These two great facts of far-reaching consequences in the history of the world, as well as in the history of salvation, form the kernel and essential substance of this book, which may be divided accordingly into two distinct parts. In the first part, chap, i.-xv. 21, we have seven sections, describing (1) the preparation for the saving work of God, through the multiplication of Israel into a great people and their oppression in Egypt (chap, i.), and through the birth and preservation of their liberator (chap, ii.); (2) the call and training of Moses to be the deliverer and leader of Israel (chap. iii. and iv.); (3) the mission of Moses to Pharaoh (chap, v.-vii. 7); (4) the negotiations between Moses and Pharaoh concerning the emancipation of Israel, which were carried on both in words and deeds or miraculous signs (chap. vii. 8-xi.); (5) the consecration of Israel as the covenant nation through the institution of the feast of Passover; (6) the exodus of Israel effected through the slaying of the first-bom of the Egyptians (chap, xii.-xiii. 16); and (7) the passage of Israel through the Ked Sea, and destruction of Pharaoh and his host, with Israel's song of triumph at its deliverance (xiii. 17-xv. 21). — In the second part, chap, xv.
22~xl., we have also seven sections, describing the adoption of Israel as the people of God; viz. (1) the march of Israel from the Red Sea to the mountain of God (chap. xv. 22-xvii. 7); (2) the attitude of the heathen towards Israel, as seen in the hostility of Amalek, and the friendly visit of Jethro the Midianite at Horeb (chap. xvii. 8-xviii.); (3) the establishment of the covenant at Sinai through the election of Israel as the people of Jehovah's possession, the promulgation of the fundamental law and of the fundamental ordinances of the Israelitish commonwealth, and the solemn conclusion of the covenant itself (chap, xix.-xxiv. 11); (4) the divine directions with regard to the erection and an*angement of the dwelling-place of Jehovah in Israel (chap. xxiv. 12-xxxi.); (5) the rebellion of the Israelites and their renewed acceptance on the part of God (chap, xxxii.- xxxiv.); (6) the building of the tabernacle and preparation of holy things for the worship of God (chap, xxxv.-xxxix.); and (7) the setting up of the tabernacle and its solemn consecration (chap. xl.).
These different sections are not marked off, it is true, like the ten parts of Genesis, by special headings, because the account simply follows the historical succession of the events described; but they may be distinguished with perfect ease, through the internal grouping and arrangement of the historical materials. The song of Moses at the Red Sea (chap. xv. 1-21) formed most unmistakeably the close of the first stage of the history, which commenced with the call of Moses, and for which the way was prepared, not only by the enslaving of Israel on the part of the Pharaohs, in the hope of destroying its national and religious independence, but also by the rescue and education of Moses, and by his eventful life. And the setting up of the tabernacle formed an equally significant close to the second stage of the history. By this, the covenant which Jehovah had made with the patriarch Abram (Gen. xv.) was established with the people Israel. By the filling of the dwelling-place, which had just been set up, with the cloud of the glory of Jehovah (Ex. xl. 34-38), the nation of Israel was raised into a congregation of the Lord and the establishment of the kingdom of God in Israel fully embodied in the tabernacle, with Jehovah dwelling in the Most Holy Place; so that all subsequent legislation, and the further progress of the history in the guidance of Israel from
Sinai to Canaan, only served to maintain and strengthen that fellowship of the Lord with His people, which had already been established by the conclusion of the covenant, and symbolically exhibited in the building of the tabernacle. By this marked conclusion, therefore, with a fact as significant in itself as it was important in the history of Israel, Exodus, which commences with a list of the names of the children of Israel who went down to Egypt, is rounded off into a complete and independent book among the five books of Moses.
The promise which God gave to Jacob on his departure from Canaan (Gen. xlvi. 3) was perfectly fulfilled. The children of Israel settled down in the most fruitful province of the fertile land of Egypt, and grew there into a great nation (vers. 1—7). But the words which the Lord had spoken to Abram (Gen. XV. 13) were also fulfilled in relation to his seed in Egypt. The children of Israel were oppressed in a strange land, were compelled to serve the Egyptians (vers. 8-14), and were in great danger of being entirely crushed by them Tvers. 15-22).
Exodus
Vers. 1-7. To place the multiplication of the children of Israel into a strong nation in its true light, as the commencement of the realization of the promises of God, the number of the souls that went down with Jacob to Egypt is repeated from Gen. xlvi. 27 (on the number 70, in which Jacob is included, see the notes on this passage); and the repetition of the names of the twelve sons of Jacob serves to give to the history which follows a character of completeness within itself. " With Jacob they came, every one and his house,^* i.e. his sons, together with their families, their wives, and their children. The sons are arranged according to their mothers, as in Gen. xxxv. 23—26, and the sons of the two maid-servants stand last. Joseph, indeed, is not placed in the list, but brought into special prominence by the words, "/or Joseph was iv Egypi'^ (ver. 5), since he did not go down to Egypt along with the house of Jacob, and occupied an exaUed position in relation to them tliere.— Vers. 6 sqq. After the death of Joseph and his brethren and the whole of the family that had first immigrated, there occurred that miraculous increase in the number of the children of Israel, by which the blessings of creation and promise were fully realized. The words ^1B, ^^.^^ {swarmed)^ and ^^"i^. point back to Gen. i. 28 and viii. 17, and ^DVV^ to nnv 'Si in Gen. xviii. 18. " The land was filled with thenij* i.e, the land of Egypt, particularly Goshen, where they were settled (Gen. xlvii. 11). The extraordinary fruitf ulness of Egypt in both men and cattle is attested not only by ancient writers, but by modern travellers also (vid. Aristotelis hisL animal, vii. 4, 5; Columella de re rust, iii. 8; Plin, hist, n, vii. 3; also Rosemniiller a, und n, Morgenland i. p. 252). This blessing of nature w^as heightened still further in the case of the Israelites by the grace of the promise, so that the increase became extraordinarily great (see the comm. on chap, xii. 37).
Vers. 8—14. The promised blessing was manifested chiefly in the fact, that all the measures adopted by the cunning of Pharaoh to weaken and diminish the Israelites, instead of checking, served rather to promote their continuous increase. — Ver. 8. " There arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph^ DiJJl signifies he came to the throne. Dip denoting his appearance in history, as in Deut. xxxiv. 10. A " new king'' (LXX.: ^aaCkev^ erepo^;; the other ancient versions, rex novus) is a king who follows different principles of government from his predecessors. Cf. ^''t^G ^*''?^^j " new gods," in distinction from the God that their fathers had worshipped, Judg. v. 8; Deut. xxxii. 17. That this king belonged to a new dynasty, as the majority of commentators follow Josephus ^ in assuming, cannot be inferred with certainty from the predicate new; but it is very probable, as furnishing the readiest explanation of the change in the principles of government. The question itself, however, is of no direct importance in relation to theology, though it has considerable interest in connection with Egyptological researches.^ The
2 The want of trustworthy accounts of the history of ancient Egypt and its rulers precludes the possibility of bringing this question to a decision. It is true that attempts have been made to mix it up in various ways with the new king did not acknowledge Joseph, i.e. his great merits in relation to Egypt. ^T N7 signifies here, not to perceive, or acknowledge, in the sense of not wanting to know anything about him, as in 1 Sam. ii. 12, etc. In the natural course of things, the merits of Joseph might very well have been forgotten long before; for the muhiplication of the Israelites into a numerous people, which had taken place in the meantime, is a sufficient proof that a very long time had elapsed since Joseph's death. At the same time such forgetfulness does not usually take place all at once, unless the account handed down has been inten- statements which Josephus has transmitted from Manetho with regard to the rule of the Hyksos in Egypt(c. Ap. i. 14 and 26), and the rising up of the "new king" has been identified sometimes with the commencement of the Hyksos rule, and at other times with the return of the native dynasty on the expulsion of the Hyksos. But just as the accounts of the ancients with regard to the Hyksos bear throughout the stamp of very distorted legends and exaggerations, so the attempts of modern inquirers to clear up the confusion of these legends, and to bring out the historical truth that lies at the foundation of them all, have lod to nothing but confused and contradictory hypotheses; so that the greatest Egyptologists of our own days, — viz. Lepsius, Bunsen^ and Brugsch — differ throughout, and are even diametrically opposed to one another in their views respecting the dynasties of Egypt. Not a single trace of the Hyksos dynasty is to be found either in or upon the ancient monuments. The do( uraental proofs of the existence of a dynasty of foreign kings, which the Vicomte de Rouge thought that he had discovered in the Papyrus Sallier'^o. 1 of the British Museum, and which Brugsch pronounced " an Egyptian document concerning the Hyksos period," have since then been declared untenable both by Brugsch and Lepsius^ and therefore given up again. Neither Herodotus nor Diodorus Siculus heard anything at all about the Hyksog though the former made very minute inquiry of the Egyptian priests of Memphis and Heliopolis. And lastly, the notices of Egypt and its kings, which we meet with in Genesis and Exodus, do not contain the slightest intimation that there were foreign kings ruling there either in Joseph's or Moses' days, or that the genuine Egyptian spirit which pervades these notices was nothing more than the " outward adoption" of Egyptian customs and modw of thought. If we add to this the unquestionably legendary character of the Manetho accounts, there is always the greatest probability in the views of those inquirers who regard the two accounts given by Manetho concernii.g the Hyksos as two different forms of one and the same legend, and the historical fact upon which this legend was founded as being the 430 years' sojourn of the Israelites, which had been thoroughly distorted in the national interests of Egypt. — For a further expansion and defence of this view see Hdvemick's Einleitung in d. A. T. i. 2, pp. 338 sqq., Ed. 2 (Introduction to the Pentateuch, pp. 236 sqq. English translation).
tionally obscured or suppressed. If tfiC new king, therefore, did not know Joseph, the reason must simply have been, that he did not trouble himself about the past, and did not want to know anything about the measures of his predecessors and the events of their reigns. The passage is correctly paraphrased by Jonathan thus: non agnovit (^^30) Josephum nee arnbulavit in statutis ejus. Forgetfulness of Joseph brought the favour shown to the Israelites by the kings of Egypt to a close. A^ they still continued foreigners both in religion and customs, their rapid increase excited distrust in the mind of the king, and induced him to take steps for staying their increase and reducing their strength. The statement that ^'the people of the children of Jsraer {^^'y^, '^^ DV Ht. " nation, viz. the sons of Israel;" for D^ with the dist. accent is not the construct state, and i'K"iK^'» ^J2 is in apposition, cf. Ges. § 113) were ''more and mightier^ than the Egyptians, is no doubt an exaggeration. — Ver. 10. " Let us deal wisely with them^'' Le. act craftily towards them. D^nnn, sapiensem se gessit (Eccl. vii. 16), is used here of political craftiness, or worldly wisdom combined with craft and cunning (^Karaa-o- <l>Lao)fi€6a, LXX.), and therefore is altered into ^^^^*} in Ps. cv. 25 (cf. Gen. xxxvii. 18). The reason assigned by the king for the measures he was about to propose, was the fear that in case of war the Israelites might make common cause with his enemies, and then remove from Egypt. It was not the conquest of his kingdom that he was afraid of, but alliance with his enemies and emigration, npy is used here, as in Gen. xiii. 1, etc., to denote removal from Egypt to Canaan. He was acquainted with the home of the Israelites therefore, and cannot have been entirely ignorant of the circumstances of their settlement in Egypt. But he regarded them as his subjects, and was unwilling that they should leave the country, and therefore was anxious to prevent the possibility of their emancipating themselves in the event of war. — In the form '^J^']p^ for nj''']ipny according to the frequent interchange of the forms n'6 and i{"b {vid. Gen. xlii. 4), n: is transferred from the feminine plural to the singular, to distinguish the 3d pers. fem. from the 2d pers., as in Judg. v. 26, Job xvii. 16 (vid. Ewald, § 191c, and Ges. § 47, 3, Anm, 3). Consequently there is no necessity either to understand *^^^^^ collectively as signifying soldiers, or to regard ''^^"'.P^j the reading adopted by the LXX. (avfi^rj rjfjup)^ the Samaritan, Chaldee,
Syriac, and Vulgate, as " certainly the original," as Knohel has done.
The first measure adopted (ver. 11) consisted in the appointment of taskmasters over the Israelites, to bend them down by hard labour. D^DD nb^ bailiffs over the serfs. D^DD from DD signifies, not feudal service, but feudal labourers, serfs (see my Commentary on 1 Kings iv. 6). ^^V to bend, to wear out any one's strength (Ps. cii. 24). By hard feudal labour (^^^'^p burdens, burdensome toil) Pharaoh hoped, according to the ordinary maxims of tyrants (Aristot. poliL 5, 9; Liv, hist, i. 56, 59), to break down the physical strength of Israel and lessen its increase, — since a population always grows more slowly under oppression than in the midst of prosperous circumstances, — and also to crush their spirit so as to banish the veiy wish for liberty. — |l*5j and so Israel built (was compelled to build) provision or magazine cities (yid. 2 Chron. xxxii. 28, cities for the storing of the harvest), in which the produce of the land was housed, partly for purposes of trade, and partly for provisioning the army in time of war; — not fortresses, TroXet? o'^vpal, as the LXX. have rendered it. Pithom was Hdrovfiof;; it was situated, according to Herodotus (2, 158), upon the canal which commenced above Bybastus and connected the Nile with the Red Sea. This city is called Thou or Thoum in the Itiner, Anton,, the Egyptian article pi being dropped, and according to Jomard (descript. t. 9, p. 368) is to be sought for on the site of the modern Abassiehin the Wady Tumilat. — Raemses (cf. Gen. xlvii. 11) was the ancient Heroopolis, and is not to be looked for on the ^ite of the modern Belbeis. In support of the latter supposition, SticJcel, who agrees with Kurtz and Knohel, adduces chiefly the statement of the Egyptian geographer Makrizi, that in the (Jews') book of the law Belbeis is called the land of Goshen, in which Jacob dwelt when he came to his son Joseph, and that the capital of the province was el Sharkiyeh, This place is a day's journey (or as others affirm, 14 hours) to the north-east of Cairo on the Syrian and Egyptian road. It served as a meeting-place in the middle ages for the caravans from Egypt to Syria and Arabia {Bitter, Erdkunde 14, p. 59). It is said to have been in existence before the Mohammedan conquest of Egypt. But the clue cannot be traced anv farther back: and it is too far from the Red Sea for the Raemses of the Bible {vid. chap. xii. 37). The authority of Makrizi is quite counterbalanced by the much older statement of the Septuagint, in which Jacob is made to meet his son Joseph in Heroopolis; the words of Gen. xlvi. 29, "and Joseph went up to meet Israel his father to Goshen/^ being rendered thus: eh (ruvdvnjaiv ^IcrparfK rat irarpl avTov KaO' 'HpQxov iroXcv. Hengstenherg is not correct in saying that the later name Heroopolis is here substituted for the older name Raemses; and Gesenius, Kurtz, and Knohel are equally wrong in affirming that KaO' ^Hpoocov irokiv is supplied ex ingenio suo; but the place of meeting, which is given indefinitely as Goshen in the original, is here distinctly named. Now if this more precise definition is not an arbitrary conjecture of the Alexandrian translators, but sprang out of their acquaintance with the country, and is really correct, as Kurtz has no doubt, it follows that Heroopolis belonged to the 7^ 'Pa/juecrarj (Gen. xlvi. 28, LXX.), or was situated within it. But this district formed the centre of the Israelitish settlement in Goshen; for according to Gen. xlvii. 11, Joseph gave his father and brethren " a possession in the best of the land, in the land of RaemsesT Following this passage, the LXX. have also rendered |^a nyiK in Gen. xlvi. 28 by eU ^rjv 'Pa/jL€(7(r7J, whereas in other^laces the land of Goshen is simply called yrj Teaepu (Gen. xlv. 10, xlvi. 34, xlvii. 1, etc.). But \i Heroopolis belonged to the 7^ 'Pafieo-o-rj, or the province of Raemses, which formed the centre of the land of Goshen that was assigned to the Israelites, this city must have stood in the immediate neighbourhood of Raemses, or have been identical with t. Now, since the researches of the scientific men attached to the great French expedition, it has been generally admitted that Heroopolis occupied the site of the modern Ahu Keisheib in the Wady Tumilat, between Thoum = Pithom and the Birket Temsah or Crocodile Lake; and according to the Itiner, p. 170, it was only 24 Roman miles to the east of Pithom, — a position that was admirably adapted not only for a magazine, but also for the gathering-place of Israel prior to their departure (chap, xii. 37).
But Pharaoh's first plan did not accomplish his purpose (ver. 12). The multiplication of Israel went on just in proportion to the amount of the oppression (13 =^'^^^prout, ita; pQ as in Gen. XXX. 30, xxviii. 14), so that the Egyptians were dismayed at the Israelites (pp to feel dismay, or fear, Num. xxii. 3). In this increase of their numbers, which surpassed all expectation, there was the manifestation of a higher, supernatural, and to them awful power. But instead of bowing before it, they still endeavoured to enslave Israel through hard servile labour. In vers. 13, 14 we have not an account of any fresh oppression; but " the crushing by hard labour'* is represented as enslaving the Israelites and embittering their lives. "rj^Q hard oppression, from the Chaldee ^1^ to break or crush in pieces. " They embittered their life with hard labour in clay and bricks (making clay into bricks, and working with the bricks when made), and in all kinds of labour in the field (this was very severe in Egypt on account of the laborious process by which the ground was watered, Deut. xi. 10), Dn^3j;~P3 ns with regard to all their labour, which they worked (i.e, performed) through them (viz. the Israelites) with severe oppression^ 'yS^D nx is also dependent upon ^"''!).9^ ^^ ^ second accusative (Ewald, § 2nd), Bricks of clay were the building materials most commonly used in Egypt. The employment of foreigners in this kind of labour is to be seen represented in a painting, discovered in the ruins of Thebes, and given in the Egyptological works of Rosellini and Wilkinson, in which workmen who are evidently not Egyptians are occupied in making bricks, whilst two Egyptians with sticks are standing as overlookers; — even if the labourers are not intended for the Israelites, as the Jewish physiognomies would lead us to suppose. (For fuller details, see Hengstenberg* s Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 80 sqq. English translation).
Vers. 15-21. As the first plan miscarried, the king proceeded to try a second, and that a bloody act of cruel despotism. He commanded the midwives to destroy the male children in the birth and to leave only the girls alive. The midwives named in ver. 15, who are not Egyptian but Hebrew women, were no doubt the heads of the whole profession, and were expected to communicate their instructions to their associates. "i^^^*l in ver. 16 resumes the address introduced by "IDK"*! in ver. 15w The expression D)33{!<n"7y, of which such various renderings have been given, is used in Jer. xviii. 3 to denote the revolving table of a potter, Le, the two round discs between which a potter forms his earthenware vessels by turning, and appears to be transferred here to the vagina out of which the child twists itself, as it were like the vessel about to be formed out of the potter's discs.
Knohel has at length decided in favour of this explanation, at which the Targumists liint with their N'^^^P. When the midwives were called in to assist at a birth, they were to look carefully at the vagina; and if the child were a boy, they were to destroy it as it came out of the womb. HTil for n"'^n from ^^n see Gen. iii. 22. The 1 takes kametz before the major pause, as in Gen. xliv. 9 (cf. Ewaldj § 243a). — Ver. 17. But the midwives feared God (ha-Elohim, the personal, true God), and did not execute the king's command. — Ver. 18. When questioned upon the matter, the explanation which they gave was, that the Hebrew women were not like the delicate women of Egypt, but were nvn " vigorous" (had much vital energy: Abenezra), so that they gave birth to their children before the midwives arrived. They succeeded in deceiving the king with this reply, as childbirth is remarkably rapid and easy in the case of Arabian women (see Burckhardt, Beduinen, p. 78; Tischendorfy Beise i. p. 108). — Vers. 20, 21. God rewarded them for their conduct, and " made them houses," i.e. gave them families and preserved their posterity. In this sense to " make a house" in 2 Sam. vii. 11 is interchanged with to "build a house*' in ver. 27 (vid. Ruth iv. 11). Dn^ for I^^ as in Gen. xxxi. 9, etc. Through not carrying out the ruthless command of the king, they had helped to build up the families of Israel, and their own families were therefore built up by God. Thus God rewarded them, " not, however, because they lied, but because they were merciful to the people of God; it was not their falsehood therefore that was rewarded, but their kindness (more correctly, their fear of God), their benignity of mind, not the wickedness of their lying; and for the sake of what was good, God forgave what was evil." (^Augustine, contra mendac. c. 19.)
Ver. 22. The failure of his second plan drove the king to acts of open violence. He issued commands to all his subjects to throw every Hebrew boy that was bom into the river (i.e. the Nile). The fact, that this command, if carried out, would necessarily have resulted in the extermination of Israel, did not in the least concern the tyrant; and this cannot be adduced as forming any objection to the historical credibility of the narrative, since other cruelties of a similar kind are to be found recorded in the history of the world. Clericus has cited the conduct of the Spartans towards the helots. Nor can the numbers of the Israelites at the time of the exodus be adduced as a proof that no such murderous command can ever have been issued; for nothing more can be inferred from this, than that the command was neither fully executed nor long regarded, as the Egyptians were not all so hostile to the Israelites as to be very zealous in carrying it out, and the Israelites would certainly neglect no means of preventing its execution. Even Pharaoh's obstinate refusal to let the people go, though it certainly is inconsistent with the intention to destroy them, cannot shake the truth of the narrative, but may be accounted for on psychological grounds, from the very nature of pride and tyranny which often act in the most reckless manner without at all regarding the consequences, or on historical grounds, from the supposition not only that the king who refused the permission to depart was a different man from the one who issued the murderous edicts (cf. chap. ii. 23), but that when the oppression had continued for some time the Egyptian government generally discovered the advantage they derived from the slave labour of the Israelites, and hoped through a continuance of that oppression so to crush and break their spirits, as to remove all ground for fearing either rebellion, or alliance with their foes.
BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES; FLIGHT FROM EGYPT, AND LIFE IN MIDIAN. — CHAP. II.
Vers. 1-10. Birth and education of Moses.— Whilst Pharaoh was urging forward the extermination of the Israelites, God was preparing their emancipation. According to the divine purpose, the murderous edict of the king was to lead to the training and preparation of the human deliverer of Israel. — Vers. 1, 2. At the time when all the Hebrew boys were ordered to be thrown into the Nile, ^Hliere went (1?n contributes to the pictorial character of the account, and serves to bring out its importance, just as in Gen. xxxv. 22, Deut. xxxi. 1) a man of the house of Zevi— according to chap. vi. 20 and Num. xxvi. 59, it was Amram, of the Levitical family of Kohath — and married a daughter {i.e. a descendant) o/JL^l;^," named Jochebed, who bore him a son, viz. MoSES. From chap. vi. 20 we learn that Moses was not the first child of this marriage, but his brother Aaron; and from ver. 7 of this chapter, it is evident that when Moses was born, his sister Miriam was by no means a child (Num. xxvi. 59). Both of these had been bom before the murderous edict was issued (chap. i. 22). They are not mentioned here, because the only question in hand was the birth and deliverance of Moses, the future deliverer of IsraeL " When the mother saw that th^ child was beautiful " (niD as in Gen. vi. 2; LXX. daTelos;), she began to think about his preservation. The very beauty of the child was to her " a peculiar token of divine approval, and a sign that God had some special design concerning him'* {Delitzsch on Heb. xi. 23). The expression aareio^ tm GeS in Acts vii. 20 points to this. She therefore hid the new-bom child for three months, in the hope of saving him alive. This hope, however, neither sprang from a revelation made to her husband before the birth of her child, that he was appointed to be the saviour of Israel, as Josephus affirms (Ant. ii. 9, 3), either from his own imagination or according to the belief of his age, nor from her faith in the patriarchal promises, but primarily from the nature^ love of parents for their offspring. And if the hiding of the child is praised in Heb. xi. 23 as an act of faith, that faith was manifested in their not obeying the king's commandment, but fulfilling without fear of man all that was required by that parental love, which God approved, and which was rendered all the stronger by the beauty of the child, and in their confident assurance, in spite of all apparent impossibility, that their effort would be successful {vid, Delitzsch ut supra). This confidence was shown in the means adopted by the mother to save the child, when she could hide it no longer. — Ver. 3. She placed the infant in an ark of bulrushes by the bank of the Nile, hoping that possibly it might be found by some compassionate hand, and still be delivered. The dagesh dirim, in i^^SSfn serves to separate the consonant in which it stands from the syllable which follows (yid, Ewald, § 92c; Ges. § 20, 2b), «9i rinn a little chest of rushes. The use of the word nan (ark) is probably intended to call to mind the ark in which Noah was saved (yid. Gen. vi. 14). t^^i, papyrus, the paper reed: a kind of rush which was very common in ancient Egypt, but has almost entirely disappeared, or, as Pruner affirms (agypt, Naturgesch, p. 55), is nowhere to be found. It had a triangular stalk about the thickness of a finger, which grew to the height of ten feet; and from this the lighter Nile hoats were made, whilst the peeling of the plant was used for sails, mat-p tresses, mats, sandals, and other articles, but chiefly for the preparation of paper (vid. Celsii HierohoU ii. pp. 137 sqq.; Hengstenherg^ Egypt and the Books of Moses, pp. 85, 86, transl.), •"'"JP!?^!!? for '^'^P'?^ with mappik omitted: and cemented (pitched) it with "i^^ bitumen^ the asphalt of the Dead Sea, to fasten the papyrus stalks, and with pitch, to make it water-tight, and put it in the reeds by the bank of the Nile, at a spot, as the sequel shows, where she knew that the king's daughter was accustomed to bathe. For " the sagacity of the mother led her, no doubt, so to arrange the whole, that the issue might be just what is related in vers. 5-9" (Baumgarten), The daughter stationed herself a little distance off, to see what happened to the child (ver. 4). This sister of Moses was most probably the Miriam who is frequently mentioned afterwards (Num. xxvi. 59). ^^D?!^ for 3JPnn. The infinitive form Hin as in Gen. xlvi. 3. — Ver. 5. Pharaoh's daughter is called Thermouthis or Merris in Jewish tradition, and by the Rabbins n'Tin. "^K^ri'pjf is to be connected with 'l"]5> ^i^d the construction with p)i to be explained as referring to the descent into (upon) the river from the rising bank. The fact that a king's daughter should bathe in the open river is certainly opposed to the customs of the modem, Mohammedan East, where this is only done by women of the lower orders, and that in remote places {Lane, Manners and Customs); but it is in harmony with the customs of ancient Egypt,^ and in perfect agreement with the notions of the early Egyptians respecting the sanctity of the Nile, to which divine honours even were paid {yid. Hengstenberg's Egypt, etc. pp. 109, 110), and with the belief, which was common to both ancient and modem Egyptians, in the power of its waters to impart fruitful ness and prolong life {yid, Strabo, xv. p. 695, etc., and Seetzen, Travels iii. p. 204). Vers. 6 sqq. The exposure of the child at once led the king's daughter to conclude that it was one of the Hebrews^ children. The fact that she took compassion on the weeping child, and notwithstanding the king's command (i. 22) took it up and had it brought up (of course, without the knowledge of the king), may be accounted for from the love to children which is innate
^ Wilkinson gives a picture of a bathing scene, in which an Egyptian woman of rank is introduced, attended by four female servants.
in the female sex, and the superior adroitness of a mother's heart, which co-operated in this case, though without knowing or intending it, in the realization of the divine plan of salvation. Competens fuit divina vindicta, ut suis affectibus puniatur parricida et Jilice provisioiie pereat qui genitrices interdixerat parturire (AiLgust Sermo 89 de temp.). — Ver. 9. With the directions, " Take this child away (''?Y''i? for ''^vin used here in the sense of leading, bringing, carrying away, as in Zech. v. 10, Eccl. x. 20) and suckle it for me,^' the king's daughter gave the child to its mother, who was unknown to her, and had been fetched as a nurse. — Ver. 10. When the child had grown large, i.e. had been weaned (7"^^^ as in Gen. xxi. 8), the mother, who acted as nurse, brought it back to the queen's daughter, who then adopted it as her own son, and called it Moses (i^^): " for^^* she said, " owt of the water have I drawn him^^ (^nri'»TO). As Pharaoh's daughter gave this name to the child as her adopted son, it must be an Egyptian name. The Greek form of the name, Mwvp-rjf; (LXX.), also points to this, as Josephus affirms-. " Thermuthis," he says, " imposed this name upon him, from what had happened when he was put into the river; for the Egyptians call water MO, and those who are rescued from the water uses " (Ant. ii. 9, 6, Whiston's translation). The correctness of this statement is confirmed by the Coptic, which is derived from the old Egyptian.^ Now, though we find the name explained in the text from the Hebrew HK^, this is not to.be regarded as a philological or etymological explanation, but as a theological interpretation, referring to the importance of the person rescued from the water to the Israelitish nation. In the lips of an Israelite, the name Mouje, which was so little suited to the Hebrew organs of speech, might be involuntarily altered into Moshe; " and this transformation became an unintentional prophecy, for the person drawn out did become, in fact, the drawer out" (Kurtz). Consequently KnoheVs supposition, that the writer regarded HK^D as a participle Poal with the d dropped, is to be rejected as inadmissible.— There can be no doubt that, as the adopted son of
^ Josephus gives a somewhat different explanation in his book against Apion (i. 31), when he says, *' His true name was Moiises, and signifies a person who is rescued from the water, for the Egyptians call water Moii." Other explanations, though less probable ones, are attempted by Gesenius in his Thes. p. 824, and Knobel in loc.
Pharaoh's daughter, Moses received a thoroughly Egyptian training, and was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as Stephen states in Acts vii. 22 in accordance with Jewish tradition.^ Through such an education as this, he received just the training required for the performance of the work to which God had called him. Thus the wisdom of Egypt was employed by the wisdom of God for the establishment of the kingdom of God.
Vers. 11-20. Flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian. — The education of Moses at the Egyptian court could not extinguish the feeling that he belonged to the people of Israel. Our history does not inform us how this feeling, which was inherited from his parents and nourished in him when an infant by his mother's milk, was fostered still further after he had been handed over to Pharaoh's daughter, and grew into a firm, decided consciousness of will. All that is related is, how this consciousness broke forth at length in the full-grown man, in the slaying of the Egyptian who had injured a Hebrew (vers. 11, 12), and in the attempt to reconcile two Hebrew men who were quarrelling (vers. 13, 14). Both of these occurred " in those days," i.e, in the time of the Egyptian oppression, when Moses had become great (^^^. as in Gen. xxi. 20), i.e. had grown to be a man. According to tradition he was then forty years old (Acts vii. 23). What impelled him to this was not " a carnal ambition and longing for action," or a desire to attract the attention of his brethren, but fiery love to his brethren or fellowcountrymen, as is shown in the expression, " one of his brethren " (ver. 11), and deep sympathy with them in their oppression and sufferings; whilst, at the same time, they undoubtedly displayed the fire of his impetuous nature, and the ground-work for his future calling. It was from this point of view that Stephen cited these facts (Acts vii. 25, 26), for the purpose of proving to the Jews of his own age, that they had been from time immemorial " stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears " (ver. 51). And this view is the correct one. Not only did Moses
^ The tradition, on the other hand, that Moses was a priest of Heliopolis, named Osarsiph (Jos. c. Ap. i. 26, 28), is just as unhistorical as the legend of his expedition against the Ethiopians (Jos. Ant. ii. 10), and many other? with which the later, glorifying Saga embellished his life in Egypt.
intend to help his brethren wlien he thus appeared among them, but this forcible interference on behalf of his brethren could and should have aroused the thought in their minds, that God would send them salvation through him. " But they understood not" (Acts vii. 25). At the same time Moses thereby declared that he would no longer " be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt" (Heb. xi. 24-26; see Delitzsch in loc). And this had its roots in faith (Trla-Tet), But his conduct presents another aspect also, which equally demands consideration. His zeal for the welfare of his brethren urged him forward to present himself as the umpire and judge of his brethren before God had called him to this, and drove him to the crime of murder, which cannot be excused as resulting from a sudden ebullition of wrath.^ For he acted with evident deliberation. " He looked this way and that way; and when he saw no one^ he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand^^ (ver. 12). Through his life at the Egyptian court his own natural inclinations had been formed to rule, and they manifested themselves on this occasion in an ungodly way. This was thrown in his teeth by the man " in the wrong " (VKHn^ ver. 13), who was striving with his brother and doing him an
^ The judgment of Augustine is really the true one. Thus, in his c. Faustum Manich. 1. 22, c. 70, he says, " I affirm, that the man, though
criminal and really the offender, ought not to have been put to death by one who had no legal authority to do so. But minds that are capable of virtues often produce vices also, and show thereby for what virtue they would have been best adapted, if they had but been properly trained. For just as farmers, when they see large herbs, however useless, at once conclude that the land is good for growing corn, so that very impulse of the mind which led Moses to avenge his brother when suffering wrong from a native, without regard to legal forms, was not unfitted to produce the fruits of virtue, but, though hitherto uncultivated, was at least a sign of great fer-
tility." Augustine then compares this deed to that of Peter, when attempting to defend his Lord with a sword (Matt. xxvi. 61), and adds, " Both of
them broke through the rules of justice, not through any base inhumanity, but through animosity that needed correction: both sinned through their hatred of another's wickedness, and their love, though carnal, in the one case towards a brother, in the other to the Lord. This fault needed pruning or rooting up; but yet so great a heart could be as readily cultivated for bearing virtues, as land for bearing fruit."
injury: " Who made thee a ruler and judge over us " (ver. 14)? and so far he was right. The murder of the Egyptian had also become known; and as soon as Pharaoh lieard of it, he sought to kill Moses, who fled into the land of!Midian in fear for his life (ver. 15). Thus dread of Pharaoh's wrath drove Moses from Egypt into the desert. For all that, it is stated in Heb. xi. 27, that " by faith (TrlaTei) Closes forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king." This faith, however, he manifested not by fleeing — his flight was rather a sign of timidity — but by leaving Egypt; in other words, by renouncing his- position in Egypt, where he might possibly have softened down the king's wrath, and perhaps even have brought help and deliverance to his brethren the Hebrews. By the fact that he did not allow such human hopes to lead him to remain in Egypt, and was not afraid to increase the king's anger by his flight, he manifested faith in the invisible One as though he saw Him, commending not only himself, but his oppressed nation, to the care and protection of God (yid. Delltzsch on Heb. xi. 27).
The situation of the land of Midian, to which Moses fled, cannot be determined with certainty. The Midianites, who were descended from Abraham through Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2, 4), had their principal settlements on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, from which they spread northwards into the fields of Moab (Gen. xxxvi. 35; Num. xxii. 4, 7, xxv. 6, 17, xxxi. 1 sqq.; Judg. vi. 1 sqq.), and carried on a caravan trade through Canaan to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 28, 36; Isa. Ix. 6). On the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, and five days' journey from Aela, there stood the town of Madian, the ruins of which are mentioned by Edrisi and Abulfeda, who also speak of a well there, from which Moses watered the flocks of his father-in-law Shoeib (i.e, Jethro). But we are precluded from fixing upon this as the home of Jethro bv Ex. iii. 1, where Moses is said to have come to Horeb, when he drove Jethro's sheep behind the desert. The Midianites on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf could not possibly have led their flocks as far as Horeb for pasturage. We must assume, therefore, that one branch of the Midianites, to whom Jethro was priest, had crossed the Elanitic Gulf, and settled in the southern half of the peninsula of Sinai (cf. chap, iii. 1). There is nothing improbable in such a supposition. There are several branches of the Towara Arabs occupying the southern portion of Arabia, that have sprung from Iledjas in this way; and ev^n in the most modern times considerable intercourse was carried on between the eastern side of the gulf and the peninsula, whilst there was formerly a ferry between Szytta, Madian, and Nekba. — The words " and he sat down (^^'^, i,e, settled) in the land of Midian, and sat down by the well^^ are hardly to be understood as simply meaning that " when he was dwelling in Midian, he sat down one day by a well " (Baumg.), but that immediately upon his arrival in Midian, where he intended to dwell or stay, he sat down by the well. The definite article before "i^<3 points to the well as the only one, or the principal well in that district. Knobel refers to " the well at Sherm; " but at Sherm el Moye {i.e. water-bay) or Sherm el Bir (well-bay) there are " several deep wells finished off with stones," which are " evidently the work of an early age, and have cost great labour " i^Burckhardt, Syr. p. 854); so that the expression *' the well " would be quite unsuitable. Moreover there is but a v^ery weak support for Knobel! s attempt to determine the site of Midian, in the identification of the Mapavlrat or Mapavel^ (pi Strabo and Artemidorus) with Madyan,
Vers. 16. sqq. Here Moses secured for himself a hospitable reception from a priest of Midian, and a home at his house, by doing as Jacob had formerly done (Gen xxix. 10), viz. helping his daughters to water their father's sheep, and protecting them against the other shepherds. — On the form jVp^ for ]V^'^ vid. Gen. xix. 19; and for the masculine suffixes to D^tJhj^ and ^J^X Gen. xxxi. 9. n:i)in for i^^^'^'^K as in Job v. 12, cf. Ewald, § 198a.
— The flock of this priest consisted of nothing but |fc<Vj i'^' sheep and goats (yid. chap. iii. 1). Even now there are no oxen reared upon the peninsula of Sinai, as there is not sufficient pasturage or water to be found. For the same reason there are no horses kept there, but only camels and asses (cf. Seetzen, K. iii. 100; Wellstedy R. in Arab. ii. p. 66). In ver. 18 the priest is called Beguelj in chap. iii. 1 Jethro, This title, " the priest of Midian," shows that he was the spiritual head of the branch of the Midianites located there, but hardly that he was the prince or temporal head as well, like Melchizedek, as the Targumists have indicated by ^yy, and as Artapanus and the poet Ezekiel distinctly affirm. The other shepherds would hardly have treated the daughters of the Emir in the manner described in ver. 17.
The name -'^^^"1 (Beguel, friend of God) indicates that this pnest served the old Semitic God El (/^). This Reguel, who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses, was unquestionably the same person as Jethro ip^'^) the ph of Moses and priest of Midian (chap. iii. 1). Now, as RegueVs son Chohah is called Moses' |nh in Num. X. 29 (cf. Judg. iv. 11), the Targumists and others supposed Reguel to be the grandfather of Zipporah, in which case ^^|» would mean the grandfather in ver. 18, and nn the granddaughter in ver. 21. This hypothesis would undoubtedly be admissible, if it were probable on other grounds. But as a comparison of Num. X. 29 wath Ex. xviii. does not necessarily prove that Chobab and Jethro were the same persons, whilst Ex. xviii. 27 seems to lead to the very opposite conclusion, and inn^ like the Greek 7a//,/3po9, may be used for both father-in-law and brotherin-law, it would probably be more correct to regard Chobab as Moses' brother-in-law, Reguel as the proper name of his fatherin-law, and Jethro, for which Jether (prcestantia) is substituted in chap. iv. 18, as either a title, or the surname which showed the rank of Reguel in his tribe, like the Arabic Imam, i.e. proepositus, spec, sacrorum antistes. Rankes opinion, that Jethro and Chobab were both of them sons of Reguel and brothers-inlaw of Moses, is obviously untenable, if only on the ground that according to the analogy of Num. x. 29 the epithet " son of Reguel " would not be omitted in chap. iii. 1.
Vers. 21-25. Moses' life in Midian. — As Reguel gave a hospitable welcome to Moses, in consequence of his daughters' report of the assistance that he had given them in watering their sheep; it pleased Moses (''^?i*l) to dwell with him. The primary meaning of y^Sn is voluit (yid. Ges, thes,), |frf"!i? for mNnjp: like ]V^^ in Gen. iv. 23. — Although Moses received Reguel' s daughter Zipporah as his wife, probably after a lengthened stay, his Hfe in Midian was still a banishment and a school of bitter humiliation. He gave expression to this feeling at the birth of his first son in the name which he gave it, viz. Gershom (Q^.3, i.e. banishment, from t^_3 to drive or thrust away); ''for,^^ he said, interpreting the name according to the sound, " / have been a stranger (pp) in a strange land.^^ In a strange land he was obliged to live, far away from his brethren in Egypt, and far from his fathers' land of promise; and in this strange land the longing for home seems to have been still further increased by his wife Zipporah, who, to judge from chap, iv. 24 sqq., neither understood nor cared for the feelings of his heart. By this he was urged on to perfect and unconditional submission to the will of his God. To this feeling of submission and confidence he gave expression at the birth of his second son, by calling him Eliezer ptVvN God is help); for he said, " TJie God of my father (Abraham or the three patriarchs, cf. iii. 6) is my helpy and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh '* (xviii. 4). The birth of this son is not mentioned in the Hebrew text, but his name is given in chap, xviii. 4, with this explanation.^ In the names of his two sons, Moses expressed alJ that had affected his mind in the land of Midian. The pride and selfwill with which he had offered himself in Egypt as the deliverer and judge of his oppressed brethren, had been broken down by the feeling of exile. This feeling, however, had not passed into despair, but had been purified and raised into firm confidence in the God of his fathers, who had shown himself as his helper by delivering him from the sword of Pharaoh. In this state of mind, not only did "his attachment fo his people, and his longing to rejoin them, instead of cooling, grow stronger and stronger " (Kurtz), but the hope of the fulfilment of the promise given to the fathers was revived within him, and ripened into the firm confidence of faith.
Vers. 23-25 form the introduction to the next chapter. The cruel oppression of the Israelites in Egypt continued without intermission or amelioration, "/w those many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the service*^ (i.e, their hard slave labour). The ''many days^^ are the years of oppression, or the time between the birth of Moses and the birth of his chil^lren in Midian. The king of Egypt who died, was in any case the king mentioned in ver. 15; but whether he was one and the same with the ''new king^* (i. 8), or a successor of his, cannot be decided. If the former were the case, we should have to assume, with Baumgarten, that the death of the king took place not very long after Moses' flight, seeing that
^ In the Vulgate the account of his birth and name is interpolated here, and so also in some of the later codices of the LXX. But in the oldest and best of the Greek codices it is wanting here, so that there is no ground for the supposition that it has fallen out of the Hebrew text.
he was an old man at the time of Moses' birth, and had a grownup daughter. But the greater part of the "many days" would then fall in his successor's reign, which is obviously opposed to the meaning of the words, " It came to pass in those many days, that the king of Egypt died." For this reason the other supposition, that the king mentioned here is a successor of the one mentioned in chap. i. 8, has far greater probabihty. At the same time, all that can be determined from a comparison of chap. vii. 7 is, that the Egyptian oppression lasted more than 80 years. This allusion to the complaints of the Israelites, in connection with the notice of the king's death, seems to imply that they hoped for some amelioration of their lot from the change of government; and that when they were disappointed, and groaned the more bitterly in consequence, they cried to God for help and deliverance. This is evident from the remark, " Their cry came up unto God^ and is stated distinctly in Deut. xxvi. 7. — Vers. 24, 25. God heard their crying^ and remembered His covenant with the fathers: " and God saw the children of Israel, and God noticed (them)." " This seeing and noticing had regard to the innermost nature of Israel, namely, as the chosen seed of Abraham" (^Baumgarten), God's notice has all the energy of love and pity. Lyra has aptly explained jn^ ^bus: ^^ ad modum cognoscentis se habuit, ostendendo dilectionem circa eos;"* and Luther has paraphrased it correctly: "He accepted them."
Chap. iii. 1-iv. 18. Call of Moses. — Whilst the children of Israel were groaning under the oppression of Egypt, God had already prepared the way for their deliverance, and had not only chosen Moses to be the saviour of His people, but had trained him for the execution of His designs. — Yer. 1. When Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, he drove them on one occasion behind the desert, and came to the mountains of Horeb, nyi n^n, Uu ''he was feeding:" the participle expresses the continuance of the occupation, "isi^n "in« does not mean ad interiora deserti (Jerome); but Moses drove the sheep from Jethro's home as far as Horeb, so that he passed through a desert with the flock before he reached the pasture land of Horeb. For " in this, the most elevated ground of the peninsula, you find the most fertile valleys, in which even fruittrees grow. Water abounds in this district; consequently it is the resort of all the Bedouins when the lower countries are dried up" (Rosentnuller). Jethro's home was separated from Horeb, therefore, by a desert, and is to be sought to the south-east, and not to the north-east. For it is only a south-easterly situation that will explain these two facts: First, that when Moses returned from Midian to Egypt, he touched again at Horeb, where Aaron, who had come from Egypt, met him (iv. 27); and, secondly, that the Israelites never came upon any Midianites on their journey through the desert, whilst the road of Hobab the Midianite separated from theirs as soon as they departed from Sinai (Num. x. 30).^ Horeb is called the Mount of God by anticipation, with reference to the consecration which it subsequently received through the revelation of God upon its summit. The supposition that it had been a holy locality even before the calling of Moses, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the name is not restricted to one single mountain, but applies to the central group of mountains in the southern part of the peninsula (yid. chap. xix. 1). Hence the spot where God appeared to Moses cannot be precisely determined, although tradition has very suitably given the name Wady Shoeib, i.e. Jethro's Valley, to the valley which bounds the Jebel Musa towards the east, and separates it from the Jebel ed Deir, because it is there that Moses is supposed to have fed the flock of Jethro. The monastery of Sinai, which is in this valley, is said to have been built upon the spot where the thorn-bush stood, according to the tradition in Antonini Placent. Itinerar, c. 37, and the annals of Eutychius (yid. Robinson, Palestine).
Vers. 2-5. Here, at Horeb, God appeared to Moses as the Angel of the Lord (yid. p. 185) " in aflame of fi.re out of the midst of the thom-busK*^ (p^Pt /^dro^, rubus), which burned in the fire and was not consumed.?3fc<, in combination with 'I33"'N, must be a participle for ^^^^. When Moses turned aside from the road
^ The hypothesis, that, after the calling of Moses, this branch of the Midianites left the district they had hitherto occupied, and sought out fresh pasture ground, probably on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, is as needlass as it is without support.
or spot where he was standing, " to look at this great 5i^A^"(nK"JD), i.e, the miraculous vision of the bush that was burning and yet not burned up, Jehovah called to him out of the midst of the thornbush, ^' Moses, Moses (the reduplication as in Gen. xxii. 11), draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground" C^Pl^.). The symboHcal meaning of this miraculous vision, — that is to say, the fact that it was a figurative representation of the nature and contents of the ensuing message from God, — has long been admitted. The thorn-bush in contrast with the more noble and lofty trees (Judg. ix. 15) represented the people of Israel in their humiliation, as a people despised by the world. Fire and the flame of fire were not " symbols of the holiness of God;" for, as the Holy One, " God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all " (1 John i. 5), He " dwells in the light which no man can approach unto" (1 Tim. vi. IG); and that not merely according to the New Testament, but according to the Old Testament view as well, as is evident from Isa. x. 17, where "the Light of Israel" and "the Holy One of Israel" are synonymous. But " the Light of Israel became fire, and the Holy One a flame, and burned and consumed its thorns and thistles." Nor is " fire, from its very nature, the source of light," according to the scriptural view. On the contrary, light, the condition of all life, is also the source of fire. The sun enlightens, warms, and burns (Job XXX. 28; Sol. Song i. 6); the rays of the sun produce warmth, heat, and fire; and light was created before the sun. Fire, therefore, regarded as burning and consuming, is a figurative representation of refining affliction and destroying punishment (1 Cor. iii. 11 sqq.), or a symbol of the chastening and punitive justice of the indignation and wrath of God. It is in fire that the Lord comes to judgment (Dan. vii. 9, 10; Ezek. i. 13, 14, 27, 28; Rev. i. 14, 15). Fire sets forth the fiery indignation wdiich devours the adversaries (Heb. x. 27). He who "judges and makes war in righteousness" has eyes as a flame of fire (Eev. xix. 11, 12). Accordingly, the burning thorn-bush represented the people of Israel as they were burning in the fire of affliction, the iron furnace of Egypt (Deut. iv. 20). Yet, though the thorn-bush was burning in the fire, it w^as not consumed; for in the flame was Jehovah, who chastens His people, but does not give them over unto death (Ps. cxviii. 18). The God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had come down to deliver His people out of the hand of the Egyptians (ver. 8). Although the affliction of Israel in Egypt proceeded from Pharaoh, yet was it also a fire which the Lord had kindled to purify His people and prepare it for its calling. In the flame of the burning bush the Lord manifested Himself as the " jealous God, who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate Him, and showeth mercy unto thousands of them that love Him and keep His commandments* (chap. XX. 5; Deut. v. 9, 10), who cannot tolerate the worship of another god (xxxiv. 14), and whose anger bums against idolaters, to destroy them (Deut. vi. 15). The "jealous God" was a " consuming fire" in the midst of Israel (Deut. iv. 24). These passages show that the great sight which Moses saw not only had reference to the circumstances of Israel in Egypt, but was a prelude to the manifestation of God on Sinai for the establishment of the covenant (chap. xix. and xx.), and also a representation of the relation in which Jehovah would stand to Israel through the establishment of the covenant made with the fathers. For this reason it occurred upon the spot where Jehovah intended to set up His covenant with Israel. But, as a jealous God, He also " takes vengeance upon His adversaries" (Nahum i. 2 sqq.). Pharaoh, who would not let Israel go. He was about to smite with all His wonders (iii. 20), whilst He redeemed Israel with outstretched arm and great judgments (vi. 6). — The transition from the Angel of Jehovah (ver. 2) to Jehovah (ver. 4) proves the identity of the two; and the interchange of Jehovah and Elohim, in ver. 4, precludes the idea of Jehovah being merely a national God. The command of God to Moses to put off his shoes, may be accounted for from the custom in the East of wearing shoes or sandals merely as a protection from dirt. No Brahmin enters a pagoda, no Moslem a mosque, without first taking off at least his overshoes {Rosenm, Morgenl. i. 261; Robirisov, Pal. ii. p. 373); and even in the Grecian temples the priests and priestesses performed the service barefooted (Justin, Apol. i. c. 62; Bdhr, Symbol, ii. 96). When entering other holy places also, the Arabs and Samaritans, and even the Yezidis of Mesopotamia, take off their shoes, that the places may not be defiled by the dirt or dust upon them (yid. Robinson, Pal. iii. 100, and LayarcCs Nineveh and its Remains). The place of the burning bush was holy because of the presence of the holy God, and putting off the shoes was intended to express not merely respect for the place itself, but that reverence which the inward man (Eph. iii. 16) owes to the holy God.
Ver. 6. Jehovah then made Himself known to Moses as the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, reminding him through that name of the promises made to the patriarchs, which He was about to fulfil to their seed, the children of Israel. In the expression, " thy father," the three patriarchs are classed together as one, just as in chap, xviii. 4 (" my father "), " because each of them stood out singly in distinction from the nation, as having received the promise of seed directly from God'* (Baumgarten), " And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God,''* The sight of the holy God no sinful man can bear (cf. 1 Kings xix. J 2). — Vers. 7-10. Jehovah had seen the affliction of His people, had heard their cry under their taskmasters, and had come down (1"]J, vid. Gen. xi. 5) to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up to a good and broad land, to the place of the Canaanites; and He was about to send Moses to Pharaoh to bring them forth. The land to which the Israelites were to be taken up is called a '^good'* land, on account of its great fertility (Deut. viii. 7 sqq.), and a " broad'* land, in contrast with the confinement and oppression of the Israelites in Egypt. The epithet " good*' is then explained by the expression, " a land flowing with milk and honey " (H^J, a participle of 3^T in the construct state; vid, Ges. § 135); a proverbial description of the extraordinary fertility and loveliness of the land of Canaan (cf. ver. 17, chap. xiii. 5, xvi. 14, etc.). Milk and honey are the simplest and choicest productions of a land abounding in grass and flowers, and were found in Palestine in great abundance even when it was in a desolate condition (Isa. vii. 15, 22; see my Comm. on Josh. v. 6). The epithet broad is explained by an enumeration of the six tribes inhabiting the country at that time (cf. Gen. x. 15 sqq. and xv. 20, 21). — Vers. 11, 12. To the divine commission Moses made this reply: " Who am /, that I should go to Pharaoh^ and bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt T* Some time before he had offered himself of his own accord as a deliverer and judge; but now he had learned humility in the school of Midian, and was filled in consequence with distrust of his own power and fitness. The son of Pharaoh's daughter had become a shepherd, and felt himself too weak to go to Pharaoh. But God met this distrust by the promise, " / will he with ihee^^ which He confirmed by a sign, namely, that when Israel was brought out of Egypt, they should serve p^i^, i'B, worship) God upon that mountain. This sign, which was to be a pledge to Moses of the success of his mission, was one indeed that required faith itself; but, at the same time, it was a sign adapted to inspire both courage and confidence. God pointed out to him the success of his mission, the certain result of his leading the people out: Israel should serve Him upon the very same mountain in which He had appeared to Moses. As surely as Jehovah had appeared to Moses as the God of his fathers, so surely should Israel serve Him there. The reality of the appearance of God formed the pledge of His announcement, that Israel would there serve its God; and this truth was to fill Moses w^ith confidence in the execution of the divine command. The expression " serve God" (Xarpeveiv tm 0ew, LXX.) means something more than the immolare of the Vulgate^ or the "sacrifice" of Luther; for even though sacrifice formed a leading element, or the most important part of the worship of the Israelites, the patriarchs before this had served Jehovah by calling upon His name as well as offering sacrifice. And the service of Israel at Mount Horeb consisted in their entering into covenant with Jehovah (chap, xxiv.); not only in their receiving the law as the covenant nation, but their manifesting obedience by presenting free-will offerings for the building of the tabernacle (chap, xxxvi. 1-7; Num. vii.).^
^ Kurtz follows the Lutheran rendering '''' sacrifice ^^'' and understands byit the first national sacrifice; and then, from the significance of the first, which included potentially all the rest, supposes the covenant sacrifice to be intended. But not only is the original text disregarded here, the fact is also overlooked, that Luther himself has translated l^y correctly, to " serve," in every other place. And it is not sufficient to say, that by the direction of God (iii. 18) Moses first of all asked Pharaoh for permission merely to go a three days* journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to their God (v. 1—3), in consequence of which Pharaoh afterwards offered to allow them to sacrifice (viii. 3) within the land, and at a still later period outside (viii. 21 sqq.). For the fact that Pharaoh merely spoke of sacrificing may be explained on the ground that at first nothing more was asked. But this first demand arose from the desire on the part of God to make known His purposes concerning Israel only step by step, that it might be all the easier for the hard heart of the king to grant what was required. But even if Pharaoh under-
Vers. 13-15. When Moses had been thus emboldened by the assurance of divine assistance to undertake the mission, he inquired what he was to say, in case the people asked him for the name of the God of their fathers. The supposition that the people might ask the name of their fathers* God is not to be attributed to the fact, that as the Egyptians had separate names for their numerous deities, the Israelites also would want to know the name of their own God. For, apart from the circumstance that the name by which God had revealed Himself to the fathers cannot have vanished entirely from the memory of the people, and more especially of Moses, the mere knowledge of the name would not have been of much use to them. The question, "What is His name?" presupposed that the name expressed the nature and operations of God, and that God would manifest in deeds the nature expressed in His name. God therefore told him His name, or, to speak more correctly, He explained the name mn^, by which He had made Himself known to Abraham at the making of the covenant (Gen. xv, 7), in this way, nviK •^."ir'^ "'^'^, " / «^ tfiat I am,'' and designated Himself by this name as the absolute God of the fathers, acting with unfettered liberty and self-dependence (cf. pp. 74—6). This name precluded any comparison between the God of the Israelites and the deities of the Egyptians and other nations, and furnished Moses and his people with strong consolation in their affliction, and a powerful support to their confidence in the realization of His purposes of salvation as made known to the fathers. To establish them in this confidence, God added still further: " This is Mv name for ever, and My memorial unto all generations;" that is to say, God would even manifest Himself in the nature expressed by the name Jehovah, and by this He would have all generations both know and revere Him. DK^, the nam^, expresses the objective manifestation of the divine nature; "^^T, memorial, the subjective recognition of that nature on the part of men. "I'n iM, as in chap. xvii. 16 and Prov. xxvii. 24. The repetition of the same word suggests the idea of uninterrupted continuance and stood nothing more by the expression "serve God" than the offering of sacrifice, this would not justify us in restricting the words which Jehovah addressed to Moses, " When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve Grod upon this mountain," to the first national offering, or to the covenant sacrifice.
Vers. 16-20. With the command, "Go a7id gather the elders of Israel together,*^ God then gave Moses further instructions with reference to the execution of his mission. On his arrival in Egypt he was first of all to inform the eklers, as the representatives of the nation (i.e, the heads of the families, households, and tribes), of the appearance of God to him, and the revelation of His design, to deliver His people out of Egypt and bring them to the land of the Canaanites. He was then to go with them to Pharaoh, and make known to him their resolution, in consequence of this appearance of God, to go a three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to their God. The words, " / have surely visited,^ point to the fulfilment of the last words of the dying Joseph (Gen. 1. 24). ^^hv rr\\>:i (ver. 18) does not mean " He is named upon us" (LXX., Onk,, Jon.), nor "He has called us'* (Vulg,, Luth.). The latter is grammatically wrong, for the verb is Niphal, or passive; and though the former has some support in the parallel passage in chap. v. 3, inasmuch as K"Jp^ is the verb used there, it is only in appearance, for if the meaning really were " His name is named upon (over) us," the word iOK^ (U^) would not be omitted (vid, Deut. xxviii. 10; 2 Chron. vii. 14). The real meaning is, " He has met with us,^* from niip:^ obruam fieri, ordinarily construed with ^^, but here with ^y, because God comes down from above to meet with man. The plural us is used, although it was only to Moses that God appeared, because His appearing had reference to the whole nation, which was represented before Pharaoh by Moses and the elders. In the words W'n^pp, " we will go, then^^ equivalent to " let us go," the request for Pharaoh's permission to go out is couched in such a form as to answer to the relation of Israel to Pharaoh. He had no right to detain them, but he had a right to consent to their departure, as his predecessor had formerly done to their settlement. Still less had he any good "reason for refusing their request to go a three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to their God, since their return at the close of the festival was then taken for granted. But the purpose of God was, that Israel should not return. Was it the case, then, that the delegates were " to deceive the king," as Knohel affirms?
By no means. God knew the hard heart of Pharaoh, and therefore directed that no more should be asked at first than he must either grant, or display the hardness of his heart. Had he consented, God would then have made known to him His whole design, and demanded that His people should be allowed to depart altogether. But when Pharaoh scornfully refused the first and smaller request (chap, v.), Moses was instructed to demand the entire departure of Israel from the land (vi. 10), and to show the omnipotence of the God of the Hebrews before and upon Pharaoh by miracles and heavy judgments (vii. 8 sqq.). Accordingly, Moses persisted in demanding permission for the people to go and serve their God (vii. 16, 26, viii. 16, ix. 1, 13, X. 3); and it was not till Pharaoh offered to allow them to sacrifice in the land that Moses replied, " We will go three days' journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to Jehovah our God" (viii. 27); but, observe, with this proviso, " as He shall command us," which left, under the circumstances, no hope that they would return. It was an act of mercy to Pharaoh, therefore, on the one hand, that the entire departure of the Israelites was not demanded at the very first audience of Moses and the representatives of the nation; for, had this been demanded, it would have been far more difficult for him to bend his heart in obedience to the divine will, than when the request presented was as trifling as it was reasonable. And if he had rendered obedience to the will of God in the smaller, God would have given him strength to be faithful in the greater. On the other hand, as God foresaw his resistance (ver. 19), this condescension, which demanded no more than the natural man could have performed, was also to answer the purpose of clearly displaying the justice of God. It was to prove alike to Egyptians and Israelites that Pharaoh was " without excuse," and that his eventual destruction was the well-merited punishment of his obduracy.^ nj^rn T3 6^71, " not even by means of a strong hand;" " except through great power" is not the true rendering, for ^p\ does not mean iav firj, nisi. What follows, — viz. the statement that God would so smite the
* " This moderate request was made only at the period of the earher plagues. It served to put Pharaoh to the proof. God did not come forth with His whole plan and desire at first, that his obduracy might appear 80 much the more glaring, and find no excuse in the greatness of the requirement. Had Pharaoh granted this request, Israel would not have gone
Egyptians with miracles that Pharaoh would, after all, let Israel go (ver. 20), — is not really at variance with this, the only admissible rendering of the words. For the meaning is, that Pharaoh would not be willing to let Israel depart even when he should be smitten by the strong hand of God; but that he would be compelled to do so against his will, would be forced to do so by the plagues that were about to fall upon Egypt. Thus even after the ninth plague it is still stated (chap. x. 27), that " Pharaoh would (n^K) not let them go;" and when he had given permission, in consequence of the last plague, and in fact had driven them out (xii. 31), he speedily repented, and pursued them with his army to bring them back again (xiv. 5 sqq.); from which it is clearly to be seen that the strong hand of God had not broken his will, and yet Israel was brought out by the same strong hand of Jehovah. Vers. 21, 22. Not only would God compel Pharaoh to let Israel go; He would not let His people go out empty, but, according to the promise in Gen. xv. 14, with great substance. "/ will give this people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians^* that is to say, the Egyptians should be so favourably disposed towards them, that when they solicited of their neighbours clothes and ornaments of gold and silver, their request ehould be granted. " So shall ye spoil the Egyptians^ What is here foretold as a promise, the Israelites are directed to do in chap. xi. 2, 3; and according to chap. xii. 35, 36, it was really carried out. Immediately before their departure from Egypt, the Israelites asked O^'^.^O ^^ Egyptians for gold and silver ornaments (Dy? iiot vessels, either for sacrifice, the house, or the table, but jewels; of. Gen. xxiv. 53; Ex. xxxv. 22; Num. xxxi. 50) and clothes; and God gave them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they gave them to them. For HB^K npKK^, ''Let every woman ask of her (female) neighbour and of her that sojourneth in her house*^ (rin^n ni3 from which ii is evident that the Israelites did not live apart, but along with the Egyptians), we find in chap. xi. 2, ^'Let every man ash of his neighbour^ and, every woman of her (female) neighbour r — Q!!Jp^, " and put them upon your sons and
beyond it; but had not God foreseen, what He repeatedly says (compare, for instance, chap. iii. 18), that he would not comply with it, He would not thus have presented it; He would from the beginning have revealed His whole design. Thus Augustine remarks (quaest. 13 in Ex.)." Hengstenberg, Diss, on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 427, Ryland's translation. Clark, 1847»
daughters'' ^V dVk', to put on, applied to clothes and ornaments in Lev. viii. 8 ^nd Gen. xli. 42. This command and its execution have frequently given occasion to the opponents of the Scriptures to throw contempt upon the word of God, the asking being regarded as borrowing, and the spoiling of the Egyptians as purloining. At the same time, the attempts made to vindicate this purloining from the wickedness of stealing have been in many respects unsatisfactory.^ But the only meaning of 76?^ is to ask or beg,^ and ^'^^f?, which is only met with in chap. xii. 36 and 1 Sam. i. 28, does not mean to lend, but to suffer to ask, to hear and grant a request. D^i^^f. (chap. xii. 36), lit. they allowed them to ask; i.e. " the Egyptians did not turn away the petitioners, as not wanting to listen to them, but received their petition with good-will, and granted their request. No proof can be brought that i^'^K^n means to lend, as is commonly supposed; the word occurs again in 1 Sam. i. 28, and there it means to grant or give^' {Knohel on chap. xii. 36). Moreover the circumstances under which the h^^ and h'^f^ took place, were quite at variance with the idea of borrowing and lending. For even if Moses had not spoken without reserve of the entire departure of the Israelites, the plagues which followed one after another, and with which the God of the Hebrews gave emphasis to His demand as addressed through Moses to Pharaoh, " Let My people go, that they may serve Me,'* must have made it evident to every Egyptian, that all this had reference to something greater than a three days' march to celebrate a festival. And under these circumstances no Egyptian could have cherished the thought, that the Israelites were only borrowing the jewels they asked of them, and would return them after the festival. What they gave under such circumstances, they could only give or present without the slightest prospect of restoration. Still less could the Israelites have had merely the thought of borrowing in their mind, seeing that God had said to Moses, "I will give the Israelites favour in the eyes of the Egyptians; and it will come to pass, that when ye go out, ye shall not go out empty *'^ (ver. 21). If, therefore, it is " natural to suppose that these jewels
» For the different views as to the supposed borrowing of the gold and silver vessels, see Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. pp. 419 sqq., and Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant, vol. ii. 319 sqq.
* Even in 2 Kings v. 6; see my commentary on the passage.
were festal vessels with which the Egyptians furnished the poor IsraeHtes for the intended feast," and even if " the Israelites had their thoughts directed with all seriousness to the feast which they were about to celebrate to Jehovah in the desert" (Baumgarteti); their request to the Egyptians cannot have referred to any borrowing, nor have presupposed any intention to restore what they received on their return. From the very first the Israelites asked without intending to restore, and the Egyptians granted their request without any hope of receiving back, because God had made their hearts favourably disposed to the Israelites. The expressions D;'"}VP'riNi Dripjf^ in ver. 22, and vK?5 in chap. xii. 36, are not at variance with this, but rather require it. For i'Vi does not mean to purloin, to steal, to take away secretly by cunning and fraud, but to plunder (2 Chron. xx. 25), as both the LXX. (o-KvXeveLv) and Vulgate (spoliare) have rendered it. Hosenmuller, therefore, is correct in his explanation: ^^JEt spoliabitis jEgyptios^ ita ut ah ^gyptiis, qui vos tarn dura servitute oppress erunty spolia auferetis^ So also is Ilengstenberg, who
says, "The author represents the Israelites as going forth, laden as it were with the spoils of their formidable enemy, trophies of the victory which God's power had bestowed on their weakness. While he represents the gifts of the Egyptians as spoils which God had distributed to His host (as Israel is called in chap. xii. 41), he leads us to observe that the bestowment of these gifts, which outwardly appeared to be the effect of the good-will of the Egyptians, if viewed more deeply, proceeded from another Giver; that the outwardly free act of the Egyptians was effected by an inward divine constraint which they could not withstand" (Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 431). —
Egypt had spoiled Israel by the tributary labour so unjustly enforced, and now Israel can-ied off the spoil of Egypt — a prelude to the victory which the people of God will one day obtain in their conflict with the power of the world (cf. Zech. xiv. 14).
Chap. iv. 1-9. Moses now started a fresh difficulty: the Israelites would not believe that Jehovah had appeared to him. There was so far a reason for this difficulty, that from the time of Jacob — an interval, therefore, of 430 years — God had never appeared to any Israelite. God therefore removed it by giving him three signs by which he might attest his divine mission to his people. These three signs were intended indeed for the Israelites, to convince them of the reality of the appearance of Jehovah to Moses; at the same time, as even Ephraem Syrus observed, they also served to strengthen Moses' faith, and dissipate his fears as to the result of his mission. For it was apparent enough that Moses did not possess true and entire confidence in God, from the fact that he still raised this difficulty, and distrusted the divine assurance, " They will hearken to thy voice," chap. iii. 18). And finally, these signs were intended for Pharaoh, as is stated in ver. 21; and to him the ninx (a-TjfjLela) were to become D''riab (repara). By these signs Moses was installed as the servant of Jehovah (xiv. 31), and furnished with divine power, with which he could and was to appear before the children of Israel and Pharaoh as the messenger of Jehovah. The character of the three signs corresponded to this intention.
Vers. 2-5. The first sign. — The turning of Moses' staff into a serpent, which became a staff again when Moses took it by the tail, had reference to the calling of Moses. The staff in his hand was his shepherd's crook {p^ ver. 2, for •^.r'^^j ^^ this place alone), and represented his calling as a shepherd. At the bidding of God he threw it upon the ground, and the staff became a serpent, before which Moses fled. The giving up of his shepherd-life would expose him to dangers, from which he would desire to escape. At the same time, there was more implied in the figure of a serpent than danger which merely threatened his life. The serpent had been the constant enemy of the seed of the woman (Gen. iii.), and represented the power of the wicked one which prevailed in Egypt. The explanation in Pirke Elieser^ c. 40, points to this: ideo Deum hoc signum Mosi ostendisse, quia sicut serpens mordet et morte afficit homines, ita quoqijie Pharao et ^gyptii mordehant et necabant Israelitas, But at the bidding of God, Moses seized the serpent by the tail, and received his staff again as " the rod of God," with which he smote Egypt with great plagues. From this sign the people of Israel would necessarily perceive, that Jehovah had not only called Moses to be the leader of Israel, but had endowed him with the power to overcome the serpent-like cunning and the might of Egypt; in other words, they would " believe that Jehovah, the God of the fathers, had appeared to him." (On the special meaning of this sign for Pharaoh, see chap. vii. 10 sqq.)
Vers. 6, 7. The second sign. — Moses' hand became leprous, and was afterwards cleansed again. The expression y^}^_'2 riipVp^ covered with leprosy like snow, refers to the white leprosy {yid. Lev. xiii. 3). — " Was turned again as his Jlesh;^^ i.e. was restored, became healthy, or clean like the rest of his body. So far as the meaning of this sign is concerned, Moses' hand has been explained in a perfectly arbitrary manner as representing the Israelitish nation, and his bosom as representing first Egypt, and then Canaan, as the hiding-place of Israel. If the shepherd's staff represented Moses' calling, the hand was that which directed or ruled the calling. It is in the bosom that the nurse carries the sucking child (Num. xi. 12), the shepherd the lambs (Isa. xl. 11), and the sacred singer the many nations, from whom he has suffered reproach and injury (Ps. Ixxxix. 50). So Moses also carried his people in his bosom, i.e. in his heart: of that his first appearance in Egypt was a proof (chap. ii. 11, 12). But now he was to set his hand to deliver them from the reproach and bondage of Egypt. He put (t^''^']) his hand into his bosom, and his hand was covered with leprosy. The nation was like a leper, who defiled every one that touched him. The leprosy represented not only " the servitude and contemptuous treatment of the Israelites in Egypt" {Kurtz), but the aae^eia of the Egyptians also, as Theodoret expresses it, or rather the impurity of Egypt in which Israel was sunken. This Moses soon discovered (cf. chap. V. 17 sqq.), and on more than one occasion afterwards (cf. Num. xi.); so that he had to complain to Jehovah, "Wherefore hast Thou afflicted Thy servant, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?... Have I conceived all this people, that Thou shouldest say to me, Carry them in thy bosom?" (Num. xi. 11, 12). But God had the power to purify the nation from this leprosy, and would endow His servant Moses with that power. At the command of God, Moses put his hand, now covered with leprosy, once more into his bosom, and drew it out quite cleansed. This was what Moses was to learn by the sign; whilst Israel also learned that God both could and would deliver it, through the cleansed hand of Moses, from all its bodily and spiritual misery. The object of the first miracle was to exhibit Moses as the man whom Jehovah had called to be the leader of His people; that of the second, to show that, as the messenger of Jehovah, he was furnished with the necessary power for the execution of this calling. In this sense God says, in ver. 8, " If they will not hearken to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the latter sign^ A voice is ascribed to the sign, as being a clear witness to the divine mission of the person performing it (Ps. cv. 27).
Ver. 9. The third sign. — If the first two signs should not be sufficient to lead the people to believe in the divine mission of Moses, he was to give them one more practical demonstration of the power which he had received to overcome the might and gods of Egypt. He was to take of the water of the Nile (the river. Gen. xli. 1) and pour it upon the dry land, and it would become blood (the second vni is a resumption of the first, cf. chap. xii. 41). The Nile received divine honours as the source of every good and all prosperity in the natural life of Egypt, and was even identified with Osiris (cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 109 transL). If Moses therefore had power to turn the life-distributing water of the Nile into blood, he must also have received power to destroy Pharaoh and his gods. Israel was to learn this from the sign, whilst Pharaoh and the Egyptians were afterwards to experience this might of Jehovah in the form of punishment (chap. vii. 15 sqq.). Thus Moses was not only entrusted with the word of God, but also endowed with the power of God; and as he was the first God-sent prophet, so was he also the first worker of miracles, and in this capacity a type of the Apostle of our profession (Heb. iii. 1), even the God-man, Christ Jesus.
Vers. 10-18. Moses raised another difficulty. ^^ I am not a man of words,'' he said (i.e, I do not possess the gift of speech), " but am heavy in mouth and heavy in tongue'^ {i.e. I find a difficulty in the use of mouth and tongue, not exactly "stammering"); and that " both of yesterday and the day before" (Le, from the veryfirst, Gen. xxxi. 2), " and also since Thy speaking to Thy servant'* Moses meant to say, " I neither possess the gift of speech by nature, nor have I received it since Thou hast spoken to me." — Vers. 11, 12. Jehovah both could and would provide for this defect. He had made man s mouth, and He made dumb or deaf, seeing or blind. He possessed unlimited power over all the senses, could give them or take them away; and He would be with Moses' mouth, and teach him wh t he was to say, i>.
impart to him the necessary qualification both as to matter and mode. — Moses' difficulties were now all exhausted, and removed by the assurances of God. But this only brought to light the secret reason in his heart. He did not wish to undertake the divine mission. — Ver. 13. " Send^ I pray Thee,^^ he says, " by whom Thou wilt send;^ i.e. carry out Thy mission by whomsoever Thou wilt. *T!^ ^7t^': to carry out a mission through any one, originally with accus. rei (1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Sam. xi. 14), then without the object, as here, " to send a person" (cf. 2 Sam. xii. 25; 1 Kings ii. 25). Before nhm the word 1^'« is omitted, which stands with "1^2 in the construct state (vid. Ges. § 123, 3). The anger of God was now excited by this groundless opposition. But as this unwillingness also arose from weakness of the flesh, the mercy of God came to the help of his weakness, and He referred Moses to his brother Aaron, who could speak well, and would address the people for him (vers. 14-17). Aaron is called "•^^Hj the Levite, from his lineage, possibly with reference to the primary signification of nj7 " to connect one's self " {Baumgarteri)j but not with any allusion to the future calling of the tribe of Levi (Rashi and Calvin). Nin "iS'i^ "^^^ speak will he. The inf. abs. gives emphasis to the verb, and the position of Kin to the subject. He both can and will speak, if thou dost not know it. — Vers. 14, 15. And Aaron is quite ready to do so. He is already coming to meet thee, and is glad to see thee. The statement in ver. 27, where Jehovah directs Aaron to go and meet Moses, is not at variance with this. They can both be reconciled in the following simple manner: " As soon as Aaron heard that his brother had leftMidian, he went to meet him of his own accord, and then God showed him by what road he must go to find him, viz. towards the desert" (R. Mose hen Nachman). — ^'Put the words*^ (sc. which I have told thee) " into his mouth;" and I will support both thee and him in speaking. " He will be mouth to thee, and thou shalt be God to himJ^ Cf. vii. 1, " Thy brother Aaron shall be thy prophet." Aaron would stand in the same relation to Moses, as a prophet to God: the prophet only spoke what God inspired him with, and Moses should be the inspiring God to him. The Targum softens down the word " God" into " master, teacher." Moses was called God, as being the possessor and medium of the divine word. As Luther explains it, " Whoever possesses and believes the word of God, possesses the Spirit and power of God, and also the di^dne wisdom, truth, heart, mind, and everything that belongs to God." In ver. 17, the plural " signs^^ points to the penal wonders that followed; for only one of the three signs given to Moses was performed with the rod. — Ver. 18. In consequence of this appearance of God, Moses took leave of his father-in-law to return to his brethren in Egypt, though without telling him the real object of his journey, no doubt because Jethro had not the mind to understand such a divine revelation, though he subsequently recognised the miracles that God wrought for Israel (chap, xviii.). By the " brethren*^ we are to understand not merely the nearer relatives of Moses, or the family of Amram, but the Israelites generally. Considering the oppression under which they were suffering at the time of Moses* flight, the question might naturally arise, whether they were still living, and had not been altogether exterminated.
Vers. 19—31. Return of Moses to Egypt. — Vers. 19-23. On leaving Midian, Moses received another communication from God with reference to his mission to Pharaoh. The word of Jehovah, in ver. 19, is not to be regarded as a summary of the previous revelation, in which case "i^^*l would be a pluperfect, nor as the account of another writer, who placed the summons to return to Egypt not in Sinai but in Midian. It is not a fact that the departure of Moses is given in ver. 18; all that is stated there is, that Jethro consented to Moses' decision to return to Egypt. It was not till after this consent that Moses was able to prepare for the journey. During these preparations God appeared to him in Midian, and encouraged him to return, by informing him that all the men who had sought his life, i.e. Pharaoh and the relatives of the Egyptian whom he had slain, were now dead. — Ver. 20. Moses then set out upon his journey, with his wife and sons. Vi3 is not to be altered into ^J3, as
Knohel supposes, notwithstanding the fact that the birth of only one son has hitherto been mentioned (chap. ii. 22); for neither there, nor in this passage (ver. 25), is he described as the only son. The wife and sons, who were still young, he placed upon the ass (the one taken for the purpose), whilst he himself went on foot with " the staff of God" — as the staff was called with which he was to perform the divine miracles (ver. 17) — in his h»nd. Poor as his outward appearance might be, he had in his hand the staff before which the pride of Pharaoh and all his might would have to bow. — Ver. 21. "/n thy going (returning) to Egyptj behold, all the wonders which I have put into thy hand, thou doest them before Pharaoh^^ ^?^^, to repa^;, portentum, is any object (natural event, thing, or person) of significance which surpasses expectation or the ordinary course of nature, and excites wonder in consequence. It is frequently connected with nitc, a7)/ji€lov, a sign (Deut. iv. 34, vi. 22, vii. 19, etc.), and embraces the idea of niK within itself, i.e, wonder-sign. The expression, " all those wonders," does not refer merely to the three signs mentioned in chap. iv. 2-9, but to all the miracles which were to be performed by Moses with the staff in the presence of Pharaoh, and which, though not named, were put into his hand potentially along with the staff. — But all the miracles would not induce Pharaoh to let Israel go, for Jehovah would harden his heart, i^?'^^ P?.'!!^? ^^^^, lit. I will make his heart firm, so that it will not move, his feelings and attitude towards Israel will not change. For i5?n« ^^K or ^npim (xiv. 4) and P^nC) ^:k (xiv. 17), we find ^^\^^ '^^^. in chap. vii. 3, " I will make Pharaoh's heart hard, or unfeeling;" and in chap. x. 1, ^'l^'l^^n ''^K " I have made his heart heavy," i.e. obtuse, or insensible to impressions or divine influences. These three words are expressive of the hardening of the heart.
The hardening of Pharaoh is ascribed to God, not only in the passages just quoted, but also in chap. ix. 12, x. 20, 27, xi. 10, xiv. 8; that is to say, ten times in all; and that not merely as foreknown or foretold by Jehovah, but as caused and effected by Him. In the last five passages it is invariably stated that " Jehovah hardened {?!tJT) Pharaoh's heart." But it is also stated just as often, viz. ten times, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or made it heavy or firm; e.g. in chap, vii. 13, 22, viii. 15, ix. 35, ^^ pTn*"i " and Pharaoh's heart was (or became) hard;" chap. vii. 14, 1/ 123 " Pharaoh's heart was heavy;" in chap. ix. 7, '? 'IS^^; in chap. viii. 11, 28, ix. 34, ini>-nK nsDM or napm; in chap.'xiii. 15, 'Q ri^\^r\ ^3 « for Pharaoh made his heart hard." According to this, the hardening of Pharaoh was quite as much his own act as the decree of God. But if, in order to determine the precise relation of the divine to the human causality, we look more carefully at the two classes of expressions, we shall find that not only in connection with the first sign, by which Moses and Aaron were to show their credentials as the messengers of Jehovah, sent with the demand that he would let the people of Israel go (chap. vii. 13, 14), bat after the first five penal miracles, the hardening is invariably represented as his own. After every one of these miracles, it is stated that Pharaoh's heart was firm, or dull, i.e, insensible to the voice of God, and unaffected by the miracles performed before his eyes, and the judgments of God suspended over him and his kingdom, and he did not listen to them (to Moses and Aaron with their demand), or let the people go (chap. vii. 22, viii. 8, 15, 28, ix. 7). It is not till after the sixth plague that it is stated that Jehovah made the heart of Pharaoh firm (ix. 12). At the seventh the statement is repeated, that " Pharaoh made his heart heavy'* (ix. 34, 35); but the continued refusal on the part of Pharaoh after the eighth and ninth (x. 20, 27) and his resolution to follow the Israelites and bring them back again, are attributed to the hardening of his heart by Jehovah (chap, xiv. 8, cf. vers. 4 and 17). This hardening of his own heart was manifested first of all in the fact, that he paid no attention to the demand of Jehovah addressed to him through Moses, and would not let Israel go; and that not only at the commencement, so long as the Egyptian magicians imitated the signs performed by Moses and Aaron (though at the very first sign the rods of the magicians, when turned into serpents, were swallowed by Aaron's, vii. 12, 13), but even when the magicians themselves acknowledged, "This is the finger of God" (viii. 19). It was also continued after the fourth and fifth plagues, when a distinction was made between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and the latter were exempted from the plagues, — a fact of which the king took care to convince himself (ix. 7). And it was exhibited still further in his breaking his promise, that he would let Israel go if Moses and Aaron would obtain from Jehovah the removal of the plague, and in the fact, that even after he had been obliged to confess, " I have sinned, Jehovah is the righteous one, I and my people are unrighteous" (ix. 27), he sinned again, as soon as breathing-time was given him, and would not let the people go (ix. 34, 35). Thus Pharaoh would not bend his self-will to the will of God, even after he had discerned the finger of God and the omnipotence of Jehovah in the plagues suspended over him and his nation; he would not withdraw his haughty refusal, not withstanding the fact that he was obliged to acknowledge that it was sin against Jehovah. Looked at from this side, the hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of that self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flow from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the will which is innate in man, and which involves the possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until death. As the freedom of the will has its fixed limits in the unconditional dependence of the creature upon the Creator, so the sinner may resist the will of God as long as he lives. But such resistance plunges him into destruction, and is followed inevitably by death and damnation. God never allows any man to scoff at Him. Whoever will not suffer himself to be led, by the kindness and earnestness of the divine admonitions, to repentance and humble submission to the will of God, must- inevitably perish, and by his destruction subserve the glory of God, and the manifestation of the holiness, righteousness, and omnipotence of Jehovah.
But God not only permits a man to harden himself; He also produces obduracy, and suspends this sentence over the impenitent. Not as though God took pleasure in the death of the wicked! No; God desires that the wicked should repent of his evil way and live (Ezek. xxxiii. 11); and He desires this most earnestly, for " He will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth " (1 Tim. ii. 4, cf. 2 Pet. iii. 9). As God causes His earthly sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust (Matt. v. 45), so He causes His sun of grace to shine upon all sinners, to lead them to life and salvation. But as the earthly sun produces different effects upon the earth, according to the nature of the soil upon which it shines, so the influence of the divine sun of grace manifests itself in different ways upon the human heart, according to its moral condition.^ The penitent permit the proofs of divine goodness and grace to lead them to repentance and salvation; but the impenitent harden themselves more and more
^ "The sun, by the force of its heat, moistens the wax and dries the clay, softening the one and hardening the other; and as this produces opposite effects by the same power, so, through the long-suffering of God, which reaches to all, some receive good and others evil, some are softened and others hardened." — {Theodoret, quxst. 12 in Ex.)
against the grace of God, and so become ripe for the judgment of damnation. The very same manifestation of the mercy of God leads in the case of the one to salvation and life, and in that of the other to judgment and death, because he hardens himself against that mercy. In this increasing hardness on the part of the impenitent sinner against the mercy that is manifested towards him, there is accomplished the judgment of reprobation, first in God's furnishing the wicked with an opportunity of bringing fully to light the evil inclinations, desires, and thoughts that are in their hearts; and then, according to an invariable law of the moral government of the world, in His rendering the return of the impenitent sinner more and more difficult on account of his continued resistance, and eventually rendering it altogether impossible. It is the curse of sin, that it renders the hard heart harder, and less susceptible to the gracious manifestations of divine love, long-suffering, and patience. In this twofold manner God produces hardness, not only permissive but effective; i.e. not only by giving time and space for the manifestation of human opposition, even to the utmost limits of creaturely freedom, but still more by those continued manifestations of His will which drive the hard heart to such utter obduracy that it is no longer capable of returning, and so giving over the hardened sinner to the judgment of damnation. This is what we find in the case of Pharaoh. After he had hardened his heart against the revealed will of God during the first five plagues, the hardening commenced on the part of Jehovah with the sixth miracle (ix. 12), when the omnipotence of God was displayed with such energy that even the Egyptian magicians were covered with the boils, and could no longer stand before Moses (ix. 11). And yet, even after this hardening on the part of God, another opportunity was given to the wicked king to repent and change his mind, so that on two other occasions he acknowledged that his resistance was sin, and promised to submit to the will of Jehovah (ix. 27 sqq., x. 16 sqq.). But when at length, even after the seventh plague, he broke his promise to let Israel go, and hardened his heart again as soon as the plague was removed (ix. 34, 35), Jehovah so hardened Pharaoh's heart that he not only did not let Israel go, but threatened Moses with death if he ever came into his presence again (x. 20, 27, 28). The hardening was now completed so that he necessarily fell a victim to judgment; though the very first stroke of judgment in the slaying of the first-born was an admonition to consider and return. Audit was not till after he had rejected the mercy displayed in this judgment, and manifested a defiant spirit once more, in spite of the words with which he had given Moses and Aaron permission to depart, "Go, and bless me also" (xii. 31, 32), that God completely hardened his heart, so that he pursued the Israelites with an army, and was overtaken by the judgment of utter destruction.