During the course of a recent address, it was stated quite emphatically that Israel did not go through the Red Sea, but on the contrary, passed through the Bitter Lakes. Dean Stanley, and other learned commentators, taking the opposite view, unreservedly countenance the Mosaic record, which affirms, that Israel did pass through the Red Sea.
The following testimonies are here cited as evidence that this was the fact1. The scientific modernist theory is to the effect, that Israel, instead of proceeding in a southerly direction, went north to the shallow waters of the Bitter Lakes; and an east wind, in conjunction with an ebb tide, caused the waters to recede, enabling Israel to go over dry shod. It is pointed out, that in Morecambe Bay, an identieal effect can still be seen at specified times, when the wind is in a certain direction.
This has an air of plausibility about it, bit what are the facts as recorded ? It might be remarked ill passing, that there is not a single reference in the Scriptures to the Bitter Lakes, and such a damaging omission, in effect, destroys the argument. Is not that a reasonable deduction?
Israel, after leaving Succoth (Ex 13:20), went to Etham, which lies South, and then encamped over against Baal Zephon (Ex 14:2). This place, as can be seen by the map, is over 30 miles below Etham.
Instead of proceeding towards the Mediterranean, the very opposite course was taken, and as they could not have been North and South at the same time, what is the logical reference? In a further attempt to justify this secular theory, it is contended that the miraculous supply of quails referred to’ is positive proof that Israel went North, as the quails congregated in the Nile Delta. But as has already been pointed out, the people, at that time, were proceeding South, and the fact of the quails being there — in an unlikely place — is the astounding element in the situation, there would have been nothing wonderful in the quails being found in the upper marshes of the River Nile. At this stage, it is advisable to refer to certain explicit testimonies which go to show, that instead of a receding tide, there was an unmistakable clear cut division of the mighty waters.
“But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch thine hand over the sea, and divide it; and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea (Ex 14:16)” . . . “And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land; and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.” (Ex 14:21-22, 29)
This dramatic gesture, causing as it did the waters to separate, clearly shows that prior to that action, they were undivided, and the sea must have been there, at the time, or Israel could not have gone down into the midst of it. Blunt, in his book on the Pentateuch, page 143, makes this very apposite comment :
“No sooner was the miracle working rod stretched forth over the waters, than the very nature of the elements was changed, for it is vain to attempt to account for it by natural causes, as so many have endeavoured to do, since it is expressly said, not merely that the wind blew back the sea, and left a channel dry for the passage of the Israelites, but that the waters were a wall unto them, on the right hand and on the left.”
By the way, a miracle being a super-natural act, something outside and far removed from the usual course of nature, an every-day occurrence such as an East wind, or an ebb tide, could not legitimately be placed in that category.
Another consideration, if the people passed through the shallow waters of the Bitter Lakes, and the tide was driven back by the force of the wind, then it will have to be acknowledged, that at the time Israel crossed over, the sea was miles away on the distant horizon. Providing that was so, then in what way is it possible to find an adequate explanation of this inspired testimony.
“And with the blast of thy (God’s) nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.” (Ex 15:8)
In these various quotations, are three definite and distinct words employed, viz., a wall, a heap, and to congeal. As everyone is aware, a wall is something solid, rigid, a defence. A heap signifies to pile, to amass, to accumulate. To congeal means to freeze, to stiffen. Are not these different terms in perfect harmony with all the facts as detailed ?
This section of the Red Sea must, therefore, have undergone a transformation, and the solidification of the water —like that in the Polar regions—constituted the super-natural element in the situation. Such an absolutely unique transformation in a tropical country, was unprecedented, and therefore cannot be explained on any natural hypothesis.
According to the critics, Divine interposition was not required, but Israel’s salvation necessitated it, and so the laws of nature were manipulated with that end in view. Endeavour is made to ignore or discount certain essential and salient features in the narrative, but this marvellous achievement defies an explanation, other than a recognition of the mighty hand of God. In the estimation of Blunt, as well as other authorities, this singular circumstance, was undoubtedly of God, a demonstration of Divine resourcefulness, and was accepted as such both by Moses and the people, hence the thrilling song of victory described in Exodus 15.
The only reasonable conclusion from these premises is this, viz., that the passage through the Red Sea, was not achieved by ordinary means, as is the hostile critics contention, otherwise, what justification is there for the prophetic allusion:
“He (God) led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name ?”(Isa 64:12)
Had there not been direct interposition in the way the Mosaic record affirms, what was the object in the account being preserved and perpetuated ? Israel were commanded to remember this deliverance throughout their generations (Deut 15:15) and the reason is both obvious and unmistakable.
The Apostle Paul seizes hold of this particular episode in Israel’s experience, and associates it with the ordinance of baptism, to which believers are enjoined to submit, as a means of salvation (Mk 16:16). “I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” (1 Cor 10:1-2)
What is the meaning of the word baptize? Why, to “Immerse deeply,” and does not that exactly harmonise with all the historic facts of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea ? Were they not, figuratively speaking, buried in water? This analogy could never be said to apply, if Israel had merely walked across an extensive tract of land, from which the water had been driven back.
In summing up the evidence, we are forced to accept this verdict, that the deliverance was not a fortuitous event, but must be classed as a miracle, both in the Biblical and dictionary sense of the term.
“The Valley of the Shadow”