show how falsely it has been asserted that God is no where in Scripture
said to be reconciled to us, and that they only declare that we are
reconciled to God; but the fact is, that the very phrase of _our being
reconciled to God_ imports the turning away of his wrath from us. Whitby
observes, on the words καταλλάττειν and καταλλαγὴ, “that they naturally
import the reconciliation of one that is angry or displeased with us,
both in profane and Jewish writers.” When the Philistines suspected that
David would appease the anger of Saul, by becoming their adversary, they
said, “Wherewith should he _reconcile_ himself to his master? Should it
not be with the heads of these men?” not, surely, How shall he remove
his own anger against his master? but, how shall he remove his master’s
anger against him? How shall he restore himself to his master’s favour?
“If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath aught against thee,” not, that thou hast aught against thy
brother, “first be reconciled to thy brother;” that is, appease and
conciliate him; so that the words, in fact, import, “See that thy
brother be reconciled to thee,” since that which goes before is, not
that he hath done thee an injury, but thou him. Thus, then, for us to be
reconciled to God is to avail ourselves of the means by which the anger
of God toward us is to be appeased, which the New Testament expressly
declares to be meritoriously “the sin-offering” of Him “who knew no
sin,” and instrumentally, as to each individual personally, “faith in
his blood.” See PROPITIATION.
REDEEMER. The Hebrew _goel_ is thus rendered, and the title is applied
to Christ, as he is the Avenger of man upon his spiritual enemy, and
delivers man from death and the power of the grave, which the human
avenger could not do. The right of the institution of _goel_ was only in
a relative, one of the same blood; and hence our Saviour’s assumption of
our nature is alluded to and implied under this term. There was also the
right of buying back the family inheritance when alienated; and this
also applies to Christ, our _Goel_, who has purchased back the heavenly
inheritance into the human family. Under these views Job joyfully
exclaims, “I know that my Redeemer,” my _Goel_, “liveth,” &c. See GOEL,
MEDIATOR, and JESUS CHRIST.
REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death by the obedience and
sacrifice of Christ, who, on this account, is called the Redeemer.
“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus,” Rom. iii, 24. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us,” Gal. iii, 13. “In whom we have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace,” Eph. i, 7. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without
spot,” 1 Pet. i, 18, 19. “And ye are not your own, for ye are bought
with a price,” 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20.
By redemption, those who deny the atonement made by Christ wish to
understand _deliverance_ merely, regarding only the effect, and
studiously putting out of sight the cause from which it flows. But the
very terms used in the above cited passages, “to redeem,” and “to be
bought with a price,” will each be found to refute this notion of a
gratuitous deliverance, whether from sin or punishment, or both. Our
English word, _to redeem_, literally means “to buy back;” and λυτρόω,
_to redeem_, and ἀπολύτρωσις, _redemption_, are, both in Greek writers
and in the New Testament, used for the act of setting free a captive, by
paying λυτρον, _a ransom_ or _redemption price_. But, as Grotius has
fully shown, by reference to the use of the words both in sacred and
profane writers, redemption signifies not merely “the liberation of
captives,” but deliverance from exile, death, and every other evil from
which we may be freed; and λύτρον signifies every thing which satisfies
another, so as to effect this deliverance. The nature of this redemption
or purchased deliverance, (for it is not gratuitous liberation, as will
presently appear,) is, therefore, to be ascertained by the circumstances
of those who are the subjects of it. The subjects in the case before us
are sinful men. They are under guilt, under “the curse of the law,” the
servants of sin, under the power and dominion of the devil, and “taken
captive by him at his will,” liable to the death of the body and to
eternal punishment. To the whole of this case, the redemption, the
purchased deliverance of man, as proclaimed in the Gospel, applies
itself. Hence, in the above cited and other passages, it is said, “We
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” in
opposition to guilt; redemption from “the curse of the law;” deliverance
from sin, that “we should be set free from sin;” deliverance from the
power of Satan; from death, by a resurrection; and from future “wrath,”
by the gift of eternal life. Throughout the whole of this glorious
doctrine of our redemption from these tremendous evils there is,
however, in the New Testament, a constant reference to the λύτρον, _the
redemption price_, which λύτρον is as constantly declared to be the
death of Christ, which he endured in our stead. “The Son of man came to
give his life a _ransom_ for many,” Matt. xx, 28. “Who gave himself a
_ransom_ for all,” 1 Tim. ii, 6. “In whom we have _redemption_ through
his blood,” Eph. i, 7. “Ye were not _redeemed_ with corruptible things,
as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,” 1 Pet. i,
18, 19. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal
evils of his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ,
is not, therefore, a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a
consideration, as an act of mere prerogative; the ransom, the redemption
price, was exacted and paid; one thing was given for another, the
precious blood of Christ for captive and condemned men. Of the same
import are those passages which represent us as having been “bought,” or
“purchased” by Christ. St. Peter speaks of those “who denied the Lord
τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτους, that bought them;” and St. Paul, in the passage
above cited, says, “Ye are bought with a price, ἠγόρασθητε;” which price
is expressly said by St. John to be the blood of Christ: “Thou wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God (ἠγόρασας, hast purchased us) by thy
blood,” Rev. v, 9.
RED SEA, celebrated chiefly for the miraculous passage of the Israelites
through its waters. They were thrust out of Egypt, says Dr. Hales, on
the fifteenth day of the first month; “about six hundred thousand men on
foot, beside women and children. And a mixed multitude went up also with
them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle,” Exod. xii, 37–39;
Num. xi, 4; xxxiii, 3. After they set out from Rameses, in the land of
Goshen, in the neighbourhood of Cairo, their first encampment was at
Succoth, signifying “booths,” or an “enclosure for cattle,” after a
stage of about thirty miles; their second, at Etham, or Adsjerud, on the
edge of the wilderness, about sixty miles farther; “for the Lord led
them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see
war, and they return to Egypt: but God led the people about by the way
of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” or by a circuitous rout to the land
of promise, in order to train them and instruct them, in the solitudes
of Arabia Petræa, Exodus xiii, 17–20; Deut. xxxii, 10. Instead of
proceeding from Etham, round the head of the Red Sea, and coasting along
its eastern shore, the Lord made them turn southward along its western
shore, and, after a stage of about twenty or thirty miles, to encamp in
the valley of Bedea, where there was an opening in the great chain of
mountains that line the western coast, called Pi-hahiroth, the mouth of
the ridge between Migdol westward, and the sea eastward, “over against
Baal-zephon,” on the eastern coast; to tempt Pharaoh, whose heart he
finally hardened, to pursue them when they were “entangled in the land,”
and shut in by the wilderness on their rear and flanks, and by the sea
in their front. The leading motive with Pharaoh and his servants was to
bring back the Israelites to bondage, and of the Egyptians in general,
to recover the treasures of which they had been spoiled, Exod. xiv, 1–5.
So Pharaoh pursued the Israelites by the direct way of Migdol, with six
hundred chariots, his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them
encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, over against Baal-zephon. When
their destruction, or their return to bondage, seemed to be inevitable,
the Lord interposed and fought for Israel. He opened for them a passage
across the Red Sea, where it was about twelve miles wide, and brought
them through in safety; while he drowned the Egyptians, who blindly
followed them to their own destruction, Psalm lxxvii, 18, &c.
On this memorable deliverance Moses composed a thanksgiving, which he
and the Israelites sung unto the Lord. It is also a sublime prophecy,
foretelling the powerful effect of this tremendous judgment on the
neighbouring nations of Edom, Moab, Palestine, and Canaan, the future
settlement of the Israelites in the promised land; and the erection of
the temple and sanctuary on Mount Zion, and the perpetuity of the
dominion and worship of God.
The precise place of this passage has been much contested. Some place it
near Suez, at the head of the gulf; others, with more probability, about
ten hours’ journey lower down, at Clysma, or the vale of Bedea. The day
before the passage, by the divine command, the Israelites encamped
beside Pi-hahiroth, “between Migdol and the sea, over against
Baal-zephon,” Exodus xiv, 2; Num. xxxiii, 7. Pi-hahiroth signifies “the
mouth of the ridge,” or chain of mountains, which line the western coast
of the Red Sea, called Attaka, “deliverance,” in which was a gap, which
formed the extremity of the valley of Bedea, ending at the sea eastward,
and running westward to some distance, toward Cairo; Migdol, signifying
“a tower,” probably lay in that direction; and Baal-zephon, signifying
“the northern Baal,” was probably a temple on the opposite promontory,
built on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. And the modern names of
places in the vicinity tend to confirm these expositions of the ancient.
Beside Attaka, on the eastern coast opposite, is a head land, called
_Ras Musa_, or “the Cape of Moses;” somewhat lower, _Hamam Faraun_,
“Pharaoh’s Springs;” below Girondel, a reach of the gulf, called _Birket
Faraun_; and the general name of the gulf is _Bahr al Kolsum_, “the Bay
of Submersion.” These names indicate that the passage was considerably
below Suez, according to the tradition of the natives. The depth and
breadth of the gulf, from Suez downward, is thus described by Niebuhr:
“I have not found in this sea, from Suez southward, any bank or isthmus
under water. When we departed from Suez, we sailed as far as Girondel,
without fear of encountering any such. We had in the first place, the
road of Suez, four fathom and half; at three German leagues from Suez,
in the middle of the gulf, four fathoms; and about Girondel, near the
shore, even to ten fathoms.” Bruce, also, describing the place of
passage opposite Ras Musa, or a little below it, says, “There is here
about fourteen fathom of water in the channel, and about nine in the
sides, and good anchorage every where. The farthest side, the eastern,
is a low sandy coast, and a very easy landing place.” Shaw reckons the
breadth of the gulf at this place about ten miles; Neibuhr, three
leagues and more; Bruce, something less than four leagues: we may
therefore estimate it about twelve miles, from their joint reports. But
this space the host of the Israelites could easily have passed in the
course of a night, from the evening to the ensuing morning watch, or
dawn of day, according to the Mosaical account. And surely the depth of
the sea was no impediment, when the Lord divided it by “a strong east
wind,” which blew across the sea all that night, and made the bottom of
the sea dry land; “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,” Exodus xiv, 21, 22.
In the queries of Michaëlis, sent to Niebuhr, when in Egypt, it was
proposed to him to inquire upon the spot, whether there were not some
ridges of rocks where the water was shallow, so that an army at
particular times may pass over; secondly, whether the Etesian winds,
which blow strongly all summer from the north-west, could not blow so
violently against the sea as to keep it back on a heap, so that the
Israelites might have passed without a miracle. And a copy of these
queries was left, also, for Bruce, to join his inquiries likewise; his
observations on which are excellent: “I must confess, however learned
the gentlemen were who proposed these doubts, I did not think they
merited any attention to solve them. This passage is told us by
Scripture to be a miraculous one; and if so, we have nothing to do with
natural causes. If we do not believe Moses, we need not believe the
transaction at all, seeing that it is from his authority alone we derive
it. If we believe in God, that he made the sea, we must believe he could
divide it when he sees proper reason; and of that he must be the only
judge. It is no greater miracle to divide the Red Sea than to divide the
river Jordan. If the Etesian wind, blowing from the north-west in
summer, could keep up the sea as a wall on the right, or to the south,
of fifty feet high, still the difficulty would remain of building the
wall on the left hand, or to the north. Beside, water standing in that
position for a day must have lost the nature of fluid. Whence came that
cohesion of particles which hindered that wall to escape at the sides?
This is as great a miracle as that of Moses. If the Etesian winds had
done this once, they must have repeated it many a time before and since,
from the same causes. Yet Diodorus Siculus says the Troglodytes, the
indigenous inhabitants of that very spot, had a tradition from father to
son, from their very earliest ages, that ‘once this division of the sea
did happen there; and that, after leaving its bottom some time dry, the
sea again came back, and covered it with great fury.’ The words of this
author are of the most remarkable kind: we cannot think this Heathen is
writing in favour of revelation: he knew not Moses, nor says a word
about Pharaoh and his host; but records the miracle of the division of
the sea in words nearly as strong as those of Moses, from the mouths of
unbiassed, undesigning Pagans.” Still skeptical queries have their use;
they lead to a stricter investigation of facts, and thereby tend
strongly to confirm the veracity of the history they mean to impeach.
Thus it appears from the accurate observations of Niebuhr and Bruce,
that there is no ledge of rocks running across the gulf any where, to
afford a shallow passage. And the second query, about the Etesian or
northerly wind, is refuted by the express mention of a strong easterly
wind blowing across, and scooping out a dry passage; not that it was
necessary for Omnipotence to employ it there as an instrument, any more
than at Jordan; but it seems to be introduced in the sacred history by
way of anticipation, to exclude the natural agency that might in after
times be employed for solving the miracle; and it is remarkable that the
monsoon in the Red Sea blows the summer half of the year from the north,
the winter half from the south, neither of which therefore, even if wind
could be supposed to operate so violently upon the waters, could produce
the miracle in question.
Wishing to diminish, though not to deny, the miracle, Niebuhr adopts the
opinion of those who contend for a higher passage near Suez. “For,” says
he, “the miracle would be less if they crossed the sea there than near
Bedea. But whosoever should suppose that the multitude of the Israelites
could be able to cross it here without a prodigy would deceive himself;
for, even in our days, no caravan passes that way to go from Cairo to
Mount Sinai, although it would considerably shorten the journey. The
passage would have been naturally more difficult for the Israelites some
thousands of years back, when the gulf was probably larger, deeper, and
more extended toward the north; for, in all appearance, the water has
retired, and the ground near this end has been raised by the sands of
the neighbouring desert.” But it sufficiently appears, even from
Niebuhr’s own statement, that the passage of the Israelites could not
have been taken near Suez; for, 1. He evidently confounded the town of
Kolsum, the ruins of which he places near Suez, and where he supposed
the passage to be made, with the bay of Kolsum, which began about
forty-five miles lower down; as Bryant has satisfactorily proved, from
the astronomical observations of Ptolemy and of Ulug Beigh, made at
Heroum, the ancient head of the gulf. 2. Instead of crossing the sea at
or near Ethan, their second station, the Israelites turned southward,
along the western shore; and their third station at Pi-hahiroth, or
Bedea, was at least a full day’s journey below Ethan, as Bryant has
satisfactorily proved from Scripture, Exodus xiv, 2. And it was this
unexpected change in the direction of their march, and the apparently
disadvantageous situation in which they were then placed, entangled in
the land, and shut in by the wilderness, with a deep sea in front, the
mountains of Attaka on the sides, and the enemy in their rear, that
tempted the Egyptians to pursue them through the valley of Bedea, by the
direct route from Cairo, who overtook them encamping by the sea, beside
Pi-hahiroth, opposite to Ball-zephon, Exod. xiv, 2–9.
Niebuhr wonders how the Israelites could suffer themselves to be brought
into such a disadvantageous situation, or be led blindfold by Moses to
their apparent destruction. “One need only travel with a caravan,” says
he, “which meets with the least obstacle, namely, a small torrent, to be
convinced that the orientals do not let themselves be led, like fools,
by their caravan _baschi_,” or leader of the caravan. But the Israelites
went out of Egypt with “a high hand,” though led by Moses, yet under the
visible guidance and protection of “the Lord God of the Hebrews,” who
“went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, and by night in a
pillar of fire;” and who, for their encouragement, to enter the passage
of the sea miraculously prepared for them, removed the cloud which went
before the camp of Israel hitherto, and placed it behind them. “And it
came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it
was a cloud and darkness to the one, but gave light by night to the
other: so that the one came not near the other all the night,” Exod.
xiv, 8–20.
Niebuhr wonders, also, how Pharaoh and the Egyptians could be led to
follow the Israelites. “Pharaoh must have wanted prudence, if, after
having seen so many prodigies in Egypt, he had entered into a sea of
more than three leagues wide: all the Egyptians, too, must have been
bereft of understanding, in wishing to pursue the Israelites into such a
sea. Doubtless they knew their own country well enough to distinguish
the bottom of a large sea, which bounds Egypt on that side, from a
desert.” But Pharaoh and the Egyptians probably did not know their
situation. The cloud which separated them from the Israelites increased
the darkness of the night; and they probably did not enter into the sea
till about midnight, by which time the van of the Israelites might have
reached the eastern shore. Meanwhile, the bed of the sea, now beaten by
the feet of the immense multitude of men and cattle that had gone
before, might not have been easily distinguishable from the desert. If
we ask, Why did the Egyptians venture to pursue the Israelites by night?
Why did they not wait till day light, when they could see whither they
were going? Niebuhr himself has unwittingly answered the question:
Pharaoh wanted “prudence,” indeed, and the Egyptians were “bereft of
understanding.” And this is the Scriptural solution; for God hardened
the heart of Pharaoh to follow after them, that he might be honoured
upon Pharaoh and all his host; and that, by their miraculous
destruction, the Egyptians might know that he was the Lord supreme,
Exod. xiv, 4–18. The Egyptians did not find out their mistake till the
“morning appeared,” or till day-break, when the rear of the Israelites
had gained the shore, and the Egyptians had reached the middle of the
sea, and their whole host had entered into it: then, indeed, they
attempted to fly back, but in vain; for “their chariot wheels were
broken off, so that they drave them heavily, and their host was
troubled” by the Lord, who looked or frowned upon them through the
cloudy pillar of fire, and overwhelmed all their host in the midst of
the sea; when the sea suddenly returned to his strength at the signal of
Moses stretching forth his hand over it, Exod. xiv, 24–28.
The particulars of this transaction demonstrate, that neither the host
of the Israelites, nor the host of Pharaoh, could possibly have passed
at the head of the gulf near Suez; where the sea was only half a league
broad, according to Niebuhr’s own supposition, and consequently too
narrow to contain the whole host of Pharaoh at once; whose six hundred
chariots alone, exclusive of his cavalry and infantry, must have
occupied more ground. Manetho, and the Egyptian writers, have passed
over in silence this tremendous visitation of their nation. An ancient
writer, however, Artapanus, who wrote a history of the Jews, about B. C.
130, has preserved the following curious Egyptian traditions:--“The
Memphites relate, that Moses, being well acquainted with the country,
watched the influx of the tide, and made the multitude pass through the
dry bed of the sea. But the Heliopolitans relate, that the king, with a
great army, accompanied by the sacred animals, pursued after the Jews,
who had carried off with them the substance of the Egyptians; and that
Moses, having been directed by a divine voice to strike the sea with his
rod, when he heard it, touched the water with his rod; and so the fluid
divided, and the host passed over through a dry way. But when the
Egyptians entered along with them, and pursued them, it is said, that
fire flashed against them in front, and the sea, returning back,
overwhelmed the passage. Thus the Egyptians perished, both by the fire,
and by the reflux of the tide.“
The latter account is extremely curious: it not only confirms Scripture,
but it notices three additional circumstances: 1. That for their
protection against the God of Israel, the Egyptians brought with them
the sacred animals; and by this means God executed judgment upon all the
bestial gods of Egypt, as foretold, Exod. xii, 12, that perished with
their infatuated votaries; completing the destruction of both, which
began with smiting the first-born both of man and beast. 2. That the
recovery of the jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment, which
they asked and obtained of the Egyptians, according to the divine
command, Exod. xii, 35, 36, was a leading motive with the Egyptians to
pursue them; as the bringing back the Israelites to slavery had been
with Pharaoh and his servants, or officers. 3. That the destruction of
the Egyptians was partly occasioned by lightning and thunderbolts from
the presence of the Lord; exactly corresponding to the psalmist’s
sublime description: “The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee;
they were afraid: the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out
water, the air thundered, thine arrows also went abroad. Yea, he sent
out his arrows, and scattered them; he shot forth lightnings, hail
stones, and coals of fire, and discomfited them. Then the channels of
waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered, at
thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils,” Psalm
lxxvii, 16, 17; xviii, 13–15.