1Creation or Redemption: When Did God Defeat Rahab/Leviathan?1 1A Paper Presented at the 2013 Annual ETS Convention

November 20, 2013, Baltimore, MDJohn Ronning

12Yet God is my King from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

13You did split open the sea by your might;You did shatter the heads of the dragonsupon the waters

14You did crush the heads of Leviathan;You gave him to be food for the desert creatures.

15You did split open springs and brooks;You did dry up perennially flowing rivers.

16Yours is the day, yours also the night;You did make moon and sun.

17You did establish all the boundaries of theearth;

Summer and winter—you did make them. (Psalm 74:12–17)

Introduction:Psalm 74:12–17 associates God’s defeat of Leviathan with the

creation of the world. By “associates” I simply mean that the twoare mentioned in the same context. This association has led some to see in these verses evidence of a belief in a mythological creation account more like the Babylonian creation account Enuma Elish than like Genesis 1, which could be viewed as a 1 This paper is based in large part on the author’s “The Curse on the Serpent:Genesis 3:15 in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics,” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA, 1997. The dissertation is available at http://postbiblical.info/PDFS/The_Curse_on_the_Serpent.pdf . I have not referenced the dissertation in these notes in all cases of dependence.

1

demythologized version of creation with the monster becoming the inanimate “deep” (Heb. təhom; Gen 1:2), and/or merely natural creatures (the great sea monsters [= tanninim] of the deeps; Gen 1:21).2 1Such a view has obvious implications for this year’s conference theme, the doctrine of inerrancy. The remnant of such mythology in the canonical Scriptures would presumably be explained as due to a demythologizing reinterpretation of the text. One strategy to avoid such implications has been to view the account of the defeat of Leviathan as merely a figurative description of the ordering of chaos described in Genesis 1: Leviathan (or some such being) is indeed a mythological supernatural foe of a deity in pagan creation accounts but was never a being at all in Psalm 74; Genesis 1 had no mythological precursors in the canonical process.3 The approach taken in this paper is that in Psalm 74 and several other OT passages, Leviathan/Rahab is indeed a supernatural foe of God, the “serpentof old” (Rev 12:9; 20:2). Psalm 74 celebrates the defeat of Leviathan in the defeat of the Egyptians in redemptive history, at the Red Sea, and his defeat is described in terms reminiscent of the promise of Genesis 3:15, “He shall strike you on the head.” The association of the defeat of Leviathan with creation language is due to the easily documented (but often overlooked) association of creation and redemption in the OT, especially in

2 See e.g. Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895), and now in English, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney, Jr.; The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (New York: Cambridge, 1985),Mary K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973).

3 Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Chaos: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Biblical Cosmogony(Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974).

2

the exodus deliverance.Leviathan and Rahab in the OT.

Both terms have dual meanings in the OT: besides being used as names for a supernatural foe of God (Leviathan in Job 3:8 [?];Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1; Rahab in Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps 89:10; Isa 51:9), Leviathan can refer to one of God’s creatures (Job 3:8 [?]; 41:1, 10, 12, 18, 22, 25, 31; Ps 104:26), while Rahab can bea nickname for Egypt (Ps 87:4; Isa 30:7). As a supernatural being, The name Rahab is not known outside the Bible, though its use in Job may suggest that it was so known. The name Leviathan is known outside of the Bible, equivalent to Ugaritic l-t-n, as is apparent from the coincidence of language between Isa 27:1 and Ugaritic mythology.4 Both are described with the Hebrew word tannin (serpent, dragon, sea monster), and both are described as nahas bariah, equivalent to Ugaritic b-t-n b-r-h used of l-t-n. Below I will show the evidence that this epithet should be translated “evil serpent.” The Ugaritic myth goes on to describe l-t-n as having seven heads, just as the dragon, “the serpent of old,” in Rev 12:9; 20:2.Other passages describing the defeat of Rahab/Leviathan

4 “A comparison of the vocabulary of Isaiah 27:1 and three lines from the Ugaritic epic, ‘The Death of Baal,’ shows the direct borrowing of the Hebrew from the Canaanite. Two words which describe Lotan and Leviathan are identicalin the two languages. They are brh [sic], usually translated “swift” or “gliding,” and ‘qltn, usually translated “crooked” or “tortuous” (Howard Wallace, “Leviathan and the Beast in Revelation,” The Biblical Archaeologist 11/3 [1948]: 61–68). For another spelling of the dragon’s name, Litan, see J. A. Emerton, “Leviathan and LTN: the Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon” (VT 32, 3 [1982], 327–31. Emerton argues that the Hebrew spelling is older since there is no known Semitic root l-t-n, while Leviathan (liwyatan) can be easily seen to be from the root lwy, possibly with the sense of coiling. The seven-headed dragon is represented on the Tell Asmar seal, in Syria, datedat 2180-2360 BC (James Pritchard, ANEP, 221 [pl. 691]). From an earlier, Sumerian period in the same temple, a seven headed snake is depicted on a sealimpression (H. Frankfort, “Early Dynastic Sculptered Maceheads,” AnOr 12: 105-21).

3

Isaiah 51:9–11Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! / Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not you who cut in pieces Rahab? / Who pierced the dragon(tannin)? Was it not you who dried up the sea,/ the waters of the great deep? / Who made the sea a pathway / for the redeemed to crossover?

Here there is a clear association of the defeat of Rahab with thedeliverance of Israel at the Red Sea. Those who see the “Chaoskampf” motif as automatically presuming a reference to a pre-creation battle may explain the contextual reference to the Red sea deliverance as due to the close typological association of creation and redemption.5 This is logically possible, and in fact creation of the heavens and the earth is mentioned just two verses later in Isaiah 51: “Who are you . . . that you have forgotten the LORD your maker, who stretched out the heavens, andlaid the foundations of the earth? (vv. 12–13). What is NOT possible, logically, is to assert, on the one hand, that defeat of the dragon mentioned in an exodus context nevertheless refers to creation, explainable by the typological association of creation and redemption, but on the other hand defeat of the

5 “The prophet maintains with passionate conviction his belief that what appear theologically to be two distinct acts are in fact one and the same act of the universal redemptive purpose of God” (Gerhard von Rad, “The TheologicalProblem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation,” chap. 6 of The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays [Trans. E. Dicken; New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1966], 136); “Our verses make a very characteristic link between creation and redemption. God’s action as creator – pictured as a victory over the powers of chaos – is combined with the deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea in such a way that the transition from the one (v. 9b) to the other (v. 10) is barely noticeable” (Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977], 241).

4

dragon(s) in Psalm 74 must refer to creation because creation is mentioned in the context.Psalm 89:10

You did crush Rahab like one who is slain. / You scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.6

As in Psalm 74, the following context mentions the creation of the world so we have the same interpretive issue as with Psalm 74. The arguments to be made below for interpreting Psalm 74 as acelebration of the Red Sea deliverance may be applied to this passage as well, which has so much in common with psalm 74.7

Job 26:12–13He quieted the sea with his power, / and by his understanding he shattered Rahab. / By his breath the heavens are cleared; / his hand pierced the evil serpent.

Since Job shows no knowledge of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, there is no evidence to associate the shattering of Rahab with the Red Sea crossing. It will be suggested below that the world wide flood could also be described in similar terms as the Red Sea crossing as a fulfillment of Genesis 3:15; possibly this is what Job is referring to.Isaiah 27:1

In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan, the evil serpent / with his fierce and great and mighty sword; even Leviathan the crooked

6 ʾatta dikkiʾta kehalal rahab

7 I noted similarities in vocabulary between Exodus 15, Psalm 74, and Psalm 89on pp. 256—57 of my dissertation cited in n. 1.

5

serpent. / And he will slay the dragon (tannin) in the sea.

Here, as in Revelation 12 and 20, the defeat of the dragon is future, so that those who see a Chaoskampf at creation (Urzeit) must see a biblical adaptation so that there is a recurrence at Endzeit.The Creation Week and Exodus to Numbers

Exodus 14:19–22 arguably represents the crossing of the Red Sea as a re-enactment of the first three days of creation. Day 1 of the creation involved the bringing of light out of darkness and the separation of the two. Such a separation was seen in the ninth plague, and is also seen at the Red Sea, as light shines from the pillar of cloud after dark; light shines on the Israelites while the cloud obscures the Egyptians. The Hebrew in this passage is problematic but the above interpretation, found in the Palestinian targums and Syriac version, is reinforced by Josh 24:7 which says that God “put deep darkness between you and the Egyptians.”

Day 2 involved a vertical separation of the waters above andbelow, separated by an expanse which is named sky, or heaven (raqiaʿ). In Exod 14:19–20 we see a corresponding horizontal separation of the two camps with two things associated with sky/heaven, namely the pillar of cloud and the angel of God coming between the two camps to separate them.

Day 3 of creation saw the bringing of dry ground out of the waters, seen obviously in the drying up of the Red Sea (Exod 14:21–22). Here again there is a distinction between Egypt and Israel; Israel walks thru the sea on dry ground, while the Egyptians are drowned in the waters.8

8 “Within the broad parallelism that emerges we find that at the exodus reenactment of creation history the divine pillar of cloud and fire was present, like the Spirit of God at the beginning, to bring light into the

6

That the crossing of the Red Sea involves a re-enactment of the first three days of creation, implying that Israel’s redemption is typologically related to the creation as described in Genesis 1, is sufficient to explain why in Psalm 74:12–17 there is a mixing of creation and redemption themes, but much more than this can be said. First, it should be noted that just as in the creation account the second three days of creation correspond to the first three (often described as a “forming” and“filling” relationship), likewise the second three days of creation can be related to Israel’s history, namely the law of Moses. Day 4, the setting of lights in the sky, corresponds to Day 1, the creation of light and the separation of light and darkness. These lights are for signs and seasons, for days, months and years, which can be related to Israel’s calendar with the marking off of Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts throughout theyear. Day 5 has the creation of creatures inhabiting the two realms described with respect to day 2, namely the birds and the sea creatures. These relate to the law of Moses in that Israel isto separate (hibdil, a word used throughout Genesis 1) clean and unclean animals for eating and sacrifice. The same might be said of the land animals of day 6, inhabiting the dry ground brought out of the waters (day 3). And of the creation of man and woman as images of God, we note the overriding importance given in the law of Moses of God likeness; e.g., “You shall be holy, as I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev 19:2). Further, just as dominion over

darkness (and indeed to regulate the day-night sequence), to divide the watersand make dry land appear in the midst of the deep, and to lead on to the Sabbath in the holy paradise land” (Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit, Hamilton,MA: n.p., 1980; 14–15). John N. Oswalt also noted that the appearance of dry ground out of the sea as well as the Jordan was consistent “with the general understanding that the Exodus is a complement to creation” (“The Myth of the Dragon and Old Testament Faith,” EvQ 49 [1977]: 171, n. 22).

7

creation was a consequence of man’s creation as God’s image, Israel would have dominion in the promised land if they were obedient to the law, i.e. manifesting God-likeness.

The two sets of three days of creation as applied to Israel’s experience may be conveniently summed up as redemption (days 1–3 at the Red Sea), and sanctification (days 4–6 in the law of Moses). The two sets of three days can also be related to the LORD’s demand to Pharaoh, “Let my people go [days 1–3 at the Red Sea], that they might serve me [days 4–6 in the law]” (Exod 4:23; 5:1–3; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3). And as the creation week was followed by the Sabbath rest, Israel’s redemption and service to God will lead to rest in the promised land.9 Conversely, redemption followed by failure to serve the LORD, ledto death in the wilderness rather than rest.

“Let my people go, that they might serve me” also suggests amajor structural division of Exodus 1 to Numbers 14; Exod 1:1–15:21 corresponds to “Let my people go” and Exod 15:22–Num 14:10 to “that they might serve me.” I choose the end point as Num 14:10 since it is here that Israel makes the irreversible decision not to go into the promised land. We also see in this climactic rebellion that, whereas God-likeness was the overarching goal of the law, answering to Adam’s creation as the image of God in Genesis 1, Numbers 14 shows the Israelites to be like their Egyptian oppressors, in that they have turned out to be both unbelievers and persecutors of God’s people, testing God ten times as did the Egyptians in the ten plagues (Num 14:10–11).

As the next generation is on the verge of entering into the

9 M. Kline followed up on his observation of the first three days of creation being re-enacted at the Red Sea by adding to the creation week analogy: “and to lead on to the Sabbath in the holy paradise land” (Images of the Spirit, 14–15).Kline was on the right track but neglected to take into account that the creation week was seven days, not four, and that the generation that went through the sea did not enter rest.

8

promised land some 40 years later, Moses draws on the Genesis 1 creation account to describe God’s dealings with Israel in the wilderness: “[God] found [Israel] in a desert land; in a waste (tohu), a howling wilderness. He surrounded him, he cared for him; he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirs up its nest, hovers (yərahep) over its young, spreads out its wings, takes him, bears him on its pinions—the LORD alone led him; no foreign god was among them” (Deut 32:10–12).

That Moses in his use of the verb rhp in Deuteronomy 32:11 is instituting a comparison between God’s presence as Israel’s divine aegis in the wilderness andGod’s presence over creation in Genesis 1:2b is put beyond doubt by the fact that he calls that wilderness a tohu (Deut. 32: 10). For this is the word he uses in Genesis 1:2a to describe the state of the earth over which the Spirit hovered at creation, and this noun tohu, like the verb rhp, is used by Moses nowhere else.10

Other events that fit into Creation-Redemption Typology.Besides the crossing of the Red Sea, several other OT events

can be characterized as redemptions with creation overtones. Mostobvious is Noah’s flood, in which the old world is destroyed and there is a new beginning with dry ground reappearing out of the water and with Noah as a sort of new Adam. In common with the crossing of the Red Sea there is the death of the wicked by drowning, along with the redemption of God’s nominal people who are saved from drowning.

The crossing of the Jordan under Joshua is like the crossingof the Red Sea, something Joshua instructs the people to point

10 Kline, Images of the Spirit, 14.

9

out to their children (Josh 4:23). This crossing takes place on the third day (Josh 1:11), corresponding to the creation day on which dry ground appears out of the water. In this incident we donot see any drowning of the wicked in judgment, but it may be concluded from the detailed account of the second battle of Ai (in contrast to most of the battles fought by Joshua) that the parallels between that battle and the crossing of the sea that weare meant to see the death of the Canaanites in battle, consequent to Israel’s crossing, as a figurative drowning.11

Finally, the return from exile may be identified as a fourth“creation-redemption event,” as it is well recognized that that event is represented as a “new exodus,” especially in Isaiah 40–55.12

The narrative of the birth of Moses quite strikingly combines references to creation as well as the first two creation-redemption events:

Creation: “[The mother of Moses] saw him, that he was good” (Exod 2:2; cf. Gen 1:5, etc.).Flood: She made an “ark” [teba, used elsewhere only of Noah’sark] and waterproofed it as Noah did his, to spare the passengers from drowning (Exod 2:2; Gen 6:14).Red Sea deliverance: She placed the ark in the reeds (sup) by the bank of the Nile, from where he was delivered, presagingIsrael’s deliverance at yam sup under Moses’ leadership.

To sum up, the phenomenon of OT creation-redemption typology means that there is no (as in “zero”) justification for the 11 See Appendix for details and discussion of other passages where enemy armies are likened to a destroying flood.

12 See e.g. Isa 43:15-21. In v. 15 God says he is Israel’s Creator; vv. 16-17 then recall the Red Sea deliverance; vv. 18-21 then present the return from exile as the natural succession, or “new things” that God is going to do.

10

assertion that the juxtaposition of creation with the defeat of Leviathan/Rahab means that the latter must be describing the creation of the world or something preceding it.The Reason for the Dragon-crushing/piercing Language.

As suggested above, the description of the crushing of the heads of Leviathan/the dragons upon the waters in Ps 74:13–14 is not inspired by Genesis 1 but by Gen 3:15, “he shall strike you on the head.” Besides the head-crushing language, recall that both Leviathan and Rahab are called “bariah serpent” (Job 26:13; Isa 27:1). What does the adjective bariah mean? Since the verb brhmeans to flee, the translation “fleeing serpent” is suggested, but this is just a guess. There is, however, considerable evidence to confirm the suggestion that bariah means “evil” (see below). “Evil serpent” would certainly be suggestive of the serpent who led astray our first parents. In the curse, God says he will put enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed; the first fulfillment of this enmity is found in the next chapter, as Cain (like the serpent in being a liar and murderer, and cursed) kills his brother Abel. This incident establishes a figurative interpretation of the curse in which the two seeds represent the righteous and the wicked. Further episodes of enmity between individuals can be seen throughout the book of Genesis, and in Exodus we see this enmity on a national scale. God set enmity between Israel and Egypt: “You turned their heart to hate your people” (Ps 105:25). Such an interpretation identifies the Egyptians as offspring of the serpent.

It would be perfectly natural, therefore, to describe their defeat at the Red Sea as a defeat of their spiritual father, the evil serpent of old, and to describe that defeat as a fulfillmentof “he shall strike you on the head.”13 The defeat of the 13 How can “he” of Gen 3:15 (presumably referring to the offspring of the woman) get interpreted as “you” (God) in the fulfillment at the Red Sea? One

11

offspring of the serpent upon the waters is counted as a defeat of their spiritual father as well. Their dead bodies left on the shore of the sea is described as Leviathan’s body left as food for the scavengers (Ps 74:14). Since Exodus describes this redemption as a re-enactment of the first three days of creation,it is quite natural for the poet to go on and refer to creation as well as other creation-redemption events (Ps 74:15–17 has possible allusions to the aftermath of the flood as well as the crossing of the Jordan; God’s sovereignty over day and night could also refer to the miracle of Josh 10:12–14).14

The meaning of nahas bariah:It could be argued that if Leviathan/Rahab does not refer to

the chaos “overcome” at creation, but rather the monster’s defeattook place at the exodus, the names might be figuratively appliedto Pharaoh, the “monster” defeated at the Red Sea. Since Rahab sometimes refers to Egypt, it could plausibly refer to Pharaoh also, or even the Egyptian army collectively. Pharaoh is also called “dragon” (tannim, usually considered a variant spelling oftannin) by the prophet Ezekiel:15

Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in

possibility is that “he” was taken collectively as Israel, or perhaps even Moses as its leader (see above on the birth narrative of Moses), but the psalmist wishes to credit the ultimate victor, God, who acted against Egypt asMoses raised his staff. My own view is that Gen 3:15 is to some extent a riddle, because in the ultimate fulfillment of Gen 3:15 “he” does not refer tothe seed of the woman, which is in fact a collective, but to an individual, Jesus Christ. On Calvary/Golgotha, “the Place of the Skull,” there is a literalistic fulfillment of “he shall strike you on the head, and you shall strike him on the heel.”

14 See Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent,” 232-33.

15 Normally the spelling tannim would be understood as a plural, “jackals,” butdue to context it is generally accepted that Ezekiel uses an alternative spelling of the singular tannin.

12

the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.’” (29:3; ESV)Son of man, raise a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt and say to him: "You consider yourself a lion of the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas; youburst forth in your rivers, trouble the waters with your feet, and foul their rivers. (32:2; ESV)

Nebuchadnezzar is also compared to a dragon:Like the dragon (tannin), Nebuchadnezzar has swallowed me. (Jer 51:34)

Similarly, the future judgment pronounced on Leviathan in Isa 27:1 could be interpreted to refer to a human enemy. I would in fact support the interpretation of “dragons” (pl.) in Ps 74:14 asa reference to the Egyptian army, including Pharaoh. But my main reason for concluding that Rahab/Leviathan refers to the serpent of Genesis 3 rather than to a man is that Leviathan is described in Isa 27:1 similarly to the seven headed dragon of Ugaritic mythology; a supernatural, not human, enemy of God. In particular, the international epithet nahas bariah used in Isa 27:1and Job 26:13 is best understood to mean “evil serpent,” which further points to Genesis 3. And Job has no mention of Egypt or Pharaoh.

The suggestion that the adjective bariah means “evil” was made based on Arabic quite some time ago, but it has received little acceptance.16 The Hebrew verb barah means “flee,” resultingin the frequent but speculative translation of nahas bariah as “fleeing serpent.” There is no contextual evidence to support this translation, and there is no use of bariah outside of this

16 Cyrus Gordon, “Near East Seals in Princeton and Philadelphia” (Or 22 [1953]: 242-50). Gordon was following a suggestion by Izz-al-Din Al-Yasin, TheLexical Relation Between Ugaritic and Arabic (Shelton Semitic Monograph Series, 1; New York: Shelton College, 1952), 45.

13

expression in the Hebrew Bible except the personal name in 1 Chr 3:22. C. Rabin disagreed with this understanding, though some of the evidence that he cites from Arabic could be used in support of him: “One shouts barha on seeing a shot going amiss.”17 “Going amiss” sounds a lot like “missing the mark,” which developed intothe idea of sinning. In the battle of Gibeah during the time of the Judges, the tribe of Benjamin had 700 left handed choice marksmen “who could sling a stone at a hair and not miss” (loʾ yahatiʾ; Judg 20:16). It does not seem like much of a stretch to suggest a similar development with the root brh. Such a dual sense is also seen in the other adjective used to describe the dragon in Isa 27:1: nahas ʿaqallaton, “crooked serpent.” The dual sense is the same as English “crooked;” the opposite of “straight,” physically or morally; likewise the 1LXX of Isa 27:1,skolios. In Hab 1:4, this root is used in the pual to express the idea of justice coming out perverted.

Support for the translation “evil” has also been found from an Eblaite-Sumerian bilingual dictionary.18 Information from comparative Semitics, like that from etymology, is only suggestive of possibilities, but the case is strengthened by evidence from the Hebrew Bible; in this case, from one of the twobooks where the expression nahas bariah is found. Allowing for another meaning involved in the root brh, or a second root brh, results in an interesting and relevant Janus parallelism in Job 9:25. In such a parallelism, an element with two possible meanings corresponds, with one meaning, to something preceding, 17 C. Rabin, “bariah,” JTS 47 (1946): 38.

18 A. Archi, “Les Textes lexicaux bilingues d’Ebla,” SEb 2 (1980): 81-89; 87. sa-hul-gig = ba-ri-u da-du (“mauvais amour”). sa-hul-gig = Akkadian lumun libbi (“grief, sorrow, distress, anger;” CAD, 9.250). My external reader Gary Rendsburg drewmy attention to this source and that cited in the next note.

14

and with a second meaning, to what follows:My days are swifter than a runnerThey flee away/are evil [barəhu]; they see nogood.19

The “ordinary” meaning (or root I), “flee,” corresponds to “swift,” while the less common (or root II) “to be evil” answers to “they see no good.”

Thus, while it is theoretically possible that Pharaoh could be called by the dragon’s name, contexts such as Isa 27:1, which uses specific language found in Canaanite mythology for a supernatural being, and Psalm 74, which refers to supernatural characteristics (i.e. multiple heads), and uses language alludingto the ancient curse on God’s supernatural foe (Gen 3:15), all make it most likely that in fact the reference is not to Pharaoh but to his spiritual father (who is also our spiritual father apart from regeneration).The Structure of Psalm 74

Although literary structure may not prove hermeneutical conclusions, it may be suggestive. Psalm 74 has an interesting structure in which the first three verses seem to anticipate the three sections of the body of the Psalm. Verse 1 asks why God hasrejected and is angry with his people, while vv. 3b–11 lament thedestruction of the temple. Verses 2c–3a are a petition for God toremember and take action concerning the ruins of Jerusalem and

19 Eduardo Zurro, “Disemia de brh y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9,25,” Bib 62 (1981): 546-47. Zurro postulates two roots, I = to flee, II = to be evil. It is possible that some cases of brh hiphil have the meaning “treat evilly” ratherthan (or in addition to) the meaning “cause to flee,” i.e. “drive away.” See Prov 19:26; “He who wrongs his father, or drives away [treats evilly?] his mother, is a son who brings shame and reproach” (see discussion and referencesin Eduardo Zurro, “La raiz brh II y el hapax mibrah (Ez 17,21), Bib 61 (1980): 412–15. Zurro suggests brh II can also be seen in 1 Chr 3:22 (a personal name); 12:16.

15

the temple (“remember” in v. 2a does double duty in this analysis), corresponding to the similar theme of vv. 18–23. Verses 2a–b recall the exodus deliverance: Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old. / Which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your inheritance. This is quite naturally related to vv. 12–17 which begins with a celebration ofthe exodus deliverance (vv. 12–14 on this interpretation). In fact, the word “purchased” (v. 2; qal of qana) could be translated “created,” and its use considered another testimony tothe close connection between creation and redemption; Israel is created and redeemed at the Red Sea.20

Judges 4–5I have been suggesting that the demise of the Egyptians in

the flood waters of the Red Sea is celebrated poetically as the crushing of the evil serpent’s skull, in an OT provisional or token fulfillment of Gen 3:15. The defeat of Sisera’s army at theKishon River, combined with the demise of Sisera, suggest a similar dual perspective. The defeat of Sisera’s army recalls thecrossing of the Red Sea in several respects. (1) The LORD said that he would draw Sisera out by Barak’s army gathering at Mt. Tabor (Judg 4:7). This luring of Sisera to his doom recalls the luring of Pharaoh to chase after the Israelites to his doom (Exod14:3–5). (2) Chariot forces figured prominently in both battles (Exod 14:7; Judg 4:3, 13, 15–16). (3) The divine Warrior used a familiar and ancient weapon in both cases, against armies and chariots; flood waters (Exod 14:25–28; Judg 4:15; 5:21). (4) In both cases, “not even one was left” (Exod 14:28; Judg 4:16). There is a difference between the two in that in Judges 4 it is

20 Note uses of qana when God is subject. The object may be the creation (Gen 14:9, 22), or part of it (Ps 78:54, the promised land; Ps 139:13, David), or his people (Exod 15:16; Deut 32:6). In Prov 8:22 it is wisdom.

16

the sword of Israel rather than drowning which causes the death of the enemy, but this is not the first case where in a re-enactment of the Sea crossing occurs with Israel’s army taking the place of the flood waters of the Red Sea; we first see this in the second battle of Ai, Joshua 8.21

At the same time, the death of the head of Jabin’s army, Sisera, escapes on foot, only to be done in in a way that can be seen as a literalistic fulfillment of Gen 3:15.22 “There was peace between Jabin and the house of Heber the Kenite” (Judg 4:17); God evidently “set enmity” between Jabin and a woman of Heber’s house, resulting in the serpent’s offspring being struck a fatal blow to the head by the woman, who deceived him, as a sort of reversal of Genesis 3.23

Romans 16:20I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil. And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

The mention of the Genesis 3 themes of good and evil in a contextof wisdom, the mention of peace (Gen 3:15 predicts enmity), as well as the use of the Gen 3:15 serpent crushing language makes an allusion to Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20 more than plausible. That Paul does not use the LXX of Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20 is not an argument against seeing an allusion to Gen 3:15, since LXX Gen 3:15 is a poor translation, omitting the serpent-head-crushing

21 For Joshua 8 and Exodus 14 parallels, see the Appendix to this paper.

22 By “token” I mean that this is not the ultimate fulfillment of Gen 3:15, but is a sign pointing to the ultimate fulfillment. By “literalistic” I mean that, even though the fate of the devil is not literally to be a head-crushing, the literalness of the token fulfillment reminds us of the curse.

23 Compare also “Blessed is Jael among women” (Judg 5:24) with “Cursed are youamong the animals” (Gen 3:14).

17

language, so one should not expect Paul to use it.24 The verb Paul does use for “crush” is suntribo, which is not often used in the NT. Of its six other uses, half are in OT quotes.25 It so happens that suntribo is also used in LXX Ps 74:13 (for Heb. sibber); “You crushed the heads of the dragons upon the waters.” This would obviously make very good sense if Paul saw Ps 74:13–14as a utilization of Gen 3:15 language to describe the past redemption of God’s people, which he in turn used for our future redemption.The Separation of the Two Seeds as Creation Language:

The creation of the universe is depicted in Genesis 1 as accomplished through a series of separations. The separations aredescribed (1) overtly through the use of the verb hibdil (separate) and the preposition ben (between) (Gen 1:4, 6, 7, 18);(2) indirectly through the use of the relatively rare syntax, chiasm of indirect object after the separation is accomplished.

wayyiqraʾ ʾelohim laʾor yomand God called [to] the light, “day”wəlahosek qaraʾ laylaand [to] the darkness he called

“night.” (Gen 1:5)

wayyiqraʾ ʾelohim layyabbasa ʾeres and God called [to] the dry ground,

“land”uləmiqweh hammayim qaraʾ yammimand [to] the gathering of waters he called

“seas.” (Gen 1:10)24 LXX translates “He shall watch your head” (using the verb tereo), similarly to Tg. Onqelos which uses ntr, evidently presuming an equivalence between sup andsaʾap. Thus LXX and Tg. Onqelos only predict enmity, not its outcome or resolution.

25 suntribo is used in OT quotes in Matt 12:20; John 19:30; Rev 2:27. Its other occurrences are Mark 5:4; 14:3; Luke 9:39.

18

After the fall into sin, the separation of the two seeds, righteous and wicked, utilizes language which echoes the creationaccount; overtly with an active verb, God as subject, and the preposition ben, and indirectly by the use of chiasm of indirect object after the separation is accomplished:26

wəʾeyba ʾasit benəka uben haʾissa uben zarʿaka uben zarʿah (Gen 3:15)

wayyisaʿ Yhwh ʾel Hebel wəʾel minhatoThe Lord looked to Abel and his gift.wəʾel Qayin wəʾel minhato loʾ saʿabut to Cain and to his gift he did not look.

(Gen 4:4b-5a)God looking upon Abel and his works, but not at Cain, also may echo the first act of creation after which God sees the light, not darkness (Gen 1:5). Although it takes some meditation on the Hebrew to hear and see the echo of creation language in these verses, it becomes clear that the immediate post-fall history is precedent for what we see later at the Red Sea, as the two camps are separated with light applied to one, darkness to the other. One conclusion that can be made from this primeval revelation is that an association of the themes of enmity against the evil serpent, and his provisional conquest in the flood, with the ideaof new creation involved in bringing about that enmity and in theaftermath of the flood, may have been taken from the ark by the descendants of Noah, and in subsequent generations perverted, giving rise to myths that placed the conquest of the dragon at the creation of the world, rather than in the history of redemption.Further Theological Significance to Seeing Rahab and Leviathan as OT names for Satan:

It is quite striking that in the fourth Servant Song of Isaiah, two of the verbs that are used elsewhere to describe what26 Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Paris: Mouton, 1974), 129 (§ 9.4.5).

19

God did to the dragon Rahab, are used to describe what he, quite remarkably, is pleased to do to Jesus, so that the punishment forour peace could be upon us. “He was pierced through for our transgressions” (Isa 53:5). This verb (polal of hul) was used (in the polel) for what God did to the dragon at the Red Sea in Isa 51:9. “He was crushed for our iniquities . . . The LORD was pleased to crush him” (Isa 53:5, 10). This verb (pual and piel of dkʾ) is found in Ps 89:10 for God’s conquest of Rahab. Realizing that the same words used for God’s OT defeat of the devil are used to prophesy what he will do to his righteous and innocent Servant leads to the same truth expressed in the NT, that Jesus became a curse for us (Gal 3:13).Conclusion:

In tracing the dragon-battle motif to creation rather than to Genesis 3, and in placing the dragon-battle motif only in Urzeit and Endzeit, Gunkel and scholars after him missed its application to the entire post-fall period of human history up the end times. Among the causes of this error must be counted a failure to see the implications of the association of creation with redemption as of central importance in OT Theology. Secondarily, the fact that the Ugaritic material, of greater relevance to a study of OT Rahab/Leviathan than the neo-Babylonian material, was unknown in Gunkel’s time, set the study of the “dragon-battle” passages on a wrong course, exercising an inertial influence over scholarship to this day.

20

1Appendix: The Second Battle of Ai as a Re-enactment

of the Overthrow of the Egyptians in the Sea

In the narrative of the destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai,

events unfold in such a way as to depict the battle as parallel

to the crossing of the sea, with the army of Ai, in effect, being

“drowned” by the two parts of Joshua’s army converging upon them,

just as the two walls of water in the Red Sea closed in on the

Egyptians and drowned them. The two events may be compared

according to the following features they have in common: (1) the

divine strategy to lure the enemy into the wilderness to their

destruction; (2) the division of the water / army; (3) the

converging of the two parts together when the enemy moves into

the trap; (4) the complete overthrow of the enemy in the midst of

the sea / army.

(1) The strategy:

God led the people around by the way of the wilderness

to the Red Sea (Exod 13:18); “Tell the sons of Israel

to turn back . . . For Pharaoh will say of the sons of

Israel, ‘They are wandering in confusion in the land;

the wilderness has shut them in.’ And I will harden

Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them.” . . . The

LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt,

and he pursued after the sons of Israel, while the sons

of Israel were going out with a high hand; and the

Egyptians pursued after them, and overtook them camping

21

by the sea (Exod 14:2–4, 8–9).1

Joshua and all Israel pretended to be beaten before

them, and fled by the way of the wilderness. And all

the people who were in the city were called together to

pursue after them, and they pursued after Joshua and

were drawn away from the city. (Josh 8:15–16)

(2) The division of forces the night before the battle:

Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that

night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east

wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were

divided (Exod 14:21).

(Joshua directs an ambush force to take position behind

the city, while Joshua spends the night in the valley)

(Josh 8:3–4, 13).2

(3) The re-convergence of the two forces:

Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea

11Similarly, in Isa 43:17 the LORD describes himself as “he who brought forth the chariot and horse, the army and the mighty man” (to the Red Sea, their place of destruction).

22There are actually two ambush forces separated from the main army (Josh 8:3,12). The first group is assigned to capture the city after the men of war havebeen lured out of it (vv. 4–9). The second group is described as a rear guard for the main army (v. 13). Like the first group, it is also stationed west of Ai, perhaps as a force to stand in readiness to cut off reinforcements from Bethel to the west. The logistical details of the battle do not fit well with the usual assumption that Bethel is modern Beitin, and Ai at et-Tell. For a much better fit, Beitin is actually Beth Aven, with Bethel at modern el-Bira and Ai at Khirbet el-Maqatir (see Bryant G. Wood, “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008], 205–40).

22

returned at daybreak to its normal state, while the

Egyptians were fleeing towards it. (Exod 14:27)

The LORD said to Joshua, “Stretch out the javelin that

is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your

hand.” So Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in

his hand toward the city. The ambush force rose quickly

from its place, and when he had stretched out his hand,

they ran and entered the city and captured it, and they

quickly set the city on fire. . . . The people who had

been fleeing to the wilderness turned against the

pursuers. (Josh 8:18–20)

(4) The complete overthrow of the enemy:

The LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the

sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and

horsemen, Pharaoh’s entire army that had gone into the

sea after them; not even one remained. (Exod 14:27–28)

[The Israelite ambush force] came out from the city to

meet them, so that they were in the midst of Israel,

some on this side and some on that side, and they

struck them until there did not remain to them anyone

who survived or escaped. (Josh 8:22)

Standing for the conquest in general, the second battle of Ai can

be combined with the crossing of the Jordan to form a more

complete parallel to the crossing of the Red Sea.

Since there is no explicit statement to the effect that

23

Joshua 8 depicts the fate of the men of Ai as a parallel to the

drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, one might argue that

the similarity in the flow of events between the two accounts is

simply coincidental. In response I would suggest that the

ancients would have been ready to see such parallels, since it

was not uncommon for an invading army to be depicted as a flood.

In addition, there is another military defeat of Israel’s foe

which is described in the Bible as analogous to the LORD’s defeat

of the Egyptians by drowning at the Red Sea.

In Isa 10:24–27 the Assyrians are likened to the Egyptians

as Israel’s oppressors, both in their oppression and in their

fate: “O my people who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the

Assyrian; he strikes you with a rod, and lifts up a staff over

you as did Egypt” (v. 24). The rod and staff here are those of

the taskmaster, the oppressor. In response, the LORD will send a

scourge against them as he did against Midian by Gideon, and will

wield his own staff as he did to the Egyptians at the Red Sea:

“his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it up in the

manner of Egypt” (v. 26). This was fulfilled not by the Assyrians

being literally drowned in some body of water, but when a

coalition of armies led by the Babylonians destroyed the Assyrian

army (though the end of Ninevah was facilitated in part by the

flooding of a river). Thus the demise of Assyria is a figurative

“drowning” in enemy armies, just as at Ai, as also suggested by

the reference to Midian, and as occurred historically.

24

In Isa 8:7–8 the coming Assyrian invasion of Israel and

Judah is said to be the overflowing of the Euphrates River which

sweeps through Israel and reaches to the neck of Judah. The head

sticking out of the water would be Jerusalem which survived alone

in the time of Hezekiah. Daniel 9:26 predicts the end of

Jerusalem “in a flood” (Heb. setep), which in context seems to be

warfare. The same word is used in Nah 1:8 to describe the end of

the Assyrian capital city Ninevah (612 BC), which according to an

ancient historian (Diodorus of Sicily; Bibliotheca Historica 2.27) was

accomplished both by a literal flood (of the Khoser river), and

by a coalition of enemy armies which gained access to the city

through the flood damaged walls. Thus the end of Assyria was an

example of measure for measure justice: as they had so often been

the flood destroying others who had done them no wrong, so they

were destroyed in a flood. Mesopotamian kings and warriors could

be described as “the deluge of battles,” where the word “deluge”

is the same as the one used in their worldwide flood stories.3

Jeremiah 46:8 says, “Egypt rises like the Nile, / like the rivers

whose waters keep surging. / He [Pharaoh] has said, ‘I will rise,

I will cover the land, / I will destroy the city and its

inhabitants.’” Jeremiah 47:2 similarly warns the Philistines of a

flood rising from the north, which v. 3 identifies as chariot

forces. Revelation 12:15–16 describes the serpent pouring water

“like a river” from its mouth to sweep away the woman with a

33See CAD under abu-bu (1.1.77–81).25

flood, and the earth helping the woman by opening its mouth to

drink up the river. This seems to be a use of the pattern of the

exodus deliverance of Israel to describe future events: the woman

fleeing into the wilderness to be cared for by God is like Israel

escaping Egypt and going into the wilderness. The death of the

Egyptians at the Red Sea is described figuratively in Exod 15:12

as “the earth swallowed them.” In the Palestinian Targums of this

verse it reads, “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them”

(borrowing language from the fate of Korah, Num 16:30, 32) much

as Rev 12:16 says the earth opened its mouth and drank up the

river spewed from the dragon’s mouth.4 Thus the armies of the

antichrist to be sent to destroy God’s people are depicted as a

flooding river, and by implication so is Pharaoh’s army which

pursued Israel and overtook them at the Red Sea.

44See Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch (AnBib 27; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966), 226. McNamara also pointed to the dependence of the description of the woman’s seed in Rev 12:17 on the Palestinian Targum renderings of Gen 3:15, which describe the woman’s seed as those who keep the commandments of the law (ibid., 221–22).

26