Exodus 13:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

For instance, Methuselah lived fourteen years after the flood yet did not board the ark with Noah, and although God told Abraham, "I have known that thy seed shall be cut off in a land that is not their own, and they shall enslave me, and embitter me, and humble me four hundred years" (Genesis 15:13), Moses later writes, "And it came to pass after four hundred and thirty years, that all the power of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:41). Similarly, Hagar carries her son Ishmael (Gen. 21:14) as a tender, weak child, yet he is revealed to be nearly eighteen years old (Gen. 16:16, Gen. 21:5, 8-9), making it implausible for him to be on her shoulders. Rehoboam, son of Solomon, began his reign in his forty-first year (3 Kings 14:21) and ruled in Jerusalem for sixteen years, while his father, who ascended to the throne in his twelfth year, reigned for forty years. Clearly, he could not have had a son at eleven years of age. As I pondered these concerns and others of a similar nature, the key of David was opened to me, guiding me into understanding, much like being sheltered in the cleft of a rock; after experiencing the storm, the earthquake, and the consuming fire of ignorance, the gentle whisper began to reach my soul (3 Sam. 19:12). I declared, I have discovered it; my soul shall love it; I will grasp it and not let it go (Song 3:4). In times of apparent contradiction within Scripture, both passages remain true, despite their differences. The Israelites exited Egypt in the fourth generation; examining Levi's genealogy: Levi begets Kaath, Kaath begets Amram, Amram begets Aaron, Aaron begets Eleazar, and Eleazar begets Phinehas. Kaath and his father Levi entered Egypt, while Eleazar and his father Aaron emerged from it. Counting the generations from Kaath to Eleazar yields four, though some prefer to start from Amram and finish with Phinehas while we conclude with Eleazar. If we explore a different count to align with Exodus' assertion of the Israelites exiting in the fifth generation, we must consider the tribe of Judah. Judah begets Phares, Phares begets Esrom, Esrom begets Aram, Aram begets Aminadab, Aminadab begets Naasson, and Naasson begets Salmon. Phares entered Egypt with Judah, while Naasson served as the leader of Judah in the wilderness and his son Salmon entered the Promised Land. If you count from Phares to Naasson, there are five generations, while some, as previously mentioned regarding Levi, might commence their count from Esrom and conclude with Salmon. I believe this discrepancy is clarified. Yet, if this remains unsatisfactory, I will turn to the texts themselves, noting that in Hebrew, there is no inconsistency. Even Aquila translates meticulously, word for word, and where the Seventy used the term "armed," it may alternatively be interpreted as "equipped" or "supplied," referring to the provisions acquired from the Egyptians. Driven by my desire for clarity, I am increasingly engulfed by the fervor of inquiry, akin to Jeremiah, who could not tolerate silence (Jeremiah 20:9); I wish to understand why the Seventy phrase it as "of the fifth kind" while Aquila uses "armed." I consult the Hebrew text that some attribute to Paul, known as Φενολην, carefully analyzing its letters to find it reads: Vamusim alubne Israel mearez mesraim. The translations align except for the word "amusim," represented by the letters: heth, mem, sin, sin, iod, mem, which can signify either five or armed. While we acknowledge that this word denotes five in plural, not fifth in singular as the Seventy interpreted, it lacks the Hebrew complement "genus," which is expressed by "dor." Therefore, if it were the fifth kind, the Hebrew would read "amesa dor." Instead, it states simply "amusim," implying five, even if interpreted as fifth; yet the meaning appears as if expressing that the sons of Israel emerged from Egypt on the fifth. This interpretation remains ambiguous, prompting the LXX to add "kind." Aquila's accurate translation is supported throughout Judea; the synagogues agree that the same letters can carry various accents and meanings. To exemplify, the words for "shepherds" and "lovers" share identical letters—res, ain, iod, mem—but are pronounced differently: "roim" for "shepherds" and "reim" for "lovers." Thus, the prophets' rebuke of Jerusalem for its infidelity to its lovers transformed "lovers" into "shepherds" in our texts. I recognize that this may not captivate every reader; however, when examining Hebrew letters, one should avoid convoluted arguments and refrain from embellishing discussions with classical rhetoric. Instead, the focus should be on clarity, employing straightforward language that reveals the essence of the topic, depicts the thought precisely, elucidates the unclear, and does not dazzle with ornate vocabulary. Let others be eloquent; let them derive glory from their grandiloquent expressions, releasing words like soap bubbles from their proud lips. My aim is to communicate plainly, striving for simplicity in my writing about writings.