Exodus 12:13 The importance of blood sacrifices, THE BLOOD. The Book of Exodus manifests a fuller comprehension of the importance of blood sacrifices. The sacrifice is perceived as the means for liberation of the individual, the family and the nation. The blood of animals for sacrifices was used regularly as an offering for sins as well as to consecrate the instruments of worship (20:24). It is called "the blood of the covenant" for the first time in 24:5-8. In the covenant with Moses and in the Levitical priesthood we find the most detailed administration of the blood of the sacrifices. The significance of the role of the blood points here toward the blood of Christ and its application for our redemption, justification and sanctification (Heb. 9:14).   (Lev. 17:11/Gen. 4:1-10) C.S.

The Book of Exodus does not give specific data that definitely links the biblical events will specific events or persons in Egypt. We are only told of "a new king" (Exod. 1:8) "who did not know about Joseph," an anonymous "Pharaoh" (Exod. 1:11,19,22; 2:15), and a "king of Egypt" (Exod. 1:15; 2:23).

This much we do know: Pharaoh, meaning great house and designating the monarch's residence, was used as a title for the king himself for the first time in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Also, the Pharaoh of the oppression died (Exod. 2:23) and was not the Pharaoh of the exodus (Exod. 4:19).

The two main views identify the Pharaoh of the exodus as a Pharaoh of (1) the Eighteenth Dynasty (1580-1321 BC) or (2) of the Nineteenth Dynasty (1321-1205 BC). The first is called the "early date," and the latter is called the "late date."

The early date of the fifteenth century has two main arguments in its favor. (1) The summarizing statement in I Kings 6:1 that there were 480 years from the exodus until the fourth year of Solomon (967 BC) yields a date of 1447 BC for the exodus (967 + 480 = 1447). (2) The supporting figure from Judges 11:26 comments that three hundred years had elapsed since Israel entered Canaan until the commencement of Judge Jephthah's rule (Jephthah is commonly placed around 1100 BC (1100 + 300 = 1400).

Both of these texts would set the exodus at 1446 BC and the conquest forty years later at 1410-1400 BC. They would also make Thutmose III the pharaoh of the oppression (1490-1436 BC, as dated by Albright, Wright, and Pritchard, or 1504-1450 BC as dated by the revised Cambridge Ancient History). In this case, Amenhotep II would be the pharaoh of the exodus.

Lately, many have pointed to one Greek manuscript that has 440 years instead of 480 or to the fact that 480 is a round number involving twelve generations of forty years each. The first variation is too insignificant to count. The second argument of round numbers fails because the priestly line in I Chronicles 6:33-37 actually yields eighteen generations, not the stylized twelve that many have assumed. Moreover, the numbers recorded in Judges do support the total given in Judges 11:26.

It is important to note that the oppression by the Ammonites (Judg 10:8-12:14) and the oppression by the Philistines (Judg 13:1-16:31) occurred simultaneously, one on the east side of the Jordan and the other on the west. Thus the forty-seven years of the Ammonite oppression does not continue the chronology since it fits into the narrative of the Philistine oppression featured in the first Book of Samuel.

Even when the additional fifteen to twenty years for Israel's conquest and settling of land are allowed, we still come up with 480 years from the exodus to Solomon's fourth year.

Over against the early or fifteenth century date for the exodus stands the late or thirteenth century date. Most biblical scholars and archaeologists conclude that the Israelites entered Canaan around 1230-1220 BC, toward the end of the late Bronze Age (generally accepted date is 1550-1200 BC).

Four arguments are usually advanced to support this theory.

1. The two store-cities built by the Israelites in Egypt - Pithom and Rameses (Exod. 1:11) - were built by Pharaoh Ramses II, who ruled from 1240-1224 BC. This would place the exodus in the thirteenth century.
2. The Transjordan, where Israel was said to have encountered several nations, was thought to be uninhabited from 1800-1300 BC.
3. Archaeological evidence shows many destruction levels in the cities of Canaan west of the Jordan in the second half of the thirteenth century. Though the Scriptures record that Israel burned the cities of Jericho and Ai (Josh. 6:24; 8:19-21), archaeologists have been unable to confirm that these sites were occupied in the Late Bronze Age, the era of the conquest.
4. The final argument for the late date notes that the capital of Egypt was moved north to Pi-Ramesse in the Nineteenth Dynasty (thirteenth century). The Eighteenth Dynasty of the fifteenth century had its capital in the south at Thebes.

Opponents of the late date have replies for the four previous arguments.

1. Exodus 1:7-14 seems to place the building of these cities as one of the first tasks Israel accomplished during its four centuries of bondage. Rameses is probably to be identified with Qantir. The use of the name Rameses may simply be a case of a modernization of a name much as modern historians might say that Julius Caesar crossed "the English Channel." Note that Genesis 47:11 referred to the area where Jacob's family settled in Egypt as "the district of Rameses." This certainly is a case of updating terms. Exodus 1:11 offers no definitive proof for a late date; archaeology offers no proof for equating Pi-Ramesse with biblical Rameses.
2. The conclusion that the Transjordan was unoccupied at the early date of the exodus was based solely on surface observation of these territories fifty years ago. Since that time excavations at Dibon have demonstrated thirteenth-century occupation. A tomb excavated in Heshbon has yielded a number of artifacts dating from 1600 BC.
3. The alleged Israelite burning levels in such sites as Lachish, Bethel, and Debir were probably caused by later thirteenth century incursions by the Egyptians, but certainly by the invasion of the Sea Peoples in 1200 BC.
4. Important inscriptions are now coming to light that indicate that the Eighteenth Dynasty did have a keen building interest in the delta region of Goshen where the Israelites resided. Some texts imply that these Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs had a secondary or temporary residence in the delta region.
5. The strongest evidence for the early date continues to be I Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26. Many, but not all, conservatives tend to favor the early date. Some archaeological evidence supports this date while other evidence tends to question this conclusion or its itself subject to interpretation and in need of further confirmation.