In the context of this poem, “why” does not seem to be a genuine question inviting explanation but rather a rhetorical one. If we read “why” this way, I think there are three main effects. One effect becomes obvious when considered in conjunction with the personified phrases that follow the word “why”: “fled the Ocean, “skipt the Mountains,” and “turned the Jordan.” Based on the rest of the poem, we already know that it was God who caused these phenomena. However, the “why” serves as a sort of rhetorical emphasis, forcing the recognition that it was God—no one or nothing else—who animated the inanimate. Secondly, given that God accomplishes this seemingly impossible feat, Milton’s use of “why” conjures a sense of awe. That is to say, by asking why an unmovable object moves, Milton forces his audience to confront that there is no rational explanation for these occurrences. Thus, the audience must instead indulge their awe, inspired by the inability to truly comprehend the extent and inner workings of God’s omnipotence. However, Milton’s questioning via the use of “why” may also seem somewhat foreboding when considered alongside the strength of these natural forces. In other words, why did these strong and dynamic entities flee? Knowing that the answer is God, the “why” almost seems to invite the realization that whatever caused these entities to skip or turn away must be fearfully powerful. These three readings of but a single word seem to summarize Milton’s portrayal of God in this poem: as a powerful and awesome—yet fear-inspiring—entity.