Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 2—12. Here, in this arid sandy waste, the whole congregation murmured against Moses and Aaron on account of the want of food. What they brought with them from Egypt had been consumed in the 30 days that had elapsed since they came Out (ver. 1). In their vexation the people expressed the wish that they had died in Egypt by the flesh-pot, in the midst of plenty, " bi/ the hand of Jehovah,^ i.e. by the last plague which Jehovah sent upon Egypt, rather than here in the desert of slow starvation. The form ^i^?*} is a Hiphil according to the consonants, and should be pointed ^i*"?^, from T^n for jyi? (see Ges. § 72, Anm. 9, and Ewald, § 114c.). As the want really existed, Jehovah promised them help (ver. 4). He would rain bread from heaven, which the Israelites should gather every day for their daily need, to try the people, whether they would walk ki His law or not. In what the trial was to consist, is briefly indicated in ver. 5: '^ And it will come to pass on tlie sixth day (of the week), that they will prepare what they have brought, and it will he double what they gather daily^ The meaning is, that what they gathered and brought into their tents on the sixth day of the week, and made ready for eating, would be twice as much as what they gathered on every other day; not that Jehovah would miraculously double what was brought home on the sixth day, as Knobel interprets the words in order to make out a discrepancy between ver. 5 and ver. 22. T^n^ to prepare, is to be understood as applying partly to the measuring of what had been gathered (ver. 18), and partly to the pounding and grinding of the grains of manna into meal (Num. xi. 8). In what respect this was a test for the people, is pointed out in vers. 16 sqq. Here, in vers. 4 and 5, the promise of God is only briefly noticed, and its leading points referred to; it is described in detail afterwards, in the communications which Moses and Aaron make to the people. In vers. 6, 7, they first tell the people, ''At even, then shall ye know that Jehovah hath brought you out of Egypt; and in the morning, then shall ye see the glory of the Lordr Bearing in mind the parallelism of the clauses, we obtain this meaning, that in the evening and in the morning the Israelites would perceive the glory of the Lord, who had brought them out of Egypt. " Seeing" is synonymous with " knowing." Seeing the glory of Jehovah did not consist in the sight of the glory of the Lord which appeared in the cloud, as mentioned in ver. 10, but in their perception or experience of that glory in the miraculous gift of flesh and bread (ver. 8, cf. Num. xiv. 22). " By His hearing^' (iVJpK^'li), i.e. because He has heard, " your murmuring against Jehovah (" against Him" in ver. 8, as in Gen. xix* 24); for what are we, that ye murmur against us?" The murmuring of the people against Moses and Aaron as their leaders really affected Jehovah as the actual guide, and not Moses and Aaron, who had only executed His will. Jehovah would therefore manifest His glory to the people, to prove to them that He had heard their murmuring. The announcement of this manifestation of God is more fully explained to the people by Moses in ver. 8, and the explanation is linked on to the leading clause in ver. 7 by the words, " when He giveth," etc. Ye shall see the glory of Jehovah, when Jehovah shall give you, etc. — Vers. 9, 10. But before Jehovah manifested Plimself to the people in His glory, by relieving their distress, He gave them to behold His glory in the cloud, and by speaking out of the cloud, confirmed both the reproaches and promises of His servants. In the murmuring of the people, their unbelief in the actual presence of God had been clearly manifested. " It was a deep unbelief," says Luther, " that they had thus fallen back, letting go the word and promise of God, and forgetting His former miracles and aid." Even the pillar of cloud, this constant sign of the gracious guidance of God, had lost its meaning in the eyes of the people; so that it was needful to inspire the murmuring multitude with a salutary fear of the majesty of Jehovah, not only that their rebellion against the God who had watched them with a father's care might be brought to mind, but also that the fact might be deeply impressed upon their hearts, that the food about to be sent was a gift of His grace. " Coming near before Jehovah" (ver. 9), was coming out of the tents to the place where the cloud was standing. On thus coming out, " they turned towards the desert" (ver. 10), i.e. their faces were directed towards the desert of Sin; " and, behold, the glory of Jehovah appeared in the jcloud," i.e. in a flash of light bursting forth from the cloud, and revealing the majesty of God. This extraordinary sign of the glory of God appeared in the desert, partly to show the estrangement of the murmuring nation from its God, but still more to show to the people, that God could glorify Himself by bestowing gifts upon His people even in the barren wilderness. For Jehovah spoke to Moses out of this sign, and confirmed to the people what Moses had promised them (vers. 11,12).

Vers. 13-15. The same evening (according to ver. 12, "between the two evenings," vid. chap. xii. 6) quails came up. and covered the camp, npy: to advance, applied to great armies. WHj with the article indicating the generic word, and used in a collective sense, are quails, opTvyo/jLjjrpa (LXX.); i.e. the quailking, according to Ilesychius opru^ v7T6pfi6je6r]<;j and Phot. opTV^ /Lce7tt9, hence a large species of quails, oprvye^ (Josephus), coturnices (Viilg.). Some suppose it to be the Kata of the Arabs, a kind of partridge which is found in great abundance in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria. These fly in such dense masses that the Arab boys often kill two or three at a time, by merely striking at them with a stick as they fly (Burckhardty Syr. p. 681). But in spring the quails also come northwards in immense masses from the interior of Africa, and return in autumn, when they sometimes arrive so exhausted, that they can be caught with the hand (cf. Diod. Sic. i. 60; v. Schubert, Reise ii. p. 361). Such a flight of quails was now brought by God, who caused them to fall in the camp of the Israelites, so that it was completely covered by them. Then in the morning there came an " effusion of dew round about the camp; and when the effusion of dew ascended (i.e. when the mist that produced the dew had cleared away), behold there (it lay) upon the surface of the desert^ fine, congealed, fine as the hoar-frost upon the ground^ The meaning of the ate, Xey. DBpHD is uncertain. The meaning, scaled off, scaly, decorticatum, which is founded upon the Chaldee rendering ^?iPP, is neither suitable to the word nor to the thing. The rendering volutatum, rotundum, is better; and better still perhaps that of Meier, " run together, curdled." When the Israelites noticed this, which they had never seen before, they said to one another, &<iri jD^ ri ean tovto (LXX.), ^'what is thisV^ for they knew not what it was. |D for HD belongs to the popular phraseology, and has been retained in the Chaldee and Ethiopic, so that it is undoubtedly to be regarded as early Semitic. From the question, man hu, the divine bread received the name of man (ver. 31), or manna. Kimchi, however, explains it as meaning donum et portio. Luther follows him, and says, " Mann in Hebrew means ready money, a present or a gift;" whilst Gesenius and others trace the word to njD^ to divide, to apportion, and render fc<^n jD " what is apportioned, a gift or present." But the Arabic word to which appeal is made, is not early Arabic; and this explanation does not suit the connection. How could the people say " it is apportioned," when they did not know what it was, and Moses had to tell them, it is the bread which Jehovah has given you for food? If they had seen at once that it was food sent them by God, there would have been no necessity for Moses to tell them so.

Vers. 16-21. After explaining the object of the manna, Moses made known to them at once the directions. of God about gathering it. /?i the first place, every one was to gather according to the necessities of his family, a bowl a head, which held, according to ver. 36, the tenth part of an ephah. Accordingly they gathered, "/ig that made muchj and he that made little ^^ i.e, he that gathered much, and he that gathered little, and measured it with the omer; and he who gathered much had no surplus, and he who gathered little had no lack: " every one according to the measure of his eating had they gathered^ These words are generally understood by tli,e Rabbins as meaning, that whether they had gathered much or little, when they measured it in their tents, they had collected just as many omers as they needed for the number in their families, and therefore that no one had either superfluity or deficiency. Calvin, on the other hand, and other Christian commentators, suppose the meaning to be, that all that was gathered was placed in a heap, and then measured out in tlie quantity that each required. In the former case, the miraculous superintendence of God was manifested in this, that no one was able to gather either more or less than what he needed for the number in his family; in the second case, in the fact that the entire quantity gathered, amounted exactly to what the whole nation required. In both cases, the superintending care of God would be equally wonderful, but the words of the text decidedly favour the old Jewish view. — Vers. 19 sqq. In the second place, Moses commanded them, that no one was to leave any of what had been gathered till the next morning. Some of them disobeyed, but what was left went into worms (D^ypin D'lJ literally rose into worms) and stank. Israel was to take no care for the morrow (Matt. vi. 34), but to enjoy the daily bread received from God in obedience to the giver. The gathering was to take place in the morning (ver. 21); for when the sun shone brightly, it melted away.

Vers. 25-31. Moreover, God bestowed His gift in such a manner, that the Sabbath was sanctified by it, and the way was thereby opened for its sanctification by the law. On the sixth day of the week the quantity yielded was twice as much, viz. two omers for one (one person). When the princes of the congregation informed Moses of this, he said to them, "Xc^ tomorrow he rest (nriZiC^)^ a holy Sabbath to the Lord" They were to bake and boil as much as was needed for the day, and keep what was over for the morrow, for on the Sabbath they would find none in the field. They did this, and what was kept for the Sabbath neither stank nor bred worms. It is perfectly clear from this event, that the Israelites were not a^^quainted with any sabbatical observance at that time, but that, whilst the way was practically opened, it was through the decalogue that it was raised into a legal institution (see chap. xx. 8 sqq.). P'^^^ is an abstract noun denoting " rest/' and HSC^ a concrete, literally the observer, from which it came to be used as a technical term for the seventh day of the week, which was to be observed as a day of rest to the Lord. — Vers. 27 sqq. On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather manna, notwithstanding ]\Ioses' command, but they found nothing. Whereupon God reproved their resistance to Ilis commands, and ordered them to remain quietly at home on the seventh day. Through the commandments which the Israelites were to keep in relation to the mannn, this gift assumed the character of a temptation, or test of their obedience and faith (cf. vcr. 4). — Yer. 31. The manna was ^' like coriander-seed^ ic/dle; and the taste of it like cake loith honey.'^ ^3: Chald. t^y^?; LXX. Kopiov; Vtdg. coriandrum; according to Dioscorid. 3, G4, it was called <yolB by the Carthaginians. ^n''BV is rendered eyfcpc<; by the LXX.; according to Athenccus and the Greek Scholiasts, a sweet kind of confectionary made with oil. In Num. xi. 7, 8, the manna is said to have had the appearance of bdellium^ a fragrant and transparent resin, resembling wax (Gen. ii. 12). It was ground in handmills or pounded in mortars, and either boiled in pots or baked on the ashes, and tasted like pt^n ^pp, "dainty of oil," i.e, sweet cakes boiled with oil.

This " bread of heaven " (Ps. Ixxviii. 24, cv. 40) Jehovah gave to His people for the first time at a season of the year and also in a place in which natural manna is still found. It is ordinarily met with in the peninsula of Sinai in the months of June and July, and sometimes even in May. It is most abundant in the neighbourhood of Sinai, in Wady Feiran and es Sheikh, also in Wady Gharandel and Taiyibch, and some of the valleys to the south-east of Sinai {liitter, 14, p. 676; Seetzens Keise iii. pp. 76, 120). In warm nights it exudes from the branches of the tarfah-tree, a kind of tiunnrisk, and falls down in the form of small globules upon the withered leaves and branches that lie under the trees; it is then gathered before sunrise, but melts in the heat of the sun. In viiy rainy seasons it continues in great abundance for six weeks long; hut in many seasons it entirely fails. It has the apj)earance of gum, and has a sweet, honey-like taste; and when taken in large quantities, it is said to act as a mild aperient {BurcJchardt, Syr. p. 954; Wellsted in Rittery p. 674). There are striking points of resemblance, therefore, between the manna of the Bible and the tamarisk manna. Not only was the locality in which the Israelites first received the manna the same as that in which it is obtained now; but the time was also the same, inasmuch as the 15th day of the second month (ver. 1) falls in the middle of our May, if not somewhat later. The resemblance in colour, form, and appearance is also unmistakeable; for, though the tamarisk manna is described as a dirty yellow, it is also said to be white when it falls upon stones. Moreover, it falls upon the earth in grains, is gathered in the morning, melts in the heat of the sun, and has the flavour of honey. But if these points of agreement suggest a connection between the natural manna and that of the Scriptures, the differences, which are universally admitted, point with no less distinctness to the miraculous character of the bread of heaven. This is seen at once in the fact that the Israelites received the manna for 40 years, in all parts of the desert, at every season of the year, and in sufficient quantity to satisfy the wants of so numerous a people. According to ver. 35, they ate manna " until they came to a land inhabited, unto the borders of the land of Canaan;" and according to Josh. v. 11, 12, the manna ceased, when they kept the Passover after crossing the Jordan, and ate of the produce of the land of Canaan on the day after the Passover. Neither of these statements is to be so strained as to be made to signify that the Israelites ate no otlier bread than manna for the whole 40 years, even after crossing the Jordan: they merely affirm that the Israelites received no more manna after they had once entered the inhabited land of Canaan; that the period of manna or desert food entirely ceased, and that of bread baked from com, or the ordinary food of the inhabited country, commenced when they kept the Passover in the steppes of Jericho, and ate unleavened bread and parched cakes of the produce of the land as soon as the new harvest had been consecrated by the presentation of the sheaf of first-fruits to God.

But even in the desert the Israelites had other provisions at command. In the first place, they had brought large flocks and herds with them out of Egypt (chap. xii. 38, xvii. 3); and these they continued in possession of, not only at Sinai (chap, xxxiv. 3), but also on the border of Edom and the country to the east of the Jordan (Num. xx. 19, xxxii. 1). Now, if the maintenance of these flocks necessitated, on the one hand, their seeking for grassy spots in the desert; on the other hand, the possession of cattle secured them by no means an insignificant supply of milk and flesh for food, and also of wool, hair, and skins for clothing. Moreover, there were different tribes in the desert at that very time, such as the Ishmaelites and Amalekites, who obtained a living for themselves from the very same sources which must necessarily have been within reach of the Israelites. Even now there are spots in the desert of Arabia where the Bedouins sow and reap; and no doubt there was formerly a much larger number of such spots than there are now, since the charcoal trade carried on by the Arabs has interfered with the growth of trees, and considerably diminished both the fertility of the valleys and the number and extent of the green oases (cf. Ruppell, Nubien, pp. 190, 201, 256). For the Israelites were not always wandering about; but after the sentence was pronounced, that they were to remain for 40 years in the desert, they may have remained not only for months, but in some cases even for years, in certain places of encampment, where, if the soil allowed, they could sow, plant, and reap. There were many of their wants, too, that they could supply by means of purchases made either from the trading caravans that travelled through the desert, or from tribes that were settled there; and we find in one place an allusion made to their buying food and water from the Edomites (Deut- ii. 6, 7). It is also very obvious from Lev. viii. 2, xxvi. 31, 32, ix. 4, X. 12, xxiv. 5 sqq., and Num. vii. 13 sqq., that th6y were provided with wheaten meal during their stay at Sinai.^ But notwithstanding all these resources, the desert was " great and terrible " (Deut. i. 19, viii. 15); so that, even though it is no doubt the fact that the want of food is very trifling in that region (cf. Burckhardtj Syria, p. 901), there must often have been districts to traverse, and seasons to endure, in which the natural resources were either insufficient for so numerous a people, or failed altogether. It was necessary, therefore, that God should interpose miraculously, and give His people bread and water and flesli by supernatural means. So that it still remains true, that God fed Israel with manna for 40 years, until their entrance into an inhabited country rendered it possible to dispense with these miraculous supplies. We must by no means suppose thot the supply of manna was restricted to the neighbourhood of Sinai; for it is expressly mentioned after tlie Israelites had left Sinai (Num. xi. 7 sqq.), and even when they had gone round the land of Edom (Num. xxi. 5). But whether it continued outside the true desert, — whether, that is to say, the Israelites were still fed with manna after they had reached the inhabited country, viz. in Gilead and Bashan, the Amoritish kingdoms of Sihon and Og, which extended to Edrei in the neighbourliood of Damascus, and where there was no lack of fields, and vineyards, and wxdls of water (Num. xxi. 22), that came into the possession of the Israelites on their conquest of the land, — or during their enc;unpment in the fields of Moab opposite to Jericho, where they were invited by the IMoabites and Edomites to join in their sacrificial meals (Num. xxv. 2), and where they took possession, after the defeat of the ^lidianites, of their cattle and all that they had, including 675,000 sheep and 72,000 beeves (Num. xxxi. 31 sqq.), — cannot be decided in the negative, as Hengstenherg supposes; still less can it be answered with confidence in the affirmative, as it has been by C. v. Raumer and Kurtz, For if, as even Kurtz admits, the manna was intended either to supply the want of bread altogether, or w^here there was bread to be obtained, though not in sufficient quantities, to make up the deficiency, it might be supposed that no such deficiency would occur in these inhabited and fertile districts, where, according to Josh. i. 11, there were sufficient supplies, at hand to furnish ample provision for the passage across the Jordan. It is possible too, that as there were more trees in the desert at that time than there are now, and, in fact, more vegetation generally, there may have been supplies of natural manna in different localities, in which it is not met with at present, and that this manna harvest, instead of yielding only 5 or 7 cwt., as is the case now, produced considerably more.^ Nevertheless, the quantity which

^ The natural manna was not exclusively confined to the tamarisk, which seems to be the only tree in the peninsula of Sinai that yields it now; but, according to both ancient and modern testimony, it has been found in Persia, the Israelites gathered every day, — viz. an omer a head, or at least 2 lbs., — still remains a divine miracle; though this statement in vers. 16 sqq. is not to be understood as affirming, that for 40 years they collected that quantity every day, but only, that whenever and wherever other supplies failed, that quantity could be and was collected day by day.

Moreover, the divine manna differed both in origin and composition from the natural produce of the tamarisk. Though the tamarisk manna resembles the former in appearance, colour, and taste, yet according to the chemical analysis to which it has been submitted by Mitscherlichj it contains no farina, but simply saccharine matter, so that the grains have only the consistency of wax; whereas those of the manna supplied to the Israelites w^re so hard that they could be ground in mills and pounded in mortars, and contained so much meal that it was made into cakes and baked, when it tasted like honey-cake, or sweet confectionary prepared with oil, and formed a good substitute for ordinary/ bread. There is no less difference in the origin of the two. The manna of the Israelites fell upon the camp with the morning dew (vers. 13, 14; Num. xi. 9), therefore evidently out of the air, so that Jehovah might be said to have rained it from heaven (ver. 4); whereas the tamarisk manna drops upon the ground from the fine thin twigs of this shrub, and, in Ehrenberg's opinion, in consequence of the puncture of a small, yellow insect, 'called coccus ^naniparus. But it may possibly be produced apart from this insect, as Lepsius and Tiscluiidorf found branches with a considerable quantity of manna upon them, and saw it drop from trees in thick adhesive lumps, without being able to discover any coccus near (see Ritter, 14, pp. 675-6). Now, even though the manna of the Bible may be connected with the produce of the tamarisk, the supply was not so inseparably connected with these shrubs, as that it could only fall to the earth with the dew, as it was exuded from their branches. After all, therefore, we can neither deny that there was some connection between the two, nor explain the gift of the heavenly manna, as arising from an unrestricted multiplication and increase of this gift of nature. We rather regard the bread of heaven as the production and gift of the grace of God, which fills all

Chorasan, and other parts of Asia, dropping from other trees. Cf. Rosen^ miiller ubi supra ^ and Hitter ^ 14, pp. 686 sqq.

nature with its powers aud productions, and so applies tliem to its purposes of salvation, as to create out of that which is natural something altogether new, which surpasses the ordinary productions of nature, both in quality and quantity, as far as the kingdom of nature is surpassed by the kingdom of grace and glory.

Yers. 32-36. As a constant memorial of this bread of God for succeeding generations, Jehovah commanded Moses to keep a bowl full (^^'V[} i^^p, the filling of a bowl) of the manna. Accordingly Aaron placed a jar of manna (as it is stated in vers. 34, 35, by way of anticipation, for the purpose of summing up everytliing of importance relating to the manna) " before Jehovah," or speaking still more exactly, " before the testimony," Le. the tables of the law (see chap. xxv. 16), or according to Jewish tradition, in the ark of the covenant (Heb. ix. 4). nj^iVj from j^^ to guard round, to.preserve, signifies a jar or bottle, not a basket. According to the Jerusalem Targum, it was an earthenware jar; in the LXX. it is called a-rd/jLvo^ ')(pv(Tov<;, a golden jar, but there is nothing of this kind in the original text. — Yer. 36. In conclusion, the quantity of the manna collected for the daily supply of each individual, which was preserved in the sanctuary, is given according to the ordinary measurement, viz. the ephah. The common opinion, that ">^'V was the name for a measure of capacity, which was evidently shared by the Seventy, who have rendered the word yo/jLop, has no foundation so far as the Scriptures are concerned. Not only is it a fact, that the word omer is never used as a measure except in this chapter, but the tenth of an ephah is constantly indicated, even in the Pentateuch, by " the tenth part of an ephah" (Lev. V. 11, vi. 13; Num. v. 15, xxviii. 5), or " a tenth deal" (Ex. xxix. 40; Lev. xiv. 10, etc.; in all 30 times). The omer was a small vessel, cup, or bowl, which formed part of the furniture of every house, and being always of the same size, could be used as a measure in case of need.^ The ephah is given by Beriheau as consisting of 1985*77 Parisian cubic inches, and

^ Omer proprie nomen poculi fuit^ quale secum gestare solent Orientates, per deserta iter facientes, ad hauriendam si quam rivus vel fons offerret aquam.... Hoc in poculo, alia vasa non habentes, et mannam collegerunt Israelitx {Michaelis, Supplem. ad Lex. hebr., p. 1929). Cf. Hengstenberg^ Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 172.

Chap. xvii. 1-7. Want of Water at Rephidim. — Ver. 1. On leaving the desert of Sin, the Israelites came Dn''Vp^p, " according to their journeys," i,e, in several marches performed with encampings and departures, to RepJiiJvn, at Horeb, where they found no water. According to Num. xxxiii. 12-14, they encamped twice between the desert of Sin and Hephidim, viz. at Dofkali and Alush, The situation of Bephidim may be determined with tolerable certainty, partly from ver. p as compared with chap, xviii. 5, which shows that it is to be sought for at Horeb, and partly from the fact, that the Israelites reached the desert of Sinai, after leaving Rephidim, in a single day's march (chap. xix. 2). As the only way from Dehhet er Ramleli to Horeb or Sinai, through which a whole nation could pass, lies through the large valley of es-Sheikhy Rephidim must be sought for at the point where this valley opens into the broad plain of er Rahah; and not in the defile with Moses' seat (Mokad Seidna Musa) in it, which is a day*s journey from the foot of Sinai, or five hours from the point at which the Sheikh valley opens into the plain of er Rahah, or the plain of Szueir or Suweiri^ because this plain is so far from Sinai, that the Israelites could not possibly have travelled thence to the desert of Sinai in a single day; nor yet at the fountain of Abu Suweirah, which is three hours to the north of Sinai (Strauss, p. 131), for the Sheikh valley, which is only a quarter of a mile broad at this spot, and enclosed on both sides by tall cliffs [Robinson, i. 215), would not afford the requisite space for a whole nation; and the well found here, which though small is never dry [Robinson, i. 216), neither tallies with the want of water at Rephidim, nor stands " upon the rock at (in) Horeb," so that it could be taken to be the spring opened by Moses. The distance from Wady Nasb (in the desert of Sin) to the point at which the upper Sinai road reaches the Wady es Sheikh is about 15 hours (Robinson, vol. iii. app.), and the distance thence to the plain of er Rahah through the Sheikh valley, which runs in a large semicircle to Horeb, 10 hours more {Burckhardt, pp. 797 sqq.), whereas the straight road across el Oerf, Wady Solaf, and Nukb Hawy to the convent of Sinai is only seven hours and a half (Robinson^ vol. iii. appendix). The whole distance from Wady Nasb to the opening of the Sheikh valley into the plain of er Rahah, viz. 25 hours in all, the Israelites might have accomplished in three days, answering to the three stations, Dofkah, Alush, and Rephidim. A trace of Dofkah seems to have been retained in el Tabhacha, which Seetzen found in the narrow rocky valley of Wady GnSj i.e. Kineh', after his visit to Wady Mukatteb, on proceeding an hour and a half farther in a north-westerly (?) direction, and where he saw some Egyptian antiquities. Knobel supposes the station Alush to have been in the Wady Oesch or Osh {Robinson, i. 125; Burckhardtj p. 792), where sweet water may be met with at a little distance off. But apart from the improbability of Alush being identical with Osh, even if al were the Arabic article, the distance is against it, as it is at least twelve camel-hours from Horeb through the Sheikh valley. Alush is rather to be sought for at the entrance to the Sheikh valley; for in no other case could the Israelites have reached Rephidim in one day.

Vers. 2-7. As there was no water to drink in Rephidim, the people murmured against Moses, for having brought them out of Egypt to perish with thirst in the wilderness. This murmuring Moses called " tempting God," i.e. unbelieving doubt in the gracious presence of the Lord to help them (ver. 7). In this the people manifested not only their ingratitude to Jehovah, who had hitherto interposed so gloriously and miraculously in every time of distress or need, but their distrust in the guidance of Jehovah and the divine mission of Moses, and such impatience of unbelief, as threatened to break out into open rebellion against Moses. " Yet a little^^ he said to God {i.e. a very little more), ^' and they stone me;" and the divine long-suffering and grace interposed in this case also, and provided for the want without punishing their murmuring. Moses was to pass on before the people, and, taking some of the elders with him, and his staff with which he smote the Nile, to go to the rock at Horeb, and 'smite upon the rock with the staff, at the place where God should stand before him, and water would come out of the rock. The elders were to be eye-witnesses of the miracle, that they might bear their testimony to it before the unbelieving people, " ne dicere possiiit, jam ah antiquis temporibus fontes ibi fuisse^ (Rashi). Jehovah's standing before Moses upon the rock, signified the gracious assistance of God. \^sp ^^V frequently denotes the attitude of a servant when standing before his master, to receive and execute his commands. Thus Jehovah condescended to come to the help of Moses, and assist His people with His almighty power. His gracious presence caused water to flow out of the hard dry rock, though not till Moses struck it with his staff, that the people might acknowledge him afresh as the possessor of supernatural and miraculous powers. The precise spot at which the water was smitten out of the rock cannot be determined; for there is no reason whatever for fixing upon the summit of the present Horeb, Has el Sufsafeh, from which you can take in the whole of the plain of er E-ahah (RobinsoUj i. p. 154). — Yer. 7. From this behaviour of the unbelieving nation the place received the names Massah and Meribahj " temptation and murmuring," that this sin of the people might never be forgotten (cf. Deut. vi. 16; Ps. Ixxviii. 20, xcv. 8, cv. 41).

Vers. 8-13. The want of water had only just been provided for, when Israel had to engage in a conflict with the Amalekites, who had fallen upon their rear and smitten it (Deut. xxv. 18). The expansion of this tribe, that was descended from a grandson of Esau (see Gen. xxxvi. 12), into so great a power even in the Mosaic times, is perfectly conceivable, if we imagine the process to have been analogous to that which we have already described in the case of the leading branches of the Edomites, who had grown into a powerful nation through the subjugation and incorporation of the earlier population of Mount Seir. The Amalekites had no doubt come to the neighbourhood of Sinai for the same reason for which, even in the present day, the Bedouin Arabs leave the lower districts at the beginning of summer, and congregate in the mountain regions of the Arabian peninsula, viz. because the grass is dried up in the former, whereas in the latter the pasturage remains green much longer, on account of the climate being comparatively cooler (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 789). There they fell upon the Israelites, probably in the Sheikh valley, where the rear had remained behind the main body, not merely for the purpose of plundering or of disputing the possession of this district and its pasture ground with the Israelites, but to assail Israel as the nation of God, and if possible to destroy it. The divine command to exterminate Amalek (ver. 14) points to this; and still more the description given of the Amalekites in Balaam's utterances, as C]^^3 ^''C'i^'ij "the beginning," i.e, the first and foremost of the heathen nations (Num. xxiv. 20). In Amalek the heathen world commenced that conflict with the people of God, which, while it aims at their destruction, can only be terminated by the complete annihilation of the ungodly powers of the world. Earlier theologians pointed out quite correctly the deepest ground for the hostility of the Amalekites, when they traced the causa belli to this fact, " quod timebat Amalee, qui erat de seniine Esau, jam implendam benedictionem, quam Jacob obiinuit et prceripuit ipsi Esau, prcesertim cum in magna pote7itia venirent Israelitce, ut 'promissam occuparent terram*^ Munster, C, a Lapide, etc.). This peculiar significance in the conflict is apparent, not only from the divine command to exterminate the Amalekites, and to carry on the war of Jehovah with Amalek from generation to generation (vers. 14 and 16), but also from the manner in which Moses led the Israelites to battle and to victory. Whereas he had performed all the miracles in Egypt and on the journey by stretching out his staff, on this occasion he directed his servant Joshua to choose men for the war, and to fight the battle with the sword. He himself went with Aaron and Hur to the summit of a hill to hold up the staff of God in his hands, that he might procure success to the warriors through the spiritual weapons of prayer.

The proper name of Joshua, who appears here for the first time in the service of Moses, was Hosea (V^in); he was a prince of the tribe of Ephraim (Num. xiii. 8, 16; Deut. xxxii. 44). The name Vf^^\, " Jehovah is help" (or, God-help), he probably received at the time when he entered Moses' service, either before or after the battle with the Amalekites (see Num. xiii. 16, and Ilengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii.). Ilur, who also held a prominent position in the nation, according to chap. xxiv. 14, in connection with Aaron, was the son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, the grandson of Judah (1 Chron. ii. 18-20), and the grandfather of Bezaleel, the architect of the tabernacle (chap. xxxi. 2, XXXV. 30, xxxviii. 22, cf. 1 Chron. ii. 19, 20). According to Jewish tradition, he was the husband of Miriam. — The battle was fought on the day after the first attack (ver. 9). The hill (nV33, not Mount Horeb), upon the summit of which Moses took up his position during the battle, along with Aaron and Hur, cannot be fixed upon with exact precision, but it was probably situated in the table-land of Fureia, to the north of er Kaliah and the Sheikh valley, which is a fertile piece of pasture ground (Burckhardt, p. 801; Robinson, i. pp. 139, 215), or else in the plateau which runs to the north-east of the Horeb mountains and to the east of the Sheikh valley, with the two peaks Umlanz and Um Alawy; supposing, that is, that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites from Wady Muklifeh or es Suweiriyeh. Moses went to the top of the hill that he might see the battle from thence. He took Aaron and Hur with him, not as adjutants to convey his orders to Joshua and the army engaged, but to support him in his own part in connection with the conflict. This was to hold up his hand with the staff of God in it. To understand the meaning of this sign, it must be borne in mind that, although ver. 11 merely speaks of the raising and dropping of the hand (in the singular), yet, according to ver. 12, both hands were supported by Aaron and Hur, who stood one on either side, so that Moses did not hold up his hands alternately, but grasped the staff with both his hands, and held it up with the tw^o. The lifting up of the hands has been regarded almost with unvarying unanimity by Targumists, Rabbins, Fathers, Reformers, and nearly all the more modern commentators, as the sign or attitude of prayer. Kurtz, on the contrary, maintains, in direct opposition to the custom observed throughout the whole of the Old Testament by all pious and earnest worshippers, of lifting up their hands to God in heaven, that this view attributes an importance to the outward form of prayer which has no analogy even in the Old Testament; he therefore agrees with Lakemacher, in RosenmiXlley^ s Scholien, in regarding the attitude of Moses with his hand lifted up as " the attitude of a commander superintending and directing the battle," and the elevation of the hand as only the means adopted for raising tlie staff, which was elevated in the sight of the warriors of Israel as the banner of victory. But this meaning cannot be estabUshed from vers. 15 and 16. For the altar with the name " Jehovah my banner ^^ and the watchword " the hand on the banner of Jehovah, war of the Lord against Amaleh^^ can neither be proved to be connected with the staff which Moses held in his hand, nor be adduced as a proof that Moses held the staff in front of the Israelites as the banner of victory. The lifting up of the staff of God was, no doubtj a banner to the Israelites of victory over their foes, but not in this sense, that Moses directed the battle as commanderin-chief, for he had transferred the command to Joshua; nor yet in this sense, that he imparted divine powers to the warriors by means of the staff, and so secured the victory. To effect this, he would not have lifted it up, but have stretched it out, either over the combatants, or at all events towards them, as in the case of all the other miracles that were performed with the staff. The lifting up of the staff secured to the warriors the strength needed to obtain the victory, from the fact that by means of the staff Moses brought down this strength from above, i.e. from the Almighty God in heaven; not indeed by a merely spiritless and unthinking elevation of the staff, but by the power of his prayer, which was embodied in the lifting up of his hands with the staff, and was so far strengthened thereby, that God had chosen and already employed this staff as the medium of the saving manifestation of His almighty power. There is no other way in which we can explain the effect produced upon the battle by the raising and dropping (JT'^JS) of the staff in his hands. As long as Moses held up the staff, he drew down from God victorious powers for the Israelites by means of his prayer; but when he let it fall through the exhaustion of the strength of his hands, he ceased to draw down the power of God, and Amalek gained the upper hand. The staff, therefore, as it was stretched out on high, was not a sign to the Israelites that were fighting, for it is by no means certain that they could see it in the heat of the battle; but it was a sign to Jehovah, carrying up, as it were, to God the wishes and prayers of Moses, and bringing down from God victorious powers for Israel. If the intention had been to hold it up before the Israelites as a banner of victory, Moses would not have withdrawn to a hill apart from the field of battle, but would either have carried it himself in front of the army, or have given it to Joshua as commander, to be borne by him in front of the combatants, or else have entrusted it to Aaron, who had performed the miracles in Egypt, that he might carry it at their liead. The pure reason v^hy Moses did not do this, but withdrew from the field of battle to lift up the staff of God upon the summit of a hill, and to secure the victory by so doing, is to be found in the important character of tlie battle itself. As the heathen world was now commencing its conflict with the people of God in the persons of the Amalekites, and the prototype of the heathen world, with its hostility to God, was opposing the nation of the Lord, that had been redeemed from the bondage of Egypt and was on its way to Canaan, to contest its entrance into the promised inheritance; so the battle which Israel fought with this foe possessed a typical significance in relation to all the future history of Israel. It could not conquer by the sword alone, but could only gain the victory by the power of God, coming down from on high, and obtained through prayer and those means of grace with which it had been entrusted. The means now possessed by Moses were the staff, which was, as it were, a channel through which the powers of omnipotence were conducted to him. In most cases he used it under the direction of God; but God had not promised him miraculous help for the conflict with the Amalekites, and for this reason he lifted up his hands with the staff in prayer to God, that he might thereby secure the assistance of Jehovah for His struggling people. At length he became exhausted, and with the falling of his hands and the staff he held, the flow of divine power ceased, so that it was necessary to support his arms, that they might be kept firmly directed upwards (i^J^^^^, lit. firmness) until the enemy was entirely subdued. And from this Israel was to learn the lesson, that in all its conflicts with the ungodly powers of the world, strength for victory could only be procured through the incessant lifting up of its hands in prayer. '' And Joshua discomfited Amalek and Ms people (the Amalekites and their people) with the edge of the sword'^ (i.e. without quarter. See Gen. xxxiv. 26).

Vers. 14-16. As this battle and victory were of such significance, Moses was to write it for a memorial "12)53, in " the book^^ appointed for a record of the wonderful works of God, and " to put it into the ears of Joshua" i.e. to make known to him, and impress upon him, that Jehovah would utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; not " in order that he might carry out this decree of God on the conquest of Canaan, as Knohel supposes, but to strengthen his confidence in the help of the Lord against all the enemias of Israel. In Deut. xxv. 19 the Israelites are commanded to exterminate Amalek, when God should have given them rest in the land of Canaan from all their enemies round about. — Vers. 15, 16. To praise God for His help, Moses built an altar, which he called " Jehovah my banner" and said, when he did so, " The hand on the throne (or banner) ofJah I War to the Lord from generation to generation! " There is nothing said about sacrifices being offered upon this altar. It has been conjectured, therefore, that as a place of worship and thank-offering, the altar with its expressive name was merely to serve as a memorial to posterity of the gracious help of the Lord, and that the words which were spoken by Moses were to serve as a watchword for Israel, keeping this act of God in lively remembrance among the people in all succeeding generations. "^ (ver. 16) merely introduces the words as in Gen. iv. 23, etc. The expression n;^ 0'2'bv ^l is obscure, chiefly on account of the air. Xey, D2. In the ancient versions (with the exception of the Septuagint, in which n^ d:3 is treated as one w^ord, and rendered /cpvcpala) D2 is taken to be equivalent to nD3 (i Kings X. 19; Job xxvi. 9) for ^B3^ and the clause is rendered " the hand upon the throne of the Lord." But whilst some understand the laying of the hand (sc. of God) upon the throne to be expressive of the attitude of sw^earing, others regard the hand as symbolical of power. There are others again, like Clericus, who suppose the hand to denote the hand laid by the Amalekites upon the throne of the Lord, i.e. on Israel. But if D3 signifies throne or adytum arcanum, the words can hardly be understood in any other sense than " the hand lifted up to the throne of Jehovah in heaven, war to the Lord," etc.; and thus understood, they can only contain an admonition to Israel to follow the example of Moses, and wage war against Amalek with the hands lifted up to the throne of Jehovah. Modern expositors, however, for the most part regard D3 as a corruption of Dpj " the hand on the banner of the Lord." But even admitting this, though many objections may be offered to its correctness, we must not understand by *' the banner of Jehovah ' the staff of Moses, but only the altar with the name Jehovahnissi, as the symbol or memorial of the victorious help afforded by God in the battle with the Amalekites.

Vers. 1-12. The Amalekites had met Israel with hostility, as the prototype of the heathen who would strive against the people and kingdom of God. But Jethro, the Midianitish priest, appeared immediately after in the camp of Israel, not only as Moses' father-in-law, to bring back his wife and children, but also with a joyful acknowledgment of all that Jehovah had done to the Israelites in delivering them from Egypt, to offer burntofferings to the God of Israel, and to celebrate a sacrificial meal with Moses, Aaron, and all the elders of Israel; so that in the person of Jethro the first-fruits of the heathen, who would hereafter seek the living God, entered into religious fellowship with the people of God. As both the Amalekites and Midianites were descended from Abraham, and stood in blood-relationship to Israel, the different attitudes which they assumed towards the Israelites foreshadowed and typified the twofold attitude which the heathen world would assume towards the kingdom of God. (On Jethro, see chap. ii. 18; on Moses' wife and sons, see chap. ii. 21, 22; and on the expression in ver. 2, " after he had sent her hack,^ chap. iv. 26.) — Jethro came to Moses " into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of GodP The mount of God is Horeb (chap. iii. 1); and the place of encampment is Hephidim, at Horeb, Le, at the spot where the Sheikh valley opens into the plain of er Rahah (chap. xvii. 1). This part is designated as a wilderness; and according to Rohinson (1, pp. 130, 131) the district round this valley and plain is " naked desert," and "wild and desolate." The occasion for Jethro the priest to bring back to his son-in-law his wife and children was furnished by the intelligence which had reached him, that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt (ver. 1), and, as we may obviously supply, had led them to Horeb. When Moses sent his wife and sons back to Jethro, he probably stipulated that they were to return to him on the arrival of the Israelites at Horeb. For when God first called Moses at Horeb, He foretold to him that

Israel would be brought to this mountain on its deliverance from Egypt (chap. iii. 12).-^

Vers, 6-12. When Jethro announced his arrival to Moses (" he said/' sc. through a messenger), he received his father-inlaw with the honour due to his rank; and when he had conducted him to his tent, he related to him all the leading events connected with the departure from Egypt, and all the troubles they had met with on the way, and how Jehovah had delivered them out of them all. Jethro rejoiced at this, and broke out in praise to Jehovah, declaring that Jehovah was greater than all gods, i.e. that He had shown Himself to be exalted above all gods, for God is great in the eyes of men only when He makes known His greatness through the display of His omnipotence. He then gave a practical expression to his praise by a burnt-offering and slain-offering, which he presented to God. The second ''2 in

^ Kurtz (Hist, of 0. C. iii. 46, 53) supposes that it was chiefly the report of the glorious result of the battle with Amalek which led Jethro to resolve to bring Moses' family back to him. There is no statement, however, to this effect in the biblical text, but rather the opposite, namely, that what Jethro had heard of all that God had done to Moses and Israel consisted of the fact that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt. Again, there are not suflB.cient grounds for placing the arrival of Jethro at the camp of Israel, in the desert of Sinai and after the giving of the law, as Ranke has done. For the fact that the mount of God is mentioned as the place of encampment at the time, is an argument in favour of Eephidim, rather than against it, as we have already shown. And we can see no force in the assertion that the circumstances, in which we find the people, point rather to the longer stay at Sinai, than to the passing halt at Rephidim. For how do we know that the stay at Rephidim was such a passing one, that it would not afford time enough for Jethro's visit? It is true that, according to the ordinary assumption, only half a month intervened between the arrival of the Israelites in the desert of Sin and their arrival in the desert of Sinai; but within this space of time everything might have taken place that is said to have occurred on the march from the former to the latter place of encampment. It is not stated in the biblical text that seven days were absorbed in the desert of Sin alone, but only that the Israelites spent a Sabbath there, and had received manna a few days before, so that three or four days (say from Thursday to Saturday inclusive) would amply suffice for all that took place. If the Israelites, therefore, encamped there in the evening of the 15th, they might have moved farther on the morning of the 19th or 20th, and after a two days' journey by Dofkah and Alush have reached Rephidim on the 21st or 22ci. They could then have fought the battle with the Amalekites the following day, so that Jethro might have come to the camp on the 24th or 25th, and held the sacrificial meal with the Israelites the next day. In that case there ver. 11 is only an empliatic repetition of the first, and "^ti'N "(^"n^ is not dependent upon ^^VIJ? but upon /'il^, or upon ''''l^'^ understood, which is to be supplied in thought after the second ^3: " That He has proved Himself great by the affair in which they (the Egyptians) dealt proudly against them (the Israelites)." Compare Nell. ix. 10, from which it is evident, that to refer these words to the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea as a punishment for their attempt to destroy the Israelites in the water (chap. i. 22) is too contracted an interpretation; and that they rather relate to all the measures adopted by the Egyptians for the oppression and detention of the Israelites, and signify that Jehovah had shown Himself great above all gods by all the plagues inflicted upon Egypt down to the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. — Yer. 12. The sacrifices, which Jethro offered to God, were applied to a sacrificial meal, in which Moses joined, as well as Aaron and all the elders.

would still be four or five days left for him to see Moses sitting in judgment a whole day long (ver. 13), and for the introduction of the judicial arrangements proposed by Jethro; — amply sufficient time, inasmuch as one whole day would suffice for the sight of the judicial sitting, which is said to have taken place the day after the sacrificial meal (ver. 13). And the election of judges on the part of the people, for which Moses gave directions in accordance with Jethro's advice, might easily have been carried out in two days. For, on the one hand, it is most probable that after Jethro had watched this severe and exhausting occupation of Moses for a whole day, he spoke to Moses on the subject the very same evening, and laid his plan before him; and on the other hand, the execution of this plan did not recjuire a very long time, as the people were not scattered over a whole country, but were collected together in one camp. Moreover, Moses carried on all his negotiations with the people through the elders as their representatives; and the judges were not elected in modern fashion by universal suffrage, but were nominated by the people, i.e. by the natural representatives of the nation, from the body of elders, according to their tribes, and then appointed by Moses himself. — Again, it is by no means certain that Israel arrived at the desert of Sinai on the first day of the third month, and that only half a month (15 or 16 days) elapsed between their arrival in the desert of Sin and their encamping at Sinai (cf. chap. xix. 1). And lastly, though Kurtz still affirms that Jethro lived on the other side of the Elanitic Gulf, and did not set out till he heard of the defeat of the Amalekites, in which case a whole month might easily intervene between the victory of Israel and the arrival of Jethro, the two premises upon which this conclusion is based, are assumptions without foundation, as we have already shown at chap. iii. 1 in relation to the former, and have just shown in relation to the latter.

Eating bread before God signified the holding of a sacrificial meal, which was eating before God, because it was celebrated in a holy place of sacrifice, where God was supposed to be present. Vers. 13-24. The next day Jethro saw how Moses was occupied from morning till evening in judging the people, who brought all their disputes to him, that he might settle them accordinsj to the statutes of God. ^V ^W: as in Gen. xviii. 8.

The people came to Moses " to seek or inquire of God " (ver. 15), i,e,to ask for a decision from God: in most cases, this means to inquire through an oracle; here it signifies to desire a divine decision as to questions in dispute. By judging or deciding the cases brought before him, Moses made known to the people the ordinances and laws of God. For every decision was based upon some law, which, like all true justice here on earth, emanated first of all from God. This is the meaning of ver. 16, and not, as Knohel supposes, that Moses made use of the questions in dispute, at the time they were decided, as good opportunities for giving laws to the people. Jethro condemned this plan (vers. 18 sqq.) as exhausting, wearing out (^j?5 ^^^* *^ fade away, Ps. xxxvii. 2), both for Moses and the people: for the latter, inasmuch as they not only got wearied out through long waiting, but, judging from ver. 23, very often began to take the law into their own hands on account of the delay in the judicial decision, and so undermined the well-being of the community at large; and for Moses, inasmuch as the work was necessarily too great for him, and he could not continue for any length of time to sustain such a burden alone (ver. 18). The obsolete form of the irif, const, ^nb^i; for inby is only used here, but is not without analogies in the Pentateuch. Jethro advised him (vers. 19 sqq.) to appoint judges from the people for all the smaller matters in dispute, so that in future only the more difficult cases, which really needed a superior or divine decision, would be brought to him that he might lay them before God. " / will give thee counsel, and God he with thee (i.e. help thee to carry out this advice): Be thou to the people ^'^'P.^j^ ^^^, towards Godj"^ i.e. lay their affairs before God, take the place of God in matters of judgment, or, as Luther expresses it, " take charge of the people before God." To this end, in the first place, he was to instruct the people in the commandments of God, and their own walk and conduct ('^"''?!'? with a double accusative, to enlighten.

instruct; TT}. the walk, the whole behaviour; rib^VD particular actions); secondly, he was to select able men (^^.n '^^y^ men of moral strength, 1 Kings i. 52) as judges, men who were Godfearing, sincere, and unselfish (gain-hating), and appoint them to administer justice to the people, by deciding the simpler matters themselves, and only referring the more difficult questions to him, and so to lighten his own duties by sharing the burden with these judges. "T'.c'V^ ^i?'^ (ver. 22) ''make light of (that which lies) upon theer If he would do this, and God would command him, he would be able to stand, and the people would come to their place, i.e, to Canaan, in good condition (Di7K^3). The apodosis cannot begin with ^^^1? " then God will establish thee," for njv never has this meaning; but the idea is this, " if God should preside over the execution of the plan proposed." — Yer. 24. Moses followed this sage advice, and, as he himself explains in Deut. i. 12-18, directed the people to nominate wise, intelligent, and well-known men from the heads of the tribes, whom he appointed as judges, instructing them to administer justice with impartiality and without respect of persons. Vers. 25-27. The judges chosen were arranged as chiefs (ClK^) over thousands, hundreds, "fifties, and tens, after the analogy of the military organization of the people on their march (Num. xxxi. 14), in such a manner, however, that this arrangement was linked on to the natural division of the people into tribes, families, etc. (see my Archdologiej § 140). For it is evident that the decimal division was not made in an arbitrary manner according to the number of heads, from the fact that, on the one hand, the judges were chosen from the heads of the tribes and according to their tribes (Deut. i. 13); and on the other hand, the larger divisions of the tribes, viz. the families (mishpachoth), were also called thousands (Num. i. 16, X. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, etc.), just because the number of their heads of families would generally average about a thousand; so that in all probability the hundreds, fifties, and tens denote smaller divisions of the nation, in which there were about this number of fathers. Thus in Arabic, for example, ^' the ten " is a term used to signify a family (cf. Hengstenherg, Dissertations v. ii. 343, and my Arch. § 149). The difference between the harder or greater matters and the smaller matters consisted in this: questions which there was no definite law to decide were great or hard; whereas, on the other hand, those which could easily be decided from existing laws or general principles of equity were simple or small. {Vide Joh, Selden de Synedrils i. c. 16, in my Arch, § 149, Not. 3, where the different views are discussed respecting the relative positions and competency of the various judges, about which there is no precise information given in the law.) So far as the total number of judges is concerned, all that can be affirmed with certainty is, that the estimated number of 600 judges over thousands, 6000 over hundreds, 12,000 over fifties, and 60,000 over tens, in all 78,600 judges, which is given by Grotius and in the Talmud, and according to which there must have been a judge for every seven adults, is altogether erroneous (cf. J. Selden I.e. pp. 339 seq.). For if the thousands answered to the families (rnishpaclioth)^ there cannot have been a thousand males in every one; and in the same way the hundreds, etc., are not to be understood as consisting of precisely that number of persons, but as larger or smaller family groups, the numerical strength of which we do not know. And even if we did know it, or were able to estimate it, this would furnish no criterion by w^hich to calculate the number of the judges, for the text does not affirm that every one of these larger or smaller family groups had a judge of its own; in fact, the contrary may rather be inferred, from the fact that, according to Deut. i. 15, the judges were chosen out of the heads of the tribes, so that the number of judges must have been smaller than that of the heads, and can hardly therefore have amounted to many hundreds, to say nothing of many thousands.

Vers. 1, 2. In the third month after their departure from Egypt, the Israelites arrived at Sinai, proceeding from Rephidim into the desert of Sinai, and encamping there before the mountain. On what day of the month, the received text does not state. The striking expression ^)J] D^*3 (^^ the same day"), without any previous notice of the day, cannot signify the first day of the month; nor can ''^v^n ^inn signify the third new moon in the year, and be understood as referring to the first day of the third montli. For altliougli, according to the etymology of tTlh (from ^^9 ^^ ^G new), it might denote the new moon, yet in chronological data it is never used in this sense; but the day of the month is invariably appended after the month itself has been given (e.g. ^^ph im chap. xl. 2, 17; Gen. viii. 5, 13; Num. i. 1, xxix. 1, xxxiii. 38, etc.). Moreover, in the Pentateuch the w^ord t^J^.n never signifies new moon; but the new moons are called D''t^n^ "^^an (Num. x. 10, xxviii. 11, cf. Ilengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. 297). And even in such passages as 1 Sam. xx. 5, xviii. 24, 2 Kings iv. 23, Amos viii. 5, Isa. i. 13, etc., where t^"jn is mentioned as a feast along with the Sabbaths and other feasts, the meaning new moon appears neither demonstrable nor necessary, as ^.n in this case denotes the feast of the month, the celebration of the begiiming of the month. If, therefore, the text is genuine, and the date of the month has not dropt out (and the agreement of the ancient versions with the Masoretic text favours this conclusion), there is no other course open, than to understand DV, as in Gen. ii. 4 and Num. iii. 1, and probably also in the unusual expression ^l^n Di"*, Ex. xl. 2, in the general sense of time; so that here, and also in Num. ix. 1, XX. 1, the month only is given, and not the day of the monfh, and it is altogether uncertain whether the arrival in the desert of Sinai took place on one of the first, one of the middle, or one of the last days of the month. The Jewish tradition, which assigns the giving of the law to the fiftieth day after the Passover, is of far too recent a date to pass for historical (see my Archdologie, § 83, 6).

The desert of Sinai is not the plain of er Rahah to the north of Horeb, but the desert in front (^)T) of the mountain^ upon the summit of which Jehovah came down, whilst Moses ascended it to receive the law (ver. 20 and xxxiv. 2). This mountain is constantly called Sinai so long as Israel stayed there (vers. 18, 20, 23, xxiv. 16, xxxiv. 2, 4, 29, 32; Lev. vii. 38, xxv. 1, xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34; Num. iii. 1; see also Num. xxviii. 6 and Deut. xxxiii. 2); and the place of their encampment by the mountain is also called the " desert of Sinaij^ never the desert of Horeb (Lev. vii. 38; Num. i. 1, 19, iii. 14, ix. 1, x. 12, xxvi. 64, xxxiii. 15). But in Ex. xxxiii. 6 this spot is designated as " Mount Horeb," and in Deuteronomy, as a rule, it is spoken of briefly as "Horeb" (Deut i, 2, 6, 19, iv. 10, 15, v. 2, ix. 8, xviii. 16, xxviii. 69). And whilst the general identity of Sinai and Horeb may be inferred from this; the fact, that wherever the intention of the writer is to give a precise and geographical description of the place w^here the law was given, the name Sinai is employed, leads to the conclusion that the term Horeb was more general and comprehensive than that of Sinai; in other words, that Horeb was the range of which Sinai was one particular mountain, which only came prominently out to view when Israel had arrived at the mount of legislation. This distinction between the two names, which Hengstenherg was the first to point out and establish (in his Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 325), is now generally admitted; so that the only room that is left for any difference of opinion is with reference to the extent of the Horeb range. There is no ground for supposing that the name Horeh includes the whole of the mountains in the Arabian peninsula. Sufficient justice is done to all the statements in the Bible, if we restrict this name to the southern and highest range of the central mountains, — to the exclusion, therefore, of the Serbal group.-"- This southern range, which Arabian geographers and the Bedouins call Jehel Tiir or Jehel Tut Sina, consists of three summits: (1) a central one, called by the Arabs Jehel Musa (Moses' Mountain), and by Christians either Horeh or else Horeh-Sinai, in which case the northern and lower peak, or lias es Sufsafeh, is called Horeb, and the southern and loftier one Sinai; (2) a western one,, called Jehel Humry with Mount Catherine on the south, the loftiest point in the whole range; and (3) an eastern one, called Jehel el Deir (Convent Mountain) or Episteme (vide Hitter, 14, pp. 527 sqq.). — Near this range there are two plains, which furnish space enough for a large encampment. One of these is the plain of er JRahah, on the north and north-west of Horeb-Sinai, with a level space of an English square mile, which is considerably enlarged by the Sheikh valley that opens into it from the east. At its southern extremity Horeb, with its granite rocks, runs almost precipitously to the height of 1200 or 1500 feet; and towards the west it is also shut in as with a w^all by the equally precipitous spurs of

^ The hypothesis advocated by Lepsius, that Sinai or Horeb is to be sought for iu Serbal, has very properly met with no favour. For the objections to this, see Ritter^ Erdkunde 14, pp. 738 sqq.; and Kurtz^ History of 0. C, vol. iii. p. 94 sqq.

Jebel Hnmr. The other plain, which is called Sehayeh, lies to the south-east of Sinai, or Jebel Musa in the more restricted sense; it is from 1400 to 1800 feet broad, 12,000 feet long, and is shut in towards the south and east by mountains, which rise very gently, and do not reach any considerable height. There are three wadys leading to this plain from er Rahah and the Sheikh valley. The most westerly of these, which separates Horeb-Sinai from Jebel Humr with Mount Catherine on the south, is called el Leja^ and is a narrow defile full of great blocks of stone, and shut in towards the south like aculde sac by Mount Catherine. The central one, which separates Horeb from Jebel Deir, is Wady Shoeib (Jethro valley), with the convent of Sinai in it, which is also called the Convent Valley in consequence. This is less confined, and not so much strewed with stones; towards the south it is not quite shut in, and yet not quite open, but bounded by a steep pass and a grassy mountain-saddle, viz. the easily accessible Jebel Sehayeh. The third and most easterly is the Wady es Sehayehj which is from 400 to 600 feet broad, and leads from the Sheikh valley, in a southern and south-westerly direction, to the plain of the same name, which stretches like an amphitheatre to the southern slope of Sinai, or Jebel Musa, in the more restricted sense. When seen from this plain, " Jebel Musa has the appearance of a lofty and splendid mountain cone, towering far above the lower gravelly hills by which it is surrounded " (Bitter, pp. 540, 541).

Since JRobmson, who was the first to describe the plain of er BahaJi, and its fitness for the encampment of Israel, visited Sinai, this plain has generally been regarded as the site where Israel encamped in the " desert of Sinai." Robinson supposed that he had discovered the Sinai of the Bible in the northern peak of Mount Horeb, viz. Ras es Sufsafeli. But Ritter, KuHz^ and others have followed Laborde and F. A. Strauss, who were the first to point out the suitableness of the plain of Sebayeh to receive a great number of people, in fixing upon Jebel Musa in the stricter sense, the southern peak of the central group, which tradition had already indicated as the scene of the giving of the law, as the true Mount Sinai, where Moses received the laws from God, and the plain of Sebayeh as the spot to which Moses led the people {i,e, the men) on the third day, out of the camp of God and through the Sebayeh valley (ver. 16). For this plain is far better adapted to be the scene of such a display of the nation, than the plain of er Rahah: first, because the hills in the background slope gradually upwards in the form of an amphitheatre, and could therefore hold a larger number of people; ^ whereas the mountains which surround the plain of er Kahah are so steep and rugged, that they could not be made use of in arranging the people;: — and secondly, because the gradual sloping of the plain upwards, both on the east and south, would enable even the furthest rows to see Mount Sinai in all its majestic grandeur; whereas the plain of er Rahah slopes downwards towards the north, so that persons standing in the background would be completely prevented by those in front from seeing Kas es Sufsafeh. — If, however, the plain of es Sehayeh so entirely answers to all the topographical data of the Bible, that we must undoubtedly regard it as the spot where the people of God were led up to the foot of the mountain, we cannot possibly fix upon the plain of er Rahah as the place of encampment in the desert of Sinai. The very expression " desert of Sinai," which is applied to the place of encampment, is hardly reconcilable with this opinion. For example, if the Sinai of the Old Testament is identical with the present Jebel Musa, and the whole group of mountains bore the name of Horeb, the plain of er Rahah could not with propriety be called the desert of Sinai, for Sinai cannot even be seen from it, but is completely hidden by the Ras es Sufsafeh of Horeb. Moreover, the road from the plain of er Rahah into the plain of es Sebayeh through the Sebayeh valley is so long and so narrow, that the people of Israel, who numbered more than 600,000 men, could not possibly have been conducted from the camp in er Rahah into the Sebayeh plain, and so up to Mount Sinai, and then, after being placed in order there, and listening to the promulgation of the law, have returned to the camp again, all in a single day. The Sebayeh valley, or the road from the Sheikh valley to the commencement of the plain of Sebayeh, is, it is true, only an

' " Sinai falls towards the south for about 2000 feet into low granite hills, and then into a large plain, which is about 1600 feet broad and nearly five miles long, and rises like an amphitheatre opposite to the mountain both on the south and east. It is a plain that seems made to accommodate a large number gathered round the foot of the mountain " (^Strauss^ p. 135).

hour loner. But we have to add to this the distance from the point at which the Sebayeh valley opens into the Sheikh valley to the western end of the plain of er Raliah, viz. two hours' journey, and the length of the plain of Sebayeh itself, which is more than five miles long; so that the Israelites, at least those who were encamped in the western part of the plain of er Rahah, would have to travel four or five hours before they could be posted at the foot of Sinai.^ Tischendorf calls this a narrow, bad road, which the Israelites v/ere obliged to pass through to Sinai, when they came out of the Sheikh valley. At any rate, this is true of the southern end of the valley of Sebayeh, from the point at which it enters the plain of Sebayeh, where we can hardly picture it to ourselves as broad enough for two hundred men to walk abreast in an orderly procession through the valley;^ consequently, 600,000 men would have required two hours' time simply to pass through the narrow southern end of the valley of Sebayeh. Now, it is clear enough from the narrative itself that Moses did not take merely the elders, as the representatives of the nation, from the camp to the mountain to meet with God (ver. 17), but took the whole nation, that is to say, all the adult males of 20 years old and upwards; and this is especially evident from the command so emphatically and repeatedly given, that no one was to brf ak through the hedge placed

^ Some Englishmen who accompanied F. A. Strauas " had taken threequarters of an hour for a fast walk from the Sebayeh plain to Wady es Sheikh;" so that it is not too much to reckon an hour for ordinary walking. Dobel took quite six hours to go round Horeb- Sinai, which is only a little larger than Jebel Deir; so that at least three hours must be reckoned as necessary to accomplish the walk from the eastern end of the plain of er Eahah through the Wady Sebayeh to the foot of Sinai. And llohinson took fifty minutes to go with camels from the commencement of the Sheikh valley, at the end of the Convent Valley, to the point at which it is joined by the valley of Sebayeh (Palestine i. p. 215).

^ We are still in want of exact information from travellers as to the breadth of the southern end of the valley of Sebayeh. Ritter merely slates, on the ground of MS. notes in Strauss' diary, that " at first it is somewhat contracted on account of projections in the heights by which it is bounded towards the south, but it still remains more than 500 feet broad." And " when it turns towards the north-west, the wady is considerably widened; so that at the narrowest points it is more than 600 feet broad. And very frequently, at the different curves in the valley, large basins are formed, which would hold a considerable number of people."

round the mountain. It may also be inferred from the design of the revelation itself, which was intended to make the deepest impression upon the whole nation of that majesty of Jehovah and the holiness of His law.

Under these circumstances, if the people had been encamped in the plain of er Kahah and the Sheikh valley, they could not have been conducted to the foot of Sinai and stationed in the plain of Sebayeh in the course of six hours, and then, after hearing the revelation of the law, have returned to their tents on the same day; even assuming, as Kurtz does (iii. p. 117), that " the people were overpowered by the majesty of the promulgation of the law, and fled away in panic;" for flight through so narrow a valley would have caused inevitable confusion, and therefore would have prevented rather than facilitated rapidity of movement. There is not a word, however, in the original text about a panic, or about the people flying (see chap. xx. 18): it is merely stated, that as soon as the people witnessed the alarming phenomena connected with the descent of God upon the mountain, they trembled in the camp (chap. xix. 16), and that when they were conducted to the foot of the mountain, and " saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking," and heard the solemn promulgation of the decalogue, they trembled (IVJJ, chap. xx. 18), and said to Moses, through their elders and the heads of tribes, that they did not wish God to speak directly to them any more, but wished Moses to speak to God and listen to His words; whereupon, after God had expressed His approval of these words of the people, Moses directed the people to return to their tents (chap. xx. 18 sqq.; Deut. V. 23-30). If, again, we take into consideration, that after Moses had stationed the people at the foot of the mountain, he went up to God to the summit of Sinai, and came down again at the command of God to repeat the charge to the people, not to break through the hedge round the mountain (vers. 20-2^), and it was not till after this, that God proclaimed the decalogue, and that this going up and down must also have taken up time, it cannot have been for so very short a time that the people continued standing round the bottom of the mountain. But if all these difficulties be regarded as trivial, and we include the evening and part of the night in order to afford time for the people to return to their tents; not only is there nothing in the biblical text to require the hypothesis which assigns the encampment to the plain of er Rahah, and the posting of the people at Sinai to the plain of Sebayeh, but there are various allusions which seem rather to show that such a hypothesis is inadmissible. It is very obvious from chap. xxiv. 17, that the glory of the Lord upon the top of the mountain could be seen from the camp; and from chap, xxxiv. 1-3, that the camp, with both the people and their cattle in it, was so immediately in the neighbourhood of Sinai, that the people could easily have ascended the mountain, and the cattle could have grazed upon it. Now this does not apply in the least to the plain of er Rahah, from which not even the top of Jebel Musa can be seen, and where the cattle could not possibly have grazed upon it, but only to the plain of Sebayeh; and therefore proves that the camp in " the desert of Sinai" is not to be sought for in the plain of er Rahah, but in the plain of Sebayeh, which reaches to the foot of Sinai. If it should be objected, on the other hand, that there is not room in this plain for the camp of the whole nation, this objection is quite as applicable to the plain of er Rahah, which is not large enough in itself to take in the entire camp, without including a large portion of the Sheikh valley; and it loses all its force from the fact, that the mountains by which the plain of Sebayeh is bounded, both on the south and east, rise so gently and gradually, that they could be made use of for the camp, and on these sides therefore the space is altogether unlimited, and w^ould allow of the widest dispersion of the people and their flocks.

Vers. 3-6. Moses had known from the time of his call that Israel would serve God on this mountain (iii. 12); and as soon as the people were encamped opposite to it, he went up to God, i.e. up the mountain, to the top of which the cloud had probably withdrawn. There God gave him the necessary instructions for preparing for the covenant: first of all assuring him, that He had brought the Israelites to Himself to make them His own nation, and that He would speak to them from the mountain (vers. 4-9); and then ordering him to sanctify the people for this revelation of the Lord (vers. 10-15). The promise precedes the demand: for the grace of God always anticipates the wants of man, and does not demand before it has given. Jehovah spoke to Mosos " from Mount Horeb." Moses had probably ascended one of the lower heights, whilst Jehovah is to be regarded as on the summit of the mountain. The words of God (vers. 4 sqq.) refer first of all to what He had done for the Egyptians, and how He had borne the Israelites on eagles' wings; manifesting in this way not only the separation between Israel and the Egyptians, but the adoption of Israel as the nation of His especial grace and favour. The " eagles' wings" are figurative, and denote the strong and loving care of God. The eagle watches over its young in the most careful manner, flying under them when it leads them from the nest, lest they should fall upon the rocks, and be injured or destroyed (cf. Deut. xxxii. 11, and for proofs from profane literature, BocJiart, Hieroz. ii. pp. 762, 765 sqq.). ^' And brought you unto Myself:^^ i.e. not "led you to the dwelling-place of God on Sinai," as Knohel supposes; but took you into My protection and My especial care. — Yer. 5. This manifestation of the love of God to Israel formed only the prelude, however, to that gracious union which Jehovah was now about to establish between the Israelites and Himself. If they w^ould hear His voice, and keep the covenant which was about to be established with them, they should be a costly possession to Him out of all nations (cf. Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18). np^p does not signify property in general, but valuable property, that which is laid by, or put aside (''^p), hence a treasure of silver and gold (1 Chron. xxix. 3; Eccl. ii. 8). In the Sept. the expression is rendered \ao<i irepiovaio^^ which the Scholiast in Octat. interprets i^aipeTO<;, and in Mai. iii. 17 eh TrepLiroLrjcnv: hence the two phrases in the New Testament, \ao^ wepiovaio^ in Tit. ii. 14, and Xao<; eh TrepLiroLTjcnv in 1 Pet. ii. 9. Jehovah had chosen Israel as His costly possession out of all the nations of the earth, because the whole earth was His possession, and all nations belonged to Him as Creator and Preserver. The reason thus assigned for the selection of Israel precludes at the very outset the exclusiveuess which would regard Jehovah as' merely a national Deity. The idea of the segullah is explained in ver. 6: "Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests,''^ "^J^PP signifies both kingshij?, as the embodiment of royal supremacy, exaltation, and dignity, and the kingdom^ or the union of both king and subjects, i.e. the land and nation together with its king. In the passage before us, the word has been understood by most of the early commentators, both Jewish and Christian, and also in the ancient versions/ in the first or active sense, so that the expression contains the idea, " Ye shall be all priests and kings" (^Luther); prceditos fore tarn sacerdotali quam regio honore {Calvin); quod reges et sacerdotes sunt in repuhlica, id vos eritis mihi (Drusius), This explanation is required by both the passage itself and the context. For apart from the fact that kingship is the primary and most general meaning of the word '"iJt^^ (^^' *^n ^?v^^> the kingship, or government of David), the other (passive) meaning would not be at all suitable here; for a kingdom of priests could never denote the fellowship existing in a kingdom between the king and the priests, but only a kingdom or commonwealth consisting of priests, i.e. sl kingdom the members and citizens of which were priests, and as priests constituted the "^^^PP, in other words, were possessed of royal dignity and power; for "^J^PP, jSao-iXeLa, always includes the idea of ^^^ or ruling (fiao-Lkeveiv). The LXX. have quite hit the meaning in their rendering: /SaalXeiov lepdrev/jLa. Israel was to be a regal body of priests to Jehovah, and not merely a nation of priests governed by Jehovah. The idea of the theocracy, or government of God, as founded by the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant institution in Israel, is not at all involved in the term " kingdom of priests." The theocracy established by the conclusion of the covenant (chap, xxiv.) was only the means adopted by Jehovah for making His chosen people a royal body of priests; and the maintenance of this covenant w^as the indispensable subjective condition, upon which their attainment of this divinely appointed destiny and glory depended. This promise of Jehovah expressed the design of the call of Israel, to which it was to be fully conducted by the covenant institution of the theocracy, if it maintained the covenant with Jehovah. The object of Israel's kingship and priesthood was to be found in the nations of the earth, out of which Jehovah had chosen Israel as a costly possession. This great and glorious promise, the fulfilment of which could not be attained till the completion of the kingdom of God, when the Israel of God, the Church of the Lord, which Jesus Christ, the first-begotten from the dead, and prince {ap-^ccv^ ruler) of the kings of the earth, has made a " kingdom," " priest" unto God and His Father" (Kev. i. 6 and V. 10, where the reading should be PaaCkel^ koX lepel^)^ is exalted to glory with Christ as the first-born among many brethren, and sits upon His throne and reigns, has not been introduced abruptly here. On the contrary, the way was already prepared by the promises made to the patriarchs, of the blessing which Abraham would become to all the nations of the earth, and of the kings who were to spring from him and come out of the loins of Israel (Gen. xii. 3, xvii. 6, xxxv. 11), and still more distinctly by Jacob's prophecy of the sceptre of Judah, to whom, through Shiloh, the willing submission of the nations should be made (Gen. xlix. 10). But these promises and prophecies are outshone by the clearness, with which kingship and priesthood over and for the nations are foretold of Israel here. This kino;- ship, however, is not merely of a spiritual kind, consisting, as Luther supposes, in the fact, that believers " are lords over death, the devil, hell, and all evil," but culminates in the universal sway foretold by Balaam in Num. xxiv. 8 and 17 sqq., by Moses in his last words (Deut. xxxiii. 29), and still more distinctly in Dan. vii. 27, to the people of the saints of the ^lost Ilio-h, as the ultimate end of their callino^ from God. The spiritual a-ttitude of Israel towards the nations was the result of its priestly character. As the priest is a mediator between God and man, so Israel was called to be the vehicle of the knowledge and salvation of God to the nations of the earth. By this it unquestionably acquired an intellectual and spiritual character; but this includes, rather than excludes, the government of the world. For spiritual and intellectual supremacy and rule must eventually ensure the government of the world, as certainly as spirit is the power that overcomes the world. And if the priesthood of Israel was the power which laid the foundation for its kingship, — in other words, if Israel obtained the i^J^PP or government over the nations solely as a priestly nation, — the Apostle Peter, when taking up this promise (I. ii. 9), might without hesitation follow the Septuagint rendering (jSacrt- Xecov l€pdTevfjLa)y and substitute in the place of the " priestly kingdom," a " royal priesthood;" for there is no essential difference between the two, the kingship being founded upon the priesthood, and the priesthood completed by the kingship.

As a kingdom of priests, it was also necessary that Israel should be a " holy nation." Gens sancta hie dicitur non respectu pietatis vel sanctimonice, sed quam Deus sinyulari privilegio ah aliis separavit. Verum ah hac sa)ict{ficatione pendet altera, nempe ut sanctitatem colant, qui Dei gratia eximii sunt, atque ita vicissim Deum sanctijicent (^Calvin). This explanation is in general a correct one \ for these words indicate the dignity to which Israel was to be elevated by Jehovah, the Holy One, through its separation from the nations of the earth. But it cannot be shown that ti^^Hi^ ever means " separated." Whether we suppose it to be related to ^U}, and ^^n the newly shining moonlight, or compare it with the Sanskrit dhusch, to be splendid, or beautiful, in either case the primary meaning of the word is, " to be splendid, pure, untarnished." Diestel has correctly observed, that the holiness of God and Israel is most closely connected with the covenant relationship; but he is wrong in the conclusion which lie draws from this, namely, that " holy" was originally only a " relative term," and that a thing was holy " so far as it was the property of God." For the whole earth is Jehovah's property (ver. 5), but it is not holy on that account. Jehovah is not holy only " so far as within the covenant He is both possession and possessor, absolute life and the source of life, and above all, both the chief good and the chief model for His people" (Diestel), or " as the truly separate One, enclosed within Himself, who is self-existent, in contrast with the world to which He does not belong" {Ilofmann); but holiness pertains to God alone, and to those who participate in the divine holiness, — not, however, to God as the Creator and Preserver of the world, but to God as the Hedeemer of man. Light is the earthly reflection of His holy nature: the Holy One of Israel is the light of Israel (Isa. X. 17, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 16). The light, with its purity and splendour, is the most suitable earthly element to represent the brilliant and spotless purity of the Holy One, in whom there is no interchange of light and darkness (Jas. i. 17). God is called the Holy One, because He is altogether pure, the clear and spotless light; so that in the idea of the holiness of God there are embodied the absolute moral purity and perfection of the divine nature, and His unclouded glory. Holiness and glory are inseparable attributes in God; but in His relation to the world they are so far distinguished, that the whole earth is full of His glory, whilst it is to and in Israel that His holiness is displayed (Isa. vi. 3); in other words, the glory of God is manifested in the creation and preservation of the world, and His holy name in the election and guidance of Israel (compare Ps. civ. with Ps. clii.). God has displayed the glory of His name in the creation of the heavens and the earth (Ps. vlil.); but His way in Israel (Ps. Ixxvii. 14), i.e, the work of God in His kingdom of grace, is holy; so that it might be said, that the glory of God which streams forth in the material creation is manifested as holiness in His saving work for a sinful world, to rescue it fnom the (f^Oopa of sin and death and restore it to the glory of eternal life, and that it was manifested here In the fact, that by the counsels of His own spontaneous love (Deut. iv. 37) He chose Israel as His possession, to make of it a holy nation, if it hearkened to His voice and kept His covenant. It was not made this, however, by being separated from the other nations, for that was merely the means of attaining the divine end, but by the fact, that God placed the chosen people in the relation of covenant fellowship with Himself, founded His kingdom in Israel, established In the covenant relationship an institution of salvation, which furnished the covenant people with the means of obtaining the expiation of their sins, and securing righteousness before God and holiness of life w^ith God, in order that by the discipline of His holy commandments, under the guidance of His holy arm. He might train and guide them to the holiness and glory of the divine life. But as sin opposes holiness, and the sinner resists sanctification, the work of the holiness of God reveals Itself in His kingdom of grace, not only positively in the sanctification of those who suffer themselves to be sanctified and raised to newness of life, but negatively also, in the destruction of all those who obstinately refuse the guidance of His grace; so that the glory of the thrice Holy One (Isa. vi. 3) will be fully manifested both in the glorification of His chosen people and the deliverance of the whole creation from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. vlil. 21), and also in the destruction of hardened sinners, the annihilation of everything that is ungodly In this world, the final overthrow of Satan and Lis kingdom, and the founding of tlie new heaven and new earth. Hence not only is every person, whom God receives into the spliere of His sindestroying grace, ^^"'i^, or holy; but everything which is applied to the realization of the divine work of salvation, or consecrated by God to this object. The opposite of ^^"li^, holy, is?^, kolvo^, pro/anus (from ^pn to be loose, lit. the unbound), not devoted to holy purposes and uses (cf. Lev. x. 10); and this term was applied, not only to what was sinful and unclean (^P^), but to everything earthly in its natural condition, because the whole earth, with all that is upon it, has been involved in the consequences of sin.

Vers. 7-15. When Moses communicated to the people through their elders this incomparable promise of the Lord, they promised unanimously (1'J'^!!) to do all that Jehovah said; and when Moses reported to the Lord what the people had answered, He said to Moses, " I will come to thee in the darkness of the cloud, that the people may listen to My speaking to thee (? Vp^ as in Gen. xxvii. 5, etc.), and also believe thee for everT As God knew the weakness of the sinful nation, and could not, as the Holy One, come into direct intercourse with it on account of its unholiness, but was about to conclude the covenant with it through the mediation of Moses, it was necessary, in order to accomplish the design of God, that the chosen mediator should receive special credentials; and these were to consist in the fact that Jehovah spoke to Moses in the sight and hearing of the people, tliat is to say, that He solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the covenant in the presence of the whole nation (chap. xix. 16-xx. 18), and showed by this fact that Moses was the recipient and mediator of the revelation of God, in order that the people might believe him ''for ever,'' as the law was to possess everlasting validity (Matt. v. 18). — Vers. 10-16. God then commanded Moses to prepare the people for His appearing or speaking to them: (1) by their sanctification, through the washing of the body and clothes (see Gen. xxxv. 2), and abstinence from conjugal intercourse (ver. 15) on account of the defilement connected therewith (Lev. xv. 18); and (2) by setting bounds round the people, that they might not ascend or touch the mountain. The hedging or bounding (^'''S^n) of the people is spoken of in ver. 23 as setting bounds about the mountain, and consisted therefore in the erection of a barrier round the mountain, which was to prevent the people from ascending or touching it. Any one who touched it (''•^^ij, " its end^^ i.e, the outermost or lowest part of the mountain) was to be put to death, whether man or beast. " No hand shall touch hiiri^ (the individual who passed the barrier and touched the mountain), Le. no one was to follow him within the appointed boundaries, but he was to be killed from a distance either by stones or darts. ('^"!!V.'^^^' '"^"^V-' ^^® GeseniuSj § 69.) Not till ''the drawing out of the trumpet hla§t^^ or, as Luther renders it, " only when it sounded long," could they ascend the mountain (ver. 13). 72^^, from ^y to stream violently with noise, is synonymous with ^?*'!' Hi? (Josh. vi. 5), and was really the same thing as the *^?'i^*, t.^. a long wind instrument shaped like a horn. 73^n "^^ip is to draw the horn, Le, to blow the horn with tones long drawn out. This was done either to give a signal to summon the people to war (Judg. iii. 27, vi. 34), or to call them to battle (Judg. vii. 18; Job xxxix. 24, 25, etc.). or for other public proclamations. No one (this is the idea) was to ascend the mountain on pain of death, or even to touch its outermost edge; but when the horn was blown with a long blast, and the signal to approach was given thereby, then they might ascend it (see ver. 21), — of course not 600,000 men, which would have been physically impossible, but the people in the persons of their representatives the elders, "ins T\\?V signifies to go up the mountain in ver. 13 as well as in ver. 12, and not merely to come to the foot of the mountain (see Deut. v. 5).

Vers. 16-25. After these preparations, on the morning of the third day (from the issuing of this divine command), Jehovah came down upon the top of Mount Sinai (ver. 20), manifesting His glory in fire as the mighty, jealous God, in the midst of thunders {fhp) and lightnings, so that the mountain burned with fire (Deut. iv. 11, v. 20), and the smoke of the burning mountain ascended as the smoke (jK^y for!^V)> and the whole mountain trembled (ver. 18), at the same time veiling in a thick cloud the fire of His wrath and jealousy, by which the unholy are consumed. Thunder and lightning bursting forth from the thick cloud, and fire with smoke, were the elementary substrata, which rendered the gloiy of the divine nature visible to men, though in such a way that the eye of mortals beheld no form of the spiritual and invisible Deity. These natural phenomena were accompanied by a loud tinimpet blast, which " blew long and waxed louder and louder" (vers. 16 and 19; see Gen. viii. 3), and was, as it were, the herald's call, announcing to the people the appearance of the Lord, and summoning them to assemble before Him and listen to llis words, as they sounded forth from the fire and cloudy darkness. The blast (^ip) of the sJiophar (ver. 19), i.e. the aaXTTcy^ Geov, the trump of God, such a trumpet as is used in the service of God (in heaven, 1 Tliess. iv. 16; see Winers Grammar), is not " the voice of Jehovah," but a sound resembling a trumpet blast. Whether this sound was produced by natural means, or, as some of the earlier commentators supposed, by angels, of whom myriads surrounded Jehovah when He came down upon Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2), it is impossible to decide. At this alarming phenomenon, " all the people that was in the camp fremhled^^ (ver. 16). For according to chap. xx. 20 (17), it was intended to inspire them with a salutary fear of the majesty of God. Then Moses conducted the people (i.e. the men) out of the camp of God, and stationed them at the foot of the mountain outside the barrier (ver. 17); and " Moses spake^^ (ver. 19), i.e. asked the Lord for His commands, " and God answered loud^^ (Pipn)j and told him to come up to the top of the mountain. He then commanded him to go down again, and impress upon the people that no one was to break through to Jehovah to see, i.e. to break down the barriers that w^ere erected around the mountain as the sacred place of God, and attempt to penetrate into the presence of Jehovah. Even the priests, who w^ere allowed to approach God by virtue of their office, were to sanctify themselves, that Jehovah might not break forth upon them (P^^), i.e. dash them to pieces. (On the form l^riiyn for ^^'^''^D? see Ewald, § 199 a). The priests were neither " the sons of Aaron." i.e. Levitical priests, nor the first-born or principes populi, but " those who had hitherto discharged the duties of the priestly office according to natural right and custom" {Baumgarten^. Even these priests were too unholy to be able to come into the presence of the holy God. This repeated enforcement of the command not to touch the mountain, and the special extension of it even to the priests, were intended to awaken in the people a consciousness of their own unholiness quite as much as of the unapproachable holiness of Jehovah. But this separation from God, which arose from the unholiness of the nation, did not extend to Moses and Aaron, who were to act as mediators, and were permitted to ascend the mountain. Moreover, the prospect of ascending the holy mountain " at the drawing of the blast" was still before the people (ver. 13). And the strict prohibition against breaking through the barrier, to come of their own accord into the presence of Jehovah, is by no means at variance with this. When God gave the sign to ascend the mountain, the people might and were to draw near to Him. This sign, viz. the long-drawn trumpet blast, was not to be given in any case till after the promulgation of the ten words of the fundamental law. But it was not given even after this promulgation; not, however, because " the development was altogether an abnormal one, and not in accordance with the divine appointment in ver. 13, inasmuch as at the thunder, the lightning, and the sound of the trumpet, with which the giving of the law was concluded, they lost all courage, and instead of waiting for the promised signal, were overcome with fear, and ran from the spot," for there is not a word in the text about running away; but because the people were so terrified by the alarming phenomena which accompanied the coming down of Jehovah upon the mountain, that they gave up the right of speaking with God, and from a fear of death entreated Moses to undertake the intercourse with God on their behalf (chap. xx. 18-21). Moreover, we cannot speak of an " abnormal development" of the drama, for the simple reason, that God not only foresaw the course and issue of the affair, but at the very outset only promised that He would come to Moses in a thick cloud (ver. 9), and merely announced and carried out His own descent upon Mount Sinai before the eyes of the people in the terrible glory of His sacred majesty (ver. 11), for the purpose of proving the people, that His fear might be before their eyes (chap. xx. 20; cf. Deut. v. 28, 29). Consequently, apart from the physical impossibility of 600,000 ascending the mountain, it never was intended that all the people should do so.^ What God really intended, came to pass.

^ The idea of the people fleeing and running away must have been got by Kurtz from Q\t\\ev Luther'' s or De Wettt's translation. They have both of them rendered '\y\ lyj*"!, " they Jied and went far of," instead of " they trembled and stood far off." And not only the supposed flight, but his idea that " thunder, lightning, and the trumpet blast (which were silent in any case during the utterance of the ten commandments), concluded the pro-