Verse 4
"And these were their names: Of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur. Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori. Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph. Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun. Of the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the son of Raphu. Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi. Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi. Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalii. Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael. Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi. Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi. These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua."
Note that the tribe of Levi is not mentioned and that both Manasseh and Ephraim appear as the tribe of Joseph. This came about from Jacob's adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh as his sons with full rank with the twelve sons of Jacob. It is easy to memorize these names if they are arranged so as to allow the alliteration, thus:
SHAMMUA; SHAPHAT, and SETHUR; AMMIEL; GADDIEL; GEUEL; IGAL; NAHBI; PALTI; GADDI; CALEB and JOSHUA.
"Shammua ..." means "heard," the name appearing also in 2 Samuel 5:14; Nehemiah 11:17; 12:18.
"Shaphat ..." means "judge." This was also the name of Elisha's father.
"Sethur ..." means "hidden."
"Ammiel ..." means "God is my kinsman." The name also appears in the story of Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:4).
"Gaddiel ..." means "God is my fortune." This is the full form of the name Gad.
"Geuel ..." means "majesty of God." It occurs nowhere else in the Bible.
"Igal ..." means "he will redeem." One of David's heroes (2 Samuel 23:36).
"Nahbi ..." means "hidden."
"Palti ..." means "God's deliverance." Also the name of Michal's husband (1 Samuel 25:44).
"Gaddi ..." another form of "Gad."
"Caleb ..." means "dog" and could have been applied to him because of his Gentile ancestry. He was a Kenizzite (Numbers 32:12).[6]
"Hoshea ..." means "desire of salvation." Moses changed the name to Joshua by adding the prefix "Jeh" for Jehovah, giving the meaning of "divinely appointed, head of salvation," or "Savior." The name as changed is the same as "Savior", or "Jesus."[7]
We cannot leave the discussion of the name Joshua without noticing the fantastic proposition advanced by some critics to the effect that the P author of this passage gave the name of Hoshea instead of Joshua, and then invented the story that Moses changed his name, "in order to defend his view that the name Jehovah could not have been known before Moses, and so presumably not at the time of Joshua's birth!"[8] What an insight this gives to the critical NONSENSE about the name Jehovah having been unknown before Moses. The name of Jehovah appears in the name of Moses' mother, Jochebed! It was known extensively by the patriarchs of old, as any student of the Bible may read for himself. The air castle that members of the critical community have built upon Exodus 6:3 by means of their erroneous translation of the passage crumbles into nothing in the light of the truth. It is not true that God said that He was not known prior to the burning bush as "Jehovah." The proper translation of the verse in question is: "By my name Jehovah was I not known unto your fathers?"
The scholarship that supports this is superior in every way to that which denies it. Exodus 6:3 dogmatically affirms the very truth it is alleged to deny!
Now look at the allegation regarding Hoshea: the "editor of P" was like the critical scholars today ignorant of the true rendition of the passage in Exodus (how this could have been true in a prior source of Exodus is indeed a mystery, and also this editor perverted the name of Joshua to defend his position!) Indeed! Indeed! How blind is unbelief!
Those interested in a more extensive discussion of this question are invited to see our exegesis of Exodus 6:3 in this series of commentaries.
"And Moses called Hoshea Joshua ..." This was an exceedingly significant prophecy. "Moses was looking beyond all the dismal grief and failure about to be manifested in the people to that Greater Salvation that would at last appear in Jesus Christ."[9] Whitelaw thought it was "an obvious difficulty" that Joshua had already been called by his new name in Exodus 17:9 and in all the other places where he is previously mentioned in the Bible.[10] What difficulty? The text does not say that this new name was given on the occasion where it is recorded here, but even if that should be inferred, this narrative written near the end of the forty-year journeyings of Israel and long after the event here would naturally have referred to Joshua by the name under which he would be known for all ages. Prolepsis is the technical word for this. "The new name may have been given earlier, but if the change was made at this time, the earlier reference would be proleptic. The new name might have been given after Joshua's defeat of the Amalekites (Exodus 17)."[11]
Be the first to react on this!