Red Sea, not ‘sea of reeds’

This latter view is based on the argument that the Hebrew yam suph (translated “Red Sea”) literally means “sea of rushes or reeds, bulrushes,” and that therefore the Israelites crossed, not the arm of the Red Sea known as the Gulf of Suez, but a sea of reeds, a swampy place such as the Bitter Lakes region. In so holding, however, they do not agree with the translators of the ancient Septuagint Version, who translated yam suph with the Greek name e·ry·thraʹ thaʹlas·sa, meaning, literally, “Red Sea.” But, far more important, both Luke, the writer of Acts, (quoting Stephen) and the apostle Paul used this same Greek name when relating the events of the Exodus.—Acts 7:36; Heb. 11:29; see RED SEA.

Furthermore, there would have been no great miracle if a mere marsh had been crossed, and the Egyptians could not have been “swallowed up” in the Red Sea as “the surging waters proceeded to cover them; down they went into the depths like a stone.” (Heb. 11:29; Ex. 15:5) Besides this stupendous miracle being referred to later on by Moses and Joshua, the apostle Paul says that the Israelites got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and the sea, indicating that they were completely surrounded by water, the sea being on both sides and the cloud above and behind them. (1 Cor. 10:1, 2) This, too, would indicate that the body of water was much deeper than anything that could be waded in.

The route of the Exodus depends largely on two factors: where the Egyptian capital was at the time, and the identification of the body of water where the crossing occurred. Since the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures use the expression “Red Sea,” there is every reason to believe that it was that body of water that Israel crossed. As for the Egyptian capital, the most likely site is Memphis, the principal seat of government during most of Egypt’s history. (See MEMPHIS.) If this was the case, then the starting point of the Exodus march must have been sufficiently near Memphis for Moses to have been called before Pharaoh after midnight on Passover night and then to have reached Rameses in time to begin the march toward Succoth before the fourteenth day of Nisan ended. (Ex. 12:29-31, 37, 41, 42) The oldest Jewish tradition, recorded by Josephus, is to the effect that the march began a short distance N of Memphis.—Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, chap. XV, par. 1.

A route through the Wadi Tumilat would be so far to the N of Memphis as to make the above circumstances impracticable. For this reason, many earlier commentators have suggested one of the well-known “pilgrim” routes through Egypt, such as the el Haj route leading from Cairo across to Clysma at the head of the Gulf of Suez.

Likely place of Red Sea crossing

It should be noted that, after reaching the second stage of their journey, Etham “at the edge of the wilderness,” God ordered Moses to “turn back and encamp before Pihahiroth . . . by the sea.” This maneuver would cause Pharaoh to believe the Israelites were “wandering in confusion.” (Ex. 13:20; 14:1-3) Scholars favoring the el Haj route as the likely one point out that the Hebrew verb for “turn back” is emphatic and does not mean merely to “divert” or “turn aside,” but has more the sense of returning or at least of a marked detour. They suggest that, upon reaching a point N of the head of the Gulf of Suez, the Israelites reversed their line of march and went around to the S side of Jebel Atakah, a mountain range bordering the W side of the Gulf. Thus The Encyclopedia Americana (1956 ed., Vol. 23, p. 284) says that some scholars maintain that the crossing began “in the neighborhood of the town of Suez, others that it was about 18 miles farther south, at the mouth of the Wady Tuarik.” This latter place, the Wadi (or Wady) Tuarik, runs between the Jebel Atakah range on the N and the Jebel el Galala range on the S, and broadens out as it approaches the shores of the Red Sea. A large host, such as the Israelites composed, would find no effective way for swift exit from such a position if pursued from the W, and hence would be “bottled up” with the sea blocking their way.—See accompanying map.

Jewish tradition of the first century C.E. conveys such a picture. (See PIHAHIROTH.) But, more importantly, such a situation fits the general picture portrayed in the Bible itself, whereas the popular views of many scholars do not. (Ex. 14:9-16) It seems evident that the crossing must have been far enough from the head of the Gulf (or western arm of the Red Sea) that Pharaoh’s forces would not be able simply to circle the end of the Gulf and easily come upon the Israelites on the other side. (Ex. 14:22, 23) Pharaoh had changed his mind about the release of the Israelites as soon as he learned of their departure. Certainly the loss of such a slave nation meant a heavy economic blow to Egypt. It would not be difficult for his chariots to overtake this entire nation on the move, particularly in view of their ‘turning back.’ Now, encouraged by the thought that Israel was wandering in confusion in the wilderness, he went after them with confidence. With a crack force of 600 chosen chariots, all the other chariots of Egypt mounted with warriors, his cavalrymen and all his military forces, he came upon Israel at Pihahiroth.—Ex. 14:3-9.

Strategically the position of the Israelites looked very bad. They were evidently hemmed in between the sea and the mountains, with the Egyptians blocking the way back. In their apparently trapped position, fear struck the hearts of the Israelites and they began to complain against Moses. Now God stepped in to protect Israel by moving the cloud from the front to the rear. On one side, toward the Egyptians, it was darkness; on the other it kept lighting up the night for Israel. While the cloud held back the Egyptians from attack, Moses, at Jehovah’s command, lifted his rod, and the seawaters split apart, leaving the dry seabed as a path for Israel.—Ex. 14:10-21.

Width and depth of place of crossing

Since Israel crossed the sea in one night, it could hardly be assumed that the waters parted in a narrow channel. Rather, it must have been a mile (1.6 kilometers), or some miles, in width. Though in fairly close marching formation, such a group, along with what wagons they had, their baggage and their cattle, even when rather closely ranked, would occupy an area of perhaps three square miles (7.7 square kilometers) or more. It appears, therefore, that the sea-opening allowed the Israelites to cross on a fairly wide front. If there was a one-mile (1.6 kilometer) front, then the depth of the Israelite column would probably be three miles (4.8 kilometers) or more. If it was a mile-and-a-half (2.4-kilometer) front, the depth might be about two miles (3.2 kilometers) or more. It would take such a column several hours to get into the seabed and travel across it. While they did not go in panic, but maintained their battle formation, they would no doubt move with considerable haste.

Had it not been for the cloud, the Egyptians would have easily overtaken and slaughtered many. (Ex. 15:9) When the Israelites had gone into the sea and the cloud behind them had moved ahead to reveal this fact to the Egyptians, they pursued. Here, again, is emphasized the necessity of considerable breadth and length of dry seabed, for Pharaoh’s military force was great. Bent on destruction and recapture of their former slaves, the entire force went well into the seabed. Then, during the morning watch, which ran from about 2 to 6 a.m., Jehovah looked out from the cloud and began to throw the camp of the Egyptians into confusion, taking the wheels off their chariots.

The Israelites, by the approaching of morning, got safely across on the eastern shore of the Red Sea. Then Moses was commanded to stretch his hand out so that the waters would come back over the Egyptians. At this “the sea began to come back to its normal condition” and the Egyptians fled from encountering it. This also would indicate that the waters had opened up widely, for a narrow channel would have immediately overwhelmed them. The Egyptians fled from the enclosing walls of water toward the western bank, but the waters kept converging until their depth completely covered all the war chariots and the cavalrymen belonging to Pharaoh’s military forces; not so much as one of them was let remain.

It is obvious that such an overwhelming inundation would be impossible in a marsh. Moreover, in a shallow marsh dead bodies would not wash up on the shore, as actually took place, so that “Israel got to see the Egyptians dead on the seashore.”—Ex. 14:22-31.

Waters “congealed”

According to the Bible description, the surging waters were congealed to let Israel pass through. (Ex. 15:8) This word “congealed” is used in the American Standard Version, the Authorized Version and translations by J. N. Darby, I. Leeser, R. Knox and J. Rotherham. As defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary the word means “to change from a fluid to a solid state by or as if by cold . . . freeze . . . ; to make (a liquid) viscid or of a consistency like jelly: curdle, coagulate.” The Hebrew word here translated “congealed” means to shrink or thicken, as curdled milk or frozen water. At Job 10:10 the expression is used in regard to curdling milk. Therefore, it does not of necessity mean that the walls of water were frozen solid, but that the consistency of the congealed substance may have been like gelatin or curds. Nothing visible was holding back the waters of the Red Sea on each side of the Israelites, hence they had the appearance of being congealed, stiffened, curdled or thickened so as to remain standing like walls on each side and not collapsing in an inundation upon the Israelites, to their destruction. This was how they looked to Moses as a strong E wind divided the waters and dried up the basin so that it was not miry, nor frozen, but was easily traversable by the multitude.

The pathway opened in the sea was wide enough so that the Israelites, numbering possibly three million, could all cross to the eastern banks by morning. Then the congealed waters began to be released and to move in from either side, surging and overwhelming the Egyptians as Israel stood on the eastern banks contemplating Jehovah’s unparalleled deliverance of an entire nation from a world power. They realized the literal fulfillment of Moses’ words: “The Egyptians whom you do see today you will not see again, no, never again.”—Ex. 14:13.

So by a spectacular display of power Jehovah exalted his name and delivered Israel. Safe on the E shore of the Red Sea, Moses led the sons of Israel in a song, while his sister Miriam, the prophetess, took a tambourine in her hand and led all the women with tambourines and in dances, responding in song to the men. (Ex. 15:1, 20, 21) A complete separation of Israel from their foes had been effected. When they went out from Egypt they were not allowed to suffer harm from man or beast, for not even a dog ‘sharpened its tongue’ to snarl or threaten them. (Ex. 11:7) While the Exodus narrative does not mention that Pharaoh personally went into the sea with his military forces and was destroyed, Psalm 136:15 does state that Jehovah “shook off Pharaoh and his military force into the Red Sea.”

TYPICAL OF LATER EVENTS

In bringing Israel up out of Egypt as promised to Abraham, God looked upon the nation of Israel as his son, just as he had told Pharaoh, ‘Israel is my firstborn.’ (Ex. 4:22) Later on, Jehovah said: “When Israel was a boy, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” (Hos. 11:1) This back-reference to the Exodus also was a prophecy with a fulfillment in the days of Herod when Joseph and Mary had taken Jesus to Egypt and returned after the death of Herod and settled in Nazareth. The historian Matthew applies the prophecy of Hosea here, saying of Joseph: “He stayed there until the decease of Herod, for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’”—Matt. 2:15.

The apostle Paul lists the Exodus among those things that he says went on befalling Israel as examples or types. (1 Cor. 10:1, 2, 11) It therefore appears to be symbolic of something greater. Revelation 11:8 speaks of Egypt as having a spiritual significance. Natural Israel is used in the Bible as symbolic of spiritual Israel, the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:15, 16) Also, Moses spoke of the prophet to come who would be like him. (Deut. 18:18, 19) The Jews looked for this one to be a great leader and deliverer. The apostle Peter identifies Jesus Christ as the Greater Moses. (Acts 3:19-23) The deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army, therefore, must have the significance of the deliverance of spiritual Israel from their enemies of symbolic Egypt by a great miracle at the hands of Jesus Christ, and just as the work God performed at the Red Sea resulted in the exaltation of His name, the fulfillment of those typical events in a much larger reality would bring greater and far more extensive fame to the name of Jehovah.—Ex. 15:1.

EXODUS, BOOK OF

[Gr., Eʹxo·dos, going forth, departure (of the Israelites out of Egypt); a name applied to the book in the Greek Septuagint].

The second scroll of the Pentateuch, also referred to as the Second Book of Moses. It came to be known in Hebrew as Sh^emohthʹ, “Names,” from its opening phrase, W^eelʹleh sh^emohthʹ, “Now these are the names.” “Exodus” is the Latinized form of the Greek.

This book is an obvious continuation of Genesis, beginning with the expression “Now” (literally, “And”) and then relisting the names of the sons of Jacob that are taken from the more complete record at Genesis 46:8-27. Exodus was written in 1512 B.C.E., a year after the Israelites departed from Egypt and camped in the wilderness of Sinai. The book covers a period of about 145 years, from Joseph’s death in 1657 B.C.E. to the construction of the tabernacle in 1512 B.C.E.

WRITERSHIP

Moses’ writership of Exodus has never been questioned by the Jews. Egyptian expressions used are indicative of a writer contemporary with the times, and not of a Jew born and brought up later in Palestine.

ACCURACY, TRUTHFULNESS

On the part of the writer of Exodus “an intimate acquaintance with Ancient Egypt may be discerned. The position of the Egyptians with respect to foreigners—their separation from them, yet their allowance of them in their country, their special hatred of shepherds, the suspicion of strangers from Palestine as spies—their internal government, its settled character, the power of the King, the influence of the Priests, the great works, the employment of foreigners in their construction, the use of bricks, . . . and of bricks with straw in them, . . . the taskmasters, the embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation of spices, . . . the violent mournings, . . . the fighting with horses and chariots, . . .—these are a few out of the many points which might be noted marking an intimate knowledge of Egyptian manners and customs on the part of the author of the Pentateuch.”—The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the