Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Spring, 1961) 5-13.
Copyright © 1961 by Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission.
NEW LIGHT ON THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY
AND THE CONQUEST
JOHN
REA
Moody
Bible Institute
In the previous issue of GRACE JOURNAL
(Winter, 1961), the writer set forth his
conclusions
regarding the time of the Oppression and the Exodus of the children of
from
during
the Eighteenth Dynasty of
substantiated
by the subsequent experiences of the Israelites under Moses and Joshua.
New Considerations Concerning the
Wilderness Journey
The
opposition of the Edomites.--One of the weightiest arguments in favor of
the late
date
of the Exodus (13th century B.C.) is advanced by Nelson Glueck concerning the
Edomites
who denied passage through their territory to Moses and the Israelites. He has
charged
that no Edomite or Moabite kingdoms would have been encountered in
peoples
build houses and fortifications in
discovered
nor a sherd found which could be ascribed to Middle Bronze II or to Late
Bronze"
(Explorations in
Oriental
Research, XV, 138). Elsewhere he contends:
Had the Exodus through southern
tury B.C., the Israelites would have
found neither Edomite nor Moabite kingdoms,
well organized and well fortified,
whose rulers could have given or withheld per-
mission to go through their
territories. Indeed, the Israelites, had they arrived on
the scene first, might have occupied
all of
the land on the west side of the
First of all, we must accept the Biblical
statement that it was not so much the superior
strength
of the Edomites and the Moabites that prevented the Israelites from crossing
their
territories as it was the direct command of Jehovah not to fight with these
distant
brethren
of theirs (Deut. 2:4, 5, 9). It was God's sovereign plan that His chosen nation
not
settle
in these areas but in
Second, while the Bible speaks of the king of
cities of Edomite kings (Gen. 36:32, 35, 39), these terms
need not prove that the
Edomites
were yet a sedentary people dwelling in fortified towns. At that period the
head
of
every tribe or city-state was called a king.
The five kings of Midian (Num. 31:8) in
Moses'
day and the two kings of Midian. In Gideon's
day (Jud. 8-:5, 12) were surely
nomadic
chieftains, as was perhaps also Adoni-bezek who had subdued seventy kings
(Jud.
1 :3-7). The book of Joshua and the
Amarna Letters both testify to the great
number
of petty kings of city states in
This
article was read at the Fall Wheaton Archaeology Conference,
Oct.
24, 1960. Certain additions have been
made for this journal.
5
6
GRACE
JOURNAL
the
word "city" mean necessarily a well-fortified site with permanent
buildings, for
Kadesh-barnea
is called "a city in the uttermost of thy (i .e.,
16). The Israelites lived in and around Kadesh
about thirty-seven years, and yet
probably
never erected any stone buildings it nor made and used much pottery. Their
community
was centered around the portable tabernacle; thus their's was a tent city.
Likewise
the Edomites may well have lived in similar tent cities. Note that when Moses
sent
forth the twelve spies into the territory of the Canaanites, he instructed them
to detect
"what
cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps or in strongholds"
(Num. 13:
19).
Third, a careful study of the location of
Joshua
seems to reveal that whereas
through
the time of the Conquest Esau and his descendants were living for the most part
in
the central Negeb, i.e., in the mountainous country with its valleys and oases
between
Kadesh-barnea
and the Arabah. The key to the location
of
route
which the children of
permitted
to pass through
prominent
point in the highlands (up to 3000') ten to fifteen miles east or northeast of
Kadesh-barnea
and on the border of
after
Aaron died there and the congregation of
of
part
of their journey took them to the
Hor
by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the
was
much discouraged because of the way" (Num. 21:4; cf. Deut. 2:1-8). The Israelites
had
to go all the way to Ezion-geber (Deut. 2:8), for the Edomites were holding the
west
side
of the Arabah, making stops at Punon and Oboth (Num. 33:42, 43; 21:5-10). Punon
is
probably to be identified with Feinan, the site of ancient copper mines, and is
a logical
place
for the spot where Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the wilderness.
If the Edomites were living in the Negeb instead
of in
Exodus,
is there any evidence of their existence in the more western area? According to
Egyptian
records from the 15th century B.C. there were peoples dwelling in the Negeb
important
enough to warrant an attack by the pharaoh’s army. Thutmose III mentions the
Negeb
in the campaign list of his military operations (James Pritchard, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, p. 243). Amen-em-heb,
one of Thutmose’s soldiers, had the following
statement
painted on the wall of his tomb at
the
Negeb" (ANET, p. 241). A century later Amarna Letter #256 mentions
Udumu as a
city
or people seemingly in
Mercer,
The Tell el-Amarna Tablets
p.
14). Various scholars have identified
Udumu with
The
condition of the Moabites.--Two things relevant to the Moabites at the time
of the
wilderness
journey lead one to believe that they were neither settled nor so strong as
they
were
in the thirteenth and following centuries.
First,
and
feared the latter greatly: "And
were
many; and
Second,
both
peoples acted as one group when they went to the town of
Balaam
(Num. 22:4-7). The Bible depicts the
Midianites as largely a nomadic people.
The
point is this: for the Moabites to have been on such friendly terms with the
Midianites,
the former also were probably still largely nomadic, since from time imme-
NEW LIGHT ON THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY AND THE
CONQUEST 7
morial
there has been strife between the inhabitants of the desert and the residents
of the
towns
in agricultural areas. Therefore the
time of Moses must have been before
the
thirteenth
century B.C. when the Moabites began to build permanent towns.
New
discoveries near Amman.--Several recent finds in the vicinity of
capital
city of the
there
was no settled occupation anywhere in Transjordan south of the
between
the eighteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. Four tombs in
Madeba
discovered in the past decade or so contained hundreds of pottery vessels and
scarabs
and other objects from the periods known as Middle Bronze II and late Bronze I,
i.e.,
from about 1800 to 1400 B.C. Also, in 1955, a building which appears to have
been a
Late
Bronze Age temple with over 100 pieces of imported pottery of Cypriote and
Mycenaean
origin, was unearthed when bulldozers were clearing away a small mound by
the
Lutterworth
Press, 1959 ,p. 33). Thus it seems that
there was some sedentary occupation
in
central
apparent
relative scarcity of population in southern
Moses’
task of conquering that district considerably less difficult than it would have
been
in
the thirteenth century B.C. when so many more cities existed. His campaigns against
Sihon
and Og lasted only a matter of months compared with the several years necessary
for
Joshua to subdue
The
time of Balaam.--In order to invite Balaam the prophet to come to curse
Balak
king of
children
of his people" (Num. 22:5). Pethor
is the Hittite city of
Thutmose
III and much later on by Shalmaneser III; it lay on the western bank of the
ammo. W. F. Albright interprets this term as the
name of the land called 'Amau in the
inscription
on the statue of Idri-mi found by Sir Leonard Woolley at Alalakh (Wm. F.
Albright,
"Some Important Discoveries, Alphabetic Origins and the Idrimi
Statue,"
BASOR,
#118, p. 16). Idri-mi also found sons of
the land of 'Amau and sons of the
of
Halep (
Thus
it is not surprising to read of Balaam1s coming from such a distance (350 mi
les) to
about
1450 B.C., but Woolley and Sidney Smith date it about 1375 B.C. The
‘Amau
is also mentioned in an inscription from the tomb of an officer who served in
the
army
of Amenhotep II (Ibid., p. 15). My
argument is this: if Balaam prophesied at the
end
of the fifteenth century B.C., according to the early date of the Exodus, then
the term
'Amau
in Num. 22:5 is found in a proper historical context, along with the
occurrences
of
this name in the Idri-mi inscription and the Egyptian text. Only around 1400 B.C. was
the
Aleppo-Carchemish region--the land of ‘Amau--independent and not under the rule
of
either
the Egyptians or the Hittites. During
the reign of Amenhotep III (1410-1372 B.C.)
northern
Suppiluliumas
did not conquer this area until about 1370 B.C.
But if the Exodus
happened
in the thirteenth century, then the homeland of Balaam was under Hittite
control
and would probably have been called "the land of the Hittites" (cf.
Josh. 1:4; Jud.
1:26).
New Excavations in
Old
Jericho.--The
first fortress city in
the
Jordan River was
excellent
8
GRACE
JOURNAL
check
on the chronology adopted for the Exodus and the Conquest, whether around 1407
B.C.
or about 1250 B.C. But the date as determined by archaeological methods has
become
one of the most hotly-contested issued among Palestinian archaeologists.
Both Sir John Garstang, who dug at
Kenyon,
who has been directing a new series of excavations there since 1952, agree that
the
Middle Bronze Age levels, Garstang's City III, represent Hyksos occupation
ending
about
1550 B.C. Both recognize remains from the late Bronze Age, but at that point
the
agreement
ceases. We must be ready and willing to admit that Miss Kenyon's careful
investigations
disproved that the parallel fortification walls, built of mud bricks and fallen
outwards,
belonged to the late Bronze Age city, as Garstang claimed so loudly (Garstang,
John
and J.B.E., The Story of
1948
, pp. 133-142). But this does not mean
that there were no walls to the Canaanite
city
in Joshua's time. In the light of the fact that the mound of
suffered
severely from erosion caused by the hard winter rains, the absence now of such
walls
may in a way be a confirmation of Scripture.
Joshua
down
flat, or, in its place. Since the wall was probably made of mud bricks, after
it fell
and
the city lay unoccupied for the most part until Hiel rebuilt the city in the
time of King
Ahab
(I Kings 16:43), there was nothing to cover the fallen bricks and to prevent
their
turning
back to mud and washing down the slope.
There can be no doubt, however, that there
was occupation of the site of
late
Bronze Age. Garstang' s expeditions discovered in 26 tombs that contained
deposits,
some
320 late Bronze Age objects out of a total of 2818 specimens including two
scarab
seals
of Amenhotep III (1410-1372 B.C.); also he found late Bronze potsherds in the
fosse
(moat) and on the mound especially in debris underlying the isolated
"Middle
Building"
(which Garstang attributed to Eglon--Jud. 3:12ff). In 1954 Miss Kenyon
uncovered
on the eastern side of the mound the foundations of a single house wall with
about
a square meter of intact floor beside it; on the floor was a small bread oven
beside
which
was a juglet that she says is probably fourteenth century in date. She believes the
evidence
accords with a destruction and subsequent abandonment of the site, and
suggests
a date in the second half of the fourteenth century B.C. (Archaeology in the
Holy Land
seems
totally unwarranted: “All that remains
which can be assigned with any confidence
to
the period between 1400 and 1200 B.C. are a few pieces of pottery from three
tombs
and
from the area above the spring, and perhaps the '
Archaeology
accurate
work on the whole. Miss Kenyon speaks very; highly of the fullness of his
records
(Kathleen M. Kenyon, "Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the 2nd
Millennium
B.C.,"
archaeologist,
Immanuel Ben-Oor, who was on Garstang's staff at
personally
that much late Bronze pottery was found in the tombs and a good bit of it on
the
tell itself.
All the evidence so far available seems
to suggest that the Hyksos city of
destroyed
by fire about 1550 B.C., presumably by the pursuing Egyptians. Then the
mound
lay vacant forfit about 150 years. Since
most of the typically fifteenth century
forms
of pottery are lacking, reoccupation could hardly have taken place much before
1410. Probably the Canaanites re-used the Hyksos
rampart or glacis; this is the
conclusion
of Miss Kenyon and of Yigael Yadin, the director of the current excavations
at
Hazor. On the rampart they mayor may not
have built their own mud brick wall. The
reason
not more late Bronze pottery has been found may be that the city
NEW LIGHT ON THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY AND THE
CONQUEST 9
was
re-occupied such a short time before its divine demolition--this, together with
the
completeness
of the destruction (Josh.
to
erosion.
Shechem.--As
soon as the army of
northward
more than twenty miles to establish God’s covenant with
the
land in a ceremony between the two mountains Ebal and Gerizim (Josh.
8:30-35). In
order
to arrive at the natural amphitheater between the hills the Israelites had to
go past
the
stronghold of Shechem, less than a mile to the east. Years later, Joshua covened all
the
leaders of the nation at Shechem to renew their covenant commitment to Jehovah
(chap.
24). Excavations at Tell Balatah in the
last few years clearly confirm that
Shechem
was inhabited during the Late Bronze Age. (G. Ernest Wright, "The Second
Campaign
at Tell Balatah Shechem," BASOR,
#148, 21f). In 1926 two cuneiform
tablets
were unearthed by German archaeologists at Shechem; they were both written
about
1400 B.C. (Wm. F. Albright, "A Teacher to a Man of Shechem about 1400
B.C.,"
BASOR, #86, 28-31). Nor does there seem to have been any
widespread destruction of
the
city and its temple between its capture by the Egyptians about 1500 B.C. and
its
burning
by Abimelech around 1150B.C. (Jud. 9:49,
cf. Edw. F. Campbell, Jr.,
"Excavation
at Shechem, 1960"; Robert J. Bull, "A Re-examination of the
Shechem,
the city must have been in friendly hands.
Several of the Amarna letters
declare
that around 1380 B.C. Lab'ayu the prince
of Shechem was in league with the
invading
Habiru. Certainly we cannot equate the
Israelite Hebrews with the Habiru
bands
wherever they are mentioned in clay tablets throughout the
millennium
B.C., and probably not every mention of the Habiru in the Amarna Tablets
refer
to Israelites. But in this case of
Lablayu the Israelite Hebrews may be his
confederates,
stigmatized as Habiru by pro-Egyptian neighboring kings. In fact, some of
the
Shechemites could possibly even have been descendants of Jacob, whose ancestors
had
left
actually
did go back to
however,
that one or more entire tribes of
the
time of Moses.
Gibeon.--Before
1960 James B. Pritchard, director of the highly successful
excavations
at
of
the site of el-Jib. But in July 1960 an
Arab woman revealed in her vineyard the
presence
of twelve shaft tombs cut in the rock.
According to the pottery imported from
to
the end of the late Bronze period (James B. Pritchard, "Seeking the
Pre-Biblical
History
of Gibeon," The Illustrated
concerning
the date of the Conquest can be expected from that site in the future.
Hazor.--After
Joshua had pursued the Canaanites in three directions from the waters of
Merom
he turned back and took Hazor. He killed
Jabin king of Hazor and set fire to the
city
(Josh. 11:10f). Hazor was undoubtedly
the largest city in all of
el-Qedah
and the adjacent lower city, stretches for 1000 yards from north to south and
averages
700 yards in width covering an area of about 183 acres. It could accommodate
30,000-40,000
people in an emergency with all their horses and chariots.
There is no need to confuse the two
accounts concerning two kings of Hazor named
Jabin.
Those who try to harmonize the account in Joshua 11 with the one in Judges 4, 5
are
those who
10
GRACE
JOURNAL
accept
a late date for the Exodus and the Conquest. They feel compelled to combine the
two
Israelite victories into one campaign and the two Jabins into one man because
of the
shortness
of the time allotted by them to the period of the Judges. Yet the same scholars
would
not claim that Rameses II and Rameses III of
they
have the same name. Biblical history requires that in interpreting the
archaeological
evidence
from Hazor one must assign a later Canaanite level to the time of Deborah and
Barak
than the level which he assigns to the time of Joshua. Therefore, since the
last
Canaanite
city in the vast enclosure to the north of the mound of the acropolis had been
destroyed,
not to be reoccupied, in the thirteenth century B.C., this last city must be
the
one
in which Jabin of Judges 4 resided. This
date agrees well with a date around 1240 to
1220
B.C. for Deborah's battle against Sisera.
In the fourth season of excavations at
Hazor, Yadin found what may well be evidence
of
Joshua's burning of the city. In Area K
he and his staff excavated the gate of the
earlier
Middle Bronze Age II gate, and is identical in plan. Yadin writes:
This gate must have been destroyed
in a violent conflagration, though the exterior
walls still stand to a height of
nine feet. Traces of the burnt bricks of its inner
walls and the ashes of the burnt beams still
cover the floors in thick heaps. The
evidence suggests that this destruction occurred
before the final destruction of
Hazor by the Israelites, but this problem
remains to be studied. --Yigael Yadin,
"The Fourth Season of Excavation at
Hazor," The Biblical Archaeologist,
XXII
(1959), 8f.
One may wonder why or how the Canaanites
regained control of Hazor after the time
of
Joshua. This question can be answered by
pointing out that in his southern campaign
Joshua
did not attempt to occupy the cities whose inhabitants and kings he
killed. At the
end
of that campaign "Joshua returned, and all
(Josh.
the
cases of
13-17). Joshua's method of warfare seems to have been
a series of lightning-like raids
against
key Canaanite cities, with the purpose of destroying the fighting ability of
the
inhabitants,
not necessarily of besieging and actually capturing and settling the cities
which
he attacked (see Josh. 10:19f and 10:33 with 16:10 re the king of
be
remembered that Joshua burned none of those cities except
and
Hazor (11: 13) .
which
has appeared, not at the tell of some important ancient city, but at numerous
small
unnamed
sites in
a
systematic survey of an area in
of
the
associates
made two trial digs. He reports that a
chain of eight Bronze Age towns,
presumably
Canaanite, lay along the present Israeli-Lebanese border in less hilly and
more
fertile territory; and that nineteen small Iron Age settlements--sometimes only
a
mile
apart--were situated in the heavily forested higher mountains in the southern
part of
thickened
rim and plastic ornament, made of gritty clay." In a trial dig at Khirbet Tuleil
he
discovered in the lowest stratum not a sherd from the Late Bronze Age; rather
he
found
examples of those large jars in situ,
together with other types of pottery somewhat
analogous
to vessels from
NEW LIGHT ON THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY AND THE
CONQUEST 11
type,
dating from the 13th-12th centuries B.C., was introduced by the invading
Northern
Israelite
tribes who took over areas not very suitable for settlement in the harsh
mountains
where there was no Canaanite population (Y. Aharoni, "Problems of the
Israelite
Conquest in the light of Archaeological Discoveries," Antiquity and Survival, II
1957,
146-149. Since Megiddo VII is usually
dated about 1350-1150 B.C., we may date
the
beginning of these Iron Age I settlements in
date,
then, would agree with the reference to the territory of a people called ‘Asaru or
Asher
in an inscription of Seti I, dating about 1310 B.C. According to a book review
by B.
S.
J. Isserlin (Journal of Semitic Studies, IV 1959, 279f.) of
Aharoni's book, The
Settlement of the
Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee, published in Hebrew in 1957, Aharoni
readily
admits that Israelite infiltration began at least as early as the period of
Seti I in the 14 century B.C.
It must be remembered that Joshua returned
to Gilgal after defeating Jabin and
burning
Hazor, without occupying any towns or territory in
and
Asher received their tribal allotments and migrated northward, they found that
the
Canaanites
had reoccupied their cities and resumed control of most of
The
Israelite tribesmen therefore lived in tents for a century or more until they
began to
clear
fields in the forests and build towns in the mountainous part of
that
Israelite remains as early as 1300 B.C. have been discovered in
more
argument against a thirteenth century date for the Exodus and the Conquest. let
us
remember
that the Bible over and over again indicates that all the tribes entered
together;
thus, if Asher was in
have
been there also.
The Silence
concerning
The
objection.--Those who favor the late date of the Exodus and of the Conquest
make
much
of the fact that contact with
seldom
if ever mentioned in the sacred text.
They claim that
controlled
by the Egyptians as one of their provinces from Thutmose III at least through
the
reign of Rameses II (1301-1234 B.C.).
Therefore they say it was impossible or at
least
very improbable that the Israelites could have taken possession of
reign
of Merneptah (1234-1222 B.C.),l who mentioned crushing
cities
in
of
his mortuary temple at
out
that in the book of Judges there are two references to the Egyptians (6:8, 9; 10:11).
While
these mentions probably refer to that people at the time of the Exodus, they may
also
include later attempts by
The
probable solution.--J. W. Jack has discussed this whole problem thoroughly
and
sanely
in his book The Date of the Exodus. He demonstrates from the evidence in the
Amarna
letters that beginning around 1400 B.C. in the reign of Amenhotep III (1410-
1372
B.C.),
Egyptians
continued for over three quarters of a century, thus giving ample time to the
Israelite
invaders to get a foothold in the
Beginning again with the Nineteenth Dynasty
pharaohs (whose records can be read on
the
walls of their great temples at
12
GRACE
JOURNAL
and
the
towns of the Plain of Esdrraelon (Armageddon).
Taking the bastion-city of Beth-shan,
he
made it a garrison town for Egyptian troops; he erected at least two stelae of
his in that
city. From there he crossed the Jordan River and
turned northward again to the
Mountains
and the cities of the
established
Egyptian authority in many a Palestinian town, but these were all in the
Maritime
Plain and the Shephelah (the Judean foothills), which were not actual Israelite
territory
at the time, or at least not continuously held by the Jews till long
afterward.
While
Merneptah listed
the
captured
or socked, which seems to show that he, no more than his father Rameses,
penetrated
into what was Israelite territory. In
the Twentieth Dynasty Rameses III (1195-
1164
B.C.) pursued the retreating "Sea Peoples," whom he had repulsed in
their
attempted
invasion of the Nile Delta, along the Mediterranean coast into
to
have made no attempt, however, to recapture the coastal towns.
his
records show, fell into his hands.
Before the end of his reign
abandon
the whole of her Asiatic dependencies.3
The facts just recited do not furnish
reason to say that
the
kings of the Nineteenth Dynasty and made so thoroughly an Egyptian province
that
the
Conquest could not well have begun until the latter part of the reign of
Rameses III –
or
even of Rameses II. Sir Flinders
Petrie's remarks were too hasty when he wrote: "The
Egyptians
were incessantly raiding
absolutely
no trace of Egyptian action in the whole period of the Judges, which shows
that
the entry into
to
demonstrate that the Israelites could have been in the
onward
without there being any necessity of mentioning contact with Egyptians during
the
period of Joshua and the Judges.5
(1) After Joshua's campaigns or raids to
exterminate much of the wicked population of
Canaan
in obedience to the command of Jehovah, the actual settlement in
Israelites
took place only gradually and slowly.
The names of the towns which could not
be
conquered and consequently were left for a long period in control of the
Canaanites
make
a surprising list. The inspired record
in Judges 1 includes
shan,
Taanach, Dor, Ibleam,
Achzib,
Helbah, Aphik, Rehob, Beth-shemesh (in Naphtali's portion), Beth-anath,
Aijalon,
and Shaalbim. The Israelites, then, at
least until after the time of Rameses III,
were
residing chiefly in the hill country, removed from the coastal plain along
which the
pharaohs
were wont to march.
(2) The campaigns of Seti I, Rameses II,
and Rameses III were directed mainly against
the
Syrians and the Hittites to the north of
districts
mentioned in their records of their marches it seems that the Egyptian armies
kept
as much as possible to the military route along the Mediterranean coast. There is no
indication
that they invaded the high central ridge of the
(3) Even supposing that the Egyptians did
make some attacks on
some
Israelite raids on their positions along their line of march--such as the
victory which
Merneptah
claimed over
to
such does not afford any valid argument against the early-date theory. No one would
claim
that the Hebrew records of the time of the Judges are a complete account of
every
battle
and skirmish in which every tribe of
NEW
LIGHT ON THE WILDERNESS JOURNEY AND THE CONQUEST 13
(4) Some of the encounters which the
tribes of
Amorites
(Jud. 1-5) may have been instigated by
pharaohs
used native levies and mercenaries to maintain control in their provinces. As
Jack
says, "The struggling Israelites in the heart of the land were beneath the
notice of the
main
Egyptian armies, and could be safely left to the soldiery of the tributary
princes to
deal
with."6
In general throughout the long period of
the Judges Israel had little contact with the
Egyptians. The pharaohs marched along the coast and
through the
whose
cities the Israelites could not capture from the Canaanites at least until the
time of
Deborah. Concerning any times when the Egyptians did
meet the Hebrews, it was not in
the
purpose of the writer of the book of Judges to mention them in any detail. The
Egyptians
were never one of the main adversaries of
no
valid objection to the early date of the Exodus and the Conquest can rightfully
be
made
on the basis of the reputed silence in the book of Judges about Egyptian campaigns
in
DOCUMENTATION
1.
E.g., Melvin Grove Kyle, "Exodus: Date and Numbers (Alternative
View)," ISBE, II,
1056A.
2.
J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1925), pp. 43-57.
3.
Ibid, pp. 58-68.
4.
W. M. Flinders
Knowledge,
1911), pp. 37f.
5.
Jack,. op. cit., pp. 69-85.
6.
Ibid., p. 84.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: