Two of the more famous Israelite military victories
recounted in the Old Testament are those against the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian
Armies (Ex 14 and 2 Kgs 18-19). Both are true underdog stories, wherein the
mightier of the two sides suffers a humiliating and decisive defeat at the hands of Israel and its God. But
does the literary connection between these two narratives go beyond dramatic
victories that speak to Yahweh’s power?
Consider the following points:
·
In both narratives, God’s
people face off against the greatest military and imperialistic powers of the
day. The Exodus narrative should be read against the LBA backdrop, and we
know that this was the classical age of Egyptian might. The 2 Kings
narrative is set against IA-II, and during this era the Neo-Assyrian Empire was
the undisputed power.
·
The military encounters
of both narratives play into the strengths of Israel’s enemies. We know
that, with the exception of the Hittite Army, Egypt was unparalleled in
open-field, chariot warfare during the LBA. In Ex 14, Israel is confronted by
Israel directly before the Reed Sea. The siege tactics of the Neo-Assyrian army
are well-documented, and in 2 Kgs 18-19, Israel is holed up behind the walls of
Jerusalem with the Neo-Assyrian Army within earshot.
·
Both military encounters
appeared at crucial junctures in Israelite history. Israel’s confrontation
with Egypt appears in the immediate aftermath of the Passover. Thus, an
Egyptian victory would have either secured Israel’s re-enslavement or delayed
their trek to the Promised Land indefinitely. In 2 Kings, the text suggests
that a Neo-Assyrian victory at Jerusalem would have resulted in the forced
exile of Judah and the extinction of God’s people.
·
In each case, God’s
people recognize their inferiority. In Exodus, Israel cries out in fear,
accuses Moses of duping them, and essentially resign themselves to
re-enslavement. In 2 Kings, Israel has retreated behind the walls of Jerusalem,
the universal sign that the aggressors have the military superiority.
·
A divine being plays a
pivotal role in each confrontation. In Exodus, there is the Angel of God,
who runs interference with the pillar of cloud while Israel safely navigates
the Reed Sea. More famously, the Angel of the Lord slays the army of Assyria
under the cover of darkness in 2 Kings.
·
With each Israelite
victory, the victory is decisive. The Egyptian corpses wash up on the
seashore, and in 2 Kings the narrator documents the unanticipated realization
that the previously robust army had transformed into dead corpses over night.
Furthermore, literarily speaking, the defeats usher in a new dispensation for
each Empire. After Ex 14, Egypt is never mentioned again with the same military
reverence and the Neo-Assyrian Empire essentially disappears in Kings after
chapter 19.
·
The result of both
confrontations is the same—a recognition that the Lord is mighty to save
his people. Interestingly, in both narratives similar syntax and semantics are
used: see Ex 14:4; 17; 2 Kgs 19:19. In each case, telic syntax is accompanied
by a constituent noun clause.
o “…But I will gain glory from myself through Pharaoh and all his
army, and the Egyptians will know that I the Lord.” (Ex 14:4; NIV)
וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל־חֵילוֹ
וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי־אֲנִי יְהוָה
o
“…But I will gain glory from myself through Pharaoh and all his
army, through his chariots and through his horsemen, and the Egyptians will
know that I the Lord.” (Ex 14:17-18; NIV)
וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל־חֵילוֹ
בְּרִכְבּוֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי־אֲנִי יְהוָה
o “Now, Lord our God, deliver us from his hand so that all the
kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, Lord, are God.” (2 Kgs 19:19;
NIV)
וְעַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ הוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ נָא
מִיָּדוֹ וְיֵשדְעוּ כָּל־מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ כִּי אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
לְבַדֶּךָ
[On reading the forms וְיָדְעוּ as irreal Perfects with a
telic nuance, see John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt. Beginning Biblical
Hebrew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013, 66-67. While the syntax is
different, the semantics are the same.]
Indeed, these points of contact cause one to pause. But
is this all fortuitous? Perhaps. However, the principle of synergism looms
large. Consequently, it is the convergence of these points that cause me
to conclude that something other than accidental or random is occurring. The
total effect is greater than individual effects. As to the implications of this
literary connection, I will leave that for next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment