Clyde T. Francisco
[Clyde T. Francisco is John R. Sampey professor of Old Testament, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.]
As the Greek writers observed, Egypt is indeed “the gift of the Nile.” This well-watered and relatively secure country was the major setting for the life of the Hebrews during the Exodus events. The Sinai peninsula itself was a part of the Egyptian kingdom, although sparsely populated and loosely administered.
Without the Nile there would be no Egypt. The river begins its four thousand mile journey to the Mediterranean in the equatorial lakes of Africa as the White Nile, then joins the Blue Nile at Khartum in the Sudan for its final nineteen hundred miles. Although Egypt’s territory often extended farther south, the classic line was marked by the First Cataract (rapids), near Assuan (ancient Syene; also the location of the island of Elephantine). The other five cataracts are up the river where first the Nubians and then the Cushites lived. The rapids near Assuan are the first set if one is trying to navigate the river upstream, and they acquired their name because all western travel moved in that direction. The distance between Assuan and Cairo (site of ancient Memphis; the center of Lower Egypt; also the region where Avaris and Heliopolis, called On in Genesis, were situated) is about six hundred miles. From Cairo the delta region extends about one hundred miles north and about 155 miles from east to west. This is the most fertile and desirable region in Egypt. Ancient Alexandria thrived on the Mediterranean shores of this area.
The phenomenal city of Thebes, the center of Upper Egypt, was founded about 420 miles south of Cairo, where the
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 34
Ruins of the Temple of Amon at Thebes in southern Egypt.
Nile is closest to the Red Sea. This was the seat of government during most of the time of Egyptian world power, and it was there the Pharaohs built their most imposing monuments, especially Karnak and Luxor. Near Thebes also was the ancient royal city of Abydos. Halfway between Thebes (called No-Amon in the Old Testament) and Memphis was the city of Amarna, to which the heretical Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) moved the capital.
Annual rainfall in Egypt is negligible. Without the Nile the land would not be habitable. For most of its length the cultivated portion of the country does not extend beyond a twelve-mile strip along the river. The economy of Egypt is totally dependent upon an annual inundation due to torrential rains and thawing in the mountains of equatorial Africa. Fortunately this annual flooding (July-September) is usually reliable, although, as in the time of Joseph, it was known to be interrupted.
Thus there was a tendency for Egyptian life to continue undisturbed. The land was geographically isolated by deserts to the east and west, the sea to the north, and impregnable mountains to the south. As a result it developed a unique culture that would have profound influence on the Hebrew people. It was no coincidence that they had no inclination to
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 35
leave Egypt until persecution, began. Life there was satisfying if one desired only material peace and security.
Two hundred years ago this sort of paper could not have been written. Scholars had lost all clues for the deciphering of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs (sacred carving on monuments, to be distinguished from hieratic or priestly writing). The last known inscription using hieroglyphs was in A.D. 394 on a temple in Philae during the reign of Theodosius the Great. The general neglect of ancient Egyptian culture, however, had begun much earlier. The Ptolemies who ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great were involved in promoting Greek culture, not old Egyptian, and the Romans were concerned only with exploiting Egyptian granaries. Coptic Christians who used Greek characters and loan words to write native Egyptian were not interested in old pagan ways. The Moslems, who later controlled Egypt, shared this lack of concern. Thus “an impenetrable silence descended on the country in the face of its ancient past,”1 a silence which continued until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The French under Napoleon, dreaming of a Suez Canal and a short route to India, invaded Egypt. True to the character of the romantic age, the general also took along with him two hundred scholars to explore, describe, and excavate. Although Napoleon failed eventually in his military venture, the French interest in Egyptian culture became firmly established. Egyptian antiquities became the pawns of international intrigue and began to appear in the great museums of Europe.
The most important result of Napoleon’s campaign, however, came from an unexpected discovery by a French officer in 1799. While digging a trench at Rosetta in the delta region of Egypt, he unearthed a large basalt stone inscribed in three different scripts, which were readily identified as hieroglyphs, Demotic (the common language of the people), and Greek. The Greek was easily read, and soon scholars perceived that all three of the accounts were saying the same things about the reign of Ptolemy V (196 B.C.). From the Rosetta stone finally came clues to the meaning of the strange symbols. The hieroglyphs, it was learned, could be read in one of three directions — from top to bottom, from right to left, or from left to right. They had to read in the opposite direction from that
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 36
in which the human figures, animals, or birds were facing.2 They are of two sorts: phonetic (sound) symbols and determinatives (which have no sound value but picture the meaning). The phonetic symbols are sometimes alphabetic, sometimes bilateral and trilateral sounds. Both these forms of writing are used together in all Egyptian texts from 3100 B.C. to A.D. 394. This type of writing was taught in all the schools along with the Akkadian cuneiform (Babylonian), the international diplomatic language. Moses was surely acquainted with writing skills, for this was the most important element in formal education. It is now the opinion of some authorities that the ancient Egyptian language had affinities with Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Arabic. “In this it probably reflects Egypt’s role as meeting place of Asia and Africa from earliest times.”3
Until the decipherment of hieroglyphs scholars were almost totally dependent upon the works of Manetho and Herodotus. Manetho was the High Priest of Heliopolis during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelph us (ca. 250 B.C.) when he wrote his History of Egypt. Although the text has not survived intact, parts of it are preserved in Josephus and other classical authors. Manetho’s arrangement of the material still determines most of the terminology applied to Egyptian history. He had available archives that have been discovered in our times, such as the king lists at Abydos and Karnak, preserving Upper Egypt tradition, and the Turin Papyrus and lists of Saqqara giving the Lower Egypt (Memphis) outlook. There was also the material on the Palermo stone preserving the annals of the earliest kings to the middle of Dynasty V, in addition to other sources still unknown to us.
Although Manetho’s facts were usually reliable, his interpretations of them were often out of line, since his primary purpose was to prove that his monarch had a claim to greater antiquity than Antiochus, the rival king in Syria.
For this reason scholars checked Manetho against Herodotus, the Greek traveler and historian (ca. 450 B.C.) where in Book II he deals with his tour of the Nile Valley. When he reported what he had seen with his own eyes, his accounts
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 37
were generally accurate. However, he relied far too much upon hearsay of the local populace, “who like the dragomans of a later day were only too ready to pour a fanciful explanation into a credulous ear.”4
The early Greeks coined the terminology that we still use for Egypt’s monuments: pyramids (“wheaten cakes,” which they resembled!) and obelisks (“little spits”). The name Egypt itself comes from Homer.5
The principal clues to the translation of the hieroglyphs were the cartouches, stylized loops of rope with a knot at one end, which would have within them the symbols for a particular Pharaoh’s name. These appear on most of the inscriptions and are of immediate assistance in identifying material.
The history of Egypt until the Exodus is divided into four main periods. During the Old Kingdom (ca. 2686-ca. 2181 B.C.) the great pyramids were built. During the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1991–1786) there was the flowering of Egypt’s greatest age of literature. Following this emphasis upon cultural rather than military strength came the period of Hyksos domination (ca. 1730-ca. 1550 B.C.). These rulers were foreign Asiatic invaders whose ethnic identity is debated. The term “Hyksos” comes to us from Manetho, who erroneously thought it meant “shepherd kings.” The Egyptian word really means “ruler of foreign countries.” Manetho probably refers to the fact that the native Egyptians thought of them as “shepherds” rather than as royalty. The Hyksos were of various racial and national backgrounds. Because they quickly adopted the Egyptian language, it is very difficult to identify their original locale. Only the Semitic elements, primarily Amorite, have been identified, but probably Hurrian and Indo-European peoples were involved also.
The Hyksos established their capital at Avaris in the delta region, but it is not at all clear how completely they controlled the area around Thebes. Apparently there was a period when the rulers at Thebes were vassals of the Hyksos. Some scholars believe that the Joseph era began in Egypt during this Hyksos regime, for these rulers would have been more open to permitting Semitic Hebrews to rise to power and to occupy such favorable land as Goshen. The Pharaoh “that knew not Joseph” would be one of the native Egyptians after the Hyksos were
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 38
expelled from the land. However attractive this view may be, there is no certainty at this point. What is certain is that the Hyksos brought chariots into Egypt and compelled the Egyptians to become interested in controlling the countries to the northeast of their land.
The Exodus occurred during the period following the Hyksos expulsion, called the New Kingdom. There are two great dynasties during this era, the 18th and 19th. A generation ago it was the general opinion of scholars that the Exodus occurred during the 18th dynasty. Archaeological evidence seemed to agree ideally with the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that there were 480 years between the Exodus and the time when Solomon began to build the temple (ca. 960 B.C.). This would date the Exodus about 1440. Garstang’s report on his excavation at Jericho indicated that the walls fell about that time.
Thutmose III (ca. 1490-ca. 1436) was regarded as the oppressing Pharaoh, and his son Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. We know a great deal about the Pharaohs of this period, for inscriptions and monuments are abundant, primarily in temples and mausoleums. Thutmose III was preceded by Hatshepsut, the famous queen whom the late Dr. J. McKee Adams, Professor of Biblical Introduction at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, used to call affectionately, “Hattie Sue.” She maneuvered Egyptian officials into recognizing her not only as the reigning queen but also as the king, so that she could be regarded as deity. In many of her portraits she is pictured wearing men’s clothing. Suddenly she disappeared from the scene, and Thutmose was reigning. He destroyed every vestige of her reign that he could identify and went on to become one of the great Egyptian military rulers of all time, extending Egypt’s sovereignty into Syria and to the Euphrates.
His son, Amenhotep II, continued the policies of his father but always reigned in the shadow of Thutmose. He was the sort of Pharaoh who might have vacillated as did the Pharaoh encountered by Moses.
Just as scholars were assuming that the date of the Exodus was at last settled, the bottom fell out of Garstang’s theory. There is no evidence that Jericho existed behind walls during either the 18th or 19th dynasty. Garstang was mistaken about the date of the fallen walls. Some scholars, moreover, had always questioned the date during the 18th dynasty.
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 39
Kathleen Kenyon’s excavation of the walls of Jericho which showed that the walls date to the Early Bronze period rather than the Late Bronze period as proposed by John Garstang.
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 40
Those Pharaohs ruled from Thebes, and the Hebrews were in Goshen. If Moses had to go from the Israelites in Goshen to visit Pharaoh at Thebes, he had to travel over four hundred miles each way. This would hardly be likely.
In addition, the Chronicler seems to believe that there were twelve generations between the Exodus and Solomon (1 Chron. 6:1ff.; 6:50ff.). A generation was usually regarded as forty years. When forty is multiplied by twelve, the result is 480 years. If we use our more historically oriented period of twenty-five years for each of the twelve generations, the result is 300. Working back from 960, we then arrive at ca. 1260 for the Exodus.
Meanwhile Nelson Glueck was proving that the trans-Jordan kingdoms encountered or avoided by the Israelites did not appear until the thirteenth century. Other archaeologists were discovering that Canaanite cities mentioned in the conquest, such as Hazor, Lakish, and Debir, experienced cataclysmic destruction about this time.
It was also recognized that the Pharaohs of the 19th dynasty had their capital in the Goshen area. It would have been simple for Moses to go back and forth between his people and Pharaoh. Thus it is the concensus of American scholars that the 19th dynasty was the period of the Exodus, Seti I (1309-1291 B.C.) being the oppressing Pharaoh and Ramses II (1290–1224) the Pharaoh under whom the Exodus occurred.a
This era in Egyptian history was even more significant than the period of the 18th dynasty. Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten, 1367–1350) had tried to rally Egypt around the worship of Aten, the sun (not the sun-god, Amon-Re). At first he attempted to obliterate rival faiths and called the people to worship the one and only god, Aten. Thus Akhenaten was the first declared monotheist. His movement, however, appeared to be more politically oriented than religiously, for it was a bold attempt to break the back of the entrenched priestly party. He was aided by his queen, the incomparably beautiful Nefertiti. When she died, his interest in religious reform waned.
Frustrated somewhat in his attempt to reform the worship at Thebes, he proceeded to build a new capital at Amarna, halfway between Thebes and Memphis, and dedicated it to
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 41
Aten. The young king who followed him (the famous “King Tut,” Tutankhamun) completely forsook the new city, and his successors, particularly Haremhab (1335-1308 B.C.), destroyed it completely. It is here that the famous Amarna Letters were discovered in our time, revealing so much information about the relation of Egypt to Palestine in that era.
The 19th dynasty was begun by Ramses I, but his son Seti I (1309–1291) firmly established the family. He, then, is considered the Pharaoh of the oppression and Ramses II (1290–1224), his son, the ruler at the time of the Exodus. He is the one whose massive monuments still dominate the Nile region.
British scholars are inclined to regard Ramses II as the Pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” and Merenptah (1224–1214) as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is because the book of Exodus says that the oppressing Pharaoh built Pithom and Raamses, and Ramses II is known to have completed the city of Raamses. Seti I, however, had begun the building of the city that was probably named for his father Ramses I. The reign of Merenptah seems too late for the Exodus, for a stele from his reign (ca. 1219 B.C.) declares that Israel is already settled in its land.6
“Israel is ravaged and has no offspring,” so wrote Pharaoh Merneptah on this stele, indicating that Israel was in Canaan at least by the fifth year of his reign (ca. 1219 B. C.).
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 42
The contest between Moses and Pharaoh was primarily a conflict between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt, between the Hebrew faith and Egyptian religion. In order to understand this conflict, it is necessary to examine what is known about the religion of Egypt during the time of Moses.
The official priesthood of Egypt was never really unified. Ptah was the old god of Memphis, Amon was worshiped at Thebes, and Re was god at Heliopolis.7 It was common to identify Amon and Re, Ptah becoming a minor deity. Akhenaten had tried to put Aten (the material sun) over the others, but, as we have seen, this was abortive.
The relative power of Amon or Re would fluctuate with the political fortunes of the empire, depending upon whether Upper Egypt or Lower Egypt wielded the influence. The priestly parties were always a significant force with which to reckon. This was why Pharaoh was interested in having Joseph marry into the family of the High Priest at Heliopolis.
The Egyptians thought of man as having a body, spirit (Ba), and soul (Ka). The Ba leaves the body at death and flies around the world. It will return to the body only if the flesh is perfectly preserved. Thus they developed the elaborate system of mummifying. The Ka was born with the individual and continued to live with him after death, quickening him and protecting him.
The Egyptians were more concerned with life after death than any ancient people. It was common in the Near East, even in Israel, to view the after-life as having no positive values. Why were the Egyptians so concerned about it? Probably they found life so satisfying in this world that they were reluctant to surrender it. Life in Egypt was comparatively secure, and they gave themselves to it with zeal and imagination although the life-span even for the Pharaohs averaged only forty years.
They believed that life as it is lived on earth could continue into the beyond, provided the necessities for such existence were available. Tombs were provided with food, drink, and the means of transportation. Wealthy Egyptians provided endowments for the future care of their tombs. However, children were expected to perform this duty for their parents. It was also believed that activities portrayed on the walls of tombs might be magically transformed into actual life.
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 43
Such a religion was attractive to the Pharaohs or to the wealthy, but what happened to the common man, who not only could not pay for mummification but might not have a designated grave site at all? For the average Egyptian, therefore, the Osiris faith was far more compelling. The worship of Osiris began at Abydos but rapidly spread over all Egypt. Osiris, a good king, had been killed by his wicked brother Seth. His sister and wife Isis searched for and found his scattered remains and erected a monument over each. When their son Horus grew to manhood, he avenged his father’s death by winning a victory over Seth. Magically he brought Osiris back to life to rule in the west as king of the blessed dead.
Thus by identification with Osiris the most humble Egyptians might find meaningful immortality. Just as Horus had magically raised his father, their children could recite magical formulas for their parents. Although the appropriate rituals were necessary, they were ineffectual unless the individual had lived a virtuous life. At death he appeared before a court presided over by Osiris. Here he would plead his innocence. Then his heart would be weighed in the balances before the god Thoth. If it was found guiltless, everlasting life resulted.
The place of life after death was the West, where one might be transformed into shining stars, or continue mundane
Egyptian tomb painting depicting a heart being weighed in an afterlife judgment.
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 44
but expanded activities. Farming in particular continued. After the Middle Kingdom, mummiform figures (Ushabtiu) were placed in the tombs and provided with the implements of common labor so that they could work for the persons whose names they bore! It is no wonder that the Hebrews absorbed little influence from these cults of the dead. Such practices must have seemed foolish to their more realistic approach to life. They probably worked in some of these tombs and saw that the dead did not appropriate what was offered to them.
It is apparent that the sending of the plagues on Egypt was a demonstration to both Egyptians and Hebrews of the supremacy of the power of Yahweh over that of the gods of Egypt. In some way, every plague was connected with the religion of that land.
The Nile River was central in Egyptian worship. The LORD demonstrated his complete dominance over that river in the first two plagues. The Apis bull also was a central figure in Egyption cult; but Israel’s God, at will, could send disease upon the cattle. The scarab beetle was symbolic of the everlasting life assured by the Egyptian rites, but Yahweh controlled the insect world. The highest god of Egypt was the sun-god, but the God of Moses totally dimmed his light. Pharaoh himself was regarded as divine, but he was pathetically helpless before Yahweh.
A serious problem is the number of Israelites involved in the Exodus. Exodus 12:37 states that there were 600,000 men besides the women and children. That would mean that more than two million people were involved. This is hardly what the narratives imply. In chapter 18 Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, visited him and noticed that he was personally hearing all the complaints of the people. Jethro suggested that this was not good, for Moses needed more help. Obviously Moses was not trying to decide the personal suits of two million people. This not only was failing to be good; it would have been foolish. Plainly there were less people involved. Whence, then, came the figure of 600,000 found here and in Numbers?
There are several suggestions. G. E. Mendenhall proposed that the Hebrew word translated “thousand” (literally, “tribe”) really meant a regiment of uncertain numbers, the exact number unknown. Others suggest that the number reflects the total recorded during the census of David (2 Sam.
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 45
24). The writer (in David’s time) is saying, “We were all there then, all 600,000 of us.” Just so, each American today might feel that he landed with the Pilgrims on Plymouth rock. A recent Jewish writer contends that six hundred was the number of a regiment (cf. Judges 18:11). “Thousand” is simply a word for a large number. Thus there was a large number of six hundred-men regiments.
An educated guess would demand that at the time Israel invaded Canaan they would have had about 75,000 men. (Such an army was required to destroy the cities of Canaan.) Some of these would have joined from the general population, and others might already have preceded them to Canaan. It is most unlikely, since Goshen was so close to the Egyptian border, that occasional attempts to leave Egypt would not be made by small groups. Jacob’s family owned the region around Shechem, and there must be some reason why there is no mention of Joshua’s conquering the area. The first Hebrew rally after the conquest was held at Shechem. Apparently some relatives and friends were already there and joined them after they came out of Egypt.
This does not infer, as some would suggest (Noth, Rowley), that all the tribes did not participate in the original Exodus event. Groups from different tribes might have preceded them in returning. Joining the triumphant fugitives from Egypt, they became a part of the entire adventure.
The most mysterious aspect of the Exodus was the route taken by the fugitives. The Old Testament accounts mention the principal stations along the way, but we do not know for certain the exact location of any of them. We do not know for certain where the Israelites crossed the sea. It is called the yam suph (Ex. 13:18). From the time of the translation of the Septuagint in the 3rd century A.D., our translators have usually rendered the words as “Red Sea,” but this is only an interpretation of the phrase. Yam is the Hebrew word for “sea” but suph is a term that usually means “reeds” (bulrushes). This has led some modern scholars to say that the Hebrews could not have crossed the Red Sea, for reeds grow only in fresh water! However, when Jonah prays from the fish’s stomach, he mentions that he is tangled in suph (Jonah 2:5), which obviously refers to sea-weeds. Thus suph is a water plant. If it grows in fresh water, it is a reed; in the ocean it is sea-weed. Thus the words themselves do not exclude
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 46
an actual arm of the Red Sea: the Gulf of Suez. There seems, however, to be no need for them to have crossed there. The more likely crossing was close to Goshen, for they certainly wanted to leave Egypt proper as quickly as possible. Most scholars now posit the region around Lake Timsah. From the biblical account it must be assumed that the waters were not just marshland but deep enough to cause drowning.
There are indications in the account that a natural phenomenon (the strong east wind) caused the waters to retreat for the Israelites. Some see such an emphasis as detracting from the miraculous. However, the fact that Moses predicted it would happen is the proper emphasis. This takes it out of the category of coincidence. In order to accomplish his purpose, God used a natural force that only he could control. A miracle in the Hebrew sense is not God’s acting above nature but from within his created order in a way that only he can perform.
It is no more necessary to know where the Israelites crossed the yam suph than it is to identify the tomb of Jesus. Later events proved the miraculous nature of the original. Just as the amazing course of Christian history cannot be explained except in light of the witness of those who were first at the tomb, just so Israel’s later course was built solidly upon the original miracle that gave birth to the nation.
Other stations visited by the Israelites are variously identified. The actual route is dependent upon where one locates Mt. Sinai. There are three principal views. (1) The traditional site is Jebel Musa (“Mount of Moses”) in the extreme southern region of Sinai. Since the fourth century A.D. it has been identified as the Holy Mountain. It is 8,000 feet in elevation and difficult of access. Its location agrees with the statement in Deuteronomy 1:2 that it was eleven days’ journey from Sinai to Kadesh. There were also copper mines in the vicinity where the Kenites (the kinsmen of the wife of Moses) might have worked. The problem with this location is that it is completely out of the way of the route to Canaan. This is answered by the explanation that the mountain was already sacred to Moses or that God wanted the Hebrews in an isolated place until they could be disciplined and taught (cf. Exodus 3:12).
(2) Others note Mt. Sinai was apparently a volcano and
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 47
Jebel Musa is not one. They suggest a mountain in Midian itself, in the volcanic region of Southern Arabia, east of the Sinai Peninsula. That, however, was even farther out of the way.
(3) Still others suggest a mountain in Paran, nearer Kadesh. However, this is obviously not far enough away to satisfy the claims of Deuteronomy 1:2. Accordingly, most scholars still identify Jebel Musa as the most natural location, the fire of the mountain being due to electrical storms or the sheer glory of God rather than volcanic action.
Another matter of great concern to Old Testament students is the relationship between Moses and his father-in-law Jethro. Some scholars have claimed that Moses derived the Holy Name (Yahweh) as well as many of his concepts from his Kenite kinsman. Moses and Jethro were close associates, and Moses listened to the counsel of his father-in-law, a practice which is not too common (chap. 18). Jethro was very much concerned about the encounter between Moses and Pharaoh and rejoiced with him over the victory of Yahweh. The mother of Moses was named Jochebed (servant of Yahweh) and was possibly a Kenite. When Moses left Egypt, he fled to the relatives of his mother in Midian, as Jacob had earlier fled to Haran.
Very few scholars, however, espouse the Kenite cause today. There is too little evidence in that direction and convincing evidence against it. When Jethro heard Moses’ account of the deliverance in chapter 18, he exclaimed, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.” No respectable priest would have served a god whom he did not already think was the greatest of the gods. Moses is converting Jethro rather than vice-versa.
The quarrel against Moses and Zipporah also argues against the Kenite theory (4:24–26). In whatever way one explains this perplexing pericope, it is obvious that Zipporah does not believe in the circumcision of infants. Most of the neighbors of the Hebrews circumcised (the Philistines being the notable exception), but they performed it when the youth came to puberty. Only the Hebrews circumcised on the eighth day. Moses had delayed the circumcision apparently because of Zipporah’s objection. Now forced to perform the rite, she throws the bloody pulp at his feet, calling him “a bloody
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 48
bridegroom.” Obviously she and Moses did not share a common conviction about the rite. There was a fundamental difference between the faith of Moses and what Jethro had taught Zipporah. In fact this conflict of religious ideas led to estrangement between Moses and his wife. When Jethro brought her and their two sons to Moses, he did not seem to notice them but embraced Jethro instead! (Ex. 18:7)
If Moses did not receive the name Yahweh from Jethro, whence did it come? How did his mother come to be named Jochebed (Ex. 6:20)? There is no evidence that she was a Kenite, but her name is convincing argument that the name was known before the time of Moses. In fact, this is what the Genesis source had claimed all the while (cf. Gen. 4:26). What are we to do, then, with the apparent claim of Exodus 6:3 that the name was not known to the patriarchs and the implication that Moses did not know the name of the God who was calling him (Ex. 3:13)? R. K. Harrison mentions two possibilities. The first is to treat the statement as a question: “I appeared as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but did I not let myself be known as Yahweh?” The other suggestion is that the passage means, “I did not let myself be known as “Yahweh”; i.e., they knew the name, but it did not have the content of revelation now to be associated with it. The patriarchs knew the name Yahweh but were unaware of its significance. The revelation to Moses of the meaning of the name was unique, derived neither from Jethro nor from Hebrew tradition. A name known to his ancestors (and to him through his mother) had now acquired a new depth of meaning. Thus ancient neglected biblical concepts may suddenly emerge in pristine clarity for a new generation: There is no need to be burdened with worn-out religious phrases. Some long ignored word is waiting for God to pour new content into it, if only men will turn aside in wonder.
(Reprinted with permission from the Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Fall 1977.)
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
BSP 7:2 (Spring 1978) p. 49