT scriptures and OT events as witness for his main point (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God), John can structure his gospel in a way that strengthens his testimony.  The overall structure of the gospel, as noted in the last post here, is further testimony – legal evidence - that Jesus is whom he said: the I AM.  Here at the very center of John’s Gospel is the very center of his message – Jesus, the resurrection and the life.

Quote taken from Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary Volume II (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 835.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa