The significance of the Book of Exodus, in my opinion, is that of a historical document that gives an account of the relationship between God and man. This of course would be the magnum opus of literary work recorded throughout history; if the account is deemed true, then it is for man’s great advantage to take heed in understanding this masterpiece. For my opinion to have any value, however, we must be given to objective research and critical thinking.

Interpreting ancient literature has made a great impact on our thinking. Without exception, the Book of Exodus (found in the Old Testament of the Bible), in my opinion, is the greatest book of anthropomorphic literature (when applying hermeneutical principles) in the history of archeological discovery. Indeed, unlike other religious writings, the Exodus account is most impressive. As one of the accepted and undisputed books of canonicity (also known as Homologoumena), the book of Exodus has several fascinating features. Advocates (such as Benedict Spinoza and Julius Wellhausen) of the J.E.P.D. theory have proposed that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. Their claims, however, have very little analytical acumen. Not only have the accounts been given as his signature (Exodus 24:4), but also confirmed in the writings of his successor, Joshua (Joshua 1:7). This, of course, is not the only support; nevertheless, since most scholars have accepted the Book of Exodus as being the authentic work of Moses, I will proceed to examine its content and internal consistency.

Before I begin an exegetical analysis of the Book of Exodus, I will first lay out basic hermeneutical principles that will help in understanding the structure of the context. First and foremost, the reader should familiarize him/herself with the principles of canonicity. I will not discuss these in my essay for the purpose of focusing on the book itself instead of on why I believe the book to be divine in nature rather than simply human in origin. The hermeneutical principles are easily remembered in the acronym L-I-G-H-T-S; although, this form of methodology is not widely accepted by all scholars.

L= Literal Interpretation

I= Intent of the Author

G= Grammatical Principle

H= Historical Context

T= Theophanic Experience

S= Scriptural Harmony

The “L” in L-I-G-H-T-S will help you in remembering what is known as the literal principle of scriptural interpretation. This means you should interpret the literature in its most normal and natural sense. When a metaphor, hyperbole, or a figure of speech is used, it should be interpreted as such. For example, if the author is using apocalyptic language to describe a past or present event, then it is tantamount to the using of a metaphoric description to an actual historical event in any other piece of literature!

The “I” in L-I-G-H-T-S will help you remember what the intent of the author is. In orthodox Christianity, Scripture (the autographum) is considered of confluent authorship or divine rather than simply human in origin. An awareness of its sensus plenior or “fuller sense,” can be seen in retrospect and in light of New Testament fulfillment. It is important to remember not to violate or ignore the other basic hermeneutical principles when adopting this rule.

The “G” in L-I-G-H-T-S will remind you that there are grammatical rules to follow, including syntax and style. It is also helpful to have a basic grasp of Greek or Hebrew to understand the text in its original language.

The “H” in L-I-G-H-T-S will help you to remember the historical aspect of the context. It is very important to be familiar with customs, culture, and historical context of biblical times. This will help you in drawing out the full meaning of any given text.

The “T” in L-I-G-H-T-S will help you to remember that the theophanic experiences mentioned in scripture are not intended to depict a reflection of your personal experiences. This is especially important if you have the propensity to believe that God does not exist outside human consciousness.

The “S” in L-I-G-H-T-S will help you remember the principle of scriptural harmony. This simply means that individual passages of Scripture must always harmonize with Scripture as a whole. One text cannot be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with other passages. The text is not intended to contradict itself within the entirety of its context (Hanegraaff, 220-225).

Historical Accuracy

Now we can apply these basic principles to the context of the Book of Exodus. Critics of biblical literature postulate the notion that the scriptures are equivalent to Greek mythology. Some critics have even suggested that all scripture developed over time by taking from other religious beliefs and practices. This contention would prove internal inconsistency by reductio ad absurdum, however, no such inconsistency has been found internally nor externally. Not only is the Book of Exodus consistent within its context, but within the entire bible, and extra-biblical historical data. An example of its historical consistency is in the dating of the Exodus.

One of the several issues about Israel’s relationship with Egypt is when the Exodus into Palestine occurred. There is even an official “Generally Accepted Date” (GAD) for the entrance into Canaan of about 1230-1220 B.C. The Scriptures, on the other hand, teach in three different texts (1Kings 6:1; Judg. 11:26; Acts 13:19-20) that the Exodus occurred in the 1400s B.C., with the entrance into Canaan forty years later. While the debate will rage on, there is no longer reason to accept the 1200 date (Geisler, 51).

Although critics believe the Exodus dating conflicts with previously recorded history, making the Pharaoh of the Exodus Amenhotep II, it is an observation rejected by biblical scholars and archeologists. The reason critics have posed this objection, is that they had the assumption that there was no building done before the 1300s; however, archeological findings, in 1987, show that there was building at Pi-Ramesse and one of the Pithom in the 1400s as recorded in Exodus chapter one verse eleven (Geisler, 589). Once all of the empirical data had been confirmed authentic, it compelled scholars to Occam’s razor! There is no warrant to believe the Exodus account is inaccurate.

Alleged Contradictions

Although there is much to say about archeological findings and valuable historical data that confirm the Exodus account as a reliable historical document, my focus from this point forward is going to be in the internal consistency of the context. Here are only three (often posed) alleged contradictions within its context followed by a solution.

Exodus 6:16-20 –How could the people of Israel have been in Egypt for 430 years when there were only three generations between Levi and Moses?

PROBLEM: In Exodus 6:16-20 indicates that there were only three generations between Levi, the son of Jacob, and Moses. However, Galatians 3:17 indicates that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years. How could there be only three generations between Levi, who went down into Egypt at the beginning of the 430-year period, and Moses, who delivered Israel from Egypt at the end of the 430-year period?

SOLUTION: First, it was a common practice in the Ancient Near East to record genealogies according to tribe, or family clan. In this type of genealogical record, several generations would be omitted from the record due to the fact that some persons were perhaps of lesser significance in the family tree. The Hebrew language did not have a word corresponding to our terms “grandfather” or “great grandfather,” or “grandson” or “great grandson.” Consequently, when Abraham is referred to as “our father,” the only Hebrew term capable of indicating such ancestry was the normal Hebrew term for “father.” The same goes for the term “son.” For example, Exodus 6:16 states, “The sons of Levi…Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.” Traditionally these are held to be the original sons of Levi. However, when Exodus 6:18 states, “And the sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel,” Kohath is given as the head of that branch of the tribe of Levi known as the Kohathites. Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel were probably not the immediate sons of Kohath, but were descendants of Kohath. The Hebrew language used the term “son” to signify a descendant.

Second, according to Numbers 3:28, the census of the family of the Kohathites numbered 8,600 persons from one month old and above. If there were only three generations between Levi and Moses, this would mean that the “sons of Kohath,” Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, would have had over 2,000 children each. Obviously, either the Amram listed in verse 18 as a son of Kohath was not the immediate father of Moses, and not the same Amram listed in verse 20, or there were in fact additional descendants of Kohath which are simply not listed in these verses because that information is not essential to the context. Either way, it is clear that there were more than three generations between Levi and Moses (Geisler, 70).

Exodus 20:24-Was the altar made of earth or of wood?

PROBLEM: Here the altar is constructed of earth, but in Exodus 27:1 it was constructed of “acacia wood.”

SOLUTION: The altar itself was only a hollow case made of acacia wood and covered with bronze (Exodus 27:2). But when it was used it was filled with earth or stones so as to form a bed for the coals (Geisler, 79).

Exodus 31:18- Does God have fingers?

PROBLEM: This verse says that the Ten Commandments were “written with the finger of God.” But, elsewhere the Bible insists that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and that spirits do not have “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). How, then, can God have fingers?

SOLUTION: God does not literally have fingers. The phrase “finger of God” is a figure of speech indicating God’s direct involvement in producing the Ten Commandments. It is called an anthropomorphism (speaking of God in human terms).

The Bible uses many figures of speech when referring to God, including “arm” (Deut. 7:19), “wings” (Ps. 91:4), and “eyes” (Heb. 4:13). None of these should be taken literally, though all of them depict something that is literally true of God. For example, although God does not have literal arms, nonetheless, it is literally true that God can and does extend His strength to do great things that, were humans to do, it would require strong arms (Geisler, 85).

It is difficult to cover every aspect of an entire book into a few pages of an essay; however, in most cases it is not evidence that deters the skeptic from the truth of Biblical accounts such as the Exodus of the Old Testament, it is either a lack of interest, a lack of understanding, or a bias deep down in the confines of a mental nook. From the alleged connection of the Great Hymn to the Aten and Psalm 104, to Diocletian’s historic edict to destroy the Scriptures, and Voltaire’s prediction about the end of the Christian faith (McDowell, 20), one should wonder why a so-called myth is such a threat. Having said that, the Exodus account depicts the beginning of the ill-fated persecution of a chosen people that will long-sufferingly await eternal security. My opinion rests on these words:

If the account is deemed true, then it is for man’s great advantage to take heed in understanding this masterpiece.

Resources

Hanegraaff, Hank Christianity in Crisis, 220-225 (except “I” and “T” in the acronym L-I-G-H-T-S)

Geisler, Norman Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 51, 589

Geisler, Norman and Howe Thomas When Critics Ask, 70, 79, 85

McDowell, Josh Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 20.