I proceed from where I left off: DAVID’S MULTI-PERSONAL LORD PT. 1.

THE PRE-CREATIONAL BEGETTING OF DAVID’S LORD

Another interesting point about Psalm 110 is the fact that mention is made of the begetting of David’s Lord, a begetting which occurred before creation:

“The Lord said to my lord (Eipen ho Kyrios to Kyrio mou), ‘Sit on my right until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ A rod of your power the Lord will send out from Sion. And exercise dominion in the midst of your enemies! With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendors of the holy ones. From the womb, before Morning-star, I brought you forth (egennesa se).” Psalm 109[Heb. 110]:1-3 (A New English Translation of the Septuagint, p. 603)

“The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies. With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.” Psalm 109:1-3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

“LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ LORD JEHOVAH will send the scepter of power to you from Zion and he will rule over your enemies. Your people are glorious in the day of power; in the glories of holiness from the womb, from the first, I have begotten you, Son.” Psalm 110:1-3 Peshitta Holy Bible Translation (PHBT https://biblehub.com/hpbt/psalms/110.htm)

“THE LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD will send forth the sceptre of his power out of Zion, and he will rule over thine enemies. Thy people shall be glorious in the day of thy power; arrayed in the beauty of holiness from the womb, I have begotten thee as a child from the ages.” George Lamsa Bible (LAMSA https://biblehub.com/lamsa/psalms/110.htm)

That God begat the King from before the day or morning star means that David’s Lord was already begotten before the constellations were created, and hence before creation.

What this shows is that David’s Lord was already existing when creation came into being, and was therefore already dwelling with God when David first wrote this Psalm under inspiration of the Holy Spirit!

We, therefore, have an OT text affirming that the Messianic King and Davidic Heir is God’s unique Son who had been begotten from before the creation of the ages!

And in case any one doubts the genuineness of this reading, the Greek and Latin translations of v. 3 have additional support from both the Syriac versions and many Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts (MSS).

This explains why the following Biblical scholars argue that y^elidtika should be the preferred rendering of the Hebrew consonants, and state that this reading is accepted by many commentators:  

For our present purposes, the main focus of interest in Psalm 110 is the notoriously corrupt verse 3b:

bahadre qodesh merechem mishchar laka tal yaldutheka

The corresponding Greek (Ps 109:3) reads:

en tais lamprostesin ton hagion

ek gastros pro heosphorou exegennesa se.

The MT points the last word as yaldutheka, “your youth.” The NRSV translates accordingly:

From the womb of the morning,

like dew, your youth will come to you.

MANY Masoretic manuscripts, however, read y^elidtika, the reading presupposed by the Greek, and also supported by the Syriac. In view of the consonantal spelling in the MT, and the parallel in Psalm 2, this reading should be preferred and is accepted by many commentators.⁸⁴

By re-pointing the Masoretic text, but making no changes to the consonants we read:

In sacred splendor, from the womb, from dawn,

you have the dew wherewith I have begotten you.⁸⁵ (Adela Yarbro Collins & John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature [William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., First Edition, First Printing, 2008], 1. The King as Son of God, pp. 16-17; bold and capital emphasis mine)

As noted by the aforementioned scholars, this term y^elidtika which is the reading of many of the Masoretic MSS of Psalm 110:3, and which underlie the Greek, Latin, Aramaic/Syriac versions, is found in Psalm 2, a Psalm that is also considered Messianic:  

“Why do the nations rage And the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His Anointed (M^eshicho), saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!’ He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord (Adonay) mocks them. Then He speaks to them in His anger And terrifies them in His fury, saying, ‘But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, “You are My Son (b^eni), Today (hayyom) I have begotten You (y^elidtika) Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron,You shall shatter them like a potter’s vessel.”’ So now, O kings, show insight; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Serve Yahweh with fear And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son (nash^equ bar), lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” Psalm 2:1-12

Here’s the key text in question:

“I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” Psalm 2:7

Now compare this with the emendation of Psalm 110:3 proposed by Collins on the basis of the reading found in many of the Masoretic MSS:

“Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces on the holy mountains. In sacred splendor, from the womb, from dawn, you have the dew wherewith I have begotten you.”

And here, again, are the English translations of the ancient Greek, Latin, and Aramaic/Syriac versions:

With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendors of the holy ones. From the womb, before Morning-star, I brought you forth.” Psalm 109:3 LXX

“With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.” DRA

“Your people are glorious in the day of power; in the glories of holiness from the womb, from the first, I have begotten you, Son.” PHBT

“Thy people shall he glorious in the day of thy power; arrayed in the beauty of holiness from the womb, I have begotten thee as a child from the ages.” LAMSA

In another post, I will address the NT application of Psalm 2 and the early Church’s understanding of the day on which the Davidic King was begotten by God.

PSALM 45 AND THE BEGETTING OF THE DIVINE KING

The following Psalm is truly remarkable:

“My heart is overflowing with a good word (rachash libbi dabar tob); I speak of the things which I have done concerning the king; my tongue is the pen of a ready writer… Thy throne, O God (Elohim), is eternal and for ever, the rod of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows… so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty; and bow before him, for he is thy Lord (Adonayik)… I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations; therefore shall the people praise thee eternally and for ever.” Psalm 45:1, 6-7, 11, 17 Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)

What makes this Psalm so astonishing is because this eternal King is not only called God (Elohim), he is also called Lord (Adonay) whom the nations shall worship and praise forever!

In fact, the exact same Hebrew word for “your Lord” is only used one another time for YHVH himself!

“Thus says your Lord (Adonayik), Yahweh, even your God (Elohayik) Who contends for His people, ‘Behold, I have taken out of your hand the cup of reeling, The chalice of My wrath; You will never drink it again.’” Isaiah 51:22

Moreover, in light of this Psalm’s application to Christ within the NT (see the next section), it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the early church fathers and theologians saw an allusion to the Son’s eternal begetting in the opening verses:   

“My heart has uttered a good word (exereuxato he kardia mou logon agathon): I declare my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a quick writer.” Psalm 44:2 LXX

Here’s the lexical meaning of the Greek phrase exereuxato, which comes from the words ek and ereugomai:

Strong’s Concordance

ek or ex: from, from out of

Original Word: ἐκ, ἐξ

Part of Speech: Preposition

Transliteration: ek or ex

Phonetic Spelling: (ek)

Definition: from, from out of

Usage: from out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards.

HELPS Word-studies

1537 ek (a preposition, written eks before a vowel) – properly, “out from and to” (the outcome); out from within. 1537 /ek (“out of”) is one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions – often being confined to the meaning “by.” 1537 (ek) has a two-layered meaning (“out from and to”) which makes it out-come oriented (out of the depths of the source and extending to its impact on the object).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin

a prim. preposition denoting origin

Definition

from, from out of

NASB Translation

after (1), against (1), among (18), based (5), basis (2), because (10), belonged* (1), belonging* (1), depends (1), depends* (1), derived (1), grudgingly* (1), heavenly* (1), inspired (1), means (1), over (1), reason (1), result (4), say* (1), since (1), some (3), through (1), under (1), utterly* (1), way (1), without* (1).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 1537: ἐκ

ἐκ, before a vowel ἐξ, a preposition governing the genitive. Also, it denotes exit or emission out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection; opposed to the prepositions εἰς into and ἐν in: from out of, out from, forth from, from, (Latine, ex) (cf. Winers Grammar, 364, 366f (343f); Buttmann, 326f (281)). (Strong’s Greek: 1537. ἐκ (ek or ex))

Strong’s Concordance

ereugomai: to spit, by ext. to speak aloud

Original Word: ἐρεύγομαι

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: ereugomai

Phonetic Spelling: (er-yoog’-om-ahee)

Definition: to spit, to speak aloud

Usage: (lit: I belch forth, hence) I utter, declare.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin

a prim. verb

Definition

to spit, by ext. to speak aloud

NASB Translation

utter (1).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 2044: ἐρεύγομαι

ἐρεύγομαι: future ἐρεύξομαι;

1. to spit or spue out (Homer).

2. to be emptied, discharge itself, used of streams (Appendix Mithr c. 103); with the accusative to empty, discharge, cast forth, of rivers and waters: Leviticus 11:10 the Sept.

3. by a usage foreign to classic Greek (Winers Grammar, 23 (22f)), to pour forth words, to speak out, utter: Matthew 13:35 (Psalm 77:2 (); cf. Psalm 18:3 (); (Alex.)). The word is more fully treated of by Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 63; (cf. Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 138).

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

utter.

Of uncertain affinity; to belch, i.e. (figuratively) to speak out — utter. (Strong’s Greek: 2044. ἐρεύγομαι (ereugomai))

The early Christians took this verse to be the Father’s declaration of how he begot his Son, who is his very Word (Logos) that later became flesh. I.e., the Father “vomited,” “spat out,” “belched forth,” so to speak, his good Word from out of his heart, from his very own bosom.

As the Apostle John would later put it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

“In the beginning was the Word (ho Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men… There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens everyone. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him… And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14, 18  

And here’s how St. Augustine explained this specific Psalm:

4. Mine heart has uttered a good word Psalm 44:1. Who is the speaker? The Father, or the Prophet? For some understand it to be the Person of the Father, which says, Mine heart has uttered a good word, intimating to us a certain unspeakable generation. Lest you should haply think something to have been taken unto Him, out of which God should beget the Son (just as man takes something to himself out of which he begets children, that is to say, an union of marriage, without which man cannot beget offspring), lest then you should think that God stood in need of any nuptial union, to beget the Son, he says, Mine heart has uttered a good word. This very day your heart, O man, begets a counsel, and requires no wife: by the counsel, so born of your heart, you build something or other, and before that building subsists, the design subsists; and that which you are about to produce, exists already in that by which you are going to produce it; and you praise the fabric that as yet is not existing, not yet in the visible form of a building, but on the projecting of a design: nor does any one else praise your design, unless either you show it to him, or he sees what you have done. If then by the Word all things were made, John 1:3 and the Word is of God, consider the fabric reared by the Word, and learn from that building to admire His counsels! What manner of Word is that by which heaven and earth were made; Hebrews 11:3 and all the splendour of the heavens; all the fertility of the earth; the expanse of the sea; the wide diffusion of air; the brightness of the constellations; the light of sun and moon? These are visible things: rise above these also; think of the Angels, Principalities, Thrones, Dominions, and Powers. Colossians 1:16 All were made by Him. How then were these good things made? Because there was uttered forth ‘a good Word,’ by which they were to be made….

5. It proceeds: I speak of the things which I have made unto the King. Is the Father still speaking? If the Father is still speaking, let us enquire how this also can be understood by us, consistently with the true Catholic Faith, I speak of the things that I have made unto the King. For if it is the Father speaking of His own works to His Son, our King, what works is the Father to speak of to the Son, seeing that all the Father’s works were made by the Son’s agency? Or, in the words, I speak of My works unto the King, does the word, I speak, itself signify the generation of the Son? I fear whether this can ever be made intelligible to those slow of comprehension: I will nevertheless say it. Let those who can follow me, do so: lest if it were left unsaid, even those who can follow should not be able. We have read where it is said in another Psalm, God has spoken once. So often has He spoken by the Prophets, so often by the Apostles, and in these days by His Saints, and does He say, God has spoken once? How can He have spoken but once, except with reference to His Word? Hebrews 1:1-2 But as the Mine heart has uttered a good Word, was understood by us in the other clause of the generation of the Son, it seems that a kind of repetition is made in the following sentence, so that the Mine heart has uttered a good Word, which had been already said, is repeated in what He is now saying, I speak. For what does I speak mean? I utter a Word. And whence but from His heart, from His very inmost, does God utter the Word? You yourself do not speak anything but what you bring forth from your heart, this word of yours which sounds once and passes away, is brought forth from no other place: and do you wonder that God speaks in this manner? But God’s speaking is eternal. You are speaking something at the present moment, because you were silent before: or, look you, you have not yet brought forth your word; but when you have begun to bring it forth, you as it were break silence; and bring into being a word, that did not exist before. It was not so God begot the Word. God’s speaking is without beginning, and without end: and yet the Word He utters is but One. Let Him utter another, if what He has spoken shall have passed away. But since He by whom it is uttered abides, and That which is uttered abides; and is uttered but once, and has no end, that very once too is said without beginning, and there is no second speaking, because that which is said once, does not pass away. The words Mine heart has uttered a good Word, then, are the same thing with, I speak of the things which I have made unto the King. Why then, I speak of the things which I have made? Because in the Word Itself are all the works of God. For whatever God designed to make in the creation already existed in the Word; and would not exist in the reality, had it not existed in the Word, just as with you the thing would not exist in the building, had it not existed in your design: even as it is said in the Gospel: That which was made in Him was life. John 1:3-4 That which was made then was in existence; but it had its existence in the Word: and all the works of God existed there, and yet were not as yet works. The Word however already was, as this Word was God, and was with God: and was the Son of God, and One God with the Father. I speak of the things I have made unto the King. Let him hear Him speaking, who apprehends the Word: and let him see together with the Father the Everlasting Word; in whom exist even those things that are yet to come: in whom even those things that are past have not passed away. These works of God are in the Word, as in the Word, as in the Only-Begotten, as in the Word of God…

7. Lo! now then that Word, so uttered, Eternal, the Co-eternal Offspring of the Eternal, will come as the Bridegroom; Fairer than the children of men Psalm 44:2. Than the children of men. I ask, why not than the Angels also? Why did he say, than the children of men, except because He was Man? Lest you should think the Man Christ 1 Timothy 2:5 to be any ordinary man, he says, Fairer than the children of men. Even though Himself Man, He is fairer than the children of men; though among the children of men, fairer than the children of men: though of the children of men, fairer than the children of men. Grace is shed abroad on Your lips. The Law was given by Moses. Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17… (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 45)

NT EXEGESIS AND APPLICATION

In light of the foregoing, it shouldn’t be surprising that the NT applies Psalm 2 to Jesus Christ:  

“So when they were released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, ‘O Master, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, “Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples devise vain things?  The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.” For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your slaves may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders happen through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.’ And when they had prayed earnestly, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with confidence.” Acts 4:23-31

“And we proclaim to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’” Acts 13:32-33

“In this way also Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’; just as He says also in another passage, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’” Hebrews 5:5-6

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And she was with child, and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth… And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne… Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.’” Revelation 12:1-2, 5, 10

Nor should it surprise us that Psalms 2:7, 45:6-7 and 110:1 are all cited together in relation to Christ’s post-resurrection ascension and heavenly enthronement:

“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me’? And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’… But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God (ho Theos), is forever and ever, And the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.’… But to which of the angels has He ever said, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies As a footstool for Your feet’?” Hebrews 1:5-6, 8-9, 13

The NT authors could see that only Jesus can make sense out of all these Psalms where a human King is given the very names, titles, position, characteristics and worship which the Hebrew Bible attributes to YHVH alone. I.e., Jesus is the God-Man, being the eternally begotten Son of God who is essentially coequal with the Father that humbled himself to become a flesh and blood human being in order to fulfill the promises given to king David and the nation of Israel.  

In the next segment I will seek to address how the early church understood Psalm 2:7 in relation to the eternal generation of the Son.

I share this nugget from the church father St. Ambrose who expose the futility of thinking that the Father precedes the Son in time:

59. “I do not say,” answerest thou, “that the Son existed not before time; but when I call Him “Son,” I declare that His Father existed before Him, for, as you say, father exists before son.”¹⁷⁸⁵ But what means this? Thou deniest that time was before the Son, and yet thou wilt have it that something preceded the existence of the Son—some creature of time,—and thou showest certain stages of generation intervening, whereby thou dost give us to understand that the generation from the Father was a process in time. For if He began to be a Father, then, in the first instance, He was God, and afterwards He became a Father. How, then, is God unchangeable?¹⁷⁸⁶ For if He was first God, and then the Father, surely He has undergone change by reason of the added and later act of generation.

 

60. But may God preserve us from this madness; for it was but to confute the impiety of the heretics that we brought in this question. The devout spirit affirms a generation that is not in time, and so declares Father and Son to be co-eternal, and does not maintain that God has ever suffered change.

1785 The Arians fell into the popular error of supposing that a father, as a father, existed before his son. They also required men to apply to Divine Persons, what only holds good of human beings—to impose on the Being of God those limits to which human existences (as objective facts) are subjected. The existence of the Divine Father and the Divine Son is without, beyond, above time—with the Godhead there is neither past nor future, but an everlasting present. But with man, time-categories are necessary forms of thought—everything is seen as past, present, or to come—and to the human consciousness all objects are presented in time, though the spiritual principle in man which perceives objects as related in succession, is itself supra-temporal, beholding succession, but not itself in succession.

Now it can hardly be denied with any show of reason that a man is not a father until his son begins to exist, is born, though the father, as a person distinct from his son, is in existence before the latter. Again, father and son must be of the same nature—they must both possess the elementary, essential attributes of humanity. Otherwise there is no fatherhood, no sonship, properly speaking.

God has revealed Himself as a Father—even in the pagan mythologies we see the idea of Fatherhood implicit in Godhead. If the gods of the heathen did not beget after their kind, they begat heroes and demigods. But created existences cannot claim to be the first and proper object of the Divine Father’s love. They are for a time only, and with them Eternal Love could not be satisfied. If God be a true Father, then, He must beget His Like—His Son must be equal to Him in nature, that is, what is true of the Father, what is essential in the Father, as God, must be true or essential in the Son also. Therefore the son must be divine, eternal. But the generation (γέννησις) of the Son is not an event in time. It is a fact, a truth, out of, beyond time, belonging to the divine and eternal and spiritual, not to the temporal and created, order. “To whom amongst the angels does He ever say, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee? and again, I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a Son to Me? when, again, He brings His first-begotten into the world” (i.e., reveals Him to the created universe as its King), He says: “And let all God’s angels worship Him” (Heb. i. 5–6). Since the Divine Son, then, is eternal, even as the Divine Father, the one cannot be before or after the other; the two Persons are co-existent, co-eternal, co-equal. And the mysterious genesis, also, is not an event that happened once, taking place in a series of events, it is ever happening, it is always and for ever. 

1786 i.e., how do you deal with such Scriptures as “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.”—“I am the Lord: I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”—“The Father of lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second series translated into English with Prolegomena and Explanatory Notes, Edited by

Philip Schaff & Henry Wace [T&T Clark, Edinburgh/WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI] Volume X. Exposition of the Christian Faith. , Book I, Chapter IX; bold emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

THE EARLY CHURCH ON THE ETERNAL BEGETTING OF THE SON

AUGUSTINE ON CHRIST’S ETERNAL GENERATION

DID TERTULLIAN DENY THE ETERNAL NATURE OF CHRIST?

JOHN OF DAMASCUS ON THE HOLY TRINITY AND HYPOSTATIC UNION

In this post I will be comparing the rendering of the New American Standard Bible 1995 edition (NASB1995) with the New King James Version (NKJV) in regards to some of the common texts employed to affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do so since, in my estimation, these two versions represent the best translations of the two different textual streams of the Greek [N]ew [T]estament. The NASB1995 is based primarily on what is typically referred to as the eclectic Greek Text, which prioritizes the Alexandrian textual stream and the earliest Greek papyri of the NT books. The NKJV, on the other hand, is based on the Byzantine or Majority text, which is based on the majority of the extant Greek copies of the NT.  

NASB1995

NKJV

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.” Isaiah 9:6-7 – Cf. Luke 1:26-35 “‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, “The LORD our righteousness.’” Jeremiah 23:5-6 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will arise and shepherd His flock In the strength of the Lord, In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God. And they will remain, Because at that time He will be great To the ends of the earth.” Micah 5:2-4 – Cf. Matthew 2:1-6; Luke 2:1-7 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” Zechariah 12:10 “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God (ho Theos) with us.’” Matthew 1:22-23 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God (ho monogenes Theos) who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Read full chapter John 1:18 “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” John 3:13 “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” John 5:18 “The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.’” John 10:33 “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God (ho Kyrios mou ho Theos mou)!’” John 20:28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28 “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:5 “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He (hos) who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16 “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” Titus 2:13 “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God (ho Theos), is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.’ And, ‘You, Lord [the Son], in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.’” Hebrews 1:8-12 “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4 “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’ I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, ‘Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.’… When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.’” Revelation 1:7-11, 17-18 “‘Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done… I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end… I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.’… He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:12-13, 16, 20

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” “‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’” “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting. Therefore He shall give them up, Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth; Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel. And He shall stand and feed His flock In the strength of the Lord, In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God; And they shall abide, For now He shall be great To the ends of the earth;” “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” “So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son (ho monogenes Hyios), who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” “The Jews answered Him, saying, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.’”   “And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” “of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (Theos) was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” “But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.’ And: ‘You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.’” “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,’ says the Lord, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’ I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,’ and, ‘What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’… And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.’” “‘And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last… I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.’… He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”

FURTHER READING

BIBLE COMPARISON LISTS PT. 4

In this post I will be excerpting the section of the late biblical scholar and linguist Dr. Gleason L. Archer’s book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, where he provides a somewhat lengthy refutation of the claim that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, which would place this miraculous event around 1290 BC.

How can 1 Kings 6:1 be accepted as accurate if Rameses the Great was Pharaoh of the Exodus?

1 Kings 6:1 states, “Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel,….he began to build the house of the LORD” (NASB). Since Solomon’s reign began in 970 B.C., his fourth year would have been 966. Four hundred and eighty years before 966 comes out to 1446 or 1445. (There may have been a rounding off of numbers here, but essentially the time locus of the Exodus would have been between 1447 and 1442, if 1 Kings 6:1 is correct.) This would have been early in the reign of Amenhotep II, who according to the usual estimates reigned between 1447 and 1421. (Some more recent discussions of Egyptian chronology tend to lower these dates by a few years, but they have not yet been generally accepted as valid.)

The most-favored date for the Exodus in scholarly circles is about 1290, or quite early in the reign of Rameses II (1300-1234). In most of the popularizations of the Exodus drama, such as Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments,” the late date theory is assumed to be correct. The principal arguments in its favor are as follows:

1. The Israelites are stated in Exodus 1:11 to have labored as slaves in the building of the city of “Raamses“–which presupposes that there was already a King Rameses for this city to have been named after.

2. Since the Hyksos Dynasty was in charge of Egypt at the time Jacob migrated into Egypt–at least according to the Jewish historian Josephus–and since the Hyksos may not have seized power much before 1750 B.C., the 1445 date is precluded. Exodus 12:40 testifies that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt for 430 years, a subtraction of 430 from 1750 would come out to 1320–which is much closer to the time of Rameses II in the Nineteenth Dynasty than to the period of Amenhotep II of the Eighteenth Dynasty.

3. The early chapters of Exodus presuppose the proximity of the royal residence to the land of Goshen up in the Delta, whereas the capital of Egypt in the Eighteenth Dynasty was five hundred miles further south, in the city of Thebes. But Rameses built up Tanis in the Delta as his northern capital and as the base of his military expeditions against Palestine and Syria.

4. The archaeological evidence of the destruction levels in key Palestinian cities like Lachish, Debir, and Hazor points rather to the thirteenth century than to the early fourteenth century, as the early date theory would require. Furthermore, the extensive explorations of surface sites in the various tells throughout Transjordan carried on by Nelson Glueck indicate that there was no strongly entrenched, sedentary population to be found in Moab, Heshbon, or Bashan, such as is indicated in the Mosaic campaigns of conquest against Sihon and Og according to the record of Numbers 21 and Deuteronomy 1.

5. The failure of the Book of Judges to mention any Egyptian invasions of Palestine during the late fourteenth and thirteenth centuries is a strong indication that those invasions were already past history by the time of Joshua and the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

These five arguments present an impressive case for the inaccuracy of 1 Kings 6:1. If the Exodus actually took place around 1290 B.C., then the figure should have been 324 years rather than 480. Some Evangelical scholars who adhere to the late date theory point out that 480 may be an “artificial” number, intending to convey no more than that there were about twelve generations intervening between the Exodus and the temple (thought of as 40 years each, because of the prominence of the number 40 in the lives of leaders like Moses and Joshua). But the true average length of generations is 30 years rather than 40, and so we may perhaps correct the total number to 360 rather than 480 (so R. K. Harrison, Old Testament Introduction, pp. 178-79).

However, careful examination of the case for the late date theory shows that it is incapable of successful defense in the light of all the evidence. Not only does 1 Kings 6:1 unequivocally affirm the 1445 date for the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (the whole theory of symbolical or artificial numbers in matters of dating in the Old Testament has no objective support whatever), but so does Judges 11:26. This contains a question put by Jephthah to the Ammonite invaders who laid claim to the Israelite territory east of the Jordan: “For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements, and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them in that time?” Since the probable date of Jephthah was about half a century before King Saul, Jephthah’s parley with the Ammonites must be dated around 1100 B.C. His remarks therefore imply a conquest dating back to about 1400, which fits in perfectly with a 1445 Exodus. Since this is a casual reference to chronology and adduces a time interval apparently well known to Israel’s enemies and acknowledged by them, it carries special credibility as evidence for the early date.

Nor is this the only corroboration of 1 Kings 6:1. In his speech at Antioch Pisidia, the apostle Paul affirms in Acts 13:19-20: “And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance–all of which took about four hundred and fifty years. And after these things [i.e., after the division of the land to the Twelve Tribes] He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet” (NASB). Quite clearly the interval included the first departure from Egypt to take possession of the Holy Land, all the way to the end of Samuel’s career, as the prophet who anointed David as king. In other words, about 450 years elapsed between the Exodus and the establishment of David in the Holy City of Jerusalem: 1445 to 995 B.C.

Thus it turns out that if the 1290 date is correct, then we must condemn as inaccurate at least two other passages in Scripture besides 1 Kings 6:1 itself; and the Bible then loses all claim to complete trustworthiness in matters of historical fact–even the major events of the history of Redemption. It is therefore of particular importance to examine the case for the accuracy of the 1445 date indicated by these two passages from the Old Testament and the one from Acts 13.

First, as to the reference to the slave labor of the Israelites in the city of Rameses in Exodus 1:11, it should be noted that even by the late date theory this would have to be regarded as an anachronism (i.e., a later name applied to the city than the name it bore at the time of their taskwork in it). The reference to this work project occurs before any mention of the birth of Moses, and Moses was eighty years of age by the time of the Exodus event. It would have been impossible for Moses to have been born after the commencement of Rameses’s reign in 1300 B.C. and then be eighty years old ten years later! Consequently the city in question could not have borne the name “Raamses” back in the period referred to by Exodus 1:11. Therefore its evidential value for the late date theory is fatally undermined. It should also be observed, however, that even though a later name was inserted in place of the original name of the city that was current in Moses’ time, this furnishes no more difficulty than to refer to Kiriath Arba as Hebron, even though narrating an event that took place there prior to its change of name. Nor would a history of England be justly accused of inaccuracy if it spoke of Constantius I of Rome making a triumphant march into “York” back in a day when it was called “Eboracum.”

Second, as to the argument that there could not have been a 430-year interval between a Jacob migration in the Hyksos period and a 1445 Exodus, we freely admit the force of this objection. If the Hyksos rule began around 1750 B.C., a 1445 Exodus would be out of the question. But we hasten to add that the textual evidence of both Genesis and Exodus make it quite certain that it was a native Egyptian dynasty that was in power back in Joseph’s day; it could not have been Hyksos–Josephus to the contrary notwithstanding. Consider the following facts:

1. The reigning dynasty looks down with contempt on Semitic foreigners from Palestine and forbids such to eat at the same table with Egyptians (Gen. 43:32: “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians”). But the Hyksos themselves had originally come down from Palestine into Egypt, speaking a Semitic language like theirs. (Thus their first king was named Salitis, representing the Semitic term sallit; they named their cities in Egypt Succoth, Baalzephon, and Migdol, all good Canaanite names.) It is therefore inconceivable that they would have regarded other visitors from Palestine as an inferior breed of humanity. But the ethnic Egyptians certainly did so, as their literature abundantly testifies.

2. Joseph is obviously uneasy about his family admitting to the Egyptian authorities that they were shepherds as well as cattle raisers. (Gen. 46:34 states quite plainly: “For every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”) But this could scarcely have been true of the Hyksos, who were so closely associated with sheep-herding in the recollection of the later Egyptians that they (like Manetho) construed the name “Hyksos” to mean “Shepherd Kings.” During their era certainly there could have been no reproach attachable to the raising of sheep.

3. The Pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” came to power a considerable interval after Joseph’s death and after his family had already settled in Goshen. Therefore we are warranted in assuming that this new Pharaoh was a Hyksos rather than a native Egyptian. This emerges from his concern expressed in Exodus 1:8-10 as to the alarming population growth of the Hebrews, whom he states to be “more and mightier than we” (NASB). The population of Egypt was unquestionably much larger than the two million or so Israelites (who only became that numerous by the time of the Exodus, many years later). But for the leader of the warrior caste of the Hyksos, who dominated the native population only through their superior military organization (something like the Spartans as they kept the more numerous Helots and Messenians subject to their rule), this would not have been an exaggerated apprehension. Because of the steadfast loyalty of Joseph and his family to the Egyptian government, a Hyksos monarch might well have feared that they might make common cause with a native Egyptian uprising (“Let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and in the event of war, they also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us” [v.10]). It was at a later time, then, after the Hyksos themselves had finally been expelled from Egypt by Ahmose–who however left the Hebrews undisturbed in Goshen because of their consistent loyalty to the native Egyptians–that Amenhotep I of the Eighteenth Dynasty adopted the oppressive policy of the Hyksos rulers. Amenhotep I also was uneasy at the phenomenal growth of the Hebrew population in Goshen and tried to discourage this growth by hard labor and, finally, by the time of Moses’ birth, by infanticide. If it is at v.13 that this Eighteenth-Dynasty oppression begins, then we must understand the Hyksos as having compelled the Israelites to work on the storage cities of Pithom and Raamses. In this connection it might be pointed out that the name “Raamses” itself may have been of Hyksos origin. The father of Rameses II was “Seti,” which means “Follower of Seth” or “Sutekh,” the Egyptian equivalent of “Baal,” who was the patron god of the Hyksos dynasties. A great many of the Hyksos royal names ended likewise in “Ra,” the name of the sun god of Egypt (names such as Aa-woser-Ra, Neb-khepesh-ra, Aa-qenen-ra, etc.), and Ra-mose (a name already current in the Eighteenth Dynasty, by the way) means “Born of Ra.” (Ra-mes-su, the Egyptian spelling of Rameses, actually means “Ra has begotten him.”) But it is most significant that Rameses II went to great effort and expense to restore and build up the old Hyksos capital of Avaris, even though he named it after himself. At all events, nothing could be more unlikely than that Joseph and his family moved into Egypt during the Hyksos period. Hence this objection to the 1445 Exodus is without weight.

Third, the argument that an Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaoh would have kept his royal residence far down (or up) the Nile, five hundred miles away from Goshen, also proves to be untenable in the light of the inscriptional evidence. We offer the following data:

1. Thutmose III, the probable “Pharaoh of the Oppression,” erected two red granite obelisks in front of the temple of Ra (or Re, as it is more usually vocalized today) in Heliopolis, describing himself as “lord of Heliopolis.” This city was at the base of the Delta, and therefore hardly remote from Goshen. It is fair to assume that up in the Delta he had frequent need of slave labor for his building projects, especially in view of the barracks and military installations that had to be erected in the Delta as a base of operations against Palestine and Syria (which he invaded no less than fourteen times).

2. An Eighteenth-Dynasty scarab has been found that refers to the birth of Amenhotep II as having occurred in Memphis, likewise at the base of the Delta. From this we must assume that at least part of the time Thutmose III must have maintained a palace in Memphis.

3. In an inscription set up by Amenhotep himself (translated in Pritchard, ANET, p. 244), he recalls how he used to ride out from the royal stable in Memphis to practice archery near the pyramids of Gizeh. W. C. Hayes (The Scepter of Egypt, 2 vols. [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959], 2:141) concludes that Amenhotep must have maintained large estates at Perwennefer, a large naval dockyard near Memphis, and that he resided there for extended periods of time. So much for the theory that Eighteenth-Dynasty kings resided only at Thebes.

Fourth, the archaeological evidence of thirteenth-century destruction levels at cities like Lachish, Debir, and Hazor, mentioned in the narrative of Joshua’s conquests, fails to furnish any decisive evidence that Joshua’s invasion in fact took place in the thirteenth century. In the turbulent, unsettled conditions that characterized the period of the Judges, such as the total destruction meted out to Shechem by Abimelech the son of Gideon, episodes of this sort must have been frequent, even though our scanty records do not permit any specific identification of the victorious aggressor in most instances. As for the date of the destruction of City IV in Old Testament Jericho, even though the collapsed walls may have been erected considerably earlier than 1400 B.C. (as Katherine Kenyon deduced from the sherds discovered in the earth-fill), these walls may still have been the same at those that fell before Joshua at the time of the Israelite conquest. After all, the walls that now surround Carcassonne in France and Avila in Spain were erected many centuries before our present era–yet they still stand today. But their earth-fill must contain artifacts and sherds coming from several centuries ago, rather than from the late 1900s.

But more significant for dating the Fall of Jericho to the end of the fifteenth century is the fact that the associated cemetery (contemporaneous with City IV) yielded numerous Egyptian scarabs bearing the name of Eighteenth-Dynasty Egyptian kings, but none of them later than Amenhotep III, in whose reign (1412-1376) the capture of Jericho would have occurred, according to the early date theory. Over 150,000 sherds were discovered in City IV, according to John Garstang’s published reports, but only one piece was found of the Mycenean type. Since Mycenean ware was introduced into Canaan soon after 1400, we are forced to conclude that City IV was destroyed before the early fourteenth century. Concerning this, John Garstang wrote:

“We are aware that varying opinions have appeared in print which conflict with our interpretation of the date of the fall of Jericho about 1400 B.C. Few such opinions are based on first-hand knowledge of the scientific results of our excavations; while many of them are devoid of logical reasoning, or are based upon preconceptions as to the date of the Exodus. No commentator has yet produced from the results of our excavations, which have been fully published in the Liverpool Annals of Archaeology, any evidence that City IV remained in being after the reign of Amenhotep III…. We see no need therefore to discuss the date as though it were a matter for debate” (The Story of Jericho [London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1948], p. xiv).

Perhaps it should be added that the reference to iron implements as part of the booty taken from Jericho, according to Joshua 6:24, is no decisive evidence that the city fell during the Iron Age (twelfth century and thereafter). In fact the contrary is the case, for during the Iron Age iron objects would hardly have been mentioned with gold and silver as valuable booty, for by the Iron Age this metal had come into common use. Yet iron itself was known and used long before 1200 B.C. in the Near East, for iron objects have been found at Tell Asmar dating from about 2500 B.C. (Oriental Institute Communications, ASOR, 17:59-61). The Hebrew word for “iron” is barzel, corresponding to the Babylonian parzillu, and it was probably derived from the ancient Sumerian language, which spells the word for “iron” as naAN.BAR (Deimel, Sumerisches Lexikon, Heft 2).

As for the often-cited negative findings of Nelson Glueck concerning the nonexistence of sedentary occupation in the Transjordan during the fifteenth century B.C., the most recent (though unofficial) reports indicate that sherds that Glueck could not identify he did not mention in his survey–and some of them may well have been from that period (cf. H.J. Franken and W.J.A. Power, “Glueck’s Exploration in Eastern Palestine in the Light of Recent Evidence,” VT 9 [1971]: 119-23). In the last thirty years an increasing number of excavated sites have testified to urban centers that flourished during the supposedly unoccupied era. Thus G. Lankaster Harding reported in the Biblical Archaeologist for February 1953 the discovery of an ancient tomb in Amman containing numerous artifacts (black-pricked ware, button base vases, oil flasks, scarabs, and toggle pins) dating from about 1600. In his Antiquities of Jordan (1959, p. 32), Harding described characteristically Middle Bronze pottery and other artifacts found at Naur and Mount Nebo. In 1967 a sixteenth-century tomb was discovered in Pella (ASOR Newsletter, December 1967). Under a runway at the Amman airport a Late Bronze temple was uncovered in 1955. The excavations at Deir Alla by Franken and those of Siegfried Horn at Heshbon have shown that the pottery of Transjordan was quite dissimilar to contemporary pottery produced on the West Bank; since Glueck was unaware of this fact, an important margin of error entered into his calculations (cf. E. Yamauchi’s article in Christianity Today, 22 December 1971, p. 26).

The site of Ai is usually identified with Et-Tell, which according to the archaeological evidence was unoccupied between 2200 B.C. and 1200 B.C. or a little afterward. There are many reasons for rejecting the identification of Ai with Et-Tell, but since its period of nonoccupation agrees neither with the early date nor the late date theory, it hardly seems worth discussion. W.F. Albright’s suggestion was that the account in Joshua 7 was garbled and that it was Bethel itself that the Israelites captured and destroyed rather than Ai. But Albright failed to explain how the observers from Bethel were able to descry the pretended flight of the Israelites from the charge of the Aites (Josh. 8:17), or how the inhabitants of both cities could have taken part in the pursuit. The true location of Ai has yet to be discovered, but until further excavation reveals a Late Bronze level of occupation (which is entirely possible) Et-Tell has no bearing whatever on the dating of the Conquest.

On the other hand, the archaeological data from the Wadi Tumilat (ancient Goshen) is quite decisive against a Nineteenth-Dynasty date for the events of the Exodus. In the Nineteenth Dynasty, Rameses II carried on extensive building in that area occupied formerly by the Hebrews. This cannot be reconciled with the situation of exclusive Israelite occupation during the Ten Plagues. The details of the plague of flies, the plague of hail, and the plague of darkness make it clear (in Exod. 8:22; 9:25-26; 10:23) that the Hebrews were exempted from these afflictions in the region that they inhabited. This strongly suggests that no Egyptians were living at all in Goshen during this period, in view of the fact that all the Egyptians had to bear the brunt of these three plagues. But back in the days of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II of the Eighteenth Dynasty, there was no Egyptian building activity in the Wadi Tumilat at all–so far as the present state of our knowledge goes.

As far as the fifth argument for a 1290 date is concerned, that the Book of Judges contains no references to the Egyptian invasions of Seti I and Rameses the great in the land of Canaan, this turns out to be of little weight. The Book of Judges is equally silent concerning Egyptian invasions of Palestine that took place after the death of Rameses II and prior to the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy. His son Merneptah records in the so-called Israel Stela (on display at the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo) an allegedly devastating invasion in 1229 throughout the land of the Hittites, Yanoam near Laish-Dan, Gezer near the Valley of Aijalon, Ashkelon in Philistia, and also against the Horites and the Israelites themselves. This would have to have occurred in the time of the Judges, even according to the late date theory.

Nor is there any mention of the campaigns of Rameses III (1204-1172) of the Twentieth Dynasty. Inscriptions of his (published in Prichard, ANET, p. 262) record that he subdued the Tjeker (Palestinians) and burnt the cities of the Philistines to ashes. Some of the bas-reliefs on his monuments depict his triumphant progress up to Djahi (Phoenicia) to the north. In Beth-shan at the eastern end of the Plain of the Esdraelon, stelae have been discovered attesting his authority in that region. These examples show that the Hebrew account did not see fit to refer to the Egyptian invasions at any period during the time of the Judges. The reason for this silence is not quite clear, but at any rate its supposed evidence for a 1290 date for the Exodus turns out to be valueless.

John Garstang and J.B. Payne both offered the suggestion that the periods of “rest” referred to in Judges may have coincided with periods of time when the Egyptians were in firm control of the main strongholds and important highways of Palestine, thus insuring no major movements of aggression on the part of Mesopotamian invaders or Moabites or Ammonites or Philistines. Thus the eighty years of peace following the death of King Eglon of Moab would have coincided with the pacification of Canaan by Seti I and Rameses II. The quiet period after the overthrow of Jabin and Sisera by Deborah and Barak may have been the result of the firm control by Rameses III. Perhaps the references to the “hornet” sent by the Lord to drive out the Canaanites before the Israelite attack is a covert reference to the Egyptian invasions (cf Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12). The hieroglyphic symbol for the king of Lower Egypt was a wasp-shaped bee. Whether or not this was the case, the fact remains that there is no specific reference to any Egyptian invasion of the Holy Land until the time of Solomon, so far as the Hebrew records go.

After this rather extensive survey of the biblical, historical, and archaeological evidence, we are forced to conclude that only the 1445 date can be sustained. It is quite obvious that the Pharaoh from whom Moses had to flee after his slaying of the Egyptian taskmaster remained on the throne until near the close of Moses’ forty-year sojourn in Midian; for Exodus 4:19 reports Yahweh as saying to Moses, “Go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which sought your life.” The whole tenor of the narrative in Exodus 2 leads us to believe that it was the Pharaoh of Ex 1:22 who “after many days” passed away, as mentioned in Ex 2:23. No other Pharaoh meets all these qualifications besides Thutmose III. He alone was on the throne long enough (1501-1447) to have been reigning at the time of Moses’ flight from Egypt until near the time of his return.

Thutmose’s son Amenhotep II, who doubtless hoped to equal his father’s prowess, proved unable to launch any invasion of Palestine apart from his modest campaigns in his fifth year and his seventh year–or was it the ninth year? The Memphis stela dates his first campaign in the seventh year and the second in his ninth year, but the Amada stela puts his first campaign in the third year (cf. J.A. Wilson’s footnote in Pritchard, ANET, p. 245). This suggests that some major disaster, such as the loss of his main chariot force in the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 14), was a factor in his diminished scale of foreign aggression.

As for Amenhotep II’s son and successor, Thutmose IV, the evidence of his “Dream Stela” strongly suggests that he was not the firstborn son but a younger son who would not ordinarily have been eligible to succeed him. In this text (which had apparently been somewhat damaged and then later restored) the god of the Sphinx, Harem-akht, appeared to the young prince and promised him the throne of Egypt if he would have his sand-engulfed shrine dug out and restored for worship. Obviously if Thutmose had already been his father’s oldest son, he would have needed no such promise from the god but would have automatically succeeded his father upon the latter’s decease. It is reasonable to infer from this that the oldest son of Amenhotep II was carried off by some accident or illness prematurely–such as the tenth plague.

Many other evidences could be advanced in support of the 1445 B.C. date for the Exodus and in refutation of the 1290 theory, but what has already been adduced is more than sufficient to prove the point. (See further my Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 215-19; Bimson, Redating the Exodus, pp. 35-146; Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], pp. 88-109.) (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Zondervan Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 1982], pp. 191-198)

FURTHER READING

DID THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS DROWN?