William H. Sheaa
The Starting Point
One of the great historical events of Old Testament times was the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. By the time of their departure, after several centuries of residence in that land, they had become a people enslaved.
Thus the Exodus was not Just a movement of people from one place to another. Rather, it was a deliverance from bondage. We see this in the introduction to the Ten Commandments: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2 RSV). This remarkable deliverance led up to the incorporation of Israel as a nation under the covenant God made with them at Sinai.
The Exodus was, therefore, a foundational event for ancient Israel. Ever after, as they lived in the land of Canaan, their minds were carried back to the events of the Exodus through the ceremonies of the sanctuary, and later through the prophets. Both these avenues illustrated to them the mighty way God had acted on their behalf, and the way He desired them to live in covenant relationship with Him.
Because of the importance of the Exodus event, then, it is of interest to us to learn as much about it as we can. And the archaeologist’s spade has been helpful here. The time has now come for an overview and update of some of the recent archaeological findings in Egypt that have illustrated the setting of this biblical event.
These new findings give us much more information about the sites
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 100
mentioned in the biblical accounts of the Exodus than was previously known. These findings have taught us more about the route the Israelites took, and the experiences encountered along the way.
Identifying the Starting Point
The first point with which one should deal when embarking upon a journey is an acquaintance with the starting point. And this is true also of the Exodus. The archaeologist has clarified this point in very specific ways.
In the past it was thought that the site of Rameses, from which the Israelites departed (Ex. 12:37), was located at Tanis in the delta of Egypt (see Map). This site is known in modern Arabic by the name of San el Hagar, and it has been excavated by French archaeologists. It never really was a good candidate for the biblical Rameses. However, because it Was popularized in books and articles as the site of departure, that idea caught on. Now we have to undo this incorrect lead.
There are two main reasons that Tanis is not a good candidate for Rameses. One reason is geographical, the other, archaeological.
1. Geographical. Today there are only two branches of the Nile In the delta, but in ancient times there were five. The site of Tanis Was near the second most eastem branch. If this were the biblical Rameses from which the Israelites left, then they would have had to cross the eastern most branch of the Nile (called the Pelusiac branch) on their way out of Egypt.
But there were no bridges across the branches of the Nile in ancient times, and so this would have been a difficult job. It would have involved ferrying all of the Israelites and their livestock across the Pelusiac branch of the Nile by barge or boat. A much better location for Rameses from the biblical standpoint would have been somewhere on the east bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. I will discuss this later.
2. Archaeological. When archaeologists dug into the ruins of Tanis, they dld find many inscriptions from the famous pharaoh Rameses II, otherwise known as Rameses the Great, the king for whom the capital city of Rameses was named. But there was something unusual about these inscriptions at Tanis. They were all out of place. The blocks upon which they had been inscribed had been used as building blocks in various structures, but the inscriptions on those blocks were not displayed in such a way as to make them easy to read. Some were upside down, some were hidden completely, and none of them provided any continuous texts.
From this the archaeologists concluded that these blocks had been removed from some other site and brought to Tanis as mere building materials. So again we are pointed away from Tanis toward some other site in the delta as a possible candidate for Rameses, the starting point of the Exodus.
A Likely Candidate
A group of Austrian archaeologists working at a site named Tell el-Dabca have provided credible information to link that site almost certainly with the biblical Rameses. Geographically, Tell el-Dabca (see Map) is in the right place. In ancient times it was located on the east bank of the eastern most branch of the Nile in the Delta.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 101
Hyksos settlement at Tell el-Dabca from the 17th century B.C.
Archaeologically, one of the most important points to note is that the ruins of a palace of Rameses II have been found there, partially underlying a modem cemetery. In addition, ruins preceding the time of Rameses II by a millennium have also been uncovered recently at the site. Moreover, the evidence shows an almost continuous occupation of the site from the 19th to the 16th century B.C.
In digging down through the occupation levels from this period, archaeologists found five main levels, or layers, at the settlement. These have been labeled from Stratum H at the bottom up to Stratum D. There was then a gap in occupation (Stratum C), followed by the occupation in the time of Rameses II and after (Stratum B}. The site fell out of use about 1000 B.C., remaining so until the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt established a small settlement there in the third century B.C. (Stratum A}. That is the last time anyone ever lived there. In modem times the place has been used as agricultural fields, complicating the work of the archaeologist.
Observers have noticed that some of the ruins from the times prior to Rameses II had an unusual character. The two bottom levels, Strata H and G, looked naturally Egyptian, which came as no surprise, of course. With Stratum F, however, a change took place. The houses, burials, pottery, and small objects took on a very strongly non-Egyptian, Canaanite appearance, as if the dig were taking place in Canaan, and not in Egypt
This strongly Semitic character of the culture continued through Strata F and E, until it finally came to an end in Stratum D. Through this period (Strata F and E), the site looked like a Semitic island in a sea
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 102
of Egyptian culture.
Ancient Egyptian writers themselves give us an explanation for this phenomenon. We learn from them that there was a time in the middle of the second millennium B.C. when foreign invaders came to Egypt and ruled it for a rather lengthy period of time. In actuality, they conquered only the northern half of Egypt. But even the loss of that much territory was a shock to the Egyptians.
The people of Egypt called these foreigners Hyksos. At one time it was thought that this word meant “shepherd kings.” But we now know that it signifies “rulers of foreign countries.” In all probability these foreigners were Semites from western Asia of one ethnic type or another. Regardless of whether this takeover occurred gradually or suddenly, the net result was the same: the loss of control of this territory by the Egyptians. This was a great blow to native Egyptian pride, and they remembered this national humiliation well.
Ancient Egyptian texts indicate that the Hyksos established their capital at a place named Avaris, and that Avaris was the place where Rameses II later built his delta residence. If we find Avaris, therefore, we would also have found Rameses, and vice versa. Tell el-DabCa fits the specifications very well: ruins of a palace of Rameses II, as already noted, have been found on one part of the site, while earlier ruins of a distinctively Semitic character were found in other sectors of the site. Moreover, Tell el-Dabca, which displays this whole coherent picture, is located on the east bank of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile.
There can thus be little doubt that we have now located Avaris, or Rameses, the capital of the Hyksos kingdom, and the place from which the Israelites departed Egypt.
Light on the Biblical Story
The Semitic character of this site also says something about the historical situation of the Israelites as they lived under the Hyksos in this area, the biblical land of Goshen. Since the Israelites, like the Hyksos, were Semites, it is probable that they received better treatment from these Hyksos rulers than did the native Egyptians.
A turn of events came about, however, as the native Egyptians rose up and defeated the Hyksos and expelled their rulers from the country. In so doing they took over the north-em part of their country and subjugated the population, including the biblical Israelites who remained there.
Evidence of this transition can be found in the early chapters of Exodus. Exodus I does not indicate that the Israelites were persecuted all of the time that they dwelt in Egypt. What it does show is that their oppression became worse toward the end of their sojourn there. This was also the time of return to native Egyptian rule. One can readily see, therefore, why the new pharaoh was so concerned about the rapidly increasing numbers of the Israelites and why he would suspect that they might join up with Egypt’s Semitic enemies in case of war. (It was not too long before this that just such a war had been fought.)
When the new native Egyptian ruler took over the territory in which the Israelites resided, he functioned as one who “knew not Joseph.” It was not that he did not have any historical recollection of him. Rather, it was that he did not wish to acknowledge any indebtedness that the
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 103
Egyptians might have had toward him for what he did for Egypt. Denying such a relationship, the Egyptians were able to set about enslaving the Israelites without inhibitions.
The Hyksos period of occupation at Tell el-Dabca (Avaris/Rameses} ended with a destruction level at the end of Stratum D. This represents the reconquest of this site by native Egyptians, a conquest that signaled trouble for both the Hyksos rulers and the Israelite population in the region. The elite of the Hyksos were able to flee back to Canaan, but the masses of Israelites were left behind to be enslaved by the Egyptians.
It was from that enslavement that Moses, under God’s direction, came to deliver them. When the moment to leave Egypt had arrived, they gathered at the central site of Avaris, or Rameses, to make preparations for their journey. This point of departure is represented today by the ruins uncovered by the archaeologist at Tell el-Dabca.
The Way Out
When an ancient traveler started out from Rameses in the delta of Egypt to journey to Canaan in western Asia, there were three main routes that could be followed.
Route 1
The southernmost route was the old mining road from the Memphis-Cairo area to what is now the town of Suez in the area of the Gulf of Suez (see map), extending on into the Sinai Peninsula to the south. Since this route began much too far south for a starting point from Rameses in the delta, it is very unlikely that the Israelites would have followed this route when they left Egypt.
Route 2
The nearest, shortest, and most direct route to Canaan from Egypt was the road that followed close to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (see map). From the border of Egypt, this took one to Gaza in Philistia, at the southwestern edge of Canaan. The Bible names this road after the Philistines who lived at its eastern end, while the Egyptians named it after their god Horus, who was supposed to superintend the area. Thus it was known either as the Way of the Philistines or the Way of Horus.
Military travel on this road was depicted on the wails of the great Egyptian temple at Karnak. With reliefs and inscriptions, a pharaoh named Seti I, who ruled late in the 14th century B.C., celebrated a campaign of his into Canaan. The relief shows Seti returning to Egypt in his chariot, triumphant from his victories, accompanied by prisoners captured by his troops, and welcomed back to Egypt by his adoring subjects.
This relief also shows 11 Egyptian forts that were located along the coastal route to Canaan. They served as way stations along that route. Nine of the eleven forts were shown as having wells or water reservoirs. The main purpose of these forts was to serve the Egyptian army as it traveled north and south. Provisions, water, protection, and assistance were offered to the troops at these locations. In order to keep this route open and safe, the forts themselves were garrisoned with troops.
Archaeology has now demonstrated the accuracy of this repre-
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 104
sentation. Over a number of seasons of work that extended from 1972 to 1982, Professor Eliezer Oren of Ben Gurion University in Israel led a team in conducting what has been named the North Sinai Survey. In the course of that survey, his team was able to identify approximately 80 sites of varying sizes in this area that were occupied by the Egyptians during the biblical period of Moses, Joshua, and the judges. His conclusion from his work was that “the survey results enable us for the first time to delineate the course of the “Ways of Horus” in accurate detail, and to reconstruct the history of settlement and the degree of Egyptian activity on that land bridge between the delta and southem Canaan.”1
While most of the work of this team was in the nature of a surface survey, they did excavate two forts that were located along this route, one from the east central region, at a place called Haruba, and the other from the west central region, at Bir el-cAbd. The forts were enclosed with massive mud-brick walls. The western fort contained a granary that could store up to 40 tons of grain. Egyptian pottery found in the forts was typical of -/his time period encompassing the 15th to the 12th centuries B.C. Seti I’s name was found on an object excavated from the western fort, which makes a nice connection between the relief at Karnak and the actual archaeology in the area. Each of the forts was surrounded by a rather large number of smaller campsites.
Might Israel have taken this route? We are not left in doubt as to the answer. Exodus 13:17 specifically says that the Israelites did not follow the Way of the Philistines when they left Egypt. It also gives God’s reason for not leading them that way: “lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.”
Archaeological evidence has now demonstrated to us the accuracy of this statement. This was not just an empty desert they would have traversed if the had gone this way. Instead, they would have encountered a series of well-fortified, well-provisioned, and well-garrisoned Egyptian forts along that route, and they would have had to compete with the Egyptians for the available water supplies along the way, since those water reservoirs were under Egyptian supervision and control.
Beyond this local threat of the immediate problem posed by the troops and forts that were stationed along this route was also the threat of encountering a larger contingent of the Egyptian army returning home from a campaign abroad. The more peaceable passage lay elsewhere.
Route 3
If the Israelites did not take the northernmost or the southernmost route out of Egypt, then there was only one other alternate route left open to them—the middle route. This was the route that extended east through the Wadi2-Tumilat to the region around the modem town of Ismailia on the western shores of Lake Timsah (see map). Crossing a land bridge at this point took travelers on a path across Sinai that led rather directly toward Beersheba, the southernmost settlement in Palestine.
When the patriarchal stories in Genesis are examined carefully, it becomes evident that this was the common route that they utilized when they traveled to and from Egypt. (The coastal route of Joseph’s jour-
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 105
ney to Egypt was an exception made necessary because of the unusual circumstances under which he was taken to Egypt—as a captive of traders who sold him into slavery there.)
The western end of the Wadi2 Tumilat was located only a short distance south of Rameses from which the Israelites departed, so it did not require a lot of back tracking within Egypt to take that route east. The wadi was well watered by a canal that branched off from the Nile and ran the length of it. The Israelites could easily have traversed the length of this valley in only two or three days, even if their great numbers of people and livestock were quite slow moving.
Exodus 12:37 and 13:20 indicate that the first stopping or camping place to which the Israelites came was Succoth (Hebrew. Sukkoth). The general plan for the Exodus appears to have been to march for several days and them camp for a day, etc. If such a scheme is approximately correct, it would put their first major campsite at the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat, a region that would have made a logical stopping place.
In that area there is a site bearing a name that looks, in modified form, very much like the Hebrew Sukkoth. Egyptian inscriptions wrote the name of this place as tkw. Given the difference between pronunciation in Hebrew and Egyptian, the Egyptian letter t, originally pronounced as th or ch, probably came to be pronounced as sh in Hebrew.
The names of some sites from the ancient world still survive in some of the modem place names in Arabic in the Middle East and Succoth appears tobe one of those cases. At the eastem end of Wadi Tumilat there
Hyksos settlement at Tell el-Maskhuta from the 17th century B.C.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 106
is an ancient site known today as Tell el-Maskhuta. If the initial consonant m and the final a(h) vowel were removed from this name, what is left looks very much like the biblical name of Succoth. From these linguistic considerations, an equation can be made between the Hebrew Sukkoth the Egyptian tkw, and the Arabic (Ma)skhut(a).
Hyksos burial at Tell el-Maskhuta from the 18th century B.C.
The pottery is Canaanite in style.
This site has been excavated in recent years by a Canadian archaeological team from the University of Toronto. What they found there was a fortified town dating back to the 19th and 18th centuries B.C. After this, the town went out of use, remaining unoccupied until the sixth century B.C. On the basis of the figure given in 1 Kings 6:1, the Israelite Exodus is commonly dated in the 15th century B.C., and the lack of an occupation of Succoth/Maskhuta at this time has been taken as an argument by some that this portion of the Exodus account is historically inaccurate. This argument, however, is based upon a misconception of what the biblical record requires.
The name of this site, Succoth, should be noted carefully, for it says something about the nature of the site. This name comes from a Hebrew word that refers to booths, or tabernacles, and was also used for the festival of that name that occurred in the fall when pilgrims built booths, or tabernacles, around Jerusalem as they attended the festival. These booths were commemorative of the temporary shelters in which the Israelites lived during their journey to Canaan after the Exodus. Thus Succoth refers to camp-type dwellings, such as tents.
The very reason that this Egyptian
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 107
site was named Succoth was that it served as a temporary campsite for Semites passing in and out of Egypt. Located as it was on the border of Egypt, it served as a checkpoint for people coming into and leaving the country. That was the purpose of the Egyptian town nearby.
But the Israelites had no intention of settling in a town here at the time of the Exodus. This site simply served them as a brief and temporary campsite before they pushed on in their journey. Thus the occupation or non- occupation of a town there by the Egyptians was of little importance to the Israelites at this time.
In fact, it would have been better for the Israelites if the town was not occupied by Egyptians for that would have reduced the potential for friction as they left the country. So the archaeological findings at this site do not imply any significant argument against the historical elements in the biblical record of the Exodus.
The route of the Exodus examined thus far took the Israelites from their point of departure at Tell el-Dabca, or Rameses, out the Wadi Tumilat to its eastern end, where Succoth was located, and on to a site known today as Tell el-Maskhuta. This put them on the border of Egypt, facing the Promised Land. How did they proceed from this point?
Encounter At The Sea
From their campsite at Succoth the Israelites traveled on in an eastward direction to Etham, the next campsite mentioned in the text (see Map).
The name Etham is commonly interpreted in the commentaries as derived from the Egyptian word for “fort.” Not only did the Egyptians have a series of forts located along the coastal road to Canaan, but they also had a string of forts distributed in a north-to-south line across the Isthmus of Suez. The purpose of these forts was to serve as watch posts along the border, to monitor the movements of foreigners in and out of the country. Scribes posted at such forts kept day books in which they recorded the number of persons who came by their posts. (A few examples of such day books have survived from ancient times.)
There surely must have been an observation post of this nature located at the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat, and troops there obviously would have noted and recorded the movements of the Israelites as they came in their direction.
Turning North
At this point in the Exodus, a major shift in direction took place. Exodus 14:2 records the fact that God commanded Israel to make a change of direction. Unfortunately, the Hebrew verb used for “to turn” in this passage is nonspecific as to the direction in which the Israelites turned. Basically, however, there are two main possibilities here: either they turned north or they turned south, the direction in which they actually turned being determined by the location of the places where they encamped.
The place of their first encampment after this change of direction was before or in front of Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zephon, between Migdol and the sea. The question then is, At what location did all of these place names come together?
After believing for many years that the Israelites turned south from Etham, I have recently come around
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 108
to the idea that they instead turned north. My reasons center on the three names associated with their first encampment (Fac 14:2).
First, there is the name Baal-Zephon, meaning “Baal of the North.” This Baal was the well-known storm god from Canaan who was introduced to Egypt by foreigners—merchants, soldiers, sailors, or just plain travelers. Polytheistic, the Egyptians could add gods to their pantheon at any time. And here we have an example of the Egyptians adding a Canaanite god to their repertoire.
When they included Baal among their gods it is likely that they would have done so in a place where he functioned most directly, near the route by which he came to Egypt. This should locate his temple or the city of his temple along the coastal road or along the coast by the Mediterranean Sea. Thus it is more likely that Baal’s new home in Egypt would have been located at the northern end of the Isthmus of Suez, rather than in the south.
My second reason for believing the people turned north is the word Pi-hahiroth. This unusual word has puzzled scholars for generations. Its first element, pi, is the Hebrew word for “mouth.” The next element, ha, is the article “the” in Hebrew. Thus far we have “mouth of the …” The next part of this word comes from a rare verbal root in Hebrew. which means “to incise, engrave, carve, cut into.” It occurs only one other time in the Bible besides Exodus 14:2—in Exodus 32:16, where it was used to describe the Ten Commandments that were “engraved” into the tables of stone. How could such a meaning be geographically significant here?
Following the 1967 war, when Israel was in possession of the Sinai Peninsula for a time, Israeli archaeologists and geologists gave extensive study to that region. Aerial and on-the-ground survey work conducted by two Israeli geologists, A. Sneh and T. Weissbrod, produced evidence that identified an ancient Egyptian canal that ran from the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat north to the Mediterranean Sea.3
(This was not the canal begun by Pharaoh Necho in the seventh century B.C. and completed by the Persian king Darius I in the sixth century B.C. That canal ran south from the Wadi Tumilat to the Gulf of Suez and the Red Sea.)
This canal in the north goes back to an earlier time. It was constructed around 2000 B.C., according to Egyptian inscriptions, and remained in use for most of the second millennium B.C. It was in existence when the Israelites left Egypt, and would have posed a barrier for them to surmount in one way or another.
Looking at this new data developed by Sneh and Weissbrod, an Egyptologist from Wheaton College has suggested that this is what the unusual word Pi-hahiroth refers to. It describes something that was incised or dug into something else. And that fits very well with the idea of a canal that was dug into the earth at this location. The reference to its mouth would then have to do with the mouth of the canal, i.e., the location at which it exited from the lake system of the Isthmus of Suez.
As in the case with Baal-Zephon, this new understanding of Pi-hahiroth from Exodus 14:2 fits better with an Israelite camp in the north than one in the south.
Third, there is the word migdol. Migdol is a common Hebrew word for “fort.” Since there were a number of Egyptian forts in this area, that word at first appears to be rather nonspecific. Given the location where the
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 109
Israelites encamped, however, this would have been a very important fort, an important obstacle to them.
The fort that fits this description best is the one that was located at the western end of the coastal road, and at the northern end of the line of forts across the Isthmus of Suez. Given this strategic location one would expect this to be more than an ordinary fort.
The archaeologist’s spade has provided precisely this kind of evidence —in a ruin mound a short distance to the northeast of the modern town of Qantara. Discovered by a native Egyptian archaeologist, Mohammed Abdel Maksoud, this mound (called Qantara Sharq in Arabic because of its proximity to the town of Qantara} turned out to be a fortress city built in a square with each wall of the square extending 400 meters. Remains of the wall measure 4 meters in thickness. The main gate of the city was located on its western side so that travelers coming from Egypt could enter it directly through that gate.
The city was divided into four quarters. The northeastern quarter has been excavated, and it contained 12 large grain storehouses. The southeastern quarter has been partially excavated, and a palace and temple have been found there. Excavations have just begun in the southwestern quarter of the city, which appears to have been the workmen’s quarter — things like ovens used for baking clay pots and building materials have been found there. (Excavations have not yet begun in the northwestern quarter.}
The date of this city has not yet been determined with precision, but it is known that the settlement that underlies it dates to the Hyksos period in the middle of the second millennium B.C.
The importance of his findings did not impress themselves upon Maksoud until recently when he attended an International Congress on Egyptology held in Cairo. There he heard Manfred Bietak talk about his excavations at Tell el-Dabca and their relation to Rameses. The idea occurred to Maksoud that his own site might instead be Rameses. (For
Plan of the fortress at Qantara Shark, possibly the Migdol of Exodus 14:2.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 110
myself, I think that the site at Tell el-Dabca makes a much better candidate for Rameses.)
Exactly Where Expected
What Maksoud has found here is really the major fort that guarded the entrance and exit to Egypt in the eastern most delta. That puts it easternmost delta. That puts it exactly Migdol of Exodus 14:2 to have been located. The town of Qantara is very near the point where the modem road from Gaza to Cairo crosses over the Suez Canal. The ancient crossing must have been located in this same area. And Qantara Sharq is located about 30 miles eastof the site of Rameses at Tell el-Dabca
So what we have here, most likely, is the Migdol of the Exodus. With an impressive fort like this blocking the Israelites’ path out of Egypt, one can readily see why they needed the alternate route out that God provided.
Thus far we have located and identified three of the four places that describe the place where the Israelites camped just before leaving Egypt forever: Migdol can be located at Qantara Sharq, Pi-hahiroth can be identified with the mouth of the canal that flowed by it, and Baal-Zephon can be recognized as a Canaanite god who came to inhabit this territory. Only one more geographical feature from the biblical story remains to be identified, and that is the sea (Hebrew yam), also known as the Sea of Reeds (Hebrew yam suph).
While there are texts in the Bible that indicate that the designation Sea of Reeds could be used for the Red Sea (1 Kgs 9:26), the marsh lakes of the Isthmus of Suez also fit this designation very well, being lakes or inland seas with many more reeds than the Red sea.
There are four of these lakes now interconnected from north to south by the Suez Canal: Lake Ballah, Lake Timsah, the Great Bitter Lake, and the Little Bitter Lake (see Map).
Since the Israelites were encamped in the north, according to the understanding of Exodus 14:2 proposed here, they would have been en-camped nearest to Lake Ballah. Their passage to the east was thus blocked here by the fort at Qantara Sharq, the canal that passed by it as it ran north, and Lake Ballah immediately to the south.
Sea of Reeds
To exit from Egypt, then, the Israelites had to traverse one of these three barriers. God chose the Sea or Lake Ballah for their way out of Egypt. With the construction of the Suez Canal, Lake Ballah has been partially drained but parts of it remain as swampy marshes, revealing its character as a Sea of Reeds.
Once they crossed this Sea of Reeds, the Israelites headed south into Sinai, where they met with God at Mount Horeb, entering into a covenant with Him there. The route by which they came this far may appear somewhat circuitous in view of that ultimate goal. When they turned north from Etham they actually turned back toward Pharaoh’s capital city and palace. This was not a natural route to take out of Egypt. But it should be remembered that they were not left in the hands of a natural guide at this time. God led them directly, and this was the way He chose to lead them. He did this for a purpose, and He stated that purpose in Exodus 14:4, “I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.”4
The Israelites had lived in Egypt
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 111
The Suez Canal northeast of Qantara, in the vicinity of the ancient Egyptian fortress at Qantara Shark.
for a long time, and they had been surrounded there by all of the idolatry and polytheism of that country. They needed to be cured of this once and for all. In that way they could give their whole hearts to Yahweh. This final dramatic confrontation at the sea demonstrated that Yahweh was Lord over all. He was even master over all of the gods of the Egyptians, including their pharaoh-god-king who was regarded as the god Horus incarnate.
Also, all the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, knew that they had been involved in a contest between gods, between their gods and the God of the Israelites. Once and for all it was to be demonstrated who really was the true God and who were merely shadowy substitutes for the real thing. That was fully, finally, and dearly demonstrated on the shores and in the waters of the Sea of Reeds.
As they arrived safely on shore on the other side, the Israelites celebrated their deliverance and God’s great victory over their enemies in a song of triumph:
Who is like thee. O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders?
Thou didst stretch out they right hand, the earth swallowed them.
Thou hast led in thy steadfast love the people whom thou hast redeemed,
Thou hast guided them by thy strength to thy holy abode”
(Ex 15:11–13).
This article originally appeared in the Adventist Review May 17, 24 and 31, 1990, and has been reprinted with permission.
BSP 3:4 (Autumn 1990) p. 112