Power In His Presence

WHAT IS THE CITY OF REFUGE? WHAT IS ITS FUNCTION? WHY DID THE LORD HAD THE ISRAELITES SET IT UP?

WHAT IS A CITY OF REFUGE?

A city of refuge is a city instructed by God to Moses and Joshua to be set aside as a safe haven for the protection of both the helpless and the slayer of the helpless alike. It is a place of resort and safety. A city of refuge also is a shelter or protection from danger or distress. That which shelters or protects from danger, distress or calamity; a strong hold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy. Cities of refuge in The Bible were designated places where someone who had accidentally killed another person could go to escape the vengeance of outraged relatives or friends. There, they could safely await trial to officially determine their guilt or innocence. They were not places to escape justice, but rather places that saw justice was done.

ITS FUNCTIONS

The Cities of Refuge were towns in Israel and Judah at which the guilty person could claim the right of asylum; outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law. The Torah names just six cities as being a city of refuge: Golan, Ramoth, and Bosor, on the east of the Jordan River, and Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron on the western side.

The cities were so arranged that a few hours’ rapid flight would bring the slayer from any part of the land to one of the cities of refuge. Jewish writers say that the roads leading to these cities were always kept in good repair, and that guide-posts were placed at every cross road with “Refuge! Refuge!” written upon them. But the man that willfully killed another was not sheltered. He was given up to the avenger to be slain.

The LORD spoke to Joshua, telling him to speak to the children of Israel, telling them to appoint cities of refuge. These cities of refuges would be so the slayer that kills any person unaware and unwittingly may flee to them and they shall be a refuge from the avenger of blood. When they do flee unto one of the cities they shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause to the elders of that city. They shall take him unto the city and give him a place, where he may dwell among them. They shall not deliver the slayer up into the hands of any avenger of blood who may pursue after him. This is because the slayer struck his neighbor unwittingly, and did not hate him before hand. The slayer shall dwell in that city, until he stands before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from where he fled.

WHY THE LORD HAD THE ISRAELITES SET UP THE CITIES OF REFUGE

To guard against the innocent thus suffering, God commanded that “cities of refuge” should be appointed, to which the slayer might flee, “which killeth any person inadvertently or unawares.”

God explained very carefully in Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19 that there was to be a distinction made between premeditated murder, and what today we call manslaughter or a crime of passion, the unpremeditated killing of another person. It’s apparent when we read these passages that a person guilty of premeditated murder was subject to capital punishment. But if the death wasn’t premeditated, or if a person killed someone by accident, the slayer could seek refuge in the sanctuary of the tabernacle, physically holding onto the altar as a place of safety and protection. Listen to what God said through Moses in Exodus 21:12-14: “He who strikes a man so that he died shall surely be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.” If he was guilty of premeditated, violent murder, hanging onto the altar wouldn’t be of any help whatsoever.

The LORD commanded that innocent blood shall not be shed in the land, which the LORD gave to the children of Israel as their inheritance, or the blood would be upon them. However, if any man hates his neighbor, and lies in wait for him, then rises up against him and strikes him mortally that he dies, then flees to one of the cities of refuge; Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. He shall be shown no pity. The quilt of innocent blood shall be put away from Israel. That it may go well with them. (Deuteronomy 19:4-13).

REFERENCE:

• Metzeger, Bruce M. (ed); , Michael D. Coogan (ed) (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5.
• Webster’s Dictionary
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
• Bimson, John J., ed. Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Places. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.

WHO HARDENED PHARAOH’S HEART DURING THE STANDOFF BETWEEN HIM AND THE LORD?

The heart of a being is subject to the volition and preferences the person opts for. According to the Hebrew etymology, “to harden” has three connotation or root meanings.

· Chazaq: meaning to brace or tighten up as opposed to relax (Ex. 5:21; 7:13,22; 8:19; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10;14:4,8)

· Kabed: meaning to make heavy, weighty or hard (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:7, 34; 10:1; 1 Sam. 6:6)

· Qashah: meaning to make sharp, hard, severe or cruel (Ex. 7:3; 13:15)

The hardening of the heart by God is associated with His sovereign power and volition over His creation, but the truth of the matter is that, the sovereignty of God thrives on the activity and actions of men. There is no activity which is done solely by God, but the Lord our God who rules in the affairs of men. Pharaoh hardened his own heart and the Lord magnified it by tightening and sharpening Pharaoh’s resistance for him to know that though he is respected and worshipped by all and sundry as powerful, but He God) is the God over all.

The “hardening” of men’s hearts by God is in the way of punishment, but it is always a consequence of their own self-hardening. In Pharaoh’s case we read that “he hardened his heart” against the appeal to free the Israelites; so hardening himself, he became always more confirmed in his obstinacy, till he brought the final doom upon himself. This is how sin is made to become its own punishment. It was not confined to Pharaoh and the Egyptians nor does it belong to the past only.

Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the penalty for his own rebellion against God. It is the purpose of God to harden, even to damnation, those who oppose Him and His Word and Law. It would have been unjust of God to wink at Pharaoh’s obstinacy.

God does not harden a heart that otherwise might have become soft toward Him. Pharaoh’s callousness is emphasized from his first appearance in Scriptures (1:8-22). And we repetitively read that he further hardened his own heart (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 32) before we read that God hardened it (9:12). When God finally hardened Pharaoh’s heart, He but granted to Pharaoh what this obstinate man desired. God did not infringe upon Pharaoh’s will. Rather, He approved and settled with Pharaoh’s desire.

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart required no positive action on God’s part. All God had to do was eradicate His grace from Pharaoh and leave him to the corruption of his own nature. As surely as the removal of the sun will result in the seas being hardened into ice, so does the removal of the grace of Christ from a man result in the hardening of that man’s heart.

God can never impose punitive measures on Pharaoh if his actions were a superimposition by God. Blunder always precedes a consequence. Pharaoh started the hardening and God had no choice than to prove His worth and power.

There is the question of the denotation, implication and derivation of “free will”; these seem to me to be much more crucial than the presence or absence of free will. Seemingly, it’s very clear that no freedom is absolute. It is very imperative on our part to be acquainted with the very fact that freedom is comparative to its own configuration and course: what we find, whether in God or in human beings, is formed and directed freedom. In the same way, the hardening of heart we find in Pharaoh is not as such the loss or removal of freedom, so much as its direction is geared on the doing of God ALONE – but it is relational to his own enmity and antagonism against the children of Israel. Paradoxically, it is this misdirection of his detestation that occasions the formation and direction of God’s touch of severity on him. It seems to be the conflict of these kinds of “formation” that is central to the narrative of Exodus 4-14.

Interestingly, however, the formation/direction of Pharaoh’s heart is – because it was originating from his hostile affection otherwise than in the Lord – expressed in an act of idolatry, with correlative spitefulness to the people of the Lord; it is a self-formed heart (too au fait with modernity) – as Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (8:32) – and followed by willful meanness. The suitable response by the true God to such a “self single-minded” heart, however, is the result that even this self-formation is in truth accomplished by God, who “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” (7:3) by increasing his nastiness against the Israelites.

Let’s observe this scenario spearheaded by Jews methods of interpretation found in the Midrash and the understanding of great scholars in relation to the phrase “and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”:

The Midrash articulates this question, noting that it opens the door for heretical thoughts:

Rabbi Yochanan said: “Does this not provide heretics with ground for arguing that he had no means of repenting, since it says: ‘for I have hardened his heart’? The Midrash provides an answer:

To which Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish replied: “Let the mouths of the heretics be stopped up … when God warns a man once, twice, and even a third time and he still does not repent, then and there does God close his heart against repentance so that He should exact vengeance from Him for his sins. Thus it was with the wicked Pharaoh. Since God sent five times to him and he took no notice, God then said: ‘You have stiffened your neck and hardened your heart; well, I will add to your uncleanness.’”

REFERENCES:

1. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia “hardness of heart”.

2. Midrash Rabbah, Shmot 13:3

3. Midrash Rabbah, Exodus 13:3

4. Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

5. Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

WHERE EXACTLY IS THE RED SEA THAT THE ISRAELITES CROSSED ON THEIR FLIGHT FROM EGYPT?

The Red Sea divides the Arabian Peninsula from the continent of Africa, forming the Gulf of Aquaba just below the Israeli port of Elat. The Red Sea’s high salt content is a result of the region’s extreme heat, which makes its waters evaporate quickly.

In modern geography, it is applied to the north-west arm of the Indian Ocean, some 1400 miles long and lying between Arabia on the east and Africa on the west.

There is a fantastic new video documenting the archaeological evidence of the Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing. Featuring the underwater pathway across the Gulf of Aquaba, and some of the chariot parts also discovered there, the video is an excellent witness of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, and the Red Sea Crossing. Showing evidence of a 3,800 year old Hebrew presence in the Nile Delta in Egypt and documenting Egyptian records of the Hebrew enslavement, professional archaeology, scholars and scientists make an entertaining and professional video. In my opinion, it’s one of the best videos on the Discoveries yet. Available online from http://goccc.com/exrevvid.html

Traditionally it is believed that the Red Sea crossing took place on the Gulf of Suez. However, there are no mountains to be found there. The area is completely flat, unlike the Biblical description. The Gulf of Suez was also a popular site because it is traditionally believed that Mt. Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. Again the Bible tells us differently, (Galations 4:25), “Mt. Sinai in ARABIA“. After several miles Wadi Watir opens out to a large beach area, on the western coast of the Gulf of Aquaba. The only beach area along the Gulf of Aquaba that would have been large enough to accommodate the estimated two million people and their flocks. The Israelites were prevented from traveling north by the presence of an Egyptian military fortress. Indeed to the north of the mouth of Wadi Watir we find an ancient fortress, could this have been the place referred to in the Bible as, Migdol, (Exodus 14:2).

Ron, an archaeologist found a column lying face down on the shore. On the Saudi side he found another exactly the same with an inscription in Archaic Hebrew that read, “MIZRAIM (Egypt), SOLOMON, EDOM, DEATH, PHARAOH, MOSES, YAHWEH.” He believed that they were erected by Solomon to commemorate the crossing of the Red Sea. The inscriptions on the column found lying on the shore were eroded away. The authorities have since set it in concrete.

On diving down to the sea bed, in 1978, Ron Wyatt and his two sons found and photographed numerous coral encrusted chariot parts. Several dives since then have revealed more and more evidence. One of his finds included an eight spoke chariot wheel, which Ron took to the director of Egyptian Antiquities, Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan. After examining it he immediately announced it to be of the eighteenth dynasty, dating the exodus to 1446 BC. When asked how he knew this Dr. Hassan explained that the eight spoke wheel was only used during this period, the time of Rameses II and Tutmoses (Moses). Chariot boxes, human skeletal remains, four, six and eight spoke chariot wheels all lay as a silent testimony to the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea.

Perhaps most amazing of all, is the presence of an under water pathway. Along the length of the Gulf of Aquaba, depths reach to an average ozone mile and the Egyptian shoreline drops steeply under water at a slope of about 45 degrees. If the Israelites had tried to have crossed anywhere else along the Gulf of Aquaba they would have been faced with an extremely steep drop to about one mile. With all of their animals and wagons, the task would have been practically impossible. Only here, on the shores of Nuweiba near the Gulf of Aquaba at a gradual slope of one in fourteen, to a depth of just over 850 meters. On the Saudi side the slope climbs again at a slope of one in ten. The Bible describes it as, “Away in the sea and a “path in the mighty waters” (Isaiah 43:16, 17). The distance from Nuweiba to Saudi Arabia is about 9.6 miles. And the width of the under water bridge is estimated to be 900 meters.

Exodus 13:17-18“And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go that God didn’t lead them by the land of the Philistines, although it was the more direct route to Canaan; for He said, ‘In case the people become discouraged when they have to fight, and they return to Egypt’. So He led the them by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea: and the children of Israel went out of the land of Egypt in ranks.

That’s according to the text. However the Bible map disagrees with the text, as it incorrectly shows Israel still in Egypt before the Red Sea crossing. Because of preconceived ideas, and because Egypt borders the western shore of the Gulf of Suez, theologians drew the crossing at the head of the Gulf. However, our Bible text says the Hebrews were out of the land of Egypt before they crossed the wilderness of the Peninsula, and that they turned off the highway crossing the desert, to travel to the Red Sea coast (Exodus 14:1). Clearly, Israel found the Sea not at the Gulf of Suez, but at the Gulf of Aquaba, on the western coast of the Sinai Peninsula (Exodus 14:1-2).

According to the Bible maps, the children of Israel were still in Egypt, trapped by non-existent mountains at the head of the Gulf of Suez. But Israel didn’t march around Egypt for a week to save Pharaoh’s army a long chase across the desert in the event Pharaoh changed his mind. They were not IN Egypt. They traveled day and night to put as much distance between them as possible. They were not trapped at the Gulf of Suez in Egypt, but at the Gulf of Aquaba outside Egypt.

REFERENCES:

1. Schmitt 1996

2. FishBase. Ed. Ranier Froese and Daniel Pauly

3. Siliotti, A. (2002) fishes of the red sea Verona, Geodia ISBN 88-87177-42-2

4. Lieske, E. and Myers, R.F. (2004) Coral reef guide; Red Sea London, HarperCollins ISBN 0-00-715986-2

5. Hamblin, W. Kenneth, and Eric H. Christiansen. Earth’s Dynamic Systems, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0-13-745373-6

WHO IS THE NEW KING OF EXODUS 1:8 WHO CAME TO POWER IN EGYPT AND WHO DOESN’T KNOW JOSEPH?

This pharaoh in Exo 1:8 is dubbed the Pharaoh of oppression. The expressions in this verse are special and emphatic. “A new king” is a phrase not found elsewhere. It is understood by most commentators to imply that he did not succeed his predecessor in the natural order of descent and inheritance. He “arose up over Egypt,” occupying the land, as it would seem, on different terms from the king whose place he took, either by usurpation or conquest.

The fact that he knew not Joseph implies a complete separation from the traditions of Lower Egypt. At present the generality of Egyptian scholars identify this Pharaoh with Rameses Miamun, also called Rameses Miamun the great. Through the research I made, I came to understand that this Pharaoh is believed to be the same as Rameses II.

Now there arose up a new king over Egypt … Stephen calls him another king, Act_7:18 one of another family, according to Josephus. This Pharaoh is believed not to be a progeny of the royal seed-family, it is believed that this king is taken to be one of the ancient royal family, whose name was Rameses Miamun; and gives us a succession of the Egyptian kings from the time of Joseph’s going into Egypt to this king: the name of that Pharaoh that reigned when Joseph was in Egypt, and whose dreams he interpreted, was Mephramuthosis; after him reigned Thmosis, Amenophis, and Orus; and in the reign of the last of these Joseph died, and after Orus reigned Acenehres a daughter of his, then Rathotis a brother of Acenechres, after him Acencheres a son of Rathotis, then another Acencheres, after him Armais, then Rameses I, who was succeeded by Ramesses Miamun or Rameses II, here called the new king, because, as the Jews say, new decrees were made in his time.

About sixty years after the death of Joseph a revolution took place – by which the old dynasty was overthrown, and upper and lower Egypt were united into one kingdom. Assuming that the king formerly reigned in Thebes, it is probable that he would know nothing about the Hebrews; and that, as foreigners and shepherds, the new government would, from the first, regard them with dislike and scorn.

In throwing more light on this point, I allude or accentuate here that the new king’s not knowing Joseph, his disapproving of that system of government which Joseph had established, as well as his haughtily refusing to acknowledge the obligations under which the whole land of Egypt was laid to this eminent prime minister of one of his predecessors.

Ramess II (also known as Ramesses the Great and alternatively transcribed as Rameses Miamun) was the third Egyptian pharaoh of the Nineteenth dynasty. He is often regarded as Egypt’s greatest and most powerful pharaoh. He was born c. 1303 BC, the exact date being unknown (it has been said that he was born on February 22; this is disputed, but in Egypt, many official sources mention this date as Ramesses’ birthday). At age fourteen, Ramesses was appointed Prince Regent by his father Seti I. He is believed to have taken the throne in his early 20s and to have ruled Egypt from 1279 BC to 1213 BC for a total of 66 years and 2 months, according to a great scholar called Manetho.

He was once said to have lived to be 99 years old, but it is more likely that he died in his 90th or 91st year. Ancient Greek writers such as Herodotus attributed his accomplishments to the semi-mythical Sesostris, and he is traditionally believed to have been the Pharaoh of oppression and the Exodus due to a tradition started by Eusebius of Caesarea. If he became king in 1279 BC as most Egyptologists today believe, he would have assumed the throne on May 31, 1279 BC based on his known accession date of III Shemu day 27. Ramesses II would celebrate an unprecedented total of 14 Said festivals during his reign–more than any other pharaoh.

Ramesses Miamun became the Pharaoh of Oppression and the Exodus shortly after the deciphment of hieroplyphics by Champollion c 1825. This was because of the many surviving monuments to Rameses II (Miamun) still evident in Egypt and viewed by the early European visitors. They thought here was the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus. That the Bible names the town Pi Ramesses and the Land of Ramesse clinched it. Ramesses II were the Pharaoh of Exodus, and Oppression. Science had little to do with it.

In 1826, Champollion discovered and translated the name Jerusalem from a text describing the campainge of Shoshenq I. On this basis Shoshenq I became the Biblical Pharaoh Shishak who sacked Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple (2nd Chronicles 12:1-4) With this new information scholars (not the common folk to whom even in this day Ramesses II is the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus) where able to date backwards 521 years ( obtained from the 41 years from the sacking in year 5 of Rehoboam to year 4 of his father Solomon. 1st Kings 6:1 tells us that from this date yr. 4 it was 480 years from Exodus. So you add 480 to 41 and get 521) from Shoshenq’s assault to the Exodus.

RESOURCES:

James Putnan, An introduction to Egyptology, 1990

J. von Beckerath, Chronologie des Pharaonischen Ägypten, Mainz, (1997), pp. 108 and 190

Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) pp.250-253

Joyce Tyldesley, Ramesses: Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh, Viking/Penguin Books (2000),

pp.53

Tyldesley, Ramesses, p.68

Tyldesley, Ramesses, pp.70-71

Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt.

WHO ARE THE ‘ APIRU/HABIRU AND WHY ARE THEY SIGNIFICANT?

WHO THEY ARE:

In the Old Testament, the usage of the word “Hebrew” (‘ibri) is highlighted especially in the book of 1 Samuel and Chronicles (1 Chron. 24:27). Similar words – habiru and ‘apiru – appear in cuneiform and Egyptian sources. There is little suspicion amongst linguists that these latter two words are essentially the same: the point in question is whether ‘ibri is also related. My conclusion here is that at least as regards the usage in 1 Chronicles or 1 Samuel, there is also a close similarity of usage.

Cuneiform sources use the logogram SA.GAZ to represent the word habiru: Egyptian sources use ‘apiru. The words are believed generally to be interchangeable. They generally indicate not a specific ethnic origin, but rather a social category. Typically such people would be on the fringes of society, perhaps engaged in lawless or antisocial behavior.

Carol Redmount who wrote ‘Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt’ in The Oxford History of the Biblical World concluded that the term “Habiru” had no common ethnic affiliations, that they spoke no common language, and that they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society. She defines the various Apiru/Habiru as “a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting and shifty population elements without secure ties to settled communities” who are referred to “as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves” in ancient texts. In that vein, some modern scholars consider the Habiru to be more of a social designation than an ethnic or a tribal one.

Some Egyptian monuments mention an enigmatic people: the “Apiru”. In one of these was carved on the stone walls a scene depicting men working at a wine press. Beneath the picture was a title which ran: “Straining out wine by the Apiru“. The date of the monument is believed to be during the reign of queen Hatshepshut and Tutmose III, about the year 2290 (1470 b.c.e.). Scholars immediately recognized the similarity of the word “Apiru” to “Hebrew”, with a scene depicting manual labour, as described in Exodus for Hebrew people under bondage in Egypt.

WHY THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT

They certainly played a unique role in reconnecting us with the remote history of mankind. They also brought a genetic line down into historic times, with Abraham chosen as the outstanding representative of that blood blessing. The Habiru had a Deity whose Name was unknown to the other peoples, and also to themselves, as the Name was not revealed to anybody before Mosheh Rabainu. The fact that their Divinity’s name was unknown is a further proof that identifies them with the “Children of Eber or Ever” Genesis 10:21.

The documentary evidence shows they were extremely versatile and socially flexible, and were regarded with social respect. The Habiri had no fixed place in the social order where they chose to live; they were accepted in a foreign sense, not as part of a local social group.
Apparently the Habiru were a social class who lost their unique identity. Their bloodline became submerged by interbreeding with other people, and could no longer be distinguished. The Hebrew people attempted to preserve the genetic lines, and thus preserved the Habiru distinction. The strength of that consciousness is witnessed yet today among the Jews who believe they are fulfilling the promises of the Scriptures, and that they have a right to the lands promised to Abraham.

The Hebrew Tribes were Habiru but not all Habiri were Hebrews. This brief survey casts light on the antecedents of the Hebrew people, the Children of Israel. It offers us some insight into the selection of Abraham, the “Habiri” as the “Father of many nations”. Therefore, Abraham was both a Hebrew (Habiru) and the forefather of Hebrews (Israelites).

The documentary evidence shows they were extremely versatile and socially flexible, and were regarded with social respect. The Habiru had no fixed place in the social order where they chose to live; they were accepted in a foreign sense, not as part of a local social group.

RESOURCES:

• Harrelson, Walter. “Part I. Shechem in Extra-Biblical References,” Wright, G. E. (2001, c1957). Vol. 20 numbers 1-4: Biblical Archaeologist : Volume 20 1-4. Biblical Archaeologist volume 20 numbers 1-4. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research.
• Van der Steen, Eveline J. “The Central East Jordan Valley in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 302. (May, 1996), pp. 51-74.