Annotations for Exodus

Annotations for Exodus

Annotations for Exodus

Egypt. Ancient Egypt stretched from the Mediterranean Sea south along the Nile River and was divided—conceptually and sometimes politically—between Upper Egypt in the south (the Nile valley) and Lower Egypt (the Nile delta) in the north. each with his family. There is ample evidence that Semitic peoples (from Syria and Palestine) entered the Nile delta region for a variety of reasons. Obtaining food for themselves and their herds during times of famine was one of them. A well-known Egyptian text from around 1200 BC contains a letter that mentions a group of Semitic nomads or Bedouin (Egyptian shasu) coming into Egypt. These Bedouin were mainly shepherds and their families who periodically roamed along the borders of Egypt looking for better pastures for their herds. These shasu were coming from the Sinai Desert, east of Egypt. They entered at one of the border checkpoints set up by the Egyptian military. While the shasu mentioned are probably not Israelites, the text does show that it was not unusual for nomadic Semites to enter Egypt at this time, especially along the eastern border of the Delta.

An Egyptian priest named Manetho, who lived during the 200s BC, attempted to divide Egyptian history as he saw it into sections or dynasties. He did this based on groups of kings who, in his view, shared important kinship, political or geographic ties. He numbered each dynasty, and the New Kingdom includes the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties. Overlapping dates can be explained by coregencies (two rulers sharing power). ◆

Eighteenth Dynasty

Ahmose

1550–1525 BC

Amenhotep I

1525–1504 BC

Thutmose I

1504–1492 BC

Thutmose II

1492–1479 BC

Thutmose III

1479–1425 BC

Queen Hatshepsut

1473–1458 BC

Amenhotep II

1427–1400 BC

Thutmose IV

1400–1390 BC

Amenhotep III

1390–1352 BC

Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten

1352–1336 BC

Neferneferuaten

1338–1336 BC

Tutankhamun

1336–1327 BC

Ay

1327–1323 BC

Horemheb

1323–1295 BC

Nineteenth Dynasty

Rameses I

1295–1294 BC

Seti I

1294–1279 BC

Rameses II

1279–1213 BC

Merneptah

1213–1203 BC

Amenmesses

1203–1200 BC

Seti II

1200–1194 BC

Saptah

1194–1188 BC

Queen Tausret

1188–1186 BC

Twentieth Dynasty

Sethnakht

1186–1184 BC

Rameses III

1184–1153 BC

Rameses IV

1153–1147 BC

Rameses V

1147–1143 BC

Rameses VI

1143–1136 BC

Rameses VII

1136–1129 BC

Rameses VIII

1129–1126 BC

Rameses IX

1126–1108 BC

Rameses X

1108–1099 BC

Rameses XI

1099–1069 BC

Go to

Go to

to whom Joseph meant nothing. Scholars have tried to determine what this statement means in terms of Egyptian history. One idea relates to the people known as the Hyksos. The Hyksos were Semitic foreigners in Egypt who took over and ruled Lower Egypt (which includes the Nile delta) for about 100 years (c. 1630–1530 BC). They were eventually ousted by Egyptians who had retained power over Upper Egypt.

In light of the Hyksos rule in Egypt and their eventual demise, at least two inferences are possible with respect to the Biblical text. First, it seems reasonable to identify the period of Hyksos rule as a period of time when a person from, perhaps, another Semitic group could have risen to an extraordinarily high position within the governmental hierarchy, as the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis describes. Presumably, the Hyksos were sympathetic to other Semites and amenable to sharing some political power with them. Second, it is conceivable that the defeat of the Hyksos and the return of indigenous Egyptian rule to Lower Egypt form the background for this verse in Exodus. The Hebrews—and any Semitic persons for that matter—would have come under great suspicion after the Egyptians had just retaken their Nile delta from the despised Hyksos. Thus, it is likely that a Semitic group that had been shown special favor by the Hyksos would have fallen out of favor under the new Egyptian king.

Inferences regarding the Israelites in particular must remain tentative. If there were Israelites living in or near Avaris (the very region from which the Bible indicates the Israelites left Egypt), their material remains would be indistinguishable from those left by other Semitic groups. Thus, some of the so-called Hyksos archaeological evidence in this region may be Israelite, though there is as yet no reliable means by which to establish this.

our enemies. If they are the Hyksos, this would place events in the period when they were being driven from the land. leave the country. The Egyptians, it seems, wanted to keep the Israelites around for economic reasons.

forced labor. Not infrequent in engineering and construction projects of the ancient world. Common people might be forced to work without pay for a percentage of the year, effectively paying their time as a form of taxation. Other laborers included prisoners of war. When building projects became too ambitious and expensive for these to be sufficient, vulnerable groups of people would be targeted for forced labor. It is possible to imagine Semitic slaves, even Hebrew slaves, as part of those conscripted. Pithom and Rameses. These names probably refer to locations near the eastern edge of the Nile delta. Pithom. Likely the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian phrase “House of (the god) Atum,” and it perhaps refers to Tell el-Retabeh, which was an important military point on Egypt’s eastern border during the time of Rameses II. Rameses. Named after Rameses II, who reigned more than 60 years in the mid-1200s BC; called Pi-Ramesse (“House of Rameses”) in Egyptian—identified today as Tell ed-Dab’a—where significant remains of a Semitic settlement have been excavated. The building projects of Rameses II surpassed those of all other pharaohs and required a massive labor force.

harsh labor in brick and mortar. Brick making was a filthy and miserable job. Intensive brick making was needed to support the large-scale building projects in Egypt (requiring literally millions of bricks), particularly at sites like Pi-Ramesse (see previous note).

Hebrew. The term has linguistic connections to the term Apiru, used in a number of ancient texts. It occurs frequently, e.g., in the approximately 380 tablets discovered at the site of el-Amarna, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) south of Cairo. Most of these tablets come from the mid-fourteenth century BC and are letters that were written by local rulers in Syria and Palestine to the Egyptian king who had established his capital at this site. Egypt had loose control of Syria and Palestine during this period. The letters speak disparagingly of the Apiru people. For example, Abdi-Hepa, the local ruler in Jerusalem, wrote with the dire news: “The land of the king has gone over to the Apiru. And now, in addition to this, a town belonging to Jerusalem, Bit-Ninurta by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the men of Qiltu. May the king listen to Abdi-Hepa, your servant, and send archers to restore the land of the king to the king. If there are no archers, the land of the king will go over to the Apiru!” The Apiru may refer to groups of people who were social outcasts, did not own property, often resorted to banditry, and threatened the status quo for settled people. Those viewed as outsiders or foreigners were also often labeled as Apiru. Before forming the nation of Israel, most likely the Hebrews were viewed in this way. A Hebrew could certainly have been called an Apiru, though not every Apiru was a Hebrew. Note that while “Hebrew” is primarily an ethnic designation, “Apiru” is strictly a social one. Shiphrah and Puah. An Egyptian papyrus from around the year 1700 BC presents a list of 95 household servants. Over half the names are Semitic. One is Shiphrah, who is designated as a weaver of fine linen. This woman is clearly not the one referred to in the Biblical text, but this Semitic name (meaning “fair, beautiful”) appears to have been known in Egypt.

delivery stool. Women in the ancient world would give birth in a crouching or kneeling position. Stools, stones or bricks could be used to support the mother’s weight during this process.

she placed the child in it. The baby’s mother abandoned her child in hopes of saving him. This is reminiscent of a theme—an abandoned or exposed child who is rescued and eventually grows up to perform some heroic deed—that turns up in a wide variety of other literature. The story closest to the Exodus account is the Legend of Sargon from Mesopotamia, which tells of the rise to power of a Mesopotamian king from around 2300 BC. Like Moses’ mother, Sargon’s mother places her baby in a reed basket, seals it and sets it adrift on a river. Like Moses, Sargon is then taken from the water by the one who eventually adopts him.

Evidence suggests that it was not uncommon for a child to be abandoned. Reasons for this practice are not entirely clear, although families often had great difficulties finding enough food for the members they already had. We do know that abandoned children who were then later adopted could receive names that referred to their abandonment—e.g., Ha-pi-kalbi (“He-of-the-dog’s-mouth”) and Naru-eriba (“The-river-has-compensated-me”). By means of this traumatic event, the Biblical text hints to the reader regarding the kind of future in store for this child. Moses has “hero” written all over him.

nurse him for me. Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian records, mostly from the second millennium BC, indicate that a woman could have the occupation of wet nurse (a woman who breast-feeds another woman’s child). They were often employed after the adoption of an abandoned child and were typically paid with basic provisions such as food and clothing. The standard period of time for a wet nurse was about three years.

took him to Pharaoh’s daughter. As a child of Pharaoh’s court, Moses would perhaps have had access to education (literature, scribal arts, warfare, rhetoric), but this is not a certainty. There is no evidence that the particular daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses had a position of power or influence. Harem children existed in every court. Children of influential wives would be trained for administrative positions, but others may have had much lower status and fewer opportunities and advantages. We simply are not given enough information to reach confident conclusions. Moses. Frequently used in Egyptian names, e.g., Ahmose, Thutmose and Rameses. Its basic meaning is “to father” or “to be fathered (born).” For example, Thutmose probably means “the god Thoth is born,” or perhaps “the god Thoth has fathered” or “born of the god Thoth.” In this case, Moses’ name, then, is really just a half-name: “born of . . .” Alternatively, the Egyptian word ms means “boy,” so she may have simply called him “boy.” In any event, the name fits the narrative and is suitably left as it is, since it sounds like the Hebrew word for “to pull out, retrieve”—in this case, from the water.

beating. The Hebrew word here is the same as the one for “killed” in v. , so the word can refer to a fatal beating, depending on the context. Beating slaves was certainly not uncommon or illegal in the ancient world. Even killing a slave was not a serious crime. When a person caused the death of another’s slave—in this case, the taskmaster may have killed one of Pharaoh’s slaves—the perpetrator typically only had to pay a fine to compensate the victim’s owner for the loss of labor. Here the taskmaster would have had Pharaoh’s authority to beat the slave and may not, therefore, have been culpable of any wrongdoing. Thus, Moses’ reaction is severe—especially if the slave did not die—but understandable in light of his relation to the one beaten.

he tried to kill Moses. There is virtually no evidence from ancient Egypt regarding the treatment of homicide. Egypt certainly had the death penalty, however, since participants in an unsuccessful coup during the reign of Rameses III (1186–1155 BC) were executed. Apparently, a minor queen and her supporters had wanted to dethrone Rameses and make her son king. The Egyptian justice system had no qualms about imposing the death penalty on those guilty of murder. In this case, the Egyptian king is interested not only in justice but also in revenge. Since one from his own court has violated the system for enforcing his authority, Pharaoh is out to kill Moses not only to ensure that the latter receives what he deserves but also to make clear that violations of Pharaoh’s authority will be dealt with severely. Midian. This area is probably located in northwestern Arabia, just to the east of the Gulf of Elath (Aqaba). This area raises an interesting possibility when one considers that it is here where Moses for the first time encounters Yahweh (the Israelite name for God; see the article “God’s Name”). This region is referred to as the “Land of the Shasu”—shasu refers to Bedouin shepherds (see note on )—in two Egyptian texts found in ancient Nubia (modern Sudan) from approximately 1400 BC. These texts mention “Yhw (in) the land of the Shasu.” This Yhw is most likely a form of Yahweh and represents a location possibly based on the Israelite name for God. This may support the conclusion that some people in that region may have been worshiping Yahweh at this time. In fact, the Biblical text may be trying to depict Moses’ eventual father-in-law, called a priest in v. , as a worshiper of Yahweh. That he lives in this region and has flocks that need shepherding certainly qualifies him and his family as shasu. All that is missing is an explicit reference to his worship of Yahweh, though this may come in . The Midianites were descended from Abraham through Keturah ().

Horeb, the mountain of God. Horeb (Hebrew “wasteland, desert”) is specifically referred to as the “mountain of God” only here and in . In the “mountain of God” is given the name “Sinai.” That one particular mountain is referred to as God’s mountain is intriguing. Ancient Near Eastern deities often had their dwelling place on a mountain. In the mythology of Ugarit in Syria, e.g., Baal had his palatial abode on Mount Zaphon (Jebel el-Aqra in western Syria), about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Ugarit.

One reason the people of Israel left Egypt was to come to this abode of God to worship him (v. ). In fact, when they arrive at the mountain, Yahweh states, “I . . . brought you to myself” (). Yahweh then leaves this dwelling place and travels with the people in the tabernacle—a portable dwelling place ().

This understanding accords with the idea that there were already worshipers of Yahweh in the area of Midian (the general vicinity of Horeb) before Moses arrived (see note on ). It would not be out of place, then, for some Israelites to have believed that the, or perhaps a, dwelling place of God was in this location.

the angel of the LORD. In the ancient world it was rare for heads of state to communicate directly. Diplomatic and political exchange required the use of an intermediary messenger, who was a fully vested representative of the party he represented, speaking for that party and with the authority of that party, and receiving the same treatment that party would enjoy if he were there in person. Still, there was no confusion about the messenger’s identity. Gifts given belonged to the represented party, and there was an expectation that words spoken would be reported in accurate detail as if spoken directly to the individual being represented. When the messenger spoke official words, he was not speaking for himself but for his patron. In the same way, the angel of the Lord is a messenger endowed with the authority of Yahweh. When the messenger is speaking, it is the Lord speaking.

Take off your sandals. Some depictions of religious rituals from the ancient Near East show worshipers going barefoot before their gods. Also, in ancient Egypt it seems to have been unacceptable to wear sandals in the presence of the king, even if he should be wearing them. Thus, this act is probably symbolic for Moses; it shows respect for sacred space (“holy ground”) or subservience to God. Others have suggested that it may simply have been a matter of not tracking dirt—perhaps representative of that which is unclean—into the holy presence of God.

flowing with milk and honey. Evokes the image of a prosperous land. The Egyptian Story of Sinuhe (from the early second millennium BC) also describes the land of Canaan as prosperous: “It was a wonderful land called Yaa. There were cultivated figs in it and grapes, and more wine than water. Its honey was abundant, and its olive trees numerous. On its trees were all varieties of fruit. There were barley and emmer, and there was no end to all varieties of cattle.” But the land seems not to have been consistently prosperous; several Biblical texts refer to famine in Canaan (; ; ). Biblical texts describe the blessing of Yahweh as the determining factor. When he wished for there to be prosperity, there was. Ugaritic texts present a similar perspective: When there was divine blessing—in their case, from Baal—then “the heavens rain oil, / the wadis run with honey.” In Sumerian literature, Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld indicates that the destiny of stillborn children in the netherworld is to play at a table of gold and silver laden with honey and ghee, showing that these were symbols of prosperity.

Regarding the kind of prosperity, the Biblical expression probably does not refer to the most common forms of agriculture, such as the cultivation of grains. Rather, the “milk” most likely refers to animal husbandry and the use of animal by-products for food and clothing. Sheep were important for their wool and meat, but goats may have been more important. They provide twice as much milk as sheep, and their hair and hides could be used for tents, clothing, carpets, and even satchels for holding liquids. The “honey” refers to horticulture—the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. “Honey” in Israel is more commonly the syrup from grapes and dates than the substance produced by bees.

Given the mountainous and arid landscape of much of Canaan, it would be difficult for a society to rely strictly on agricultural crops. Herding and horticulture were essential. Still, to the casual observer, the lush environs of Egypt’s fertile delta appeared far more inviting than Canaan (cf. ; especially , where Israelites call Egypt a “land flowing with milk and honey”). Moreover, parts of Canaan were indeed verdant compared to the nearby desert.

God’s statement “I AM WHO I AM” () is essentially in answer to the question, “What is your name?” God’s initial answer seems evasive. He is hinting at the real answer, though, since the Hebrew words for “I am” sound a bit like “Yahweh,” the name finally revealed in (“the LORD”). Two aspects of how divine names were utilized in ancient Egypt may relate to this revelation of God’s name.

First, ancient Egyptians believed in a close relationship between the name of a deity and the deity itself—i.e., the name of a god could reveal part of the essential nature of that god. In Egyptian texts that refer to different but important names for the same deity, the names are often associated with particular actions or characteristics, and the words used tend to sound similar to the names with which they are associated. One can say there is wordplay between the action or characteristic and the name.

For example, one text says, “You are complete [km] and great [wr] in your name of Bitter Lake [Km wr] . . . See you are great and round [šn] in (your name of) Ocean [Šn wr].” One can discern a similar wordplay at work in . The action God refers to is that of being or existing. The wordplay consists in that the statement “I AM” comes from the Hebrew consonants h-y-h, while the name in contains the consonants y-h-w-h. Both words come from the same verbal root, and the linguistic connection would be immediately clear to an ancient listener or reader. It is not that God’s name is actually “I am” but that “Yahweh” reveals something about the essence of who God is—an essence that relates to the concept of being and to the idea of one who brings others into being.

A second aspect of divine names in Egypt may be relevant. Deities sometimes had secret names, and special power was granted to those who knew them. Certain Egyptian magical texts (e.g., the Harris Magical Papyrus) give instructions on how to use the words of a god and thereby wield a degree of that god’s power.

It would have been unusual in the ancient Near East for a deity quickly and easily to reveal his name (e.g., ); this may be part of the reason for the delayed answer here in . Nevertheless, Yahweh’s name is not meant to be kept secret, and it is vitally important for Moses to have this knowledge. He is to speak Yahweh’s words (), wield his power () and function like Yahweh to both his brother Aaron () and to Pharaoh ().

To this day, no one knows for sure how to pronounce the name of God—at least not as the ancient Israelites would have pronounced it. There are four consonants in the name—sometimes called the Tetragrammaton (“four-letter word”): y-h-w-h. The vowels are the tricky part. Hebrew is generally written without vowels. In the second half of the first millennium AD, some Jewish scribes began adding small marks to Biblical manuscripts in order to indicate how the vowel sounds of each word should be pronounced. They treated the name of God, however, differently from other words. It had long been customary in Jewish tradition not to pronounce the name Yahweh. Instead of saying “Yahweh,” people would often say “Adonay,” which means “my Lord” (and has led to “the LORD” as the traditional rendering of Yahweh in the English Bible). In order to remind readers to say “Adonay” instead of “Yahweh,” the scribes added the marks for the vowel sounds of Adonay to the consonants for Yahweh in their manuscripts. Pronouncing the consonants of yhwh with the vowels of adonay produces the well-known “Jehovah,” which is certainly not the right pronunciation.

What, then, were the original vowels in God’s name? Ultimately, we do not know. During the period of the divided kingdom, the name may have been pronounced something like “Yau,” with the “au” forming a diphthong rather than two separate syllables. Evidence from classical Hebrew (found in both Biblical and non-Biblical texts) and certain Greek renderings of the name, however, have led scholars generally to believe that “Yahweh” was the way in which the name eventually came to be pronounced.

More significant is the meaning of the name Yahweh. For this there has been a wide range of suggestions: “Truly He!”; “My One”; “He Who Is”; “He Who Brings into Being”; “He Who Storms.” One of the best suggestions is that the name is a shortened form of a longer name, Yahweh Sabaoth (often rendered in English as “the LORD of Hosts” or “the LORD Almighty”; see, e.g., ). The word “Yahweh” itself is most likely a verb. Many other shortened names from the ancient Near East are verb forms, which is exactly what Yahweh appears to be. It comes from the Hebrew verb meaning “to be.” But if the first vowel really is an a-vowel, then the verb likely has a causative sense: “to cause to be.” Thus, a fairly literal translation of Yahweh Sabaoth would be “He Who Causes the Hosts (of Heaven) to Be.” In general, then, the name refers to the One who creates or brings into being. ◆

The Tetragrammaton in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls and in a modern scroll, with the vowel sounds of Adonay added.

Wikimedia Commons

Go to

it became a snake. Tales even from the modern era have been told of an Egyptian magical act in which a snake becomes as stiff as a staff. One account refers to “both a snake and a crocodile thrown by hypnotism into the condition of rigidity in which they could be held up as rods by the tip of the tail.” The sign given to Moses was the opposite, which raises the possibility that the sign was intended as an obvious reversal of Egyptian magic.

leprous. Exactly what the Hebrew term for “leprous” means is uncertain. Gerhard Henrik Armauer Hansen, a Norwegian physician, in the 1860s discovered the organism that he named Mycobacterium leprae—the bacterium that causes what today is known as leprosy or Hansen’s disease. There is little evidence, however, that this disease existed to any substantial degree in the ancient Near East. Examinations of skeletal remains from both Egypt and Israel show little evidence of the bone deformities typically caused by leprosy; the earliest indication of true leprosy in Egypt dates to the early Christian period. The Hebrew term metsoraat, often translated as “leprosy,” most likely refers to changes in the skin that result from any number of dermatological conditions (e.g., psoriasis, eczema), fungal infections (e.g., ringworm), or other causes.

Here Moses’ hand is said to be “as snow.” This could refer either to color (white) or to texture (flaky), though the latter is more likely, in light of other Biblical texts referring to metsoraat. Ancient Mesopotamians also had names for skin diseases that have been translated into English as “leprosy.” Like the Israelites, they feared these diseases. Some texts use this disease to curse wrongdoers: “May Sîn, great lord, fill him with leprosy and may he bed down like a wild ass outside the city.” A court case at ancient Nuzi (c. 1400 BC) cites testimony of one man to another, “You are filled with ‘leprosy’ [epqu]. Do not come near me.” Thus, the condition of Moses’ hand, whatever it was, is meant to startle and repulse any observer and even Moses himself, though he cannot run from this as he had from the snake (v. ).

this staff. It becomes the symbol of God’s presence and power. Moses never uses it in connection with incantations, and so it is distinguished from an instrument of magic. Magic is employed to manipulate deity; Moses only uses the staff this way in one incident (), for which he is severely punished.

was about to kill him. Yahweh appears intent on killing Moses, the one he has just commissioned as the deliverer of the Israelites. If Yahweh felt compelled to punish Moses for the latter’s murder of an Egyptian taskmaster (), it seems odd that he would wait until now. In other Biblical texts, those who are guilty of accidental or unintentional homicide may flee to so-called cities of refuge or asylum (; ; ; ). This affords them protection from the relatives of the victim who are likely to seek revenge, and they must remain in their chosen city of refuge until the death of the high priest (; ).

By analogy Moses’ flight to Midian could be seen as an effort to seek asylum. That there was justification for Moses’ killing of the Egyptian is debatable, but it may have counted as a crime of passion or an appropriate act of revenge for the killing of Israelites. In this way, Moses qualifies for leniency and thus for the chance at asylum. He then remains in Midian until he is told, “All those who wanted to kill you are dead” (v. ). This suggests that Moses is now free to leave his place of asylum and make his return. Yet Yahweh still attacks him. The idea may be that, even though Moses is free in a legal sense to return, he still carries about on his person a kind of spiritual or religious pollution as a result of the homicide—a pollution that must be purged. In the case of homicide, the pollution is referred to by the Hebrew word dam (“blood”); the perpetrator has been contaminated by the victim’s blood.

This notion of blood contamination turns up in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia as well. An Assyrian text from the mid-600s BC declares that the perpetrator of a homicide must make a payment (what is really a ransom for his own life) to the victim’s family and in so doing “wash the blood away.” A text from Mari (c. 1800 BC) refers to a “criminal who is polluted with that blood (shed in murder).” In ch. , Yahweh cannot allow Moses to emerge from his place of asylum unless the contamination is purged.

bridegroom of blood. Zipporah’s act of circumcision is important. It appears to function as the expiation—purging, atonement—for the guilt, pollution or “blood” that Moses is still carrying around and on account of which Yahweh attacks him. It is hard to say, however, exactly how circumcision accomplishes this expiation. There is a Phoenician myth in which the god Kronos circumcises himself and thereby seems to halt an impending catastrophe sent by another god. “At the occurrence of a fatal plague, Kronos immolated his only son to his father Ouranos and circumcised himself, forcing the allies who were with him to do the same.” This myth reflects a belief that circumcision could quell divine wrath.

If some such similar belief is at work here, the problem then becomes why Moses himself is not the one circumcised. In light of both Egyptian and Hebrew customs, though, he likely already is circumcised and thus cannot be physically circumcised again. Thus, the touching of his son’s bloody foreskin to Moses’ own genitalia (the Hebrew word for “feet” [v. ] can be euphemistic for male sex organs) may have functioned as a symbolic circumcision and produced the required expiatory effect.

In light of all this, Zipporah’s comment about “a bridegroom of blood” probably contains a pair of double meanings. First, Moses is a bridegroom of blood because he still possesses the blood or pollution that resulted from his homicide, but also because of the bloody circumcision that Zipporah performs. The other double meaning comes from the Hebrew word for “bridegroom” (hatan). The verb form of this word in both Hebrew and Arabic means “to become a relative by means of marriage.” But the etymology of this word leads to another verb that means “to circumcise.” By the word “bridegroom,” then, Zipporah refers both to a bridegroom and to a circumcised one. This suggests that Moses is indeed circumcised, albeit symbolically, by her act. In the end, the circumcision cleanses Moses and thereby appeases Yahweh’s anger.

hold a festival to me in the wilderness. Mesopotamian and Egyptian societies both had numerous festivals tied to particular times of their civil calendar. The Hittites too had festivals that were held monthly or yearly, while others, such as the Festival of the Sickle or the Festival of Cutting Grapes, took place in connection with events of the agricultural year (civil and agricultural calendars did not always match). In almost every case, a festival connected with a particular deity took place at that deity’s place of residence—at its temple or wherever the priests happened to place its statue. Perhaps the Israelites could not hold a festival to their God in Egypt because his place of residence was the “mountain of God” in “the desert.”

I do not know the LORD. It is not that the Egyptian king is unfamiliar with deities worshiped by Semitic peoples. The Egyptians knew well and even venerated a number of Semitic deities. Baal, e.g., was highly revered. The Egyptian king was at times said to be “great in power like Baal over foreign lands” or to have a “roar like that of Baal in heaven.” Perhaps Pharaoh here is saying that he has never heard of Yahweh. But his statement more likely means a refusal to acknowledge Yahweh as one worthy of his attention.

get your own straw. Straw was a crucial ingredient in mud bricks to hold the materials firmly together. Even in modern Egypt, bricks have often been made of soil, water and what is known in Arabic as tibn—essentially the same term as the Hebrew word for straw (teben). Without straw, more bricks would fail, and quotas would be more difficult to meet.

quota of bricks. The Louvre Leather Scroll, an Egyptian text from the reign of Rameses II, contains a list of brick quotas assigned to individual workers and how many bricks each worker delivered. The relevant portion of the text begins: “The great Stable of Rameses II, Life Prosperity and Health! Amenemhat son of Kuroy—bricks, 2000: delivered, 150; delivered, 150; delivered, 165, delivered, 185; delivered, 170; total, 820. Wepwawetmose son of Huy—bricks, 2000: delivered, 100; delivered, 350; delivered, 180; delivered, 320; total, 950.” Of the approximately 35 workers listed, not one met his quota of bricks. To what degree this caused problems for the building project or to what degree these workers may have been punished is not disclosed.

Lazy. Time off from work for worship was not unheard of in Egypt. A collection of texts has been preserved from the New Kingdom site of Deir el-Medina, where many Egyptian workers were stationed in order to construct and decorate royal tombs. Records list workers who were absent for a variety of reasons, including participation in religious rituals and festivities.

my mighty hand. This phrase can just as easily be translated “my strong arm.” The “hand of the LORD” or “his hand” is a Biblical and ancient Near Eastern expression. In Akkadian literature it often refers to the punishing, destructive or threatening hand of a particular god. The poor sufferer in that literature who utters the line “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom” can complain of his god that “heavy was his hand [upon me], I could not bear it.” In Biblical texts this phrase stood for the power/might of Israel’s God (; ; ; ). In Egyptian documents (annals, historical texts, oracles and prophecies) the expressions “hand of Pharaoh” or “strong arm of Pharaoh” were metaphors for the power/might of Egypt (; ). The equivalent expression “outstretched arm” (v. ; ; ) was often used in and even combined with the “mighty hand” of the LORD (; ; ; ; ; ).

These terms are found ubiquitously in Egyptian literature since Pharaoh was known as “lord of the strong arm” (Neb Khopesh). Rameses II affirmed that his god Seth had made Rameses’ arm “mighty to the height of heaven and [his] strength to the width of the earth!” The Hittite king Mursili conquered the enemy “with [his strong] arm.” These idioms were also used in Canaan as evidenced by the Amarna letters.

Decisive proof for the historicity of any event is virtually unattainable. Events can be shown to be possible, plausible or even probable, depending on the nature and amount of evidence supporting them. But they cannot be proved in any ultimate sense.

Little historical evidence offers corroboration of an escape of slaves from Egypt on the order of the large-scale exodus described in the Bible. There is one aspect of the Biblical narrative, however, that has a fair amount of circumstantial evidence in its favor: the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt. This evidence, apart from the Biblical text itself, is sufficient to argue for the plausibility of this event. The Egyptians used a particular term, often translated “Asiatics,” to refer to Semitic people groups. This term typically applied to those who hailed from the regions of western Asia, such as Syria and Palestine, and it could easily have been used of Israelites. Asiatics entered Egypt by one of several means: as prisoners of war; as part of tribute payments from Asiatic rulers to the Egyptian king; as victims of slave trade; as merchants on business trips to conduct trade and related activities; and as hungry people in search of food and water for themselves and their flocks. The first three ways usually led to enslavement, often at the hands of official institutions, such as the palace, the temple or the military.

Many scholars believe that the book of Exodus places the events it recounts in a time period that fits best within the second half of the second millennium BC. In Egypt, this is known as the New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC). For the area of Syria and Palestine in western Asia, this time period includes the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) and the first part of the Iron Age (referred to as Iron I, 1200–1000 BC).

In Palestine it is in the Iron I period that remains of a distinctly Israelite character begin to appear and continue to predominate throughout the Iron II period (1000–586 BC; in 586 BC Jerusalem and much of Judah were overrun by the Babylonians). Any departure of Israelites from Egypt would presumably have taken place before this settlement process begins, and there are no compelling reasons to consider time periods prior to the New Kingdom in Egypt and the Late Bronze Age in Palestine. Moreover, in Palestine, the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age is primarily one from Egyptian domination to a marked absence of Egyptian control.

It was during the New Kingdom that Egypt’s imperialistic ambitions grew. One of its early kings, Amenhotep I, led Egypt to renewed military success in Nubia (modern Sudan) to the south, and his kingdom began to reap economic benefits. Later, during the reign of Thutmose III, Egypt expanded its power into Syria and Palestine, subjecting a number of city-states to its control. This provided Egypt with access to a variety of raw materials, an important source of human labor from prisoners of war, military spoils and tribute payments from vassal rulers. Such rewards motivated subsequent kings to continue to exert control over Syria and Palestine. An archive of letters from the site of el-Amarna (see note on ) amply attests to this.

Much of the evidence for Asiatic slaves in Egypt comes from the New Kingdom. Beginning with Thutmose III in the 1400s BC, Egyptian kings brought back unprecedented numbers of Asiatic slaves from their military campaigns into Syria and Palestine. From the 1300s BC, the Amarna letters (see note on ) show a fairly active slave trade between Palestine and Egypt. Kings from the 1200s BC, such as Seti I and Rameses II, continued forays into Palestine, capturing large numbers of prisoners. ◆

The Beth Shean Stele of Egyptian King Seti I, c. 1289–1278 BC, notes his military campaign into Palestine and capture of a large numbers of prisoners.

Steven Voth

Go to

I am the LORD. Other ancient Near Eastern texts also record deities speaking in this way, although such statements are not common in Egyptian texts. Part of the Sphinx Stele from the time of Thutmose IV states: “See me, look at me, my son Thutmose. I am thy father, Harmakhis-Kepri-Re-Atum, I shall give thee my kingdom upon earth.” Assyrian texts from the 600s BC ascribe the following statements to the goddess Ishtar: “I am the great divine lady, I am the goddess Ishtar of Arbela, who will destroy your enemies from before your feet . . . I am Ishtar of Arbela. I shall lie in wait for your enemies”; “I am Ishtar of Arbela, O Esarhaddon, king of Assyria. In the cities of Ashur, Nineveh, Calah, protracted days . . . unto [you] shall I grant.” Such “I am” statements seem mainly associated with assertions of a deity’s power and authority. King Esarhaddon of Assyria can rest assured that he will enjoy long life and see his enemies defeated, because Ishtar has confirmed her declaration: “I am Ishtar of Arbela.” For its part, the Biblical text insists that all involved in this situation in Egypt acknowledge (“know”) who Yahweh is and accept his power and authority, even though Pharaoh fails to acknowledge any of this (). Moreover, the driving force behind Israel’s deliverance from Egypt is to build in them an unwavering conviction: “Then you will know that I am the LORD your God” (). The Egyptians too are not left out of this equation: “And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD” (). Exodus repeatedly stresses this kind of knowing (; ; ; , ).

take you as my own people. This expression comes from contract law. It is the classical expression of the covenantal (or “contractual,” since the Hebrew berit can be translated “covenant” or “contract”) relationship between Yahweh and the Israelites. They will be his people, and he will be their God. The statement is lit. “I take [laqah] you to myself as a people.” The forming of a marriage relationship is also expressed in this way: “Aaron took [laqah] Elisheba . . . to himself as a wife” (lit. translation of v. ).

Adoption also provides a helpful analogy. In Mesopotamia, adoption was often expressed by “take” (Akkadian lequ, cognate with Hebrew laqah) in conjunction with the expression “as a son” or “as a daughter.” For example, section 186 of the Code of Hammurapi begins: “If a man takes a young child as a son . . .” Here Yahweh says that he will “take” the Israelites “as [his] own people.” One can say he adopts them.

Adoption functions for at least three purposes: (1) to provide a secure way to care for orphans, abandoned children and children from families in distress; (2) to provide children for couples with none of their own; and (3) to provide an heir for an individual or a couple. Yahweh’s “adoption” of the Israelites fulfills at least two of these purposes. First, Biblical texts liken the Israelites to an abandoned child and refer to them, collectively, as Yahweh’s son (; ). Second, Israel is called “the people of his inheritance” (), and the land of Canaan is “the good land the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance” (). The practice of adoption may have provided an important context for ancient Israel’s understanding of its relationship with Yahweh.

I speak with faltering lips. Lit. “I am uncircumcised of lips.” Biblical texts speak of two other body parts that one would not ordinarily think of as being uncircumcised: the ear () and the heart (; ; ; ; ; , ). These passages do not refer to physical malfunction, but rather imperviousness to the divine word. Moses is here no longer speaking of himself as “slow of speech and tongue” (); he is referring to something entirely different. It is not a physical disability that he has in mind but a moral one. He is acutely aware of his lack of success so far with both Pharaoh and the Israelites. Moses’ statement implies that he believes his mouth is no longer a clean, free and open channel for Yahweh’s words.

This focus on the mouth and lips may relate to the so-called mouth-washing rituals in Mesopotamia, which were to purify a person or object in order to come into contact with a divine presence. For objects, after the washing, the mouth was “opened”—a necessary step in the process of transforming the statue into a god. Clearly, preparing the mouth was critical for preparing the entire person or object for divine contact (cf. ).

The two major candidates for the date of the exodus are the fifteenth century BC and the thirteenth century BC. Biblical information supporting the fifteenth century BC includes a calculation from numbers given in and , and the requisite time necessary for an extended period in Midian before Pharaoh dies (40 years) and another extended period of time in the wilderness before entering Canaan (40 years). The former may require a long-lived pharaoh for the oppression (e.g., Thutmose III). If the long-lived pharaoh were Rameses II (thirteenth century BC) there is not enough time for Israel to be in the wilderness before Rameses’ successor, Merneptah, says that Israel is in the land.

Biblical information supporting the thirteenth-century BC date includes the fact that one of the cities the Israelites are working on is named Rameses (). It is far-fetched to think that the Israelites were building a city names Rameses two centuries before there even was a Rameses.

Each of these pieces of Biblical information, however, can be mitigated without casting aspersions on the credibility of the Bible. First, numbers in the ancient world sometimes took on a schematic, rhetorical sense. If that is how the speakers meant them, that would be how we should read them. We cannot assume that it is just a matter of “doing the math.” Second, when Moses is told that those who wanted to kill him were dead (), that does not mean that they had just died. Therefore a long-lived pharaoh (over 40 years) is not necessary. Third, the reference to the city of Rameses in the Biblical text could easily be an updated name. The city named Rameses is located at what is today Tell ed-Dab’a. Rameses rebuilt it as his capital, but it had formerly been built as the Hyksos capital, Avaris. If the exodus was in the fifteenth century BC, the Israelites were building Avaris and later scribes put the more recent name, Rameses, in the text as it was being copied.

Consequently, the Bible does not give the answer. Unfortunately, neither do ancient texts. The most important evidence is provided by the so-called Merneptah Stele, also referred to as the Israel Stele. This monument contains an inscription regarding a military campaign that the Egyptian king Merneptah apparently led into Syria and Palestine around 1210 BC. It refers to several sites that Merneptah claims to have conquered, including “Israel.” This is the earliest non-Biblical historical reference to Israel, and suggests that any Israelite departure from Egypt would have had to take place in the first half of the thirteenth century BC at the latest to allow for a generation in the wilderness and time for Israel to get somewhat settled. Beyond this stele, no Egyptian document mentions Israel either in slavery or escaping.

From fourteenth-century BC Egypt (i.e., between the two proposed dates of the exodus), letters from the city of Amarna document the political situation that existed in Canaan. We learn that the city-states of Canaan were being threatened by people they referred to as Apiru, renegade groups of disenfranchised people. In those texts, some of the major cities are the same as in the book of Joshua (e.g., Jerusalem), but some that are prominent are largely absent from Joshua (e.g., Shechem, where the Israelites seem to be able to go with impunity). Others that are prominent in Joshua are totally absent from the Amarna correspondence (e.g., Jericho). It cannot be determined whether the Amarna period is after the exodus and the Israelites are among the Apiru who are causing trouble, or whether the exodus is after the Amarna period and others have paved the way for Israel’s entrance into the land.

Another possible source of information to make a determination would be the excavations at the sites involved in the conquest. Unfortunately, the information from excavations does not offer solid evidence for either of the proposed dates. ◆

Go to

snake. The Hebrew word here is different from the one used in . The Hebrew word here can refer to a sea-monster, dragon, crocodile or snake. The purpose of this event is also different. The sign with Moses’ staff was for the Israelite elders. They saw it and, initially, believed Moses (). The sign with Aaron’s staff is for Pharaoh and his officials and demonstrates what appears to be an assault on Egyptian ideology. If Aaron’s staff did indeed become a snake, then its devouring of the magicians’ snakes, on the one hand, demonstrates an overpowering of the magicians and even a commandeering of their own abilities and expertise.

On the other hand, it could also serve as an attack on the snake as a symbol of Egyptian power. It is hard to know, though, whether Aaron’s staff was supposed to become a snake that the Egyptians feared and despised or one that they worshiped. In ancient Egypt various preternatural beings (deities, demons, etc.) took the form of a snake; e.g., Apophis was an evil serpent and a great enemy of the sun-god Re. In Egyptian mythology, he regularly attacked the sun-god and, unless regularly defeated, could impede or even halt the sun-god’s orbit and thus bring disaster for human life on earth. Another important snake-deity was the goddess Wadjit. She functioned as the protective and representative deity of Lower Egypt, the delta region. She was normally portrayed as an up-reared cobra—referred to as a uraeus—ready to strike. Wadjit was represented by the uraeus adorning the Egyptian king’s headdress. Having the cobra just above the king’s forehead was meant to bring protection to Pharaoh and terror to his enemies.

The inscription commemorating Rameses II’s victory at Qadesh over the Hittites (c. 1275 BC) also refers to Wadjit. Rameses speaks of how he entered the fray and fought ferociously, with his “uraeus-serpent” beating back his enemies and spitting “fiery flame” into the faces of his enemies. The uraeus on the king’s head imbued him with the mystical force by which he maintained order in Egypt and even the entire world; no uraeus meant no power.

The episode with Aaron’s staff makes a more effective attack on Egyptian ideology if the snake is one like the king’s uraeus rather than an evil creature like Apophis. If so, this narrative is another instance when the Biblical text takes a power symbol, crucial within the Egyptian worldview, and attempts to reverse its power and make it advantageous for the Israelites.

magicians. The Hebrew term appears related to an Egyptian word often used to refer to theological specialists in ancient Egypt who studied their culture’s sacred literature and knew an array of secret charms, spells and rituals. They were often said to be associated with the “House of Life,” a special section in some Egyptian temples that housed ritual and magic texts said to be inspired by the sun-god. They would have practiced “sympathetic magic,” based on the idea that there is an association between an object and that which it symbolizes. Magic tapped into the cosmic forces that held creation together and could be used offensively or defensively by human or divine practitioners to command gods and spirits. Magical wands are also known from ancient Egypt, used mainly to ward off evil power and illness. Whether these Egyptian magicians here use such wands (“staffs”) is not clear.

The first six plagues could be explained as disasters in a progression of events, each of which naturally resulted from one of the plagues before it.

Blood. According to some theories, the water did not change into actual blood. Instead, it took on the appearance of blood. This could have been caused by flagellates (single-cell organisms living in water) flowing down the Nile from Ethiopia. Certain types of flagellates made the river water appear red and, because they upset the balance of oxygen in the water, killed the fish.

Frogs. Frogs were already abundant along the banks of the Nile, but with the changes in the river due to the flagellates, many more came up onto the land. Their sudden death () was caused by anthrax, contracted from the piles of rotting fish.

Gnats. These came to feast on the rotting fish and frogs and possibly spread one of the diseases mentioned later in Exodus.

Flies. Biting flies appeared for the same reason as the gnats and later spread disease from animals to humans, thereby causing the plague of boils.

Livestock Plague. This would be anthrax, spread by the frogs and possibly the gnats.

Boils. Anthrax has symptoms similar to boils and is spread to humans by the flies.

The next three plagues can be recognized as coming from the general climatic condition.

Hail. Violent thunderstorms occur in Egypt during the time when barley and flax are harvested ().

Locusts. Large swarms of invading locusts are not unknown in the Middle East and northern Africa.

Darkness. This plague may have been a desert sandstorm, not uncommon in Egypt during the spring, perhaps about six months after the time when the first plague occurred.

Though Exodus is silent on any direct connection between the different plagues, we realize that in the ancient world people did not think in terms of natural cause and effect. Divinities were behind everything that happened—especially events of this magnitude and impact. The point of the text is theological and symbolic (defeat of the gods of Egypt), and the extent to which God used natural phenomena to serve his purposes is not disclosed.

Each event is presented as unexpected and unbelievable. The idea of naturally occurring disasters may have some merit, but there is little in the plagues stories themselves to move the reader in that direction. Even those who maintain this position must acknowledge the miraculous nature of the plagues in terms of timing, prior announcement, discrimination between Israelites and Egyptians, and severity.

Another popular idea about the plagues is that each one was directed at a particular Egyptian deity. states: “I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt” (though this refers primarily, and perhaps only, to the last plague). The ancient Egyptians had numerous deities—nearly 1,500 throughout their recorded history. Many deities could take the form of more than one animal or creature. If one were to look hard enough, one should eventually be able to find a deity or two whose significance and symbolism could, conceivably, serve as the object of an attack by each plague account.

For example, the god Hapi was associated with the inundation of the Nile, which was crucial for ensuring good crops. Perhaps the first plague was directed at him. It is difficult, though, to find deities for all the plagues that, together, make a convincing case. With the third and fourth plagues, e.g., one suggestion is that the god Khepri, usually portrayed as a scarab beetle, is under attack. But there is little consensus regarding even which insects are in view here, and any correlation with Khepri is inexact. In the end, no consistent linking of the plagues with Egyptian deities is discernible. To be sure, there are a number of points at which the Biblical text does seem to be directed at the Egyptian belief system, but each instance must be examined on its own merits.

Ultimately, the plagues are symbolic of chaos, and they overthrow the right ordering of life so prized by the Egyptians. Announced by Moses, chaos is turning up everywhere in Egypt, and Pharaoh is powerless to stop it. ◆

Go to

water was changed into blood. This is usually considered the first of the ten plagues that Yahweh sends against Egypt. Within ancient Near Eastern societies, this event would have signified national calamity, the invasion of chaos and even a divine curse on the land. In Egypt, e.g., it was Pharaoh’s responsibility to maintain a state of proper order and justice, referred to as maat. In a sense, Egyptian religion with all its beliefs and practices was designed to restore maat to Egypt and preserve it as fully as possible. As titular and functional head of his religion, the Egyptian king was expected to protect his land against the forces of chaos, disorder and injustice. The Admonitions of Ipuwer (c. 2000 BC) uses a variety of verbal imagery to describe what chaos in the land would look like.

In the Sumerian myth Inanna and Shu-kale-tuda, the goddess Inanna is sleeping and, unbeknownst to her, is raped by a gardener. Upon awaking and discovering what has happened, Inanna inflicts three plagues on the land; the third is the turning of all water to blood. Another Sumerian myth, The Exaltation of Inanna, refers to a land that has failed to worship Inanna: “In the mountain where homage is withheld from you vegetation is accursed. Its grand entrance you have reduced to ashes. Blood rises in its rivers for you, its people have naught to drink.” Thus, for the Nile and its canals to be turned to blood meant that chaos had crossed Egypt’s borders, that Pharaoh had failed in his duty, and that a divine power was at work against them.

The Nile will teem with frogs. Some scholars see a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the plague of blood and this plague of frogs. If the Nile, never in short supply of frogs, were to become uninhabitable, where else would the frogs go but up onto the land? This is speculative at best. Another idea is that this plague is one more attack on Egyptian ideology, with the frog-goddess Heqt as its particular target. Heqt was a giver of life. As the consort of Khnum, a creator-god, she assisted in the creation of infants. In a Middle Kingdom (c. 2055–1650 BC) tale, she and others serve with Isis at the birth of three kings. Later, she develops a special association with childbirth and becomes a kind of patron goddess of midwives.

Egyptians did not, however, associate every common frog with the goddess. If there is symbolic meaning in the account of this plague, it may simply be to point out the inability of Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods to maintain proper order. First the water is ruined, and now the frogs are out of control. The disorder is taking different forms.

Scholars tend to agree that the meaning of this and similar expressions probably find their background in Egyptian terminology and beliefs. But there is disagreement as to which aspect of Egyptian culture provides this background. One view relates the concept of a hard heart to the judgment that ancient Egyptians believed would take place in the afterlife. Much of this belief is revealed in the document known as the “Book of the Dead.” A portion of this text describes the judgment scene at which the heart of the deceased is weighed on a scale to determine if it is heavier than the feather that represents the Egyptian conception of what is right and just. If not, the deceased is granted great favor in the afterlife. If it is, the creature Ammit (also known as the “Devouress” or “Swallower”) will consume the deceased. The Biblical expressions about a hard or strong heart, according to this view, are actually about a heavy heart. Each time the text says that Pharaoh’s heart grows hard or strong, it means that his heart grows heavier; i.e., he becomes more and more guilty when compared to the standard of what is right. At times, Yahweh is said to be the one to “harden” the heart of Pharaoh, which refers to Yahweh’s judging Pharaoh to be guilty of wrongdoing, even though ancient Egyptians believed their king could do no wrong.

There is another view, however, that points to Egyptian expressions that appear to be the functional equivalents of the Biblical language. One of these, which means lit. “heavy-hearted,” is often used of those who have great self-control and are able to refrain from speaking rashly. The expression could be translated “levelheaded.” Another expression means “stouthearted” and refers to those who have great courage and determination. Perhaps, then, the Biblical text is attempting to use these expressions in a way that Egyptian texts most certainly would not. Whereas the latter speak positively of a heart that grows hard, heavy or strong, the Exodus passages use this language to render a severe critique of the Egyptian king. In fact, the Biblical text may be offering a caustic satire on these Egyptian ideas. By strengthening Pharaoh’s heart, Yahweh is giving the king exactly what he wants—stoutheartedness, a concept highly prized by the Egyptians. In this case, however, getting what he wants leads Pharaoh and his land straight to disaster. On the other hand, it is generally not Yahweh who “makes heavy” Pharaoh’s heart. It is instead Pharaoh himself who heaps the guilt of wrongdoing—assuming this is the import of a heavy heart—on himself and thereby dooms himself to punishment.

Both views have some evidence in their favor. The second view connects the Hebrew phrases to Egyptian terminology that is indeed similar. None of this terminology occurs in the accounts of the judgment scene involving the weighing of the heart. Nevertheless, the first view seems able to explain the “hardening” process in a way that fits with the tendency of Exodus to condemn Pharaoh and his actions.

Whatever the case might be, we need to recall that God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is not what is bringing Pharaoh under judgment—he has already come under judgment, as have the people and gods of Egypt. This act is only a means of giving them what they have so richly earned. ◆

The Weighing of the Heart ritual from the papyrus of the scribe Hunefer, Thebes, early Nineteeth Dynasty, about 1280 BC.

Kim Walton. The British Museum.

Go to

finger of God. For the ancient Egyptians, the concept of the “finger” of a deity represented something dangerous and powerful that could bring about good or evil. The “finger of Seth” was feared for the harm it had done to the god Horus, while the “finger of Thoth” was praised for the threat it posed to the evil Apophis. By attributing this statement to the Egyptian magicians, the Biblical text presents an admission on their part that they are powerless in the face of one whom they perceive to be a hostile deity. They now recognize that they and their land are under divine attack.

This same phrase occurs in but in a different context. There, the two tablets of stone that record God’s covenant with the Israelites are said to be “inscribed by the finger of God.” The verse clearly does not imply a hostile threat but still seems to invoke the image of a potent and mystical God. Thus, “finger” is probably a symbol for power and ability.

plague. The Hebrew word used here (deber) means “plague” in the medieval sense: a disease of epidemic proportions that is sure to bring death. states: “I will strike down those who live in this city—both man and beast—and they will die of a terrible plague [deber].” Some interpret this word to mean bubonic plague. Since ancient Near Eastern texts, including Biblical texts, do not differentiate precisely between diseases, this term likely refers to a number of different illnesses. Nevertheless, any disease referred to by this term would probably have been deadly and widespread ().

boils. Again (see previous note), it is hard to say what type of condition is meant here. The term shehin is often translated as “boil,” “ulcer” or “sore.” Words from other languages that are related to this term mean “to burn” (Ugaritic shhn) and “to become hot” (Akkadian shahanu). Some have wondered if this condition is equivalent to “Nile sores,” a condition dubbed so by British travelers who contracted them while in the region. A skin disease of this type is representative of divine disapproval and punishment. A number of Neo-Assyrian treaties call for the gods to curse future treaty breakers with a skin disease often translated as “leprosy.” This is another of the divinely orchestrated calamities for the Egyptians.

staff. Moses’ staff is the same as the staff of God. A variety of ancient Near Eastern texts make use of the idea that a deity can bestow his staff upon a favored individual; e.g., the king of Mari (in eastern Syria), Zimri-Lim (c. 1780–1758 BC), is said to receive the staff of the god Addu, which Addu used to slay the great enemy Sea. Sennacherib (c. 700 BC) says that the god Assur “placed in [his] hand the just scepter that extends the realm, the merciless staff for the destruction of enemies.”

The Egyptian king also received a divine staff that symbolized his power and rule over the land. The staff here presents a direct challenge to Pharaoh’s rule. One theme running throughout Exodus is that Yahweh, not Pharaoh, is the legitimate ruler, even within the borders of Egypt. Thus, the staff in Moses’ hand is the genuine article; the one in Pharaoh’s hand is fake and powerless.

flax and barley. According to , the Israelites left Egypt in the March-April time frame. This verse probably indicates a time in February for the plague of hail, since flax and barley in Egypt are typically harvested in late February or early March. This text reflects some knowledge of the Egyptian agricultural calendar. In Palestine, barley is not harvested until April. If the narrative had placed the plague at that time, there would not have been enough time left in the narrative to include both the subsequent plagues and the exodus from Egypt.

locusts. The societies of the ancient Near East viewed invading locusts as a clear sign of divine outrage and punishment (cf. ). A number of texts from Mesopotamia and Syria refer to locust swarms as a divine curse; e.g., in the vassal treaties of the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (c. 670 BC) comes this curse for those who violate their oath to the gods: “May Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end [to vegetation] in your land, may he avoid your meadows and hit your land with a severe destructive downpour, may locusts, which diminish the (produce) of the land, [devour] your crops.” is again stressing how many of Yahweh’s actions against the Egyptians come from what are perceived as the standard repertoire of the angry god, who wishes to inflict pain and agony on those who oppose him.

darkness that can be felt. This wording suggests the presence of something airborne such as the khamsin dust storms, which are well-known in the Middle East. Three days is typical for the duration of this kind of storm, most likely between March and May. Such storms would not usually bring total darkness, so this one is extreme.

total darkness. From the perspective of the Egyptians, the absence of sunlight had profound meaning. They believed that the regular circling of the sun-god in the sky meant his blessing on Egypt. Any interruption in that cycle spelled disaster. Thus, this text seems to be targeting the sun-god, probably the most venerated deity in Egypt.

Throughout Egyptian history, the sun was worshiped as a manifestation of various deities, such as Atum, Re, Amun and Amun-Re. Pharaoh was also associated with the sun. Despite this ambiguity, the narrative of Exodus is once again claiming utter powerlessness for the king and the gods of Egypt. Moreover, darkness frequently turns up in Biblical texts as a symbol of judgment (; ; ). Here, the Egyptian life force has been extinguished. For them, at this juncture in the narrative, the favor (or, at least, efficacy) of their gods has vanished. The wrath of the Hebrew deity has reached its most intense stage yet. Creation has been undone. Chaos has returned.

Any reading of the accounts of the major festivals in the OT suggests that at least some of them incorporated elements of harvest festivals that were later historicized—i.e., given an association with some historical event and thereafter tied to that event though often retaining some of the original harvest associations. It would therefore not be unusual if some roots to the Passover antedated the events recorded in Exodus. If so, the “institution” of Passover refers to its institution in association with a historical event.

Certain elements in the Passover suggest that at its roots may be a nomadic herdsmen’s ritual in which they sought both protection from demonic attack as they moved to summer pasture and fertility for the herds in the new breeding season. Note how the observance is centered in the family (therefore not necessitating proximity to a sanctuary) and requires no altar (no animal is offered to deity) or priestly personnel. The blood on the doorpost purifies one’s house and thus prepares it for Yahweh’s presence and protection from the slaughtering angel. In this regard, it is evident that the verb psh has its meaning of “protect” (as seen clearly in ) rather than “pass over.” Blood is used, for instance, in Mesopotamian namburbi rituals, in which it is smeared on the door and keyhole to protect a house from spirit invasion.

The existence of such roots is plausible enough, though the details of its practice and function can only be speculated since no specific predecessors are known. Blood as an apotropaic device and ritual animal substitution are both known, but a spring nomadic ritual for protection and fertility of the herd is unattested in the ancient Near East. ◆

Go to

first month of your year. The commemoration of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, takes place today in the fall. Biblical texts, however, are ambiguous regarding when the new year begins. This verse places it in the spring. speaks of the ninth month as being in the winter, indicating that the first month comes in the spring. concurs, stating that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians took place in the fifth month (the summer, probably late July), again placing the first month in the spring.

But there are also hints that the new year began in the fall. In , e.g., King Josiah orders repairs on the temple “in the eighteenth year of his reign.” Subsequent to this order, a number of events transpire. Then, states that Passover was celebrated “in the eighteenth year of King Josiah.” According to , Passover was to begin on the tenth day of the first month. The only way for Josiah’s order and this Passover celebration both to occur in his eighteenth year—if the first day of the year was in the spring and Passover was celebrated on the tenth day of the year—is for all of the intervening events to have occurred within ten days, the first ten days of Josiah’s eighteenth year. This seems unlikely. Thus, this narrative may be assuming that the new year came in the fall.

Exodus itself has two verses that seem to assume a change of years in the fall (; ). In addition, there is the so-called Gezer Calendar—a small, inscribed limestone tablet discovered at Gezer and probably dating to the late tenth century BC. The inscription is a brief explanation (a bit like a riddle, since the months are not named) of the months of the year as they relate to agricultural production. Its year begins in the fall.

Even in later Judaism, there is disagreement about the calendar. One way to solve the problem is to assume more than one “New Year’s Day.” Perhaps there was a new year’s celebration based on the agricultural calendar and one tied to a religious calendar. Some indication of this dual-calendar system comes through in later rabbinic literature.

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 1 Sacred sequence begins

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 7

Hebrew Name: Aviv; Nisan

Modern Equivalent: March–April

Biblical References: ; ; ; ; ; ;

Agriculture: Spring (latter) rains; barley and flax harvest begins

Festivals**: Passover; Unleavened Bread; Firstfruits

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 2

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 8

Hebrew Name: Ziv (lyyar)*

Modern Equivalent: April–May

Biblical References: ,

Agriculture: Barley harvest; dry season begins

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 3

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 9

Hebrew Name: Sivan

Modern Equivalent: May–June

Biblical References:

Agriculture: Wheat harvest

Festivals: Pentecost (Weeks)

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 4

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 10

Hebrew Name: (Tammuz)*

Modern Equivalent: June–July

Agriculture: Tending vines

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 5

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 11

Hebrew Name: (Av)*

Modern Equivalent: July–August

Agriculture: Ripening of grapes, figs and olives

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 6

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 12

Hebrew Name: Elul

Modern Equivalent: August–September

Biblical References:

Agriculture: Processing grapes, figs and olives

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 7

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 1 Civil sequence

Hebrew Name: Ethanim (Tishri)*

Modern Equivalent: September–October

Biblical References:

Agriculture: Autumn (early) rains begin; plowing

Festivals: Trumpets; Day of Atonement; Tabernacles (Booths)

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 8

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 2

Hebrew Name: Bul (Marcheshvan)*

Modern Equivalent: October–November

Biblical References:

Agriculture: Sowing of wheat and barley

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 9

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 3

Hebrew Name: Kislev

Modern Equivalent: November–December

Biblical References: ;

Agriculture: Winter rains begin (snow in some areas)

Festivals: Hanukkah (“Dedication”)

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 10

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 4

Hebrew Name: Tebeth

Modern Equivalent: December–January

Biblical References:

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 11

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 5

Hebrew Name: Shebat

Modern Equivalent: January–February

Biblical References:

Number of Month (Sacred Sequence): 12

Number of Month (Civil Sequence): 6

Hebrew Name: Adar

Modern Equivalent: February–March

Biblical References: ; , ; ; , , , ,

Agriculture: Almond trees bloom; citrus fruit harvest

Festivals: Purim

Hebrew Name: (Adar Sheni)*—Second Adar

This intercalary month was added about every three years so the lunar calendar would correspond to the solar year.

*Names of months in parentheses are not in the Bible.

**For more information on the festivals, see

Go to

destroyer. In Mesopotamia the demon Lamashtu was responsible for the death of children, while Namtar was responsible for plague. Egyptians likewise believed in demons that threatened life and health. The destroyer here is not operating independently of deity, but as an instrument of God’s judgment. That is often also the case in Mesopotamia. Demons themselves were often viewed as having no independent will, so they could be randomly destructive.

plundered the Egyptians. The silver and gold items taken were some of the most valuable of the Egyptians’ possessions. Moreover, these events took place in the spring, when it was customary for Egyptian kings, particularly those of the New Kingdom, to send out messengers (and accompanying armies) in order to collect tribute payments from the smaller political entities (e.g., city-states) outside Egypt. In a sense, then, springtime was the time the Egyptians officially plundered their subject peoples. Once again, the Biblical text turns the tables on an Egyptian custom. This time, the Egyptians are the ones exploited and forced to pay.

six hundred thousand men. See the article “

redeem each of my firstborn sons. Redemption in the ancient Near East usually involved a specific purpose. Often a man who had taken on debt and could not pay it off was forced to sell himself or one of his family members to the creditor as a debt-slave. No actual “sale” took place, but the person was transferred into the possession of the creditor. The “sale price” was understood to be a loan, which the debtor had already received and was now unable to repay. Redemption occurred when the debtor or one of his family members eventually acquired the means to pay off the debt and thereby retrieve the debt-slave from the creditor. To redeem a person was, in a sense, the act of buying the person back from the creditor, often at the same price (the amount of the loan) at which the person was “sold.”

Perhaps the Israelites believed they owed a debt to Yahweh for their deliverance from Egypt. The means of this deliverance is explicit: “the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt.” The Israelites were given, in a sense, all the firstborn of Egypt as the purchase price of their freedom, and they now owed to Yahweh their own firstborn, both “people and animals.” The animals they could pay directly through sacrifice. Their sons too belonged to Yahweh by right, but the Israelites were offered a way to buy back their sons from Yahweh. By sacrificing a lamb, an Israelite family could “redeem” their firstborn son.

road through the Philistine country. For quite some time, scholars have considered this road probably to refer to a road that in ancient Egypt was known as the “Ways of Horus” and later as the Via Maris (“Way of the Sea”). This road ran from the northeastern region of the delta along the Mediterranean coast in a northeasterly direction into Palestine. It is true that important Philistine settlements came to be located along this route.

The Hebrew phrase translated “Red Sea” is yam sup; it is not clear to which body of water this phrase refers. The term sup in Hebrew means “reed(s)”; it is among the sup that Moses’ mother placed the waterproof basket that served as his hiding place shortly after his birth (). Perhaps, then, the yam sup is not the Red Sea but a body of water known as the “Sea of Reeds.” However, the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, translates yam sup with a Greek phrase that means “Red Sea.” This term refers, depending on context, to three potential areas: the Gulf of Aqaba (), the Gulf of Suez (), or the place where Israel crossed or encountered the “yam sup.” Most scholars today believe the Hebrew text intends a body of water around which reeds grew in abundance—perhaps one of the lakes found north of the Gulf of Suez. Others still opt for the Red Sea, the large body of water south of the Sinai peninsula that runs between Egypt and Arabia.

Among those who reject the Red Sea, at least four main possibilities stand out. The first is Lake Menzaleh, located in the northeast corner of the Nile delta along the Mediterranean coast. About 30 miles (48 kilometers) to the south were the Balah Lakes, most of which were drained during the construction of the Suez Canal. A smaller lake south of the Balah Lakes is Lake Timsah. Finally, the Bitter Lakes are located even farther south. All of these bodies of water were situated along ancient Egypt’s eastern border, where it meets the Sinai peninsula, between the Mediterranean Sea in the north and the Gulf of Suez in the south.

A strong case can be made in favor of the Balah Lakes. First, indicates that the Israelites made a turn to the north (they were to “turn back”) after having traveled in a southeasterly direction. This would have taken them away from Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes, since they were still north of both, and toward the Balah Lakes. Second, Egyptian literary sources seem to indicate that the yam sup lay in fairly close proximity to the site of Tjaru; of the four major possibilities, Tjaru is closest to the Balah Lakes. Third, Abu Sefeh, the modern Arabic name for a site probably located on the edge of the Balah Lakes in ancient times, may be related linguistically to the Egyptian term from which Hebrew yam sup comes. Ultimately, the evidence is inconclusive, but it is unlikely to be the Red Sea because the Israelites were not that far south and they would have no reason to travel along the western shore of the Red Sea if they were trying to get to Sinai. ◆

Possible locations of the Red Sea.

Go to

Go to

the LORD went . . . in a pillar of cloud. There are similarities between the poetic language and specific imagery given here and a vanguard motif in various ancient Near Eastern texts. In the Assyrian Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, Assur leads the vanguard with devouring flame. The gods Enlil and Adad accompany also with burning fire and flood, respectively. In Akkadian texts Erra designates the god Ishum as the torch who precedes and leads the others as a fire and a torch that went ahead and behind the heavenly army.

Ugaritic texts employ the word cloud (ʿnn) in contexts featuring deities and use the word as a substitute for the name/presence of a deity, such as Hadad or Athirat. The cloud at Ugarit as storm imagery indicates divine guidance and the god’s presence, as the cloud and fire in Exodus designate the Lord. Ugaritic texts depict messengers of fire of the god Yamm, who appear like two flames of fire. A light accompanies Baal. The god Shapshu serves as the luminary of the gods. The storm-god of the Hittites casts forth his destructive thunderbolts to destroy the enemy of the Great King.

Ancient writers told the story of the great Egyptian god Amon, his standard leading the way, who went forth in a mighty presence before the armies of both Thutmose III and Rameses III. In an Egyptian literary composition, the writer used simile to describe the wise scribe, choice of heart, who uses his wisdom to give guidance (“light”) to the Egyptian troops (c. 1280 BC) as a “torch” at the head of the army. This powerful imagery assured the Israelites of God’s guidance and presence, as it also served to exalt Yahweh.

six hundred of the best chariots. The use of chariotry by the Egyptian military, especially during the New Kingdom, is well attested. Chariots functioned mainly as vehicles for archers, who could spray the enemy with arrows while staying mobile and, therefore, relatively safe. The figure of 600 chariots is larger than expected. The chariot forces in ancient Egypt at this time typically numbered around 200–250, and those numbers are often considered inflated. Nevertheless, the Egyptian account of their battle against the Hittites at Qadesh lists the Hittite chariot force at 2,500 though that is perhaps an exaggeration to magnify their victory.

cloud brought darkness. The motif of the warrior deity who aids his people at crucial moments in battle against their enemies occurs frequently in ancient Near Eastern literature. Here, Yahweh sends a cloud so dense that it functions as an impenetrable—by sight or movement—barrier between the Egyptians and the Israelites. Records of the military exploits of the Hittite king Mursili report a similar phenomenon:

• Storm god came to his aid

• Rained all night

• Enemy could not see camp

• Storm god sent cloud

• Cloud went before troops

• Thus provided deliverance and guidance

It was not uncommon in military reports to speak of advantageous circumstances in terms of divine intervention and aid. If one group found itself on the successful end of a skirmish, it credited its own god or gods and often spoke of the deity as if he had arranged all aspects of the natural order in order to ensure a triumphant outcome.

There are parallels between the description of Yahweh’s victory in and the victory of Baal recorded in Ugaritic literature. In the latter, the terrible and monstrous character “Sea” demands that the high god El hand Baal over to him as a prisoner. El complies. Later, the craftsman-god Kothar fashions two mighty clubs with which Baal defeats Sea. El then grants Baal a palatial residence on Mount Zaphon, in part because he has proved his superiority in the divine council with his defeat of Sea. In Exodus, Yahweh too shows his mastery over the sea. By means of the victory won there, Yahweh receives praise as the greatest among the gods.

contains a straightforward rhetorical question with “no one” as the obvious answer. After the victory, Yahweh and the people he has rescued head for the “mountain of God” (), the place where Moses was told that he and the people would worship God (). This may be what is meant by the “mountain of your inheritance—the place, LORD, you made for your dwelling” (). Baal wins a victory over Sea and then settles on his mountain; Yahweh’s victory with the sea is followed by travel to his mountain.

In light of this, it is interesting to note the combination of the two miraculous crossings for the Israelites: crossing a sea in Exodus (ch. ) and crossing a river in Joshua (). Baal’s victory over Sea is described in this fashion:

Sea fell,

He sank to earth

His joints trembled,

His frame collapsed

Baal destroyed,

Drank Sea!

He finished off Judge River.

In the Ugaritic poem, “Judge River” is a common nickname for Sea. Any god who claims superiority must surely demonstrate victory over Sea/River. This is also evident in the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish. Marduk proves his superiority by defeating Tiamat, the watery sea goddess/monster. Yahweh’s demonstration of his ability to control deftly both sea and river may be reminiscent of this idea. He shows their complete submission to him.

In contrast to ancient Near Eastern sources, the sea in Exodus is a body of water, not a supernatural being, and his enemies are human rather than cosmic or divine. Nonetheless, Yahweh’s triumph over the combination of sea and river holds important theological implications for the Israelites and functions as a significant part of their basis for exalting Yahweh above all other purported deities. ◆

Go to

the Israelites sang. The text does not reveal who composed the song, but the distinct possibility exists that it was authored by one or more of the women. Ancient Israelite culture seems to have developed a significant musical tradition. Rhythm (as opposed to melody) was probably the music’s dominant feature, and women may have had a crucial role in creating and performing this type of music. Women are the only ones explicitly mentioned in Biblical texts as using the “timbrel” (cf. v. ). Moreover, clay figurines from Iron Age Israel that depict musicians show all percussionists to be women.

It also stands to reason that victory songs, like the one here, would come from women, since they are the ones who most likely sang songs as the men returned home from battle.

shattered the enemy. Significantly, the drowning of the Egyptian army is celebrated in terms of smashing and shattering. This statement is reminiscent of how a particular set of Egyptian inscriptions, known as Execration Texts, was used. These inscriptions were incised on stone, wood and clay objects, which were often shaped to represent a foreign ruler. Many have been found on pottery bowls as well. The objects and their accompanying inscriptions apparently played an important role in Egyptian curse rituals. Though it is not clear that all such rituals involved the use of objects like these, there is evidence that formal cursing of enemies was practiced in Egypt throughout much of the second and third millennia BC. Most of the objects bearing inscriptions, however, seem to date to a more narrow period of time—generally the first half of the second millennium BC.

The inscriptions themselves contain the names of various local rulers in Syria and Palestine and often conclude with a summary reference to anyone “who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may talk of fighting, or who may talk of rebelling.” A curse formula was then pronounced over the object, and the object was smashed to depict the fulfillment of the curse and the hoped-for destruction of the targeted enemy. The wording of this verse in Exodus may be alluding to this type of symbolic action. Although the narrative speaks of drowning, the song describes the destruction of Yahweh’s enemies in terms that would have offended ancient Egyptian sensibilities, since it reverses the roles and presents Egypt as the shattered enemy.

the earth swallows. This is a common Hebrew idiom for death, but also may bring to mind the Egyptian conception of the punishment that awaits wrongdoers in the afterlife. Those who are, at the postmortem judgment, found guilty of wrongdoing and thus unworthy of a blissful afterlife are eaten by a beast known as the “Devouress” or “Swallower” (see the article “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart”). By stating that the Egyptians have been swallowed up, the Biblical text reminds them of the one fate every ancient Egyptian hoped to avoid.

Philistia. This may be an anachronism; i.e., it may come from a time later than the purported time of the exodus. The Philistines probably did not settle in the area until the early twelfth century BC. They came from the area of Crete and Greece (i.e., the region around the Aegean Sea). A massive upheaval in that area (the exact causes of which are unknown) seems to have led to large numbers of people, including the Philistines, moving east into Syria and Palestine. An Egyptian inscription from around 1190 BC commemorates the Egyptians’ victory over “those who came on the sea” (often referred to as the Sea Peoples). Included in this category are the “Philistines, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n), and Weshesh.” Although the inscription boasts of a decisive Egyptian victory, most likely the Egyptians did little more than keep the invading Sea Peoples at bay and maintain the security of their borders.

The LORD reigns. Yahweh is not portrayed as a mythical king at the head of a divine pantheon, having subdued the cosmos and defeated the other gods, as Baal in Ugaritic literature. Rather, he rules in the historical realm over a historical people.

Miriam the prophet. Two other women prophets are mentioned in the OT: Deborah () and Huldah (). It is not completely unexpected, then, to encounter a reference here to a female prophet. Other ancient Near Eastern societies also accorded prophetic ability to women. The city-state of Mari, located in eastern Syria along the Euphrates River, provides some of the best examples. A number of the texts from Mari, which date to the first half of the eighteenth century BC, refer to women who offer prophetic utterances, primarily concerning the king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, and his prospects for the future.

called the bread manna. See note on .

the rock at Horeb. Elsewhere, Horeb is called the “mountain of God” (; ). Hence, the water flows from God’s mountain, the place of God’s presence. This idea may have religious or even cosmic implications. In Ugaritic literature, the god El is said to reside at “the Sources of the Two Floods / In the midst of the headwaters of the Two Oceans.” He is also said to have his abode on a mountain that would appear to be Mount Amanus. These two places probably refer to the same location. In the ancient world waters typically flow from sacred space.

Amalekites. See note on .

held up his hands. The reason for Moses’ gesture has long puzzled scholars. It could be a smiting or warlike gesture, similar to what Joshua does with his javelin in . It could be symbolic of prayer, beseeching Yahweh for victory, although Moses, uncharacteristically, does not explicitly seek help or guidance from Yahweh here. One possible clue comes in the name for the altar in v. : “The LORD is my Banner.” The word “banner” (nes) refers to a battle standard, flag or insignia that leads an army into war. Perhaps Moses’ raised arms are symbolic of raising Yahweh, their “banner” of military strength and power. With the banner raised, the army prevails.

Little is known about the extent of literacy among the ancient Israelites and other Near Eastern societies. For the most part, only scribes, certain religious and governmental officials, and some wealthy businessmen, along with other elite persons, could read and write beyond the basics. Possibly those with lower socioeconomic standing would have had basic literary training, but the evidence for this is small.

The invention of writing appears to have occurred in Egypt and Mesopotamia at about the same time—the late fourth millennium BC—but neither of those writing systems is alphabetic like ancient Hebrew. One must presume that some predecessor of ancient Hebrew, a Northwest Semitic language, is the language that the Biblical text is referring to in , since the writing is to be preserved for future reference. Ancient Hebrew itself and most other alphabetic languages (including modern languages such as English) all appear to derive from the same alphabet—likely a Semitic invention in the first half of the second millennium BC. Recent discoveries of primitive alphabetic inscriptions in Egypt have raised the possibility that the alphabet was developed by Semitic peoples living there as early as 1800 BC.

In assessing literacy rates for ancient Israel, one must consider both Biblical and epigraphic evidence, and little assessment can be done for periods prior to the Iron Age (begins about 1200 BC). Nothing that is recognizable as Hebrew appears before this time period. From the Late Bronze Age come nearly 400 Amarna letters (fourteenth century BC), written mostly by scribes living in Syria and Palestine, but these are in Akkadian (an East Semitic language), though they do contain some West Semitic features. Apart from those, however, there are only about 20 texts that have survived from Palestine. These date to the general time period covered by the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) and seem to reflect a Northwest Semitic language, but this language is not Hebrew.

It is not until the Iron Age that actual Hebrew inscriptions turn up. This evidence, in combination with Biblical references to writing, however, still does not indicate widespread literacy among ancient Israelites. There is insufficient evidence for the kind of educational and economic systems that typically promote the growth of literacy in human societies. While ancient Israel may have had a higher rate of literacy than some other Near Eastern societies—one estimate for ancient Egypt is a literacy rate of 1 percent—still only a small percentage of the population could actually read and write.

Someone with the kind of background that the text describes for Moses would probably have been literate, and the Biblical text attributes to Moses the ability both to read () and to write () in a language that the Israelites can understand. We do not know what specific language would have been spoken by Israelites coming out of Egypt toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. To suppose they spoke some type of Northwest Semitic dialect is not unreasonable, but it almost certainly was not the kind of Hebrew we find in the Bible, a dialect of Northwest Semitic that did not fully develop until later. Thus, anything written down in the Late Bronze Age or the early Iron Age and preserved in Biblical texts has been updated for presentation in the kind of classical Hebrew found in Biblical manuscripts. ◆

Sixteenth-century BC storage jar from Dan (Middle Bronze II) with proto-Canaanite writing.

© Baker Publishing Group and Dr. James C. Martin courtesy of the Skirball Museum, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 13 King David Street, Jerusalem 94101

Go to

priest of Midian. See note on vv. .

bowed down. A standard greeting and act of respect toward one of higher social standing. kissed him. A kiss on the cheek is a greeting of friendship. This is the only instance where both bowing and kissing are recorded together.

Jethro is identified as a “priest of Midian” (v. ) rather than a priest of a particular god. Priests were not necessarily affiliated with only one god, and there is no evidence that Jethro was a monotheist or that he converted to monotheism. Polytheism allows for the recognition of the relative strengths of deities, especially in the face of a display of power. There is no reason to believe that Jethro would not have acknowledged the power of other gods when manifested as well.

judges. Israel’s judicial framework, though not always the laws themselves per se or the motivations for the laws, was fairly common in the ancient Near East. Three spheres of government “housed” the constitutional and administrative law: the divine (gods, king and dynasty), state and local authorities. Outside of Israel the king was at the top of the pyramid in constitutional and administrative law and judicial procedures. Kingship originated from the gods and was passed on to the king, who could claim to be ruler of the world and as such could promulgate laws. He was ultimately the head of any legislative group and acted as supreme judge, who especially (in theory at least) championed the cause of the widow, the orphan, the poor and the oppressed. There was typically some kind of central administration as well as provincial or city-state administrative structures. The courts recognized the king as supreme judge along with supportive royal judges under him, and there were evidently local judges as well.

In Mesopotamia levels of the judicial system are evident. A town assembly of elders was established. Then additional local, temple or royal officials could get involved, often serving as witnesses. The parties involved in a case represented themselves, for there were no lawyers or professionals involved.

In Egypt the king and his royal staff administered justice and ruled the land. The king derived his authority from the gods. Egyptian law codes have not been uncovered, though royal decrees and edicts have been. But references in ancient writings imply that such laws did exist, at least to some extent. There were “judges” and supporting court personnel, members of a scribal class who functioned as “quasi-lawyers,” and court and legal procedure that functioned in rudimentary form. Justice was available to the poor as well as the rich. Some persons (judges) were charged to see that “law” (maat) was used to the good of all humanity.

We have records of Hittite instructions to officers in the thirteenth century BC (Tudhalias IV). Officers are classified as commanders of thousands, designated as majors, and so on. Officers in the military served as judges. The king, however, was the one who gave out the commands and instructions. Extremely difficult cases for the various judges could be refused; justice was to be passed in all cases to those involved, with no partiality shown for the rich or the poor. In Egypt similar actions are recorded in a fourteenth-century BC stele of Horemheb, where we read that he sought out men of integrity and excellent character to serve as judges.

Jethro advised Moses to establish a hierarchy with himself at the top, where a king would be in a monarchy. Moses’ nominees could handle civil matters, while those matters that needed to be brought before God would be handled through Moses. This separated the “religious” from the “civil” aspects of the judicial process as is similar to the system found in Egypt, where Pharaoh appointed a vizier entitled “prophet of Ma’at” (the goddess of truth and justice) to sit in judgment. In contrast, among the Hittites, the king served in the highest court, which was also a court of appeals. He was the steward of the Land of Hatti under the creator storm-god, who owned the land, just as Yahweh owned the land in Israel. This king also served as the chief priest of the gods.

eagles’ wings. The bird in question is probably a griffin vulture. While Biblical reference books report that these birds carry their young when they are weary of flying or catch them as they fall from early flights, naturalists have been unable to confirm this behavior. If the metaphor does concern a vulture, the statement may be political in nature. In Egypt the vulture-goddess, Nekhbet, is the protector of Pharaoh. Yahweh may be using this imagery to connote his protection of the Israelites.

One of the most crucial concepts to understanding ancient Israelite religion and the theology of the OT is that of the covenant. The Hebrew word for covenant (berit) essentially means a binding legal agreement (contract) and can refer to agreements in a wide variety of contexts, including personal (), familial (; ), business () and international settings (; ). Other ancient Near Eastern societies utilized the same sorts of agreements, a number of which have survived to this day. The covenant established at Sinai between Yahweh and the Israelites is both like and unlike these more ordinary agreements that were necessary for the effective functioning of those societies.

There are several similarities. Like legal agreements of the day, the covenant at Sinai carried with it obligations for both parties. To “keep” the covenant for the Israelites meant obeying the laws—their covenantal obligations—set forth in . In we hear of “the Book of the Covenant,” which likely refers to a written record of these obligations. Yahweh also had obligations, namely, to treat the Israelites as his own people, as his “treasured possession” ().

At a more specific level, many scholars have understood the Sinai covenant to find its closest parallel in one particular type of “contract”—namely, international treaties from the ancient Near East typically called a “suzerainty treaty” or a “vassal treaty,” because it was concluded between a superior state (suzerain) and an inferior state (vassal). A number of such treaties have been preserved from the Hittite Empire (mid-second millennium BC) in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and from the Neo-Assyrian Empire (early to mid-first millennium BC) based in northern Mesopotamia. While both Hittite and Assyrian texts offer parallels to the Biblical idea of covenant, the Hittite treaties have often been the focal point of comparison. Similarities can also be found with ancient land contracts (for Yahweh has promised a land to them). In this way we can see that the covenant takes a legal form that would have been familiar to the Israelites.

Important differences, however, must not be overlooked. Typically, both parties to a contract, treaty or similar legal agreement could expect to benefit from their commitment. It is not at all clear that the Biblical text wants its readers to believe that Yahweh will receive some benefit from this relationship with the Israelites that he would not otherwise be able to obtain. The text speaks of great benefit awaiting the Israelites for their consistent obedience to their covenantal obligations. For Yahweh’s part, his actions do not appear to be based in self-interest but in a willingness to be gracious and to extend freely his blessing. It must also be stressed that no treaty or contract from the ancient Near East provides a precise match for the Sinai covenant. There is no evidence of an agreement between a deity and a people group in these terms.

Thus, all parallels are inexact. Israel’s relationship with Yahweh—at least in the form it takes—is unique. Exactly why the relationship takes the form of a covenant is difficult to say. Nevertheless, a number of the implications of having a covenantal relationship with their God would have been clear to many Israelites, since it mirrored, at least in some respects, several types of relationships they already knew well. ◆

Go to

is the first use of the exact phrase “Mount Sinai” in the Bible. Its precise geographic location has been the subject of great debate and probably still remains unknown despite a number of attempts since antiquity to identify it. Traditionally, Mount Sinai has been identified with a mountain known as Jebel Musa (Arabic for “Mountain of Moses”). Saint Catherine’s Monastery sits at the foot of this mountain and for centuries has welcomed visitors who believe they are visiting the very ground that Moses trod. Jebel Musa rises 7,500 feet (2,285 meters) in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula, which probably derives its name from the traditions that placed the famous mountain there. Early Christian writings show that Jebel Musa was believed to be Mount Sinai as early as the middle of the fourth century AD. But this means that the earliest evidence for this belief comes over 1,500 years after any possible journey of the Israelites to this mountain.

Older traditions actually point to an entirely different location for Mount Sinai. There is evidence from Biblical and other ancient texts that Mount Sinai was not located anywhere in the Sinai peninsula but was thought to be in northwest Arabia, slightly to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba. This would place the mountain in the region referred to as Midian. To begin with, Moses was in or near Midian when he came to “Horeb, the mountain of God” (), often identified as Mount Sinai. In addition, Moses was to bring the Israelites back to “this mountain” () in or near Midian, in order for the people to worship God there. This is what happens in , where the mountain is called “Mount Sinai” ().

may also suggest that the mountain is in the vicinity of Midian, since Jethro, called the “priest of Midian” (), visits Moses when the latter is camped with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. In light of this, some have speculated that a mountain known as Jebel al-Lawz, the tallest mountain in the region of ancient Midian, may be the correct identification of Mount Sinai. Nevertheless, though the core region of Midian may be in northwest Arabia, the Midianites were wandering peoples not rooted in one geographic location.

Non-Biblical texts also support Midian as the location of the mountain. The translators of the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT (done in the last two centuries before Christ), refer to Midian and Mount Sinai in a way that shows they likely believed Mount Sinai was in northwest Arabia rather than in the Sinai peninsula. Other Jewish writers before, during and after the time of Jesus, such as Demetrius the Chronographer, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, placed Mount Sinai in the region of Midian. Paul himself refers to “Mount Sinai in Arabia” (). It is not entirely clear, though, whether Paul’s “Arabia” meant only what we know today as the Arabian peninsula or whether it included a broader region encompassing the Sinai peninsula as well. Still, the evidence for northwest Arabia as the location of Mount Sinai substantially predates the evidence for Jebel Musa. Nevertheless, problems exist, such as the fact that Moses requests of Pharaoh that they be allowed to “take a three-day journey into the wilderness” (), presumably to Mount Sinai.

Even if Midian is the region where the Biblical authors believed Mount Sinai to be, however, we still do not know whether Jebel al-Lawz is the correct identification. There is no clear evidence to tell us which mountain is the right one. The region of Midian lies in modern Saudi Arabia and is currently closed to archaeological excavation. Whether such work would provide further data to help clarify the issue remains to be seen. ◆

Jebel Musa, the traditional location of Mt. Sinai.

© Igor Rogozhnikov/Shutterstock

Go to

The Hebrew wording of this verse is ambiguous. This could be an assertion of either monotheism or henotheism (also termed monolatry). Practitioners of a henotheistic religion believe in and worship one deity, but they do not deny the possible existence of other deities. If this verse reflects a henotheistic perspective, then this call is for the Israelites to devote their worship exclusively to Yahweh, while accepting the possibility that other gods could legitimately be worshiped by non-Israelites (see note on ).

In another way of thinking, it is possible for this verse to be understood as proceeding from monotheistic belief. The reference to “no other gods before me” (emphasis added) may be an attempt to counteract belief in a divine assembly. To have no other gods in the presence of Yahweh implies that he is, in a sense, an assembly unto himself. In this case, “before” means “in front of,” as it often does, a reference to spatial arrangement rather than hierarchy or priority. God consults with no other divine beings, and since the latter are thus removed from the divine decision-making process, it makes little sense to consider them as gods. Later Biblical texts (e.g., ) are more recognizably and dogmatically monotheistic.

Ancient Near Eastern societies were, of course, polytheistic. Throughout Israelite history, this type of religious perspective impacted Israelite religion to varying degrees, particularly regarding the god Baal. Baal was an important deity in several societies located near Israel (e.g., Ugarit, Phoenicia), and there is evidence, from the Bible and elsewhere, that he was worshiped at times by Israelites. Engravings that depict Baal and that come from the period of the divided monarchy have been discovered at several sites in Israel. Clearly, the Israelites did not consistently follow the principle set forth in this command. This is part of what led to the outrage of later Biblical prophets and authors.

an image in the form of anything. Since the previous commandment (v. ) has already disallowed other gods, the images here are images of Yahweh. This commandment is not a restriction on art but is concerned with cultic practice. The prohibition concerns display and power. Images of deity were believed to be the places where the presence of the deity was specially manifest, actually embodying to an extent the essence of the god. Likewise, the image could be cared for in order to meet the needs of the deity. These images mediated the presence of god, the revelation of god, and worship to god. The issue here is not the image per se but the accompanying worldview and conception of deity that is inconsistent with the way Yahweh has revealed himself.

third and fourth generation. This statement likely refers to the punishment of an entire household, not to punishment of children yet to be born. There are Biblical examples of entire households (including wives, sons and daughters, and young children) receiving punishment for acts of wrongdoing committed primarily by the male heads of those households (e.g., ; ). It was not uncommon in the ancient world to have three or even four generations living in the same household.

A young woman typically entered marriage in her early teens, shortly after she began menstruating, in order to ensure as many productive childbearing years as possible. If her groom had not yet inherited a portion of his father’s estate, she would live with her husband’s family and be under her father-in-law’s authority. She would likely give birth shortly after the marriage, and, if the infant survived, the three generations lived together for quite some time.

misuse the name. Based on this verse, it has been traditional for many Jews to avoid ever saying the name “Yahweh,” saying instead “Adonay” (“lord, master”) or “ha-Shem” (“the Name”). Complete nonuse of the name precluded any misuse. One interpretation of this is that it prohibits the use of the Lord’s name in ways that treat it as powerless (casual use in profanity, blasphemous use, false oaths). Alternatively, and more importantly, the prohibition could target behavior that is well aware of the power of the name and seeks to exploit it for personal gain or advantage. This would include the use of the divine name in magical spells and hexes (against others or against the deity), or speaking something in God’s name that is contrary to what he has said. It could be understood as a form of what today we call identity theft. In the NT the Lord’s Prayer addresses this same issue (see ; ).

Remember the Sabbath. The hallowing of the seventh day—even the use of a seven-day week—was unique in Israel within the broader ancient Near Eastern world. Calendars and most measurements of time were based on the lunar or the solar cycle; the seven-day week is based on neither. Still, a period of seven days seems to have had special significance.

Several examples can be cited. Gudea, the ruler of the Mesopotamian city of Lagash (end of the third millennium BC), held a seven-day dedicatory festival after completing the temple for his god Ningirsu. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Utnapishtim (the Noah-like figure in the story) builds his ark in seven days and experiences six straight days of rain, but then it ceases on the seventh. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle describes a six-day cleansing by fire of Baal’s palace, which ceases on the seventh. Each of these examples has religious significance. The Israelite practice, as a recognition of God’s rest and therefore his control and rule of the ordered cosmos, has its closest functional parallel in the ancient Near Eastern New Year festivals commemorating and reenacting the enthronement of the deity. Israel’s commemoration takes place weekly rather than annually.

While the law in Exodus also carries religious overtones, it includes a humanitarian component, allowing rest for everyone at all levels of society.

The laws in the Bible reflect in large measure the way ancient societies were structured. God’s revelation speaks into that context. The laws in the Bible do not seek to restructure society, but to affect how people live and think in the societal structure that they have. The laws do not seek to transform a patriarchal society into an egalitarian one. They do not seek to abolish slavery. They do not promote a democratic society over a monarchy. They do not endorse clan solidarity over individualism. The laws of the Bible seek to transform how people live in whatever sort of society they find themselves. No societal structure is flawless; it is always subject to the nature of the people who are part of it.

Consequently, when we look at the laws of the Bible, we are not looking for the picture of a perfect society nor should we think that God is endorsing such a society. We will find that the shape of Israelite society is often very much like those of her neighbors, but we should be attentive to the ways that the Bible goes further to protect the rights and dignity of those who might be vulnerable. In this way the Bible can pioneer new moral ground even while being situated in the familiar social structures of the ancient world. Primarily, however, it is instructing Israel about what is required for them to preserve the sanctity of sacred space. When legal passages are considered, we should identify both their similarities and differences to the ancient Near Eastern world. Doing so demonstrates that while the Biblical laws describe a society very much rooted in the ancient world, God calls his people to higher standards. The areas of commonality do not suggest that the Bible has borrowed from the legal literature of the ancient world; only that God addressed their society as it was, but sought to show them a pathway to holy living within that framework. ◆

Go to

Honor your father and your mother. In the ancient world the only institution for the support of the elderly was the family. Most ancient readers would have understood this at the very least as an admonition to care for one’s elderly parents, though other forms of honor would not be excluded. Minimally this would have included the supply of provisions for subsistence. Mesopotamian texts typically refer to rations for three items that ancient Near Eastern societies regarded as basic necessities: barley, wool and oil. Barley was most important. The idea of supporting one’s aging parents accords well with the last half of v. . If a son, e.g., supports his parents as they grow older and thereby helps to extend their lifetimes, he can reasonably expect to receive similarly beneficent treatment in his twilight years.

Beyond those basics, the children would be expected to carry on the family and clan traditions, including the worship and maintenance of the family gods. The gods would subsequently continue to bring prosperity to the family. For the Israelites honoring their parents in this way meant maintaining loyalty to the covenant that would result in their continued possession of the land.

murder. The term used takes a person as both its subject and object and specifically refers to homicide, meaning this verse cannot easily be brought into discussions of pacifism, capital punishment or vegetarianism. Explicit prohibitions of homicide occur in a number of other ancient Near Eastern legal texts, and they often distinguish between intentional and unintentional homicide. This verse does not make explicit any such distinction, though other Biblical texts do (; ). If this verse should be read in light of that distinction, then the command refers only to intentional homicide.

But even within the category of intentional homicide, a distinction can be made between intentional killing deemed lawful and that which is deemed unlawful. According to both Biblical and other ancient Near Eastern law codes, the former includes acts of self-defense (), killing in war () and the execution of certain lawbreakers (kidnappers in ; murderers in ; adulterers in ). Most instances of unlawful killing mentioned in law codes and trial records involve the intentional murder of one’s fellow citizen when there is no legal justification for the death.

adultery. Biblical texts (e.g., ; ) reveal that the death penalty could be imposed on those found guilty of committing adultery. In the ancient Near East, adultery was considered an act of sexual relations between a married woman and any man not her husband. Married men could have sex with single women and either not be subject to any penalty (in the case of prostitutes or their own female slaves) or be subject to a penalty much less severe than those for adultery ().

There seem to be at least two reasons for an ancient society’s desire to control sexual behavior. First, certain sexual acts brought about a change in legal status. It was often the act of sexual consummation that established a couple as fully married. Sleeping with the wives and concubines of a deceased monarch demonstrated that the successor had made the transition from heir apparent to king. Such changes in status had to be regulated. Second, a man needed to know that the offspring of his wife were indeed his own children. He particularly needed to know who his sons were, because they would be his legitimate heirs. It is this concern that is the most likely motivating force behind rules concerning adultery in the ancient Near East.

Ancient societies viewed acts of adultery as wrongs against the husband of the woman involved. This meant that the husband had the right to determine the penalty for his adulterous wife and her lover. He could not, however, pardon his wife and punish her lover. The same seems to have been true in ancient Israel. The husband had the right to determine the penalty, and he was free to choose a penalty other than death. For instance, indicates that divorce was one of the lesser penalties a husband could impose on his adulterous wife. The Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites permitted the husband to exact punishment or to give clemency to his wife. Pardon for the wife meant pardon for the man as well.

This sin, sometimes referred to as the “great sin,” angered the gods. Adultery was an “abomination” to Marduk in Babylon and considered a breach of trust, abandonment and a failure of reciprocation. In Hittite law the husband could kill his wife and paramour (if caught in the act) and go free. In Assyrian law the husband could effect castration, disfigurement or death on the guilty parties.

steal. This prohibition was directed against a wide variety of thefts in the ancient Near East, including kidnapping (cf. ; ; ). Common “stealing” of property or robbery is in view also and includes theft from sanctuary, state, an ordinary citizen or a business. In the Code of Hammurapi, death is most often prescribed. This could be avoided in some cases if the thief had the means to do so. In other cases a fine was permitted.

The Middle Assyrian Laws (c. 1100–400 BC) on theft call for a variety of punishments depending on the parties involved. Punishments included death, waiver of punishment or horrible disfigurements. Hittite laws treat a variety of thefts of animals and related actions. Ordinary theft called for restitution, as did most other types of theft.

false testimony. Some have interpreted this verse as a prohibition on lying in general. This is not the case. The Hebrew terms used here have forensic connotations; i.e., they relate to the proceedings of a trial court. Furthermore, the language here points to a particular type of false statement: false accusation. This prohibition is about wrongful prosecution, specifically coming before a court to initiate a trial and wrongfully accuse another person.

Provisions in the Code of Hammurapi also deal with false testimony. Two of these address false accusation (the same issue as here). Two others address false statements given by third-party witnesses—those who are neither the accuser nor the defendant in the trial. These provisions set forth a particular type of punishment for both types of wrongdoing. They say that the false accuser/witness should be punished with the same punishment that the defendant in the trial would have received if the court had found him guilty. Other Biblical texts (; ) call for this same type of punishment for those who falsely accuse another person. There are no Biblical texts, however, that explicitly require this punishment for nonparty witnesses.

covet. This commandment prohibits an internal motivation or condition that desires (hmd, stimulated by vision) what a person is prohibited from having, the wife of another man. A different word is used (wh, inner need) to prohibit taking of things. The verb hmd in this context has the connotation of “to appropriate” as well. The phrase “covet this city” occurs in a Phoenician text.

The phrase “his land [field]” is coupled with house and is used in legal documents in the ancient Near East, especially at Ugarit. In an Egyptian document recording the negative confessions of a deceased person, the deceased denies that he had been covetous. The fabled wise Egyptian Ptahhotep denounced covetousness as a deadly vice. In the Ramesside era the covetous person was considered a fool and covetousness a sin. Neither a poor man’s possessions nor a nobleman’s wealth were to be coveted.

The Eloquent Peasant of Egypt expected a leader to be free from covetousness, and a covetous person would not enjoy success. One’s own house should fill all of one’s needs. The inwardness of these admonitions is paramount, for the heart was regarded as “the god who dwells in man.” This central concept seems to be absent from Mesopotamian law; there is an emphasis on the act of appropriation, which was condemned. In ancient wisdom literature, “coveting murders” is an abomination to the gods Ninurta and Enlil.

a Hebrew servant . . . is to serve you for six years. See note on .

only the man shall go free. When a free man gave a wife to another man who owed him something, certain conditions applied to that marriage. The man in the inferior position was often a pledge (one who worked as a servant, not a slave, and whose services functioned as security or collateral for a debt that was owed) or a debt-slave, as here in Exodus. Typically, the pledge or debt-slave could take his wife—and any children she had borne him—only by satisfying particular requirements.

The record of a contract from the city of Emar (probably thirteenth century BC) presents an example of such a situation. The pledge in this case may take his wife and children with him when he leaves the service of his creditor, but only if he abides by the basic agreement set forth in the contract. When this document addresses the possibility that the pledge might renege on his commitment to abide by the contract, then the pledge “will have no claim to his wife and children.” This law in Exodus may be establishing what was standard procedure in these types of situations; modifications were probably allowed if clearly established in a contractual agreement.

let her be redeemed. It was standard procedure to allow debt-slaves to be redeemed (see v. ; ). But in this case, the daughter has been sold into debt-slavery with the understanding that she will become the concubine of her master (the creditor). If the master does makes her his concubine, redemption appears to be disallowed. Why is it resurrected if she displeases him and he decides not to make her his concubine? The Code of Hammurapi (sections 146–147) indicates that a slave concubine who bore children had certain protections that ordinary slaves (even debt-slaves) did not. If the daughter does not become the master’s concubine, she loses the chance to gain these extra protections, and thus the right of redemption is revived.

put to death. See note on .

If people quarrel. One of Hammurapi’s laws states that the one who struck the blow must pay the physician, who, presumably, was summoned to help care for the one injured. This may be what is meant by “and see that the victim is completely healed” in v. .

beats their male or female slave with a rod. One of Hammurapi’s laws stipulates a punishment for a man who beats to death a distrainee (someone forcibly detained by the creditor in order to coerce the debtor to pay) in his possession. The creditor could treat the distrainee poorly but could not kill or sell the person. If the distrainee dies because of a beating by the creditor, the punishment is as follows: If the distrainee was the debtor’s son, then the creditor’s son is to be killed; if the distrainee was a slave, then the creditor must pay 20 shekels of silver; in either case, the debt is canceled. If this law in Exodus has in view a debt-slave, then a similar punishment may be intended here.

There are two possible understandings of this verse, both having to do with who sustains serious injury—the fetus or the mother. Ancient Near Eastern parallels to this law suggest the mother is in view. Four other law codes address the issue of a man’s striking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry. All stipulate monetary penalties that the assailant must pay in order to compensate the family for the loss of the child. Three of these codes go on to consider what to do if the woman is killed by the blow. In two, the man who struck the blow is to be killed. In another, the daughter of the man is killed, since the law assumes that he struck the pregnant daughter of another man. Only once is the death of the fetus linked to a death penalty: If the husband of the victimized woman has no sons and the fetus is male, the perpetrator is to be killed. In light of the provisions in these other codes, it seems likely that this law in Exodus follows their general pattern. The law calls for a fine in this verse, probably as compensation for the fetus. It then addresses possible “serious injury” to the woman. If she dies, the perpetrator dies—“life for life” (v. ). Otherwise, the perpetrator will suffer a punishment similar to that inflicted on the woman (vv. ).

eye for eye. See note on .

a son or daughter. An important principle of most ancient Near Eastern legal systems was that of vicarious punishment. For instance, if a man (a free citizen who was the head of his household) were to kill the son of another man (another free citizen and head of household), the man himself—the actual murderer—would not be subject to the death penalty. Rather, it is his son who could be put to death (see, e.g., the Code of Hammurapi, sections 229–230). Because it was the son within the other household who was the victim, it is the one with the same status or rank in the first household who receives the punishment vicariously—as a substitute for the real perpetrator. This reflects a society in which clan identity is more important than individual identity. Scholars disagree as to whether this law in Exodus rejects or accepts the principle of vicarious punishment. The wording in Exodus provides too little clarity to decide. Other Biblical texts, however, do indeed appear to reject the principle (; ).

after sunrise. The same type of legal logic shows up in the Laws of Eshnunna, 12–13, where a thief caught in another’s field or house at night can lawfully be killed by the latter.

silver or goods for safekeeping. See note on .

The phrase “appear before the judges” in can also be translated “appear before God.” The word translated as “judges/God” is Elohim, a common designation for God. While “judges” might be a possible translation in , the most natural reading is to understand it as referring to God. When the text indicates that the receiver of the goods (the “owner of the house” []) is to appear before God, it has in view a particular method for resolving the dispute at hand, namely, what scholars call suprarational procedures. These are procedures that go beyond the pale of rational evidence, such as testimony, physical evidence or documentary evidence, by appealing directly to divinity to settle the matter.

There are three basic categories of suprarational methods used for resolving legal disputes: the judicial oath, the judicial ordeal and the judicial oracle. Only one party to a trial could take the judicial oath. If that party did so, the court granted that party victory in the case and felt confident that divine power would punish the oath-taker, if the latter had sworn falsely, with greater severity than any legal penalty might (see note on ).

The most common version of the judicial ordeal was the river ordeal, popular in Mesopotamia. In such cases, Mesopotamian courts allowed the river god to render the verdict. If the party undergoing the ordeal sank, the person was guilty; if not, the person was innocent.

What appears most common in ancient Egypt and Israel was the judicial oracle. Here too the case is offered directly to the deity for a verdict, but not by means of an ordeal. Thus, this law regarding deposit in is calling for a judicial oracle to decide the case (see note on ). says that God will decide whether one person “has laid his hands on the other person’s property.” According to , the one whom God finds guilty must pay damages (“pay back double”). ◆

Go to

pay back double. This verse establishes the general principle on which the situation in the previous verse is based. Whenever there is disagreement between the depositor and the receiver about goods that may or may not have been deposited, the case is to be decided by a judicial oracle (see the article “Divine Verdict”). If the receiver is declared guilty, he has most likely committed wrongdoing by appropriating the deposited goods for himself, and perhaps he has denied that the depositor ever gave him anything. But if the depositor is declared guilty, it means either he never deposited any goods in the first place and now claims that certain goods, which actually belong to the receiver, are his, or he has asked to be returned to him more goods than he originally deposited and is accusing the receiver of cheating him.

Interestingly, the penalty for the depositor in Exodus matches that of the receiver, if the latter should be found guilty. The reason is that if the depositor (or would-be depositor) is guilty, what he is guilty of is false accusation. He has brought against the receiver criminal charges, which the judicial oracle has clearly refuted. In much of ancient Near Eastern law and in a later Biblical text (), false accusers are to be punished with the same penalty that the defendant in the trial would have received if the accusation had turned out to be true; hence, the matching penalty.

an oath before the LORD. Rather than a receiver of a deposit in general, the issue here is a receiver who has been given an animal for safekeeping—i.e., a person has been hired to perform the duties of a shepherd or herdsman. This law establishes the limits on the shepherd’s liability for the loss of or any injury to the animal. Verse states that theft of the animal requires the shepherd to compensate the owner for the latter’s loss. Verse releases the shepherd from any liability if an animal predator attacks and kills the animal in his keeping.

In other situations—death, injury, loss (with, presumably, no conclusive evidence of theft)—the shepherd is allowed to take an “oath before the LORD.” This is the suprarational procedure known as the judicial oath (see the article “Divine Verdict”). The shepherd swears, invoking the name of Yahweh, that he is not the cause of the death, injury or loss. In short, he swears to his innocence. Taking the oath is decisive here: “The owner is to accept this.” Numerous Mesopotamian trial records refer to this type of oath and make clear that the one who takes the court-ordered judicial oath is guaranteed to win the case.

seduces a virgin. Here the term “seduces” implies that the woman has given her consent. Another important element in this law is the status of the woman. She is not married and is “not pledged to be married.” If she were married or pledged to be married, then for a man—other than the one to whom she is pledged—to have sex with her constitutes adultery. Thus, what is mentioned here is what we call premarital sex. The law here does not forbid premarital sex but attempts to regulate it. he must pay the bride-price. Part of the reason for the payment of a monetary fine is to compensate the father for losing his opportunity to obtain a full bride-price for his virgin daughter. But now that the man has paid a bride-price (and a rather high one), the father may, if he chooses, allow his daughter to marry him. He can also refuse for this to happen. Even if he refuses, though, he still receives the payment from the man, since he may not be able to marry his daughter off in the future.

widow or the fatherless. See note on .

do not show favoritism. This statement is reminiscent of sayings that come from ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. In addition to the laws that are part of the Sinai covenant, Exodus includes these statements that, at first glance, appear to be more at home in Proverbs. What this wisdom material can do, however, is to help clarify the nature of the entire block of stipulations in . While the Biblical text certainly seems to make the rules in these chapters obligatory for the Israelites, it also points toward a particular interest in the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.

Wisdom literature is typically interested in general guidelines that individuals should bear in mind and apply as they make daily decisions that affect the direction of their lives. The legal material in Exodus also points beyond itself to principles of living and decision making that are about more than simply ensuring that a rule has not been violated. They are about a commitment to living as part of a community that has a special relationship with Yahweh and that pursues a lifestyle in keeping with that relationship.

The three festivals mentioned here are to be held at set times during the Israelite year. These are, presumably, the same three times per year when “all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD” (v. ). The times designated for the festivals are tied to agricultural activities and especially to harvest times. Each festival, while having its own particular religious focus, also celebrates the material provision of Yahweh for the Israelites.

Festival of Unleavened Bread. Celebrated in the spring at the time of the barley harvest. It is referred to as a seven-day festival here in Exodus. Evidence for regularized, seven-day festivals from other ancient Near Eastern societies is meager, but texts from the Late Bronze Age site of Emar in Syria do attest to such festivals.

Festival of Harvest. Also called the “Festival of Weeks”; occurs in the late spring or early summer, which coincides with the wheat harvest. Festival of Ingathering. Also called the “Festival of Tabernacles” or “Booths”; comes when summer fruit is harvested.

mother’s milk. See note on .

hornet. This may be a form of divine terror like the plagues in Egypt. Assyrian and Egyptian sources portray deity as a winged disc flying ahead of the army to terrorize the enemy before engagement. The Hebrew word tsirah (“hornet”) may also be a pun on the word mitsrayim (“Egypt”) in reference to the Egyptian military campaigns weakening the Canaanite forces in the area at this time.

took the blood, sprinkled it on the people. While the purpose of this sprinkling is not entirely clear, we can infer some aspects of its significance. The blood may have created a connection between the people and the sacrificed animals. In a sense, the people are now part of what has been offered to Yahweh. The blood also seems to make binding the people’s commitment to abide by the obligations that the agreement places on them. Their submitting to the sprinkling may be compared to signing a contract today.

blue, purple and scarlet yarn. The dyeing of this fabric would have been a costly and labor-intensive process. Many thousands of murex snails would have been required to produce the amount of material described in Exodus. Scarlet dye probably came from the eggs of an insect that fed on oak trees.

I will dwell among them. Sacred space—space set aside for inhabitation by a deity—was important in all ancient Near Eastern societies. It was the place where heaven met earth and had to be treated accordingly. What we call temples are typically referred to as the “house” of a deity: house of Nabu, house of Shamash, house of Yahweh. These houses served partly as a visible reminder to the members of a society that their patron god or goddess was present with them. Their main purpose in the ancient world was to care for the deity with clothing and food (presenting offerings to the deity), with a focus on the divine statue living inside. The presence of the deity made the space sacred.

pattern. There is debate on the Hebrew word for “pattern” (tabnit). One possibility is that the item shown to Moses is actually supposed to represent Yahweh’s dwelling place in the heavens. This is, then, the pattern for the tabernacle, which becomes the earthly counterpart to the heavenly residence. The other possibility is that the text refers simply to a scale model of the structure that Moses is commanded to build.

Several ancient Near Eastern texts seem to support this second option. These documents refer to instances of divine intervention when models of or plans for religious objects are revealed to those responsible for building them. The models appear to have no connection to heavenly counterparts. In one Middle Babylonian document, a clay model of the statue of the god Shamash was miraculously discovered on the banks of the Euphrates River; it showed how the statue was to look and what clothing was to adorn it. This was important since these items had been missing for many years. With the model in hand, the Babylonian king had a new statue and new clothing made. With regard to temples in particular, a famous statue of Gudea, governor of Lagash about 2000 BC, portrays him with a ground plan of a temple on his lap.

A cubit is the measure from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow. Comparison of the reported length of the Siloam tunnel that Hezekiah built in Jerusalem at 1,200 cubits with its actual length of 1,732.6 feet (528 meters) yields an estimation for the cubit as 17.5–18 inches (44–46 centimeters).

ark. This was the most holy of all the items in the tabernacle, for it marked the location of the divine presence (v. ). It is referred to numerous times in Exodus as the “ark of the covenant law” (v. ; , ; , ; ; ; , , ), because of the deposit of “the tablets of the covenant law” within it. The Hebrew word edut (sometimes translated “testimony”) is a synonym of berit and should thus be understood to mean “covenant.” What is to be placed within the ark, then, is most likely the written record (perhaps the “tablets of stone” in ) of the covenantal agreement that Yahweh has made with the Israelites.

Disagreement exists, however, about whether the Israelites viewed the ark as Yahweh’s throne or as his footstool (with the wings of the cherubim then functioning as his seat or throne [see vv. ]). Extra-Biblical evidence tends to favor the latter view; e.g., the records of some international treaties, similar to the covenant between Yahweh and the Israelites, were deposited into box-like containers, which were then placed at the feet of deities. Further support for this conception comes from Biblical texts such as , where David says, “I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, for the footstool of our God.”

cherubim. These sculpted creatures are most likely winged sphinxes known from a number of other sites throughout the ancient Near East (see note on ). Such composite creatures have been found in temples and shrines and are often arranged as if guarding the entrance. Their purpose seems to have been protective—to prevent, perhaps only symbolically, unauthorized individuals from entering space where they were not allowed. In the Exodus tabernacle, the creatures seem to function as protectors of Yahweh’s presence. They are the last barrier between any possible human entrant and the divine presence. It is not out in front of them but “between” them, says Yahweh, that “I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites” (v. ). It is therefore also significant that winged composite creatures are found flanking the thrones of kings in the ancient world. For a physical description of cherubim, see .

bread of the Presence. It is not clear whether this enigmatic phrase symbolizes the presence of Yahweh or whether there must be bread in or near the presence of Yahweh—a presence located within the Most Holy Place. A temple or shrine in the ancient world typically had as one of its chief purposes to feed the deity who was worshiped there. Large quantities of food were thus kept in temples and placed in front of a divine statue; specifically, the laying out of bread before a god is attested in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Anatolia. But this seems unlikely as the reason for the “bread of the Presence.” Nothing is said here about the bread being for Yahweh’s consumption. Moreover, bread used as food for a god or goddess was prepared on a daily basis; but according to , new bread for the tabernacle table is set out once per week—every Sabbath—and is eventually to be eaten by Aaron and his sons. It may have been placed “before” Yahweh as a token or symbolic offering and only then used as food by the priests.

Lampstands with a range of similarities to the one described here are known from the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean world. Some depictions of such lampstands show them in the presence of deities, who are seated on a winged sphinx as if on a throne, much as the divine presence hovers over the ark in the tabernacle. Many of the terms that describe items on the lampstand (e.g., flowers, buds, blossoms), along with the extended branches described in vv. , lead one to believe that the lampstand is meant to represent a tree. This tree of light recalls the tree of life of ; , a common life motif in Mesopotamian texts and iconography; it is crafted with seven tiers, symbolic of God’s perfect presence and life illumination. Mesopotamia and Egypt offer no evidence of lampstands in cultic contexts, but the motif of vase altars with trees on them in worship scenes is extant in the iconography from the earliest periods. In later periods palm branches are replaced with conical fires, at times with seven flames.

durable leather. Identification of this material has baffled scholars for years. Suggestions have included skin of badgers, seals, porpoises, narwhals and even unicorns. Some have opted for the dugong, a marine mammal known to live in the Red Sea. The Hebrew terminology here is simply not clear and may not be referring to any kind of animal. What is probably a more plausible suggestion is that reference is being made to the color of the material that is to cover the inner section of the tabernacle. The Hebrew term in question, then, may indicate a color on the order of orange or red.

The instructions in for the outer section of the tabernacle specify a structure 50 cubits wide and 100 cubits long (roughly 75 feet by 150 feet [23 meters by 46 meters]). The inner section was approximately 16 feet by 48 feet (25 meters by 75 meters). Its height was a remarkable 10 cubits (15 feet or 24 meters) ().

Most buildings in that part of the ancient world had some open space that was enclosed but unroofed. This made easier certain activities such as cooking large amounts of food and caring for animals. The purpose of this courtyard probably included similar activities, since the altar for burnt offerings is there, but it may also have allowed ordinary Israelites to enter the general precinct of the tabernacle and still be protected, by means of the enclosure around the Holy Place, from any dangers associated with drawing too near the location of the divine presence.

The inner section or Holy Place contained yet another room called the “Most Holy Place” () and is often referred to as the “Holy of Holies.” This makes the tabernacle a tripartite structure: the outer section or “courtyard” (), the inner section or “Holy Place” (), and the “Most Holy Place” (). The arrangement of religious structures in this way was not unusual in the ancient Near East. For instance, the temple uncovered at Arad (southern Israel) is dated to the divided monarchy. It consisted of a forecourt, main hall and Holy of Holies. Outside of Israel in Syria to the north, temples have been excavated at Tel Tayinat and at Ain Dara that feature this tripartite structure. The most likely purpose of this arrangement was to establish a hierarchy of space, with a progression toward space that was more holy and thus more restricted. This prevented those unfit for direct contact with the divine from trespassing within the space inhabited by the presence of Yahweh.

Another parallel to this three-part division comes from Egyptian reliefs depicting the military encampment of Rameses II during the battle of Qadesh. The inner section consists of the king’s reception tent, which contained, at the west end, the pharaoh’s private area and throne room. As the divine commander of the Egyptian military, Pharaoh was deserving of this specialized tent-shrine for his travels. For the Israelites, the tabernacle was the tent-shrine for Yahweh, their commander and the one who was to lead them to their ultimate destination.

Finally, an important parallel comes from Ugaritic literature. The chief god of the pantheon at Ugarit was El. His dwelling place is frequently said to be a tent, and the Ugaritic term mshkn occurs in several texts with reference to his abode. This term corresponds to the Hebrew mishkan (“tabernacle”). Thus, portable tent-shrines for deities existed in several ancient Near Eastern societies.

Because of the theophany at Mount Sinai, the tabernacle was critically important for the Israelites. The visible manifestation of Yahweh and the establishment of his covenant with them at the mountain marked that spot as holy—a place where the Israelites had encountered the divine. But this location was not to be their permanent dwelling place. The tabernacle was the place where the encounter with the divine could take place on a regular basis. It would house, as it were, the holiness of the Mount Sinai experience and the very presence of Yahweh as they traveled to the promised land. ◆

Artist's recreation of the Tabernacle.

© 2011 by Zondervan.

Go to

Go to

an altar of acacia wood. This altar stands approximately 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) tall with a square top roughly 7.5 feet by 7.5 feet (2.3 meters by 2.3 meters). Most altars discovered by archaeologists are smaller than the one described here, though the stone horned altar at Beersheba is about the same height with the top surface being a little more than 5 feet (8 meters) square, and the mud brick and fieldstone altar at Arad is also about the same height and a little more than 8 feet (about 13 meters) square on the top. Typically altars in ancient Syria, Palestine and nearby regions were made of dirt or stone. Intriguingly, this altar consists primarily of wood overlaid with bronze (v. )—otherwise undocumented in archaeological finds or in literary descriptions. The burning coals and animal parts would come in contact with the grate (vv. ) rather than with the overlaid wood. The melting point of bronze is about 1750°F (950°C), higher than most wood fires.

Make a horn. See note on .

The furnishings of the tabernacle have deep roots in both the symbolism of the ancient world and in the symbolism from the garden of Eden. Likely reconstructions of the furnishings are based on the detailed descriptions and precise measurements recorded in . (The bronze basin is not shown here.)

➊ ARK OF THE COVENANT

The ark of the covenant compares with the roughly contemporary shrine and funerary furniture of Tutankhamun (c. 1300 BC), which, along with the Nimrud and Samaria ivories from a later period, have been used to guide the graphic interpretation of the text. Both sources show the conventional way of depicting extreme reverence, with facing winged guardians shielding a sacred place.

➋ INCENSE ALTAR

➌ LAMPSTAND

The traditional form of the lampstand is not attested archaeologically until much later.

➍ TABLE

The table holding the bread of the Presence was made of wood overlaid with thin sheets of gold. All of the objects were portable and were fitted with rings and carrying poles, practices typical of Egyptian ritual processions as early as the Old Kingdom period (c. 2715–2640 BC).

© 2011 by Zondervan. All rights reserved.

➎ BRONZE ALTAR

The altar of burnt offering was made of wood overlaid with bronze. The size, five cubits square and three cubits high, matches that of an altar found at Arad from the time of Solomon.

Go to

This description portrays the ephod as a rather expensive piece of clothing, given the material of which it consists. A similar garment appears to be mentioned in Old Assyrian texts (the term is epattu) and in a few documents from Ugarit (ipd in Ugaritic). Based on the Biblical account and some possibly related Egyptian portrayals, the ephod was probably like an apron that wrapped around the body from the waist down.

engraves a seal. Legal documents frequently have seal impressions. After the document was drawn up, an individual pressed or rolled his stone seal onto a portion of clay affixed to the document, thereby leaving his insignia on the document and making it officially his.

breastpiece for making decisions. This covered the pectoral area of the high priest and was also made of costly material. Scholars have attempted to identify parallels to this piece, though there is little consensus. One possible artifact comes from Byblos along the Phoenician coast and dates to the 1700s BC. It is a type of vest with a front piece for the chest and cords to be strapped around the back. It has 11 precious or semiprecious stones affixed to the outer edge and contains Egyptian artwork or an imitation thereof. This may have been worn by a Phoenician king, who also functioned as a priest. The inclusion of the stones is especially intriguing, although their arrangement differs from those described in vv. . While some scholars have dismissed the relevance of this piece from Byblos, it nevertheless points to the idea that the priestly clothing in the Bible was probably not devised from scratch, as it were. Rather, priestly garments were reminiscent of what some Israelites would already have known to be religiously significant apparel. The reference to decision making is probably an allusion to the Urim and Thummim (see the article “Urim and Thummim”).

No description of these objects is present in the text, but later traditions suggest that they were markers used in casting lots (cf. ; ; ). There is no negative character attached to Urim and Thummim as there is to other divinatory practice. Neither are they mentioned in passages describing non-Israelite rituals or worship.

Divination by lots is known in the ancient Near East. Babylonian oracular texts preserve the answers given to yes-no questions. In a procedure known from Mesopotamia called psephomancy, a yes-no question would be posed and a stone drawn out; whether the stone was light or dark would determine a positive or negative response. “Urim” is the Hebrew word for “lights” and may represent the white stone.

The closest parallel to Urim and Thummim comes from an incantation ritual text from Assur. The Assyrian ritual process is clearly one of divination by using a black stone (hematite) and a white stone (alabaster). The will of seven gods is sought by lifting up one of these stones.

In order to perceive that will, Shamash, the god of oracles, is addressed, offerings are made and two stones are put into the hem of the ritualist’s garment to be retrieved at the right time. The ritualist writes the names of seven gods on the ground and then lifts up a stone; a judgment is rendered and a revelation given, if the god so desires (yes). If no revelation or judgment is received, a stone of no desire (no) is given. It is not stated explicitly which stone stands for desirable/not desirable, but based on other ancient Near Eastern divination texts, white is probably the “yes” stone, black the “no” stone.

Evidently the ritualist repeats the process three times to confirm the answer given, as was somewhat common in rituals. The process involved, the stones involved (light, truth), the binary options available, the technical terms used, the option of no answer, the drawing of stones from a garment, and the types of questions addressed all suggest that the Urim and Thummim and this process may be related. ◆

Go to

serve me as priests. If prophets are individuals who spoke messages from God to humans, priests are those who operated in the opposite direction: representing the people before God. While the priests here are said to possess the equipment necessary to receive messages from Yahweh, their primary role was that of an intermediary on behalf of the people. For Yahweh to be their God and for there to be proper worship, the people needed religious officials who could make contact with Yahweh and provide the necessary worship and service to Yahweh within his place of residence (the tabernacle). While prophets were often reformers and individualistic, priests were more institutionalized and associated with long-standing traditions. The priests serving in the tabernacle were engaged in all aspects involved with mediating access to sacred space for the people.

begins a lengthy set of instructions regarding the ceremonies that had to be performed in order to “consecrate” (; lit. “make holy”) Aaron and his sons as priests. Modern readers may wonder at the elaborate and often bloody details of the rituals described here. Ancient readers would have puzzled much less over the details, in part because of previous experiences with such rites, but also because they understood the nature of what was taking place. In order to serve as a priest, a person had to be prepared for contact with that which was holy—the sacred realm, the world of the divine.

Ancient Israelite society operated on the understanding that there were three distinct categories or states in which persons (and objects) could find themselves: the state of uncleanness, the state of cleanness and the state of holiness. Yahweh inhabited the last, and animals unfit to eat inhabited the first. Persons could move between being clean and unclean, depending on what they had recently been doing, eating, touching, etc. Persons in a state of uncleanness were not allowed to approach anyone or anything deemed holy. Even persons who believed themselves to be in a state of cleanness could suffer dire consequences for coming into contact with that which was holy without authorization (e.g., ).

One of the goals of Yahweh’s covenant with the Israelites was to make of them a “holy nation” (). But this would not happen in an instant, and for the time being only the priests were to be made holy. The consecration of priests thus was a process fraught with peril. The transfer of a human being from the world of the ordinary—the world of the profane, where things and people were either only clean or unclean—to the world of the holy was not to be approached carelessly. While the significance of all the ritual actions described is not clear to us, what is clear is that this type of transfer process required time and ritual precision. Similarly elaborate rituals accompanied the installation of religious functionaries in other ancient Near Eastern societies. The Israelites were no exception in the attention they gave to the proper consecration of their priests.

The placing of blood and oil on Aaron and his sons (, ) assist in consecrating them—transferring them into the realm of the sacred and making them fit for service to Yahweh. What is unclear is how blood and oil bring this about. An interesting parallel turns up from Emar in a text about the celebration of the Zukru festival, which can be characterized as a celebration of the new year. At one point during the ceremonies, a set of stones is to be rubbed with oil and blood. This may also be an act of consecration, but the type of stones involved and the precise nature of the act are obscure. Nevertheless, the combination of oil and blood seems to have held important religious significance in other ancient Near Eastern societies and may relate to ceremonies where people and objects must cross the sometimes dangerous chasm between the sacred and profane. ◆

Go to

ephah. See . hin. Evidence for liquid measurements in preexilic Israel is murky. Estimates of modern equivalents for units like the hin have varied among scholars over the years (see for one option). One of the most detailed studies to date estimates that the hin is equal to approximately 6 liters, making the amount called for here the equivalent of about 1.5 liters.

horns of one piece with it. Archaeologists have discovered four-horned incense altars at various sites throughout Palestine, including Philistine and Israelite sites. This particular altar style appears to have Late Bronze Age antecedents that take the shape of models of towers made of clay. Some of these clay models are close to 4 feet (6.5 meters) tall with a rectangular base slightly over 1 foot (30 centimeters) square. At the top of these model towers, the corners slope upward to form points as if on a turret. Offerings were burned on the tops of these models as a way to imitate the longstanding practice, in some ancient Near Eastern societies, of performing religious rituals and presenting burned sacrifices on the rooftops of houses. Perhaps the Israelite horned altar is an offshoot of this tradition, with the top of the altar shaped to represent the roof of a shrine and to accommodate the symbolism of sending up incense to Yahweh from the highest point on the shrine.

finger of God. See note on .

These are your gods. What is uncertain here is whether the golden calf is being introduced as connected to the same God they have been worshiping or whether it is related to a new god(s). The translation “this is your god” is equally justifiable because the Hebrew word for “God/god” is Elohim and can be taken as either singular or plural. The Hebrew pronoun for “these” is indeed plural, but this could simply be the result of grammatical agreement with Elohim, which is grammatically plural. Thus, this statement may indeed have only one god in view.

Our understanding of the golden calf can benefit from an understanding of the iconography of the ancient world. From the ancient Near East (mostly from the Late Bronze Age), there are pictures of gods standing atop various animals, especially lions and bulls, as well as atop composite creatures. Moreover, there are depictions of bovines (these are generally from the Iron Age)—most likely bulls—that have no rider whatsoever. In the first set of images, the animal clearly functions as the seat or pedestal for the deity. In the second, there is no deity, which may raise possibilities for understanding the use of the golden calf here.

One idea is that the calf is still the pedestal, but this time of an invisible deity. The ark within the tabernacle functioned as a seat or footstool (see note on ) for the divine presence without any object to represent that presence. Perhaps, then, the golden calf functioned similarly. Or perhaps the calf is more in the nature of an emblem or symbol that stands in for the deity. The worship is still directed toward Yahweh (note the festival to Yahweh proclaimed by Aaron in ), but it makes use of a representative, one that embodies Yahweh’s power and protection and brings reassurance to the people with Moses absent. Regardless of how one interprets the calf, the worship in which the people engage angers Yahweh, in all likelihood because it violates the prohibition on making images (), which they are supposed to know and to which they have already agreed. In this sense, the calf functions more to replace the absent Moses as a mediator than to replace Yahweh as the one who delivered them from Egypt. ◆

Basalt stele of god Adad on a bull with a thunderbolt in hand, c. 744–727 BC. This sort of image shows the animal functioning as the seat or pedestal for the deity, which gives some idea as to how the Golden Calf was possibly used and understood.

Wikimedia Commons/Rama, CC BY-SA 2.0 FR

Go to

indulge in revelry. This is a notoriously difficult phrase to interpret. The most basic meaning of the Hebrew verbal root used here (shq) is “to laugh” (e.g., ). Some forms of this verb can also indicate joking (), teasing (), amusement (), and perhaps sexual fondling (). One suggestion for the way in which the verb is used here is “to amuse oneself wildly,” though the precise nature of such amusement is not at all clear. Since the calf may be symbolic of the power that delivered the people from slavery in Egypt, perhaps the term simply refers to the idea of celebration—the kind of celebration that often ensues following a stunning military victory.

The bull as a symbol of military prowess was common throughout ancient Near Eastern societies, including Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. With Moses apparently having disappeared, the people need another tangible sign of their connection to Yahweh, their mighty deliverer. He is their warrior, their conquering hero, and a celebration of him would not be out of place.

breaking them to pieces. This may describe an outburst of anger on Moses’ part, but the implications of breaking the tablets go beyond that. To smash tablets recording a legal agreement signifies the annulment of that agreement. The Biblical text never makes clear precisely what is written on the tablets. We do know from that they contain the “law and commandments.” The latter were directly related to the covenant established between Yahweh and the Israelites and contained the essence of the Israelites’ obligations—what they were required to do to fulfill their end of the contract. For Moses to smash them is to declare unequivocally that the agreement is broken. Israel’s recent action constitutes a violation of the agreement.

As mentioned previously (see the article “Covenants”), the covenant in Exodus is modeled after the standard legal agreements or contracts of that day. In Mesopotamia, such agreements were typically recorded on clay tablets. The legal act that declared the end or invalidation of the agreement often included breaking the tablet. The Israelites’ violation of the covenant and Moses’ invalidation of the agreement by breaking the tablets make necessary a renewal of the covenant, which comes in ch. .

It is difficult to determine if this verse portrays a literal description. The actions of Moses may be patterned after actions considered standard in any description of the destruction of a hated and despised deity or divine symbol. In the Baal Cycle from Ugarit, the goddess Anat sets out to destroy the god Mot. When she finally catches him, she grinds him to dust and sows it in a field, where it is eaten by birds. Anat’s actions convey, with literary flourish, the complete destruction of Mot. Perhaps Moses’ actions are stylized in similar fashion. Anat casts the leftover particles of Mot into a field; Moses strews the dust in the water. The birds, unwittingly, devour the last of Mot; the Israelites drink the last bits of the idol. Literal or not, it is the utter end of the image of the young bull.

book you have written. The idea that deities kept written records that related to human activity is prevalent throughout the ancient Near East, particularly in Mesopotamia. Such books or records are referred to in both Sumerian and Akkadian texts and fall essentially into two categories: (1) “tablets of destiny” or “tablets of life” and (2) tablets that record human behavior. The book referred to by Moses in this verse is most likely one of the first type. In v. , Yahweh speaks of blotting “out of [his] book” those who have sinned against him, and the punishments that occur in vv. , are death. Inhabitants of the ancient world hoped that the heavenly books of destiny/life designated long life for them. To be removed from the book would lead to certain death. Thus, Moses is saying that he would prefer to die on the spot if Yahweh refuses to forgive the people as a collective group for their violation of Yahweh’s law.

tent of meeting. Apparently, because of the illegitimate worship practiced in ch. , a separate tent is erected outside the camp. Yahweh will meet with Moses there. He will not come inside the camp because, as the text points out, Yahweh is angry and prone to wreak havoc on the people if he is in their midst (v. ). Here in v. , the structure in question goes by the term “tent of meeting,” a term used also of the tabernacle (e.g., ). The tent here in v. , though, does not perform the equivalent function of the tabernacle. There is no indication that this particular tent will house the presence of Yahweh, since no rituals are performed to purify the tent and make it fit for the divine presence. A possible parallel comes from the Mesopotamian celebration of the akitu festival. In Babylonia, the celebration of this festival merged with the New Year celebration and was marked by the procession of Marduk outside the city to a small structure where he would dwell for several days. During this time, prayers were offered in the hopes that Marduk would restrain his anger and bless his people. His regular dwelling, the temple, underwent a ritual purification during his absence. The highlight of the festival came with the procession of the god back to the city and to his proper residence. The Mesopotamian parallel is imprecise, but the removal of the divine presence from the camp or the city was significant in both instances. It undoubtedly meant that the first priority was doing all that was necessary to ensure the deity’s return to dwell securely among his people.

The LORD, the LORD. This repetition of Yahweh’s name is followed by a list of attributes that focus on his love and compassion. This was not uncommon in descriptions of deities in the ancient world. Examples abound of gods or goddesses (and even kings) who are described in lengthy lists of epithets or titles that refer to their character traits or special activities. The epilogue to the Code of Hammurapi, e.g., mentions a dozen deities, after whose names are listed various epithets. With its focus on love, this description of Yahweh seems in contrast with the portrayal of Yahweh in chs. , when he was ready, at the very least, to sever ties with the disobedient Israelites. This proclamation to Moses, then, may be emphasizing that Yahweh’s anger has now subsided and the people may expect to be back on good terms with him again.

Asherah poles. The goddess Asherah was worshiped under various names in ancient Near Eastern societies, and she apparently had followers in some parts of ancient Israel. Other Biblical texts condemn Asherah worship (; ; ); the goddess may also have been referred to as the “Queen of Heaven” (). An eighth-century BC ink inscription on a pottery jar, discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud, a site in the northern Sinai region, refers to a blessing offered in the name of “Yahweh and his Asherah.” This may suggest an aberrant ancient Israelite belief in a goddess wife of Yahweh, and this type of belief and the practices associated with it may be the target of commands like this one and those in Deuteronomy.

It is unlikely that the “poles” referred to in this verse are images of the goddess; rather, they are probably religious objects used in rituals associated with Asherah worship or perhaps with non-Yahwistic fertility rites in general.

the Ten Commandments. Lit. “the ten words.” This is the first time this phrase occurs in Exodus. The list in that we normally associate with the Ten Commandments is simply called “these words” (). Moreover, these two lists differ substantially. contains several essentially noncultic provisions (e.g., commandments related to murder, adultery, theft, false accusation, coveting), which tie it to some degree to the content of the ancient Near Eastern law codes. The provisions in , by contrast, seem to have no connection to the law code tradition since they reflect a much more cultic focus. They center on laws related to proper worship and ritual and, as part of the covenant that must be created because of the annulment of the first covenant, may possess this focus because of the failings in the area of worship so clearly demonstrated in the episode of the golden calf.

↑ Back to top