A study on the book of Exodus

by

Daniel Ng

(This study may contain some very speculative elements. Please do not take every word said here but judge it yourself -- actually, you should have this mentality when reading any article in this web-site.)

Introduction

Like studying other ancient literatures, there are some difficulties with the book of Exodus. On top of the well-understood problem of the language, there is also the difficulty of knowing the time of the writer and his audiences (which affect our understanding of the culture and custom of them and hence the message of the book).

On the other hand, there is a danger of misinterpreting the text because we read into the passages our own culture (or some other cultures) or read into the mind of the ancient people some later concepts and ideologies.

Despite all these difficulties and pitfalls, we still need to study this book because it is the word of God. God gave it to us so that we will understand His message.

Before we start, we want to make clear our assumptions. We assume that this book was written by a writer[1] (after the time of Moses) who had access to a lot of ancient (written and oral) materials. We will not take into consideration later re-editions because it is very difficult to verify whether there is such change and if so, what was altered and for what reason. This speculation probably will not give us more understanding of the message the book. Moreover, we believe that every passage that was recorded in this book was recorded for a reason[2].

Our methodology[3] is as follows. We read the book aloud once[4] and then ask ourselves the following questions: why the writer recorded this passage here in this form and what message he want to bring out?[5] After guessing possible meanings of different passages, we then obtain a rough idea of the book. What we found is as follows.

This book is about theology (God-human-relationship)[6]. A careful reader will not fail to notice the following main theme of the book[7]: from deliverance to covenant; from complaints to obedience; from human-centred theology to God-centred theology; from the question of "what God can do for us" to "what we should do because we are a people of God".

We can understand most of the materials in this book in term of either the above theme or in term of information concerning God[8], Moses or the Israelites (the three parties involved in the setting and the keeping of the covenant)[9]. We admit that there are about 2-3 passages that seemingly do not fit in any of these categories. They may belong to another theme that we are not aware of or they may have a hidden meaning that we do not know. We will explain all these in details in the following.

1. The beginning narratives (1:1-2:25)

1:1-14 is a standard beginning of a story informing the audiences about the background. Following this are two "women narratives". In 1:15-22, there recorded the only two heroines of the Pentateuch who were accredited by God. They "fought against" Pharaoh and won. Then there is an interesting passage of a "purely women story" (2:1-10). The only males mentioned were Moses and his father (a shadowy figure). It is interesting that it was the woman who saw that "he (Moses) was a goodly child" and "she hid him three months". Moses' father played no part in this (or any other) decision. As Fretheim suggested[10], these passages are there to show that God can use the weakest vassal to accomplish His plan. Moreover, we also see God working within the natural process and human decision (no miracle is needed).

After he killed an Egyptian, Moses fled to the desert. Similar to Jacob, it was around a well when he met his future wife and the first thing he did was (also) to water the flock of the girls (cf. 29:1-30)[11]. Was it just a coincidence or was it a comparison between the physical father and the religious father of Israel?[12] Or did the "water" or "well" has a special meaning in the ancient world that we don't know?[13]

So far God was "described as working behind the scene".

2. The encounters between Moses and God as well as Moses and Pharaoh (3:1-12:36)

Again similar to Jacob and Abraham, God specifically appeared to Moses (also in several times). God told him that He saw and heard the suffering of the Israelites and He decided to deliver them because He knew their sorrows. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were mentioned as a link between God and His people. These names bear a meaning to the people because these are their ancestors.[14]

4:24-26 is the first problematic passage. We are not going to give all the differentviews on its explanation[15]. Fretheim suggested that it foreshadows some later events. However, it seems not a satisfactory answer to us[16]. He also mentioned the comparison of this event with Jacob wrestling with God which we find interesting (but not very convinced). As some people suggested, this passage is there to remind the audiences the importance of the circumcision (the sign for the covenant) that even Moses has to obey[17].

The next interesting and important passage is the retelling of the calling of Moses (6:2-13). Source critics may say it is simply the same event from a different source. However, we have to ask why the writer "repeat" it. A careful listener will notice a dramatic difference between this and the earlier account. As stated about, in the first account, God said He would act because of the suffering of His people (from the human side). In the second one, God said He would act because He remembered His covenant (from God's side, i.e. because of Himself). Again, the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were mentioned but this time, these names bear a meaning for God (because of His covenant with them).

Another passage that puzzles us is 6:14-25. This probably was the passage following 6:2-13 in the original source: "the LORD ... bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt" and then a list of these people was given. As some people suggested, this passage is there to locate Moses and Aaron in the family of Israel and some of the names (like Korah) will appear again in the later part of the Pentateuch. However, the strange thing is the brief account of the families of the first two sons of Jacob and the missing of the names of his other sons[18].

Then we hear of the ten plagues. Some people have pointed out the interesting structure in these events, e.g. the circumstances in which Moses talk to Pharaoh were recorded in a circle of three[19]. We also observe that in the first three plagues, it was Aaron who did the gesture of bringing those plagues and in the last three, it was Moses who did it. These probably were shaped in this form for the sake of easy memory (for oral transmission)[20].

These plagues obviously played an important part of the event of exodus. Moreover, these also tell the audiences a lot about God. Apart from the obvious message of the triumph of God over Pharaoh and his magicians (i.e. earthly power and supernatural power), these tell the audiences that God initially allowed the people to suffer more (5:1-21) but eventually He delivered them. These also tell of how God could control the nature (which probably reminded the audiences that God created the world in the first place). Moreover, these inform the audiences that God even controlled the heart of Pharaoh[21]. In other word, God is above all and in absolute control of everything.

3. The departure, the crossing and the rejoicing (12:37-15:21)

The meanings of this part seem very obvious and we will not go into the details.

"Next, we will enter into another stage of the story. Before we continue, let us hear a summary of what is going to happen so that we will not get lose in the following long passages." We can almost hear the person who read out this book adding this remark before proceeding.

4. No drinking water - testing - a lot of water (15:22-15:27)

This little passage consists of three parts: the complaint about water, the testing and the final blessing (notice the bitter water in v.23 and the spring in v.27). This passage is extremely short and the middle part looks like an abbreviation of many events that were not recorded. By comparing it with the remaining part of the book, it seems very likely to us that this passage is a summary of many later events[22]. Furthermore, it is not just a summary, it actually explains those later events and orientates the mind of the audiences -- all these are for the purpose of testing (which leads to the final blessing). Notice again that in the beginning it was the complaint (human-centred). Then it was the testing which aims is to bring the people into obedience (God-centred). Only after that did they enter Elim (symbolise the promise land?).

5. In the desert we see God (16:1-40:38)

The messages in 16:1 - 17:7 is very clear: the complaints of the people (again) and the power as well as providence of God. Then 17:8-16 is another testing through the war with the Amalek. This also shows that it was by God's mighty hand that His people won[23].

The next event in Chapter 18 seemingly does not fit into any category in the introduction[24]. Notice that God is totally passive and even invisible in this passage which is in great contrast with what was before and after this event.

Following this is the giving of the laws. The reason for giving the laws is clear: so that people know what to obey and what they should behave because they are a people of God. The detail description of these laws highlight the importance of it. In fact, there are two sets of laws. The first set is mainly legal laws and the second one is religious laws. In between the two (23:20-33), we see the first recording of the "God-Israel covenant". Notice that it is the response of the people in 24:3 that sets the covenant in place[25].

During the giving of the second set of laws, Moses was in the mountain for a long time and the people started worrying (about what they can do next and who will lead them forward). So they made "gods". This again shows the human-centredness in their theology.

May be we should ask why it was the golden calf (again). Coincidentally, the image Jeroboam made as a representation of God was also a golden calf (1 King 12:25-31). Did Jeroboam know this story in Exodus? Notice that no one used this to rebuke him. Moreover, it will take a very bold person to make a golden calf again if he knew of the above story and its consequence. On the other hand, isn't it too much a coincidence that these two images made by two different groups of people to represent the same God who "brought thee (Israel) up out of the land of Egypt" (cf. 32:4 and 1Kings 12:28) in two different occasions were the same? Our speculation is that in the original source, this could be just "golden gods" [26]. If the writer lived in the period in or after the reign of Jeroboam, it is easy to understand what image would single out in his mind and be recorded[27]. Anyway, whether or not the golden calf was in the original source, we can imagine the impact to the audiences when this passage was read out to them[28].

Then it was the punishment by Moses (32:19, 32:25-29) and the rejection from God (32:9-10, 33:3). It was because of the intercession of Moses (32:11-14, 32:31-32) and the repentance of the people (33:4) that God seemed to have forgiven His people (33:5, 33:14, 34:1). The message is clear. It tells the audiences how sin (disobedience) could altered the fate of humanity[29] yet the important thing is that it is not completely hopeless.

33:7-23 is another strange passage that does not seem to match very well with the flow of the story. One possible message of this is the distinctiveness of Moses amongst other people[30].

Finally we have a very detail description of the construction of the tabernacle. The audiences could not fail to notice the comparison of this with the construction of the temple of Solomon (1Kings 6:1-7:51, 2Chronicles 2:1-4:22). Notice also the comparison of the descriptions of God filling the tabernacle (40:34-35) as well as that of the temple (1Kings 8:10-11, 2Chronicles 5:13-14).

Now if we look backward, we find the following interesting frame in Ch.19 - Ch.40: the giving of the laws - the golden calf - the giving of the laws again - the construction of the tabernacle (and the anointing of it by God). Doesn't this set up "a picture / image" in the audiences' mind of the religious symbol of the north (the golden calf) and that of the south (the temple -- which is symbolised by the tabernacle -- remember also that the audiences could have heard this reading outside the temple itself)[31]? Isn't this somehow a rebuke to the northern religion? Remember that it was Aaron who made the calf. Is there any good to have descendants of Moses or Aaron as priests in Dan if they worshipped a golden calf? However, there is still hope if the audiences repent (recall the above repentance + intercession --> reconciliation formula) and God will still fill His place again.

6. Conclusion

In our opinion, one of the major messages the writer received from God is to call for the repentance of God's people in all generations (whether from the north or the south, ancient or recent) so that they will turn from their human-centred theology to the God-centred theology[32] and live their lives as a covenant people of God.

Bibliography:

1. The Holy Bible (Chinese Union Version with new punctuation), United Bible Societies, 1988 and 1989.

2. The Holy Bible (Chinese New Translation), Tien-Dao publishing Limited, 1993.

3. M. D. Coogan, The Exodus, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993.

4. J. I. Durham, The book of Exodus, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993.

5. T. E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation, A Bible commentary for Teaching and Preaching, John Knox Press, 1991.

6. B. Jacob (translated by W. Jacob), The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 1992.

7. W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, The message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, Chapter 4 and 5, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Biblical Software tool

1. The FreeBible(TM) (with King James version), Copyright 1996 - 1999 Steven Kollmansberger.

Endnotes

1 We call the person the writer instead of the redactor because we think he did more than just putting the sources together.

2 In agreement with some other people, we believe that the writers of the "historical books" in the OT were not actually writting history. These books contain carefully chosen historical materials to convey the messages that the writers recieved from God, i.e these books are prophetic history as some people called them.

3 In fact, we are greatly influenced by what we learnt in our youth. Our home pastor taught us that before studying a passage in the Bible, first of all we need to unlearn what we know about that passage (as everyone know, no one can really do so, but trying not to be affected by eariler finding may help to get in new message). Then we need to ask the Holy Spirit to inspire and teach us. We should also read the passage several times before trying to find out the message in this passage. Afterward, we have to compare it with commentaries and eariler study notes on this passage. We find such approach very useful.

4 Since the book was written to be read out to the audiences, it is sensible to read the book aloud at least once. In particular, there could be some "emotional clues" which can only be picked up if we heard the passage being read.

5 This is the first level. The second level is: what does God want to tell His people through this passage? Usually, this second set of meanings should be related to the first ones. We will only deal with the first one here.

6 Our meaning of the term "theology" is the understanding of the developement and continuation of the God-human relationship as well as the practising of it (the readers are invited to see our statement on theology in http:\\www.geocities.com\iamckng\theology.htm).

7 Or maybe, it is just one of the main themes.

8 About the character or attribute of God, we think that they should be considered as the way God wanted Himself to be understood -- in order to set up the kind of relationship that He wanted (again, the readers are invited to read http:\\www.geocities.com\iamckng\theology.htm).

9 We will pay more attention to the former two.

10 see [Fretheim, 1991].

11 B. Jacob has also observed this similarity (see [Jacob, 1992, p22]) but he didn't push it as far as we do. On the other hand, note that there is another similar passage in Gen 24:10-67 (but this time related to Isaac). Of course, there are also many other events concerning wells in Gensis.

12 Fretheim suggested that this passage can also served as a foreshadow of what is going to happened to the Israelites but we don't really agree with his comparison. In fact, we have difficulty understanding foreshadowing in a book that was supposed to be read out to audiences instead of to be studied by scholars. Note that this sort of foreshadowing is not easy to spot and the audiences could not go back and compare the passages. Furthermore, what is the point of doing this foreshadowing? To show that the writer is very skillful? May be the writer is indeed good and skillful and he left some marks in his writing but this will not tell us more about the message of the book.

13 By asking these questions, we are not trying to reject the historicity of the events -- God can use two similar events to bring out a message.

14 Later on, we will compare this with another similar description.

15 In fact, even the meaning of these verses seems obscure, e.g. whether God or His angel wanted to kill Moses or one of his sons (and if so, which one).

16 See the above footnote on foreshadowing.

17 See e.g. [Jacob, 1992, p106].

18 B. Jacob rejected the view that this is a shorten form of another genealogy and he gave some explanation to these names. Yet seemingly, he did not answer the question of why Reuben and Simeon was recorded (may be he did but since his argument involved a lot of Hebrews language, we don't really follows it).

19 See [LaSor et al, 1996, p68].

20 Again, in saying so, we didn't reject the historicity of these events but just that the peripheral descriptions are not essential.

21 Different people have different intepretations and opinions about this point (some say that "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" meant that when God created this Pharaoh, He made him a very stubborn heart but he still had freedom to use his stubbornness) as it point to the controversial issue of predestinations.

22 Fretheim has also observed that this passage "mirror many a story to follow" (see [Fretheim, 1991, p176]) but he didn't stress this point as we do here. On the other hand, his understanding of the "testing" seemingly is different from us (see [Fretheim, 1991, p.178]).

23 Yet it is not clear why God became so angry with the Amalek and what is the reason of recording 17:16.

24 As we said in the introduction, there may be some other themes of the book that we are not aware of. Fretheim and B. Jacob seemed to look at the matter from different angles and hence they don't need to address our question.

25 Another off topics issue here: in 19:4-6, it was mentioned that God is God of Israel not because He recuse them but because all the earth are His. Up to this stage, Israel was given a choice to either listen and obey God or not (and they were given another chance in Joshua's days). The only different is that if they did so, they became "a kingdom priest and a holy nation". In this sense, it is quite different from a suzerain-vassals treaty.

26 In 32:31, Moses refered to the image as "golden gods" instead of "golden calf" -- I know this does show anything.

27 Again, by saying so, we are not implying the writer being not faithful to history. Again, we can consider this as a sort of "creative / imaginative" retelling of the story. Again, we believe that this was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

28 Of course, we assume that they were living in or after the reign of Jeroboam (which is very likely).

29 It is one of the main message of many books of the Bible.

30 See e.g. [Fretheim, 1991, 296].

31 Here we are trying to catch the "emotional clues" of the ending of this book (which should be the climax for a book written to be read out to audiences -- as this will be the most remembered part).

32 We remind the reader again our special use of the term "Theology" in this essay.