Misquoting Jesus

“Misquoting Jesus:” Decoding the Matthean Divorce Bias[1]

Text

Among the numerous text critical issues cited on behalf of Matthew 19:3-9, the most significant deals with the divorce clause in v. 9. Witnesses supporting the majority text[2] add, “μη επι πορνεια,” (except for sexual immorality). The first text supporting a reading of Matthew 19:9 without the divorce clause is the Alexandrian text type[3] C.*[4] Although, C* [5] is marked as being edited at a later date, it still shows great similarity to a reading of Matthew 19:9 without the divorce clause present.[6] The second manuscript lacking the divorce clause is manuscript N.[7] Even though, the C* witness is more trust worthy than N, having the variant reading in N, testifies to the fact that a century or so later, the reading absent of the divorce clause was still in circulation.
Due to the fact that many variants are cited on behalf of Matthew 19:3-9; it was a known target for alterations.[8] Variant readings, directly relating to the divorce clause are documented as early as the 4th century[9] and as late as the 9th century.[10] Many hold that manuscripts containing the theologically harder readings were tampered with by church leaders, scribes and others who took the liberty to make the theologically harder readings, easier. There were also those motivated by a theological bias, making the manuscripts affirm their doctrinal beliefs.[11] The most trustworthy reading of Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage does not include Matthew’s exception clause.[12]

Translation: Matthew 19:3-9
3 Some[13] Pharisees approached Jesus, testing him and asking, “If it is legal for a man to break the marriage covenant [14] with his wife, for any reason[15]?” 4 And he answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them, from the beginning, ‘made them male and female?’” 5 And he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh. 6 So no longer they are two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let no man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her divorce papers,[16] to break the marriage covenant?” 8 Jesus[17] said to them, “Because of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed you to break the marriage covenant with your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 But I say to you, “Whoever breaks the marriage covenant with his wife, except for sexually immortality,[18] and remarries,[19] commits adultery.”

Genre and Form
The Gospel, Matthew, is attributed to the literary genre, narrative. The Gospel narrative’s, resembled ancient biographies, focused on the life and ministry of Jesus.[20] Matthew 19:3-12 is the first in a series of three pronouncement or controversy stories, Jesus engages as he travels to Jerusalem in the shadow of the cross. The focus of the controversy will be on Jesus’ main pronouncement in 19:9. The specific form, the climax of this pronouncement story, is a proverbial or gnomic truth-“a generalization which admits certain exceptions.” [21] The form of the dialogue (vv. 3-12) follows “the rabbinic proem midrash known as yelammedenu rabbenu (‘let our master teach us’).”[22] The following parts which testify to this form are: an initial question designed to trap Jesus (v. 3) receives a preliminary question (vv.4-6), the Pharisee’s come back with a counter question (v. 7) which is given a counter reply by Jesus (v. 8). These questions prepare the ground for Jesus’ climatic pronouncement (v.9).[23] Blomberg holds that Matthew “characteristically abbreviates and combines together two separate discussions (vv. 3-8, 9-12; cf. Mark 10:10) by then appending Jesus’ later interchange with his disciples: their objection (v.10) and his rely (vv.11-12).”[24]
This study will show that Matthew deviated from the original words of Jesus, by making major editorial additions and alterations to the conflict stories of Jesus and to teachings he deemed too radical for his Jewish audience.[25] Changes in Matthew’s Gospel are found in three of the conflict stories: Healing on the Sabbath (Mat. 12:9-14),[26] Tradition of the elders (Mat. 15:1-9), and the Question of Divorce (Mat. 19:3-12). In regards to the question of divorce, Matthew reworked the Markan material by interjecting “for any reason.” This transformed the general question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” specific, more suitable for his Jewish audience.[27] Matthew, again, accommodates his Jewish audience by reformulating “the final words of Jesus into a halachic decision (‘And I say to you,’ 19:9), by adding an exception clause (‘except for sexual immorality,’ 19:9), “by which the issue of divorce and remarriage is decided for the community in keeping with the halachic of the school of Shammai.”[28]

Structure

The semantic structure of this Matthean pericope[29] is formatted in a question/answer dialogue. The Pharisee’s ask two questions (Mat. 19: 3, 7) and Jesus answers their questions (Mat. 19: 4-6, 8-9). Matthew’s account in comparison to Mark’s, shows a dependency, polishing and systematizing.[30] Each proposition Jesus stated is a step closer to His climatical pronouncement in v. 9. In Jesus’ first answer, He quotes Old Testament Scripture, which He used as building blocks to support His climatic proposition. Jesus answers by pointing back to God’s original design for marriage. He then sums up his first answer with an inference by adding his own interpretation.[31] Matthew’s account has the Pharisees asking Jesus a second question to which Jesus corrects their misunderstanding or reinterpretation of Deut. 24:1.[32] Jesus’ climatic statement probably lacked, the Matthean divorce clause bias, which adds a conditional element, permitting divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. Jesus’ unbiased pronouncement aligns with God’s plan for covenant marriage by restoring its original design.

Historical Context

On the pretense that Matthew was written after Mark[33] and after the destruction of the temple, I agree with a dating of the gospel in the 70’s, for the following reasons: (1) the audience consists of a Jewish-Christian Community, (2) the audience is on the verge of or just recovering from a break from Judaism,[34] and (3) because of recent studies that have reconstructed “formative Judaism.”[35] Some scholars deny Matthean authorship,[36] but I would agree with Gundry that tell-tale signs support authorship by Matthew. Supporting reasons are: (1) Matthew, who is a tax collector, is the only Gospel that records the story of Jesus paying the temple tax,[37] (2) the account of Matthew’s call to discipleship uses the apostolic name, Matthew, whereas Mark and Luke use, Levi,[38] (3) Mark and Luke use Levi in the story where Jesus eats at Matthew’s house, but the Gospel of Matthew uses Matthew.[39] The place of writing, from the Jewish character, suggests Palestine or Syria, most probably Antioch, where many original Palestinian disciples had migrated.[40]
Two competing forces that heavily influenced Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew’s Gospel were the Rabbinic Schools of Shammai and Hillel. Hillel and Shammai (30 B.C.-A.D. 10) were leading scholars who took differing views in their interpretations of the law. Generally, the school of Shammai and his disciples held to a more strict interpretation of the law and tradition and in judicial decisions. On the other hand, the school of Hillel was more liberal in the way it handled the law and more lenient in its interpretation and judgments.[41] The school of Shammai believed divorce was legal only on the grounds of sexual immorality whereas the school of Hillel permitted divorce for any reason.
Jewish marriages were similar to those of the Greeks and Romans. The marriage was a contract consisting of two parts: (1) the betrothal and (2) the wedding proper. The betrothal could only be broken by a formal divorce. The ketubah was a customary written contract that spelled out the husband’s responsibilities to his wife and what was due to her if the man were to divorce her or if he died.[42] “Thus, in the first century Mediterranean world and earlier, marriage symbolizes the fusion of honor and two extended families and is undertaken with a view to political and/or economic concerns—even when it might be confined to fellow ethics, as in the first century Israel.”[43]

Literary Context

Matthew’s Gospel is divided into three main sections: introduction (1:1-4:16), denouement (4:17-16:20), and climax (16:21-28:20). Jesus’ discourse on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Matthew 19:3-12 falls at the beginning of the second subsection in the larger climax section. Chapters 19-22 is the narrative section found within 19:1-25:46, which contain two parts: chapters 19-20 (Jesus travels from Galilee to Jerusalem) and 21-22 (Jesus enters the city of Jerusalem to teach there). Chapters 19-22 consists of two sections of unequal length that combine three personal encounters with Jesus in each He addresses controversial areas of discipleship (19:3-12, 19:13-15, 19:16-20:16).[44]
The only other passages in the New Testament permitting divorce are Mat. 5:32[45] and 1 Cor. 7:15-16.[46] Even though, Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18 parallel Matthew 19:3-9, Luke sets the pericope in a different context.[47] In the Old Testament, Moses’ solution to Israel’s problems with men who were orally divorcing their wives was to give her a certificate of divorce.[48] Moses concession did not promote divorce, but was intended to protect the rights of women. From, Genesis, [49] the first book of the Old Testament, where God instituted His ultimate plan for marriage to the latter books of the New Testament, [50] permanence in marriage is the standard.

Verse by Verse Commentary: Matthew 19:3-9

3 Some Pharisees approached Jesus, testing him and asking, “If it is legal for a man to break the marriage covenant with his wife for any reason?”

The Pharisees question reflects a debate between rival rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel. The issue was whether the grounds for a man to divorce his wife could be trivial (κατα πασαν αιτιαν), such as poor cooking (Hillel), or weightier, such as sexual dereliction (πορνεια) (Shammai).[51] In Mark, the same question was asked by the Pharisee’s, but without the prepositional phrase, κατα πασαν αιτιαν, (“for any reason”). Matthew has accommodated his Jewish audience by alluding to the rabbinic debate.[52]

4 And he answered and said, “Have you not read He who created them, from the beginning ‘made them male and female?’”

Jesus builds his argument for the permanence of marriage by appealing to Old Testament scripture. Jesus was not interested in defending a rabbinic debate, but pointed the Pharisees back to God’s original intent for marriage.[53] In order to show that the marriage covenant is rooted in the male and female relationship in the Garden of Eden, the prepositional phrase απ αρχης (“from the beginning”) is strategically placed in this discourse.[54]
The parallel account, in Mark, structures the argument differently. Matthew appears to take Mark’s pericope and give the Pharisees a longer presence in the dialogue. Mark does not have the Pharisee’s present for Jesus’ climatic statement, only the disciples. Matthew’s Jewish bias called for the Pharisees to hear his familiar additions.[55] Matthew’s argument has a systematic flow in which the Pharisees ask two questions and Jesus answers both questions. Mark’s account has Jesus respond to the Pharisees with a question. The Pharisees then wrongly answer Jesus’ question adding Moses exception for divorce. Jesus, without interruption, points them to God’s original plan for marriage, permanence.

5 And he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh.

The reason a man leaves his family refers back to his need for a “suitable helper.”[56] God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."[57] Man’s purpose in the Garden could not be fulfilled without a wife. “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.”[58] Adam then announced, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”[59] The woman was taken from man and only can be complete when he takes her in marriage. The bond marriage form’s between man and woman is permanent.[60] Ultimately, the goal of marriage is oneness. All areas of life fall under the “one-flesh” relationship.[61]
6 So no longer they are two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let no man separate.”
Jesus concludes his first answer with this summary statement (v.6), solidifying God’s original intent for marriage. Jesus reiterates the covenant idea of oneness, by restating the divine characteristic of marriage where two become one flesh.[62] God designed marriage to be a lifelong covenant relationship[63] that exists as an unbreakable union between a man and woman.[64]
In this summary statement (v.6b), God is the subject of the action, to join and the agent who yoke’s a couple in marriage. The strength of a marriage does not rest on the individual, but the relationship.[65] In order for God not to contradict Himself, the hardheartedness (v. 8) of man must be the root of divorce. God has never condoned divorce, nor is He the author of divorce.[66] Jesus concludes that the result “of God’s creative action, is not to be broken by any human decision.”[67]

7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her divorce papers, to break the marriage covenant?”

The Pharisees second question, references Biblical grounds for divorce that Moses instated. Regarding his exception clause, Keener says, “God sometimes allowed what was less then ideal because people’s hard hearts made the ideal unattainable.”[68] Instead of abolishing unmanageable human institutions, Moses regulated them by allowing for exceptions (divorce, polygyny, the avengers of blood, and slavery).[69] Jewish lawyers recognized that God would grant concessions to some behavior because of human weakness.[70] In ancient times, the divorce concession in Deut. 24:1-4 took precedence over the divine institution for marriage in Gen. 1:27; 2:24.[71] Instead of affirming God’s standards for marriage, the Pharisees focused on the possibility of divorce, not the regularity of marriage.

This verse contains two of the five occurrences of a derivative of the Greek word for divorce.[72] An αποστασιου (certificate of divorce) was primarily instituted to protect a woman from being falsely accused of desertion.[73] By the time of Moses, Israelite men were following the customs of heathen nations by orally divorcing their wives.[74] In order to stop this practice, the giving of a get was instituted. A get is the official Hebrew legal term for a “certificate of divorce.”[75] A get was not easy to obtain.[76] An intense and careful investigation of the divorce would be conducted primarily for the wives who were too young to understand, insane or held captive.[77] The husband was still liable for his unpaid financial obligations stated in the ketuba.[78] Documents drawn up on earth, such as the marriage covenant, stood for heaven’s concern for the sanctity of the individuals in the marital relationship.[79]

8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed you to break the marriage covenant with your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

As mentioned in my commentary on v.4, Jesus passes by the Mosaic Law and again points back to the genesis of the marriage covenant. The original Divine intention for marriage instituted, “from the beginning” (απ αρχης), out weighs the divorce concession that was permitted on the grounds of “hardheartedness” (σκληροκαρδια).[80] Divorce is the result of a degenerate people who turned the Mosaic divorce exception into a cultural norm.[81] Moses accommodated Israel’s hardheartedness whereas Jesus called His followers back to the original principle that marriage is indissoluble.[82]

Jesus argues that God’s Laws of Creation weigh more than the Law of Moses. The Mosaic Law itself testifies indirectly to God’s original plan. The provisions in the law were set forth “to check haste in divorce, the loaning of wives, and similar abuses by prohibiting resumption of the initial marriage.”[83] Jesus’ goal was not to combat God’s original plan for marriage against the Mosaic provision, but to harmonize the Mosaic provision with God’s original intent.[84]

9 But I say to you, “Whoever breaks the marriage covenant with his wife, except for sexual immorality,[85] and remarries, commits adultery.”

Jesus’ climatical statement in Matthew compliments the highly debated position held by the rabbinic school of Shammai which permitted divorce on the basis of πορνεια. In Matthew Jesus permitted divorce on the basis of πορνεια. Broadly speaking, to engage in πορνεια is to physically participate in sexual sin of any kind,[86] inside or outside marriage.[87] Πορνεια originally meant “prostitution,” “fornication,” but came to be applied to any unlawful sexual intercourse.[88] Generally, πορνεια has a wider range of meaning then μοιχεια,[89] but when used in the context of marriage πορνεια is limited.[90] God instituted sex as an act exclusive to the marriage relationship between man and woman.[91] However, any act of πορνεια distorts and disorders God’s original purpose for sex. Inside the marriage covenant πορνεια is adultery, outside the marriage covenant it is “fornication.” Specifically, in Matthew 19:9, πορνεια is any sexual act that defiles the sanctity of the marriage covenant. If πορνεια was original to the teachings of Jesus, I would agree with Blomberg’s conclusion that, “Πορνεια should therefore be translated as ‘adultery,’ possibly including but not limited to related sexual sins such as incest, homosexuality, prostitution, molestation, or indecent exposure.”[92]

Neither Mark nor Luke include the divorce clause, only Matthew (5:32; 19:9) inserts the words, “except for sexual immorality.” Markan priority[93] argues Matthew depended on Mark, but then made additions. [94] If the clause was original to Matthew, then Mark and Luke represent an attempt by the early church to lower God’s standards for marriage. “The addition of this excepting clause, as it is called, reflects an attempt by the early church to adjust the high ideal of Jesus’ interpretation of the indissolubility of marriage to suit the exigencies of those whose hearts, like men’s hearts in the days of Moses, were still hard!”[95] An adjustment of this caliber could be the result of the early church’s misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing[96] in which they believed Jesus gave them the power to adapt laws and make exceptions.[97]

By contrasting his teaching (v.9) with that of Moses (v.8), Jesus does something the schools of Shammai and Hillel would never do. He appeals to God’s own intentions in creating the institution of marriage,[98] making Him “an opponent of divorce and thereby a proponent of family stability.”[99] The “exception clause” for divorce, thus seems to be a later addition that stands in direct contradiction to His teaching on the permanency of marriage God instituted in the Garden of Eden. If Jesus substituted the perfect standard of God for the standard recognized by the Jews of His day, His teaching would be no higher than the school of Shammai.[100] “As God intended no divorce in the Garden of Eden, so divorce is not to be allowed in the new era of the Kingdom of God.”[101]

According to Matthew, if Jesus permitted divorce on the basis of sexual immorality, then the reaction of His disciples in v. 10 does not make sense. Their response suggests that Jesus forbade divorce, even in the case of sexual immorality.[102] Since the disciples seem to be defending the liberal school of Hillel, marriage in their eyes is a dangerous arrangement. If in Matthew, Jesus allowed for divorce, why would His disciples state, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”[103] The logic behind the disciple’s response is that if one cannot get a divorce, it is better not to marry.[104] If Jesus were to agree with the disciple’s conclusion, “it is better not to marry,” He would contradict the divine intention God instituted in Creation for marriage.[105] “The addition (μη επι πορνεια) not only softens the ethics of the kingdom, but it also stands in tension with the absolutism of v. 6, weakens the argument of vv 7-8, and makes the disciples comment in v 10 and Jesus’ statement in v 11-12 less appropriate than they would be in the case of an absolute prohibition of divorce.”[106]

Matthew’s choice of the subjunctive mood for the word divorce (απολυση) adds a degree of prominence[107] and directs the attention of his reader’s to Jesus’ climatic conclusion.[108] The verb can be categorized as a “Subjunctive in Indefinite Relative Clauses.” This indicates that the verb has a generic or uncertain subject.[109] The uncertainty of the action as well as the subject, confirms that the act of divorce was not favored by Jesus. Although the verb, μοιχαται (to commit adultery) is in the present tense, the actions aspect by default is not progressive.[110] Since the action can be seen in an aoristic sense, “adultery would involve one punctiliar action at the time of the remarriage.”[111]

Summary

If Matthew’s account omits the divorce clause it would reflect the strictest prohibition against divorce found in any ancient literature.[112] When faced with the question of divorce Jesus pointed to God’s divine ordinance for the marriage covenant instituted in Garden of Eden. In harmony with the original design, Jesus regarded “marriage, namely, as an indissoluble union, a union until death parts the two, a definitely divine institution that must not be tampered with.”[113] Jesus’ teaching restored and recaptured God’s Garden ethics on marriage. Instead of siding with Moses’ concession, Jesus commissioned the perfect law that upholds the permanence of the marriage covenant God ordained in His creative order for the ‘male and female’ relationship. The ideal standard for marriage is not divorce, remarriage or adultery, but marriage, there are no exceptions.

Application

Due to the record high divorce rate, today’s culture has sided with the Hillel school. Divorce is only a click of the mouse away. Divorce has become a first option, not last resort. Postmodernity is labeled as a divorce culture since 50% of first marriages end in divorce.[114] Today’s culture has reduced the permanence of a lifelong marriage covenant down to a temporary living arrangement. The rules that define a contract have been juxtaposed with covenant stipulations. Today’s culture views marriage as a temporary arrangement completely contingent on each parties ability to keep their part of the bargain. Instead of surrendering one’s rights at the altar, today each person demands their rights be met. Today, divorce is almost expected where as some fifty years ago it was out of the ordinary. In order to combat divorce and restore the permanence God intended for marriage, the standards set in the Garden of Eden for marriage must be restored and a paradigm shift must be internalized.

In the Garden of Eden, God designed marriage as a covenant relationship, governed by three laws.[115] These laws are reflected in God’s Divine blueprint for marriage Jesus referenced from Genesis 2:24, where God said, “For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” First is the law of priority. The act of man leaving his family for his bride is an issue of priority. The new family established by the marriage is more important than biological families, friends, work, ministry, etc. Each spouse must constantly ask themselves, is my spouse my number one priority? Second is the law of pursuit. The act of being united to a spouse in marriage is an issue of the will. “From the very beginning, God has known the secret of staying in love—work.”[116] Marriage is a decision to work. If you want your marriage to work then you have to work on your marriage.[117] Each spouse must constantly ask themselves, am I working on my marriage? Third is the law of possession. Marriage is a “one-flesh” relationship. The blending of two lives reflects the covenant nature of marriage. All aspects of each spouse’s lives must intersect with the other. There is not an area of life oneness does not cover. Each spouse must constantly ask themselves, is my life intersecting with my spouse?

For marriage to be restored to God’s original design, hardheartedness must be replaced with selflessness. To make this paradigm shift, an age old marriage myth that says, the goal of marriage is to make me happy, must be dispelled. Nowhere does God’s word promote such a misconception nor has it been found to be true in the marriages of the past or present. If marriage was designed to be the most intimate human relationship on the planet, then why do most marriages fail? Internally, to shift from hardheartedness to selflessness, the goal of marriage must shift from personal pleasure to pleasing God. Instead of asking, how can I receive pleasure in marriage? Spouses must ask, how can I pleasure God in marriage? Every act of marriage is capable of pleasing God; since every act of marriage can be filtered through the selfless act of loving your neighbor.[118] In marriage, your spouse can be your closest neighbor or your worse enemy. The Christian duty is to love both your neighbors and your enemies, regardless if you are happy or not. At the heart of divorce is the failure to obey the greatest commandment. Replacing hardheartedness with selflessness will redirect the goal of marriage from happiness to holiness.

Jesus taught marital permanence, not to make spouses suffer but to make them holy. “What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?”[119] The shift from happiness to holiness is the difference between divorce and marriage. Marriage is a call to holiness, not happiness. Cloud and Townsend agree that “People who always want to be happy and pursue it above all else are some of the most miserable people in the world.”[120] Miserable people make miserable marriages. Holy people make marriage sacred. If a couple’s goal is to pursue happiness, divorce becomes an option when problems arise, but if a couple’s goal is to pursue holiness, marriage is the solution when problems arise. The truth is God designed permanence in marriage not to make couples happy, but to make them holy.[121]








Bibliography
Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Beare, F. W. The Gospel According to Matthew. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981.
Bidwell, Lee & Brenda Vander Mey. Sociology of the Family: Investigating Family Issues. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997.
-----------------------“Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12.” Trinity Journal. n.s. 11 (1990), p. 161-96.
Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002.
Browning, Don, et al. From Culture Wars to Common Ground: Religion and the American Family Debate. Family, Religion, and Culture Series. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997.
Burkett, Delbert. Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Cloud, Henry & John Townsend. Boundaries in Marriage. Michigan: Zondervan, 199.
Daude, David. “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law.” Journal of Jewish Studies 10:1-13, 1959.
Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who changed the Bible and Why. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2005.
Ellis, Earle E. “How the New Testament Uses the Old,” in New Testament Interpretation. ed. I. Howard Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1977.
Evans, Jimmy. Marriage on the Rock: God’s design for your dream marriage. Tulsa: Vincom, Inc., 1992.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Michigan: Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 2003.
Gould, E. P. A Critical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.
Glasscock, Ed. Moody Gospel: Matthew Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Michigan: Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 1982.
-----------------------A Survey of the New Testament. Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.
Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 14-28. Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1995.
Hansen, Hardy & Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. New York: Fordham University Press, 1980.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973.
Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
House, H Wayne. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
---------------------Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
Malina, Bruce J. & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Synoptic on the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.
Metzger, Bruce and Bart Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Moulton J.H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greet Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Mounce, Robert H. New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Literature: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.
Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew. Michigan: Baker Books, 1982.
Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Scott, J. Julius. Jewish Background of the New Testament. Michigan: Baker Books, 1995.
Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.
Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament. Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.
Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy? Michigan: Zondervan, 2000.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.
[1] The phrase, “Misquoting Jesus,” is borrowed from the title of Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus.
[2] Of the consistently cited witnesses, I have found that the following support the majority text reading: P25 (4th Century) is the only papyri and then a string of uncials beginning with the most reliable, the Aleph text (4th Century), B 03 (4th Century), etc. (refer to the NA 27th p. 58* for the an exhaustive list).
[3] Metzger, Bruce and Bart Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 312-313. The Alexandrian text was prepared by skillful editors who were trained in scholarly traditions of Alexandria.
[4] The C manuscript is of the uncials (written in all Greek Capital letters) and dated to the 5th century, in the Alexandrian family and affirmed by Nestle-Aland to be in their 2nd category for being reliable or not (Category #1 being the most reliable and #5 being the least reliable).
[5] C*-“A raised asterisk identifies the original reading when a correction has been made” (NA 27th p. 54*).
[6] The divorce clause is replaced with ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι (makes her commit adultery). This applies to both C* and N.
[7] The N manuscript is of the uncials and dated to the 6th century, in the Byzantine family and affirmed by the editors of the Nestle-Aland to be in the 5th category.
[8] See the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greet NT apparatus that references Matthew 19:3-9 for the other variants not discussed in this paper.
[9] The B manuscript supports a variant reading that takes the wording of the divorce clause in Mat. 5:32 and replaces it with the wording of the divorce clause in Mat. 19:9. This same variant is testified in manuscripts dating back to the 4th cent. (B) till the 8th (ff1) cent. with a Bohairic (Coptic Version) text translated in the 4th century, but given mss status in the 9th century.
[10] The manuscript identified with the number 33 (Queen) is of the minuscule’s (lower case writing), dated in the 9th century. The editors of the NA 27th placed it in category II, which is specifically known for containing manuscripts with alterations by those of the Byzantine tradition.
[11] Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who changed the Bible and Why. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2005), p. 96. See chapter 3, “The Texts of the New Testament,” for a detailed analysis on the intentional errors in the New Testament.
[12] This conclusion is not solely based on the text critical issues.
[13] The article, “οι,” (some) is omitted but cited in very reliable manuscripts.
[14] In place of the literal trans. “to divorce,” I replaced it with, “to break the marriage covenant.”
[15] The prepositional phrase, “for any reason,” is not original to Jesus, but a later addition by Matthew to accommodate his Jewish audience. Also see FN 18.
[16] In place of “certificate of divorce,” the trans. “divorce papers,” is more culturally relevant (dynamic).
[17] The word, “Ιησους,” (Jesus) is omitted but cited in very reliable manuscripts.
[18] Taking into consideration, the minor text critical issues on page 1 and holding to Markan priority, I have concluded the divorce clause (and the phrase “for any reason”) is not original to the teachings of Jesus, but a later a Matthean addition that was heavily influenced by his Jewish bias. Also, see commentary on v.9.
[19] The trans. “remarries,” is a combination of “marries” and “another,” plus taking into consideration, the previous context were a man divorced his wife and then marries again (or remarries).
[20] Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament. (Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), p. 126.
[21] Blomberg, Craig L. “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12.” In Trinity Journal, 11NS (1990) 161-169.
[22] Ellis, Earle E. “How the New Testament Uses the Old,” in New Testament Interpretation (ed. I. Howard Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1977), p. 206.
[23] Blomberg, p. 163. (Trinity Journal)
[24] Ibid, p. 163. Blomberg is convinced of Markan priority, but holds that Mark has omitted the exception clause and Matthew has restored the integrity of Jesus original words in which I disagree.
[25] Hultgren, p. 188. For instance, Mark’s saying of Jesus concerning the Sabbath observance that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).
[26] Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. (Michigan: Zondervan, 2007), p. 187. For example, Matthew has altered the issue of healing on the Sabbath in Mark by changing the question, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?,” to a halachic decision by Jesus which states, “so it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
[27] Ibid, p. 187. The words, “for any reason,” show a Jewish bias by identifying with the Jewish Rabbinical debate between two schools of thought on divorce: Shammai and Hillel (for any reason vs. only for sexual immorality).
[28] Ibid, p. 187. J Neusner (The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 3. 5) states, “A legal, or halachic, tradition is a saying or story about the way something is to be done, a statement intended to have practical effect and carry normative authority, or an inquiry into the logic or legal principle behind such a rule.”
[29] Ibid, p. 55. Pericope is the technical term used to identify each story or unit of tradition that was passed down from the point of Jesus’ oral ministry till then it took written form.
[30] Matthew’s account deviates from Mark in the following areas: (1) Jesus answers the Pharisee’s first question with a question, (2) the Pharisee’s answer Jesus’ question with a statement, (3) Jesus, then cuts them off, and points them back to God’s design for marriage and (4) unlike Matthew, in Mark, the Pharisees do not hear the climatic statement, only the disciples.
[31] Following the OT scripture, Jesus proclaims, “Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate.” Jesus adds value to the permanence of covenant which is to be unbroken by the original design of God.
[32] In Deut. 24:1, Moses did not command but permitted them to divorce for reasons of indecency. Jesus then sums it up by pointing to their hardheartedness.
[33] Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel Mark. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 1-30. Hengel dates Mark to the mid to late 60s during the Sitz im Leben of the Neronic persecution.
[34] Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), p. 133.
[35] See also J. Andrew Overman. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Studies on “reformative Judaism” have found out how diverse Judaism was before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. After the destruction of the temple only two schools of thought emerged: Rabbinic Judaism and Jewish Christianity. A tension between both parties could have motivated Matthew to show Jesus as the fulfillment of all things and to stress the rebellion of Israel’s leaders.
[36] Gundry, p. 160. Scholars assume that Matthew was the author of Q and his name became unmistakably attached to the First Gospel.
[37] Mat. 17:24-27
[38] Mat. 9:9-ΜαΘΘαιον (Matthew); Mark 2:14 & Luke 5:27-Λειυν (Levi).
[39] Ibid, p. 161. Refer to footnote 37.
[40] Ibid, p. 164. Scriptural support: Acts 11:19, 27.
[41] Scott, J. Julius. Jewish Background of the New Testament. (Michigan: Baker Books, 1995), p.172.
[42] Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. (Michigan: Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 2003), p. 74. For an extensive study of Jewish marriages read the section in Ferguson’s book, “Marriage and Family.”
[43] Malina, Bruce J. & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Synoptic on the Gospels. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 96-97.
[44] Blomberg: Matthew 19:3-12 (Trinity Journal)
[45] In Mat. 5:32, Matthew adds the exception clause, but the wording differs from Mat. 19:9.
[46] In 1 Cor. 7:15-16, the apostle Paul permits divorce if an unbelieving spouse leaves his/her believing spouse.
[47] Luke’s Jesus speaks almost identical words, but used this marriage and divorce language to show how the Jews have divorced God because of issues relating to money.
[48] Deut. 24:1-4
[49] Gen. 2:24
[50] Jesus is quoted in Mat. 19:5 & Mark 10:7; Paul is quoted in Eph. 5:31.
[51] Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 194. Also, see the History section above where I discuss the schools of Shammai and Hillel.
[52] Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Matthew. (Michigan: Baker Books, 1982), p. 259-260. “For any reason” is one of two insertions Mathew has added or in the authority which he is using in addition to Mark. The second insertion, “except for sexual immorality,” is found in v. 9.
[53] Mark’s Jesus points his audience back to God’s original intent for marriage as it was “from the beginning” (Mark 10:6).
[54] Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. (Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), p. 127-128. Both uses of αρχης are functioning as the “Genitive of Reference.”
[55] The main additions were (1) “for any reason,” and (2) “except for sexual immorality.”
[56] Gen. 2:18b (NIV)
[57] Gen. 2:18 (NIV)
[58] Gen. 2:21 (NIV)
[59] Gen. 2:23a (NIV)
[60] The bond a child has with his/her parents is temporary. Oneness is only accomplished in marriage.
[61] “One flesh” refers not just to the sexual union, but all areas of life like faith, finances, goals, direction, family values, etc. Just as man and woman are one, so is the Godhead one (Deut. 6:4).
[62] In marriage, two becoming one, reflects the three-in-one relationship of the Godhead.
[63] Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), p. 299.
[64] Glasscock, Ed. Moody Gospel: Matthew Commentary. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), p. 383-384.
[65] Out of the 7 times in Josephus, to join is used 5 times were in the context of marriage. Outside marriage, 2 times it refers to the joining together of two rocks which strengthen a foundation (War 1:413 & Antiq 15:338).
[66] God is on record as one who hates divorce (Mal. 2:16-17). The implications of the context allow for such this perspective, because those in the immediate context were divorcing God spiritually.
[67] Beare, F. W. The Gospel According to Matthew. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981), p. 388.
[68] Keener, Craig S. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew. (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 296.
[69] Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the letters of Paul. (Peabody, Hendrickson, 1992), p. 192-196.
[70] Daude, David. “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law.” Journal of Jewish Studies 10:1-13, 1959.
[71] Hendriksen, p. 716.
[72] Mat. 19:3, 7 & 8 (απολυσαι); 19:7 (αποστασιου); 19:9 (απολυση).
[73] Gundry, (A Survey of the New Testament), p. 175.
[74] House, H Wayne. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p. 21.
[75] Sandmel, p.195. A get was a written legal document that authorized women of divorce to remarry. The major component of a get was the phrase “You are free to any man.” A get points back to Moses’ laws on marriage and divorce in Deu. 24.
[76] Ibid, p.195. An extensive investigation was conducted where experts carefully examined all the details of the divorce so that when the get was delivered to the wife, she knew it was valid.
[77] Ibid, p.195.
[78] Ibid, p.196. Women could initiate a divorce on certain grounds.
[79] Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Literature: An Essential Guide. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), p. 25. On earth, men and women provoke a response in heaven, and the correspondence is perfect.
[80] Gould, E.P. A Critical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. Mk. x.5. Hardheartedness (σκληροκαρδια) “denotes the rude nature which belongs to a primitive civilization.”
[81] Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 205.
[82] Plummer, p. 259.
[83] Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. (Michigan: Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 380.
[84] Ibid, p. 380.
[85] See FN 18 as well as the commentary on verse v.9.
[86] In the Septuagint (3 B.C.), the meaning of πορνεια ranges from incest (Gen. 38:24), to the act of lusting (Tob. 4:12), and to sexual immortality that leads to adultery (Sir. 23:23).
[87] Mat. 19:9-refers to πορνεια inside of marriage and 1 Cor. 7:2 refers to πορνεια outside of marriage where marriage is given as an option to prevent those engaged in πορνεια from sinning.
[88] Moulton J.H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greet Testament. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), p. 529.
[89] Μοιχεια means to commit adultery.
[90] Matthew 19:3-12
[91] Gen. 2:24c-“and the two shall become one flesh.”
[92] Blomberg, Craig L. “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12.” In TrinJ 11NS (1990) 161-169.
[93] Burkett, Delbert. Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark. (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), p. 134. Markan priority is the view that argues the gospel Mark was written first and then Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.
[94] Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. (Michigan: Zondervan, 2007), p. 48. Form critical evidence: a. 93% of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, b. Mark would not have left out important passages e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, if he had access to them, c. internal evidence shows that Matthew and Luke used, Mark as a common source, not each other, d. Mark’s Greek is tougher and less-polished, e. Matthew and Luke alter readings that could have been potentially offensive to their audience and f. Mark consistently preserved the original Aramaic Jesus used (p. 50-51).
[95] Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, & Content. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), p. 188.
[96] Mat. 16:19 & 18:18.
[97] Ibid, p. 188.
[98] Frank Thielman. Theology of the New Testament. (Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), p. 87.
[99] Browning, Don, et al. From Culture Wars to Common Ground: Religion and the American Family Debate. Family, Religion, and Culture Series. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997), p. 132.
[100] Metzger, p. 188.
[101] Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 14-28. (Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1995), p. 550.
[102] Plummer, p. 260. Plummer states, “If that was His decision, their remark is intelligible.”
[103] Mat. 19:10 (NIV)
[104] Malina, p. 97.
[105] Mounce, Robert H. New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew. (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), p. 182.
[106] Hagner, p. 549.
[107] David Mathewson states, “The indicative mood is the most common mood and the unmarked mood in NT Greek. It is the mood that the author uses unless he wants to be more specific.”
[108] Wallace, p. 448. The subjunctive is the mood of possibility and uncertainty, unlike the indicative, which is the “mood of assertion” or “presentation of certainty.”
[109] Ibid, p. 478.
[110] Hansen, Hardy & Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1980), p. Unit 2.2-2.3. The present tense verb, μοιχαται, does not indicate continuous action, but in this context, punctiliar action. The context does not allow for the sin of adultery to be continuous. Context determines the kind of action.
[111] House, p. 39.
[112] Sheets, Dwight. A professor at Valley Forge Christian College in a Gospels class in Fall/2006 referenced a lecture he heard Donald Hagner speak on Matthew 19:3-12. This goes for Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18 as well.
[113] Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 715. Reasons Hendriksen gives for the permanence of marriage (a.) otherwise his argument would lost its force, (b.) the audience hardly needed to be told that it is customary for men to get married; and (c.) this is inline with the words immediately following.
[114] Bidwell, Lee and Brenda Vander Mey. Sociology of the Family: Investigating Family Issues. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), p. 436.
[115] Evans, Jimmy. Marriage on the Rock: God’s design for your dream marriage. (Tulsa: Vincom, Inc., 1992), p. xi. The laws are original to Evans. In his book, he writes a chapter on each law.
[116] Evans, p. 34
[117] Ibid, p. 34.
[118] Mark 12:31
[119] Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy? (Michigan: Zondervan, 2000), p. 13.
[120] Cloud, Henry and John Townsend. Boundaries in Marriage. (Michigan: Zondervan, 199), p. 109.
[121] Thomas, p. 18.

Misquoting Moses

Misquoting Moses: Reconstructing the Supernatural Spirit of Exodus

Through the years, Biblical scholars such as Martin Noth,[1] Rudolph Bultmann,[2] and others have approached Biblical interpretation with a very critical lens. This hermeneutical phenomenon has stripped the Bible of its supernatural spirit, reducing it down to a book filled with myths. The process has been classified as demythologization. The end product of their labor is not a book where the supernatural activity of God is glorified and central, but a book that glorifies the natural rhythms of nature and the coincidences of man. A long, rich history of God supernaturally manifesting Himself has been explained away by scholarship that has deconstructed the miraculous by reconstructing events naturalistically. The book of Exodus has been a well-known target by this breed of scholarship, due to its historical value in the Christian faith. In order to reconstruct the deconstructed accounts of God’s supernatural activity in the book of Exodus, the following stories will be examined in light of demythologization: the burning bush,[3] the parting of the Red Sea,[4] and the water from the rock.[5]

To Burn or Not to Burn

The book of Exodus begins with Israel’s leadership passing the baton from one generation to the next. Through a series of events, Moses finds himself in Horeb, otherwise known as the “Mountain of God” in an unusual situation, where “the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.”[6] Noth, a critical scholar, deconstructs the supernatural element from this event by arguing that the specific place Moses’ allegedly encountered God in the burning bush was unfamiliar territory to him.[7] An exact location from the Biblical data cannot be concluded.[8] Noth professes that the best scholars can do is place Moses in the wilderness, somewhere between Egypt and the cultivated lands of Palestine.[9] Noth dogmatically states that since “no specific account is given for this phenomenon, although it is assumed to be the permanent feature of the place in question, we must look for an explanation of it.”[10]

On the contrary, I would argue that Moses had a sense of direction when he traveled from Midian to his present location in Exodus 3. The move from Midian to the Sinai wilderness was intentional, not random. Moses, like any shepherd, had to strategically map out his travels so that he would find grass for his sheep to feed on, for he honored the responsibility he had taken to shepherd Jethro’s flock.[11] Moses might not have been in the familiarity of his homeland, but he was in tune with his surrounding and conscious of his actions.[12]

Noth then attacks the validity of the burning bush account by referring to parallels H. Gressman[13] made from stories of burning bushes in Syria-Palestine where bushes burn yet are not consumed.[14] He argues that the author of the J document could not possibly have known the geography of the wilderness of the South, and perhaps the oral tradition that was passed down, “did not look for the holy place of the burning bush, originally independent, of Sinai.”[15] Now, Noth turns to the Hebrew word for bush, seneh, concluding it has nothing to do with the name, Mount Sinai, originally. Noth literally defined seneh as a certain kind of thorny bush, whereas Clements’ focused on the way the word is pronounced.[16] According to Noth there are no signs of any mysterious allusion in the name Sinai.[17] “It is however possible that when the story was later incorporated into the framework of the Moses tradition the word seneh was felt to contain an allusion to the name Sinai, with the result that the scene was subsequently transferred to Sinai.”[18]

In regards to the above attempts to demythologize the supernatural activity in the burning bush, a significant part of the argument hinges on the dissociation and fallacious interpretation of the Hebrew word for bush, “seneh,” with the Hebrew word for Sinai, “sina.” The Exodus text states that Moses “came to Horeb, the mountain of God.”[19] I would agree with both Stuart[20] and Childs’[21] who testify that Horeb and Sinai are names of the same mountain.[22] Traditionally, Mount Horeb is known to have one of the largest peaks in the south central part of Sinai, which Davis calls Jebel Musa.[23] Also, since Horeb is called “the Mountain of God,” clearly the author of Exodus has placed a degree of significance on this location, setting it apart from other mountains.[24]

Noth also holds that since there are similarities in the pronunciation of the Hebrew words bush (seneh) and Sinai (sina), the author of Exodus wrote with a supernatural bias because Sinai is associated with the mountain where God gave Moses the Decalogue, [25] the most significant manifestation of God in history.[26] The supernatural association with these two events from my opinion would not disqualify the original author of Exodus from recording the truth in an objective manner. The Exodus 3 account happens chronologically before Exodus 20, not to mention, God can manifest Himself in similar fashions to the same people. Since the words for bush and Sinai are clearly different in their spelling, the only association, I would argue is one of location, not of manifestation. I would also argue that the story of Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the 10 Commandments has absolutely no sign of a burning bush, disqualifying Noth’s argument.

Childs,’ a critical commentator, notes that some scholars write off the divine element of God calling to Moses from a literal burning bush to a psychological phenomenon.[27] This reduces Moses down to a man who internally battled over the problems of his people and the religious conviction to respond to God’s call for help.[28] Modern critical scholars have attempted to demythologize this phenomenon on the grounds of subjectivity and visionary. Honeycutt suggests that Moses’ revelation was mediated through a visionary experience. Moses visionary experience was a product of the signs and symbols of his culture. Moses chose to describe his inner experience with a bush and fire, but if anyone was standing next to Moses, he/she would have seen nothing extraordinary.[29]

Various attempts have been made to explain this phenomenon away with scientific research and rationale.[30] Moldenke believes that the burning bush was a gas plant or Fraxinella, which has the potential to grow three feet in height with clusters of purple blossoms. All over the bush are tiny oily glands. “This oil is so volatile that it is constantly escaping and if approached with a naked light bursts suddenly into flames . . .”[31] Smith states that the flames could have been crimson blossoms of mistletoe twigs. They grow on a variety of prickly Acacia bushes and Acacia trees throughout the Holy Land and in Sinai. “When this mistletoe is in full bloom, the bush becomes a mass of brilliant flaming color and looks as if it is on fire.”[32] Knopf holds that the burning bush was actually various berries, angles of sunlight or the combination of golden sunlight reflecting off colorful leaves creating the illusion of a bush on fire.[33] The most outrageous attempt to demythologize this account is by Howard Rand who formulated a theory based on electrical energy.[34] In my defense, I would argue it is impossible to reconstruct this event with scientific assumptions and estimations being thousands of years removed. The fact that the language recorded in the Bible does not even remotely reflect any of the above scholar’s assumptions, testifies that it could have only happened through supernatural means.[35]
The uniqueness of the burning bush has baffled scholars for centuries, placing more significance on the bush then on the meaning of the text. The focus was not necessarily on Moses, but on Yahweh’s power over nature.[36] The text itself witnesses to the fact that something was so out of the ordinary, it provoked Moses to take a closer look. The Bible says, “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’”[37] If scholars believe that the supernatural activity of the burning bush was the result of a combination of oil and gas a certain plant exfoliates, then if anybody, Moses would have been aware of such a phenomena in those days. [38] Also, the burning bush must be of supernatural in origin for Moses’ call to be authentic. Would a nation follow a man who talks to bushes or a man who talks to God? I rest on the thousands of scriptures in the canon that never contradict the supernatural element, but add to it. Plus, the fact that not one person in Moses recorded ministry ever questioned the veracity of his call or the burning bush, solidifies the supernatural element as factual.

To Part or not to Part

In Exodus 14, God supernaturally intervenes through the obedience of His servant, Moses who held up his staff over the Red Sea to initiate the power of God that secured Israel’s escape from their captors. Scholars have been baffled by this miracle and with little faith in the miraculous, commentators have made feeble attempts to explain away God’s supernatural signs and wonders. Scholarship dating back to the days of Josephus has been extremely critical denying the historicity of this event by explaining it as simply mythology.[39] A commentator by the name of G.W. Coats has gone as far to argue that the sea event does not even belong to the exodus tradition, but to the wilderness wandering.[40] Scholars such as Noth attack the validity of the text miracles are couched in, making demythologization an easier task.
Clements’ parallels naturalistic rhythms in nature such as the land Israel escaped on was marshy, making it hard for the Egyptians to follow since their heavy equipment bogged them down.[41] Noth attacks differences between the various manuscripts of Exodus.[42] He concludes that the divine action had only consisted in the coming of the strong east wind, just at the right time and its being particularly effective. Likewise, a sirocco, which is the name for a hot east wind appearing in spring and autumn in Syria-Palestine, could have dried up the sea. Noth states that even if the divine command of God greatly heightened its effect, it “must be completely unjustified by any possible empirical observation.”[43] Noth also argues that since the words of J in v. 21ab allude to a mirage,[44] the author of the J document must have been influenced by a picture of a mirage he had in his mind as he was writing the description.[45]
Clements’ argues that the supernatural element consisted in the providential timing of a natural event, not the manipulation of the natural order of nature.[46] Noth believes the Lord’s victory was His ability to confuse and blind the Egyptian Army, making them fear Him. The Egyptians were then shaken off and lost sight of the Israelites in the midst of the dry sea where they encamped. The Egyptians were then unexpectedly overwhelmed by the returning waters from a natural source.[47]

The view getting the most press states that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at a significantly shallow and marshy area.[48] An oceanographer’s research shows that northeasterly winds blowing for many hours can lower the depth of the gulf considerably.[49] If one were to agree with that, then the east wind blowing at an average speed would do the job. I would refute both this view as well as Noth’s, by first referring to the latter part of the story where the Egyptian army was killed by the returning of the waters. Any view contrary to the Biblical account struggles to explain away this part of the miracle. To even consider the waters being shallow enough for a wind to clear, would suggest the Egyptians drowned in inches of water. The text itself witnesses to the fact that the waters were being held up like a wall.[50] It is unlikely that a natural wind could do such a thing.[51] Even if a natural wind was great enough to sustain the waters like a wall, how could the Israelites travel across with the winds blowing at such a high velocity without deterring them from crossing? A wind of the magnitude that could hold up a great mass of water would have helped but also hindered the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea. I would argue that if you were to account for all the details, only a supernatural element can be the source.

Rawlinson argues that the location of this event took place at narrow, shallow channel called the Bitter Lakes, which are joined to the Red Sea. As the south-east wind blew strongly up this channel, the waters of the Bitter Lakes were then driven northward, and held there. The natural action of the “ebb tide” would have withdrawn the Red Sea water to a southward position.[52] I would agree with Davis in his rebuttals to these irrational explanations, since it cannot be proved that the Bitter Lakes were connected to the Red Sea at that time. Likewise, no where does the Biblical text speak of the ebb and flow of a tide.[53]

Neil proposes that this event was the result of a volcano that erupted either in the immediate vicinity of the sea or in the Aegean of Mediterranean areas.[54] Nof and Paldor theorize that a tidal wave followed an earthquake.[55] A professor by the name of Angelos Galanopoulos of Athens University attributed the crossing of the Israelites through the sea and the pollution of the Nile river with a violent volcanic eruption which occurred somewhere in the thirteen century BC.[56] According to his theory, “this volcanic explosion set off air waves 350 times more powerful than those of a hydrogen bomb and devastated not only the presumed continent of Atlantis, but provided associated catastrophic events such as the plaques and the separation of the Red Sea.”[57] I would argue that such a calculation could not be reached since the calculator is thousands of years removed from the event. The margin for error is just too great to make such a calculation. I would also propose this calculation does not account for the variable of accidental timing. Furthermore, the impact from an explosion of that magnitude would have caused more damage then the reality of events recorded in Bible.[58]

Others scholars demythologize this event by playing grammatical gymnastics with the Hebrew word, qadim. This word is literally translated, “east,” but Jamieson and others, who are advocates for this argument translate the word, “previous.” When the word for “east” is switched with “previous,” the verse reads as follows: “the Lord causes the sea to go back by a strong previous wind all that night.” Jamieson among others hold that “a rendering which would remove the difficulty of supposing the host of Israel marched over on the sand in the teeth of a rushing column of wind strong enough to heap up waters as a wall on each side of a dry path, and give the intelligible narrative of divine interference.”[59]

The Hebrew word, qadim, does have a semantic range that permits the translation of previous, but not in this context. The writer of Exodus eludes to a supernatural wind rather then a natural wind. The text witnesses to the fact that the wind only occurred the night when the Israelites had encamped on the west side of the sea.[60] Israel’s escape plan shows that they stopped at the threshold of the Red Sea. If the waters were dried up and divided before they approached the Red Sea, why would they have camped where they did? I would argue that Israel would have taken the open passage and sought a more feasible place to camp, instead of the rim of the Red Sea, where they were an open target for the Egyptians.[61] In addition, I want to argue that the language used to describe the water is confession language, Durham says, which is not conducive to the attempts to explain the passage naturalistically.[62]

In conclusion, I agree with the four reasons Davis gives that explain why the wind came from a supernatural, not a natural source. The first is the impossibility of a natural wind being able to make the body of water into a “wall.”[63] The second, for instance, if this wind blew in from the east, it probably would have walled up the water in either a north or south direction which would be wrong.[64] Third, the text clearly states that two walls were formed which means that the waters were divided by such a wind.[65] The Israelites crossed with a wall on their right, that is to the south and a wall on their left, or to the north.[66] Fourth, if this were a natural wind great enough to move the amount of water that would later drown the Egyptians, would have Israel been able to safely make it across this passageway? Even though the Bible is not clear on how wide the passage was, it is clear that the waters were standing as a “heap,” implying speeds of such velocity that Israel would not have had a chance, if God was not in control.[67]

To Strike or Not to Strike

A third target for critical scholars to deconstruct the supernatural activity of God is in Exodus 17:1-7. In this passage, Moses miraculously extracts water from a rock through his obedience to God by striking it with his staff. Clements argues for a naturalistic explanation, reducing the miraculous activity of God down to a spring water normally gushed from,[68] whereas Noth begins his argument by attacking the location of the miracle.[69] He believes as well as Clements[70] that the location of Rephidim[71] testified to in the Exodus text does not exist. He argues that the author of Exodus depended upon a later reference to Rephidim in Numbers 33:14. Noth does show how conservative scholarship places Rephidim in the neighborhood of Sinai, but then argues that there is not enough positive data to make such a dogmatic conclusion.[72]

The location of this miracle account has been identified as one of two places. The first is Wadi Ferian, and the second is Wadi Refayid. Wadi Ferian is located on the path that leads up to Mount Sinai. I hold to, the second option, Wadi Refayid, as the better choice of the two since the name is similar to the Biblical name and because it is geographically closer to the wilderness of Sin.[73] Youngblood also affirms that Rephidim is located in the area of Wadi Refayid or Wadi Feiran both of which are not far from Jebel Musa, the traditional region called, Mount Sinai.[74] Validating Rephidim as an authentic place in the Sinai region disqualifies Noth’s line of reasoning that states if Rephidim does not exist, then the miracle account was embellished by later editors of the text.

Critical commentators demythologize this miracle by attacking the variety of sources represented in the translation of the book of Exodus. These scholars know that if they can disprove the validity of the sources behind the text, one cannot possibility believe in the details of the account. Childs suggests that commentators have come to a general consensus “that the P source is represented by the itinerary note of v. Iabα.” [75] From that point on, the narrative, Childs uses, is pieced together by multiple sources. He does confess that the criteria by which to decide on are uncertain. The primary evidence for this multiple source argument is found in the double name, Massah and Meribah as well as the doublet located in v. Ibβ-2 and v.3.[76] Childs’ highlights many commentators’ positions like Noth, Gressman, Fritz, and others who theorize solutions to this problem, only to agree that this question cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.[77]

Childs defers to the lexicographical evidence outside of the immediate passage in other Biblical accounts where the words, Massah and Meribah are used.[78] “The most widely accepted explanation of the relationship (e.g. Noth) is that Massah is a Deuteronomic element which has been secondarily introduced into the present narrative (Ex. 17:1-7) on the basis of the earlier poetic parallelism.”[79] The parallel passage, Num. 20:1-13, Childs’ suggests, was used for the framework of Ex. 17:17. He concludes that not only the basic form and contents resemble one another, the name Meribah is preserved in both.[80]

Stuart’s commentary on Exodus shows the dynamics behind the parallel usage of Meribah and Massah by explaining the Hebrew syntactical issues.[81] I would argue the text should be read literally, “both Massah and Meribah” because Moses intentionally meant for both names to be used in this immediate context regardless how they were used outside of this passage.[82] Stuart as well as Childs’ agrees that placing the words side by side was a literary device used in poetic texts[83] where both words are used.[84] I agree with Stuart who suggests that Moses understood the significance of using both words because of what Israel had done and her compliance to it. I believe Moses chose his words carefully to show the intensity of the event. Although the words in themselves are not of the miraculous, they represent the miraculous. [85]

One of the more popular attempts to demythologize this miracle is to conclude that this location represented a local etiology, a place known to accommodate those whose aim was to settle disputes.[86] “Von Rad writes: ‘Massa (h) and Meribah . . . imply that legal cases were investigated and decided by ordeal there.”[87] I would agree with Childs who finds fault in this argument, since the etiology itself does not relate to the rock bringing forth water, but the actual dispute. In Coats attempt to demythologize this miracle, he differentiates three levels in the stories development. The first level has to do with a critical analysis of the word, dispute; the second level introduces the supernatural element[88] and finally the third level depends on the murmuring motif.[89] In my judgment, it is doubtful that the Exodus author had such a plan in mind when recording this story. Instead of making such horrendous assumptions, I would allow the text to speak for itself: a need arose, those in need complained to Moses, he intercedes with the Lord on their behalf and the need was met supernaturally. I would also argue that the etiological elements are the result of someone expanding the primary tradition.[90] “The tradition did not develop from the etiology, but the etiology subsequently attached itself to the tradition of Yahweh’s aid in the wilderness.”[91]

Childs’ references a critical commentator by the name of Cassuto who cites modern parallels of water breaking through the crust of rock in the desert.[92] I agree with Davis that it is unacceptable for anyone to argue; Moses accidentally struck a rock and due to the closeness of the water to the surface, his problem was solved.[93] In line with, Childs and Davis, I would disagree with Noth who attempts to write this miracle off with an explanation that glorifies nature at the expense of God. As stated above, Clements’ argues that Meribah was a well-known place disputes were settled, since it had so much water constantly flowing from its dynamic spring. Those who sought to settle a dispute would travel to the spring at Meribah and the intensity at which this spring gushed was so shocking to its visitors “that they could only think that at one time the rock had been made to produce water in a miraculous way.”[94] I would argue that it takes more faith for Noth and Clements to believe such a tale, then for someone like myself to believe in the supernatural activity of God in Exodus.

In the attack on the validity of this miracle account in Exodus 17:1-7, most commentators see a reflection of it in 20:1-13.[95] The close parallels between these passages have been used to the detriment of the supernatural element. Critical commentators such as Noth cannot avoid the possibility that a later hand could have inserted into the P-narrative the similarities from Exodus 17:1-7. [96] At the heart of the Numbers passage, the actual miracle is recorded.[97] Noth believes that these verses are “literal borrowings” from Exodus 17.[98] Noth states, the only part of the Numbers (20:7-12) story that does not directly correlate with the Exodus (17:1-7) account is the “twofold striking of the rock.”[99]

Although both passages strongly resemble one anther, one cannot get past the vast differences. The first major difference is the author’s intentionality in using two different Hebrew words for “rock.” In Numbers, the word used is sela, but in Exodus the author chose, sur. Another major difference is the technique used to activate the miracle. In Exodus, God struck the rock, but in Numbers Moses disobeys the Lord and instead of speaking forth the miracle as God commanded, he struck the rock to propel the miracle. The most striking difference is the depth of judgment God pronounced upon Moses and Aaron for their disobedience in Numbers. The Exodus account does not allude to any disobedience on Moses or Aaron’s part and absolutely no signs of judgment can be found. I want to argue the differences are more important to take into account than the similarities. I would argue both accounts are two separate events that share common ground. This allows for freedom in the differences, which validates the Numbers passage as well as the Exodus passage as two separate entities, so that critical commentators such as Noth, Clements and others who attack textual reliability can be stopped dead in their tracks.

These three accounts in Exodus, which showcase God supernaturally intervening in the history of Israel, are the pillars of the Christian faith. If Moses did not do what the Bible records, then what can be made of the times when Jesus affirms the work of Moses? The path these scholars who apply demythologization to their Biblical interpretation take, end in a crisis of faith where the object of faith, Jesus Christ Himself, is manipulated off the throne and replaced with faith itself. Faith in itself is contrary to a God who reveals Himself through supernatural manifestations that have been recorded and preserved in the canon of scripture. God designed faith in Him to be uncertain by its very nature. The foundation of faith in Christ is built on the faith Israel had in a God who manifested Himself in a burning bush, supernaturally strategized an exit plan via the Red Sea from the Egyptian armies and who miraculously provided water from a rock. The God who acts supernaturally is the God who asks us to believe Moses at his word. Scholars thousands of years removed from such events who claim to know precise facts and figures need more faith then those who believe the validity of God’s word. If anyone misquotes Moses, then they misquote Jesus, “the author and perfecter of our faith.”[100]

Bibliography
Robinson, Bernard P. “Moses at the Burning Bush,” in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 75 S 1997.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.
-----------------------The Book of Numbers: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.
Clements, Ronald E. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Coats, G.W. “The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif.” VT 17, 1967.
-----------------Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: 1968.
Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Indiana: BMH Books, 1998.
Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987.
Honeycutt, Roy L. Jr. The Broadman Bible Commentary: Exodus. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. The Critical and Experimental Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 1945.
Knopf, Carl S. The Old Testament Speaks. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993.
Lange, John P. Exodus: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Translated by C. M. Mead. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960.
Maugh, Thomas H. “Research Supports Bible’s Account of Red Sea Crossing,” Los Angles Times, Saturday, 14 March 1992.
Nof, Doron & Nathan Paldor. “Are There Oceanographic Explanations’ for the Israelites Crossings’ of the Red Sea?,” Bulletin for the American Meteorological Society (73/3). March, 1992.
Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.
Howard B. Rand. Primogenesis. Haverhill: Destiny Publishers, 1953.
Segert, Stanislav. “Crossing the Waters: Moses and Hamilcar.” In Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 53 no. 3 Jl, 1994.
Stuart, Douglas. The New American Commentary: Exodus. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.
William, Neil. Harper’s Bible Commentary. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962.
Youngblood, Ronald F. Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Exodus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
[1] Martin Noth (Aug. 3, 1902-May 30, 1968) was a German scholar who is well known for his work in demythologizing the Old Testament.
[2] Rudolph Bultmann (Aug. 20, 1884-July 30, 1976) was a German theologian well known for his work in demythologizing the New Testament.
[3] Exodus 3:1-3
[4] Exodus 14:21-28
[5] Exodus 17:1-7
[6] Exodus 3:2a
[7] Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962) p. 38. Noth holds, “The wanderings of Moses in a land still unknown, as he tends the flock of his father-in-law, which led to his findings of the place in the wilderness at which he was addressed by Yahweh, appear more clearly in the J version as a special element of the tradition.”
[8] Clements, Ronald E. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 20. Both Clements and Noth agree that the exact location is inconclusive.
[9] Noth, p. 39
[10] Ibid, p. 39
[11] Stuart, p. 109. Stuart states that traveling such a significant distance from Midian could mean that the grass conditions were poor.
[12] Ibid, p. 108. Moses role as a shepherd disqualified him from the prestige he had attained in Egypt, since Egyptians did not lower themselves to take care of sheep.
[13] Childs, p. 39 Gressman’s book, titled, Moses, is in German (pp. 26ff).
[14] Ibid, p. 39
[15] Ibid, p. 39
[16] Clements, p. 20. Clements, a critical commentator, sees a parallel with the word for bush (seneh) and Mount Sinai, since there is a similarity in sound.
[17] Noth, p. 39. In Semantic language study, the Arabic word for ‘bush,’ refers to a modern day thorny shrub that can be found in Palestine by the Dead Sea.
[18] Ibid, p. 40.
[19] Exodus 3:1
[20] Stuart, Douglas. The New American Commentary: Exodus. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), p. 109.
[21] Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 79. Childs does argue there is not enough data to make a distinction in terms of different parts of the mountain.
[22] Supporting passages: Exodus 19:1 & Deut. 4:10
[23] Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. (Indiana: BMH Books, 1998) p. 68.
[24] Lange, John P. Exodus: Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. by C. M. Mead (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 9. He suggests “that this mountain was a sacred mountain even prior to the call of Moses.”
[25] Exodus 20 contains the account where God supernaturally corresponded with Moses, giving him the 10 commandments while on Mount Sinai.
[26] Noth, p. 40.
[27] Childs, p. 73. Although Childs’ writes from a critical stand point, some of his observations are not so anti-supernatural.
[28] Ibid, p. 73.
[29] Honeycutt, Roy L. Jr. Exodus: Broadman Bible Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), p. 328.
[30] Keller, Werner. The Bible as History. (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1956), p. 131. Harold N. Moldenke is among those that have explained away the supernatural activity in the burning bush with science.
[31] Ibid, p. 131.
[32] Ibid, p. 131. (Smith, quoted by Werner Keller)
[33] Knopf, Carl S. The Old Testament Speaks. (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1993), p. 83.
[34] Howard B. Rand. Primogenesis. (Haverhill: Destiny Publishers, 1953), p.142. “Electrical energy of an extremely high voltage would readily produce the phenomenon which Moses witnessed as fire burning in the bush without consuming it. This does not detract one iota from this miracle, but it demonstrates that the presence of the angel of the Lord was accompanied by electrical phenomena surrounding deity.”
[35] Davis, p. 69.
[36] Robinson, Bernard P. “Moses at the Burning Bush.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, no 75 S 1997, p 111.
[37] Exodus 3:2b-3 (NIV)
[38] Critical scholars have to claim a degree of omniscience to know something so particular being thousands of years removed.
[39] Davis, p. 171. Davis thinks that “Josephus may have been reacting to such a view in Antiquities II:16:5.”
[40] Coats, G.W. “The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif.” VT 17, 1967, p. 263. Coats based his theory on the appearance of the murmuring tradition at the sea (J) and the sea river pattern within the wilderness-conquest tradition.
[41] Clements, p. 87.
[42] Noth, p. 116. The author of the J source, Noth states, could not have found any basis in his experience to describe, a wind whether it was strong or not, able to drive back a sea, even if the sea was shallow or not.
[43] Ibid, p. 116.
[44] A mirage is a strange phenomenon that could make the water appears then disappears, before one’s eyes. In this case, the hot air could have come into the desert from the east making the water appear then disappearing as the Israelites passed through.
[45] Ibid, p. 116.
[46] Clements, p. 87.
[47] Noth, p. 118-119. Noth states that it is evident in the J document that Israel did absolutely nothing but watch as the Lord acted on their behalf.
[48] Davis, p. 172.
[49] Maugh, Thomas H. “Research Supports Bible’s Account of Red Sea Crossing,” Los Angles Times, Saturday, 14 March 1992, A1 and A25.
[50] Clements, p. 88. I would disagree with Clements who believes this is a poetic exaggeration because if that were the case, then every miracle in the bible can be reduced to poetry.
[51] Segert, Stanislav. “Crossing the Waters: Moses and Hamilcar.” In Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 53 no 3 Jl 1994, p 195-203.This article is based on research oceanographers have gathered at the Red Sea to validate the miracle. The research has placed the miracle in such a place that the Israelites potentially could have walked in an ocean ridge. The wind then not acting supernaturally could have held the waters back
[52] Davis, p. 171. Davis cites, Rawlinson, a liberal scholar who agrees with Noth’s naturalistic rational.
[53] Ibid, p. 171-172.
[54] William, Neil. Harper’s Bible Commentary. (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), p. 79.
[55] Nof, Doron & Nathan Paldor. “Are There Oceanographic Explanations’ for the Israelites Crossings of the Red Sea?,” Bulletin for the American Meteorological Society (73/3) (March 1992): 312.
[56] Davis, p. 172.
[57] Ibid, p. 172.
[58] Ibid, p. 172.
[59] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. The Critical and Experimental Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co., 1945), I, p. 327.
[60] Exodus 14:21
[61] Davis, p. 173.
[62] Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), p. 197. Durham argues that the words used to describe the waters standing to the right and to the left is that of confession used to pronounce victory.
[63] Exodus 14:22b
[64] Exodus 14:21c
[65] Exodus 14:21d
[66] Exodus 14:22b
[67] Davis, p. 173-174.
[68] Clements, p. 102.
[69] Noth, p. 138.
[70] Clements, p. 102. He argues there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion of the location.
[71] Rephidim is the location recorded in Exodus where Moses was encamped with Israel, which had no water source.
[72] Noth, p. 138.
[73] Davis, p. 194. Davis notes that Wadi Refayid is only hours’ within reach of the wilderness of Sin.
[74] Youngblood, Ronald F. Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Exodus. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), p. 85.
[75] Childs, p. 306.
[76] Ibid, p. 306.
[77] Ibid, p. 306.
[78] Ibid, p. 306. The word, Massah, can be found in Deut. 6:16; 9:22 and Meribah (in slightly variant forms) can be located alone in Num. 20:13; Deut. 32:51; Pss. 81:8 and 106:32.
[79] Ibid, p. 306.
[80] Ibid, p. 306. “Num. 20 differs chiefly in focusing the story on a tradition which attached to Moses office. It is very difficult to say anything certain about the original position of this story in the narrative, although Wellhausen had already noticed how the two Meribah stories now enclose the Sinai tradition.” p. 306-7.
[81] Stuart, p. 391. The use of the Hebrew "waw" between the two names indicates Massah and Meribah are a single place that Moses referred to in two different ways.
[82] Ibid, p. 391.
[83] Scriptural Support: Deut. 33:8; Pss. 95:8
[84] Ibid, p. 392 & Childs, p. 306.
[85] The supernatural element attached to this event rests on the fact that both words were used to validate God bringing forth water from a rock.
[86] Clements, p. 102.
[87] Childs, p. 307. (Theology 1, p. 12)
[88] The supernatural element was the water from the rock.
[89] Coats, G.W. Rebellion in the Wilderness. (Nashville, 1968), p. 53.
[90] An example is the word play on the name of Meribah which means dispute.
[91] Childs, p. 307.
[92] Ibid, p. 308.
[93] Davis, p. 195.
[94] Noth, p. 140.
[95] I have mentioned this argument briefly above, but in the space remaining, I will give a more detailed analysis of the comparisons and differences between both passages.
[96] Noth, p. 144. (Numbers Commentary)
[97] Numbers 20:7-12
[98] Num. 20:8a is a condensed form of Ex. 17:5b and v.8ba.
[99] Noth, p. 145. (Numbers Commentary)
[100] Hebrews 12:2 (NIV)