Who is Like Our God? Part 2

According to the Mechilta, the Israelites encamped in front of Baal Zaphon, the last remaining idol in Egypt, in order to deceive the Egyptians into believing that their god had caused them to have the upper hand.

The Final Contest: The Mystique of Baal Zaphon

The Egyptians gave chase to them, and all the chariot horses of Pharaoh, his horsemen, and his warriors overtook them encamped by the sea, near Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon. – Exodus 14:9  

According to the Mechilta, the Israelites encamped in front of Baal Zaphon, the last remaining idol in Egypt, in order to deceive the Egyptians into believing that their god had caused them to have the upper hand. The Targum Jonathan gives a more elaborate description: “For the Egyptians will say, ‘more excellent is Baal Zaphon than all the idols, because it is left, and not smitten.” This bit of information was supposed to let Pharaoh rationalize that the Israelites were lost and confused because Baal Zaphon’s power was so strong that it had forced them to return to Egypt.

However, the biblical context would seem to suggest that Baal Zaphon was nothing more than a place name on Israel’s route to the Promised Land: “They journey from Etham, and turn back on Pi-Hahiroth, which is on the front of Baal-Zephon, and they encamp before Migdol (Num. 33:7 YLT).” No information is given concerning the nature of this mysterious settlement: Was Baal Zaphon a topographical location or was it a civilization with religious-historical relevance? The lack of archaeological and geographic evidence has given rise to some colorful interpretations over the centuries. For example, in 1932 a German Protestant theologian, Otto Eissfeldt, came to the wild conclusion that the Phoenician and Ugaritic deity Baal Zaphon was to be credited with the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, and that the glory given to the God of Israel was only a secondary innovation. As difficult as this conclusion is to accept, understanding who Baal Zaphon was historically, and what his divine attributes were supposed to represent can make the error somewhat understandable. Baal Zaphon was one of the ba’alim familiar to the northwest Semitic region, and was the primary Baal of Ugarit. The name literally means ‘lord of Mount Zaphon.’ Mount Zaphon is mentioned in Isaiah 14:13 as the summit to which the king of Babel, who is euphemistically compared to the adversary of Hashem, defiantly established himself over the divine assembly —

Once you thought in your heart, “I will climb to the sky; Higher than the stars of God I will set my throne. I will sit in the mount of assembly, On the summit of Zaphon:

Geographically, צפון corresponds to modern-day Jebel Aqra, a limestone mountain on the Mediterranean Sea that is situated on the modern Syrian-Turkish border. The ancient port of Ugarit lies just 19 miles to the south. As briefly mentioned in the introduction to Part 1, Baal Zaphon was synonymous with the Canaanite and Ugaritic deity Haddu.

According to Herbert Niehr in his article Baal Zaphon in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, the mountain of Zaphon was the cosmic summit par excellence, and “the name of the mountain was transferred to further Baal-sanctuaries outside Ugarit.” Just how far did this deity’s influence reach? In a 14th century Ugaritic letter (KTU 2.23) sent to Pharaoh himself, the protector of the Ugarit dynasty is likened to Amun, the protector of Pharaoh. Amun, the god of air, was one of the eight primordial Egyptian deities. Although Amun’s role evolved over the centuries (like most Egyptian deities did), by the time of the Middle Kingdom Amun had taken on national status and eventually merged with Ra, the ancient sun god to become Amun-Ra. If this association is correct and to be taken seriously, then it is easy to see how Pharaoh could have found solace and renewed strength in the apparent Israelite confusion played out before Baal Zaphon, the supposed deity synonymous with Amun-Ra and Pharaoh’s personal protector. Furthermore, the Egyptians would certainly have considered any challenge to Amun-Ra a tall order as the god garnered such a massive cult following.

According to Ugaritic mythology, Baal Zaphon was a sea/storm god and the protector of maritime trade and navigation. His temples were known to receive votive offerings in the form of stone anchors. Evidence of the ties between Baal Zaphon and Egyptian cult worship are ubiquitous in ancient letters, ritual texts, and stellas discovered in numerous excavations in Egypt and throughout the levant. The oldest representations of Baal Zaphon date to the 18th century BCE and were discovered in Tell El’Dab’a in Egypt. The representation shows an impression on a Syrian seal with Baal Zaphon posed in a smiting position while straddling two mountains on foot. In an apparent act of reciprocal admiration, an illustration of Baal Zaphon was preserved in a votive stella donated by an Egyptian officer and discovered in the Baal-temple of Ugarit (ANEP 485; YON 1991:328 fig. 8a). As Neihr notes in his observation: “The god is represented standing before a cult stand, wearing a crown and holding a scepter in his left hand. An additional Egyptian inscription identifies the donator [Mami] and the god.”

How is it that Baal Zaphon garnered such distinction and admiration among the Egyptians? Such widespread allegiance was not uncommon. In fact, since Baal Tzaphon was the protector of weather and maritime trade, he traveled well among the sea merchants in the ancient world and was known to make his impression in far reaching portages such as Rome and Spain. These civilizations belonged to the Greco-Roman world and paid homage to the Phoenician deity under the name, Zeus-Kasios. Like the Egyptian Amun, the normative Zeus was the god of sky and thunder who reigned from Mount Olympus – a mountain in Greece that was likely considered the supernatural adversary of God’s Holy Mountain in Jerusalem by the Jews of antiquity, just as the infamous Mount Zaphon stood in opposition to Mount Zion in the generation of Isaiah’s prophecy.

The prominence of Baal Zaphon in Israelite culture is made known by its eponymous association with “north” in the Hebrew language. Just as kedem, negev, and ha’yam became synonymous with the directions east, south, and west respectively; צפון became a stand-in for “Smol: Left-of-east” because of the importance and location of Mount Zaphon (e.g., Gen. 28:1). Furthermore, because sanctuaries dedicated to Baal Zaphon were prominent throughout the Mediterranean regions, Baal Zaphon became a popular placename for numerous locations throughout the ancient Near East. The latter appears to be consistent with the Torah’s description of Baal Zaphon as an apparent placename near ancient Egypt’s northeastern border (Num. 33:7). Despite the historical and biblical evidence to support this claim, there is sufficient linguistic evidence in the Torah’s descriptions to cast doubt on its certainty.

In all three references to Baal Zaphon in the Hebrew Scriptures, the text orients the placename with a directional preposition e.g., עַל־פְּנֵ֖י בַּ֣עַל צְפ֑וֹן – lit. “on the face of Baal Zaphon (Num. 33:7);” and twice, לִפְנֵי בַּעַל צְפֹן – “before Baal Zaphon (Ex. 14:2, 9),” to describe the position of the Israelite camp. Several translations render the preposition as “east of Baal Zaphon” since the Torah’s primary point of navigation is east and anything “in front” or “before” it would technically be considered west of the position. While the Torah is known to use the construct preposition עַל־פְּנֵי as a navigating marker (Gen. 16:12; Lev. 16:14; Num. 21:11; 1 Chr. 5:10; Zech. 14:4), the phrase can just as easily be taken in the literal sense of simply meaning: facing, opposing, or being in proximity to a particular object or location. In Exodus 14:2, the clarifying descriptor נֵכַח, “in front of, opposite to, in the sight of, before” with the 3ms pronominal suffix and 2mp verbal imperative נִכְחוֹ תַחֲנוּ lit. “facing him shall you camp,” gives room for interpreting the subject in question as a masculine object or entity rather than a placename. Thus, the rabbinic interpretation of Baal Zaphon as a lone standing idol has credence on the basis of a strict literal rendering of the prepositions in question, although the conclusion cannot be verified with certainty.

While the ability to conclusively identify the Torah’s Baal Zaphon as a placename or remote cult shrine may forever be allusive, the mere mention of the deity in the Exodus narrative presents an intriguing literary mechanism that works to heighten the suspense of the epic showdown between Pharaoh and the God of Israel. Somehow, God is able to convince Pharaoh of Israel’s wandering befuddlement by the report of the people’s backtracking and the mention of their encampment in proximity to Baal Zaphon. Pharaoh’s heart is emboldened, and as previously mentioned, he gives chase with the strength of Egypt’s military prowess on this information alone (Ex. 14:9-10). Since the presence of Baal Zaphon is part of the ploy to provoke Pharaoh, its mention is not insignificant and proves to serve a greater theological purpose than its mere presence as a placename. This becomes overwhelmingly evident in the Torah’s magnificent portrayal of the Sea’s parting:

Thus, there was the cloud with the darkness, and it cast a spell upon the night, so that the one could not come near the other all through the night. Then Moses held out his arm over the sea and the LORD drove back the sea with a strong east wind all that night, and turned the sea into dry ground. (Exodus 14:20-21 JPS)

It is easy to overlook the apparent irony of this passage, yet it is undeniable when all the elements at play are given their due recognition: The method for conquering the sea with darkness and a strong east wind invokes imagery of Baal Zaphon’s mastery over storm and sea. Thus, the literary mechanism employed by the author serves to pose a direct confrontation to the popular deity of the north by advocating the superiority of Hashem above all other gods. The result is a demonstration of universal and solitary sovereignty of epic proportions.

As stated all along, the purpose of parting the sea was to demonstrate God’s sovereignty to the Egyptians and to execute judgment upon their gods (Num. 33:4). In his commentary to Exodus 14:21, Moses ben Nachman, commonly known as the Ramban explains that God’s reason for parting the sea by a seemingly natural phenomena rather than through an undeniable, obvious miracle was to allow the Egyptians room for doubt: “They thought that perhaps it was the wind which made the sea into dry land, but that it was not the power of God that did this for the sake of Israel.” In their eventual pursuit, it was the Egyptian’s err of perception that emboldened their hearts and led to their destruction.

In the aftermath of Pharaoh’s demise, the resultant impression left by the God of Israel had far reaching implications that exceeded its immediate Egyptian audience. Remarkably, when word of Israel’s reputation reached the Canaanite nations, it was the parting of the sea that struck more fear in their hearts than all the plagues wrought upon Egypt (Josh. 2:10-11; cf. 5:1). Thus, the testimony of God parting the sea sufficiently demonstrates the theological purposes of the author in making mention of Baal Zaphon as a placename or otherwise. In respect to the exodus from Egypt, the parting of the Yam Suf can be seen as the final threshold to Israel’s destiny, whereby Israel’s supreme God defies the attributes of Baal Zaphon, making passage through the symbolic and philosophical gateway to the north. Israel would certainly need to rely on the surety of God’s sovereignty and their collective experience of His provision in the Wilderness to withstand the cultural and religious influence of the Canaanite nations they would soon dispossess.

Conclusion:

With Egypt’s economy crippled, and her inheritance destroyed in the death of the firstborn, the slaves plundered the master as Israel walked out of Egypt defiantly for the new land God had promised them. So many questions are born out of this moment in history. Many questions remain unanswered to this day: From where did Pharaoh conjure up his second wind to pursue the Israelite nation after being so humbly defeated? Why did the people of Israel circle back to encamp by the sea when the land of freedom was so easily within reach? At play is the intersection of Israelite and ancient Near Eastern Religions.

Prior to their crossing, the opposition facing Abraham’s progeny seemed insurmountable. The most powerful military in the world had pinned their backs against the sea with no avenue for escape. In a moment of desperation, the people cried out to Moses, not to deliver them from their predicament, but to criticize him for his lack of judgment and foresight by subjecting them to such a vulnerable position: “It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness! (Ex. 14:12).” Had they not witnessed God’s miraculous salvation in the year prior? Had they not seen how their taskmasters suffered through a series of debilitating plagues? Had they not grown to trust their leader who had demonstrated authority over Pharaoh by signs, wonders, and miracles? The Torah stresses that the deliverance at the sea put to rest all questions: “And when Israel saw the wondrous power which the LORD had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD; they had faith in the LORD and His servant Moses. (Ex. 15:31).”

The two verses at the heart of our discussion (Ex. 14:2, 9) present the north-Semitic deity, Baal Zaphon, as a pawn in God’s master plan to conclusively demonstrate His sovereignty and boundless dominion over the nations. Although the appearance of Baal Zaphon may very well be a reference to a placename in Egypt, its function in the narrative is not limited to geographic importance, as it is evident that the revered בעל of the north was useful in the author’s portrayal of the final opposition standing in the way of Israel’s complete redemption. Hence, the deity that was known to embody the adversarial traits of Israel’s opposition in Isaiah’s day, and the same deity who found homage in Egypt under the guise of Amun-Ra, and renowned throughout the ancient Mediterranean world as Zeus-Kasios, was no match for the true God who possessed all of Baal Zaphon’s fabled mastery over the sea, wind, and navigation.

Finally, the Splitting of the Sea marked a monumental transition in Israelite history. No longer were the slaves subject to Egypt’s king or religion. For the first time in recorded history, one God executed judgement on many to take for himself a unique people as a treasured possession. After having witnessed the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, the erstwhile slaves expressed their newfound allegiance in the Song of Redemption: “This is my God, and I glorify Him; God of my father, and I exalt Him (Ex. 15:2).” The most famous line from the Song at the Sea is presented in the form of a rhetorical question: “Who is like you among the gods, O LORD?” The obvious answer is expressed in King David’s prayer recorded in Psalm 86:8: אֵין־כָּמוֹךָ בָאֱלֹהִים אֲדֹנָי וְאֵין כְּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ - "There is none like You among the gods; and there is none like Your deeds."

In another prayer of David, the king expressed his admiration for God by positing the same rhetorical question from a different perspective: מִי כְעַמְּךָ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – “Who is like Your people, like Israel” (II Samuel 7:23). David’s summation in the verses that follow adequately express the gravity of God’s monumental demonstration at the Sea of Reeds: “[Who is like] the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name—and to do for Yourself great and awesome deeds for Your land—before Your people whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, the nations, and their gods? 24 For You have made Your people Israel Your very own people forever; and You, LORD, have become their God. (II Sam. 7:23-24)”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Aramaic Bible: The Targums. Vol. 1-22., edited by Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and M.S.C. Martin McNamara, Collegeville, M.N.: The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., 1995.

Eissfeldt, Otto. Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios Und Der Durchzug Der Israeliten Durchs Meer. Halle (Saale), Germany: M. Niemeyer, 1932.

Hezekiah ben Manoah. Chizkuni: Torah Commentary. Edited by Eliyahu Munk. Brooklyn, NY: Ktav Publications, 2013.

Nachmanides, Moses. Ramban: The Torah With Ramban's Commentary. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Mesorah Publ., 2005.

Rashi, Yisrael Isser Zvi. Herczeg, Yaakov Petroff, Yosef Kamenetzky, Yaakov Blinder, and Avie Gold. Rashi: the Torah with Rashi's Commentary. Sapirsteined. Vol. 1. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1999. Sforno, O. B., & Pelcovitz, R. (2016).

Sforno: Commentary on the Torah. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications.

Shafer, Byron E., John Baines, Leonard H. Lesko, and David P. Silverman. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Singer, Isidore, et. al. The Jewish Encyclopedia: The History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1906.

Toorn, Karel van der, et. al. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1999.