THE OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT, WITH THE BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF MOSES. Exodus 1:1-6 The Book of Exodus, being written in continuation of the history recorded in Genesis, is carefully connected with it by a recapitulation. The recapitulation involves three points:— 1. The names of Jacob’s children; 2. The number of Jacob’s descendants who went down into Egypt; and 3. The death of Joseph. Exodus 1:1-4 are a recapitulation of Gen 35:22-26; Genesis 35:5, of Genesis 46:27; and Genesis 46:6, of Genesis 1:26. In no case, however, is the recapitulation exact, or (so to speak) mechanical. The "households" of Genesis 1:1 had not been mentioned previously; Joseph had not in Genesis been separated off from his brethren, as he is in Exodus 1:5; nor had the deaths of "his brethren" been recorded, much less of "all that generation." Thus there is here no "vain repetition." New facts come out in the course of the recapitulation; and the narrative advances while aiming especially at maintaining its continuity. Exodus 1:1 Now these are the names. Literally, "And these are the names." Compare Genesis 46:8, where the phrase used is the same. We have here the first example of that almost universal practice of fife writers of the Historical Scriptures to connect book with book in the closest possible way by the simple copulative "and." (Compare Joshua 1:1, Judges 1:1, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.) This practice, so unlike that of secular writers, can only be explained by the instinctive feeling of all, that they were contributors to a single book, each later writer a continuator of the narrative placed on record by his predecessor. In the Pentateuch, if we admit a single author, the initial vau will be less remarkable, since it will merely serve to join together the different sections of a single treatise. Which came into Egypt. The next two words of the original, "with Jacob," belong properly to this clause. The whole verse is best translated, "Now these are the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt with Jacob: they came every man with his household." So the LXX; Pagnini, Kalisch, Geddes, Boothroyd, etc. Every man and his household. This is important in connection with the vexed question of the possible increase of the original band of so-called "Israelites" within the space of 430 years to such a number as is said to have quitted Egypt with Moses (Exodus 12:37). The "household" of Abraham comprised 318 adult males (Genesis 14:14). The "households" of Jacob, his eleven sons, and his numerous grown-up grandsons, have been with reason estimated at "several thousands." Exodus 1:2-5 The sons of the legitimate wives Leah and Rachel are placed first, in the order of their seniority (Genesis 29:32-35; Genesis 30:18-20; Genesis 35:18); then these of the secondary wives, or concubines, also in the order of their birth (Genesis 30:6-13). The order is different from that observed in Genesis 46:1-34; and seems intended to do honour to legitimate, as opposed to secondary, wedlock. The omission of Joseph follows necessarily from the exact form of the opening phrase, "These are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt with Jacob." Exodus 1:5 All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls. This is manifestly intended as a repetition of Gen 46:27, and throws the reader back upon the details there adduced, which make up the exact number of "seventy souls," by the inclusion of Jacob himself, of Joseph, and of Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. The inaccuracy by which Jacob is counted among his own descendants, is thoroughly Oriental and Hebraistic, however opposed to Western habits of thought. To stumble at it shows a narrow and carping spirit. (Compare note on Genesis 46:15.) For Joseph was in Egypt already. Joseph, i.e; has not been mentioned with the other sons of Jacob, since he did not "come into Egypt with Jacob," but was there previously. The transfer of the clause to the commencement of the verse, which is made by the LXX; is unnecessary. Exodus 1:6 And Joseph died. Or, "So Joseph died"—a reference to Genesis 1:26—and all his brethren. All the other actual sons of Jacob—some probably before him; some, as Levi (Genesis 6:16), after him. Joseph’s "hundred and ten years" did not constitute an extreme longevity. And all that generation. All the wives of Jacob’s sons, their sister Dinah, and the full-grown members of their households who accompanied them into Egypt. Exodus 1:1-5 The patriarchal names. I. THE NAMES IN . Nothing seems to the ordinary reader of Holy Scripture so dry and uninteresting as a bare catalogue of names. Objections are even made to reading them as parts of Sunday or week-day "lessons." But "ALL Scripture," rightly viewed, "is profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16). Each Hebrew name has a meaning, and was given with a purpose. What a wealth of joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, surmises, triumphs, jealousies, is hid up in the list before us! Jacob, the supplanter (Genesis 27:36); Reuben, the son of God’s gracious regard (Genesis 29:32); Simeon, the proof that God hears prayers and answers them (ib. verse 33); Levi, the bond of association between wife and husband; Judah, he for whom God is praised; Issachar, the son given as a reward; Zebulon, he who will make the husband and wife dwell together; Benjamin "son of my strength," otherwise Benoni, "son of my sorrow" (Genesis 35:16); Dan, the sign that there is a God who judges us; Naphtali, "one wrestled for"; Gad, "good fortune cometh"; Asher, "the happy one"! How the private life of Jacob, how the rivalries and heats and contentions of that polygamist household, come before us, as we read the names! How again, amid all these heats and contentions, is revealed on all sides a faithful trust in God, a conviction of his overruling providence, and an acceptance of that aspect of his character which the Apostle holds up to view, when he calls him "a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). Again, how strong the feeling, that, whatever cares and troubles they bring with them, children are a blessing! What a desire is shown to have children! What a pride in the possession of many children! Already "the Desire of all nations" was looked for, and each Hebrew mother hoped that in the line of descent from her might be born that Mighty One, who would "bruise the serpent’s head" (Genesis 3:15), and in whom "all the nations of the earth would be blessed" (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18). Thus this list of names, if we will consider the meaning of them and the occasion of their being given, may teach us many a lesson, and prove "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II. THE ORDER OF THE NAMES. The order in which the names are given assigns a just advantage to legitimate and true marriage over even the most strictly legal union which falls short of true marriage. Let men beware lest they forfeit God’s blessing upon their domestic life, by contracting marriage in any but the most solemn way that is open to them. There is a sanctity in the relation of husband and wife, that should lead us to surround the initial contract with every sacred association and every holy form that the piety of bygone ages has provided for us. Again, the order followed assigns a just and rightful advantage to priority of birth. Primogeniture is in a certain sense, a law of nature. The elder brother, superior in strength, in knowledge, and experience, rightfully claims respect, submission, reverence from those younger than himself. In a properly regulated family this principle will be laid down and maintained. Age, unless by misconduct it forfeits its privilege, will be assigned the superior position; younger children will be required to submit themselves to elder ones; elder children will be upheld and encouraged to exercise a certain amount of authority over their juniors. There will be a training within the domestic circle in the habits both of direction and submission, which will prepare the way for the after discipline of life in the world. III. THE NUMBER OF THE NAMES. Whatever minor lessons he may have intended to teach in this opening paragraph, the main purpose of the writer was undoubtedly to show from what small beginnings God produces the greatest, most remarkable, nay, the most astounding results. From the stock of one man and his twelve sons, with their households, God raised up, within the space of 430 years, a nation. Similarly, when "in the fulness of time" the New Dispensation succeeded the Old, from "the Twelve" and from "the Seventy" (Luke 10:1), the original "little flock" (Luke 12:32) was derived that "general assembly and church of the firstborn" (Hebrews 12:23) which is a "great multitude that no man can number" (Revelation 7:9). And the growth was even more rapid. "We are but of yesterday," says Tertullian, in the third century after our Lord’s birth, "and yet we fill all places—your cities, islands, forts, towns, villages; nay, your camps, tribes, decuries—your palace, your senate, your forum." How wonderful is such increase in either case! How clearly the consequence of Divine favour and blessing! Joseph in Egypt. Exodus here points back to Genesis. So the present is always pointing back to the past. In the life of an individual, in the life of a family, in the life of a nation, there is a continuity: no past act but affects the present—no present act but affects the future. Joseph’s descent into Egypt is at the root of the whole of Exodus, underlies it, forms its substratum. Without an in-coming, no outgoing; and it was at Joseph’s instance that his brethren had come into the country (Genesis 45:9-24). Or our thoughts may travel further back. "Joseph in Egypt." How had he come there? Through the envy and jealousy of brethren, provoked by the favouritism of a too fond father. Here are evils to be guarded against; here are sins to be east out. And yet of the evil good had come: "Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good" (Genesis 50:20). "The fierceness of men he turns to his praise; and the fierceness of them he doth refrain" (Psalms 76:10). The cruel wrong done to Joseph had saved from starvation his father and his father’s house, had preserved the entire people of the Egyptians from extreme suffering, and had brought Joseph himself to the highest honour. "God’s ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts." He is potent to bring good out of evil, and to turn the worst calamity into the choicest blessing. Joseph in death with all his generation. There are some sayings so trite that we can scarcely bring ourselves to repeat them, so vital that we do not dare to omit them. One of these is that immemorial one: "We must all die." Joseph, great as he had been, useful as his life had been to others, unspeakably precious as it had proved to his near kinsmen, when his time came, went the way of all flesh—died like any common man, and "was put in a coffin" (Genesis 50:26) and buried. So it must always be with every earthly support and stay; it fails us at last, and if it does not betray us, at any rate deserts us; suddenly it is gone, and its place knows it no more. This is always to be borne in mind; and no excessive reliance is to be placed on individuals. The Church is safe; for its Lord is always "with it," and so will be "even to the end of the world." But the men in whom from time to time it trusts are all mortal—may at any time be lost to it—may in one hour be snatched away. It is important therefore for the Church to detach itself from individuals, and to hold to two anchors—Christ and the Faith of Christ—which can never cease to exist, and can never fail it. For, when our Joseph dies, there die with him, or soon after him, "all his brethren, and all that generation." The great lights of an age are apt to go out at once, or if a few linger on, they burn with a dim lustre. And the generation that hung upon their words despairs, and knows not which way to turn itself, until the thought comes—"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Then, in resting upon Christ, it is well with us. Well, too, for each generation to remember, it will not long stay behind—it will follow its teachers. Joseph dies—his brethren die; wait a few years, and God will have taken to himself "all that generation." BY J. ORR Removal to Egypt. This early instance of emigration shows— I. How the CALL to leave the land of one’s fathers may sometimes be 1. Unexpected Jacob little expected to end his days in Egypt. 2. Trying. Canaan, the land of promise, where were the graves of his ancestors, etc. 3. Mysterious. An apparent reversal of the lines on which Providence had hitherto been moving. Yet— 4. Distinct. Jacob had no doubt that God’s call had come to him. It came first in providence, and was ratified by direct Divine permission (Genesis 46:2-5). Many have the indirect call, who can scarcely doubt that it is also a direct one. Causes of emigration—Want and distress at home, with reasonable prospect of comfort and plenty abroad; opening of a better field for talents and energies; state of health, necessitating change of climate; persecution, as in case of Huguenots, Pilgrim Fathers, etc. II. What the emigrant may carry with him. 1. God accompanies him (Genesis 46:4). 2. He can serve God yonder as well as here. 3. He is furthering wise and beneficent purposes. Little doubt of that, if he is leaving at God’s bidding. Israel’s residence in Egypt secured for the tribes— (1) A home. (2) Provision. (3) Room to grow. (4) Education in arts and letters. (5) Valuable discipline all preparatory to settlement in Canaan, and the fulfilment of their spiritual mission to the world. 4. The terminus is not Egypt, but Canaan. Jacob never saw again the Canaan he had left, but, dying in faith, he and his sons became heirs of the better Canaan. Whatever his earthly destination, let the emigrant keep in view a "better country, that is, an heavenly" (Hebrews 11:16). III. The of emigration. 1. It is not always advantageous. (1) Not always advantageous to the country left. A country that by misgovernment, bad laws, excessive taxation, or persecution, drives its best subjects from its soil, may be compared to a man who humours an insane bent by occasionally opening a vein. (2) Not always advantageous to the country settled in. Emigrants may carry with them—too often do—low and immoral habits, and prove a curse, rather than a blessing, to the populations in whose midst they settle. (3) Not always to the emigrant himself. His step may prove to have been hasty. He may have taken it On impulse, or on insufficient information, or in a spirit of adventure. He finds when too late that a sanguine disposition has deceived him. This is to go forth without a clear call. But— 2. Emigration, wisely and judiciously conducted, is of great benefit to society. (1) It thins an overstocked country, and so relieves pressure on the means of subsistence. (2) It occupies territory needing population to develop its resources. (3) It affords room and scope for the vigorous expansion of a young race. (4) It benefits native populations. The Egyptians would profit by the residence of the Hebrews in their midst. (5) It may be made subservient to the diffusion of the knowledge of the true religion. How seldom is this thought of, yet what a responsibility rests on those who leave Christian shores, carrying with them, to lands sunk in the night of heathenism, the blessed truths of Christianity! The conclusion of the matter is: Let emigration be an act of faith. Do not, in so important a step in life, lean to your own understanding. Ask guidance and clear direction from on High. But if the way is open and the call plain, then, like Jacob, go forth, and go boldly, and in faith. Trust God to be with you. He goes before you to seek you out a place to dwell in, and will surely bless you in all you put your hand to (Deuteronomy 1:33; Deuteronomy 15:10).—J.O. The twelve foundations. The heads of the covenant race had hitherto been single individuals. Abraham—IsaActs—Jacob. The one now expands into the twelve. Glance briefly at this list of the patriarchs. I. THE MEN. Here we are struck— 1. With the original unfitness of most of these men for the position of dignity they were afterwards called to occupy. How shall we describe them! Recall Reuben’s incest; Simeon and Levi’s cruelty; Judah’s lewdness; the "evil report" which Joseph brought to his father of the sons of the handmaids. The picture in the later chapters of Genesis is crowded with shadows, and it is chiefly the sins of these men which are the causes of them. Joseph is the one bright exception. The rest appear to have been men of a violent, truculent disposition, capable of selling their younger brother into Egypt, and afterwards, to screen their fault, of imposing by wilful falsehood on their aged father. Even in Benjamin, traits of character were discernible which gave ground for the tribal prediction: "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf" (Genesis 49:17). How unlikely that men of so ungodly a stamp, who began so ill, should end by being exalted to be patriarch-heads of a covenant nation! And neither in truth were they, till, by God’s grace, a great change had passed upon them. Their crime in selling Joseph was, in a sense, their salvation. It was an act for which they never forgave themselves. Compunction wrought in them a better disposition, and laid the basis for "a train of humiliating and soul-stirring providences, tending to force on them the conviction that they were in the hands of an angry God, and to bring them to repentance of sin and amendment of life." See— (1) The natural unfitness of man for God’s service; "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6). (2) What the grace of God can make even of very bad men. "By grace ye are saved" (Ephesians 2:5). (3) How those whom God designs for honour in his kingdom, he first prepares for that honour. Whatever disciplines are needful for that purpose—and they may not be few—he will not withhold. 2. With the variety of gifts and dispositions found amongst them. This variety is taken note of in the blessings of Jacob and of Moses, and is reflected in the history. Judah is from the first a leader. He and Joseph were heads of what subsequently became the royal tribes. Reuben’s impulsiveness reminds us of Peter, but he lacked Peter’s underlying constancy. Levi’s zeal wrought at first for evil, but afterwards for good. The other brethren were less distinguished, but, as shown by the blessings, all were gifted, and gifted diversely. Does this not teach us? (1) That God can use, and (2) that God requires, every variety of gift in his service. Hence, (3) that there is both room and need in his kingdom for all types and varieties of character—for every species of gift. A type of religion is self-condemned which cannot find room in it for the play and development of every legitimate capability of human nature. This is but to say that the goal of God’s kingdom is the perfecting of humanity, not in part, but in the totality of its powers and functions. Grace does not suppress individuality; it develops and sanctifies it. It does not trample on gifts, but lays hold upon, transforms, and utilises them. 3. With the existence of a law of heredity in spiritual as in natural descent. The characteristics of the patriarchs were stamped with remarkable distinctness on the tribes which bore their names. Reuben’s instability, Judah’s capacity of rule, Levi’s zeal, Dan’s agility, Benjamin’s fierceness, etc. This reappearance of ancestral characteristics in the descendants is a fact with which we are familiar, and is only explained in part by inherited, organisation. Inheritance of ideas, customs, family traditions, etc; plays quite as important a part in producing the result. A law this, capable of being the vehicle of much good, but also of much evil.—as potent to punish as to bless. II. THEIR NUMBER. The number twelve not to be regarded as fortuitous. Twelve (3 × 4), the symbol of the indwelling of God in the human family, of the interpenetration of the world by the Divinity. Three, the number of the Divine; four, the number of the world. Hence, twelve tribes, twelve cakes of shewbread, twelve apostles, twelve foundations and twelve gates of the New Jerusalem. The number twelve is kept up in spite of actual departures from it in fact. The" twelve tribes" are spoken of in the days of the apostles (Acts 26:17; James 1:1), though, counting Levi; there were really thirteen tribes, and after the Captivity only two. It was doubtless with reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, and therefore to the number of these patriarchs, that Christ chose the twelve apostles. View the patriarchs, accordingly, as representing the covenant race, not only— 1. In its natural heads, but symbolically— 2. In its spiritual privilege as a people of God, and 3. In its world-wide destiny.—J.O. An ending. The descent into Egypt was— 1. An ending. 2. A beginning. It closed one chapter in God’s providence, and opened a new one. It terminated the sojourn in Canaan; brought to a harmonious conclusion the complicated series of events which separated Joseph from his father, raised him to power in Egypt, wrought for the purification of his brethren’s character, and prepared the way for the ultimate settlement of, the whole family in Goshen. It laid the foundation for new historical developments. There is now to be a pause, a breathing space, while the people are gradually multiplying, and exchanging the habits of nomadic life for those of agriculturists and dwellers in cities. The death of Joseph, and of his brethren, and of all that generation, is the proper close of this earlier period. Their part is played out, and the stage is cleared for new beginnings. 1. They died—so must we all. The common fate, yet infinitely pathetic when reflected on. 2. They died—the end of earthly greatness. Joseph had all he could wish for of earthly power and splendour, and he enjoyed it through a long lifetime. Yet he must part with it. Well for him that he had something better in prospect. 3. They died—the end of earthly disciplines. The lives of the brethren had been singularly eventful. By painful disciplines God had moulded them for good. Life to every one is a divinely ordained discipline. The end is to bring us to repentance, and build us up in faith and holiness. With some, the discipline succeeds; with others it fails. In either case death ends it. "After this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). The fact of discipline an argument for immortality. God does not spend a lifetime in perfecting a character, that just when the finishing touches have been put upon it, he may dash it into non-existence. Death ends discipline, but we carry with us the result and the responsibility. 4. They died—Joseph and his brethren—happily in faith. There was a future they did not live to see; but their faith grasped God’s promise, and "Joseph, when he died, gave commandment concerning his bones" (Hebrews 11:22). And behind the earthly Canon loomed something better—an inheritance which they and we may share together.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 1:1-22 The prosperity of Israel. This prosperity was not a mere appearance, nor a passing spurt of fortune. It was a deep, abiding, and significant reality. Nor was it something exaggerated in order to make an excuse for the cruelties of a suspicious tyrant. There was indeed only too much to make Pharaoh uneasy; but altogether apart from his alarms there is a plain and emphatic statement of the prosperity of Israel in Exodus 1:7. It is a very emphatic statement indeed, summoning us m the most imperative way to a special notice of this remarkable prosperity. Let us therefore take a general view of Israel’s prosperity as it is set before us in all the extent of this first chapter. Note— I. THE OF THIS . The prosperity is not only plainly stated, but the chapter abounds in indications of Jehovah’s favour towards Israel, and his peculiar watchfulness over it. 1. The wonderful way in which God had brought a whole family into Egypt, and provided for their comfortable settlement in the land. Families usually get scattered; but here are the children of Israel and children’s children all kept together. The very means which they had employed in order to get rid of one of their number who was an offence to them, had ended in their being brought together more closely than ever. Joseph went before, and all unconsciously made a solid foundation for the building of their prosperity. Through all domestic jealousies, in the perils of famine, and in their journeyings between Canaan and Egypt, the Lord had preserved these twelve men so that not one of them was lacking in his contribution to the future excellency of Israel. 2. The name by which they were described—the children of Israel. God had said to Jacob (Genesis 32:28), "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel," and yet down to the end of his life he is sometimes called Jacob and sometimes Israel, as if to keep before our minds both his natural character and also his new position and privileges gained in the memorable wrestling at Peniel. These twelve men, the fathers of the tribes, were children of Israel as well as sons of Jacob. Jacob himself had done many things to show the meanness and corruption of fallen human nature, and his sons had been not one whir better than himself (consider the revengeful action of Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34:25; the conduct of Reuben in Genesis 35:22; and especially the conduct of the brethren towards Joseph and the father who so doted upon him). But these sons of Jacob, with all their personal demerits, were also the children of him who by his sublime, persistent, courageous, and successful struggle had gained the name of Israel. It was a name to be transmitted from them to their children, full of significance, recalling a glorious experience in the past and promising a still more glorious experience in the future. It was a name not to be forfeited even in the greatest apostasies, and perhaps its chief splendour lay in this, that it pointed forward to a still more glorious fatherhood enjoyed by those who through the gracious work of him who taught Nicodemus concerning regeneration, are permitted to say, "Now are we the children and heirs of God." 3. The apprehensive attitude of Pharaoh. He is a witness to the greatness of Israel’s prosperity, and to the Divine and miraculous origin of it, all the more valuable because he gives his evidence unconsciously. The more we consider his unaffected alarm and his continuous and energetic efforts to crush Israel, the more we feel what a real and Divine thing Israel’s prosperity was, how it was nourished by the secret and unassailable strength of God. It should be a matter of great rejoicing to God’s people when the world, in its hatred, suspicion, and instinctive sense of danger, takes to the instruments of persecution, for then there is unmistakable indication of prosperity within. II. WHEREIN THE . It did not consist in the accumulation of external possessions. The Israelites might have remained comparatively few or have increased in a way such as to excite no attention. Their increase might have been in external wealth, and this would have been reckoned, by many, true prosperity. But it would not have been prosperity after a godly sort. It was the purpose of God to show in Israel how our true resources come, not from things outside of us, but from the quality of the life which he puts within. Hence the prosperity of Israel was not the result of industry, personal ability, and fortunate circumstances. It was shown by the manifestation of a miraculous fulness of life. The husbandman does not reckon it anything wonderful that there should be among the trees of his vineyard a certain increase of fruitfulness, corresponding to the carefulness of his cultivation. But if all at once certain trees begin to put forth a fulness of fruit altogether beyond expectation, the husbandman would not claim that such a result came from him. There is the greatest possible difference between the prosperity lying in mere external possessions and that which comes from the energy of a Divine life working in us. It needs no special help from God to make a man a millionaire. There are but few who can be such; but place them in favourable circumstances, and the immense results of their industry and attention are quite intelligible. But to produce such a result as appears in the peculiar prosperity of Israel in Egypt required a special influx of Divine energy. We have not only unmistakable indications of the prosperity of Israel; it is an equally important thing to notice that this prosperity in its peculiar character is an indication of the presence of God. He was doing what none but himself could do. Learn then that our spiritual prosperity must be something produced by God manifesting his power in Our hearts. There is no chance of attributing it to our unaided industry, attention, and prudence. It is a growth more than anything else, and must show itself in the abundant and beautiful fruits of a Divine life within us. III. A PAINFUL OF THE . Such prosperity as is indicated in Exodus 1:7 could not but produce apprehension and opposition on the part of Pharaoh—inevitably assuming, as it did, the appearance of a menace to his kingdom. But it was better for Israel to go on increasing with the increase of God, even in the midst of persecutions, than to be without the persecutions on condition of being without the increase. Spiritual prosperity not only may be, but must be, accompanied with afflictions of the natural life. That is a very doubtful spirituality which manages to keep clear of all temporal troubles. They that will live godly must suffer persecution. Let us pray for spiritual prosperity, and hail its coming, and secure its stay, whatever pains be suffered and whatever lesser comforts be lost. The more the life of God is in us, the more we must expect the powers of evil to be stirred against us.—Y. BY G.A. Exodus 1:1-7 Tarry thou the Lord’s leisure. Introduction to the Book of Exodus. How much summed up in so few words. When men live history, every month seems important; when God records history a few sentences suffice for generations. Man’s standpoint in the midst of the tumult is so different from God’s: he "sitteth above the waterflood" and seeth "the end from the beginning" (Psalms 29:10; Isaiah 46:10). From God’s standpoint we have here as of main consequence— I. A LIST OF NAMES, verses 1-5. Names of certain emigrants. More in them than seems at first sight. If I say, "William, Arthur etc; came to England at such and such a time," not much. If I say, "William, a great warrior; Arthur, a great inventor; we feel at once that with them elements are introduced which may prove important. In these early times names are connected with the characters of the men who bear them. All these names are significant. Illustrate from their meaning as given in Genesis 29:1-35; etc; and expanded in Jacob’s blessing, Genesis 49:1-33. We are supposed, too, to know something of the men from the previous history. The whole, taken together, shows us, as it were, a nation in embryo—a nation of which the characteristics were wholly different from those of the Egyptians. "Seventy souls," but— 1. Seed souls; bound to develop through their offspring the characteristics they exhibited. 2. United, not isolated; a nation in embryo, not a collocation of units. II. WHAT TO THE BEARERS OF THE NAMES, Genesis 49:6. All died-Joseph and all that generation. The common lot, but, from God’s standpoint, the ordained method of development (John 12:24). What wailing, as each patriarch, in his own time, passed away! Yet with each death the harvest of the future was being ever more securely sown. Death, as it were, rounds off the life; pedestals it; sets it where it can become exemplary. So set it becomes fruitful; the old husk drops away, and the true life-grain is enfranchised, Gad, Asher, and the rest, very ordinary men, or, if not ordinary, not very high-class men; and yet, once dead, they are rightly reverenced as the fathers of their tribes. Which is better, the day of death or the day of birth? The day which makes life possible for us, or the day which, by sanctifying our memory, makes that life an ennobling influence for others? III. HOW THE , Genesis 49:7. So—through the vicissitudes of life; the varieties of character; the monotony of death—God works on, slowly but certainly, to his destined end. New generations, each more numerous, succeed the old. Power and prosperity, for a time, go hand-in-hand with increased numbers—the people "waxed exceeding mighty." [The shepherd life, even in Egypt, ensured some knowledge of warfare. Goshen, the border land—cf. "the borders’ in the wars with Scotland. Perhaps Joseph had purposely placed his brethren as a defence to Egypt against raids from the desert.] Families grew into tribes, and the tribes learnt their first lessons in discipline and war. Egypt, God’s Aldershot—the training-ground for his armies. Canaan had to be conquered and cleared, but God could take his own time about it. When at length the hour should come, it would find his preparations perfected. Application:—Would that man—God’s child—would be content to copy his Father’s methods—slow; thorough; a definite end in view; quiet, persistent preparation. No haste, no hurry, no delay (Isaiah 28:16).—G. Exodus 1:7-14 Here the real narrative of Exodus begins. The history of the Israelites from and after the death of Joseph is entered on. The first point touched is their rapid multiplication. The next their falling under the dominion of a new king. The third, his mode of action under the circumstances. It is remarkable that the narrative contains no notes of time. How long the increase continued before the new king arose, how long it went on before he noticed it, how long the attempt was made to cheek it by mere severity of labour, we are not told. Some considerable duration of time is implied, both for the multiplication (verse 7) and for the oppression (verse 11-14); but the narrator is so absorbed in the matters which he has to communicate that the question what time these matters occupied does not seem even to occur to him. And so it is with the sacred narrative frequently—perhaps we should say, generally. The chronological element is regarded as of slight importance; "A thousand years in the Lord’s sight are but as yesterday"—"one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Where a profane writer would have been to the last degree definite and particular, a sacred writer is constantly vague and indeterminate. We have in the Bible nothing like an exact continuous chronology. Certain general Chronological ideas may be obtained from the Bible; but in order to construct anything like a complete chronological scheme, frequent reference has to be made to profane writers and monuments, and such a scheme must be mainly dependent on these references. Archbishop Ussher’s dates, inserted into the margin of so many of our Bibles, are the private speculations of an individual on the subject of mundane chronology, and must not be regarded as in any way authoritative. Their primary basis is profane history; and, though taking into consideration all the Scriptural numbers, they do not consistently follow any single rule with respect to them. Sometimes the authority of the Septuagint, sometimes that of the Hebrew text, is preferred; and the result arrived at is in a high degree uncertain and arbitrary. Exodus 1:7 The multiplication of the Israelites in Egypt from "seventy souls" to "six hundred thousand that were men" (Genesis 12:1-20:37)—a number which may fairly be said to imply a total of at least two millions—has been declared to be "impossible," and to stamp the whole narrative of Exodus with the character of unreality and romance. Manifestly, the soundness of this criticism depends entirely on two things—first, the length of time- during which the stay in Egypt continued; and secondly, the sense in which the original number of the children of Israel in Egypt is said to have been "seventy souls." Now, as to the first point, there are two theories—one, basing itself on the Septuagint version of Exo 12:40, would make the duration of the Egyptian sojourn 215 years only; the other, following the clear and repeated statement of the Hebrew text (Exodus 12:40, Exodus 12:41), literally rendered in our version, would extend the time to 430 years, or exactly double it. Much may be said on both sides of this question, and the best critics are divided with respect to it. The longer period is supported’ by Kalisch, Kurtz, Knobel, Winer, Ewald, Delitzsch, and Canon Cook among modems; by Koppe, Frank, Beer, Rosenmuller, Hofmann, Tiele, Reinke, Jahn, Vater, and J. D. Michaelis among earlier critics; the short period is approved by Calvin, Grotius, Buddeus, Morinus, Voss, Houbigant, Baumgarten; and among our own countrymen, by Ussher, Marsham, Geddes, and Kennicott. The point cannot be properly argued in an "exposition" like the present; but it may be remarked that both reason and authority are in favour of the simple acceptance of the words of the Hebrew text, which assign 430 years as the interval between Jacob’s descent into Egypt and the deliverance under Moses. With respect to the number of those who accompanied Jacob into Egypt, and were assigned the land of Goshen for a habitation (Genesis 47:6), it is important to bear in mind, first of all, that the "seventy souls" enumerated in Genesis 46:8-27 comprised only two females, and that "Jacob’s sons’ wives" are expressly mentioned as not included among them (ib. Genesis 46:26). If we add the wives of 67 males, we shall have, for the actual family of Jacob, 137 persons. Further, it is to be borne in mind that each Israelite family which went down into Egypt was accompanied by its "household" (Exodus 1:1), consisting of at least some scores of dependants. If each son of Jacob had even 50 such retainers, and if Jacob himself had a household like that of Abraham (Genesis 14:14), the entire number which "went down into Egypt" would have amounted to at least 2000 persons. According to Malthus, population tends to double itself, if there be no artificial check restraining it, every twenty-five years. At this rate, 2000 persons would expand into 2,048,000 in 250 years, 1000 would reach the same amount in 275 years, and 500 in 300 years; so that, even supposing the "seventy souls" with their "households" to have numbered no more than 500 persons when they went down into Egypt, the people would, unless artificially checked, have exceeded two millions at the expiration of three centuries—that is to say, 130 years before the Exodus! No doubt, the artificial checks which keep down the natural tendency of population to increase began to tell upon them considerably before that time. The "land of Goshen."a broad tract of very fertile country, became tolerably thickly peopled, and the rate of increase gradually subsided. Still, as the Delta was a space of from 7000 to 8000 square miles, and the land of Goshen was probably about half of it, a population of two millions is very much what we should expect, being at the rate of from 500 to 600 persons to the square mile. It is an interesting question whether the Egyptian remains do, or do not, contain any mention of the Hebrew sojourn; and if they do, whether any light is thereby thrown on these numbers. Now it is admitted on all hands that, about the time of the Hebrew sojourn, there was in Egypt a subject race, often employed in forced labours, called Aperu or Aperiu, and it seems impossible to deny that this word is a very fair Egyptian equivalent for the Biblical עצרים, "Hebrews." We are forced, therefore, either to suppose that there were in Egypt, at one and the same time, two subject races with names almost identical, or to admit the identification of the Aperu with the descendants of Jacob. The exact numbers of the Aperu are nowhere mentioned; but it is a calculation of Dr. Brugsch that under Rameses II; a little before the Exodus, the foreign races in Egypt, of whom the Aperu were beyond all doubt the chief, "amounted certainly to a third, and probably still more," of the whole population, which is usually reckoned at from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000, One-third of this number would be from 2,300,000 to 2,600,000. The writer of Exodus does not, however, as yet, make anything like a definite calculation. He is merely bent on having it understood that there had been a great multiplication, and that the "family" had grown into a "nation." To emphasise his statement, he uses four nearly synonymous verbs ("were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed-mighty"), adding to the last a duplicated adverb, bim’od m’od, "much, much." Clearly, an astonishing increase is intended. Exodus 1:8 There arose up a new king. It is asked, Does this mean merely another king, or a completely different king, one of a new dynasty or a new family, not bound by precedent, but free to adopt and likely to adopt quite new principles of government? The latter seems the more probable supposition; but it is probable only, not certain. Assuming it to be what is really meant, we have to ask, What changes of dynasty fall within the probable period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, and to which of them is it most likely that allusion is here made? Some writers (as Kalisch) have supposed the Hyksos dynasty to be meant, and the "new king" to be Set, or Salatis, the first of the Hyksos rulers. But the date of Salatis appears to us too early. If Joseph was, as we suppose, the minister of Apophis, the last Hyksos king, two changes of dynasty only can come into consideration—that which took place about b.c. 1700, when the Hyksos were expelled; and that which followed about three centuries later, when the eighteenth dynasty was superseded by the nineteenth. To us it seems that the former of these occasions, though in many respects suitable, is (a) too near the going down into Egypt to allow time for the multiplication which evidently took place before this king arose (see Exodus 1:7), and (b) unsuitable from the circumstance that the first king of this dynasty was not a builder of new cities (see Exodus 1:11), but only a repairer of temples. We therefore conclude that the "new king" was either Rameses I; the founder of the nineteenth dynasty, or Seti I; his son, who within little more than a year succeeded him. It is evident that this view receives much confirmation from the name of one of the cities built for the king by the Hebrews, which was Raamses, or Rameses, a name now appearing for the first time in the Egyptian dynastic lists. Who knew not Joseph. Who not only had no personal know]edge of Joseph, but was wholly ignorant of his history. At the distance of from two to three centuries the benefits conferred by Joseph upon Egypt, more especially as they were conferred under a foreign and hated dynasty, were forgotten. Exodus 1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Literally, "great and strong in comparison with us." Actual numerical superiority is not, perhaps, meant; yet the expression is no doubt an exaggerated one, beyond the truth—the sort of exaggeration in which unprincipled persons indulge when they would justify themselves for taking an extreme and unusual course. Exodus 1:10 Come on. The "Come then" of Kalisch is better. Let us deal wisely. "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Severe grinding labour has often been used as a means of keeping down the aspirations of a people, if not of actually diminishing their numbers, and has been found to answer. Aristotle (Pol. 5.9) ascribes to this motive the building of the Pyramids and the great works of Polycrates of Samos, Pisistratus of Athens, and the Cypselidae of Corinth. The constructions of the last Tarquin are thought to have had the same object. Lest, when there falleth out any war, they join also to our enemies. ’At the accession of the nineteenth dynasty, though there was peace, war threatened. While the Egyptians, under the later monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty, had been quarrelling among themselves, a great nation upon their borders "had been growing up to an importance and power which began to endanger the Egyptian supremacy in Western Asia". Both Rameses I. and his son Seti had almost immediately after their accession to engage in a war, which was rather defensive the, offensive, with the Khita, or Hittites, who were the great power of Syria. At the commencement of his reign, Seti may well have feared a renewed invasion like that of the Hyksos, which would no doubt have been greatly helped by a rising of the Israelites. And so get them up out of the land. Literally, "And go up out of the land." The Pharaoh already fears that the Israelites will quit Egypt. As men of peaceful and industrious habits, and in some cases of considerable wealth (Joseph. ’Ant. Jud.’ 2.9, § 1), they at once increased the strength of Egypt and the revenue of the monarch. Egypt was always ready to receive refugees, and loth to lose them. We find in a treaty made by Rameses II; the son of Seti, with the Hittites, a proviso that any Egyptian subjects who quit the country, and transfer themselves to the dominion of the Hittite king, shall be sent back to Egypt. Exodus 1:11 They did set over them taskmasters. Literally, "lords of tribute," or "lords of service." The term used, sarey massim, is the Egyptian official title for over-lookers of forced labour. It occurs in this sense on the monument representing brick-making, which has been supposed by some to be a picture of the Hebrews at work. To afflict them with their burdens. Among the tasks set the labourers in the representation above alluded to are the carrying of huge lumps of clay and of water-jars on one shoulder, and also the conveyance of bricks from place to place by means of a yoke. They built for Pharaoh treasure-cities, Pithom and Raamses. By "treasure-cities" we are to understand "store-cities," or "cities of store," as the same word is translated in 1 Kings 9:19 and 2 Chronicles 8:4. Such cities contained depots of provisions and magazines of arms. They were generally to be found on all assailable frontiers in ancient as in modern times. (Compare 2 Chronicles 11:5, 2 Chronicles 11:12; 2 Chronicles 33:1-25:28, etc.) Of the cities here mentioned, which the Israelites are said to have "built," or helped to build, Pithom is in all probability the Patumes of Herodotus (2:158), which was not far from Bubastis, now Tel-Basta. Its exact site is uncertain, but if identical with the Thou, or Thoum, of the ’ Itinerary of An-tonine,’ it must have lain north of the Canal of Necho, not south, where most maps place it. The word means "abode of the sun," or rather "of the setting sun," called by the Egyptians Tam, or Atum. Names formed on the model were very common under the nineteenth dynasty, Rameses II. having built a Pa-Ra, a Pa-Ammon, and a Pa-Phthah in Nubia. Pa-Tum itself has not been found among the cities of this period, but appears in the records of the twentieth dynasty as a place where the Setting-Sun god had a treasury. The name Rameses is probably put for Pa-Rameses (as Thoum for Pa-Tum), a city frequently mentioned in the inscriptions of the nineteenth dynasty, and particularly favoured by Rameses II; whose city it was especially called, and by whom it was greatly enlarged, if not wholly built. We incline to believe that the building was commenced by Seti, who named the place, as he did his great temple, the Rameseum, after his father. The city was, according to Brugsch, a sort of suburb of Tanis. It was a magnificent place, and under Rameses II. and his son Menephthah was the ordinary residence of the court. Hence the miracles of Moses are said to have been wrought "in the field of Zoan," i.e. the country about Tanis (Psalms 78:12, Psalms 78:43). Exodus 1:12 They were grieved because of the children of Israel. The word grieved very insufficiently renders the Hebrew verb, which "expresses a mixture of loathing and alarm". Kalisch translates forcibly, if inelegantly—"They had a horror of the children of Israel." Exodus 1:13 The Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour. The word translated rigour is a very rare one. It is derived from a root which means "to break in pieces, to crush." The "rigour" would be shown especially in the free use of the stick by the taskmaster, and in the prolongation of the hours of work. Exodus 1:14 They made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter and in brick. While stone was the material chiefly employed by the Egyptians for their grand edifices, temples, palaces, treasuries, and the like, brick was also made use of to a large extent for inferior buildings, for tombs, dwelling-houses, walls of towns, forts, enclosures of temples, etc. There are examples of its employment in pyramids; but only at a time long anterior to the nineteenth and even to the eighteenth dynasty. If the Pharaoh of the present passage was Seti I; the bricks made may have been destined in the main for that great wall which he commenced, but did not live to complete, between Pelusium and Heliopolis, which was to secure his eastern frontier. All manner of labour in the field. The Israelitish colony was originally employed to a large extent in tending the royal flocks and herds (Genesis 47:6). At a later date many of them were engaged in agricultural operations (Deuteronomy 11:10). These, in Egypt, are in some respects light, e.g. preparing the land and ploughing, whence the remark of Herodotus (2.14); but in other respects exceedingly heavy. There is no country where care and labour are so constantly needed during the whole of the year. The inundation necessitates extreme watchfulness, to save cattle, to prevent the houses and the farmyards from being inundated, and the embankments from being washed away. The cultivation is continuous throughout the whole of the year; and success depends upon a system of irrigation that requires constant labour and unremitting attention. If the "labour in the field" included, as Josephus supposed (1.s.c.), the cutting of canals, their lives would indeed have been "made bitter." There is no such exhausting toil as that of working under the hot Egyptian sun, with the feet in water, in an open cutting, where there can be no shade, and scarcely a breath of air, from sunrise to sunset, as forced labourers are generally required in do. Me-hemet Ali lost 20,000 labourers out of 150,000 in the construction of the Alexandrian Canal towards the middle of the present century. Exodus 1:7, Exodus 1:12 God the Protector of his people. I. THE OF ISRAEL. All increase is of God, and comes to man by his blessing. As he gave the original command, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28), so he in every case gives the new lives by which the earth is replenished. "Children, and the fruit of the womb, are an heritage and gift that cometh of the Lord" (Psalms 128:3). He gives or withholds offspring as he pleases; enlarges families, tribes, nations, or causes them to decline, decay, and die out. Increase is a sign of his favour— 1. To the individual—"Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them" (Psalms 128:5); 2. To the nation—"I will multiply them and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them and they shall not be small" (Jeremiah 30:19); and 3. To churches—"Walking in the fear of the Lord, and the comfort of the Holy Ghost, they were multiplied" (Acts 9:31). A nation or church that increases has, so far at any rate, a sign of God’s approval of it, of his favour, of his having in his eternal counsels work for it to do for him in the present and the future. One which dwindles has, on the contrary, a note of God’s disapproval—at the very least, a warning that all is not with it as it should be. Nations, when they can no longer do God service, die out; churches, when they become effete and useless, have their candlesticks removed (Revelation 2:5). II. EFFECT OF ON IT. Note, that the effect of persecution was the very opposite of what was intended. The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied. So is it ever with God’s people. Persecutions always "fall out for the furtherance of the Gospel" (Philippians 1:12). "They which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch preaching the word" (Acts 11:19). Persecution brought Paul to Rome, and enabled him to proclaim the Gospel and make many converts in the very citadel of Satan, the headquarters of the enemy. So marked was the prevalence of the law, that among the early Christians it became a proverb, that "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church." After each of the ten great Imperial persecutions, the Church was found within a brief space to be more numerous than ever. And so it will be to the end. "The gates of Hell" cannot prevail against the Church. Out of the last and greatest of all the persecutions, when Antichrist shall be revealed, the Church will issue triumphant, a "great multitude, which no man can number" (Revelation 7:9). Joseph forgotten. "The evil that men do lives after them—the good is oft interred with their bones." Had Joseph been a tyrant, a conqueror, an egotist who crushed down the Egyptians by servile toil for the purpose of raising a huge monument to his own glory, he would no doubt have remained fresh in the memory of the nation, and his name and acts would have been familiar even to a "new king," who was yet an Egyptian and an educated man. But as he had only been a benefactor of the nation, and especially of the kings (Genesis 47:20-26), he was utterly forgotten—as some think, within sixty-five years of his death, but according to our calculations, not till about 275 years after it. This is about the space that separates us from Queen Elizabeth, who is certainly not forgotten, as neither are her ministers. So Christian nations would seem to have better memories than heathen ones. In time, however, every man is forgotten; and Christians should therefore not make their object the praise of men, or posthumous fame, but the praise and approval of God, which will continue for ever. "God is not unrighteous to forget" (Hebrews 6:10) Exodus 1:10-12 The wisdom of the wise brought to nought. God is wont to "destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" (1 Corinthians 1:19). He "makes the devices of the people of none effect" (Psalms 33:10). Humanly speaking, the Pharaoh had done "wisely," had counselled well: many a people has been crushed utterly under the yoke of an oppressor, ground down by hard labour—even after a time well-nigh exterminated. It was a clever and crafty plan to avoid the risk and discredit of a massacre of unoffending subjects, and at the same time to gain advantage by their heavy labours while effectually thinning their ranks through the severity of the toils imposed on them. Unless God had interfered, and by his secret help supported and sustained his people; enabled them to retain their health and strength under the adverse circumstances; induced them, bitter and hopeless as their lot seemed, still to contract marriages, and blessed those marriages, not only with offspring, but with superabundant offspring (see Exodus 1:12 and Exodus 1:20)—the result anticipated would without doubt have followed: the multiplication of the people would have been checked—their numbers would soon have begun to diminish. But God had determined that so it should not be. He had promised Abraham an extraordinary increase in the number of his descendants, and was not going to permit a cruel and crafty king to interfere with the carrying out of his designs, the performance of his gracious promises. So the more that Pharaoh and his obsequious subjects afflicted them, "the more they multiplied and grew"—"the little one became a thousand, and the small one a strong nation"—the Lord "hastened it in his time" (Isaiah 60:22). Christians therefore need never fear the devices of their enemies, however politic they may seem. God has the power, and if he sees fit will exert it, to turn the wisdom of the world into foolishness, to upset all human calculations, confound all prudent counsels, and make each act done in opposition to his will help to work it out. In Israel’s case, the hard labour and unceasing toil which made their lives bitter (Exodus 1:14), was at once needed to wean their minds from the recollection of the "fleshpots" and other delights of Egypt, and so make them content to quit it; and also it was required to brace them for the severe life of the wilderness—the hard fare, the scant water, the scorching heat by day, the chill dews at night; to harden their frames, relaxed by a time of sensual indulgence (Exodus 16:3), and nerve their minds to endurance. BY J. ORR Exodus 1:7-11 A multiplying people and a king’s fears. The increase of Israel in Egypt excited Pharaoh’s jealousy. They were a useful people, and he dreaded their departure (Exodus 1:10). But their staying was almost equally an occasion of uneasiness. Their position in Lower Egypt, so near the frontier, made them dangerous in case of wars. Revolutions were not infrequent, and many things were less likely than a future Hebrew dynasty. Hence the policy of breaking their power, and checking their increase, by reducing them to servitude. I. VIEW ISRAEL’S AS A WORK OF DIVINE POWER. While— 1. Natural—that is, not miraculous, but due to the superabundant blessing of God on ordinary means—it was yet, 2. Extraordinary, and 3. Invincible—defying the efforts of the tyrant to check it. It may be legitimately viewed as a type of the spiritual increase of the Church. This also— 1. Excites astonishment. So great a fruitfulness had never before been known. It was a marvel to all who witnessed it. Like surprise is awakened by the facts of the history of the Church. Consider (1) The smallness of the Church’s beginnings. (2) The rapidity of her growth. (3) What opposition she has encountered. (4) What efforts have been made to crush her. (5) How she survives, and has from time to time renewed her youth. (6) How she has even thriven in the fires of persecution. (7) How, notwithstanding formidable resistance, and great internal lukewarmness and corruption, her progress is being steadily maintained. 2. Awakens jealousy and fear. The world does not relish the progress of the Gospel. It resents it as full of danger to itself. The filling of the land with sincere believers would mean the downfall of its power. Its spirit shown in opposition to revivals of religion, in decrying missions, in anger at bold and fearless preaching of Christ, followed by saving results, etc. 3. Can only be accounted for by ascribing it to God as its author, Naturalistic explanations have been offered. Gibbon has enumerated "secondary causes." So "secondary causes," might be pointed to in explaining the increase of Israel, yet these alone would not account for it. There was implied a Divine power, imparting to ordinary means an extraordinary efficacy. As little can the success of Christianity be explained on grounds of mere naturalism. 1. The Bible attributes it to Divine efficiency. 2. Those who experience its power unhesitatingly trace it to this source. 3. The Church is successful only as she relies on Divine assistance. 4. Naturalistic theories, one and all, break down in their attempts at explanation. Each new one that appears founds itself on the failure of its predecessors. It, in turn, is exploded by a rival. The supernatural hypothesis is the only one which accounts for all the facts. II. VIEW PHARAOH’S POLICY AS A TYPE OF WORLDLY POLICY . Leave it to describe itself, and it is— 1. Far-seeing. 2. Politic, 3. Unsentimental. Napoleon was unsentimental: "What are a hundred thousand lives, more or less, to me!" 4. A necessity of the time. Describe it as it ought to be described, and it appears in a less favourable light. 1. Ever awake to selfish interests. 2. Acute to perceive (or imagine) danger. 3. Unrestrained by considerations of gratitude. The new king "knew not Joseph." Nations, like individuals, are often forgetful of their greatest benefactors. 4. Regardless of the rights of others. 5. Cruel—stops at nothing. It will, with Pharaoh, reduce a nation to slavery; or, with Napoleon, deluge continents with blood. Yet— 6. Is essentially short-sighted. All worldly policy is so. The King of Egypt could not have taken a more effectual means of bringing about the evils that he dreaded. He made it certain, if-it was uncertain before, that in the event of war, the Hebrews would take part with his enemies. He set in motion a train of causes, which, as it actually happened, led to the departure of the whole people from Egypt. His policy thus outwitted itself, proved suicidal, proclaimed itself to be folly. Learn— 1. The folly of trusting in man. "Beware of men" (Matthew 10:17). 2. How futile man’s wisdom and cunning are when matched against God’s power. 3. The short-sightedness of selfish and cruel action.—J.O. Exodus 1:11-14 The bondage. I. HOW ? Doubtless, partly by craft, and partly by force. To one in Pharaoh’s position, where there was the will to enslave, there would soon be found the way. 1. The Israelites were politically weak. "The patriarchal family had grown into a horde; it must have lost its domestic character, yet it had no polity a people in this state was ripe for slavery" (Maurice). 2. And Pharaoh had no scruples. Those engaged in tillage and keeping of cattle could easily be ruined by heaping on them tributes and exactions. Liberty once forfeited, they were at Pharaoh’s disposal, to do with as he listed. Of the rest, large numbers were probably already employed—as forced labourers—on Pharaoh’s works of construction. Over these (Exodus 1:11), it was proposed to set "taskmasters"—"chiefs of tribute"—to afflict them with their burdens. 3. Complaint was useless. The Hebrews soon found, as expressed afterwards (Exodus 5:19), that they were "in evil case"—that a general conspiracy, from the king downwards, had been entered into to rob, injure, and oppress them. Their subjugation in these circumstances was easily accomplished. Learn— 1. A nation may outgrow itself. It will do so if intelligence and morals, with suitable institutions, do not keep pace with numbers. 2. Great prosperity is not always an advantage. It (1) excites jealousy; (2) tempts cupidity; (3) usually weakens by enervating. II. WHY ? This question may be answered by viewing the bondage 1. Is a punishment for sins. The Hebrews had doubtless greatly corrupted themselves in Egypt, and had become in their masses very like the people around them. This was in them a sin that could not pass unpunished. God cannot suspend his moral Laws even for his own people. If they do wrong, they must, no less than others, suffer for it. Nay, they will be punished with even greater severity than others are for similar offences. It is this which explains the bitter servitude of Israel. The nation is allowed to sink into a condition which is at once a fit retribution for its own sin, and an apt image of the condition of the sinner generally. For sin is slavery. It is inward bondage. It is degradation. It is rigorous service, and bitterness, and misery. God’s law, the soul’s own lusts, an exacting world, become in different ways taskmasters. It is unprofitable service. It sends a man to the husks, to the swine-troughs. It is slavery from which nothing but the power of God Almighty can redeem us. We bless God for our greater Moses, and the grander Exodus. 2. As a trial of faith. It would be so in a very especial degree to the godly portion of Israel. For why this long hiding of God’s face—this keeping silence while his people were broiling and perishing under their terrible tasks? Did it not seem as though the promise had failed and God had forgotten to be gracious? (Psalms 77:8, Psalms 77:9.) Truly we need not wonder at anything in God’s dealings with his Church when we reflect on how long and how fearfully Israel was afflicted. The faith which endured this trial must have come out of the furnace seven times purified, 3. As a moral preparation. It is now manifest, though it could hardly have been seen then, how needful was this affliction, protracted through successive generations— (1) To wean the people’s hearts from Egypt. (2) To make them willing to leave it. (3) To make the thought of Canaan sweet to them. (4) To break up trust in self and man. (5) To lead them to cry mightily to God. The same reasons, in whole or part, serve to explain why God lays trials on ourselves; indicate at least the ends which affliction is used to subserve. Had everything been prosperous, the hearts of Israel would naturally have clung to the fleshpots; their hopes would have been forgotten; even their God would in time have been abjured.—J.O. BY G.A. Israel in Egypt. The life of a people, like that of an individual, to a great extent shaped by circumstances. In Canaan the Israelites might learn hardihood, but no room for much growth; few opportunities for national organisation; the tendency would be for the families to separate, each seeking pasturage for its own flocks (cf. Abraham and Lot). To become a nation they had to be placed (1) where they might increase and multiply, and (2) where their slightly connected elements might coalesce and be welded into one. To attain this object God led his people into Egypt. [Cf. (1) Hothouse where plants may strike and grow before being planted out, and (2) Deuteronomy 4:20. Furnace where metal may be smelted into one homogeneous mass and the worst of. the dross removed.] We may notice in this view— I. AND ITS USES. Cf. Deuteronomy 4:7. In Goshen life simple and the means of subsistence plentiful, ample room and ample provision. Happy years without a history, passed in a land which even now yields the largest revenue in Egypt, and where the population still increases more rapidly than in any other province. Probably no incident of more importance than some occasional skirmish with border tribes. No wonder that "they increased abundantly and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty." Prosperity has its uses as well as adversity. The long unnoticed years through which the fruit-tree attains maturity are necessary antecedents to the fiery summers which see the fruit ripening. Not much to notice in such years. Still their existence is noteworthy. They make no small portion of the sum of human life, whether viewed in its national or individual aspect. History grows out of them even whilst it is compelled to forget them in its records. The fruit of Life draws from them its substance, though other years may give it its colour and flavour. II. AND ITS USES. Deuteronomy 4:10-14 show how trouble came to Israel, and the nature of the trouble which did come. Originating in Pharaoh’s natural jealousy at the increasing influence of an alien race, it took the form of enforced labour, such as—perhaps owing to Joseph’s land law (Genesis 47:23, etc.)—he clearly had the acknowledged right to levy at will from all his subjects. Pharaoh however was but the instrument which God used for the education of his people; he knew that adversity was needed to carry on the work which prosperity had begun. Notice— 1. Affliction did not hinder progress. We gather from Deuteronomy 4:12 that it really advanced it. Prosperity long continued may be a greater hindrance than adversity. It tends to produce a stagnant condition [cf. the opening poems in Tennyson’s ’Maud’]. The after-history shows us that Israel had, to some extent, morally deteriorated; and moral deterioration in the long run must lead to physical degradation. When the stock needs pruning the pruning process stimulates growth. 2. Affliction proved morally helpful. The people had been getting careless and slothful, forgetting God (cf. Joshua 24:14, Ezekiel 20:5-8) or paying him a merely nominal service. Now, however, of. Deuteronomy 2:23-25, God Could hear their cry because their cry was genuine; he could have respect unto them because they were learning to have respect unto him. 3. Affliction ensured national union. Hitherto the people was just a collection of families, united by a common name and common traditions. Mutual need begets mutual helpfulness, and it is by mutual help that tribes are dovetailed into one another and come to form one nation. [Isolated fragments of ore need smelting in the furnace to produce the consolidated metal.] It is in the heat of the furnace of affliction that rivalries, jealousies, and all kinds of tribal littlenesses can alone be finally dissolved. And affliction still has such uses. Prosperity is good, no doubt, but, in this world, it requires to be complemented by adversity. "Why is trouble permitted?" Because men cannot otherwise be perfected. It is just as necessary for our moral ripening as heat is necessary for the ripening of the fruit. (1) It need not hinder any man’s progress; (2) If rightly used it should purge out the dross, from us and make us morally better; (3) It tends to dissolve the barriers which selfishness erects between man and man, and works towards the formation of that holy brotherhood which embraces in one family all the nations of the earth.—G. BY J. Exodus 1:8-14 Egypt’s sin. I. WRONG-DOING THE SEED OF . The story of Egypt’s suffering begins with the story of Egypt’s injustice. There was wisdom in Pharaoh’s statesmanship, and a sincere desire to serve his country, and yet he was his country’s worst foe. The service rendered by wickedness is in the end rebuke and ruin. II. THE CARE SOUGHT TO BE REMOVED BY SIN BECOMES GREATER (10-12). 1. The bondage was imposed to prevent their multiplying: "but the more they afflicted them the more they multiplied and grew." 2. The trouble was at first simply a possibility detected by the statesman’s keen eye, and now all Egypt was "grieved because of the children of Israel." The way of wickedness is through a deepening flood. III. WRONG GROWS INTO GREATER WRONG (13, 14). Egypt had gone too far to retreat. Israel’s enmity was now a certainty, and they must be crushed. From being compelled to labour in the erection of strong cities, their lives are made bitter by all manner of hard bondage. Evil grows with an inward necessity. When a nation makes an unjust demand it does not mean murder, yet that is its next step. Satan dare not whisper all his counsel at first but by-and-by he can tell it all and have it all accomplished.—U. Exodus 1:15-22 Some time—say five or six years—having elapsed and the Pharaoh’s first plan having manifestly failed, it was necessary for him either to give up his purpose, or to devise something else. Persevering and tenacious, he preferred the latter course. He bethought himself that a stop might be put to the multiplication of the Israelites by means of infanticide on a large scale. Infanticide was no doubt a crime in Egypt, as in most countries except Rome; but the royal command would legitimate almost any action, since the king was recognised as a god; and the wrongs of a foreign and subject race would not sensibly move the Egyptian people, or be likely to provoke remonstrance. On looking about for suitable instruments to carry out his design, it struck the monarch that something, at any rate, might be done by means of the midwives who attended the Hebrew women in their confinements. It has been supposed that the two mentioned, Shiphrah and Puah, might be the only midwives employed by the Israelites (Canon Cook and others), and no doubt in the East a small number suffice for a large population: but what impression could the monarch expect to make on a population of from one to two millions of souls by engaging the services of two persons only, who could not possibly attend more than about one in fifty of the births? The midwives mentioned must therefore be regarded as "superintendents," chiefs of the guild or faculty, who were expected to give their orders to the rest. (So Kalisch, Knobel, Aben Ezra, etc.) It was no doubt well known that midwives were not always called in; but the king supposed that they were employed sufficiently often for the execution of his orders to produce an important result. And the narrative implies that he had not miscalculated. It was the disobedience of the midwives (Exodus 1:17) that frustrated the king’s intention, not any inherent weakness in his plan. The midwives, while professing the intention of carrying out the orders given them, in reality killed none of the infants; and, when taxed by the Pharaoh with disobedience, made an untrue excuse (Exodus 1:19). Thus the king’s second plan failed as completely as his first—"the people" still "multiplied and waxed very mighty" (Exodus 1:20). Foiled a second time, the wicked king threw off all reserve and all attempt at concealment. If the midwives will not stain their hands with murder at his secret command, he will make the order a general and public one. "All his people" shall be commanded to put their hand to the business, and to assist in the massacre of the innocents—it shall he the duty of every loyal subject to cast into the waters of the Nile any Hebrew male child of whose birth he has cognisance. The object is a national one-to secure the public safety (see Exodus 1:10): the whole nation may well be called upon to aid in carrying it out. Exodus 1:15 The Hebrew midwives. It is questioned whether the midwives were really Hebrew women, and not rather Egyptian women, whose special business it was to attend the Hebrew women in their labours. Kalisch translates, "the women who served as midwives to the Hebrews," and assumes that they were Egyptians. (So also Canon Cook.) But the names are apparently Semitic, Shiphrah being "elegant, beautiful," and Puah, "one who cries out." And the most natural rendering of the Hebrew text is that of A. V. Exodus 1:16 The stools. The explanation furnished by a remark of Mr. Lane is more satisfactory than any other. In modern Egypt, he says, "two or three days before the expected time of delivery, the midwife conveys to the house the kursee elwiladeh, a chair of a peculiar form, upon which the patient is to be seated during the birth." A chair of the form intended is represented on the Egyptian monuments. Exodus 1:17 The midwives feared God. The midwives had a sense of religion, feared God sufficiently to decline imbruing their hands in the innocent blood of a number of defenceless infants, and, rather than do so wicked a thing, risked being punished by the monarch. They were not, as appears by Exodus 1:19, highly religious—not of the stuff whereof martyrs are made; they did not scruple at a falsehood, believing it necessary to save their lives; and it would seem that they succeeded in deceiving the king. Exodus 1:19 They are vigorous. Literally, "they are lively." In the East at the present day a large proportion of the women deliver themselves; and the services of professional accoucheurs are very rarely called in. The excuse of the midwives had thus a basis of fact to rest upon, and was only untrue because it was not the whole truth. Exodus 1:20, Exodus 1:21 Therefore God did well to the midwives. Literally, "And God did well," etc. (see Exodus 1:21). Because they feared him sufficiently to disobey the king, and take their chance of a punishment, which might have been very severe-even perhaps death—God overlooked their weak and unfaithful divergence from truth, and gave them a reward. He made them houses. He Messed them by giving them children of their own, who grew up, and gave them the comfort, support, and happiness which children were intended to give. There was a manifest fitness in rewarding those who had refused to bring misery and desolation into families by granting them domestic happiness themselves. Exodus 1:22 Every son that is born. The words are universal, and might seem to apply to the Egyptian, no less than the Hebrew, male children. But they are really limited by the context, which shows that there had never been any question as to taking the life of any Egyptian. With respect to the objection sometimes raised, that no Egyptian monarch would possibly have commanded such wholesale cold-blooded destruction of poor innocent harmless children, it is to be observed, first, that Egyptian monarchs had very little regard indeed for the lives of any persons who were not of their own nation. They constantly massacred prisoners taken in war—they put to death or enslaved persons cast upon their coasts (Diod. Sic. 1.67)—they cemented with the blood of their captives, as Lenormant says, each stone of their edifices. The sacredness of human life was not a principle with them. Secondly, that tender and compassionate regard for children which seems to us Englishmen of the present day a universal instinct is in truth the fruit of Christianity, and was almost unknown in the ancient world. Children who were "not wanted" were constantly exposed to be devoured by wild beasts, or otherwise made away with; and such exposition was defended by philosophers. In Syria and Carthage they were constantly offered to idols. At Rome, unless the father interposed to save it, every child was killed. It would probably not have cost an Egyptian Pharaoh a single pang to condemn to death a number of children, any more than a number of puppies. And the rule "Salus publica suprema lex," which, if not formulated, still practically prevailed, would have been held to justify anything. The river. Though, in the Delta, where the scene is laid throughout the early part of Exodus, there were many branches of the Nile, yet we hear constantly of "the river" (Exodus 2:3, Exodus 2:5; Exodus 7:20, Exodus 7:21; Exodus 8:3, etc.), because one branch only, the Tanitic, was readily accessible. Tanks (Zoan) was situated on it. Steps in sin. Bad men, when their designs are frustrated, and things fall out otherwise than as they wish, are far from suspecting that it is God who opposes them and brings their counsels to nought. They find fault with themselves or their advisers, and suppose that, if their end is not to be compassed in one way, it may he obtained in another. Like Balak (Numbers 22:23.), they would outwit God; or rather, not realising his existence, they would force fortune by a combination of inventiveness, perseverance, and audacity. When one means fails, they do not lay aside their design, but seek another means. And their second plan is almost always more wicked than their first. Pharaoh follows up the cruel thought of grinding oppression by the still more cruel resolve to effect his purpose through murder. And not liking to incur the odium of open murder, he devises a secret system, a crypteia, which shall rid him of a certain number of his enemies, and yet keep him clear, even of suspicion. The midwives, had they come into his plan, would of course have said that the children they murdered were stillborn, or died from natural causes. But this crafty scheme likewise fails; and then what follows? His subtle brain invents a third plan, and it is the cruelest and wickedest of all. Grown shameless, he openly avows himself a murderer, takes his whole people into his confidence, compels them, so far as he can, to be a nation of murderers, and extends his homicidal project to all the males. "Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river." The Nile, according to his own religion, was a god, and no Egyptian corpse ever defiled it; but everything must give way that the king may work his wicked will, and the restraints of the national creed are as little regarded as those of natural morality. Facilis descensus Averni; the steps by which men go down the road to hell are easy; each is in advance of the other, a little further on in guilt; there is no startling transition; and so, by little and little, advance is made, and the neophyte becomes a graduate in the school of crime. Duty of opposing authority when its commands are against God’s Law. Few lessons are taught in Holy Scripture more plainly than this, that the wrongful commands of legitimate authority are to be disobeyed. "Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants that they should kill David" (1 Samuel 19:1). But Jonathan positively refused, and rebuked his father: "Wherefore wilt thou sin against innocent blood?" (ib. Exodus 1:5). Uzziah would have usurped the priest’s office; but Azariah the priest "withstood him" (2 Chronicles 26:16-21), and God signified his approval by smiting the king with leprosy. Ahasuerus commanded that a "reverence" trenching upon God’s honour should be done to Haman (Esther 3:2). Mordecai "transgressed the king’s commandment," and it is recorded of him to his credit. The "Three Children ’ disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar when he would have had them "worship the golden image which he had set up" (Daniel 3:18) on the plain of Dura. Daniel disobeyed Darius the Mede when required to discontinue his daily prayers. The Apostles disobeyed the Sanhedrim, when forbidden "to preach at all or teach in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:18). God’s law is paramount; and no human authority may require anything to be done which it forbids, or anything to be left undone which it commands. The argument is unanswerable: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye" (ib. verse 19). So the midwives, because they "feared God," disobeyed the king. No doubt the lesson is to be applied with caution. We are not to be always flying in the face of authority, and claiming it as a merit. More especially, in States calling themselves Christian and retaining even partially a Christian character, opposition to the law is a serious matter, and, if resorted to, should only be resorted to under a clear and distinct conviction that the Divine law and the human are in absolute opposition. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." If we are not sure of the Divine obligation we must accept the human one. Still, as the good man struggling against adversity is admitted to be one of the noblest of sights, so there is nothing grander, nothing finer, nothing more heroic, than the conscientious resistance of religious persons to the wicked and tyrannical commands of men, whether they be kings, or judges, or mobs. Daniel refusing to obey Darius, Peter and John rejecting the orders of the Sanhedrim, Socrates declining to take part in the arrests of the Thirty, the Seven Bishops refusing to read the proclamation of King James If; are among the most admirable and inspiriting facts of history. The men who rightfully resist authority are "the salt of the earth." They save the world from a rapid and complete corruption. The remembrance of their acts continues, and is a warning to authorities, preventing hundreds of iniquitous laws and orders, which would otherwise have been enjoined and enacted. Their example is an undying one, and encourages others on fitting occasion to do the like. All honour then to the noble band, who, when the crisis came, have "obeyed God rather than man," and taken their chance of the consequences! Not that the final consequences to themselves can be doubtful. "But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye!" 1 Peter 3:14). In this life, the consequence may be success, severe punishment, or occasionally) neglect and oblivion. But in the world to come there wilt be a reward for rightful resistance undoubtedly. "God made the midwives houses." For all whom a tyrannical authority makes to suffer because they fear and obey him, he will reserve in his own house "mansions" where they will enjoy bliss eternal. Exodus 1:18-21 God’s acceptance of an imperfect obedience. The midwives had not the courage of their convictions. They did not speak out boldly,, like Daniel, and the "Three Children," and the Apostles. They did not say, "Be it known unto thee, O king, that we fear God, and will not do this thing." They cast about for an excuse, which should absolve them of the crime of disobedience, and so perhaps save them from punishment, and they found one which was no doubt partially true, but which by a suppressio veri was a suggestio falsi. Some have exonerated them from all blame under the circumstances; but though the circumstances may extenuate, they do not justify their conduct. It was a fault, but (especially if they were heathens) a venial fault. And it was perhaps repented of. At any rate God condoned it. He was not "extreme to mark what was done amiss." He accepted their good deeds and their reverent fear of him, though it was not accompanied by high courage and a heroic love of truth; that is to say, he, accepted an imperfect obedience. And this is what he does in all cases. No man but One has rendered an obedience that was perfect. "All we, the rest, offend in many things; and if we say that we have no sin, deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Well for us that God, for his Son’s sake, and through his atonement on the cross, can condone our offences, and despite our many misdeeds reward our acts of faithfulness! (See Matthew 6:4; Matthew 10:42; Matthew 16:27; Luke 6:35; 1 Corinthians 3:14; etc.) BY J. ORR A king’s edicts. I. THE COMMAND TO THE TO DESTROY THE MALES (Exodus 1:16). This was a further stage in the persecution of the Hebrews. Happily the command was not obeyed. There is a limit even to the power of kings. Stronger than kings is— 1. The power of religion. "The midwives feared God" (Exodus 1:17). 2. The force of patriotism. They were "Hebrew midwives" (Exodus 1:15), and would not, even at the king’s bidding, be murderers of their race. 3. The instincts of humanity. These came in to thwart both this and the next expedient for destroying the children. 4. The cunning of evasion. It is hopeless to attempt to force laws upon a people determined not to obey them. The midwives had only to stay away, and let the Hebrew women help themselves, to reduce the, king’s decree to a dead letter. And this was probably what they did (Exodus 1:19). The result shows how much better it is, even at some risk, to obey God than to obey man. The midwives— 1. Lost nothing. 2. Retained a good conscience. 3. Were signally honoured and rewarded: God made them houses (Exodus 1:21). Kindness shown to God’s people never fails of its reward. II. THE COMMAND TO THE PEOPLE TO CAST THE MALES INTO THE RIVER (Exodus 1:22). He must indeed have been a foolish king, if he thought to secure obedience to so inhuman a decree. Parents would not obey it. The work was of a kind which would soon grow hateful even to those who might at first be willing to do it for reward. The hearts of the most abandoned ere long sicken at murder. Public sympathy does not appear to have gone with the edict, and the number of males at the Exodus makes it certain that it was not long in operation. Its chief fruit was one little contemplated by the tyrant—the salvation and courtly upbringing of Moses. Learn— 1. How one cruelty leads to another, and increasingly hardens the heart. It is told of Robespierre that when judge at Arras, half-a-dozen years before he took his place in the popular mind of France and Europe as one of the bloodiest monsters of myth or history, he resigned his post in a fit of remorse after condemning a criminal to be executed. "He is a criminal, no doubt," he kept groaning to his sister, "a criminal no doubt; but to put a man to death!" (Morley). 2. The impotence of human devices. 3. The certainty of the Church surviving under the worst that man can do against it,. The more Pharaoh persecuted, the more the people multiplied and grew (Exodus 1:12, Exodus 1:20).—J.O. Exodus 1:8-22 The policy of Pharaoh. I. THE OF THE POLICY. This is indicated in Exodus 1:9, Exodus 1:10. It was a policy of selfish fear, proceeding upon an unconcealed regard for the supremacy of Egypt. Whatever interfered with that supremacy was to be, if possible, swept completely out of the way. Pharaoh was dealing, not with the necessities of the present, but with the possibilities of the future. He made no pretence that Israel deserved to be dealt with in this merciless fashion. There was no attempt to cloak the cruelties of the tyrant under the aspect of needful severity against evil-doers. The fear of Pharaoh is seen in the very language he employs. It was not true as yet that the Israelites were more and mightier than the Egyptians: but Pharaoh feels that such a state of things is not improbable, and may not be remote. Something has already happened very different from what might have been expected. Who was to suppose that a handful of people from Canaan, instead of blending with the bulk of Egypt, would keep persistently separate and increase with such alarming rapidity? Seeing that such unexpected things have already happened, what may not be feared in the future? Who knows what allies Israel may ultimately find, and what escape it may achieve? Thus from this attitude and utterance of Pharaoh we learn— 1. Not to make our safety and our strength to consist in an unscrupulous weakening of others. The true strength, ever becoming more and more sufficient, is to be gained within ourselves. Pharaoh would have done more for his own safety and the safety of his people by putting away idolatry, injustice, and oppression, than by all his frantic attempts to destroy Israel. It is a sad business, if we must hold our chief possessions at the expense of others. If my gain is the loss or suffering of some one else, then by this very fact the gain is condemned, and however large and grateful it may be at present, it will end in the worst of all loss. Surely the luxuries of the few would become utterly nauseous and abhorrent, if it were only considered how often they depend on the privation and degradation of the many. Pharaoh’s kingdom deserved to perish, and so deserve all kingdoms and all exalted stations of individuals, if their continuance can only be secured by turning all possible enemies into spiritless and emasculated slaves. 2. Not to set our affections on such things as lie at the mercy of others. Pharaoh had to be incessantly watching the foundations of his vast and imposing kingdom. Other nations only saw the superstructure’ from a distance, and might be excused for concluding that the magnificence rested upon a solid base. But we may well believe that Pharaoh himself lived a life of incessant anxiety. The apprehensions which he here expresses must have been a fair sample of those continually passing through his mind. The world can give great possessions and many opportunities for carnal pleasure; but security, undisturbed enjoyment of the possession, it cannot give. II. THE WORKING OUT OF THE POLICY. The thing aimed at was to keep the numbers of Israel within what were deemed safe bounds; and to this end Pharaoh began by trying to crush the spirits of the people. He judged—and perhaps not unwisely, according to the wisdom of this world—that a race oppressed as he proposed to oppress Israel would assuredly not increase to any dangerous extent. If only the rate of increase in Israel did not gain on the rate of increase in Egypt, then all would be safe. Pharaoh firmly believed that if only Egypt could keep more numerous than Israel, Egypt would be perfectly secure. Therefore he put these people into a state of bondage and oppression ever becoming more rigorous. Notice that he had peculiar advantages, from his point of view, in making this course of treatment successful. The Israelites had hitherto lived a free, wandering, pastoral life (Genesis 47:3-6), and now they were cooped-up under merciless taskmasters and set to hard manual toil. If any human policy had success in it, success seemed to be in this policy of Pharaoh. Nevertheless it utterly failed, from Pharaoh’s point of view, for, whatever depressing effect it had on the spirits of the Israelites, there was no diminution in their numbers. The extraordinary and alarming increase still went on. The more the taskmasters did to hinder Israel, the more, in this particular matter of the numerical increase, it seemed to prosper. It was all very perplexing and unaccountable, but at last Pharaoh recognises the failure, even while he cannot explain it, and proceeds to a more direct method of action, which surely cannot fail in a perfectly efficacious result. He commands the men-children of Israel to be slain from the womb. But here he fails even in a more conspicuous and humiliating way than before. He was a despot, accustomed to have others go when he said "Go," and come when he said "Come" Accordingly, when he commanded men to become the agents of his harsh designs, he found obedient servants in plenty, and probably many who bettered his instructions. But now he turns to women—weak, despised women, who were reckoned to obey in the most obsequious manner—and he finds that they will not obey at all. It was an easy thing to do, if it had only been in their hearts to do it; for what is easier than to take away the breath of a new-born infant? They do not openly refuse; they even pretend compliance; but for all that they secretly disobey and effectively thwart Pharaoh’s purpose. When we find others readily join with us in our evil purposes, then God interferes to disappoint both us and them; but we cannot always reckon even on the support of others. Notice lastly, that in carrying out this policy of defence against Israel, Pharaoh never seems to have thought of the one course which might have given him perfect safety. He might have expelled Israel altogether out of his coasts. But, so far from deeming this desirable, it was one of the very things he wished to guard against. Israel was a continual source of alarm and annoyance, a people beyond management, an insoluble problem; but it never occurred to him that Egypt would be better with them away. It would have had a very bad look to send them out of the land; it would have been a confession of inability and perplexity which those proud lips, so used to the privileged utterances of despotism, could not bring themselves to frame. III. THE TOTAL RESULT OF THE POLICY. Though it failed in attaining the particular end which it had in view, it did not fail altogether; nay, it rather succeeded, and that with a most complete success, seeing that in doing so it effectually served the purpose of God. Pharaoh failed as dealing with the children of Israel. He called them the children of Israel, but in profound ignorance of all that this description involved. He did not know that Israel was the son of him who was born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, contrary to all expectation and entirely of promise. But Pharaoh succeeded in a way he did not anticipate, in so far as he was dealing with the posterity of Jacob, the heirs of human infirmity. They did become, in the course of time, slaves in spirit as well as in body, personally so undeserving of freedom that when they had received it, they wished almost immediately to go back to the creature comforts of Egypt like a dog to its vomit, or a sow to her wallowing in the mire. Hence we see that God served himself, alike by Pharaoh’s failure and Pharaoh’s success. Pharaoh’s failure showed how really and powerfully God was present with his people. It was another instance of the treasure being in an earthen vessel that the excellency of the power might be of God and not of men. And Pharaoh by his very success in making the iron to enter into the soul of Israel, was unconsciously working a way to make the stay of Israel in Egypt as full a type as possible of the tyrannous bondage of sin. As Egypt presented its pleasant side at first, so does sin. For a considerable time Egypt looked better than Canaan. There had been corn in Egypt; there had been a land of Goshen; there had been a reflected honour and comfort from the relation of the children of Israel to the all-powerful Joseph. But Joseph The crime was now looked in the face, but it was so arranged that. it might be done secretly. 3. When this failed, then public proclamation was made that the murder should be deliberately and openly done (22). No man steps at first into shameless commission of sin. Every sin is a deadening of the moral sense and a deepening of shame. II. THOSE WHO REFUSE TO AID IN PHARAOH’S CRIME FIND . 1. The refusal of the midwives was service to God. (1) It prevented secret murder. (2) It rebuked Pharaoh’s sin. 2. Their refusal was justified because it sprang from obedience to a higher authority: "they feared God." Disobedience to human law must have a higher sanction than a factious spirit. 3. God gave them inheritance among his people. In that dread of sin and heroism for the right they were fit allies for God’s people. Those who separate themselves from evil God will lead into the light. III. THOSE WHO AID BRING UPON . The king appeals to his people and they make his crime their own. But Egypt’s sin is set at last in the light of Egypt’s desolation. Obedience to unjust laws will not protect us from God’s just judgment. The wrong decreed by authority becomes by obedience a nation’s crime.—U. . Exodus 2:1-10. THE BIRTH, ESCAPE, AND OF MOSES. Some years before the Pharaoh issued his edict for the general destruction of the Hebrew male children, Amram of the tribe of Levi, had married Jochebed, his kinswoman (Exodus 6:20). They had already had two children — Miriam, a daughter, born probably soon after the marriage, and Aaron, a son, born some twelve years later. Soon after the issue of the edict, Jochebed gave birth to her third child, a son, who therefore came under its terms. Knowing as she did what fate was in store for him, if his existence became known to the Egyptians, she "hid him three months." Then, despairing of being able to keep him concealed much longer, she devised the plan related in Exodus 2:3-4, which proved successful. Exodus 2:1 There went a man. The Hebrew language is deficient in tenses, and cannot mark pluperfect time. The meaning is, that "a man of the house of Levi had gone, some time before, and taken to wife a daughter of Levi." Miriam must have been fourteen or fifteen at the time of the exposure of Moses. By a daughter of Levi, we must not understand an actual daughter, which is irreconcilable with the chronology, but one of Levi’s descendants — "a wife of the daughters of Levi," as the LXX. translates. Exodus 2:2 And the woman conceived. Not for the first time, as appears from Exodus 2:4, nor even for the second, as we learn from Exodus 7:7; but for the third. Aaron was three years old when Moses was born. As no difficulty has occurred with respect to him, we must regard the edict as issued between his birth and that of Moses. When she saw that he was a goodly child. Perhaps Jochebed would have done the same had Moses been ill-favoured, for mothers have often loved best their weakest and sickliest; but still it nard-rally seemed to her the harder that she was called upon to lose a strong and beautiful baby; and this is what the writer means to express — the clauses are not "simply co-ordinate." She hid him — i.e, kept him within the house — perhaps even in the female apartments. Egyptians were mixed up with the Israelites in Goshen — not perhaps in any great numbers, but still so that no Hebrew felt himself safe from observation. Exodus 2:3 She took for him an ark of bulrushes. The words translated "ark" and "bulrushes" are both of Egyptian origin, the former corresponding to the ordinary word for "chest," which is feb, teba, or tebat, and the latter corresponding to the Egyptian kam, which is the same in Coptic, and designates the papyrus plant. This is a strong-growing rush, with a triangular stem, which attains the height of from 10 to 15 feet. The Egyptian paper was made from its pith. The rush itself was used for various purposes — among others for boat-building (Plin. ’H. N.’ 6:22; 7:16; Theophrast, 4:9; Pint. ’De Isid. et Osir.’ § 18, etc.), as appears from the monuments. It would be a very good material for the sort of purpose to which Jochebed applied it. She daubed it with slime and with pitch. The word translated "slime" is the same as that used in Genesis 11:3, which is generally thought to mean "mineral pitch" or "bitumen." According to Strabo and Dioderus, that material was largely used by the Egyptians for the embalming of corpses, and was imported into Egypt from Palestine. Boats are sometimes covered with it externally at the present day; but Jochebed seems to have used vegetable pitch- the ordinary pitch of commerce — for the purpose. Here again the Hebrew word is taken from the Egyptian. She laid it in the flags. "Suph," the word translated "flags," is a modification of the Egyptian tuff, which has that meaning. Water-plants of all kinds abound in the backwaters of the Nile. and the marshy tracts communicating with it. The object of placing the ark in a thicket of reeds probably was, that it might not float away out of sight. The river’s brink. Literally, the lip of the river — an Egyptian idiom. Exodus 2:4 His sister. There can be no reasonable doubt that this is the "Miriam" of the later narrative (Exodus 15:20-21; Numbers 20:1), who seems to have been Moses’ only sister (Numbers 26:59). She was probably set to watch by her mother. Exodus 2:5 The daughter of Pharaoh. Probably a daughter of Seti I. and a sister of Rameses the Great. Josephus calls her Thermuthis; Syncellus, Pharia; Artapanus, Merrhis, and some of the Jewish commentators, Bithia — the diversity showing that there was no genuine tradition on the subject. There is nothing improbable in an Egyptian princess bathing in the Nile, at a place reserved for women. The Nile was regarded as sacred, and its water as health-giving and fructifying. Her maidens. Egyptian ladies of high rank are represented on the monuments as attended to the bath by a number of handmaidens. As many as four are seen in one representation (Wilkinson, 1.s.c.). Her maid is her special personal attendant, the others being merely women attached to her household. Exodus 2:6 The princess herself opened the "ark," which was a sort of covered basket. Perhaps she suspected what she would find inside; but would it be a living or a dead child? This she could not know. She opened, and looked. It was a living babe, and it wept. At once her woman’s heart, heathen as she was, went out to the child — its tears reached the common humanity that lies below all differences of race and creed — and she pitied it. "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin." This is one of the Hebrews’ children. Hebrew characteristics were perhaps stamped even upon the infant visage. Or she formed her conclusion merely from the circumstances. No Egyptian woman had any need to expose her child, or would be likely to do so; but it was just what a Hebrew mother, under the cruel circumstances of the time, might have felt herself forced to do. So she drew her conclusion, rapidly and decidedly, as is the way of woman. Exodus 2:7-9. Then said his sister. Miriam had watched to some purpose. She had seen everything — she had drawn near as she beheld the "maid" go down to the water’s edge, and take the ark out. She had heard the words of the princess; and thereupon she promptly spoke — "Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women?" No doubt, all had been prepared beforehand by the mother, who had selected the place and time of the exposure from a knowledge of the habits and character of the princess, had set her daughter to watch, and — so far as was possible — instructed her what she was to say. But Miriant at least carried out the instructions given her with excellent judgment and tact. She did not speak too soon, nor too late. She did not say a word too much, nor too little. "Surely," exclaimed the princess, "this is one of the Hebrews, children." "Shall I fetch thee then a Hebrew mother to nurse him? is the rejoinder. Egyptians, it is implied, cannot properly nurse Hebrews — cannot know how they ought to be treated; an Egyptian nurse would mismanage the boy — shall I fetch one of his own nation? And the princess, feeling all the force of the reasoning, answers in one short pregnant word — "Go." "Yes," she means, "do so; that will be best." And then the result follows — "The maid (Miriam) went and called the child’s mother." So the scheming of the loving mother, and the skilful performance of the part assigned her by the clever sister, were crowned with success — Moses’ life was saved, and yet he was not separated from his natural guardian, nor given over to the tender mercies of strangers: the child went back to his own home, to his own apartment, to his own cradle; continued to be nourished by his own mother’s milk; and received those first impressions, which are so indelibly impressed upon the mind, in a Hebrew family. Pharaoh’s daughter said, "Take this child away, and nurse it for me." "Take him with you — take him to your own home for a while — and there nurse him for me, as long as he needs nursing." And to mark that he is mine, and not yours — to silence inquiry — to stop the mouths of informers — "I will give thee thy wages." Jochebed was more than content, and "took the child and nursed it." Exodus 2:10. The child grew. Compare Genesis 21:8, where the full phrase is used — "The child grew, and was weaned." Jocbebed had saved her son’s life by a transfer of her mother’s right in him to Pharaoh’s daughter. She had received him back, merely as a hired nurse, to suckle him. When the time came, probably at the end of the second year, for him to be weaned, she was bound, whatever the sufferings of her heart may have been, to give him up — to restore him to her from whom she had received him, as a child put out to nurse. And we see that she made no attempt to escape her obligations. No sooner was the boy weaned, than "she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter" — as it would seem, of her own accord. And he became her son. There is no evidence that formal "adoption" was a custom of the Egyptians; and probably no more is here meant than that the princess took the child into her family, and brought him up as if he had been her son, giving him all the privileges of a son, together with such an education as a princess’s son usually received. We obtain the best general idea of what such an education was from the words of St. Stephen (Acts 7:21) — "Now Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." This "wisdom," though not perhaps very deep, was multiform and manifold. It included orthography, grammar, history, theology, medicine, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and engineering. Education began, as in most countries, with orthography and grammar. The hieroglyphical system was probably not taught, and the knowledge of it remained a special privilege of the priest-class: but the cursive character, known as the hieratic, was generally studied, and all tolerably educated persons could read it and write it. Style was cultivated, and though no great progress was made in the graces of finished composition, the power of expressing thought and relating facts in a simple and perspicuous prose was acquired by the greater number. Much attention was paid to letter- writing; and models of business and other letters were set before the pupil as patterns which he was to follow. By the more advanced, poetry was read, and poetic composition occasionally practised. Arithmetic and geometry, up to a certain point, were studied by all; and a plain morality was inculcated. But history, theology, astronomy, medicine, and engineering, were viewed as special studies, to be pursued by those intended for certain professions, rather than as included within the curriculum of an ordinary education; and it may well be doubted whether Moses’ attention was much directed to any of them. He may indeed have been initiated into the mysteries, and in that case would have come to understand the esoteric meaning of the Egyptian myths, and of all that most revolts moderns in the Egyptian religion. But, on the whole, it is most probable that he was rather trained for active than for speculative life, and received the education which fitted men for the service of the State, not that which made them dreamers and theorists. His great praise is, that "he was mighty in words and deeds "(Acts 1:1-26.s.c.); and he was certainly anything rather than a recluse student. We should do wrong to regard him as either a scientific man or a philosopher. His genius was practical; and his education was of a practical kind — such as fitted him to become the leader of his people in a great emergency, to deal on equal terms with a powerful monarch, and to guide to a happy conclusion the hazardous enterprise of a great national migration. And she called his name Moses. The Egyptian form of the name was probably Mesu, which signifies "born, brought forth, child," and is derived from a root meaning "to produce," "draw forth." Egyptian has many roots common to it with Hebrew, whereof this is one. The princess’s play upon words thus admitted of being literally rendered in the Hebrew — "he called his name Mosheh (drawn forth); because, she said, I drew him forth (meshithi-hu) from the water." Mesu is found in the monuments as an Egyptian name under the nineteenth dynasty Exodus 2:1-2 § 1. The birth of Moses. In the providence of God, great men are raised up from time to time, for the express object of working out his purposes. A great task is before them, but there is often nothing peculiar, nothing striking, in their birth or parentage. They come into the world with as little commotion, as little eclat, as other children. True history admits this. Legendary history conceals it, denies it, makes up a series of extraordinary events anterior to the birth, which shadow forth the coming greatness of the mighty one, and warn the world what to expect of him. The legends attaching to Cyrus, to Romulus, to Pericles (Herod. 6:131) are cases in point. Contrast with such legends the extreme simplicity of Exo 2:1-2; — "There went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi; and the woman conceived and bare a son." Here is the founder of the Jewish nation, the originator of its independence, its lawgiver, historian, prophet, for the first time introduced to our notice; and not one word is said to exalt him, to challenge to him special attention, to show that he is the foremost man of his age, greater than Pentaour the poet, or Seti, or Rameses. His father and mother not even named — "a man" — "a daughter of Levi" — no rank assigned them, no epithet used — nothing recorded but the bare facts: a marriage, a birth, the child a male child, a son." Here at length a note is struck, which wakes a responsive echo in the heart of the reader, The last verse of ch. 1. had told him of the barbarous edict issued by the cruel despot who wielded the sceptre of Egypt, and his interest is awakened for the poor babe born under such circumstances. Will he perish at once, or will he escape? Can it be possible to elude or defy the express order of an absolute monarch? And if so, how? The sequel shows, relating as it does his escape from death through the faithful, bold, and loving action of his mother. Exodus 2:2. § 2. The beauty of Moses. Moses was "a goodly child" — beautiful to took upon — "fair to God," or "exceeding fair," as St. Stephen expresses it (Acts 7:20). Though beauty be but "skin-deep," and if unaccompanied by loveliness of character is apt to be a snare and a curse, yet, in its degree, and rightly employed, it must be regarded as a blessing. The beauty of Old-Testament saints is often mentioned. Moses was "goodly." David "ruddy and of a beautiful countenance" (1 Samuel 16:12), Darnel fair and well-favoured (Daniel 1:4; Daniel 1:15), Esther fair and beautiful (Esther 2:7), Solomon was comely and "the chiefest among ten thousand" (Son 5:10); One greater than Solomon was "fairer than the children of men" (Psalms 45:2). It is an affectation to ignore beauty, and the influence which it gives. Those who possess it should be taught that they are answerable for it, as for other gifts, and are bound to use it to God’s glory. Esther’s example may help them in the details of conduct. Exodus 2:3-9 § 3. The escape of Moses. The escape of Moses teaches three things especially — 1. God’s over-ruling providence, and his power to make wicked men work out his will; 2. The blessing that rests upon a mother’s faithful love and care; and 3. The fact that natural virtue is acceptable in God’s sight. I. GOD’S OVER-RULING turned the cruel king’s edict to the advantage of the child whom he designed for great things. Had it not been for the edict, Moses would never have been exposed, and Pharaoh’s daughter would probably never have seen him. Had she not come down to the river when she did — had any little circumstance occurred to prevent her, as might easily have happened, the child might have died of hunger or exposure before she saw it, or might have been found by an unfriendly Egyptian and thrown from the ark into the water. Moreover, had the child not happened to be in tears when she opened the ark, it might not have moved her compassion, or at any rate not have so stirred it as to make her take the boy for her son. In any of these contingencies, Moses, even if saved by some further device of his mother’s, would not have had the education which alone fitted him to be the nation’s leader and guide, nor the familiarity with court life which enabled him. to stand up boldly before the Pharaoh of his time and contend with him as an equal. Thus Pharaoh’s pet weapon, the edict, was turned against himself, and brought about that Exodus of the Israelites which he was so anxious to hinder (Exodus 1:10). It was an aggravation of his punishment that the hand by which his designs were frustrated was that of his own daughter, who unwittingly preserved the child which, of all others, he was most concerned to destroy. II. GOD’S ON A MOTHER’S LOVE AND CARE. "By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents" (Hebrews 11:23). Disobedience to the edict of the king would in Egypt, if detected, have been punished either by death or mutilation. Amram and Jochebed, but especially Jochebed, who must have been the main agent in the concealment, braved these penalties — did not allow their fear of them to influence their conduct — had faith in God that he would, somehow or other, give success to their endeavours to preserve their child, and either save them from .punishment or reward them in another world. And it was done to them according as they believed. The concealment of the birth was undetected for the long space of three months — the ark was placed, no one perceiving, among the flags at the edge of the river — the daughter of Pharaoh made her appearance at the time expected — "had compassion" on the babe — accepted without hesitation Miriam’s suggestion that she should fetch a nurse — accepted without demur or suspicion the mother as the nurse-gave him back to her care for a space of nearly two years — and finally assigned the child the highest position possible, almost that of a prince of the blood royal — allowed him to be called and considered her son — and had him educated accordingly. Jochebed’s utmost hope had probably been to save her child’s life. God’s blessing brought it to pass that she not only obtained that result, but procured him the highest social rank and the best possible cultivation of all his powers, whether of mind or body. Mothers should lay this lesson to heart, and — whatever danger threatens their children — hope for the best, plan for the best, work for the best; they may not always, like Jochebed, find all their plans crowned with success; but they may trust God to .bless their endeavours in his own way and in his own good time, if only they be made in faith, and with due submission of their own wills to his. III. NATURAL VIRTUE IN GOD’S SIGHT. There runs through both the Old and the New Testament a continual protest against the view that God is "a respecter of persons" in the sense of confining his favour to those who have been brought by the appointed mode into actual covenant with him. The lesson is taught with frequent iteration, that "in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him" (Acts 10:35). Here it is an Egyptian Pharaoh’s daughter — that is evidently regarded favourably. Elsewhere it is Rahab of Jericho, or Ruth the Moabitess, or Arannah the Jebusite, or Darius the Mede, or Cyrus the Persian, or Artaxerxes, or the Syro-Phcenician woman, or Cornelius the centurion — all of whom are examples of the same universal law, which is, that God locks graciously upon all his creatures, and accepts every sincere effort towards good that is made by any of them. In his house are "many mansions" — in his future kingdom are many gradations. No one is shut out of his kingdom by the circumstances of his birth or profession. Let a man but seek honestly to do his will according to his lights, and persevere to the end, he will obtain acceptance, whatever the belief in which he has been brought up, and whatever his professed religion. His profession will not save him; but his love of goodness, his efforts to do what is right, his earnest cleaving to truth, and right, and virtue, will be accepted, through the merits of Christ, and counted to him for righteousness. Man may be very far gone from his original perfectness; but he was made in God’s image — he has an instinctive sense of right and wrong. When he refuses the evil and chooses the good — whether he be in covenant with God or out of covenant — his conduct is pleasing and acceptable for Christ’s sake, who has enlightened him and sustained him, and enabled him to do his good works, and presents them to the Father and obtains for them acceptance through his merits. Pharaoh’s daughter stands to us here as a type of the heathen world — a world lying in wickedness, but still salvable, still on the verge of salvation — she has the approval of the writer, and of the Holy Spirit, who inspired him — she had only to continue to act compassionately, kindly — according to her lights, rightly — and she was secure of final acceptance by him who "judges the folk righteously, and governs all the nations upon earth" (Psalms 67:4). We hear much in these days of God’s supposed exclusiveness and favouritism. Scripture does not sanction any such. views. He is there presented to us as "no respecter of persons," but "a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). Exodus 2:10 § 4. The education of Moses. Education is to fit us for the battle of life. The first and most important point is that a child be "virtuously brought up to lead a godly life" In Egypt morality was highly regarded; and some have gone so far as to say that "the laws of the Egyptian religion " — in respect of morality at any rate — "fell short in nothing of the teachings of Christianity". This is, no doubt, an over-statement; but it is the fact, that correct and elevated ideas on the subject of morality were entertained by the Egyptian sages, and inculcated on the young by Egyptian teachers. To "give bread to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, set the wanderer in his path, resist the oppressor, and put a stop to violence," were regarded as the first elements of duty, the very alphabet of morality, which the most ignorant was expected to know and practise. To the more advanced such counsels as the following were given: — "If thou art become great after thou hast been humble, and if thou hast amassed fiches after poverty, and art come to be the first man of thy city; if thou art known for thy wealth, and hast become a great lord: let not thy heart grow proud because of thy riches; for it is God who has given them to thee." "Despise not another who is as thou wast; be towards him as towards thine equal." "Happiness makes one content with any abode; but a small disgrace darkens the life of a great man" "Good words shine more than the emerald which the hand of the slave finds among a heap of pebbles." "The wise man is satisfied with what he knows; content dwells in his heart, and his lips speak words that are good." "The son who accepts the words of his father will grow old in consequence; for obedience is of God, disobedience is hateful to God." "Let thy heart wash away the impurity of thy mouth: fulfil the word of thy master." Moses in the household of a virtuous Egyptian princess, the wife probably of a respected official, would be guarded from corrupting sights and sounds, would hear none but "good words," would learn courtesy, good manners, politeness, affability, gentlemanly ease; while at the same time he would have inculcated upon him the duties of activity, diligence, truthfulness, benevolence, consideration for others, temperance, purity, courage. The peculiar circumstances of his position, as a foreigner, a foundling, a mere adopted child, would lay him open to many a reproach and innuendo on the part of those who were jealous of his good-fortune. In this way his path would be beset with difficulties, which would furnish the necessary discipline that might otherwise have been lacking to one brought up by a tender and indulgent mistress who assumed towards him the attitude of a mother. He would learn the virtues of reticence and self-control. As he grew to manhood, active duties would no doubt be assigned to him — he would have to exercise a certain amount of authority in the household, to undertake the management of this or that department, and thus acquire experience in the direction and government of men. Altogether, it is easy to see that the position wherein by God’s providence he was placed would furnish an excellent training for the part which he was to be called upon to play, would naturally tend to make him at once outwardly gentle and inwardly firm and self-reliant; at once bold to rebuke kings and patient to govern a stiff-necked and refractory people. To the moral training thus furnished was added a mental training, on which we have already enlarged, Book-learning is of little use towards the management of men. But when it is superadded to a good practical education, which has already given active habits and facility in dealing with all the various circumstances of life, it adds a grace and dignity to its possessor which are far from contemptible. Moses, without his Egyptian "learning," might have led his people out of Egypt and conducted them safely to Palestine; but he would have lost his most glorious titles and offices; he would scarcely have been the great legislator that he was; he could certainly not have been the great historian, or the great poet. Moses, to obtain the knowledge and the powers that he shows in his writings, must have been during his youth a most diligent student. In this respect he is a pattern to all the young, and most especially to those high-placed youths who are too apt to think that their wealth and rank put them above the necessity of hard work and diligent application. The truth is, that such a position lays its holder under a special obligation to diligence. "Noblesse oblige." Those who are highly placed, and will have many eyes on them, should endeavour to make their acquirements such as will bear close scrutiny and observation. "A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid" (Matthew 5:14). BY J. ORR Exodus 2:1-11 A child of providence. This section recounts the birth, deliverance, and upbringing at the court of Pharaoh, of the future Deliverer of Israel. In which we have to notice — I. AN ACT OF FAITH ON THE PART OF MOSES’ PARENTS. The faith of Moses’ parents is signalised in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 11:23). Observe — 1. The occasion of its trial. The king’s edict threatened the child’s life. The ease of Moses was peculiar, yet not entirely so. No infancy or childhood but lays a certain strain upon the faith of parents. The bark of a child’s existence is so frail, and it sets out amidst so many perils! And we are reminded that this strain is usually more felt by the mother than the father, her affection for her Offspring being in comparison deeper and more tender (cf. Is. 49:15). It is the mother of Moses who does all and dares all for the salvation of her babe. 2. Its nature. Both in Old and New Testaments it is connected with something remarkable in the babe’s appearance (Acts 7:20; Hebrews 11:23). Essentially, however, it must have been the same faith as upholds believers in their trials still — simple, strong faith in God, that he would be their Help in trouble, and would protect and deliver the child whom with tears and prayers they cast upon his care. This was sufficient to nerve Jochebed for what she did. 3. Its working. Faith wrought with works, and by works was faith made Perfect (James 2:22). (1) It nerved them to disobey the tyrant’s edict, and hide the child for three months. Terrible as was ,this Period of suspense, they took their measures with prudence, calmness, and success. Religious faith is the secret of self-collectedness. (2) It enabled them, when concealment was no longer practicable, to make the venture of the ark of bulrushes. The step was bold, and still bolder if, as seems probable, Jochebed put the ark where she did, knowing that the princess and her maidens used that spot as a bathing-place. Under God’s secret guidance, she ventured all on the hope that the babe’s beauty and helplessness would attract the lady’s pity. She would put Pharaoh’s daughter as a shield between her child and Pharaoh’s mandate. Learn — 1. Faith is not inconsistent with the use of means. 2. Faith exhausts all means before abandoning effort. 3. Faith, when all means are exhausted, waits patiently on God. 4. Pious parents are warranted in faith to cast their children on God’s care. It was a sore trial to Jochebed to trust her child out of her own arms, especially with that terrible decree hanging over him. But faith enabled her to do it. She believed that God would keep him — would make him his charge — would provide for him, — and in that faith she put the ark among the rushes. Scarcely less faith are parents sometimes called upon to exercise in taking steps of importance for their children’s future. Missionaries in India, e.g., parting with their children, sons leaving home, etc. Sorest trial of all, when parents on their deathbeds have to part with little ones, leaving them to care of strangers. Hard, very hard, to flesh and blood; but God lives, God cares, God will provide, — will watch the ark of the little one thus pushed out on the waters of the wide, wide world. II. AN ACT OF ON THE PART OF MOSES’ GOD. The faith of Moses’ parents met with its reward. Almost "whiles" they were yet "praying" (Daniel 9:20), their prayers were answered, and deliverance was vouchsafed. In regard to which observe — 1. How various are the instrumentalities employed by Providence in working out its purposes. A king’s edict, a mother’s love, a babe’s tears, a girl’s shrewdness, the pity of a princess, Egyptian customs, etc. 2. How Providence co-operates with human freedom in bringing about desired results. The will of God was infallibly accomplished, yet no violence was done to the will of the agents. In the most natural way possible, Moses was rescued by Pharaoh’s daughter, restored to his mother to nurse, adopted by the princess as her son, and afterwards educated by her in a way suitable to his position. Thus was secured for Moses — (1) Protection. (2) A liberal education. (3) Experience of court-life in Egypt. 3. How easily the plans of the wicked can be turned against themselves. Pharaoh’s plans were foiled by his own daughter. His edict was made the means of introducing to his own court the future deliverer of the race he meant to destroy. God takes the wicked in their own net (Psalms 9:15-16). 4. How good, in God’s providence, is frequently brought out of evil. The People might well count the issuing of this edict as the darkest hour of their night — the point of lowest ebb in their fortunes. Yet see what God brought out of it! The deliverance of a Moses — the first turning of the tide in the direction of help. What poor judges we are of what is really for or against us! 5. How greatly God often exceeds our expectations in the deliverances he sends. He does for us above what we ask or think. The utmost Moses’ parents dared to pray for was doubtless that his life might be preserved. That he should be that very day restored to his mother, and nursed at her bosom; that he should become the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; that he should grow to be great, wise, rich, and powerful — this was felicity they had not dared to dream of. But this is God’s way. He exceeds our expectations. He gives to faith more than it looks for. So in Redemption, we are not only saved from perishing, but receive "everlasting life" (John 3:16) — honour, glory, reward. — J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 2:1-9 The infancy of Moses. I. WE HAVE, IN THIS OF THE INFANT AND HIS MOTHER, A MOST OF THE STATE TO WHICH ISRAEL HAD BEEN REDUCED. We come down from the general statement of the first chapter to the particular instance of the second. Moses was born, in all likelihood, just at the very height of Pharaoh’s exasperation, and when the command of Exo 1:22 was in process of being carried out. His servants, ever becoming more savage and brutal in disposition, as the very consequence of the harshness and severity they had daily to exercise, would be going about, watching the midwives and hanging round the abodes of the Israelites .to listen for the first faint cry of the newborn child. In such circumstances, the work of the midwives most likely fell into abeyance; for the midwife became the unwilling herald of the murderer. Thus mothers in the crisis of their greatest need might be left without any ministry or sympathy whatever; their greatest safety in solitude, their greatest comfort to know that the newborn infant’s existence was utterly unknown to any Egyptian. No hour could well be darker, no circumstances more provocative of despair. We may depend upon it that God meant much to be suggested to Israel in after generations, by the birth of Moses just at this time. "In which time Moses was born" (Acts 7:20). May we not well imagine that when in later years Moses stole away from time to time, out of the splendours and luxuries of his royal home, to spend an hour or two with his own mother, she would tell him that, for all his relation to Pharaoh’s daughter and all his privileges about the court, he had been once, with many another helpless babe, the object of Pharaoh’s bitterest animosity. Things were in a very bad state when Moses was born. Bad for Israel in point of present suffering; bad for Egypt itself, seeing what a merciless and unscrupulous man sat upon the throne; bad for the prospects of Moses and all the coming generation. And so we cannot but feel that the whole world was in a very bad state when Jesus was born. He was exposed to the risk of a Herod; and Herod was but one of many like-minded oppressors. And worse than any cruelty and oppression from without was the state of the people in their hearts. Jew and Gentile were alike utterly departed from God. Romans, ch. 1., does as much as human language can do to give us the measure of the universal corruption and degradation. We shall do well to mark in the New Testament the many things that show what unregenerate, vile, and apostate hearts were those with whom Christ and his apostles came in contact. Then, when we have the dark, repulsive picture of the times well before us, we may imitate Stephen, and say — "in which time Christ was born." II. WE HAVE A MOST OF THE CARES AND SORROWS WHICH BELONG TO THE . "When she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months." This can hardly mean that if he had been a puny dwarfling, she would have cast him aside as not worth anxiety. We know that it is precisely the weakest, the least attractive to a stranger’s eye, who most draws forth the mother’s love; thus furnishing a sweet suggestion of that Divine affection which yearns, with the greatest tenderness, over those who may seem to others hopelessly lost. But as Moses Was a goodly child, she was bound by this fact to give all available chances for the promise that was in him. Who can tell what anxieties and alarms filled her thoughts during these terrible three months, and how often she skirted the extreme edge of disaster, always feeling that with each succeeding week her task became more difficult? How keen must have been the struggle before she brought her mind to face the dread necessity of exposure! We can imagine her being driven to decisive action at last, by seeing the agonies of some neighbouring mother, as the servants of Pharaoh discover her child and ruthlessly extinguish its delicate life. Here, in the sufferings of the mother of Moses, and of all the rest whom she but represents, we have something like the full significance set before us of that curse which first rested upon Eve. There may have been a measure of truth in what the midwives said concerning the case with which the mothers in Israel had been delivered; but not so were they going to escape the curse. Their trouble only began when the man-child was born into the world. Not to them at least was the birth to be an occasion of joy, but the beginning of unspeakable solicitude (Matthew 2:16-18; Matthew 24:19; John 16:21). This poor woman exposed her tender infant, not because she was callous of heart, unnatural, and lacking in love; but because of the very intensity of her love. So wretched had the state of Israel become that its infants found no place so dangerous as the place that should have been safest — the warm bosom of the mother. III. WE HAVE A MOST OF WOMANLY . The Scriptures, true to their character as being the fullest revelation not less of human nature than of the Divine nature, abound in illustrations of the demonstrativeness of womanly sympathy. To go no further afield, we have such an illustration in the previous chapter (the conduct of the midwives). But here there is an instance which is peculiarly impressive. It was the daughter of Pharaoh who showed the much-needed sympathy. She knew well how the babe came to be forsaken, and how, though it was forsaken, this waterproof ark had been so carefully provided for it. Somewhere in Israel she could see a mother anxiously speculating on the fate of this child; and she knew that all the strange discovery she had made came out of the stern, unrelenting policy of her own father. Some women indeed in her circumstances would have said, "Sad it may be that an infant should thus perish, but my father knows best. Leave it there." But compassion rose to flood-tide in her heart, and choked all thoughts of selfish policy, if they even so much as entered into her mind. Jesus says to his disciples, concerning one of the difficulties and pains of discipleship, that a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. And the principle seems to hold good in the carrying out of worldly plans. If a man wants to be downright selfish, he also may find foes in his own household, not to be conquered, bribed, or persuaded. Pharaoh thinks he is closing-up the energies of Israel in a most effective fashion; but his own daughter opens a little window only large enough for an infant three months old to get through it, and by this in the course of time all the cunning and cruelty of her father are made utterly void. IV. We have, in all these events connected with the infancy of Moses, A OF THE REALITY OF SPECIAL . Notice that there is not a word about God in the narrative; indeed, he is not mentioned as having anything directly to do with Moses, until the interview, long after, at Horeb. There is plenty of mention of human beings, in the play of their affections, their desires, and their ingenuity. The mother, the child, the sister, the nurse, the mother by adoption, all come before us, but there is no mention of God. Yet who does not feel that the Lord of Israel, unmentioned though he be, is yet the central, commanding, and controlling figure in all that takes place! It was he who caused Moses to be born at that particular time. It was he who sheltered the infant during these three months, when perhaps others were being snatched away in close proximity on the right hand and the left. It was he who put into the heart of the mother to dispose of her child in this particular way, and taught her to make such a cradle as surely never was made before. It was he who gave the sister wisdom to act as she did — a wisdom possibly beyond her years. It was he who turned the feet of Pharaoh’s daughter (of her and no one else) in that particular direction, and not in some other. All his excellent working in this matter is hidden from those who do not wish to see it; but how manifest it is, how wonderful and beautiful, to those whose eyes he himself has opened! How different is his working here from the working of the Deus ex machina in the tanglements and complications of classical fable. There, when things get to all appearance, hopelessly.. disordered, a deity comes in visible form and puts them right. But m thin real deliverance of Moses, the God who is the only true God works in a far different way. He works through natural means, and so silently, so unobtrusively, that if men wise in their own conceits are determined to ignore his presence, there is nothing to force it upon them. V. This narrative, along with that of the midwives, has A VERY SPECIAL BEARING ON THE AND DUTIES OF WOMEN. We have here in the compass of some five-and-twenty verses a most encouraging instance of what women are able to do. So far, in this book of the Exodus, God is seen exalting the woman and abasing the man. Man, so far as he appears, is set before us a weak, thwarted creature; cruel enough in disposition, but unable to give his cruelty effect. Even a king with all his resources is baffled. But weak women set themselves to work, to shelter a helpless infant, and they succeed. Here as on other occasions the hand of God is manifest, taking the weak thing? of the world to confound the strong. What a lesson, what an appeal and warning to women! We are all only too readily inclined to say, "What can I do?" Ñ women perhaps more than others, because of their inability to share in the bustle and strain of public life. Think then of what God enabled these women to do, simply following out the dictates of natural affection and pity. They did far more than they were conscious of. Might not women ask very earnestly if they are doing anything like what they ought to do, and have the opportunity to do, in bringing up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Christian women, those who are themselves new creatures in Christ Jesus, able to have all the love and wisdom and every spiritual grace that belongs to the new creature, might do a work for the world, compared with which the work of these women whom we have been considering would look a small matter indeed. — Y. BY G.A. Exodus 2:1-10 By works was faith made perfect. Bad times; harsh decrees against the Israelites; doubts and misgivings which must have occurred to one in Amram’s position; a hard experience and a dark prospect. Still the man believed in God, remembered the promises, and knew that God also must remember them; did not see how they were to be fulfilled, but was content to do his own duty and leave all else to God. See — I. How HIS FAITH WAS BY HIS WORKS. We have — 1. His marriage. Under all the circumstances he might well have been excused if he had decided to remain unmarried. Such advice as that of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:25-28) would seem to apply to such a time. The matter, however, was not to be so easily settled. Faith will not permit marriage without prudence and due forethought, but neither will Faith permit abstinence from marriage merely because marriage will bring "trouble in the flesh." Improvidence and a too-calculating abstinence both prompted by selfishness. Faith looks forward and looks around, but she looks up also, and is guided by the result of that upward look. Theories of political economists, etc., are not to be despised, none the less Faith will act — her actions regulated to some extent, but not fettered, by calculation. Paul’s teaching is to be qualified by Amram’s example; Amram knew the times, foresaw the rocks ahead, yet he "took to wife a daughter of Levi." 2. His choice of a wife. Clear from narrative that the woman was the man’s true helpmeet. Of the same family, they must have been well acquainted, and her conduct shows that her faith equalled his. Faith not only prompted marriage, but also directed choice. Amram and his wife did not marry merely for the sake of marrying, but "for the mutual society, help, and comfort which the one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity." 3. Conduct in the face of trial. The two, man and wife, now as one: though the woman comes to the fore, no doubt her faith represents that of both. Aaron and Miriam, reared before the trial reached its height; then "a goodly child," just at the season of greatest danger. Note the action prompted by faith; how different from that which might have been suggested by fatalism. Fatalism would have said, "Let things be; if he must be killed he must." Cf. Eastern proverb, "On two days it skills not to avoid death, the appointed and the unappointed day." Faith, on the other hand, is ready and courageous, holding that God helps those who help themselves, or rather that he helps them through self-help. But notice — II. HOW THIS LIVING FAITH WAS AND . 1. The conduct of the wife justified her husband’s choice. She was the helpmeet he hoped she would be. God gave her wisdom to comfort and strengthen him; His blessing added the third strand to that threefold cord which is not quickly broken. 2. Their united efforts for the preservation of their children were crowned by God with complete success. [Illustrate from the history — all happening, all ordained to happen, just as they hoped.] They had prepared, by carrying out the plan which faith prompted, a channel through which God’s gracious and ready help might reach them; and God used the channel which they had prepared. The whole narrative shows how faith, when it is living, proves its life by works, and how in response to a living faith God shows that he is a living God. If Amram had walked by sight and not by faith, Moses might never have been bern, Jochebed never have been married; as it was he walked by faith and not by sight, doing his duty and trusting God, and through him came redemption unto Israel — the child "taken out of" the water became the leader who should "take" his people "out of" bondage. — G. BY J. A picture of true faith. I. WHAT TRUE FAITH IS. 1. There was obedience to a Divine impulse: her heart was appealed to, she saw he was a goodly child, and she hid him three months. She read in the child’s appearance an intimation of future greatness, and that God did not mean him to die in accordance with the king’s commandment. The work of faith begins in obeying the Spirit’s prompting in the heart. 2. She was not daunted by difficulties. She might have asked what could this temporary concealment do but only prolong her misery. Faith is content if it has light but for one step. 3. Faith is fertile in expedients. The safety which is no longer to be had in the home may be found on the waters. 4. When it has done all, it waits, as with girded loins, for the dawning light. Miriam stood afar off. II. HOW GOD OUR TRUST. When we have done all, and, knowing it is nothing, look unto him, then God appears for us. 1. The child’s life was saved. 2. He was given back into his mother’s arms. 3. The very might which before was raised to slay was now used to guard him. 4. He was freed from the unhappy lot of his countrymen, and set among the princes of the land. Our trust prepares a place where God may manifest himself. He "is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." — U. BY H.T. The child of the water. "And she called his name Moses... water." — Exodus 2:10. Save Jesus, Moses is the greatest name in history. Compare with it Mahomet, or even that of Paul. As the founder of the Jewish religion — under God — his influence is felt to-day, not only by 6,000,000 Jews, but throughout the Christian Church. Here is the beginning of his career. This mighty stream of influence we can trace to its source; not like the Nile, whose origin is still in debate, a mystery. The text gives the name and its reason. The derivation is either Hebrew, and then= "Drawing out," so designating the act of the princess; or Egyptian, and then= ’’Saved from the water." The name a memorial of salvation. Happy, when children bearing distinguished names, shame them not in the after-years. We treat the subject in the order of the story: so its suggestiveness for heart and life will appear. I. THE FAMILY OF THE CHILD. Amram and Jochebed, the father and mother; Miriam, much older, and Aaron, three years older, than Moses. Note: Moses owed — 1. Little to his family. Look at Exodus 2:1. But the pre-eminence of Levi was not yet. The tribe did not make Moses; rather Moses (with Miriam and Aaron) the tribe. "Blue blood?’ Yes! and No! There is a sense in which we may be proud of ancestry, a sense in which not. What to me that I descend from a Norman baron? Everything to me that I come from able, gifted, saintly parentage. See Cowper on "My Mother’s Picture," lines 108-112. 2. Little to his home. Only a slave but; the scene of toil, poverty, suffering, fear. Out of it brought one thing — sympathy with suffering. 3. Little to his parents. Biographers usually give us the attributes and history of ancestors, and show how they account for the career of the child. Nothing of that here. Even the names of the parents do not appear. Note omission in Exodus 2:1. "A man," etc. "A daughter," etc. No doubt here a mental and moral heritage; but little training, because little opportunity. Generally, there is, under this head, a lesson of encouragement for those who have, or fancy they have, hard beginnings in life. Some of earth’s noblest have risen out of disadvantage. II. THE OF THE CHILD. For traditions of predictions of his birth see Jos. Antiq. 2:9. 2-4. Moses was — 1. No common child. Scepticism objects that Miriam and Aaron are not mentioned in Exodus 2:1-2 by name. But the motive and impulse of inspiration are to be taken into account. The object was to give the event which led to the Exodus, and to the constitution of the Jewish Church. From this point of view interest concentrates on Moses. Hence we infer the extraordinary greatness of his character and career. 2. Born at a critical moment. See Acts 7:20. So the Jewish proverb: "When the tale of bricks is doubled, then comes Moses." Note: — (1) At the moment of deepest darkness God sends deliverance. (2) When he wants instruments he creates them. 3. Of no common beauty. Not only in his mother’s eyes, which would be natural enough, but absolutely. See Acts 7:20, as well as Exodus 2:2; and for interesting illustration, Jos. Antiq. 2:9.6. All this the promise of a higher beauty of character that opened out with the years. III. THE DANGER OF THE CHILD. The child born to great issues, and therefore must run the gauntlet of peril. Compare Jesus under the edict of Herod with Moses under that of Pharaoh. No sooner born than a battle for life. The two only infants, but full of possibilities. Pharaoh! the babe you may crush; hereafter the man shall ruin you. A seeming law in the ease, to which witness the legends of many nations, e.g. Romulus and Remus, Cyrus, King Arthur. IV. LOVE FENCING FOR THE CHILD. 1. Of the mother. (1) Concealing. Hebrews 11:23. How by faith? Went right on in the discharge of common duty to the child, not turning aside to observe the king’s commandment. Then the love went to the other extreme: — (2) Exposing. Here narrate the facts, for which see the text and commentary above; e.g. impossibility of longer concealing a growing child, form and material of the ark, laid in a place of comparative safety, "in the flags" at "the lip of the river," the elements of danger — starvation, discovery — not crocodiles on the Tanitic branch of the river. But observe the feeling behind the facts. A mother’s despair becoming hope, and then faith; but a faith provident and workful, for, living in the neighbourhood, she could not fail to know where the childless (so says tradition) princess was wont to bathe. Just there she placed the child. 2. Of the sister. Imagine her anxiety! The mother-heart in every girl. She was (1) Watchful: over the ark, against an enemy, for the princess; (2) Active; (3) Clever, full of resource; (4) Successful; (5) Became eminent; a prophetess, Exodus 15:20. One of the three deliverers, Micah 6:4. The adored of the people, Numbers 12:10-15. In childhood are laid the foundations of character. 3. Of God. Before all, over all, and behind all! Love to the child, sister, parents, to Israel, and to the world to be blest through him. V. THE OF THE CHILD. This of God, but note the part played by each of the following instruments: — 1. The princess. Note the independent status of an Egyptian princess, the custom then of bathing in the open river, the probable locality, Zoan (Psalms 78:43), that compassion was inculcated by the Egyptian religion, and the probable application to her of Act 10:35. 2. The sister. 3. The mother. 4. The princess again; and possible lifelong parting from the mother. Finally, observe — 1. The deliverances of God are wonderful. Only one person in all the land of Egypt that could save Moses, and she came to the river. 2. The object of God’s deliverances does not centre and rest on the delivered. It passes beyond: Moses for Israel, Israel for the Messiah, Messiah for the world. So Abraham, Genesis 12:2. So with elect spirits and elect nations in all ages. None for himself. 3. So is it with the great salvation. Wonderful! The benediction thereof unresting, passing on from the first recipients. 4. But the retributions of God are just as marvellous. Moses was to be the ruin of the house of Pharaoh, and deservedly so. But in the providence of God the tyrant is made to pass by and even protect the instrument of his future punishment. — R. . Exodus 2:11-15 FIRST ATTEMPT OF MOSES TO DELIVER HIS NATION, AND ITS FAILURE. After Moses was grown up — according to the tradition accepted by St. Stephen (Acts 7:23), when he was "full forty years old" — having become by some means or other acquainted with the circumstances of his birth, which had most probably never been concealed from him, he determined to "go out" to his brethren, see with his own eyes what their treatment was, and do his best to alleviate it. He had as yet no Divine mission, no command from God to act as he did, but only a natural sympathy with his people, and a feeling perhaps that in his position he was bound, more than any one else, to make some efforts to ameliorate what must have been generally known to be a hard lot. It is scarcely likely that he had formed any definite plans. How he should act would depend on what he should see. Thus far, his conduct deserves nothing but praise. It only perhaps a little surprises us (if St. Stephen’s tradition accords with fact) that he did not earlier in his life take some steps in the direction here indicated. We are bound to recollect, however, that we know very little of the restraints under which he would have been laid — whether a severe law of etiquette, or the commands of his benefactress, may not have hampered him, and caused the long delay which strikes us as strange. Living with the court — in Tunis probably — he would have been required to make a strong effort — to break through an established routine, and strike out for himself a new and unheard-of course, if he quitted the princess’s household to make a tour of inspection among the enslaved Hebrews. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to consider that his act in "going out" to "look upon the burdens" of his people involved a renunciation of his court life — a refusal to be called any more the son of Pharaoh’s daughter (Hebrews 11:24); a casting-in of his lot with his brethren, so as thenceforth to be a sharer in their afflictions (ib. ver. 24). If this were so, we can well understand a long period of hesitation before the resolve was made to take the course from which there was no retreating. Exodus 2:11 When Moses was grown. "When he had become a .mall of vigour and intelligence" (Kalisch). He went out. The expression is emphatic, and accords with the view above exhibited — that a complete change in the life of Moses was now effected, that the court was quitted, with its attractions and its temptations, its riches and its pleasures; and the position of adopted child of a princess forfeited. He spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew. It is not certain that this was one of the "taskmasters" (Exodus 1:11); but most probably he was either a taskmaster, or one of the officers employed by them. Such persons are on the Egyptian monuments represented as armed with long rods, said to be "made of a tough pliant wood imported from Syria". It was their right to employ their rods on the backs of the idle, a right which was sure to degenerate in many cases into tyrannous and cruel oppression. We may assume that it was an instance of such abuse of power that excited the anger of Moses; "seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed" (Acts 7:24). For a light fault, or no fault at all, a heavy chastisement was being inflicted. Exodus 2:12 He looked this way and that way. Passion did not so move him as to make him reckless. He looked round to see that he was not observed,, and then, when he saw there was no man, slew the Egyptian. A wrongful act, the outcome of an ardent but undisciplined spirit; not to be placed among the deeds "which history records as noble and magnanimous (Kalisch), but among those which are hasty and regrettable. A warm sympathetic nature, an indignant hatred of wrong-doing, may have lain at the root of the crime, but do not justify it, though they may qualify our condemnation of it. And hid him in the sand. There is abundant "sand" in the "field of Zoan," and in all the more eastern portion of the land of Goshen. Exodus 2:13 The second day. i.e. "the following day." See Acts 7:26. Him that did the wrong. Literally, "the wicked one." Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? Literally "thy neighbour." In interposing here Moses certainly did nothing but what was right. The strife was one in which blows were being exchanged, and it is the duty of everyone in such a case, by persuasion at any rate. to seek to stop the combat. Exodus 2:14 Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? It was not his interference now, but his wrongful act of the day before, that exposed Moses to this rebuke. There was no assumption of lordship or of judicial authority in the bare inquiry, "Why smitest thou thy neighhour?" nor in the fuller phrase reported by St. Stephen, "Sirs, ye are brethren. Why do ye wrong one to another?" (Acts 7:26), unless as coupled with the deed of the preceding day. Thus the violence of today renders of no avail the loving persuasion of to-morrow; the influence for good which the education and position of Moses might have enabled him to exercise upon his nation was lost by the very act to which he had been urged by his sympathy with them; it was an act which could be thrown in his teeth, an act which he could not justify, which he trembled to find was known. The retort of the aggressor stopped his mouth at once, and made his interposition valueless. Exodus 2:15 Pharaoh heard. If we have been right in supposing the Pharaoh of the original oppression to have been Seti I., the present Pharaoh, from whom Moses flies when he is "full forty years old" (Acts 7:23), and who does not die till Moses is near eighty, must be his son, the Great Rameses, Rameses II. This prince was associated by his father at the age of ten or twelve, and reigned sixty-seven years, as appears from his monuments. He is the only king of the New Empire whose real reign exceeded forty years, and thus the only monarch who fulfils the conditions required by the narrative of Exodus supplemented by St. Stephen’s speech in the Acts. He sought to slay Moses. We need not understand from this expression that the Pharaoh’s will was thwarted or opposed by anything but the sudden disappearance of Moses. As St. Stephen says (Acts 7:29), "Then fled Moses at this saying," i.e. at the mere words of the aggressor, "Writ thou slay me as thou didst the Egyptian?" Moses fled, knowing what he had to expect, quitted Egypt, went to Midian; and the Egyptian monarch "sought to slay him" too late. The land of Midian is a somewhat vague expression, for the Midianites were nomads, and at different times occupied distinct and even remote localities. Their principal settlements appear to have been on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf (Gulf of Akabah); but at times they extended northwards to the confines of Moab (Genesis 36:35; Numbers 22:4; Numbers 22:7, etc.), and westward into the Sinaitic peninsula, which appears to have been "the land of Midian where to Moses fled (see below, Exodus 3:1). The Midianites are not expressly mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions. They were probably included among the Mentu, with whom the Egyptians contended in the Sinaitic region, and from whom they took the copper district north-west of Sinai. And he sat down by a well. Rather "and he dwelt by the well." He took up his abode in the neighbourhood of the principal well belonging to the tract here called Midian. The tract was probably one of no great size, an offshoot of the greater Midian on the other side of the gulf. We cannot identify the well; but it was certainly not that near the town of Modiana, Ñ spoken of by Edrisi and Abulfeda, which was in Arabia Proper, on the east of the gulf. Exodus 2:11-12 §1. Moses as a would-be deliverer. Moses, as a would-be deliverer, shows us how zeal may outrun discretion. Actuated by deep love for his brethren, he had quitted the court, resigned his high prospects, thrown in his lot with his nation, and "gone out" to see with his own eyes their condition. No doubt he came upon many sights which vexed and angered him, but was able to restrain himself. At last, however, he became witness of a grievous — an extreme — case of oppression. Some Hebrew, we may suppose, weaker than the generality, delicate in constitution or suffering from illness, rested awhile from his weary labour under the scorching sun, and gave himself a few moments of delightful, because rare, repose. But the eye of the taskmaster was on him. Suddenly his rest was interrupted by a shower of severe blows, which were rained pitilessly upon his almost naked frame, raising great wheals, from which the blood streamed down in frequent heavy drops. Moses could no longer contain himself. Pity for the victim and hatred of the oppressor surged up in his heart. "Many a time and oft" had he wished to be a deliverer of his brethren, to revenge their wrongs, to save them from their sufferings. Here was an opportunity to make a beginning. He would save at any rate this one victim, he would punish this one wrongdoer. There was no danger, for no one was looking (Exodus 2:12), and surely the man whom he saved would not betray him. So, having a weapon in his belt, or finding one ready to his hand — a stone, it may be, or a working man’s implement — he raised it, and striking a swift strong blow, slew the Egyptian. In thus acting he was doubly wrong. He acted as an avenger, when he had no authority from God or man to be one; and, had he had authority, still he would have inflicted a punishment disproportionate to the offence. Such a beating as he had himself administered the taskmaster may have deserved, but not to be cut off in his sins; not to be sent to his last account without warning, without time even for a repentant thought. The deed done, conscience reasserted herself: it was a deed of darkness; a thing which must be concealed: so Moses dug a hole in the sand, and hid the dreadful evidence of his crime. It does not appear that the man whom he had delivered helped him; he was perhaps too much exhausted with what he had suffered, and glad to creep to his home. Moses, too, returned to his own abode, well satisfied, as it would seem, on the whole, with what he had done. Having struck the blow, and buried the body unseen, he did not fear detection; and he probably persuaded himself that the man deserved his fate. He may have even had self-complacent thoughts, have admired his own courage and strength, and thought how he had at last come to be a deliverer indeed. In reality, however, he had disqualified himself for the office; he had committed a crime which forced him to quit his brethren and fly to a distance, and be thus unable to do anything towards mitigating their sufferings for the space of forty years! Had he been patient, had he been content with remonstrances, had he used his superior strength to rescue the oppressed without injuring the oppressor, he would have shown himself fit to be a deliverer, and God might not improbably have assigned him his mission at once. But his self-willed and wrongful mode of proceeding showed that he needed a long course of discipline before he could properly be entrusted with the difficult task which God designed him to accomplish. Forty years of almost solitary life in the Sinaitic wilderness chastened the hot spirit which was now too wild and untamed for a leader and governor of men. Exodus 2:13-14 2. Moses as a peacemaker. A great sin disqualifies a man for many a long year from setting himself up to be a guide and teacher of others. It may at any time be thrown in his teeth, nothing could be better intended than the efforts of Moses, on the day after his crime, to compose the quarrels of his brethren, and set the disputants at one. nor is he fairly taxable with any want of equity, or even of tact, in the manner in which he set to work. He rebuked "him that did the wrong." His rebuke was mild in character — a mere expostulation; "Wherefore smitest thou," etc. Nay, according to St. Stephen (Acts 7:26), it was not even an expostulation addressed to an individual, but a general address which avoided the assignment of special blame to either disputant. "Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?" Yet it had no effect; it failed utterly. The tables were at once turned on the expostulator by the inquiry, "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to slay me as thou didst the Egyptian?" Conscience makes cowards of us all. Moses, hearing this, had no more to say; he had essayed to pluck out the mote from his brother’s eye, and behold! the beam was in his own eye. His brethren were quarrelsome and injurious; but he — he was a murderer. Exodus 2:15. — 3. Moses as a fugitive. Men’s sins are sure to "find them out." Moses had thought that he would not be detected. He had carefully "looked this way and that way" ere he struck the blow, and had seen "that there was no man." He had at once hidden the body of his victim underground. He had concluded that the Hebrew whom he had delivered from the oppressor would keep silence; if from no other reason, yet at any rate to save himself from being suspected. But the man, it appears, had chattered. Perhaps from no ill motive, but simply from inability to keep a secret. He had told his wife, or his daughter, or his neighbour; and at once "the thing was known." While Moses imagined his deed shrouded in deepest secrecy, it was the general talk. All the Hebrews knew of it; and soon the Egyptians knew also. Presently it came to the ears of the king, whose business it was to punish crime, and who, naturally and rightfully, "sought to slay Moses." But he had fled away; he had put seas and deserts between himself and the royal vengeance; he was a refugee in Midian. So, though he escaped the public execution which Egyptian law awarded to his crime, he had to expiate it by forty years of exile and of hard service, a hireling shepherd tending the flock of another man. BY J. ORR The choice of Moses. Underlying this episode of killing the Egyptian there is that crisis in the history of Moses to which reference is made so strikingly in the eleventh of the Hebrews — "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather," etc. (Hebrews 11:24-27). Two views may be taken of the episode. Either, as might be held, the elements of decision were floating in an unfixed state in the mind of Moses, when this event happened, and precipitated a choice; or, what seems more likely, the choice had already been made, and the resolution of Moses .already taken, and this was but the first outward manifestation of it. In either case, the act in question was a deliberate committal of himself to his brethren’s side — the crossing of the Rubicon, which necessitated thereafter a casting-in of his lot with theirs. View this choice of Moses — I. AS A RESULT OF MENTAL AND MORAL . "When Moses was grown." With years came thought; with thought "the philosophic mind;" with this, power of observation. Moses began to think for himself, to see things with his own eyes. What he saw made evident to him the impossibility of halting longer between two opinions. He had not before felt the same necessity of definitely making up his mind whether he would be Hebrew or Egyptian. He had not seen in the same way the impossibility of retaining a sort of connection with both — sympathising with the Hebrews, yet enjoying Egypt’s pleasures. Now there came awakening. The two spheres of life fell apart to his vision in their manifest incongruity — in their painful, and even, in some respects, hideous contrast. He may now be Hebrew or Egyptian; he can no longer be both. Up to this time choice could be staved off. Now it is forced upon him. To determine now not to choose, would be to choose for Egypt. He knows his duty, and it is for him to decide whether or not he will do it. And such in substance is the effect of moral awakening generally. 1. In most lives there is a time of thoughtlessness, at least of want of serious and independent reflection. It is not at this stage seen why religion should require so very decided a choice. God and the world seem not absolute incompatibles. It is possible to serve both; to agree with both. Christ’s teaching to the contrary sounds strangely on the ears. 2. But an awakening comes, and it is now seen very clearly that this double service is impossible. The friendship of the world is felt to be enmity with God (James 4:4). The contrariety, utter and absolute, between what is in the world and love of the Father (John 2:15) is manifest beyond dispute. Then comes the need for choice. God or the creature; Christ, or the world which crucified him; God’s people or the friendship of those who deride and despise them. There is no longer room for dallying. Not to choose is already to have chosen wrongly — to have decided for the world, and rejected Christ. II. AS A VICTORY OVER STRONG . It was no slight victory over the temptations of his position for Moses to renounce all at the call of duty, and cast in his lot with an oppressed and despised race. His temptation was obviously a typical one, including in it everything which tempts men still to refrain from religious decision, and to dissemble relationship to Christ and connection with his people; and his victory was also typical, reminding us of his who became poor that we might be rich (2 Corinthians 8:7), and who put aside "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them," when offered him on sinful terms (Matthew 4:8-10). View it — 1. As a victory over the world. Moses knew his advantages at the court of Pharaoh, and doubtless felt the full value of them. Egypt was to him the world. It represented to his mind (1) Wealth and position. (2) Ease and luxury. (3) Brilliant worldly prospects. (4) A sphere congenial to him as a man of studious tastes. And all this he voluntarily surrendered at the call of duty — surrendered it both in spirit and in fact. And are not we, as Christians, called also to surrender of the world? Renouncing the world, indeed, is not monkery. It is not the thoughtless flinging away of worldly advantages. But neither is it the mere renouncing of what is sinful in the world. It is the renouncing of it wholly, so far as use of it for selfish ends or selfish enjoyment is concerned: the sinking of its ease, its pleasures, its possessions, in entire self-surrender to Christ and duty. And this carries with it the ability for any outward sacrifice that may be needed. 2. As a victory over the dread of reproach. In renouncing Egypt, Moses chose that which the multitudes shun as almost worse than death itself, viz. (1) Poverty. (2) Reproach. Yet how many stumble at reproach in the service of the Saviour! A measure of reproach is implied in all earnest religious profession. And it requires courage to face it — to encounter the moral crucifixion involved in being flouted and scouted by the world. It is when "tribulation and persecution ariseth because of the word" that "by and by" many are "offended" (Matthew 13:21). Yet to be able to encounter reproach is the true moral greatness — the mark of the spiritual hero. 3. As a victory over private feelings and inclinations. Not only was there much about his life in Egypt which Moses dearly loved (leisure, opportunities for self-culture, etc.); but there must have been much about the Hebrews which, to a man of his courtly up-bringing, would necessarily be repulsive (coarseness of manners, servility of disposition, etc.). Yet he cheerfully cast in his lot with them, taking this as part of his cross. A lesson for people of culture. He who would serve God or humanity must lay his account for much he does not like. Every reformer, every earnest servant of mankind, has to make this sacrifice. He must not be ashamed to call those "brethren" who are yet in every way "compassed with infirmity," about whom there is much that is positively distasteful. Here also, "no cross, no crown." III. AS AN ACT OF FAITH. The determining motives in Moses’ choice were — 1. Patriotism. This people was his people, and his blood boiled with indignation at the wrongs they were enduring. Only a nature dead to the last spark of nobleness could have reconciled itself to look on their sufferings and yet eat bread and retain favour at the court of their oppressor. 2. Humanity. "There was in him that nobleness of nature, which besides tending to sympathy with the oppressed, revolts from all that is selfish and cruel; and this nobleness was stirred up in him by seeing the state of his kindred, and comparing it with his own. This was his faith. Faith saved him from being content to be idle and useless, and gave him zeal and courage to play the part of a man and a hero in the liberation of his people" (Dr. J. Service). 3. Religion. We fail of a right view of Moses’ conduct if we stop short of religious faith proper. Moses knew something of the history of his people. He knew them to be the people of God. He knew of the covenants and promises. He knew of their religious hopes. And it was this which weighed most of all with him in casting-in his lot among them, and enabled him to count their reproach greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt. His faith was — (1) Faith in God. He believed in the God of his fathers, and in the truth and certainty of his promise. (2) Faith in the spiritual greatness of his nation. He saw in these Hebrews, sweat-covered, down-trodden, afflicted as they were, the "people of God." Faith is not misled by the shows of things. It pierces to the reality. (3) Faith in duty. "It is of the essence of faith that he who has, it feels himself to be in a world of better things than pleasures, whether innocent of sinful, which are only pleasures of sense; and in which to be right is greater and better than to be mighty or to be rich — feels, in a word, that the best of this life, and of all life, is goodness" (Dr. J. Service). (4) Faith in the recompense of reward. Moses believed in future recompense — in immortality. A cardinal doctrine, even in Egyptian theology, it can scarcely be supposed to have been absent from his. How great was the reward of Moses, even in this life! "He was happier as the persecuted and despised worshipper of Jehovah, the avowed kinsman of slaves, than as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, and the admired proficient in all Egyptian wisdom. He felt that he was richer, despoiled of the treasures of Egypt. He felt that he was happier, divorced from the pleasures of sin. He felt that he was freer, reduced to the bondage of his countrymen. He was richer, because enriched with the treasures of grace; happier, because blessed with the smiles of an approving conscience; freer, because enfranchised with the liberty of the sons of God. The blessings he chose were richer than all the advantages he cast away" (Lindsay). How great has been his reward in history! "For ages past his name has outshone all the monarchs combined of the one-and-thirty dynasties" (Hamilton). But the eternal reward has been greatest of all. A glimpse of it in the glorious reappearance of Moses on the mountain of transfiguration. Wise choice, for honours like these to surrender riches and pleasures which were perishable! Through faith in God, Christ, duty, and eternity, let the same noble choice be repeated in ourselves! ¯ J.O. BY J. Exodus 2:11-15. Unfruitful effort. I. MOSES’ SELF- (Hebrews 11:24-26). 1. He owned his relationship to the enslaved and hated people. 2. He cast in his lot among them. God calls for the same sacrifice to-day; confession of Jesus and brotherhood with his people. 2. There can be no true service without the heart’s waiting upon God. In order to guide we ourselves must follow. 3. The power which does not wait upon God comes to nothing. Contrast the prince with the unknown wanderer in Midian. Not only were means and influence lost, his very opportunity was gone. "Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil." — U. Unpurified zeal. We must certainly attribute the killing of the Egyptian, not to Divine inspiration, but to the natural impetuosity of Moses’ character. At this stage Moses had zeal, but it was without knowledge. His heart burned with indignation at the wrongs of his brethren. He longed to be their deliverer. Something told him that "God by his hand would deliver them" (Acts 7:25). But how to proceed he knew not. His plans had taken no definite shape. There was no revelation, and perhaps one was not expected. So, acting under impulse, he struck the blow which killed the Egyptian, but did no service to the cause he had at heart. That he did not act with moral clearness is manifest from the perturbation with which he did the deed, and from his subsequent attempt to hide the traces of it. It completed his discomfiture when, next day, he learned that the deed was known, and that his brethren, instead of welcoming his interposition, were disposed to resent it. He had involved himself in murder. He had sown the seeds of later troubles. Yet he had gained no end by it. How true it is that violence seldom leads to happy issues! "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). An exhibition of violence on our own part is a bad preparation for interfering in the quarrels of others. He that does the wrong will rarely fail to remind us of it. Learn lessons from the narrative — I. AS TO THE OF MOSES. Moses, like every man of true, powerful, and loving nature, was capable of vehement and burning anger. He was a man of great natural impetuosity. This casts light upon the sin of Meribah (Numbers 20:10). An outbreak of the old, long-conquered failing (cf. Exodus 4:13). The holier side of the same disposition is seen in the anger with which he broke in pieces the Tables of the Law (Exodus 32:19). It casts light also on his meekness, and 3. The result of a mother’s influence: from her he must have learned the truth regarding his descent and the hope of Israel. The seed sown outlived the luxury, temptations, ambitions of the court. God’s blessing rests on these efforts of holiest love. II. THE LESSONS OF HIS FAILURE. 1. True desire to serve is not the only requisite for success. We may be defeated by mistakes of judgment, an ungoverned temper, etc. teaches us to distinguish meekness from mere natural placableness and amiability. Meekness — the meekness for which Moses is famed (Numbers 12:3) — was not. a gift of nature, but the result of passions, naturally strong, conquered and controlled — of long and studied self-repression. II. AS TO ZEAL. 1. Unpurified zeal leads to hasty action. It is ungoverned. It acts from impulse. It is not schooled to bearing and waiting. It cannot bide God’s time, nor keep to God’s ways. 2. Unpurified zeal unfits for God’s service. It relies too much on self. It takes events into its own hand. Hence Moses is sent to Midian to spend forty years in learning humility and patience — in acquiring power of self-control. He has to learn that the work is not his, but God’s, and that only God can accomplish it. 3. Unpurified zeal, by its hasty action, retards, rather than furthers, the accomplishment of God s purposes. By driving Moses into Midian, it probably put back the hour of Israel’s deliverance. — J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 2:11-12. Moses, the ardent but mistaken patriot. We are not told much of Moses in the first forty years of his life, just as we are not told much of Jesus before he began his public ministry; but as it is with Jesus, so it is with Moses — what we are told is full of light concerning their character, disposition, and thoughts of the future. Just one action may be enough to show the stuff a man is made of. Moses, grown to manhood, by this single action of killing the Egyptian makes clearly manifest his spirit and his sympathies; shows to us in a very impressive way much that was good, and much also that was evil. I. THE CONDUCT OF MOSES HERE AS CASTING LIGHT UPON CERTAIN FOR THE WORK TO WHICH HE WAS CALLED. 1. Though he had been brought up amid Egyptian surroundings, he remained an Israelite in heart. Very early he must have been made acquainted, in some way or other, with the strange romance that belonged to his infancy. Whatever Pharaoh’s daughter brought to bear on him in the way of Egyptian influence one day, would be neutralised by what he heard from his own mother the next. For it was not likely that, alter he was able to understand it, his nurse would long conceal the fact that she was his true mother. Perhaps the very ark of bulrushes had become one of his treasured possessions. His name, once explained, was a continual memento of infantile peril and deliverance. And as he grew onward to manhood, he would be inclined to reproach himself again and again for living so easily and comfortably with Pharaoh’s daughter, while her father was treating with such harshness and injustice his own people, his own kinsfolk — Aaron his own brother being probably among them. Thus there was everything to keep the state of Israel incessantly in his mind; everything in the way of good soil to make the seed of patriotism grow, if only the seed were in his nature to begin with. And there it unquestionably was, growing with his growth and strengthening with his strength. 2. It is very important to notice how clearly the vicarious element comes out in the relation of Moses to Israel during the years he spent with Pharaoh’s daughter. In one sense, he did not suffer himself. His life was not made "bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field." No taskmaster ever smote him. And yet, in another sense, he suffered perhaps even more than any of the Israelites. There are burdens of the spirit which produce a groaning and prostration far worse than those of any bodily toil. There is a laceration of the heart more painful, and harder to heal, than that of any bodily wound. Moses felt the sorrows of Israel as if they were his own. In all their affliction he was afflicted. Not one of them smarted more under a sense of the injustice with which they were treated than he did. It is a most precious, ennobling and fruitful feeling to have in the heart — this feeling which links the unsuffering to the suffering in a bond not to be broken. It brings together those who have the opportunity to deliver, and those who, fastened hand and then can do nothing for themselves. We find this feeling, in its purest, most operative, and most valuable expression in Jesus, in him who knew no sin, no defiling thoughts, no torture of conscience for his own wrong-doing; and who yet came to feel so deeply the misery and helplessness of a fallen world, that he descended into it for its deliverance, having an unspeakably keener sense of its calamities than the most observant and meditative of its own children. It is a grand thing to have this element of vicarious suffering in our hearts; for the more we have it the more we are able to follow Jesus in serving our needy fellow-men. Moses had this element; the prophets had it; Paul had it; every true and successful apostle and evangelist must have it (Romans 9:1-5). Every Christian in process of salvation should have this element as he looks round on those still ignorant and out of the way. The civilised should have it as he looks on the savage; the freeman as he looks on the slave; the healthy as he looks on the sick; the man as he looks on the brute creation. This element of vicarious suffering has been at the root of some of the noblest and most useful lives in all ages, and not least in modern times. A thousand times let us run the risk of being called sentimental and maudlin, rather than lack the element or cripple it in its vigorous growth. Certain it is, that we shall do but little for Christ without it. 3. We have a very suggestive intimation of the superiority of Moses to the people whom he was about to deliver; this superiority being not a mere matter of greater social advantages, but arising out of personal character. The brother whom he succoured treated him but badly in return. He did not mean to treat him badly; but simple thoughtlessness makes untold mischief. He must have known that Moses wished the act kept a secret, yet in a few hours it is known far and wide through Israel. Not all might have been so inconsiderate, but assuredly most would; and so this man may be taken as representative of his people. He had not the courage and energy to return the Egyptian’s blow himself; nor had he the activity and forethought of mind to shelter the generous champion who did return the blow. Israel was in servitude altogether; not only in body, but in all the nobler faculties of life as well. Hence, if Israel was to be saved, it must be by the condescending act of a superior and stronger land. And thus Moses slaying the Egyptian shadows forth a prime requirement in the greater matter of the world’s redemption. Unless the Son of God had stooped from his brighter, holier sphere, to break the bonds of sin and death, what could we poor slaves have done? II. THE CONDUCT OF MOSES HERE AS THE IN HIM OF GREAT DEFECTS WHICH MUCH AND TO REMOVE THEM. Moses, in respect of his ardent and sustained sympathy with Israel, was a man after God’s own heart; but he had everything yet to learn as to how that sympathy was to be made truly serviceable. His patriotism, strong and operative as it had proved, was produced by entirely wrong considerations. His profound and fervent interest in Israel was a right feeling, and an indispensable one for his work; but it needed to be produced by quite different agencies, and directed to quite different ends. How had the feeling been produced? Simply by observing the cruelties inflicted on his brethren. He slew the Egyptian simply because he smote his brother, not because that brother belonged to the chosen people of God. The thing wanted was that he should come to understand clearly the connection of Israel with God, their origin and their destiny. He was to sympathise with Israel, not only as his brethren, but first and chiefly as the people of God. Patriotism is a blessing or a curse just according to the form it takes. If it begins to say, "Our country, right or wrong," then it is one of the greatest curses a nation can be afflicted with. Arrogance, conceit, and exorbitant self-assertion are as hideous in a nation as in an individual, and in the end correspondingly disastrous. Our greatest sympathy with men is wanted in that which affects them most deeply and abidingly. Sympathy has no full right to the name till it is the sympathy of forgiven sinners who are being sanctified and perfected, with those who are not only sinners, but still in the bondage of sin, and perhaps hardly conscious of the degradation of the bondage, and the firmness with which its fetters are fixed. Moses did not know how much his brethren were losing, because he did not know how much he himself was still lacking, even though in such comfortable freedom at Pharaoh’s court. In his eyes, the main thing to be done for Israel was to get them freedom, independence, self-control in this world’s affairs. And therefore it was necessary for God to effect a complete and abiding change in Moses’ way of thinking. He needed to be made better acquainted with God, and with God’s past revelations, and expressed purposes for Israel. Slaying the Egyptian did not advance the real interests of Israel a whit, except as God wove the action in with his own far-reaching plans. Considered purely as a human action, it was an aimless one, fruitful of evil rather than good. It was natural enough and excusable enough; but the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God; they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; and thus Moses in his carnal impetuosity made clear how dependent he was to be upon God for a really wise, comprehensive, practical plan of action. In the providence of God he was to come back to Israel, not to deal with some obscure subordinate, but with a Pharaoh himself; not to take the sword into his own hands, but to stand still himself, and make the people stand still also, that he and they together might see the salvation of God. — Y. Exodus 2:13-15 Moses the hater of all oppression. I. WE HAVE HERE FURTHER WITH RESPECT TO THE OF MOSES AND HIS FITNESS TO BE OF ISRAEL. 1. It is evident that his conscience did not accuse him, as touching the slaying of the Egyptian. Wrong as the action was, he made it clear that he had done it from a right motive. Although he had taken the life of a fellowman, he had taken it not as a murderer, with malice in his heart against the individual, but as a patriot. Hence the conscience that makes cowards of us all — the consciousness, that is, of having done a wrong thing — was absent from his breast. It is a very great matter indeed not to go against conscience. Let conscience have life and authority, and God will take his own time and means to cure the blinded understanding. 2. Moses felt continued interest in the state of -Israel. He Went out the second day. He did not say, upon reflection, that these visits to his brethren were too perilous to be continued. He did not say, "I cannot trust my own indignant. ,, feelings,, and therefore I must keep away from these oppressed countrymen of mine. His heart was wholly and steadily with them. Interest may be easily produced while the exhibition of an injury is fresh, or the emotions are excited by some skilful speaker. But we do not want the heart to be like an instrument, only producing music so long as the performer touches it. We want it to have such a continued activity within, such a continued thoughtfulness, as will maintain a noble and alert sympathy with men in all their varied and incessant needs. 3. The conduct of Moses here shows that he was a hater of all oppression. His patriotic feeling had been excited by the Egyptian smiting the Hebrew, and now his natural sense of justice was outraged by seeing one Hebrew smiting another. He beheld these men the victims of a common oppression, and yet one of them who happens to be the stronger adds to the already existing sufferings of his weaker brother instead of doing what he can to diminish them. The patriotism of Moses, even with all its yet unremedied defects, was founded not only in community of blood, but in a deep and ardent love for all human rights. We may conclude that if Moses had been an Egyptian, he would not have joined Pharaoh in his remorseless treatment of Israel, nor seconded a policy of oppression and diminution on the plea that it was one of necessity. If the Egyptians had been under the thraldom of the Hebrews, then, Hebrew though he was, he would have sympathised with the Egyptians. II. THE OF HIS . It is a sad lesson Moses has now to learn, that the oppressed will be the oppressors, if only they can get the chance. Here we are in the world, all sinners together, with certain outward consequences of sin prevalent amongst us in the shape of poverty and sickness, and all such trials onward to death. Right feeling should teach us, in these circumstances, to stand by one another, to bear one another’s burdens and do what we can, by union and true brotherliness, to mitigate the oppressions of our great enemy. While he is going about seeking whom he may devour, we, his meditated prey, might well refrain from biting and devouring one another. But what is the real state of things? The rich sinner afflicts the poor, and too often uses him in his helplessness for his own aggrandisement. The strong sinner is always on the look-out to make as much as he can out of every sort of weakness among his fellow-sinners. And what is worse still, when the sinner professes to have passed from death unto life, he does not always show the full evidence of it in loving the brethren as he is bound to do (1 John 3:14). Some professed Christians take a long time to perceive, and some never perceive at all, that even simple self-indulgence is not only hurtful to self, but an ever-flowing spring of untold misery to others. III. THE ITSELF. 1. Notice the person whom Moses addresses. "He said to him that did the wrong." He does not pretend to come forward as knowing nothing of the merits of the quarrel. He does not content himself with dwelling in general terms on the unseemliness of a dispute between brethren who are also the victims of a common oppressor. It is not enough for him simply to beseech the disputants to be reconciled. One is clearly in the wrong, and Moses does not hesitate by implication to condemn him. Thus there appears in Moses a certain disposition towards the judicial mind, revealing the germs of another qualification for the work of his after-life. For the judicial mind is not only that which strives to bring out all the evidence in matters of right or wrong, and so to arrive at a correct conclusion; it is also a mind which has the courage to act on its conclusions, and without fear or favour pass the necessary sentence. By addressing one of these men rather than the other, Moses does in a manner declare himself perfectly satisfied that he is in the wrong. 2. Notice the question which Moses puts. He. smote the Egyptian; he expostulated with the Hebrew. The smiting of one Hebrew by another was evidently very unnatural conduct in the eyes of Moses. When we consider what men are, there is of course nothing astonishing in the conduct of this domineering Israelite; he is but seizing the chance which thousands of others in a like temptation would have seized. But when we consider what men ought to be, there was great reason for Moses to ask his question, "Why smitest thou thy fellow?" Why indeed! There was no true mason he could give but what it was a shame to confess. And so we might often say to a wrong-doer, "Why doest thou this or that?" according to the particular wrong he is committing. "Why?" There might be great virtue in this persistent interrogation if only put in a spirit purged as far as possible from the censorious and the meddlesome. What a man does carelessly enough and with much satisfaction, upon the low consideration of self-indulgence, he might come to forsake if only brought face to face with high considerations of duty and love, and of conformity to the will of God and example of Christ. Everything we do ought to have a sufficient reason for it. Not that we are to be in a perpetual fidget over minute scruples. But, being by nature so ignorant, and by training so bound-in with base traditions, we cannot too often or too promptly ask ourselves whether we have indeed a sufficient reason for the chief principles, occupations and habits of life. 3. Notice that the question put to the Hebrew wrong-doer might just as well have been put to the Egyptian. He also had been guilty of indefensible conduct, yet he as well as the other was a man with powers of reflection, and the timely question, "Why smitest thou this Hebrew?" might have made him consider that really he had no sufficient reason at all to smite him. We must not too readily assume that enemies will persist in enmity, if only we approach them in a friendly manner. He that would change an enemy into a friend must show himself friendly. The plan may not always be successful; but it is worth trying to conquer our foes by love, patience and meekness. We must ever strive to get the selfish people to think, their thinking powers and all the better part of their humanity only too often get crushed into a corner before the rush of pride, appetite and passion. IV. THE RESULT OF THE . The wrong-doer has no sufficient and justifying answer to give; and so he tells Moses to his face that he is a mere meddler. When men are in a right course, a course of high and generous aims, they hail any opportunity of presenting their conduct in a favourable aspect. But when they are doing wrong, then they make a pretence of asserting their independence and liberty in order that they may fight shy of awkward confessions. If we wait till we are never found fault with as meddlers we shall do very little to compose quarrels and redress injuries, to vindicate the innocent or deliver the oppressed. Men will listen to a general harangue against tyranny, injustice and selfishness. They will look at us with great admiration as long as we shoot our arrows in the air; but arrows are not meant to be shot in the air; they are meant, at the very least, to go right into the crowd of men, and sometimes to be directly and closely personal. — Y. BY G.A. Moses "was grown." According to the tradition he had already distinguished himself as a warrior — was "a prince and a judge" amongst the Egyptians, if not over the Hebrews (Exodus 2:14). Learned, too, in all the wisdom of the day (cf Acts 7:22). At his age, forty years, with his influence, surely if ever he was to do anything for his people, now must be the time. Notice: I. THE HASTY OF THE MAN. 1. What he did, and why he did it. "It came into his heart to visit his brethren." In the seminaries of the priests, in the palace, with the army, he had not forgotten his people; but he had scarcely realised the bitterness of their trial. Now his heart burns within him as he looks upon their burdens. He feels that he is the appointed deliverer trained for this very purpose. What is so plain to him must, he thinks, be equally plain to others (Acts 7:25). A chance encounter gives him the opportunity of declaring himself; defending a Hebrew, he kills an Egyptian. The supposition that his brethren will understand proves to be a great mistake: "they understood not." Moses did that which we are all too ready to do: took it for granted that other people would look at things from his standpoint. A man may be all that he thinks himself to be; but he will fall in accomplishing his designs if he makes their success depend upon other people taking him at his own estimate; there is an unsound premiss in his practical syllogism which will certainly vitiate the conclusion. What we should do is to take pains to place ourselves at the standpoint of other people, and before assuming that they see what we see, make sure that at any rate we see what they see. Moses, the courtier, could see the weakness of the oppressor, and how little power he had if only his slaves should rise; the slaves, however, bowing beneath the tyranny, felt and exaggerated the tyrant’s power — they could not see much hope from the aid of this self-constituted champion. 2. What followed from his deed. Life endangered, compulsory flight, a refuge amongst shepherds in a strange land, forty years’ comparative solitude, life’s prospects blighted through impatience. "More haste worse speed" is one of the world’s wise proverbial generalisations. Moses illustrates the proverb — forty years’ exile for an hour’s hurry! II. THE OF GOD. "There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will." The apparently wasted years not really wasted — no needless delay, only preparation and Divine discipline. Moses had learnt much, but he needed to learn more. God takes him from the school of Egypt, and places him in the university of Nature, with Time and Solitude and the Desert as his tutors. What did they teach him? 1. The value of the knowledge gained already. Well "to be learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." But wisdom improves by keeping — it needs time and solitude to ripen it. Intellectually and spiritually we are ruminants; silence and- solitude are needed to appropriate and digest knowledge. 2. New knowledge. Few books, if any, of man’s making, but the books of Nature invited study. The knowledge of the desert would be needed byand-bye, together with much other knowledge which could be gained nowhere else. 3. Meekness. He not merely became a wiser man, he grew to be also a better man. The old self-confidence yielded place to entire dependence upon the will of God. God had delivered him from the sword of Pharaoh (cf. Exodus 2:15 with Exodus 18:3), and would help him still, though in a strange land. Nothing makes a man so meek as faith; the more he realises God’s presence and confides in him, the more utterly does the "consuming fire’ burn out of him all pride and selfishness. Application: — Turning the pages of the book of memory, what records of delay occasioned by impatience! Yet how do the same pages testify to the way in which all along God has shaped our ends! It is a mercy that we are in such good hands, and not left to our own devices. Trusting in God, we can hope to make the best even of our errors. He can restore — ay, more than restore — even years which the locust hath eaten (Joe 2:25). — G. BY H.T. Mistake in life’s morning. "He supposed his brethren would have," etc. (Acts 7:25). The heart-abandonment of the throne must have taken place before Moses went out from the palace of the princess to inquire, and therefore before the enforced flight. Place therefore "the crisis of being" between Exodus 2:10-11. Let no one fear to face this error in the life of the Lord’s servant. Admit frankly that Moses was wrong. We are embarrassed by a notion that clings to us, that the Bible is a repertory of good examples. It is not so. Only One perfect. All other men and women in tee Bible are imperfect and sinful, the subjects of God’s grace, pardoning, correcting, sanctifying, glorifying. Never lower the moral standard to defend a Bible character. It gives occasion to the adversary, and brings no satisfaction to the believer. In this chapter of the biography of Moses observe in his conduct — I. THE RIGHT. 1. Inquiry. No inclination to shrink from responsibility under the plea of want of knowledge. See the striking passage, Proverbs 24:11-12. Moses going out to investigate for himself, argues that either his mother or his people, or both, had opened and maintained communication with him, informing him of his origin, teaching the doctrine of the true God, and awakening concern. 2. Sympathy. "He looked on their burdens." 3. Indignation. We may be angry and sin; but it is also true that we may not be angry, and sin even yet more deeply. For illustration cite modern instances of cruel oppression. II. THE WRONG. 1. Excess of indignat feeling. 2. Murder. The "supposition" of Stephen is no justification, even if true; but it may not be true, or may be only partially true; for the utterance of Stephen, based on tradition, is not to be confounded with the inspired dictum of God. That furtive look "this way and that way" does not indicate an assured conscience. Note the true meaning and spirit of Rom 14:23. III. THE RESULTS. Failure — Peril — Fear — Flight — Delay of Israel’s deliverance. IV. THE FINAL . God originates no wrong, but, being done, lays on it the hand of the mighty. That enforced life in the desert became as important a part of the training of Moses as life at Avaris; acquainted him with "the Wilderness of the Wandering," its resources, mode of life; those other children of Abraham — the Midianites; gave him to wife a descendant of Abraham; led to an important policy for all the future of Israel (Exodus 18:1-27.); and furnished an all-but-indispensable human helper and guide (Numbers 10:29-31). Thus does the Eternal Mercy overrule and countervail the errors, even the sins, of penitent believers. — R. . Exodus 2:16-22 LIFE OF MOSES IN MIDIAN Fugitives from Egypt generally took the northern route from Pelusium or Migdol to Gaza, and so to Syria, or the regions beyond. But in this quarter they were liable to be arrested and sent back to the Egyptian monarch. Rameses II: put a special clause to this effect into his treaty with the contemporary Hittite king. It was, perhaps, the fear of extradition which made Moses turn his steps southeastward, and proceed along the route, or at any rate in the direction, which he afterwards took with his nation. Though Egypt had possessions in the Sinaitic peninsula, it was not difficult to avoid them; and before Sinai was reached the fugitive would be in complete safety, for the Egyptians seem never to have penetrated to the southern or eastern parts of the great triangle. "The well," by which Moses took up his abode, is placed with some probability in the neighbourhood of Sherm, about ten miles north-east of Ras Mahommed, the southern cape of the peninsula Exodus 2:16. — The priest of Midian. Cohen is certainly "priest" here, and not "prince," since the father-in-law of Moses exercises priestly functions in Exodus 18:12. His seven daughters drew water for his flock, in accordance with Eastern custom. So Rachel "kept the sheep" of her father Laban, and watered them (Genesis 29:9). Such a practice agrees well with the simplicity of primitive times and peoples; nor would it even at the present day be regarded as strange in Arabia. Exodus 2:17 The shepherds came and drove them away. There is not much "natural politeness" among primitive peoples. The right of the stronger prevails, and women go to the wall. Even the daughters of their priest were not respected by these rude sons of the desert, who would not wait their turn, but used the water which Reners daughters had drawn. The context shows that this was not an accidental or occasional circumstance, but the regular practice of the shepherds, who thus day after day saved themselves the trouble of drawing. (See the next verse.) Moses stood up and helped them. Ever ready to assist the weak against the strong (supra, Exodus 2:12-13), Moses "stood up" — sprang to his feet — and, though only one man against a dozen or a score, by his determined air intimidated the crowd of wrong-doers, and forced them to let the maidens’ sheep drink at the troughs. His dress was probably that of an Egyptian of rank; and they might reasonably conclude from his boldness that he had attendants within call. Exodus 2:18 Reuel their father. Reuel is called "Raguel" in Numbers 10:29, but the Hebrew spelling is the same in both places. The word means "friend of God," and implies monotheisim. Compare Exodus 18:9-12. Exodus 2:19 An Egyptian. Reuel’s daughters judged by the outward appearance. Moses wore the garb and probably spoke the language of Egypt. He had had no occasion to reveal to them his real nationality. Drew water enough for us. The shepherds had consumed some of the water drawn by the maidens, before Moses could drive them off. He supplied the deficiency by drawing more for them — an act of polite attention. Exodus 2:20 Where is he? Reuel reproaches his daughters with a want of politeness — even of gratitude. Why have they "left the man"? Why have they not invited him in? They must themselves remedy the omission — they must go and "call him" — that he "may eat bread," or take his evening meal with them. Exodus 2:21 Moses was content to dwell with the man. Moses had fled from Egypt without any definite plan, simply to save his life, and had now to determine how he would obtain a subsistence. Received into Reuel’s house, or tent, pleased with the man and with his family, he consented to stay with him, probably entered into his service, as Jacob into Laban’s (Genesis 29:15-20), kept his sheep, or otherwise made himself useful (see Exodus 3:1); and in course of time Reuel gave Moses his daughter, accepted him for his son-in-law, so that he became not merely a member of his household, but of his family, was adopted probably into the tribe, so that he could not quit it without permission (Exodus 4:18), and, so far as his own intention went, cast in his lot with the Midianites, with whom he meant henceforth to live and die. Such vague ideas as he may previously have entertained of his "mission" had passed away; he had been "disillusioned" by his ill-success, and now looked forward to nothing but a life of peaceful obscurity. Exodus 2:22. — Gershom. An Egyptian etymology has been assigned to this name; but Moses in the text clearly indicates that his own intention was to give his child a name significant in Hebrew. "He called his name Gershom, for he said, a stranger (ger) have I been," etc. The only question is, what the second element of the name, shom, means. This appears to be correctly explained by Kalisch and others as equivalent to sham "there " — so that the entire word would mean "(I was) a stranger there" — i.e. in the country where this son was born to me. Exodus 2:16-19. § 1. Moses a second time the champion of the oppressed. His championship of an oppressed Hebrew, indiscreetly and wrongfully asserted, had driven Moses from the country of his birth. No sooner does he set foot in the land where he seeks a refuge, than his championship is again called forth. On the first occasion it was a weaker race oppressed by one more powerful that made appeal to his feelings; now it is the weaker sex, oppressed by the stronger, that rouses him. His Egyptian civilisation may have helped to intensify his aversion to this form of oppression, since among the Egyptians of his time women held a high place, and were treated with consideration. He springs forward therefore to maintain the rights of Reuel’s daughters; but he has learnt wisdom so far that he restrains himself — kills no one, strikes no one — merely "helps" the victims, and has their wrong redressed. The circumstances of life give continual occasion for such interference as this; and each man is bound, so far as he can, to check oppression, and "see that they who are in need and necessity have right." If Moses is a warning to us in respect of his mode of action on the former occasion, he is an example here. The protection of women, whensoever and wheresoever they are wronged and ill-used, is a high Christian duty. Exodus 2:21-22 § 2. Moses as husband and father. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham (Genesis 25:24); and marriage with them was permitted, even under the Law (Numbers 31:18). Moses, in wedding Zipporah, obeyed the primeval command, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), while at the same time he gave himself the solace so much needed by an exile, of tender and loving lifelong companionship. That Reuel was willing to give him one of his daughters indicates that he had approved himself as a faithful servant in the good priest’s household, and was felt to deserve a reward. That Zipporah accepted him was perhaps mere filial obedience, for which she was rewarded when the fugitive and exile became the first man in a considerable nation. God blessed the marriage with male issue, a blessing fondly desired by each true Israelite, and certainly not least by Moses, who knew so well that in some descendant of Abraham "all the families of the earth should be blessed." A shade of sadness shows itself, however, in the name which he gave his firstborn — Gershom, "a stranger there." He himself had been for years, and, for aught that he could tell. his son might always be "a stranger in a strange land" far from his true home, far from his own people, a refugee among foreigners, who could not be expected to love him as one of themselves, or treat him otherwise than with coldness. Depression like this often assails us at moments of great joy, the good obtained making us feel all the more sensibly that other goods have been lost. Such depression, however, after a time, passes away, and the desponding cry of "Gershom" is followed (Exodus 18:3-4) by that of" Eliezer," or "my God helps." BY J. ORR Exodus 2:15-23 The long exile.Moses took with him into Midian all the best elements of his character; he left some of the faulty ones behind. He may be assumed to have left much of his self-confidence, and to have been cured in part of his natural rashness. His after growth in meekness would almost imply that he had come to see the need of curbing his hot passions, and had, like David, purposed in his heart that he would not transgress (Psalms 17:3; Psalms 32:1). But he carried with him all his nobleness, all his magnanimity and courtesy. This comes beautifully out in his defence of the women at the well (Exodus 2:16-17). I. AN OF . We have in the incident —1. The weak pushed aside by the strong. Rude, ill-mannered fellows thrust aside the daughters of the priest of Midian from the sheep-troughs, and shamelessly appropriate the water with which they had diligently filled them.2. Brave championship of the weak. Moses takes their part, stands up to help them, and compels the shepherds to give way. Not content with this, he gives the maidens what assistance he is able. The two dispositions stand in fine contrast: the one all that is unmanly and contemptible, the other all that is chivalrous and noble. The instance teaches —1. That the chivalrous disposition is also helpful. The one grace sets off the other. But the bully is a churl, helping nobody, and filching from the weak.2. That the bully is to boot a coward. He will insult a woman, but cringes in the presence of her vindicator. No true man need be afraid to beard him.3. That acts of kindness to the defenceless are often repaid in unexpected ways. They are indeed their own reward. It revives one’s spirit to maintain the cause of the needy. Moses, like Jesus, sat by the well; but this little act of kindness, like the Saviour’s conversation with the woman of Samaria, did more to refresh his spirit than the sweetest draught he could have taken from it. It was good for him, defeated in resisting tyranny in Egypt, and discouraged by the reception he had met with from his brethren, to have this opportunity of reasserting his crushed manhood, and of feeling that he was still useful. It taught him, and it teaches us —(1) Not to despair of doing good. Tyranny has many phases, and when it cannot be resisted in one form, it may in another. And it taught him(2) Not to despair of human nature. Gratitude had not vanished from the earth, because his brethren had proved ungrateful. Hearts were still to be found, sensitive to the magic touch of kindness; capable of responding to it; ready to repay it by love. For the little deed of chivalry led to unexpected and welcome results. It prepared the way for the hospitable reception of Moses by Reuel; found for him a home in Midian; gave him a wife; provided him with suitable occupation. II. THE IN MIDIAN. Notice on this —1. The place of it. In or near the Peninsula of Sinai. Solitude and grandeur. Fit place for education of thought and heart. Much alone with God — with Nature in her more awful aspects — with his own thoughts.2. The society of it. He had probably few companions beyond his immediate circle: his wife; her father, sheikh and priest, — pious, hospitable, kindly-natured; the sisters. His life simple and unartificial, a wholesome corrective to the luxury of Egypt.3. The occupation of it. He kept flocks (Exodus 3:1). The shepherd’s life, besides giving him a valuable knowledge of the topography of the desert, was very suitable for developing qualities important in a leader — watchfulness, skill, caution, self-reliance, bravery, tenderness, etc. So David was taken "from the sheepcote, from following the sheep," to be ruler over God’s people, over Israel (2 Samuel 7:8). It lets in light on Moses’ character that he was willing to stoop to, and did not spurn, this lowly toil. He that could so humble himself was fit to be exalted. By faithfulnesss in that which was least, he served an apprenticeship for being faithful also in much (Luke 16:10).4. The duration of it. Forty years was a long time, but not too long for the training God was giving him. The richest characters are slowest in coming to maturity, and Moses was all this while developing in humility, and in knowledge of God, of man, and, of his own heart. The whole subject teaches us valuable lessons. Learn — 1. God’s dealings with his servants are often mysterious. Moses in Midian seems an instance of the highest gifts thrown uselessly away. Is this, we ask in surprise, the only use God can find for a man so richly gifted, so remarkably preserved, and on whom have been lavished all the treasures of Egypt’s wisdom? Any ordinary man might be a shepherd, but how few could do the work of a Moses? Moses himself, in the meditations of these forty years, must often have wondered at the strange irony of his life. Yet how clear it was all made to him at last! Trust God to know better what is good for you than you do yourself.2. How little a man has, after all, to do with the shaping of his own history! In one sense he has much, yea everything, to do with it. Had Moses, e.g., not so rashly slain the Egyptian, his whole future would doubtless have borne a different complexion. Man is responsible for his acts, but once he has done them, they are taken in spite of himself out of his hands, and shaped in their consequences by overruling Providence. He who sent the princess to the river, sent also the priest’s daughters to the well.3. It is man’s wisdom to study contentment with his lot. It may be humble, and not the lot we like, or had counted on. It may be a lot to which we never expected to be reduced. We may feel as if our gifts and powers were being wasted in it. Yet if it is our lot — the one meanwhile providentialiy marked out for us ¯ our wisdom is cheerfully to accept of it, and make the best of the tasks which belong to it, J.O. Exodus 2:22 Gershom.1. The good man in this world is often lonely at heart.(1) When violence reigns unchecked. (2) When God’s cause is in a depressed condition. (3) When repulsed in efforts to do good. (4) When severed from scenes of former labour. (5) When his outward lot is uncongenial. (6) When deprived of suitable companionships, and when he can find few to sympathise with him.2. God sends to the good man alleviations of his loneliness. We may hope that Zipporah, if not without faults, formed a kind and helpful wife to Moses. Then, sons were born to him — the first, the Gershom of this text. These were consolations. A wife’s affection, the prattle and innocence of children — have sweetened the lot of many all exile. Bunyan and his blind daughter. — J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 2:15-22. —Moses in Midian.Moses had to flee. The hard, unworthy reproach, humiliating as he must have felt it to be, nevertheless gave him a timely warning. His flight seems to have been instantaneous; perhaps not even the opportunity to bid farewell to his friends. An utter rupture, a complete separation was his only safety. Consider — I. WHAT HE LEFT BEHIND HIM. 1. Possibly Pharaoh’s daughter was still alive. If so, we can imagine her sorrow and utter perplexity over the son of her adoption, and the reproaches she might have to bear from her own kindred. How often she may have heard that common expression which adds insult to bitter disappointment, "I told you so." We may be tolerably sure as to one result of the long sojourn of Moses in Midian, viz., that when he returned, she would be vanished from the scene, spared from beholding the son of her adoption the agent of such dreadful visitations to her own people. Yet even with this mitigation, the agony may have been more than she could boar. She had sheltered Moses, watched over him, and "nourished him for her own son," giving him the opportunity to become learned m all the wisdom of the Egyptians; only to find at last that a sword had pierced through her own soul (Luke 2:35; Acts 7:21-22).2. He left his brethren in servitude. Any expectation they may have had, from his present eminence and possibly greater eminence in the future, was now completely crushed. It is well to effect a timely crushing of false hopes, even if great severity has to be used.3. He left behind all difficulties that came from his connexion with the court. Had he gone on staying in Egypt he would have had to make his election, sooner or later, between the Egyptians and his own people. But now he is spared having to decide for himself. We have to thank God that he sometimes takes painful and difficult decisions out of our hands, so that we have no longer to blame ourselves either for haste or procrastination; for rashness and imprudence, or cowardice and sloth. God in his providence does things for us, which we might find it very hard to do for ourselves. II. WHAT HE FOUND BEFORE HIM. He went out, hardly knowing whither he went. The safest place was the best for him, and that safest place might not immediately appear. Yet how plain it is that God was guiding him, as really as he guided Abraham, though Moses was not conscious of the guiding. He fled because he had slain a fellow-man, yet he was not going forth as a Cain. Under the wrath of Pharaoh, he was not under that wrath of God which rests upon murderers. He Was going to a new school, that was all — having learned all that could be learned in the old one. He probably asked himself as he fled, "Where can I go? Who will receive me? What story can I tell?" He would feel, now the homicide was known, that it was impossible to say how far the news had reached. Onward he sped — perhaps, like most fugitives of the sort, hiding by day and travelling by night — until at last he reached the land of Midian. Here he concluded to dwells although it may have been in his mind only a temporary stage to a distant and safer abode. And now observe that with this fresh mention of what happened to him after his flight, there is an immediate and still further revelation of his character, all in the way of showing his natural fitness for the great work of his life. He has made an awful mistake in his manner of showing sympathy with Israel, and in consequence has exposed himself to a humiliating rebuff; but all this does not make him one whit less willing to champion the weak when the occasion comes. He was a man always ready for opportunities of service; and wherever he went there seemed to be something for him to do. He had fled from a land where the strong oppressed the weak, and come into another land where he found the same thing prevailing, and in one of its most offensive forms; for the tyranny was that of man over woman. The people of Midian had a priest who seems to have been himself a hospitable man and a judicious and prudent one (ch. 18.); but there was so little reality of religion among the people, so little respect for the priest’s office, that these shepherds drove his daughters away from the well — whom rather they should have gladly helped. It was not an occasional misadventure to the daughters, but a regular experience (Exodus 2:18). None of these shepherds perhaps had ever killed a man, but for all that they were a pack of savage boors. Moses, on the other hand, even though he has slain a man, is not a mere bravo, one who puts little value on human life. One might have said of him as Chaucer says of one of his pilgrims in the ’Canterbury Tales,’"He was a veray parfit gentil knight."Then, when Moses had helped the women, his difficulties and doubts were soon brought to an end. He had helped them, though they were utter strangers, because he felt it his duty so to do. He was not looking to them for a release from his difficulties, for how could a few weak women help him, those who had just been the objects of his own pity? But as women had been the means of protecting him in infancy, so they were the means of providing for him now. He did not seek Reuel; Reuel sought him. He needed no certificate of character, these daughters themselves were an epistle of commendation to their father. He might safely tell all his story now, for even the darkest chapter of it would be viewed in the light of his recent generous action. — Y. Exodus 2:15 Sitting by the well: a suggestive comparison.The very expression, "He sat down by a well," inevitably suggests that conversation beside the well at Sychar, in which Jesus took so important a part. Note the following points of resemblance, and then say if they can be considered as purely accidental. Are they not rather involved in the profound designs of him who presided over the construction of the Scriptures?1. As we see Moses fleeing from the face of Pharaoh, so we see Jesus making a prudent departure from Judaea into Galilee, on account of the Pharisees.2. Both Moses and Jesus are found sitting by a well.3. As Moses comes in contact with seven women of a different nation, so Jesus with the woman of Samaria. And just as the daughters of Reuel made the difference seem greater still by calling Moses an Egyptian, which though a name partly appropriate, was yet particularly inappropriate at a time when he was the object of Pharaoh’s bitterest hatred — so the woman of Samaria laid emphasis on the fact that Jesus was a Jew, being altogether ignorant how small a part was that of the truth concerning him.4. The very difference in number is significant. Moses could help a number in the service that he rendered, because it was a mere external service. But Jesus needed to have the woman of Samaria alone, that he might deal effectually with her peculiar, individual need. There is a great difference in respect of the things to be said and done, according as we are dealing with one person or more than one.5. The meeting of Moses with the daughters of Reuel led on to his becoming acquainted with Reuel himself; gaining his confidence and becoming his helper. So Jesus serving the woman of Samaria was led on to serve, not one only, but many of those connected with her.6. Moses soon entered into a nearer relation still with Reuel, and Jesus in the course of his conversation with the woman asserted principles which were to break down the barriers between Sew and Samaritan, and every wall of partition separating those who should be united. Lastly, he who helped these women became a shepherd; and his dying thought was of a shepherd’s work, as he prayed God to give him a successor who should be a true shepherd to Israel. And as to Jesus, we all know how he delighted to set himself before his disciples as the Good Shepherd, deeply concerned for the nourishment and security of his flock, and concerned most of all to seek and to save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:4; Luke 19:10). — Y. BY H.T. Life and its moods."He called his name Gershom," etc. (Exodus 2:22), compared with — "And the name of the other was Eliezer," etc. (Exodus 18:4). Note the isolation and misery of the earlier time, and the mercy of the later — each begetting its own tone and mood of mind; and further, the desirability of living above the mood of the passing day. Rev. O. Kingsley says (’Life,’ 1:82): "Let us watch against tones. They are unsafe things. The tone of a man or woman’s mind ought to be that of thoughtful reverence and love; but neither joy or sorrow, or activity or passiveness, or any other animal tone, ought to be habitual," etc. — R. . Exodus 2:23-25 DEATH OF THE PHARAOH FROM WHOM MOSES FLED — OF THE OF ISRAEL-ISRAEL’S PRAYERS — GOD’S OF THEM. — After a space of forty years from the time of Moses’ flight from Egypt, according to the estimate of St. Stephen (Acts 7:30), which is not, however, to be strictly pressed, the king whose anger he had provoked — Rameses II., as we believe — died. He had reigned sixty-seven years — about forty-seven alone, and about twenty in conjunction with his father. At his death, the oppressed Israelites ventured to hope for some amelioration of their condition. On his accession, a king in the East often reverses the policy of his predecessor, or at any rate, to make himself popular, grants a remission of burthens for a certain period. But at this time the new monarch, Menephthah I., the son of Rameses II., disappointed the hopes of the Israelites, maintained his father’s policy, continued the established system of oppression, granted them no relief of any kind. They "sighed," therefore, in consequence of their disappointment, and "cried" unto God in their trouble, and made supplication to him more earnestly, more heartily, than ever before. We need not suppose that they had previously fallen away from their faith, and "now at last returned to God after many years of idolatrous aberration" (Aben Ezra, Kalisch). But there was among them an access of religious fervour; they "turned to God" from a state of deadness, rather from one of alienation, and raised a "cry" of the kind to which he is never deaf. God therefore "heard their groaning," deigned to listen to their prayers, and commenced the course of miraculous action which issued in the Exodus. (This section is more closely connected with what follows than with what went before, and would better begin ch. 3. than terminate ch. 2.) Exodus 2:23 In process of time. Literally, "in those many days." The reign of Rameses II. was exceptionally long, as previously explained. He had already reigned twenty-seven years when Moses fled from him (Exodus 2:15). He had now reigned sixty-seven, and Moses was eighty! It had seemed a weary while to wait. The children of Israel sighed. If the time had seemed a weary while to Moses, how much more to his nation! He had escaped and was in Midian — they toiled on in Egypt. He kept sheep — they had their lives made "bitter" for them "with hard bondage, in molter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field" (Exodus 1:14). He could bring up his sons in safety; their sons were still thrown into the river. No wonder that "an exceeding bitter cry" went up to God from the oppressed people, so soon as they found that they had nothing to hope from the new king. Exodus 2:24-25 God heard their groaning. God is said to "hear" the prayers which he accepts and grants; to "be deaf" to those which he does not grant, but rejects. He now "heard" (i.e. accepted) the supplications of oppressed Israel; and on account of the covenant which he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — a covenant always remembered by him — he looked upon his people, made them the objects of his special regard, and entered on a course, which was abnormal, irregular, miraculous, in order to carry out his purposes of mercy towards them It is observed that anthropomorphic expressions are here accumulated; but this is always the case when the love and tenderness of God towards man are spoken of, since they form the only possible phraseology in which ideas of love and tenderness can be expressed so as to be intelligible to bureau beings. And God regarded them. Literally, "and God knew." God kept the whole in his thoughts — bore in mind the sufferings, the wrongs, the hopes, the fears, the groans, the despair, the appeal to him, the fervent supplications and prayers — knew all, remembered all-counted every word and sigh — gathered the tears into his bottle — noted all things in his book — and for the present endured, kept silence — but was preparing for his foes a terrible vengeance — for his people a marvellous deliverance Death comes at last, even to the proudest monarch.Rameses II. left behind him the reputation of being the greatest of the Egyptian kings. He was confounded with the mythical Sesostris, and regarded as the conqueror of all Western Asia, of Ethiopia, and of a large tract in Europe. His buildings and other great works did, in fact, probably excel those of any other Pharaoh. His reign was the longest, if we except one, of any upon record. He was victorious, by land or sea, over all who resisted his arms. Yet a time came when he too "went the way of all flesh." "It is appointed unto all men once to die, and after that the judgment." After eighty years of life and sixty-seven of regal power, the Great Rameses was gathered to his fathers. Of what avail then was all his glory, all his wealth, all his magnificence, all his architectural display, all his long series of victories? Could he plead them before the judgment-seat of an all-righteous God? He could not even, according to his own belief, have pleaded them before the tribunal of his own Osiris. A modern writer says that every stone in the edifices which he raised was cemented with the blood of a human victim. Thousands of wretches toiled incessantly to add to his glory, and cover Egypt Ñ with building, obelisks, and colossi, which still show forth his greatness. But what is the result of all, what advantage has he gained by it? On earth, he is. certainly not forgotten; but History gibbets him as a tyrant and oppressor Ñ one of the scourges of the human race. In the intermediate region where he dwells, what can be his thoughts of the past? what his expectations of the future? Must he not mourn continually over.his misspent life, and unavailingly regret his cruelties? The meanest of his victims is now happier than he, and would refuse to change lots with him. Exodus 2:24-25. —God is never deaf to earnest prayer for deliverance.It was eighty years since the cruel edict went forth, "Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river" (Exodus 1:22) — ninety, or perhaps a hundred, since the severe oppression began (ib. 11-14). Israel had sighed and groaned during the whole of this long period, and no doubt addressed many a prayer to God, which seemed unheard. But no earnest faithful prayer during the whole of the long space was unheard. God treasured them all up in his memory. He was "not slack, as men count slackness" He had to wean his people from their attachment to Egypt — he had to discipline them, to form their character — to prepare them to endure the hardships of the desert, and to face the fierce tribes of Canaan. When this was done — when they were fit-he gave effect to their prayers — "heard their groaning" — and just as they were on the point of despairing, delivered them. The lesson to us here is, that we never despair, never grow weary and listless, never cease our prayers, strive to make them more and more fervent. We can never know how near we are to the time when God will show forth his power — grant and accomplish our prayers. BY J. ORR Exodus 2:23-25. —The hour of help.1. It was long delayed.(1) Till tyranny had done its worst. (2) Till the last hope of help from man had disappeared.Improvement may have been looked for at death of king.2. It came at last.(1) When the bondage had served its ends. (2) When the people, in despair of man, were crying to God.3. When it did come —(1) The man was found ready who was to bring it. (2) God was found faithful to his promise. — J.O. Exodus 2:1-25. —Moses and Christ.Compare in circumstances of early life.1. Obscurity of birth. 2. Peril in infancy. 3. Protection in Egypt. 4. Rejected by brethren 5. Humble toil. The carpenter’s shop — keeping sheep. 6. Long pencil of silent preparation.See F. W. Robertson’s striking sermon on "The Early Development of Jesus" (’Sermons,’ vol. 2.). The period was not so long in Christ s case as in the case of Moses, but had a like significance — preparation for future work. — J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 2:23-25. —A groaning Israel and an observant God. I. THERE WAS SIGHING AND CRYING YET NO REAL PRAYER. There was no supplication for help, no expression of confidence in a helper; seeing there was no real sense of trust in One who could keep, and therefore no possibility of real expectation from him. These Israelites did not wait as they that watch for the morning, sure that it will come at last (Psalms 130:6), but rather as those who say in the morning, "Would God it were even!" and at even, "Would God it were morning!" (Deuteronomy 28:67). Their right attitude, if only they had been able to occupy it, was that which Jesus is said to have occupied (Hebrews 5:7). They should have offered up prayers and supplications along with their strong crying and tears to him that was able to save them. But the God who had been so near to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, seemed now removed to a distance. No one appeared with whom the Israelites in their despair could wrestle until they gained the blessing of deliverance. And thus it has been in every generation, and still continues. The misery of the world cannot be silent, and in it all the saddest feature is, that the miserable have no knowledge of God, or, if they have, it is a knowledge without practical use. They are without hope in the world, because they are without God in the world. They go on groaning like a sick infant that neither knows the cause of its trouble nor where to look for help. And in the midst of all this ignorance, Jesus would lead men to true prayer — to intelligent and calm dependence upon God for things according to his will. II. NOTICE THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE SIGHING AND CRYING. They sighed by reason of the bondage. Bodily restraint, privation, and pain — in these lay the reasons for their groaning. Their pain was that of the senses, not that of the spirit. Little wonder then that they were not susceptible to the presence of God. Contrast their painful experiences with those recorded in the following Psalms, 32., 38., 39, 51., 119:136. Jesus made it evident by his dealings with many of those who came to him that the bulk of men, like the Israelites of old, are sighing because of some temporal bondage. They think that pain would vanish, if only they could get all sensible comforts. The poor man thinks what a comfort wealth and plenty must be, yet a rich man came to Jesus, still unsatisfied in spite of his wealth, and was obliged to go away again, sad, because of what Jesus had said, deeply disturbed and disappointed; and all because he had great possessions. There was no chance of doing much good to Israel, as long as they were sighing simply because of the bondage. The pain of life which comes through the senses would sink into a matter, of superficial insignificance, if only we felt as we ought to do the corruption and danger which come through sin. We should soon come to the true remedy for all our pains, if only we learnt to cry for the dean heart and the right spirit. III. THOUGH THE SIGHING AND CRYING DID NOT AMOUNT TO A REAL PRAYER, YET GOD TO IT. God made allowance for the ignorance of the people. He knew what was wanted, even though they knew not. The father on earth, being evil, has to make the best guess he can at the interests of his children; our Father in heaven knows exactly what we want. God does not expect from the ignorant what can only be presented by those who know him; and he was about to deal with Israel so that they might know him. And first of all they must be made to feel that Egypt was in reality a very different place from what it appeared to Jacob and his sons, coming out of famine-stricken Canaan. The time had long past when there was any temptation to say, "Surely Egypt is better than Canaan; we shall be able to take our ease, eat, drink, and be merry." There had not only been corn in Egypt, but tyrants and taskmasters. We have all to find out what Egypt really is; and until we make the full discovery, we cannot appreciate the nearness of God and profit by it. God can do much for us when we come to the groaning-point, when the dear illusions of life not only begin to vacate their places, but are succeeded by painful, stern, and abiding realities. When we begin to cry, even though our cry be only because of temporal losses and pains, there is then a chance that we may attend to the increasing revelations of the presence of God, and learn to wait upon him in obedience and prayer. — Y. BY G.A. As in streams the water is attracted to and swirls round various centres, so here the interest of the narrative circles about three facts. We have — I. THE KING’S DEATH. Who the king was may be uncertain. [Some say Aahmes I. . — see Canon Cook, in ’Speaker’s Commentary;’ others, Rameses II. — see R. S. Poole, In Contemporary Review,’ March, 1879. What he had done is sufficiently evident. Confronted with an alien people, of whose history he knew little and with whom he had no sympathy, he had treated them with suspicion and cruelty. Walking by sight he had inaugurated a policy which was sufficiently clever but decidedly unwise; he had hatched the very enmity he dreaded, by making those whom he feared miserable. Nevertheless, he, personally, does not seem to have been the loser in this life. He left a legacy of trouble for his successor, but probably to the last he was feared and honoured. Such lives were to the Egyptians, and must still be, suggestive of immortality. If evil can thus ,prosper in the person of a king, life must indeed be a moral chaos if it end with death and there be no hereafter. "The king of Egypt died:" what about the King of Heaven and Earth? II. THE PEOPLE’S CRY. The inheritance of an evil policy accepted and endorsed by the new king. Results upon an oppressed people: —1. Misery finds a voice. "They sighed" — a half-stifled cry, which however gathers strength; "they cried." Forty years of silent endurance seeks at length relief in utterance. The king’s death brings the dawn of hope; the first feeling after liberty is the cry of anguish which cannot be suppressed. Such a cry, an inarticulate prayer which needed no interpreter to translate it — an honest and heartfelt prayer of which God could take cognizance.2. The voice of misery finds a listener. The cry was a cry with wings to it — it "came up unto God." Too many so-called prayers have no wings, or at most clipped wings. They grovel on the earth like barn-yard fowls, and if they chance to pick up solace, it is, like themselves, of the earth earthy. Winged prayers, even when winged by sorrow, go up, and for a time seem lost, but they reach heaven and find harbour there. III. GOD’S . 1. Attention secured and the covenant remembered. God had not been deaf before, nor had he been forgetful of his promise. For practical memory, however, there must be a practical claim upon that which is remembered. So long as the people are indifferent, their indifference suspends the fulfilment of the covenant. All the while God, by permitting the tyranny, had been stirring up their memory that they might stir up his. When they are aroused, he shows at once that he is mindful.2. The children of the covenant beheld, and respect paid to their necessities. So far, God had looked upon a people of slaves, trying hard to make themselves content with servitude. Now that misery has aroused them to remember who and what they are, he sees once more the children of Israel — offspring of the wrestling Prince. People have to come to themselves before God can effectually look upon them. Content with servitude, he sees them slaves. Mindful of the covenant, he sees them as children. God is ready to help them directly they are ready to claim and to receive help from God.Application: — Evil in this world often seems to triumph, because men submit to it, and try to make the best of it, instead of resisting it. The general will not fight the foe single-handed; in the interest of those who should be his soldiers, he must have them ready to fight under him. When we realise our true position, then God is ready at once to recognise it. Indifference, forgetfulness, delay, all really due to man, God the deliverer only seems to be that which man the sufferer is. — G. THE CALL AND MISSION OF MOSES. Exodus 3:1-22 THE MISSION OF MOSES. After forty years of monotonous pastoral life, affording abundant opportunity for meditation, and for spiritual communion with God, and when he had attained to the great age of eighty years, and the hot blood of youth had given place to the calm serenity of advanced life, God at last revealed Himself to Moses "called him" (Exodus 3:4), and gave him a definite mission. The present chapter is’ intimately connected with the next. Together, they contain an account of that extraordinary and indeed miraculous interchange of thought and speech between Moses and God himself, by which the son of Amram was induced to undertake the difficult and dangerous task of freeing his people, delivering them from their bondage in Egypt, and conducting them through the wilderness to that "land flowing with milk and honey," which had been promised to the seed of Abraham more than six centuries previously (Genesis 15:18). Whatever hopes he had entertained of being his people’s deliverer in youth and middle life, they had long been abandoned; and, humanly speaking, nothing was more improbable than that the aged shepherd, grown "slow of speech and of a slow tongue" (Exodus 4:10)—his manners rusticised—his practical faculties rusted by disuse—his physical powers weakened—should come forth from a retirement of forty years’ duration to be a leader and king of men. Nothing less than direct supernatural interposition could—one may well believe—have sufficed to overcome the natural vis inertiae of Moses’ present character and position. Hence, after an absolute cessation of miracle for more than four hundred years, miracle is once more made use of by the Ruler of the Universe to work out his ends. A dignus vindice nodus has arisen; and the ordinary laws of that Nature which is but one of his instruments are suspended by the Lord of All, who sees what mode of action the occasion requires, and acts accordingly. Exodus 3:1 Moses kept the flock. The Hebrew expresses that this was his regular occupation. Understand by "flock" either sheep or goats, or the two intermixed. Both anciently and at the present day the Sinaitic pastures support these animals, and not horned cattle. Of Jethro, his father-in-law. The word translated "father-in-law" is of much wider application, being used of almost any relation by marriage. Zipporah uses it of Moses in Exodus 4:25, Exodus 4:26; in Genesis 19:12, Genesis 19:14, it is applied to Lot’s "sons-in-law;" in other places it is used of "brothers-in-law." Its application to Jethro does not prove him to be the same person as Reuel, which the difference of name renders improbable. He was no doubt the head of the tribe at this period, having succeeded to that dignity, and to the priesthood, when Reuel died. He may have been either Reuel’s son or his nephew. The backside of the desert, i.e. "behind" or "beyond the desert," across the strip of sandy plain which separates the coast of the Elanitic Gulf from the mountains, to the grassy regions beyond. He came to the mountain of God, even Horeb. Rather, "the mountain of God, Horeb-way," or "towards Horeb." By "the mountain of God" Sinai seems to be meant. It may be so named either by anticipation (as "the land of Rameses" in Genesis 47:11), or because there was already a sanctuary there to the true God, whom Reuel and Jethro worshipped (Exodus 18:12). Exodus 3:2 The angel of the Lord. Literally, "an angel of Jehovah." Taking the whole narrative altogether, we are justified in concluding that the appearance was that of "the Angel of the Covenant" or" the Second Person of the Trinity himself;" but this is not stated nor implied in the present verse. We learn it from what follows. The angel "appeared in a flame of fire out of the midst of the thorn-bush"—not out of "a thorn-bush—which may be explained by there being only one on the spot, which however seems improbable, as it is a common tree; or by Moses having so often spoken of it, that, when he came to write to his countrymen, he naturally called it "the bush," meaning "the bush of which you have all heard." So St. John says of the Baptist (John 3:24) that "he was not yet cast into the prison, meaning, prison into which you all know that he was cast. Seneh, the word translated "bush," is still the name of a thorny shrub, a species of acacia, common in the Sinaitic district. Exodus 3:3 I will turn aside. Suspecting nothing but a natural phenomenon, which he was anxious to investigate. The action bespeaks him a man of sense and intelligence, not easily scared or imposed upon. Exodus 3:4 When the Lord saw … God called. This collocation of words is fatal in the entire Elohistic and Jehovistic theory, for no one can suppose that two different writers wrote the two clauses of the sentence. Nor, if the same term was originally used in both clauses, would any reviser have altered one without altering both. Out of the midst of the bush. A voice, which was the true voice of God, appeared to Moses to proceed out of the midst of the fire which enveloped the thorn-bush. An objective reality is described, not a vision. Moses, Moses. The double call implies urgency. Compare the call of Samuel (1 Samuel 3:10). Exodus 3:5 Draw not nigh. The awful greatness of the Creator is such that his creatures, until invited to draw near, are bound to stand aloof. Moses, not yet aware that God himself spoke to him, was approaching the bush too close, to examine and see what the "great thing" was. (See Exodus 3:3.) On the general unfitness of man to approach near to holy things, see the comment on Exodus 19:12. Put off thy shoes. Rather, "thy sandals." Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in the land of Midian at this time. The practice of putting them off before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of a house, was, and is, universal in the East—the rationale of it being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them. The command given to Moses at this time was repeated to Joshua (Joshua 5:15). Holy ground. Literally, "ground of holiness "—ground rendered holy by the presence of God upon it—not "an old sanctuary," as some have thought, for then Moses would not have needed the information. Exodus 3:6 The God of thy father. "Father" here is used collectively, meaning forefathers generally, a usage well known to Hebraists. (Compare Exodus 15:2, and Exodus 18:4.) The God of Abraham, etc; i.e. the God who revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and entered into covenant with them (Genesis 15:1-21; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis 35:1-12). The conclusion which our Blessed Lord drew from this verse (Matthew 22:32) is not directly involved in it, but depends on his minor premiss, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Moses hid his face. A natural instinctive action. So Elijah, on the same site (1 Kings 19:13) and the holy angels before God’s throne in heaven (Isaiah 6:2). In the religious system of Rome, the augurs when discharging their office, and all persons when offering a sacrifice, veiled their heads. (See Liv. 1.18; Virg. Aen. 3.405; Juv. 6.390.) Exodus 3:7 I have surely seen. Literally "Seeing I have seen"—an expression implying continuance. On the force of the anthropomorphic terms "seeing, hearing, knowing," as used of God, see the comment on Exodus 2:24-25. Taskmasters. Not the general superintendents of Exo 1:11, but subordinate officials, who stood over the labourers and applied the rod to their backs. (See above, Exodus 2:11.) Exodus 3:8 I am come down. Another anthropomorphism, and one very common in Scripture (Genesis 11:5, Genesis 11:7; Genesis 18:21; Psalms 18:9; Psalms 144:5, etc.), connected of course with the idea that God has a special dwellingplace, which is above the earth. To bring them up. Literally correct. Palestine is at a much higher level than Egypt. (Compare Genesis 12:10; Genesis 13:1; Genesis 37:25; Genesis 39:1; Genesis 42:2; Genesis 46:3, Genesis 46:4; Genesis 50:25.) A good land and a large. The fertility of Palestine, though not equal to that of Egypt, was still very great. Eastward of Jordan, the soil is rich and productive, the country in places wooded with fine trees, and the herbage luxuriant. Vast tracts in the spring produce enormous crops of grain, and throughout the year pasturage of every kind is abundant. "Still the countless flocks and herds may be seen, droves of cattle moving on like troops of soldiers, descending at sunset to drink of the springs-literally, in the language of; the prophet, "rams, and lambs, and goats, and bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. The western region is less productive, but by careful cultivation in terraces may be made to bear excellent crops of corn, olives, and figs. Palestine proper to a modern European seems small, being about the size of Belgium, less than Holland or Hanover, and not much larger than Wales. It contains about 11,000 square miles. To an Israelite of the age of Moses such a land would appear sufficiently "large;" for it was considerably larger than the entire Delta of Egypt, whereof his nation occupied the smaller half; and it fell but little short of the entire cultivable area of the whole land of Egypt, which was the greatest and most powerful country known to him. It may be added that the land included in the covenant which God made with Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), and actually possessed by David and Solomon (1 Kings 4:21), was a "good land and a large," according even to modern notions, including (as it did) besides Palestine the whole of Syria, and thus containing an area of from 50,000 to 60,000 square miles. The phrase flowing with milk and honey, first used here, and so common in the later books (Numbers 13:27; Deuteronomy 26:9, Deuteronomy 26:15; Deuteronomy 31:20; Jeremiah 11:5; Jeremiah 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6, etc.) was probably a proverbial expression for "a land of plenty," and not intended literally. See what the spies say, Numbers 13:27 The enumeration of the nations of Palestine here made is incomplete, five only of the ten whose land was promised to Abraham (Genesis 15:19-21) being expressly mentioned. One, however, that of the Hivites, is added. We may suppose that they had succeeded to the Kenizzites or the Kadmonites of Abraham’s time. The only important omission is that of the Girgashites, who hold their place in most other enumerations (Genesis 10:16; Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; Joshua 24:11, etc.), but seem to have been the least important of the "seven nations,"and are omitted in Judges 3:5. Exodus 3:9 This is a repetition, in substance, of Exodus 3:7, on account of the long parenthesis in Exodus 3:8, and serves to introduce Exodus 3:10. The nexus is: "I have seen the oppression—I am come down to deliver them—come now, therefore, I will send thee" Exodus 3:11 And Moses said … Who am I, that I should go, etc. A great change had come over Moses. Forty years earlier he had been forward to offer himself as a "deliverer." He "went out" to his brethren and slew one of their oppressors, and "supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them" (Acts 7:25). "But they understood not" (ibid.) They declined to accept him for leader, they reproached him with setting himself up to be "a ruler and a judge" over them. And now, taught by this lesson, and sobered by forty years of inaction, he has become timid and distrustful of himself, and shrinks from putting himself forward. Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh? What weight can I, a foreigner, forty years an exile, with the manners of a rough shepherd, expect to have with the mighty monarch of all Egypt—the son of Rameses the Great, the inheritor of his power and his glories? And again, Who am I, that I should bring forth the children of Israel? What weight can I expect to have with my countrymen, who will have forgotten me—whom, moreover, I could not influence when I was,in my full vigour—who then "refused" my guidance and forced me to quit them? True diffidence speaks in the words used—there is no ring of insincerity in them; Moses was now as distrustful of himself as in former days he had been confident, and when he had become fit to be a deliverer, ceased to think himself fit. Exodus 3:12 Certainly I will be with thee. Literally, "Since I will be with thee." Moses had excused himself on the ground of unfitness. God replies—"Thou wilt not be unfit, since I will be with thee—I will supply thy deficiencies—I will impart all the qualities thou needest—and this shall be a sign unto thee of my power and faithfulness—this shall assure thee that I am not sending thee upon a fruitless errand—it is determined in my counsels that not only shalt thou succeed, and lead the people out, but after that,—when thou hast so done—thou and they together shall serve me on this mountain." The "sign" was one which appealed to faith only, like that given to Hezekiah by Isaiah (1 Kings 19:1-21:29), but, if accepted, it gave a full assurance—the second step involved the first—the end implied the means—if Moses was of a certainty to bring the Israelites to Sinai, he must first lead them out of Egypt—he must in some way or other triumph over all the difficulties which would beset the undertaking. Exodus 3:13 What is his name? It is not at all clear why Moses should suppose that the Israelites would ask him this question, nor does it even appear that they did ask it. Perhaps, however, he thought that, as the Egyptians used the word "god," generically, and had a special name for each particular god—as Ammon, Phthah, Ra, Mentu, Her, Osiris, and the like—when he told his people of "the God of their fathers," they would conclude that he, too, had a proper name, and would wish to know it. The Egyptians set much store by the names of their gods, which in every ease had a meaning. Ammen was "the concealed (god)," Phthah, "the revealer," Ra,"the swift," etc. Hitherto Israel’s God had had no name that could be called a proper name more than any other. He had been known as "El," "The High;" "Shad-dai," "The Strong;" and "Jehovah," "The Existent;" but these terms had all been felt to be descriptive epithets, and none of them had passed as yet into a proper name. What was done at this time, by the authority of God himself, was to select from among the epithets one to be distinctly a proper name, and at the same time to explain its true meaning as something more than "The Existent"—as really "The Alone Existent"—the source of all existence. Henceforth this name, which had previously been but little used and perhaps less understood, predominated over every other, was cherished by the Jews themselves as a sacred treasure, and recognised by those around them as the proper appellation of the one and only God whom the Israelites worshipped. It is found in this sense on the Moabite stone, in the fragments of Philo-Byblius, and elsewhere. Exodus 3:14 I AM THAT I AM. No better translation can be given of the Hebrew words. "I will be that I will be (Geddes) is more literal, but less idiomatic, since the Hebrew was the simplest possible form of the verb substantive. "I am because I am" (Boothroyd) is wrong, since the word asher is certainly the relative. The Septuagint, Ἐγώεἰμιὁὤν, explains rather than translates, but is otherwise unobjectionable. The Vulgate, sum qui sum, has absolute exactness. The idea expressed by the name is, as already explained, that of real, perfect, unconditioned, independent existence. I AM hath sent me to you. "I am" is an abbreviated form of "I am that I am," and is intended to express the same idea. Exodus 3:15 The Lord God. In the original Jehovah elohey—"Jehovah, God of your fathers," etc. The name is clearly an equivalent of the "I AM" in the preceding versa The exact mode of its formation from the old root hava, "to be," is still disputed among the best Hebraists. This is my name for ever. Henceforth there will be no change—this will be my most appropriate name so long as the world endures—"The Existent"—"The Alone Existent"—"He that is, and was, and is to come" (Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; Revelation 11:17; Revelation 16:5). My memorial. The name whereby I am to be spoken of. Exodus 3:16 Gather the elders. It is generally thought that we are to understand by "the elders" not so much the more aged men, as these who bore a certain official rank and position among their brethren, the heads of the various houses (Exodus 6:14, Exodus 6:25; Exodus 11:1-10:21), who exercised a certain authority even during the worst times of the oppression. Moses was first to prevail, on them to acknowledge his mission, and was then to go with them to Pharaoh and make his representation (Exodus 3:18). I have surely visited you. The words are a repetition of those used by Joseph on his deathbed (Genesis 50:24), and may be taken to mean, "I have done as Joseph prophesied—I have made his words good thus far. Expect, therefore, the completion of what he promised.’’ Exodus 3:18 They shall hearken to thy voice. Moses thought they would despise him—turn a deaf ear to his words—look upon him as unworthy of credit. But it was not so. The hearts of men are in God’s hands, and he disposed those of the elders to receive the message of his servant, Moses, favourably, and believe in it. (See Exodus 4:29-31.) Thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt. This future is perhaps one of command rather than of prophetic announcement. The elders do not seem to have actually made their appearance before Pharaoh. (See Exodus 5:1-4.) They may, however, have authorised Moses and Aaron to speak in their name. The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us. Through our representative Moses. "Met with us" is undoubtedly the true meaning. That we may sacrifice. There was reticence here, no doubt, but no falseness. It was a part of God’s design that sacrifice, interrupted during the sojourn in Egypt for various reasons, should be resumed beyond the bounds of Egypt by His people. So much of his purpose, and no more, he bade Moses lay before Pharaoh on the first occasion. The object of the reticence was not to deceive Pharaoh, but to test him. Exodus 3:19 I am sure. Literally, "I know," a better rendering, since, "I am sure" implies something leas than knowledge. No, not by a mighty hand. Or "not even by a mighty hand." Pharaoh will not be willing to let you go even when my mighty hand is laid upon him. (See Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:19, Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:12, Exodus 9:35; Exodus 10:20, Exodus 10:27.) "But by strong hand" (marg.) is a rendering which the rules of grammar do not permit. Exodus 3:20 I will stretch out my hand. To encourage Moses and the people, to support them in what was, humanly speaking, a most unequal contest, this important promise is made. It is a confirmation, and to some extent, an explanation of the pledge, already, given, "Certainly I will be with thee" (Exodus 3:12). It shows how God would be with him—he would smite Egypt with all his wonders—what those would be was left obscure. He would come to his people’s aid, and openly assert himself, and afflict and strike terror into their enemies-until at last even Pharaoh’s stubborn spirit would be broken, and he would consent to let them go. Exodus 3:21, Exodus 3:22 The "spoiling of the Egyptians" has called forth much bitter comment. (See Kalisch, note on Exodus 3:22.) It has been termed a combination of "fraud, deception and theft"—"base deceit and nefarious fraud"—"glaring villainy," and the like. The unfortunate translation of a verb meaning "ask" by "borrow" in Exodus 3:22, has greatly helped the objectors. In reality, what God here commanded and declared was this:—The Israelite women were told on the eve of their departure from Egypt to ask presents (bakh-sheesh) from their rich Egyptian neighbours, as a contribution to the necessary expenses of the long journey on which they were entering; and God promised that he would so favourably incline the hearts of these neighbours towards them, that, in reply to their request, articles of silver and of gold, together with raiment, would be freely and bounteously bestowed on them—so freely and so bounteously, that they might clothe and adorn, not only themselves, but their sons and daughters, with the presents; and the entire result would be that, instead of quitting Egypt like a nation of slaves, in rags and penniless, they would go forth in the guise of an army of conquerors, laden with the good things of the country, having (with their own good-will) "spoiled the Egyptians." No fraud, no deceit, was to be practised—the Egyptians perfectly well understood that, if the Israelites once went, they would never voluntarily return—they were asked to give and they gave—with the result that Egypt was "spoiled." Divine justice sees in this a rightful nemesis. Oppressed, wronged, down-trodden, miserably paid for their hard labour during centuries, the Israelites were to obtain at the last something like a compensation for their ill-usage; the riches of Africa were to be showered on them. Egypt, "glad at their departing," was to build them a bridge of gold to expedite their flight, and to despoil herself in order to enrich her quondam slaves, of whom she was, under the circumstances, delighted to be rid. Exodus 3:22 Borrow. The Hebrew word means simply "ask" (αἰτήσει, LXX.; postulabit, Vulg.). Of her neighbours. The intermixture to some extent of the Egyptians with the Hebrews in Goshen is here again implied, as in Exodus 1:1-22 and Exodus 2:1-25. And of her that sojourneth in her house. Some of the Israelites, it would seem, took in Egyptian lodgers superior to them in wealth and rank. This implies more friendly feeling between the two nations than we should have expected; but it is quite natural that, after their long stay in Egypt, the Hebrews should have made a certain number of the Egyptians their friends. Exodus 3:1, Exodus 3:2 The Burning Bush. All nations have seen in fire something emblematic of the Divine nature. The Vedic Indians made Agni (fire) an actual god, and sang hymns to him with more fervour than to almost any other deity. The Persians maintained perpetual fires on their fire-altars, and supposed them to have a divine character. Hephaistos in the Greek and Vulcan in the Roman mythology were fire-gods; and Baal, Chemosh, Moloch, Tahiti, Orotal, etc; represented more or less the same idea. Fire is in itself pure and purifying; in its effects mighty and terrible, or life-giving, and comforting. Viewed as light—its ordinary though not universal concomitant—it is bright, glorious, dazzling, illuminative, soul-cheering. God under the Old Covenant revealed himself in fire, not only upon this occasion, but at Sinai (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 24:17), to Manoah (Judges 13:20), to Solomon (2 Chronicles 7:1-3), to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28), to Daniel (Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:10); under the New Covenant, he is declared to be "a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29), "the Light of the world" (John 8:12), "the True Light" (John 1:9), "the Sun of Righteousness." Of all material things nothing is so suitable to represent God as this wonderful creation of his, so bright, so pure, so terrible, so comforting, To Moses God reveals himself not merely in fire, but in a "burning bush." In this respect the revelation is abnormal—nay, unique, without a parallel. Surely this was done, not merely to rouse his curiosity, but to teach him some lesson or other. It is well to consider what lesson or lessons may have been intended by it. First, Moses would see that "the ways of God were not as man’s ways;" that, instead of coming with as much, he came with as little, display as possible; instead of showing all his glory and lighting up all Sinai with unendurable radiance, he condescended to appear in a small circumscribed flame, and to rest upon so mean, so poor, so despised an object as a thorn-hush. God "chooseth the weak things of the world to confound the strong;" anything is sufficient for his purpose. He creates worlds with a word, destroys kingdoms with a breath, cures diseases with clay and spittle or the hem of a garment, revolutionises the earth by a group of fishermen. Secondly, he would see the spirituality of God. Even when showing himself in the form of fire, he was not fire. Material fire would have burnt up the bush, have withered its fair boughs and blasted its green leaves in a moment of time; this fire did not scathe a single twig, did not injure even the most delicate just-opening bud. Thirdly, he might be led on to recognise God’s tenderness. God’s mercy is "over all his works," he will not hurt one of them unnecessarily, or without an object. He "careth for cattle" (Jonah 4:11), clothes the lilies with glory (Matthew 6:28-30), wilt not let a sparrow fall to the ground needlessly (Matthew 10:29). Lastly, he might learn that the presence of God is "consuming" only of what is evil. Of all else it is preservative. God was present with his people in Egypt, and his presence preserved them in that furnace of affliction. God was present in each devout and humble heart of his true followers, and his presence kept them from the fiery darts of the Wicked One. God would be present through all time with his Church and with his individual worshippers, not as a destroying, but as a sustaining, preserving, glorifying influence. His spiritual fire would rest upon them, envelop them, encircle them, yet would neither injure nor absorb their life, but support it, maintain it, strengthen it. The impulse to draw nigh. Moses saw a strange sight; one that he had never seen before; one that struck him with astonishment. His natural impulse was to inquire into its cause. God has implanted in us all this instinct, and we should do ill if we were to combat it. Natural phenomena are within reason’s sphere; and Moses, who had never yet seen a supernatural sight, could not but suppose, at first beholding it, that the burning bush was a natural phenomenon. That he approached to examine is an indication that he was a man of spirit and intelligence; not a coward who might have feared some snare, not careless and unobservant, as too many country folk are. He drew near to see more clearly, and to use his other senses in discovering what the "great thing" was—acting like a sensible man and one who had had a good education. Exodus 3:4-6 The prohibition, and the ground of it. Suddenly the steps of the inquirer are arrested. Wonder upon wonder! a voice calls to him out of the bush, and calls him by his own name, "Moses, Moses!" Now must have dawned on him the conviction that it was indeed a "great thing" which he was witnessing; that the ordinary course of nature was broken in upon; that he was about to be the recipient of one of those wonderful communications which God from time to time had vouchsafed to his forefathers, as to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Hence his submissive, child-like answer, "Here I am." (Compare 1 Samuel 3:4, 1 Samuel 3:6.) Then came the solemn prohibition, "Draw not nigh hither." Man, until sanctified, until brought into covenant, must not approach near to the dread presence of the Supreme Being. At Sinai Moses was commanded to "set bounds" to keep the people off, that no one might "go up into the mount, nor touch the border of it" (Exodus 19:12). The men of Bethshemesh were smitten with death, to the number of 50,070, for looking into the ark of the covenant (1 Samuel 6:19). Uzzah was slain for putting forth his hand to touch it, when he thought that there was danger of its falling (2 Samuel 6:7). God, under the Old Covenant, impressed on man in a multitude off ways his unapproachableness. Hence all the arrangements of the Temple; the veil guarding the sanctuary, into which only the high-priest could enter once in the year; the main temple-building, only to be entered by the priests; the courts of the Levites, of the Israelites, and of the Gentiles, each more and more remote from the Divine Presence. Hence the purifications of the priests and of the Levites before they could acceptably offer sacrifice; hence the carrying of the Ark by means of staves forming no part of it; hence the side-chambers of the Temple, emplaced on "rests" in the walls, "that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house" (1 Kings 6:6). It was so needful to impress on men, apt to conceive of God as "such an one as themselves," his awful majesty, purity, and holiness, that artificial barriers were everywhere created to check man’s rash intrusion into a Presence for which he was unfit. Thus reverence was taught, man was made to know and to feel his own unworthiness, and, little by little, came to have some faint conception of the absolute perfectness and incomprehensible greatness of the Supreme One. Further, God being such as this, each place where he makes himself manifest, becomes at once holy ground. Though "heaven is his throne, and earth his footstool," and no "place" seems worthy of him or can contain him, yet it pleases him, in condescension to our infirmities and our finiteness, to choose some spots rather than others where he will mare himself known and make his presence felt. And these at once are sacred. So was the mount to which Moses went up; so was Shiloh; so was Araunah’s threshingfloor; so was Jerusalem. And so in our own days are churches and the precincts of churches. God’s presence, manifested in them, albeit spiritually and not materially, hallows them. And the reverent heart feels this, and cannot but show its reverence by outward signs. In the East shoos were put off. With us the head should be uncovered, the voice hushed, the eye cast down. We should feel that "God is in the midst of us." So felt Moses, when God had proclaimed himself (Exodus 3:6), and not only bared his feet as commanded, but shrouded his face in his robe "for he was afraid to look upon God." All his own sinfulness and imperfection rushed to his thought, all his unworthiness to behold God and live. Jacob had once seen God "face to face," and had marvelled that "his life was preserved" (Genesis 32:30). Moses shut out the awful Vision. So Elijah, on the same site, when he heard the "still small voice"(1 Kings 19:13); and so even the seraphim who wast continually before God’s Throne in heaven (Isaiah 6:2). Consciousness of imperfection forces the creature to stand abashed in the presence of the Creator. Exodus 3:7-10 The call of Moses. With face covered, but with ears attent to hear, Moses stands before God to learn his will. And God takes him, as it were, into counsel, not only calling him to a certain work, but revealing to him why he is called, what exactly he is to do, and what will be the issue of his enterprise. 1. WHY HE IS CALLED. He is called because the affliction of Israel—their sufferings—from the constant toil, from the brutal taskmasters, from the cruel Pharaoh, from the apparent hopelessness of their position—had reached to such a point that God could allow it to go on no longer. There is a point at which he will interfere to vindicate the oppressed and punish the wrong-doers, even if the oppressed are too much crushed, too downtrodden, too absolutely in despair, to cry to him. Their case calls to him; their "blood cries from the ground." But in this instance actual despair had not been reached. His people had "cried to him." And here was a second reason why he should interfere. God is never deaf to any prayers addressed to him for succour; he may not always grant them, but he hears them. And if they are sustained, and earnest, and justified by the occasion, he grants them. Such was the case now, and Moses was called because of the extreme affliction of the Israelites, and because of their prolonged and earnest cry to God under it. 2. Moses is told WHAT HE IS TO DO. He is to "bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt" (Exodus 3:10); and, as a preliminary step, he is to "go to Pharaoh" (ibid.). Thus he is directed to return to Egypt forthwith, and to put himself into communication with the new king who had succeeded the one from whom he had fled. So much is made clear to him. He, an exile for forty years, and a mere hireling shepherd of the desert during that space, is to seek an interview with the great monarch of all Egypt, and to plead the cause of his people before him—to endeavour to induce him to "let them go." A difficult enterprise, to say the least; humanly speaking, a hopeless one. How should a king be induced to allow the departure of 600,000 able-bodied labourers, whose condition was that of state slaves, who could be set to any work which the king had in hand—to keep cattle, or make bricks, or build cities, or erect walls, or excavate canals? What inducement was to be offered to him to make the sacrifice? Such thoughts would naturally occur to Moses under the circumstances, and would naturally have risen to his lips but for the distinct announcement made with regard to the further point. 3. WHAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE OF THE . The Divine declaration, "I am come down to deliver them, and to bring them up out of that land into a good land and a large," was so definite and clear a statement, so positive a promise of success, as to override all objections on the score of the task being an impossible one. God "had come down to deliver" his people, and would undoubtedly do it, whatever opposition was raised. Thus, to counteract the despondency which the consideration of the existing facts and circumstances was calculated to produce, there was held forth before Moses the positive assurance of success; the certainty that God would make good his word; would, however difficult it seemed, lead his people forth, deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptian, and make them the masters of another land, large and good, flowing with milk and honey, into possession of which they would enter through his might and by his irresistible assistance. Fitness of Moses to be God’s instrument in delivering Israel. The fitness of Moses to be Israel’s deliverer will appear if we consider, first, What were the qualities which the part of deliverer required; secondly, how far they were united in him; and thirdly, what reasons there are for believing that, at the time, they were not united to the same extent in any other person. 1. OF THE . As having to deal, in the first instance, with a great king and his court, it was necessary that the Deliverer should be familiar with the habits of the court, should be able to assume its manners, speak its language, and not unwittingly infringe its etiquette. Not being set merely to petition, but to require—to prefer demands—it was requisite that he should feel himself, socially, on a par with the monarch, so as not to be timid or abashed before him, but able without difficulty to assert himself, to use freedom of speech, to talk as prince with prince, and not as mere courtier with monarch. Again, as having to meet and baffle Egyptian priests, and further, to be not only the Deliverer, but the Teacher and Educator of his nation, it was to the last degree necessary that he should be "learned in all the wisdom" of the time; that he should have had as good an education as any other man of the day; be able to foil the priests with their own weapons; and, after delivering his people out of bondage, be capable of elevating them, instructing them, advancing them from a rabble of slaves into an orderly, self-sufficient, fairly-enlightened, if not highly-civilised, nation. Once more: a moral fitness was necessary. The Deliverer needed to have high aspirations, a bold spirit, fervent zeal, and yet to have all these under control; to be calm, quiet, serf-contained, imperturbable in danger, persevering, prompt, considerate. Moreover, he needed to be a religious man. Anyone not upheld by high religious principle, anyone not possessed of deep and true faith, would have fallen away in some of the trials through which the nation had to pass; would have desisted, or murmured, or "lusted after evil things" (1 Corinthians 10:6), or waxed proud and wanton, or grown weary of seemingly interminable wanderings, and settled down in Arabia or even returned to Egypt. 2. MOSES’ OF THESE . Moses was familiar with the customs of the Egyptian court, having been brought up in the household of a princess, and been himself a courtier until he was nearly forty years of age. Though he had subsequently spent forty years in the desert, this would not unfit him; since, in the first place, Egyptian manners and customs were unchanging; and secondly, life in the desert is at no time a bad school of manners. Arabian shepherds are not like European ones. As much politeness is often seen in the tent of a Bedouin as in the drawingroom of an empress. Moses probably thought that his forty years of seclusion rendered him less suited for the atmosphere of a court, but he was probably mistaken. What he may have lost in polish he gained in simplicity, directness, and general force of character. Moses,, again, could speak with the Pharaoh almost as an equal, since as the adopted son of a princess he had born accounted a prince, and may even, before his flight, have met Menephthah in the royal palace on terms of social equality. On the education and "wisdom" of Moses we have already descanted, and it will scarcely be questioned that in these respects he was eminently fitted for the part assigned to him by Providence. His character, too, as chastened and ripened in Midian, made him exceptionally fit. Audacity, high aspirations, strong sympathies, a burning zeal, had shown themselves in the conduct that led to his exile. These had been disciplined and brought under control by the influences of desert life, which had made him calm, self-contained, patient, persevering, considerate, without quenching his zeal or taming his high spirit. And of his religious principle there is no question. If he angered God once by "speaking unadvisedly" (Psalms 106:33; Numbers 20:10), this does but show that he was human, and therefore not perfect. Apart from this one occasion his conduct as leader of the people is, as nearly as possible, blameless. And his piety is everywhere conspicuous. 3. NO ONE BUT MOSES THE . With the limited knowledge that we possess, the negative is incapable of positive proof. But, so far as our historical knowledge goes, there is no one who can be named as possessing any one of the necessary qualities in a higher degree than Moses, much less as uniting them all. No Hebrew but Moses had had, so far as we know, the advantages of education and position enjoyed by Moses. No Egyptian would have been trusted by the Hebrew nation and accepted as their leader. No one who was neither Egyptian nor Hebrew would have had any weight with either people. Thus Moses was the one and only possible deliverer, exactly fitted by Providence for the position which it was intended he should take: raised up, saved, educated, trained by God to be his instrument in delivering his people, and so exactly fitted for the purpose. Exodus 3:11-12 Moses’ timidity notwithstanding his fitness. It is not often that those are most confident of their powers who are fittest for God’s work. Great capacity is constantly accompanied by a humble estimate of itself. Jeremiah’s reply when God called him was: "Ah! Lord God, I cannot speak, for I am a child" (Jeremiah 1:6). Newton seemed to himself a child gathering shells upon the shores of the ocean of Truth. The exclamation of Moses, "Who am I that I should go," etc. has been echoed by thousands. If, however, God’s call is clear, the voice of self-depreciation is not to be much listened to. He knows best whether we are fit to work out his purposes, or no. Whether the call is to be an ordinary minister, or a missionary, or a bishop, or a civil leader, the foremost in a political movement, or a general at the crisis of a war, or anything else, too much timidity ought not to be shown. There is cowardice in shrinking from responsibility. If the call be clearly from without, not courted by ourselves, not sought, not angled for, not assignable to any unworthy motive, then it is to be viewed as God’s call; and the proper answer is "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth." Unfit as we may think ourselves, we may be. sure that he will not leave us to ourselves—his grace will be sufficient for us—he will give us all the strength we need. Exodus 3:13-15 God’s revelation of himself under the name Jehovah, and the meaning of it. At first sight the name by which God shall be called may seem unimportant, as it is unimportant whether a man be called Tully or Cicero. But, originally, each name that is given to God is significant; and according as one name or another is commonly used, one idea or another of the Divine nature will be prevalent. Hitherto God had been known mainly to the Semites as El, Eliun, Elohim, "Exalted, Lofty," or Shaddai, "Strong, Powerful." Another name known to them, but rarely used, was JHVH, "Existent." (The vocalisation of the name has been lost, and is uncertain.) God was now asked by Moses under what name he should speak of him to the Israelites, and was bidden to speak of him as JHVH. What, then, was the full meaning of JHVH, and why was it preferred to the other names? Probably as a security against polytheism. When words expressive of such attributes as exaltation, strength, knowledge, goodness, beautifulness, even creative energy, are made into names of God, there is a temptation at once to extend them from the one to the many, from the possessor of the attribute in the highest degree to others who possess it, or are supposed to possess it, in a high degree. Thus all such words come to be used in the plural, and the way is paved for polytheism. But if God is called "the Existent," this danger disappears; for there are but two kinds or degrees of existence, viz; self-existence, and created, dependent existence. "The Existent" must mean "the Serf-Existent," who must necessarily be One. Hence JHVH never had a plural. The only way by which an Israelite could become a polytheist was by deserting Jehovah altogether and turning to Elohim. In vindicating to himself the name Jehovah, "He who exists," or "He who alone exists," God declared himself to be— l. eternal; 2. uncaused; 3. unconditioned 4. independent; 5. self-sufficient. He placed a gulf, profound—not to be bridged—between himself and every other being. He indicated that all other gods were unrealities—breath, vapour, shadows of shades; that he alone was real, stable, to be trusted; and that in him his worshippers might have "quietness and assurance for ever." The Divine injunction to gather the elders. God here added another injunction to those which he had previously given (Exodus 3:10), as to the modus operandi which Moses was to adopt. He was to go to the children of Israel, but not immediately or as the first step. Before making any appeal to them he was, in the first instance, to "gather the elders of Israel together." In this is involved a principle of very general application. When great designs are on hand, consultation should first be with the few. With the few matters can be calmly and quietly discussed, without passion or prejudice; questions can be asked, explanations given. And the few will have influence with the many. This was the whole idea of ancient government, which was by a king, a council, and an assembly of the people, which last was expected to ratify the council’s decision. Direct appeal to the masses is, as much as possible, to be avoided. The masses are always, comparatively speaking, ignorant, stolid, unimpressible. Great ideas take root and grow by being first communicated in their fulness to a "little flock," who spread them among their companions and acquaintance, until at length they prevail generally. So our Lord called first the Twelve, and then the Seventy, and made known his doctrine to them, leaving it to them to form the Church after his ascension. Exodus 3:17, Exodus 3:18 The promises to the elders, and to Moses. The elders were promised two things: (1) that they should be brought forth out of the affliction of Egypt, and (2) that they should be established in a good land, "a land flowing with. milk and honey" Ordinary men—men who are, spiritually speaking, backward and undeveloped—require to be stirred to action by comparatively low motives. Escape from present suffering and unpleasantness, enjoyment of happiness in the future—these are practically the two chief moving powers of human action. Neither of them is a wrong motive; and Moses was instructed to appeal to each by a special promise. So may the preacher rightly do with his congregation, the minister with his flock, the father with his children. As long as men are what they are, appeals to the lower motives cannot be dispensed with at first. Care must, however, be taken that before each one, as he becomes fit for it, higher motives are set—such as duty, the love of goodness for goodness’ sake, and—last, not least—the highest motive of all, the love of God, our Creator, Sustainer, Sanctifier, "in whom we live, and move, and have our being." Moses was promised at this point, to stimulate him to action, immediate success. He had doubted whether his people would listen to him, or regard him as anything but a dreamer. He is told, "they shall hearken unto thy voice." A great comfort to every one who feels that he has a mission is the acceptance of it by others. Each man, more or less, misdoubts himself, questions his own ability, sincerity, singleness of heart. The seal of an apostleship is the success of the apostolic efforts (1 Corinthians 9:2). Direct promise of success at the mouth of God was, to one so faithful as Moses, as powerful to cheer, encourage, and sustain, as success itself. Exodus 3:19, Exodus 3:20 Pharaoh’s obduracy, and God’s mode of overcoming it. There are stubborn hearts which no warnings can impress, no lessons teach, no pleading, even of God’s Spirit, bond. With such he "will not always strive." After they have resisted him till his patience is exhausted, he will break them, crush them; overrule their opposition, and make it futile. God’s will surely triumphs in the end. But it may be long first. God is so patient, so enduring, so long-suffering, that he will permit for months, or even years, the contradiction of sinners against himself. He will not interfere with the exercise of their free-will. He will warn, chide, chasten, afflict, contend with the sinner; try him to the uttermost; seek to lead him to repentance; give him chance after chance. But he will not compel him to submit himself; man may resist to the last; and even "curse God and die" at war with him. The final success in such a struggle cannot, however, rest with man. God "will not alway be chiding, neither keepeth he his anger for ever." At the fitting time he "stretches forth his hand and smites" the sinner, strikes him down, or sets him aside, as the storm-wind sets aside a feeble barrier of frail rushes, and works his own will in his own way. Mostly he works by natural causes; but now and again in the history of the world he has asserted himself more openly, and has broken the power and chastised the pride of a Pharaoh, a Benhadad, or a Sennacherib, in a miraculous way. Such manifestations of his might produce a marked effect, causing, as they do, "all the kingdoms of the earth to know that he is the Lord God, and he only" (2 Kings 19:19). God brings good out of evil. Had Pharaoh yielded at the first, the Egyptians would have seen the departure of Israel with regret, and would have in no way facilitated it. The opposition of the king and court, the long struggle, the ill-usage of the Israelites by the monarch who so often promised to release them, and so often retracted his word, awoke a sympathy with the Israelites, and an interest in them, which would have been altogether lacking had there been no. Opposition, no struggle, no ill-usage. Again, the plagues, especially the last, thoroughly alarmed the Egyptians, and made them anxious to be quit of such dangerous neighbours. "Egypt was glad of their departing, for they were afraid of them" (Psalms 105:38). But for Pharaoh’s obduracy the plagues would not have been sent; and but for the plagues the departing Israelites would not have been looked upon by the Egyptians with the "favour" which led to their going out laden with gifts. Thus Pharaoh’s stubbornness, though it led to their sufferings being prolonged, led also to their final triumphant exit, as spoilers, not as spoiled, laden with the good things of Egypt, "jewels of silver and jewels of gold," and rich apparel, the best that the Egyptians had to offer. History presents an infinitude of similar cases, where the greatest advantages have been the result of oppression and wrong. Extreme tyranny constantly leads to the assertion of freedom; anarchy to the firm establishment of law; defeat and ill-usage by a conqueror to the moral recovery of a declining race or nation. Each man’s experience will tell him of the good that has arisen to him individually from sickness, from disappointment, from bereavement, from what-seemed at the time wholly evil. God brings good out of evil in a thousand marvellous ways; at one time by turning the hearts of oppressors, at another by raising the tone and spirit of the oppressed; now by letting evil run riot until it produces general disgust, anon by making use of adverse circumstances to train a champion and deliverer. Countless are the evidences that God causes evil to work towards good; uses it as an instrument-evolves his own purposes, in part, by its means, vindicating thus his absolute lordship over all, and showing that evil itself, though it fight against him, cannot thwart him. BY J. ORR Exodus 3:1-5 Moses at the bush. We do not now see burning bushes, or hear voices calling to us from their midst. The reason is, that we do not need them, The series of historical revelations is complete. Revelation in the sense of the communication of new truth—of truth beyond the range of our natural faculties, or not capable of being derived, under the guidance of God’s Spirit, from revelations already given—is not to be expected. The Bible is the sum of God’s authoritative revelations to the race. This bush, e.g; still burns for us in Scripture, where at any time we can visit it, and hear God’s voice speaking out of it. But in another sense, revelation is not obsolete. It is not a tradition of the past, but a living reality. It has its objective side in the continuous (non-miraculous) revelation going on in nature (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:19, Romans 1:20) and history (Acts 17:26, Acts 17:27); and in the tokens of a supernatural presence and working in the Church (Matthew 28:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-10; Revelation 2:1). And it has its subjective side in the revelation (mediate) of Divine things to the soul by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:17), and in the manifestation of God to the heart in private spiritual experience (John 14:21, John 14:23; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:16). The veil between the soul and the spiritual world is at all times a thin one. The avenues by which God can reach devout minds are innumerable. The Word, sacraments, and prayer are special media, the Divine Spirit taking of the things of Christ, and showing them to the soul (John 16:15), illuminating, interpreting, applying, confirming. But, in truth, God is "not far from every one of us" (Acts 17:27); and by events of providence, in workings of conscience, through our moral and spiritual intuitions, enlightened and purified as these are by the Word, by numberless facts of nature and life, he can still draw near to those who tarry for him; meets them in ways as unexpected and surprising as at the burning bush; awes them by his wonders; flashes to them the messages of his grace. Viewing this revelation at the bush as a chapter in spiritual history, consider— I. THE OF IT. The revelation came to Moses— (1) unexpectedly; (2) while in the way of duty—he "kept the flock;" (3) in a solemn place—"mountain of God," a natural oratory and place of sacred repute—and probably while revolving solemn thoughts; (4) from a most unlooked-for quarter—a common bush; and at first (5) impersonally. The bush burning had no apparent relation to Moses more than to another. It was there for him to look at, to inquire into, if he chose. It invited, but did not compel, or even ask for, his attention. All which circumstances are significant. 1. The Divinity is ever nearer to us than we think. So Jacob, as well as Moses, found it. "Surely God is in this place, and I knew it not" (Genesis 28:16). 2. Revelations are not to be expected, save in the way of duty. 3. God may be met with anywhere (John 4:24), but some places are more favourable for communion with God than others—the closet (Matthew 6:6), the sanctuary (Psalms 73:16, Psalms 73:17), natural solitudes (Matthew 16:23). And revelations have usually a relation to the state of mind of those who receive them—answering questions, resolving perplexities, affording guidance, adapting themselves to psychological conditions (cf. Job 2:12, Job 2:13; Daniel 2:29; Daniel 9:20, Daniel 9:21; Daniel 10:2-6; Acts 10:3, Acts 10:10; 1 Corinthians 12:9; Revelation 1:10). It is in every way likely that Moses’ thoughts were at that moment deeply occupied about Israel’s future. 4. God’s discoveries of himself are marked by great condescension. Lowliness of situation is no bar to the visits of the King of Heaven, while humility of heart is indispensable to our receiving them. He who dwelt in the bush will not refuse the dwelling place of the contrite heart (Isaiah 57:15). God’s most wonderful discoveries of himself have been made through "base things of the world, and things which are despised" (1 Corinthians 2:1-16:28). The highest example of this is Christ himself, of whose incarnation the angel in the bush may be regarded as a prophecy. "He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness," etc. (Isaiah 53:2). 5. God’s revelations act as a moral test. This applies to the objective revelation—to the tokens of the supernatural strewn everywhere around us in life and history, as well as to Nature and the Bible. We may pass them unheeded, or we may draw nearer to inquire. The Bible invites attention by the supernatural in its history, as well as by its teachings. It is only when we draw nearer to it that the Word becomes personal, and seizes on the conscience with spiritual power. Attention on man’s part is rewarded by further self-discovery on God’s. II. ITS FOR MOSES. We may connect his turning aside to see (verse 4)— 1. With an appeal to his faculty of wonder. This is one function of miracle—to arrest attention, and awaken in the witness of it a powerful consciousness of the Divine presence. 2. With a general habit of devout inquiry. It may be true that "many a man has been led through the pale of curiosity into the sanctuary of reverence" (Parker); but it is also true that to a merely curious disposition God usually reveals little, and to an irreverent one nothing. The habit of inquiry is as valuable, if one’s ultimate aim is in all things to become acquainted with God and his will, as in science and philosophy, or any other form of the pursuit of knowledge; but let inquiry be devout. "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39). Ponder thoughtfully events of providence and facts of history. Study Nature with an eye to spiritual suggestions—to underlying spiritual analogies. Give to whatever you read or hear, which seems to have truth or value in it, the attention it deserves. Inquiry throws the mind into the attitude most favourable for receiving Divine revelations. Moses was not called by name till he "turned aside to see." 3. With the perception that in this circumstance God was specially calling him to inquire. As Moses gazed, he would be prompted to ask about this bush—What means it? What invisible power is here manifesting itself? Why is it burning at this place, and at this time? What mystery is contained in it? Has it a message for me? And he would not be long in perceiving that it must be burning there with the special view of attracting his attention. And is it not thus that the Divine usually draws near to us? Attention is arrested by something a little aside from the course of ordinary experience, and the impression it makes upon us produces the conviction that it is not unintended; that it is, as we say, "sent;" that it has a meaning and message to us we do well to look into. Every man, at some point or another in his history, has felt himself thus appealed to by the supernatural. The impression may be made by a book we feel drawn to read, or by something we read in it; through a sermon, through some event of life, by a sickness, at a deathbed, by the sayings and doings of fellow-men, or in hours of solitude, when even Nature seems peopled with strange voices, and begins to speak to us in parables. But, originate as it may, there is plainly in it, as in all special dealings of God with us, a call to inquire, to question ourselves, to ask whether, from the midst of the mystery, God may not have some further message for our souls. III. THE SIGHT ITSELF. The bush that burned (verse 2) was— 1. A token of the Divine Presence. Moses would soon feel that he was standing in presence of the Unseen Holy. 2. A significant emblem. It represented the Israelites in their state of affliction, yet miraculously surviving. Possibly, in the questionings of his spirit, Moses had not before sufficiently considered the "token for good" implied in this astonishing preservation of the nation, and needed to have his attention directed to it. It was a clear proof that the Lord had not cast off his people. If Israel was preserved, it could only be for one reason. The continued vitality, growth, and vigour of the nation was the infallible pledge of the fulfilment of the promise. 3. An answer to prayer. For what could be the meaning of this portent, but that the long, weary silence was at length broken; that the prayer, "O Lord, how long?" was at last to receive its answer? Faith can see great results wrapped up in small beginnings. For nothing in God’s procedure is isolated. Beginnings with God mean endings too. IV. THE CALL. As Moses wondered— 1. The revelation became personal. He heard himself addressed by name, "Moses, Moses" (verse 4). Solemnised, yet with that presence of mind which could only arise from long habituation to the idea of an invisible spiritual world, he answered, "Here am I." This was to place himself unreservedly at God’s disposal. Mark the order— (1) God revealing (verse 1); (2) man attending (verse 2); (3) the revelation becoming Personal (verse 3). Then followed the direction (verse 5), "Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes," etc. Thus Moses was instructed: 2. As to the right attitude towards God’s revelations. (1) Self-surrender; (2) reverence; (3) obedience. Moses doubtless obeyed the injunction he received. These qualities meet in all true religion: humility in hearing what God has to say; submission of mind and heart to it when said; readiness to obey. Glance for a moment at the requirement of reverence. One can understand how in the tumult of his feelings at the moment—in the very eagerness of his spirit to hear what further God had to say to him—Moses should be in danger of neglecting the outward tokens of the reverence which no doubt he felt; but it is instructive to observe that God recalls his attention to them. We are thus taught that reverence becomes us, not only in relation to God himself, but in relation to whatever is even outwardly connected with his presence, worship, or revelation. e.g; in our dealing with Scripture, in the use of Divine names and titles, in the ritual of Divine service. The attitude of the spirit is doubtless the main thing; but a reverent spirit will seek for itself suitable forms of expression; and respect for the forms is itself a duty, and an aid in the education of the sentiment. Those are greatly to be censured who, presuming on a supposed special intimacy with God not granted to others, venture to take liberties, and allow themselves in a demeanour and in a style of expression to the Almighty at the least irreverently familiar, and not unfrequently bordering on profanity. Raptures of piety, however sincere, do not justify us in forgetting that in communion with God we stand on "holy ground."—J.O. The bush and its suggestions. Glean here a few of the general suggestions of the passage:— I. . The appearance at the bush suggestive— 1. Of the supernatural in Nature. Bushes are aglow all around us, if only we had eyes to see them. Christ’s teaching an illustration of the spiritual suggestiveness of Nature. "Consider the lilies" (Matthew 6:28). The parables. 2. Of the supernatural in common life. "Moses kept the flock of Jethro." The Higher Presence may be with us in the humblest occupations. 3. Of the supernatural in the Church— (1) As a whole; (2) Individual believers. The bush, burning but not consumed, an emblem of Israel—of the Church—enduring in tribulation. 4. Of the higher supernatural of positive revelation. Authoritative revelation is suspended, but the sum of its results is given in Scripture. The Bible is the Bush of revelation, to which the student of Divine things will do well to direct his attention. II. . Cultivate with Moses— 1. A spirit of duty (Exodus 3:1). 2. A spirit of devout inquiry (Exodus 3:3). 3. A spirit of humility and reverence (Exodus 3:5, Exodus 3:6). To such a spirit, God— 1. Reveals himself. 2. Addresses calls to his service (Exodus 3:4). 3. Gives work to do. 4. Honours in its work.—J.O. The bush in history. The bush had primary reference to Israel, and the fire in the bush represented Jehovah’s fiery presence in the midst of his people— 1. For their protection. A fire flaming forth to consume the adversaries. 2. For their purification. God was in the fires that tried them, as well as in the power that upheld them. The fire was thus a figurative representation at once of destroying punishment and of refining affliction. But the bush, while burning, was not consumed. This involves the principle that nothing, however weak and perishable in itself, with which God connects his presence, or which he wills to continue in existence, can by any possibility be destroyed. From this point of view—a thoroughly legitimate one—the emblem admits of various applications, and directs our attention to a series of supernatural facts yet greater than itself, and well deserving our turning aside to see. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Exodus 4:1-17 The reluctance of Moses to undertake the part of leader, indicated by his first reply at his first calling, "Who am I that I should go?" etc. (Exodus 3:11), was not yet overcome. God had promised that he would succeed; but he did not see how he could succeed, either with the people or with Pharaoh. It was not enough for him that God had declared, "They (the people) shall hearken unto thy voice" (Exodus 3:18); he does not, cannot believe this, and replies: "Behold, they will not believe, neither hearken unto my voice" (Exodus 4:1). This was plain want of faith; but not unnatural, and not, in God’s sight, inexcusable. God therefore condescended to the human weakness of his servant, and proceeded to show him how he intended that he should persuade the people of his mission. He should persuade them by producing the credentials of miracles (Exodus 4:2-9). But the laggard heart finds yet a further objection. Moses feels that he labours under a personal defect, which (he thinks) is an absolute disqualification. He is "slow of speech and of a slow tongue" (Exodus 4:10), has always been wanting in eloquence, and does not find himself any the more eloquent since God has been speaking with him. In vain does Jehovah promise to "be with his mouth" (Exodus 4:12); Moses’ last word indicates all the old feeling of self-distrust. "Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send" (Exodus 4:13). Then at last the anger of the Lord is kindled against Moses, and God inflicts on him a sort of punishment—degrades him; as it were—deposes him from the position of sole leader, and associates Aaron with him in such sort that Aaron must have appeared, both to the Israelites and to the Pharaoh, as the chief leader rather than Moses. (See Exodus 4:30; Exodus 7:2, Exodus 7:10, Exodus 7:19; Exodus 8:6, Exodus 8:17, etc.) At this point the interview between Moses and Jehovah ends, and the action of the Exodus commences. Moses obtains leave to quit Midian, and quits it—retires to Egypt, after escaping from a dangerous sickness on the way (Exodus 4:24-26), is met by Aaron and takes him into his counsels, summons the elders and exhibits before them his miraculous powers, persuades them, and is finally accepted as having, with Aaron, a mission from God, both by the elders and the people. Exodus 4:1 Behold, they will not believe. Attempts have been made to soften down this contradiction of God’s words in Exodus 3:18, and to represent Moses as merely saying, "What if the people will not hearken, etc. What shall I do then?" (So the LXX; Geddes, Boothroyd, and others.) But the phrase is really emphatic and peremptory. As Rosenmuller says: "Vox est negantis et detrac-tantis officium." The Lord hath not appeared to thee. It is quite probable that the Israelites would have so spoken, if Moses had had no sign to show. There had been no appearance of Jehovah to anyone for above four hundred years. And the Israelites, who had not seen Moses for forty years, would not know whether he was a veracious person or not. Exodus 4:2 A rod. Or "a staff." Some suppose the ordinary shepherd’s staff, or crook, to be meant; but it is objected that this would have been an unfit object to have brought into the presence of Pharaoh (Kalisch), being unsuitable for a court, and emblematic of an occupation which the Egyptians loathed (Genesis 46:34); and the suggestion is therefore made, that it was the baton or long stick commonly carried by Egyptians of good position and especially by persons in authority. But Moses in Midian, forty years after he quitted Egypt, is not likely to have possessed such an article; nor, if he had possessed it, would he have taken it with him when shepherding. Probably a simple staff, the natural support of a man of advanced years, is meant. Exodus 4:3 It became a serpent. The word here used for "serpent," nakhash, is a generic word applicable to any species of snake. We cannot assume that the cobra is the serpent meant, though no doubt Moses, when he fled from before it, believed it to be a venomous serpent. Various reasons for God’s choice of this particular sign have been given. Perhaps the best is, that a trick of the kind was known to the Egyptian conjurors, who would be tempted to exhibit it in order to discredit Moses, and would then be discredited themselves by his stick swallowing theirs. (See Exodus 7:10-12.) It is fanciful to suppose a reference either to the serpent of Gen 3:1-24. (Keil and Delitzsch) or to the uraeus (cobra), which the Egyptian kings bore in their headdress as a mark of sovereignty (Canon Cook) Exodus 4:4 By the tail. A snake-charmer will usually take up his serpents by the neck, so that they may not be able to bite him. Moses was bidden to show his trust in God by taking up his serpent by the tail. His courage, as well as his faith, is shown in his ready obedience. It became a rod. A veritable rod once more, not a mere stiffened snake like the "rods" of the magicians (Exodus 7:12) Exodus 4:5 That they may believe. The sign was to convince the Israelites, in the first instance, and cause them to accept the mission of Moses (see Exodus 4:30, Exodus 4:31). It was afterwards to be exhibited before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21), to try him and prove him, but not to convince him. Exodus 4:6 Furthermore. The first sign is followed by a second, equally simple and easy of performance, and perhaps, in the eyes of the Israelites, even more marvellous. Leprosy in a developed form was regarded as absolutely incurable. (Celsus, ’De Re Medica,’ 5.7-8.) Its instantaneous production and removal were contrary to all experience, and in themselves thoroughly astonishing. Further, while the first miracle was simply a sign of supernatural power—a credential, the second was a warning and a lesson. What might not he do to smite or to save on whom God had bestowed such power over the human organism? Each man would naturally fear to resist or disobey one so dangerously gifted. Leprous as snow. The Greek name for the worst form of leprosy, λεύκη, was based on this fact of whiteness. The loathsome disease is thus described by Kalisch:—"It begins with mealy crusts and scurfy scabs, originally not larger than a pin’s point, a little depressed in the skin (Le Exodus 13:3, 30), and covered with white hairs (Le Exodus 13:3, Exodus 13:20). These spots rapidly spread (Le Exodus 13:8), and produce wild [proud?] flesh (Le Exodus 13:10, Exodus 13:14). The leprous symptoms appear most frequently on the hairy parts of the body, and also on members which have been ulcerously affected. When the leprosy has gained ground, the whole skin appears glossy white at the forehead, nose, etc; tuberated, thickened, dry like leather, but smooth; sometimes it bursts, and ulcers become visible. The nails of the hands and feet fall; the eyelids bend backwards; the hair covers itself with a fetid rind, or goes off entirely (Leviticus 13:42). All external senses are weakened: the eyes lose their brightness, become very sensitive, and are continually blearing; from the nostrils runs a fluid phlegm." Exodus 4:8 The voice of the first sign. Some understand "the voice of Moses as he gave them the first sign;" but it is better to regard the sign itself as speaking to them. According to the sacred writers everything that can teach us anything—day, night, the heavens, the firmament, the beasts, the fowls of the air, the fishes, nay, the very stones—have a voice. They teach us, speak to us, declare to us, cry out aloud, lift up their voice, shout, sing, proclaim God’s will, whether man will hear or whether he will forbear. (See Psalms 19:1-3; Job 12:7, Job 12:3; Habakkuk 2:11; Luke 19:40, etc.) Equally, or rather much more, must a miracle be regarded as having a voice. God speaks to us by it. Exodus 4:9 If they will not believe also. "Even" would be a better translation than "also." The river is of course "the Nile." See the comment on Exodus 2:3. Of the three signs given, the first would probably convince all those who were religious, well-disposed, and fair-minded; the second, acting upon their fears, would move all but the desperately wicked, who despised Jehovah and put their trust in the gods of the Egyptians (Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:7, Ezekiel 20:8; Ezekiel 23:3, Ezekiel 23:8, etc.). The third sign was for these last, who would regard the Nile as a great divinity, and would see in the conversion of Nile water into blood a significant indication that the God who had commissioned Moses was greater than any Egyptian one. Exodus 4:10 And Moses said, O my Lord. The phrase used by Moses is full of force. It is "vox dolentis et supplicantis" (Noldius). Joseph’s brethren use it to the steward of Joseph’s house, when they expect to be fallen upon and taken for bondsmen (Genesis 43:20); Judah used it (Genesis 44:18) when pleading with Joseph for Benjamin; Aaron when pleading for Miriam (Numbers 13:11); Joshua when expostulating with God about Ai (Joshua 7:8). There is a deprecatory idea in it, as well as a supplicatory one; an idea like that which Abraham expanded into the words, "Oh! let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once" (Genesis 18:32). Moses feels that he is trying the patience of God to the uttermost; but yet he must make one more effort to escape his mission. I am not eloquent. Literally, as in the margin, "a man of words." "Words do not come readily to my tongue when I attempt to speak; I have never been a fluent speaker, neither yesterday (i.e. recently) nor the day before (i.e. formerly). Nor do I even find that I have become eloquent by divine inspiration since thou spakest with me. Still I remain slow of speech and slow of tongue." A question is raised whether the mere difficulty of finding words and giving them utterance—a difficulty felt at first by almost every speaker—is here meant, or something further, as "a natural impediment owing to defect in the organs of speech" (Kalisch), or a want of readiness, owing to disuse, in speaking the Hebrew language (Clarke). The latter suggestion is scarcely consistent with the ease and fluency with which Moses had carried on the conversation in Hebrew up to this point. The former is a possible meaning, though not a necessary one. According to a Jewish tradition, Moses had a difficulty in pronouncing the labials b, v, m, ph, p. Exodus 4:11-13 Who hath made man’s mouth! God could and would have cured the defect in Moses’ speech, whatever it was; could and would have added eloquence to his other gifts, if he had even at this point yielded himself up unreservedly to his guidance and heartily accepted his mission. Nothing is too hard for the Lord. He gives all powers—sight, and hearing, and speech included—to whom he will. He would have been "with Moses’ mouth," removing all hesitation or indistinctness, and have "taught him what to say"—supplied the thought and the language by which to express it—if Moses would have let him. But the reply in Exodus 4:13 shut up the Divine bounty, prevented its outpour, and left Moses the ineffective speaker which he was content to be. The words, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send, are curt and ungracious; much curter in the original than in our version. £ They contain a grudging acquiescence. But for the deprecatory particle with which they commence—the same as in Exodus 4:10, they would be almost rude. And we see the result in the next verse. Exodus 4:14 The anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses. The expression used is a strong one, but does not perhaps here mean more than that God was displeased. At least, he did not punish the offender in any severer way than by the withholding of a gift that he was ready to bestow, and the partition between two of a position and a dignity which Moses might have had all to himself. Perhaps diffidence and self-distrust, even when out of place, are not altogether abhorrent to One whose creatures are continually offending him by presumption and arrogance. Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know, etc. This translation is wrong. The two clauses form one sentence, and should be rendered, "Do I not know that Aaron the Levite, thy brother, speaks well?" Aaron’s designation as "the Levite" is remarkable, and seems to glance at the future consecration of his tribe to God’s especial service. Behold, he cometh forth to meet thee. It has been conjectured that Aaron designed to visit Moses in Midian, in order to convey to him the intelligence that the king who had sought his life (Exodus 2:15) was dead. He did not, however, start on the journey till God gave him a special direction (Exodus 4:27). Exodus 4:15 Thou shalt speak unto him and put words in his mouth. Moses was to tell Aaron what to say—furnish, i.e; the matter of his speeches—and Aaron was to clothe this matter in fitting words. God promised to be with both of their mouths; with Moses’, to make him give right directions to Aaron; with Aaron’s, to make him utter them persuasively: Moses’ position was still the more honourable one, though Aaron’s might seem the higher to the people. Exodus 4:16 He shall be thy spokesman. Literally, "He shall speak for thee." He shall be, even he. It is the verb that is repeated, not the pronoun. Probably the meaning is, "he shall surely be." There is no comparison between Aaron and anyone else. Thou shalt be to him instead of God. Divine inspiration, that is, shall rest on thee; and it shall be his duty to accept thy words as Divine words, and to do all that thou biddest him. Exodus 4:17 Thou shalt take this rod. Not any rod, but the particular one which had already once become a serpent. Wherewith thou shalt do signs. Rather, "the signs," i.e. the signs which thou wilt have to do, as already declared in Exodus 3:20. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that God had already particularised them Exodus 4:1-5 The intent of the first sign. Primarily, no doubt, the object was to empower Moses to show forth a sign easily, readily, without preparation, and so at any moment. He had come to the time of life at which he naturally carried a staff. That he should be able at his will to transform that dead piece of vegetable matter into an active, living organism, would show him endued with supernatural power over both the vegetable and animal worlds, and give him a means, always ready to his hand, of demonstrating the truth of his mission. This alone was a great matter. But the fact that his rod became a serpent, rather than any other living thing, was specially calculated to impress the Egyptians. In one form, the serpent with them meant "a king," or "a crown;" and the change of a staff into a snake would typify the conversion of a shepherd into a monarch. In another form it was a sign for a "multitude," and the transformation might remind them that the single stock or stem of Jacob was now become "millions." The great serpent, Apap, moreover, held a high position in their mythology, as powerful to destroy and punish, whence they might the more fear one who seemed able to create serpents at his pleasure. The Israelites would perhaps view the staff as a rod to smite with, and connect its change into a serpent with the notion that when reds or whips were not thought severe enough, rulers chastised with "scorpions" (1 Kings 12:11). Altogether, the sign, if viewed as a type, was threatening and alarming; perhaps the more so on account of its vagueness. Forms ill-defined, seen through mist, affright men more than those which are clear and definite. Exodus 4:6-8 The intent of the second sign. If the first sign was powerful to convince, the second was still more powerful (Exodus 4:8). It showed Moses able to produce, and cure, in a moment of time, the most virulent malady to which human nature was liable. The Egyptians greatly feared leprosy, and declared in their own accounts of the Exodus that they drove the Israelites out of their country because they were afflicted with that loathsome disease. The Israelites regarded it as the worst affliction that could befall a man. The hand of Moses made leprous within the folds of the garment that enwrapped his bosom typified perhaps the Israelitish nation, corrupted by the circumstances that enwrapped it around in Egypt. The cure indicated that Moses would, through the power committed to him, cleanse the people from their defilements, and. restore them to a state of spiritual soundness. Thus it was at once a warning and a promise. The sign appears not to have been used in Moses’ dealings with the Egyptians (Exodus 7:10-17), because it was inappropriate as respected them, since they were beyond cleansing—there was no healing of their wound. Thus by this sign were taught two things: 1. That there is a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness which can wash away, under the condition of repentance, any defilement; and 2. That there is a state of sinfulness and corruption when repentance ceases to be possible, and the moral nature can no longer be restored, and nothing remains but that fearful looking-for of judgment to come whereof the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks (Exodus 10:27). The signs of the serpent and the blood—signs of judgment—were for the Egyptians and the Israelites alike; the sign of the hand made leprous and then restored—a sign of mercy—was for the Israelites only. The intent of the third sign. Blood poured on the ground could symbolise nothing but war and destruction. That water should be turned into it implied that peace should be changed into war, prosperity into ruin, quiet and tranquillity into a horrible carnage. The special reference would be to the destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea; but the other ruinous plagues, as especially the fifth, the seventh, and the tenth, would be glanced at also. That the water became blood on touching the ground of Egypt would indicate that it was the land and people of Egypt who were to be the sufferers. A very dreadful vengeance was thus foreshadowed by the third sign, which should have warned the Pharaoh of the terrible results that would follow his resistance to God’s will as proclaimed by Moses. To the Israelites, on the contrary, the sign was one assuring them of final triumph; that the blood of their enemies would be poured out like water in the coming struggle, and their resistance to God’s will be signally punished. Slowness of speech a drawback on ministerial fitness, but not a disqualification. It is remarkable that both Moses, the great prophet of the First Covenant, and St. Paul, the "chosen vessel" for the publication of the Second Covenant, were ineffective as speakers; not perhaps both "in presence base," but certainly both "in speech contemptible" (2 Corinthians 10:1, 2 Corinthians 10:10). Speakers and preachers should lay the lesson to heart, and learn not to be overproud of the gift of eloquence. A good gift it is, no doubt—when sanctified, a great gift—which may redound to God’s honour and glory, and for which they should be duly thankful, but not a necessary gift. The men of action, the men that have done the greatest things, and left their mark most enduringly upon the world, have seldom been "men of words." Luther indeed was mighty in speech, and John Knox, and Whitfield, and (though less so) John Wesley, but not our own Cranmer, nor Melancthon, nor Anselm, nor Bishop Cosin, nor John Keble. In the secular sphere of statesmanship and generalship the same principle holds even more decidedly. Demosthenes has to yield the palm to Alexander, Cicero to Caesar, Pym to Cromwell, the Abbe Sieyes to Napoleon. On the whole it must be said that those who are great in deed are rarely great in speech. And without eloquence a man may do God good service in every walk of life, even as a minister. The written sermon may go as straight to the heart of the audience as the spoken one. Ministerial effort in house-to-house visiting may do as much to convert a parish as any number of extempore sermons. Example of life preaches better than palaver. Let no one who feels within him the ministerial call, who longs to serve God by bringing his fellow-men to Christ, be deterred by the thought that he is "slow of speech and of a slow tongue." God, without making him eloquent, can "be with his mouth," give his words force, make them powerful to the conversion of souls. It has been said that there are many "dumb poets." So are there many "dumb preachers," whoso weak and hesitating words God blesses and renders effectual, so that in the end they have no cause to be ashamed, but may point to those whom they have brought to Christ, and exclaim with St. Paul, "Ye are our work, ye are our epistle, the seal of our apostleship are ye in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 3:2). Exodus 4:13, Exodus 4:14 The sin of self-distrust, and its punishment. Undoubtedly the general inclination of men is towards self-assertion and self-sufficiency, so that diffidence and distrust of self are commonly regarded as excellences. But there is a diffidence which is wrongful, a self-distrust which Scripture condemns. St. Paul calls it "a voluntary humility" (ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνη)—a humblemindedness, that is, which has its root in the will; a man not choosing to think that he is fit for high things, and determining to keep down his aims, aspirations, hopes, endeavours. The same apostle exhorts his converts "not to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think" (Romans 12:3), but at the same time, by implication, "not to think too humbly, for he tells them to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every one the measure of faith." We ought to take true views of ourselves, of our capacities, powers, faculties, even of the graces to which by God’s mercy we have been able to attain; and not to deny them or depreciate them. If we do so we keep ourselves back from high things, and this is how God punishes us. Moses lost the gift of eloquence, which God would supernaturally have bestowed upon him (Exodus 4:12), and lost one-half of his leadership (Exodus 4:14 16), by his persistent diffidence and distrust. We prevent ourselves from attaining heights to which we might have attained, we keep ourselves down in this world and make our position low in the next, by similar folly. The youth who bore the banner with the word "excelsior" upon it, was wiser than most of us. If we would rise high we must aim high; if we would aim high we must not be too diffident of ourselves. The love of brothers. Few things are more lovely than the affection of brothers. James and John, Simon and Andrew, Philip and Bartholomew, James and Jude, were sent out together by our Lord, that they might enjoy this sweet companionship. How touching is the love of Joseph for Benjamin! If there is "a friend that sticketh closer than a brother," the fact is noted for its rarity; and the force of the phrase depends on the known intensity of fraternal affection. Aaron, though so long parted from Moses, perhaps the more because so long parted, would at the sight of him be "glad in his heart." Though not brought up together, though educated so differently, and gifted so differently, though seemingly intended for such different walks in life, the two had a true affection, each for each, which had survived a long and—so far as we are told—complete separation. Here, and again in verse 27, it is the affection of Aaron which is especially noticed—perhaps because it was the more praiseworthy. Aaron, the elder brother, might naturally have felt some jealousy of Moses’ advancement above himself, of his superior education, social position, privileges, etc. But he seems to have been entirely free from this feeling. Moses might, for aught that he knew, resume his old princely rank on his return to Egypt, and throw him once more into the shade. Aaron did not disquiet himself about this. God knew that he longed for the simple keen pleasure of seeing his brother ("when he seeth thee, he will be glad," etc.), of pressing him to his heart, and kissing him on the face (verse 27). Well would it be, if among Christians all brothers were thus minded. Exodus 4:14-16 Diversities of gifts a benefit both to individuals and to the Church. After all, the self-distrust of Moses was turned by God to good. Without it Moses would have been sole leader of the entire enterprise, must have appeared alone before the elders and before the monarch, must have undertaken the entire charge, direction, superintendence of everything, must have had upon his mind an unshared burden which it would have been most trying to bear. God’s strength might indeed have been sufficient for his weakness. But his life could not but have been a weariness to him. He would have lacked the unspeakable solace and comfort of a loved and loving associate, to whom he might open—indeed, was bound to open (Exodus 4:15)—all his mind, and with whom he could constantly "take sweet counsel together." He would have also lacked the support, so much needed by a shy man, of a companion and coadjutor in crises and times of difficulty, as when he appeared first before the elders (Exodus 4:29, Exodus 4:30), and when he appeared first before Pharaoh (Exodus 5:1). Thus the association of Aaron with himself in the leadership must have been felt by Moses as a benefit. And to Aaron it was an unmixed advantage. The gift with which God had endowed him, and which he had no doubt sedulously cultivated, caused him to be placed almost on a par with his brother—enabled him to be of use to him—gave him loving companionship—and caused him to have a large part in the deliverance of his nation. After forty years of separation, during which he had never ceased to long for the return of his brother, Aaron found himself associated in the closest possible way with Moses, made his "right-hand man," his other self, his constant aider and assister. After a wholly undistinguished life, which had lasted eighty-three years (Exodus 7:7), he found himself brought into a position of the highest dignity and responsibility. And the Church was benefited greatly by the double leadership. Moses, the man of thought, was able to devote himself exclusively to thinking out all the details of the great work entrusted to him. Aaron, the man of words, was able to give all his attention to the framing of addresses whereby he might advance the plans of his brother. So in the Christian Church there have always been, and will always be, "diversities of gifts." At one time they are "gifts of healing, tongues, prophecy, interpretation, discerning of spirits, faith, wisdom, prudence" (1 Corinthians 12:8-10); at another, preaching power, administrative energy, learning, scholarship, influence, and the like. Seldom are even two of these gifts united in the same individual. The Church prospers by utilising the gifts of all, assigning to each man the position suited to him, and taking care that he has a fair field for the employment of his special gift. In this way, "the whole building fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16). BY J. ORR Unbelief. The objection started by Moses to the mission on which he was sent was a very natural one. The people would not believe him, nor hearken to his voice. For— I. HE WAS AS YET WITH . In so grave a matter Moses could not expect the people to believe his bare word. This was a real difficulty. Before committing themselves to his proposals, the Hebrews would be entitled to ask for very distinct proofs that the message brought to them had really come from God—that there was no mistake, no deception. God acknowledges the justice of this plea, by furnishing Moses with the credentials that he needed. From which we gather that it is no part of the business of a preacher of the Gospel to run down "evidences." Evidences are both required and forthcoming. God asks no man to confide in a message as of Divine authority, without furnishing him with sufficient grounds for believing that this character really belongs to it. The reality of revelation, the supernatural mission of Christ, the inspiration of prophets and apostles, the authority of Scripture, all admit of proof; and it is the duty of the preacher to keep this fact in view, and in delivering his message, to exhibit along with the message the evidences of its Divine original. II. MORAL CAUSES, AS FROM MERE OF , WOULD MAKE IT FOR HIM TO SECURE . Moses anticipated being met, not simply with hesitation and suspense of judgment, which would be all that the mere absence of credentials would warrant, but by positive disbelief. "The Lord hath not appeared to thee." How account for this? 1. The message he had to bring was a very wonderful one. He had to ask the people to believe that, after centuries of silence, God, the God of the patriarchs, had again appeared to him, and had spoken with him. This in itself was not incredible, but it would assume an incredible aspect to those whose faith in a living God had become shadowy and uninfluential—who had learned to look on such appearances as connected, not with the present, but with a distant and already faded past. Credulous enough in some things, they would be incredulous as to this; just as a believer in witchcraft or fairies might be the hardest to convince of a case of the supernatural aside from the lines of his ordinary thinking and beliefs. It is a similar difficulty which the preacher of the Gospel has to encounter in the indisposition of the natural mind to believe in anything outside of, or beyond, the sphere in which it ordinarily works and judges,—the sphere of things sensible (John 14:17). The supernatural is strange to it. It pushes it aside as inherently incredible, or at least as of no interest to it. From this the advance is easy to that which is so peculiarly a characteristic of our age, the denial of the supernatural as such—the fiat assertion that miracle is impossible. 2. The announcement contained in his message was so good as almost to surpass belief. Great good news has often this effect of producing incredulity. Cf. Genesis 45:26,—"Jacob’s heart fainted, and he believed them not," and Psalms 126:1-6. And would not the Hebrews require evidence for the great good news that God had visited them, and was about to bring them out of Egypt, and plant them in Caanan! In like manner, is it not vastly wonderful, almost passing belief, that God should have done for man all that the Gospel declares him to have done! Sending his Son, making atonement for sin, etc. 3. The difficulties in the way of the execution of the purpose seemed insuperable. Even with God on their side, it might seem to the Israelites as if the chances of their deliverance from Pharaoh were very small. True, God was omnipotent; but we know little if we have not learned how much easier it is to believe in God’s power in the abstract, than to realise that this power is able to cope successfully with the actual difficulties of our position. The tendency of unbelief is to "limit the Holy One of Israel" (Psalms 78:41). And this tendency is nowhere more manifest than in the difficulty men feel in believing that the Gospel of the Cross is indeed the very "power of God unto salvation"—able to cope with and overcome the moral evil of the world, and of their own hearts. 4. One difficulty Moses would not have to contend with, viz.: aversion to his message in itself. For, after all, the message brought to the Israelites was in the line of their own fondest wishes—a fact which ought, if anything could, powerfully to have recommended it. How different with the Gospel, which, with its spiritual salvation, rouses in arms against itself every propensity of a heart at enmity against God! The Israelites must at least have desired that Moses’ message would turn out to be true; but not so the mass of the hearers of the Gospel. They desire neither God nor his ways; have no taste for his salvation; are only eager to find excuses for getting rid of the unwelcome truths. To overcome an obstacle of this kind, more is needed than outward credentials—even an effectual working of the Holy Ghost. III. FROM THESE . 1. Preachers of the Gospel must prepare themselves for encountering unbelief. It is the old complaint—"Who hath believed our report?" (Isaiah 53:1). 2. The success of Moses in overcoming the people’s unbelief shows that he must have possessed decisive credentials of his mission. The complaint of this verse does not tally with what is sometimes alleged as to the unlimited drafts that may be made on human credulity. Moses did not find the people all readiness to believe him. He was bringing them a message in the line of their dearest wishes, yet he anticipated nothing but incredulity. He had never much reason to complain of the over-credulity of the Israelites; his complaint was usually of their unbelief. Even after signs and wonders had been wrought, he had a constant battle to fight with their unbelieving tendencies. How then, unless his credentials had been of the clearest and most decisive kind, could he possibly have succeeded? For, mark (1) It was not merely a few enthusiasts he had to carry with him, but the whole body of the people. (2) He was no demagogue, but a man of slow, diffident, self-distrustful nature, the last man who might be expected to play successfully on popular credulity or enthusiasm. (3) His plans were not to be laid before the multitude at all, but before the "elders"—the cool, cautious heads of the ,nation, who would be sure to ask him for very distinct credentials before committing themselves to a contest with Pharaoh. The inference is that there must have been a true supernatural in the founding of the Mosaic era; as afterwards there must have been a true supernatural in the founding of the Christian era. Imposture, credulity, the force of mere ideas, the commanding power of a great personality, are, together or apart, incapable of explaining all the facts. Wonders must have been wrought, alike in the accrediting of the mission of Moses and in the stupendous work of the deliverance itself.—J.O. Exodus 4:1-10 A trilogy of signs. In reply to his complaint that the people would not believe him, nor hearken to his voice, God gave Moses three signs. These are to be viewed— I. AS OF HIS DIVINE (Exodus 4:5, Exodus 4:8). Divine power is supernaturally exercised in proof of Moses’ title to speak with Divine authority. This is a clear case of the use of miracles as credentials of a mission, and confutes those who reason that this view of miracles has no basis in Scripture. The character of the signs was not to be disregarded, but the immediate circumstance which gave them evidential value was the fact of supernatural origin. Practically, signs of the kind wrought by Moses would be felt to be incontestable proofs of his Divine commission; and it is difficult to see how otherwise his message could have been authenticated. Why should this be objected to? Why, if the message is worthy of God, and the work of power is also worthy of God, should the work of power not be employed to add authority to the word, as indicating with certainty the source from which it comes? II. AS OR ACTS. This is implied in their character as "signs." They had had of themselves a "voice." They told over again what Moses had explained in words, while they exhibited in symbol the superiority of Jehovah to the king and gods of Egypt. 1. Sign 1st.—The impotence of Pharaoh against Jehovah’s messenger. This seems to be the import of the turning of the rod into the serpent (Exodus 4:2-5). The serpent "was the symbol of the royal and divine power on the diadem of every Pharaoh." (1) The rod cast to the ground and changing into a serpent symbolised the effect of the challenge to Pharaoh. (2) Before this terrible apparition, with its gleaming eyes, inflated neck, hissing tongue, and vehemence of assault, Moses fled in natural terror. (3) But he is instructed not to fear it, but to seize it by the tail; when there is given a representation of Pharaoh’s absolute powerlessness to hurt him in the reconversion of the serpent into the rod. The foe vanishes, and Moses remains master of the situation. The lesson is, that God’s servants, charged with the execution of his mission, are more than a match for all the powers of ill that can be arrayed against them. God will bruise even Satan—"that old serpent"—under their feet shortly (Romans 16:20). They wield an authority which gives them for the time a charmed existence, and ensures the defeat of those opposed to them. Cf. with this sign Mark 16:18; Acts 28:5; Revelation 12:6; and instance Luther before the Diet of Worms. 2. Sign 2nd. The power of Jehovah to smite and heal. The symbol of this was at the same time an instance of it—viz, the sudden smiting of Moses’ hand with leprosy, followed by as instantaneous a cure (Revelation 12:6-8). Leprosy was peculiarly the theocratic punishment (Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi). It was probably a common disease among the Israelites, who figure in Egyptian traditions as a nation of lepers, hateful to the gods on account of their pollutions. The obvious teaching of this sign would therefore be (1) That Jehovah was able to smite with the most grievous plagues, yet (2) As able to heal when he had smitten. This conveyed both threat and promise. (1) If the people obeyed his voice, as he had healed the leprous hand, so would he heal them of their natural and spiritual disorders, and lift them out of their despised and unclean state in Egypt; while conversely, (2) If they resisted, great and sore strokes of the Divine anger would fall upon them; or, if Egypt resisted God’s will, it in turn would be smitten by his plagues. The power in both cases was omnipotent and resistless. Thus we are instructed— 1. To fear the stroke of the Divine anger. 2. That God who smites can also heal (Hosea 6:1). 3. That God is more willing to remove judgments than to send them. 4. That God can heal the leprous heart. 5. To fear, above all, that most awful fulfilment of the leprosy symbol—the adjudging of the soul, under Divine wrath, to the unchecked spread of its own corruptions—to the reign of sin within itself. 3. Sign 3rd.—The ruin that would descend on Egypt if God’s will continued to be disobeyed. The sign of the turning of a portion of the water of the Nile—the source of Egypt’s beauty, fertility, and prosperity—into blood (Revelation 12:9) could only have one meaning. It portended ruin to the state of Egypt. And such would be the inevitable consequence of a contest between Pharaoh and Jehovah, if protracted by the king’s obstinacy. In this case there was no reversal of the sign. The end of strife with God is judgment without mercy—utter destruction. Lesson—the folly of striving with the Almighty. III. AS A SERIES OF SIGNS ADAPTED TO REMOVE DOUBT AT STAGES (Revelation 12:8, Revelation 12:9). Though, strictly speaking, one sign was enough to attest the Divine commission of him who wrought it, yet God, who condescends to man’s infirmity, added sign to sign, thus furnishing a superabundance and accumulation of evidences, and rendering unbelief wholly inexcusable. It has often been observed that the strength of the evidence for revelation lies, not in any single line of proof, but in the cumulative force of a great variety of evidences, some of which strike one class of minds as of peculiar cogency, while minds differently constituted are more impressed by others. In the case before us, a certain progression may be noted; each sign, by peculiar marks, carrying us a step further than its predecessor. 1. In the turning of the rod into the serpent, we have a work of Divine power, but not without a certain resemblance to the feats of the native serpent-charmers. The points of contrast were great, but it might be doubted whether the acts of the magicians were not competent to produce as great a wonder. 2. In the second sign—the stroke of leprosy—this doubt is eliminated, and the presence of Divine power conclusively demonstrated. But Egypt had her gods also, and the question, as it would present itself to those who believed in them, was not simply, Is Jehovah powerful? but, Is his power greater than theirs? 3. The last sign gives the final proof, by working a miracle on the water of the Nile—itself one of Egypt’s greater gods. The turning of that sacred water into blood was the death-blow to all hope of help from the Egyptian idols. Observe— 1. The anxiety of God to remove doubt. 2. The ample provision he has made for its removal. 3. The patience with which he bears with man’s dulness and slowness of heart. 4. The inexcusableness of unbelief.—J.O. Exodus 4:10-17 Slow of speech. The longer Moses pondered the mission on which he was sent, the more he shrank from it. The difficulty which now oppressed him was his want of eloquence. It seemed to him that in this respect he was the least qualified person God could have chosen. There was needed for such a work a man of persuasive tongue, of fluent, forcible, and impressive speech; and his own utterance was hesitating and heavy. Overwhelmed with the sense of unfitness, he again appeals to God, and asks to be relieved from duty. We have here— I. A FELT . Moses was doubtless right in what he said of his natural difficulty of speech. But his error lay— 1. In exaggerating the value of a gift of mere eloquence. He did not possess it—though Stephen calls him "mighty in words" (Acts 7:22)—and he was apt to overrate its influence. He forgot that the man of deep silent nature has a power of his own, which expresses itself through the very ruggedness and concentration of his speech; and that oratory, while valuable for some purposes, is not the most essential gift in carrying through movements which are to leave a permanent impress on history. What is chiefly wanted is not power of speech, but power of action; and when it is felt that a man can act, a very limited amount of speech will serve his purpose. The smooth persuasive tongue, though pleasant to listen to, is not the weightiest in counsel. 2. In forgetting that God knew of this infirmity when he called him to the work. God knew all about his slowness of speech, and yet had sent him on this mission. Did not this carry with it the promise that whatever help he needed would be graciously vouchsafed? God has a purpose in sometimes calling to his service men who seem destitute of the gifts—the outward gifts—needful for his work. 1. The work is more conspicuously his own. 2. His power is glorified in man’s weakness. 3. The infirmity is often of advantage to the servant himself keeping him humbled giving him to prayer, teaching him to rely on Divine grace, rousing him to effort, etc. (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Paul was a man "rude in speech" (2 Corinthians 11:6), and came not with eloquence of words (1 Corinthians 2:1); but his defects of speech only made the Divine power which resided in his utterances the more conspicuous (2 Corinthians 2:4, 2 Corinthians 2:5). II. A PROMISE. God would be with his mouth, and teach him what to say (Exodus 4:11). The Maker of speech, he might be trusted to aid its powers, when these were needed in his service. So Christ promises his disciples to give them in their hour of need what they shall speak (Matthew 10:19). Lips touched by Divine grace possess a simple, natural eloquence of their own, far excelling the attempts of studied oratory. Then there is the other fact, that gifts of speech are often latent till grace comes to evoke them. Moses’ original awkwardness was no index to what, assisted by God’s grace, he might ultimately have become, even as a speaker. His gift would probably have grown with the necessity. The greatest preachers of the Gospel, with Paul at their head, have not been men naturally eloquent. If they became so afterwards, it was grace that made them. Thus, we are told of Luther that at first he dared not enter the pulpit. "Luther, who subsequently preached with so much power,—who gave a new direction, and a force and elevation never before attained, to the whole system of German preaching,—who is still the unparalleled master of all who hope to effect more by the internal demonstrativeness of a discourse than by its external ornamentation,—this Luther was too humble, too modest, to take the place of a preacher. It was only at the solicitatlon of Slauptitz that he finally consented to preach—at first in the oratory of the convent, and afterwards in church" (Hagenbach). Knox was equally diffident about the exercise of his gifts, and when an unexpected appeal was made to him, at the age of forty-two—"the said John, abashed, burst forth in most abundant tears, and withdrew himself to his chamber" (Knox’s ’History’). All may not be eloquent like these; but anyone possessed of earnest feeling and intense convictions, who is content to deliver a plain message with directness and simplicity, will be surprised at what God can sometimes make oven of rude and unskilled lips. III. A SINFUL FROM DUTY (verse 13). The continued reluctance of Moses, after so gracious an assurance, was not to be excused. It was a direct act of disobedience, and argued, besides a want of faith, a certain measure of stubbornness. God was angry with him, yet forbore with his infirmity. And if God forbore with Moses, it is surely not for us to blame him, who are so often in "the same condemnation.’’ Let him who has never shrunk from unwelcome duties, or who has never stumbled in believing that Divine grace will, under trying circumstances, be made sufficient for his needs, cast the first stone. Admire rather in this incident— 1. The patience and forbearance of God in stooping to his servant’s weakness, and 2. The "exceeding greatness" of the power which accomplished such mighty results by so unwilling an instrumentality. Nothing proves more clearly that the work of Israel’s deliverance was not of man, but of God, than this almost stubborn reluctance of Moses to have anything to do with it. IV. A SECOND-BEST (verses 14-17). The appointment of Aaron as spokesman to his brother, while in one view of it an act of condescension, and a removal of Moses’ difficulty, was in another aspect of it a punishment of his disobedience. It took from Moses the privilege of speaking for God in his own person, and committed the delivery of the message to more eloquent, perhaps, but also to less sanctified, lips. 1. The arrangement had its advantages. (1) It supplied one’s defect by another’s gift. (2) It utilised a talent lying unemployed. (3) It gave Aaron a share in the honour of being God’s messenger. (4) It formed a new link of sympathy between the brothers. But— 2. It was not the best: (1) It prevented the development of the gift of speech in Moses himself. Had he relied on God’s promise, he would doubtless have acquired a power of speech to which he was at first a stranger. (2) The message would lose in force by being delivered through an intermediary. This of necessity. How much of the power of speech lies in its being a direct emanation from the mind and heart of the speaker—something instinct with his own personality! As delivered by Aaron, the messages of God would lose much of their impressiveness. Fluency has its disadvantages. A mind burdened with its message, and struggling with words to give it utterance, conveys a greater impression of force than ready delivery charged with a message that is not its own. (3) Moses would be hampered in his work by the constancy of his dependence on Aaron. It limits a man, when he cannot act without continually calling in another to his assistance. (4) It divided Moses’ authority, and gave Aaron an undue influence with the people (cf. Exodus 32:1-35.). (5) It was a temptation to Aaron himself to assume, or at least aspire to, greater authority than of right belonged to him (cf. Numbers 12:1-16.). Learn— 1. That it is not always good for us to have our wishes granted. 2. That God sometimes punishes by granting us our wishes (cf. Hosea 13:11). 3. That God’s way is ever the best.—J.O. Exodus 4:11 God the Giver of our faculties. See— 1. His power in the creation of them. "Who hath made," etc. Wisdom also. Eyes, ears, organs of speech—miracles of contrivance. 2. His goodness in the bestowal of them. A reason for thankfulness. 3. His providence in the deprivation of them. "Who maketh the dumb, or deaf," etc. A reason for not murmuring. 4. His perfection as mirrored in their functions. "He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" (Psalms 94:9). An answer to the objection against positive revelation. He that formed the mouth, shall he not speak? And he that formed the ear, can he not address to it his own message? 5. Lesson—His ability to aid us in using them for his glory (Exodus 4:12).—J.O. Exodus 4:13 A servant’s difficulties. I. WHAT THEY WERE. Moses’ difficulties resolved themselves into three. 1. The power of Pharaoh. "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?" (Exodus 3:10). We may be staggered by the thought of the powers that are arrayed against us. 2. The anticipated unbelief of the people (Exodus 4:1). The preacher has to encounter hard and unbelieving hearts, and this may enfeeble and dishearten him. 3. His lack of gifts (Exodus 4:10). Humble natures are easily discouraged by the sense of their own short-comings—by the consciousness of ignorance, defective education, lack of gifts of speech, etc. II. HOW THEY WERE MET. 1. God armed Moses with powers that made him more than a match for the mighty king of Egypt. 2. He gave him the means of overcoming the unbelief of the people. 3. He promised to endow him with power of speech; and, when that was rejected, supplied his defect by giving him a coadjutor. From which learn:— 1. That while it is right to state our difficulties to God—to pour out all our hearts before him—it is wrong to make them an excuse for shrinking from duty. 2. That God, if relied on, will give us all sufficiency.—J.O. The rod. The rod a fit emblem of "the word of the truth of the Gospel." 1. The rod was something definite. "This rod." Not any rod, but the one which God gives us. 2. The rod was perhaps the instrument of a despised calling. So is the preaching of the Cross "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:21-25). 3. The rod was to be grasped and used: "in thine hand" Study, preach, expound, apply. 4. By the rod, Moses was to do signs: "wherewith thou shalt do signs." Spiritual miracles wrought by the preaching of the word. 5. The rod was efficient only as accompanied by Divine power (1 Corinthians 2:4).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 4:1-9 The third difficulty: how is Moses to deal with an incredulous Israel? With the mention of this third difficulty, we begin to see how much of doubt, self-distrust, and reluctance disturbed the mind of Moses. And no wonder. This revelation and commandment of God had come very suddenly upon him; and though strong assurances and sufficient information were readily given, yet he could not all at once receive the comforts which flowed from them. Had he attended to what God said by way of removing the difficulties already expressed he would never have given utterance to this third one. His perseverance in suggesting obstacles almost makes us feel that he hoped Somehow to get out of the mission. But God meets him at every point. There is no weak place in the Divine plans. Even a matter which seems so uncertain as the reception of Moses by Israel is confidently taken altogether out of the region of uncertainties. God had already said (Exodus 3:18), "They shall hearken to thy voice," and if Moses had only waited, he would have been made to see how that hearkening would be brought about. The suggestion of this difficulty, therefore, showed how much he was still lacking in calm faith; nevertheless we must bear in mind that the difficulty was a real one. There was only too much reason to apprehend that Israel would receive him in the way he indicated. Consider— I. THE POOR MOSES HAD OF A FROM ISRAEL. Why should he have these gloomy anticipations? Was the cause of them to be looked for wholly in Israel or wholly in himself. Did he mean to blame his brethren for their unbelief, or did he thus take another way of indicating his own utter distrust of himself? As he expresses no blame of Israel it is not for us to assume that he intended it. He knew very well that to go to his brethren with such a story, would be the very way to make them reject him and laugh him to scorn. He could not but feel that if he had been in their position, he would probably have behaved in the same way. What could it appear but presumptuous to return after forty years’ absence from the distant and half-barbarous Midian, and pretend that he had been chosen to deliver Israel—he, a mere weather-beaten shepherd? Truth is stranger than fiction, and for this very reason it is too often believed to be the most improbable of all fictions. Moses thus had every ground to expect that he would be treated either as insane or as the most impudent of impostors. He would have been more easily believed in telling some made-up story than when he told the simple truth. God had looked very kindly and favourably on Moses in all his deeply felt unworthiness; but the very things that commended him to God, hindered him with men. In what a humiliating aspect this word of Moses puts our fallen human nature! When the truth in which we are most of all concerned comes before us, we are tempted to neglect and repudiate it because the messenger does not look sufficiently dignified. Nor is unbelief our only danger. We must labour to have a state of mind in which we shall always not only receive the true but reject the false. We have to do with false apostles as well as true ones. The elders of Israel would have done very wrong if they had rushed into a welcome of Moses on his bare ipse dixit. We must not, in our anxiety to avoid unbelief, deliver ourselves over to credulity. If the world has in it only too many of the unbelieving spirit, so, alas! it has only too many of the deceiving spirit; all the more deceivers because thoroughly deceived themselves. We must try the spirits whether they be of God, and ever live in thankful use of the infallible tests which God has given us. II. GOD GIVES TO MOSES AMPLE TO PRODUCE FAITH IN ISRAEL. Observe that God does not simply promise these signs. He works them at once, at least the two that were possible, before the very eyes of Moses. Moses has faith enough to be sure that it is indeed God who is with him at the present hour; but what about the future? True, God had said, "Certainly I will be with thee" (Exodus 3:12), and he might have repeated these words rebukingly. But he remembered that Moses was as yet very ignorant of the fulness of the Divine nature; and he acted with all his own wisdom and tenderness, to cherish the real but as yet very feeble and struggling faith of his servant. When Moses comes into the presence of his brethren, it is to cast down a rod that has already been a serpent, and to stretch forth a hand that has already been snow-white with leprosy. "What is that in thine hand?"—as much as to say, "Take note of it, look at it well, make sure that it is the rough, easily replaced instrument of your daily work." Moses is to be taught that things are not what they seem. He who according to his good pleasure took some of the original matter of the universe, and from it made the red-nature, and from other made the serpent-nature, now by the same power changes in a moment the dead rod into the living serpent, and the living serpent into the dead rod. The healthy hand is all at once infected with leprosy, and even while-Moses is shuddering with the terrible experience, the leprosy is as suddenly taken away. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. As to the significance of these miracles, there is doubtless much that lies beyond our power to ascertain. Assuredly they had in them perfect propriety beth as to their order and their nature. What the burning hush became to Moses, these three miracles might become to the Israelites; not only paving the way for Moses to act with full authority in their name, but giving many lessons to such as had eyes to see and hearts to understand. For instance how could they but perceive that when God began his dealings with Pharaoh, he began with two out of the three miracles which Moses had shown to them. Moses turned the rod into a serpent, and the water into blood before Israel, and Israel believed (Exodus 4:28-31). He did the same things before Pharaoh, and he remained unmoved. Who can tell what terrible things Israel escaped by their timely acceptance of the mission of Moses? and yet that acceptance, as we discover by the rebellions in the wilderness, did not amount to very much. The belief that is produced by miracle, if there be not some more penetrating force behind the mere exhibition of the extraordinary, does not go very deep, nor does it last very long. The greatest benefit of these miracles was to such Israelites as could see in them, not only the power of God, but something of the purposes for which that power was used. Pharaoh caused great pain to Israel, but he did nothing else; he sought no blessed end for the people beyond the pain. God, on the other hand, though he turned a rod into a threatening serpent, and a clean and healthy hand into a leprous, loathsome mass, yet very speedily took these signs of destruction away. When God brings threatening and affliction very near to us, it is only to show how quickly and completely they may he removed. All untoward things are in his hands-all serpents, all diseases, all degrading transformations of what is good and beautiful.—Y. Exodus 4:10-12 The fourth difficulty: Moses alleges defect of utterance. The third time-is often represented in Scripture as the final and decisive time (1 Samuel 3:8; Matthew 26:44, Matthew 26:45, Matthew 26:75; John 21:17; 2 Corinthians 12:8). But Moses is not yet either satisfied or even silenced. As fast as one difficulty is swept away, his fearful and fertile mind has another ready to take its place. He began with himself, in stating his objections and difficulties, pleading then his unworthiness in general terms; now in the end he comes back to himself with the mention of a special difficulty. Consider— I. THE AS STATED BY MOSES. In the course of the conversation, God has laid before him such particulars of the work required as seem to show him, in his hasty view of them, that he will have much speaking to do. But for speaking he alleges himself to be peculiarly unfit. What he meant by this unfitness we have no means of exactly ascertaining. Perhaps he had some actual defect in the vocal organs; or it may have been nothing more than the well-nigh insurmountable difficulty which some men feel when called on to speak in public. In any case he was bringing the difficulty forward under mistaken views as to the importance of mere utterance. 1. He was exaggerating the service of natural faculties. To say that these are nothing at all would be of course the language of mock humility. God has shown often in the history of his work in the world that he welcomes great natural gifts, lovingly devoted to him and thoroughly sanctified. But the great temptation undoubtedly is, to make too much of natural gifts—too much of the intellect, the voice, the physical presence altogether, and too little of the purposes for which these instruments are to be used. How a thing is said is of much less moment than the thing itself. Better to stammer out a great truth than to deck lying, deception, and worldly vanities in the best-chosen words. When the Jews conspiring against Paul wanted some one to plead their cause before Felix, they sought, very wisely from their point of view, for the practised professional orator. It mattered nothing that he lacked the love of truth and justice. It was his business to do the best he could for even the worst of causes. God might easily have found elsewhere in Israel a thousand fluent and attractive speakers, more pleasant to the ear than Moses, and yet none of them sufficiently endowed, in other ways, for the great work required. 2. He was underrating the power of God working through those whom he chooses for himself. It is inevitable that if we exaggerate in one direction, we shall underrate in another. If we make too much of the work of man, we shall make too little of the work of God. Moses is not yet duly impressed with the fact that God has unmistakably and finally chosen him. He thinks he ought to be able to see clearly why he is chosen, and this is just what he cannot as yet get even a glimpse of. If only he had been able to feel conscious of some improvement in his natural faculties, it would have been a great encouragement, a great help to submission and prompt advance, at least so he thought. Depend upon it, we can never think of the power of God too highly. Nothing, so long as it is agreeable to his character, is beyond him. If he has chosen us for any work, he will always make his choice quite certain to our hearts; though, at the same time, to humble and try us, he may give much to perplex our intellects. In such moments our true and sufficient refuge is to remember the unfailing power of him who directs us. If Moses had only lived, say in the time of Paul, and been able to look back as Paul looked on all the Divine dealings recorded in the Scriptures, he would have seen at once, and gloried in the fact, that his very lack of fluent speech, so far from being against him, was rather in his favour (2 Corinthians 4:7). II. GOD’S OF THIS . Observe God’s continued patience. So far there has not been a word of rebuke to Moses; no action such as corresponds with the smiting of a stupid or inattentive scholar. But it was really quite time for Moses to begin to reflect a little before he spoke. Moses seemed to hint in this latest appeal that it was desirable at once to confer on him what he judged to be the requisite powers of speech. But God saw that the real want was not speaking, but thinking; quiet, earnest, introspective thinking. There had been quite enough of speaking unadvisedly with the lips, only to be excused by the fact that Moses had become so recently acquainted with Jehovah. Now God gives his servant something to think about. Moses has said in effect, "Here am I, called to a great work, for which, through no fault of my own, I lack the necessary faculties." And God in return is not slow to meet Moses with a plain admission of the Divine responsibility for many things which we count defects in human nature. "Where," says the sceptic, "is the wisdom of that God who allows the world to abound in so many human beings deficient in one or another of their natural faculties?" God meets the charge himself, and meets it boldly. He not only allows man to be so, but he makes him so; in other words, what we call defects are not defects at all. The defect is in us, who are not able to look at them in a right and comprehensive way. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Exodus 4:18-25 If Moses had, as we have supposed, been accepted into the Midianitish nation, he would need permission to withdraw himself from the tribal head. This head was now Jether, or Jethro, Moses’ connexion by marriage, perhaps his brother-in-law, perhaps a less near connexion. Nations and tribes were at this time anxious to keep up their numbers, and jealous of the desertion even of a single member. Jethro, however, made no opposition to the return of Moses to Egypt, even though he designed to be accompanied by his wife and sons (Exodus 4:20). Scripture gives no indications of the motives which actuated him. Perhaps the Midianites were at this time straitened for want of room. Perhaps the peculiar circumstances of Moses were held to justify his application for leave. Exodus 4:18 My brethren probably means here "my relations" (compare Genesis 13:8; Genesis 29:12). Moses could scarcely doubt but that some of his countrymen were still living. It would not have been for the interest of the Egyptians to exterminate them. Go in peace means, "you have my leave—I do not oppose your going." Exodus 4:19 And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return. It would seem that Moses was still reluctant, and was delaying his departure, even after he had obtained Jethro’s leave to go. Perhaps he was making it an excuse to himself for not setting out that if he returned he might still suffer death on account of the offence which had driven him into exile. To remove this last impediment, God assured him that "all the men were dead who had sought his life." Exodus 4:20 His sons. Gershom, already mentioned (Exodus 2:22), and Eliezer (Exodus 18:4), who was probably an infant. Set them upon an ass. Literally, "the ass," i.e. the one ass that belonged to him. The word might best be translated "his ass." When Moses is said to have "set them upon" the animal, we need not understand "all of them." Probably Zipporah and her baby rode, while Gershom walked with his father. Though horses were known in Egypt before this, they could not be used in the Sinaitic peninsula, and the employment of an ass by Moses is thoroughly appropriate. Returned. I.e. "set out to return." Took the rod of God in his hand. This is of course the "rod" of Exodus 4:2, which had become "the rod of God" by the miracle of Exo 4:3 and Exodus 4:4, and which God had commanded him to take to Egypt (Exodus 4:17). Exodus 4:21-23 And the Lord said, etc. Now that Moses had at last given up his own will and entered on the path of obedience, God comforted him with a fresh revelation,, and gave him fresh instructions as to what exactly he was to say to Pharaoh. The statements of Exo 4:21 are not new, being anticipated in Exodus 3:19-20; but the directions in Exodus 3:22 -23 are wholly new, and point to the greatest of all the miracles wrought in Egypt—the death of the firstborn. Exodus 4:21 All those wonders. The miracles wrought in Egypt are called nipheloth, "marvels," mophethim, "portents," and ’othoth, "signs." Mophethim, the word here used signifies something out of the ordinary course of nature, and corresponds to the Greek τέρατα and the Latin portenta. It is a different word from that used in Exodus 3:20. In "all these wonders" are included, not only the three signs of Exo 4:3-9, but the whole series of miracles afterwards wrought in Egypt, and glanced at in Exodus 3:20. I will harden his heart. This expression, here used for the first time, and repeated so frequently in chs. 7-14; has given offence to many. Men, it is said, harden their own hearts against God; God does not actively interfere to harden the heart of anyone. And this is so far true, that a special interference of God on the occasion, involving a supernatural hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, is not to be thought of. But among the natural punishments which God has attached to sin, would seem to be the hardening of the entire nature of the man who sins. If men "do not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gives them up to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28); if they resist the Spirit, he "takes his holy Spirit from them" (Psalms 51:11); if they sin against light he withdraws the light; if they stifle their natural affections of kindness, compassion and the like, it is a law of his providence that those affections shall wither and decay. This seems to be the "hardening of the heart here intended—not an abnormal and miraculous interference with the soul of Pharaoh, but the natural effect upon his soul under God’s moral government of those acts which he wilfully and wrongfully committed. Exodus 4:22 Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son. This would be addressing Pharaoh in language familiar to him. Each Egyptian monarch of this period was accustomed to style himself, "son of the Sun," and to claim and expect the constant favour and protection of his divine parent. It was also quite within the range of Egyptian ideas that God should declare himself by word of mouth to his special favourites, and give directions as to their actions. My firstborn. Not only "as dear to me as to a father his firstborn" (Kalisch), but the only nation that I have adopted, and taken into covenant, so as to be unto me "a peculiar people above all the nations that are upon the earth" (Deuteronomy 14:2). Israel’s sonship is here mentioned for the first time. Exodus 4:23 I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. For the fulfilment of the threat, see Exodus 12:29. Moses did not utter it till all other arguments were exhausted, and he knew that he was having his last interview with the monarch (Exodus 10:29; Exodus 11:4, Exodus 11:5). In this reserve and in the whole series of his dealings with the Egyptian king, we must regard him as simply carrying out the special directions which, after his return to Egypt, he continually received from the Almighty. (See Exodus 6:11; Exodus 7:9, Exodus 7:15 19: Exodus 8:1, Exodus 8:5, Exodus 8:16, Exodus 8:20, etc.) The fact of having a mission does not release a man from social obligations. Direct communications with Jehovah, appointment to a great and glorious mission, with the power of working miracles, might have rendered many a man neglectful of ordinary obligations, might have seemed to place him above the necessity of asking anyone’s permission to do as he pleased. But Moses read his duty differently. He had been received among the Midianites with great kindness, had been given a home and a wife, and probably enrolled formally as an adopted member of the tribe or nation. Though Reuel, the head of the tribe at the time of his coming, had ceased to hold that position, having probably died, the tribe had a new head, to whom he was bound, if not by all the obligations which had attached him to Reuel, yet by several very definite and tangible bonds. Jethro was his near relative and his tribal chief; he had perhaps sworn allegiance to him; he had certainly received from him protection, employment, sustenance (Exodus 3:1). To have quitted his service without permission, to have left his flock in the Sinaitic valleys, and proceeded straight to Egypt would have been easy, but would have been unkind, ungrateful, and contrary to the accepted standard of tribal morality at the time. Moses therefore went back to Midian from Sinai before proceeding to Egypt-made, that is, a considerable journey in the opposite direction to that which he was about to take—in order to obtain Jethro’s consent to his going, thus acting the part of a faithful servant and a good subject. It would be well if all who believe themselves to have Divine missions, and to be highly gifted, would follow Moses’ example, and not make their mission and high gifts an excuse for neglect of ordinary duties and obligations. Moses’ example, and the words of One higher than Moses, should teach them that it becomes all men to "fulfil all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). If those with high missions neglect even small social duties, they "give an occasion to the adversary to blaspheme." Reticence sometimes a duty. We are not bound in all cases to tell even those in authority over us the reasons, much less all the reasons, which actuate us. Moses wanted Jethro’s permission to quit his adopted tribe, and return to his native country and his people. He gave a reason which was not untrue, but which was far from being his sole, or even his main, reason. If he had said more, if he had revealed his mission, he would probably have raised a storm of opposition to his departure. He would have been called a fanatic, a visionary, a madman; and everything would have been said that was possible to deter him from carrying out his projects. If Moses felt, as he may have felt, that he was too weak to encounter such a storm of opposition, he was wise to be silent and so not arouse it. The reasonable wishes of a subordinate should be granted cheerfully. Jethro’s answer, "Go in peace," may well be taken as a pattern by those in authority. It is kindly, gracious, and ungrudging. The chieftain of a tribe might naturally have demurred to the withdrawal of a family of subjects, the master to the loss of a valuable servant, the head of a household to parting with near kinsfolk. But Jethro, deeming Moses’ plea a sufficient one, is careful not to mar the grace of his concession by a single word of objection, reproach, or querulousness. Nor is "Go in peace" even a bare consent, but a consent embodying a blessing. It is equivalent to "Go, and the Lord go with thee!" Note also the absence of inquisitiveness. Jethro does not pester Moses with questions—does not ask, "Is the reason thou hast assigned thy true reason," or "thy sole reason?" or, "When wilt thou return?" or, "Why take thy wife and children?" or, "How wilt thou live in Egypt?" or, "Art thou not afraid to return thither?" He will not pain his near connection by doubt or distrust, or even undue curiosity. He will not travel beyond the record. His consent has been asked. He gives it freely, fully cheerfully. Exodus 4:19-23 Obedience brings a blessing. There must have been something in the hesitation of Moses which caused it not to be wholly displeasing to God. Once he was "angered" (Exodus 3:14), but even then not greatly offended—content to show his anger by inflicting a slight penalty. Now, when Moses still delayed in Midian, how gentle the rebuke that is administered—"Go, return;" and to the rebuke moreover is appended an encouragement—"all the men are dead who sought thy life." Observe also that no sooner does Moses obey, than his reluctance seems wholly forgiven; the Lord appears afresh to him, and rewards his obedience by fresh revelations. "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." This tender relationship, never before acknowledged, is breathed into the prophet’s ear as he enters on the Path of obedience. What may he not expect, if he continues in it! Surely blessings upon blessings. Deliverance, triumph, continued, never-ending protection are assured to them whom God declares to be his children. Moses, as their leader, will have the glory of their success. Even the might of Pharaoh will be. impotent if used against them. Should Pharaoh refuse to liberate God’s "firstborn," he will lose his own. BY J. ORR Exodus 4:18-21 The return. Weeks, perhaps months, intervened between the revelation at the bush and Moses’ actual departure from Midian. Time was given for allowing the first agitation of his spirit to subside, for enabling him to take the just measure of the task entrusted to him, for the final overcoming of his involuntary reluctance. An interval is presupposed in Exodus 4:10—"Neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant," and is implied again here. Events were not yet quite ready for his departure. The preparation of the man, and the preparation of events (Exodus 4:19) were going on simultaneously. God would have his servant brought, not only to a clear apprehension of his message, but into a state of intelligent and entire sympathy with it, before actually starting him on his journey. The call would come at the proper time. I. (Exodus 4:18). The request to Jethro was couched in simple but courteous terms, and was as courteously responded to. Moses said nothing of the revelations he had received. 1. He had no call to say anything. His message was to the elders of Israel, not to Jethro. 2. It would have been a breach of confidence to have divulged what passed between him and God without permission. 3. It was not advisable to say anything. He would have required to have entered into explanations, and might have encountered unbelief and opposition. If Jethro perceived, as possibly he did, that there was something underlying Moses’ request which he did not care to state, he had the good sense to refrain from prying too curiously into what did not concern him. The parting was courteous and friendly, creditable alike to both. Observe: 1. There are times when it is prudent to keep one’s own counsel. 2. It is the mark of a wise man that he can keep his own counsel. 3. It is well to be reserved about private religious experience (Galatians 1:16, Galatians 1:17). 4. It is one’s duty on all occasions to study friendliness and courtesy. 5. It is nearly as high a mark of character not to be too curious in prying into the secrets of others, as it is to be cautious in keeping silence about those entrusted to us. II. THE WAY CLEARED (Exodus 4:19). As suggested above, Moses had probably been instructed to wait a Divine intimation as to the time of his actual departure. In a work so important every step must be taken under direct Divine guidance. Cf. the movements of Mary and Joseph with the child Jesus (Matthew 2:1-23.). And the warning was not given till God was able to announce that all the men were dead who had formerly sought his life. This would be a comfort to Moses, and would remove at least one set of fears as to his personal safety. There may have been another reason for delaying to this point. Time had again brought matters to the condition of a tabula rasa. The conflict now to be begun was not to be demeaned by being mixed up with the spites and enmities of a buried past. Observe: 1. How God times events with a view to every class of conditions. 2. How God consults for the safety of his servants. 3. How God’s purposes move with steady step to their accomplishment, while mortals, who thought to hinder them, drop into their graves, and are forgotten. III. THE JOURNEY ENTERED UPON (Exodus 4:20). 1. Moses took with him his wife and two sons. The desire to have them with him was natural, but he afterwards saw reason for sending them back. The work he was engaged in was of a kind not compatible with family entanglements. There are times when a man’s hands need to be absolutely free; when it is his duty not to enter into relationships which would encumber him; or, if these already exist, to make the temporary sacrifice of comfort and affection which the exigencies of his work demand (Matthew 8:21, Matthew 8:22; 2 Timothy 2:4). 2. He took with him the rod of God. This was indispensable. By it he was to work signs (Exodus 4:17). The rod of the Christian worker is his Bible. Armed with that, he can speak with Divine authority, work miracles in the souls of men and confound the mightiest of his enemies.—J.O. Hardening. God communicates anew with Moses, fortifying his resolution to appear before Pharaoh, putting words into his mouth, and warning him of the effect his message would produce. He was not to fail to do all his wonders before Pharaoh, though the only effect would be to harden the monarch’s heart—to confirm him in his resolution not to let the people go. I. THE WORD OF GOD IS TO BE TO MEN, IT MAY MEET WITH. It is to be set forth, and the evidence which attests it exhibited, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear" (Ezekiel 2:5); and this— 1. That God’s will may be made known. 2. That men’s dispositions may be tested. 3. That if men disobey they may be left without excuse. 4. That ulterior purposes may be fulfilled. For men’s unbelief cannot make the faith of God without effect (Romans 3:3). If men disbelieve and are hardened, God will use even their hardening as the point of attachment for some new link in the chain of his providential developments. II. GOD THE EFFECT OF EVERY APPEAL OR MESSAGE HE TO HIS MORAL . He knows those to whom his servants will be "the savour of death unto death," and those to whom they will be "the savour of life unto life" (2 Corinthians 2:16). But the knowledge that his Word will be rejected is not a reason for keeping it back. As respects these foreknown effects, we are not permitted to say either— 1. That God wills (i.e. desires) that his Word should harden; or 2. That in any case it hardens by his arbitrarily withholding the grace which would have produced an opposite result. Yet Divine sovereignty is not to be denied in the effects produced by the preaching of the Word, or in God’s dealings with men in mercy and judgment generally. He will be a bold student of Divine things who ventures to assert that by no means known to him could God have subdued the obstinacy even of a Pharaoh. Hearts as stubborn have yielded before now. We cannot solve these anomalies. Enough for us to know that God’s sovereignty, however exercised, is ever righteous, holy, and, could we see all, loving. III. GOD’S WORD, WHEN ITS MESSAGE IS , HARDENS THE HEART THAT RESISTS IT. The hardening of the heart is here attributed to God, as in other places it is attributed to Pharaoh himself. The latter statement occasions no difficulty. It is the invariable law, and one which is constantly being exemplified, that he who resists grace and truth incurs the penalty of being hardened. That result follows from the constitution of the moral nature. But precisely in this fact lies the explanation of the other mode of statement, that the hardening of the heart is from God. For God is concerned in the results which flow from the operation of his own laws, and takes (providentially) the responsibility of them. We may go even further, and say that God designs that those who resist his truth shall be hardened by it; just as he designs that those who believe and obey it shall be saved. And the stronger way of putting the matter, harsh as it seems, has its own advantages. Resisters of the truth do well to remember that in their attitude of opposition they have to do, not merely with "laws," reacting to darken the mind and indurate the heart, but with a living God within and behind these laws, lending his solemn sanction to their operations, willing the results which flow from them, and righteously punishing sin by means of them. This explanation, indeed, is not complete. Other phases of the subject come into view later. Meanwhile the preacher of the Gospel is not to be astonished that his word, in many cases, produces hardening effects. This is foreseen by God, and is taken up into his plan. Learn also how a career of iniquity is often punished by the transgressor being brought into circumstances which, merciful in their own operation, yet lead to his greater hardening.—J.O. Exodus 4:22, Exodus 4:23 Israel a type of sonship. Consider— 1. The condescension of God in the establishing of this relationship. A nation of slaves; in the eyes of the Egyptians little better than a nation of lepers; yet Jehovah says of them, "Israel is my son, my firstborn." "Behold what manner of love," etc. (1 John 3:1). 2. The privileges implied in it. On this cf. Deuteronomy 1:31-34; Deuteronomy 8:2-6; Deuteronomy 32:9-15. Reflect how Israel was led, fed, guided, trained, chastened, delivered from enemies, and conducted to a bountiful inheritance. These privileges have all their counterparts in the experience of the "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus’" (Galatians 3:26). 3. The responsibilities it imposed on others. Because Israel was God’s son, his firstborn, Pharaoh was to refrain from oppressing his son, and if he did not he would be smitten in his own firstborn. (1) As men treat God’s children so will God treat them. He notes, and he will reward, kindnesses done to his sons, and he will avenge their wrongs. (2) God’s children may safely leave the avenging of their wrongs to God. It is not their work, but his, to avenge them; the rule for them is to avenge not themselves, but rather to give place to wrath; heaping coals of fire on the head of the enemy by returning him good for his evil (Romans 12:19-21).—J.O. BY J. Exodus 4:18-23 True faith and its joy. I. THE OF FAITH. 1. Note Moses’ swift compliance with God’s command. He tarried no longer: "He went and returned, and said, let me go." He does not seek advice. He does not even wait for a convenient opportunity of urging his request. We must wait neither upon time nor men. If God has spoken, we must obey. 2. His wise reticence. He said nothing of what he had seen and heard. These experiences are a holy place where the soul meets alone with God. Where this holy place is profaned the soul suffers loss. II. ABOUND ALONG THE PATHWAY OF FAITH. 1. Moses receives Jethro’s permission and blessing. 2. Fears are removed (Exodus 4:19). 3. He passes on with the consciousness of power: he "took the rod of God in his hand." 4. He has the assurance of victory. Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, yet there is one judgment in reserve which will bow that heart to compliance with the will of God (Exodus 4:22, Exodus 4:23). The cause of God cannot be defeated. As we go on in obedience to God’s commandment our advance is a continuous discovery of God’s goodness. The lions which we saw in the distance are chained, and do not harm us.—U. Exodus 4:24-31 The three meetings. I. THE LORD’S MEETING WITH MOSES (Exodus 4:24-26). 1. Moses’ sin. (1) Circumcision was the solemnly expressed will of God (Genesis 17:9-14). (2) It was enforced by exclusion from the blessings of God’s covenant. (3) Preparations had been made for the journey, but the circumcision of Eliezer was not among them. 2. The reason of the omission, weak yielding to the prejudices of his Midianitish wife. 3. His guilt. God looked beyond the sign to that which it signified and partially accomplished—the claiming of the life for himself and righteousness. Moses’ disobedience was therefore murder by neglect, and life shall answer for life. The guilt of the unfaithful watchmen in Zion (Ezekiel 33:7-9); of parents who never seek by instruction and example and prayer to have their children circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. 4. God will withstand the inconsistent worker. He will permit his work to be done only by the righteous and the faithful. This is seen both in churches and in individuals. II. THE MEETING OF MOSES AND AARON (Exodus 4:27, Exodus 4:28). 1. Moses had to proceed alone (Exodus 18:2), the type of many who pass to service through loss. 2. God prepares consolation in the desert (Matthew 19:27-29). 3. The marvels of God’s providence. He makes their meeting with each other a meeting with himself. "They met at the mount of God." 4. Human love hallowed by the Divine love—"And Moses told Aaron," etc. III. THEIR MEETING WITH THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL (Exodus 4:29-31). Where Moses dreaded failure he meets success. There is more faith waiting to receive God’s word than we imagine: souls wait round us like the parched land for the showers.—U. BY D. YOUNG The unsolicited removal of a source of great anxiety. God assures Moses that he has no longer any cause to fear on account of the Egyptian slain forty years before. This last piece of information casts a flood of light on all the hesitation, reluctance, and perplexity which Moses has hitherto shown in his intercourse with Jehovah. It might have made a great deal of difference, if he had only known at the beginning that the men were dead who sought his life. Not but that Moses was honest enough in all the pleas he had started in order to escape from this mission and responsibility; but, deep under all other considerations, and very potent, even though he had been ashamed to confess it, lay his fear because of the slain Egyptian. He might even have got as far as the expressing of the fear, if God had not brought him sharply up by the kindling of his anger, and made him feel that of two perils it was wise to choose the lesser. Better run the risk from some Egyptian breathing vengeance than from the visitations of an angry God; and yet, though checked from speaking, he would be saying very earnestly in his heart, "Oh that I only knew myself to be safe in this matter." Remember the terror with which, after so long a time, Jacob approached his injured brother Esau. Certainly Jacob had the bitter consciousness of wrong-doing to heighten his fears, but Moses would have equally the consciousness of danger. Nor can it be too often impressed upon us, in considering this opening stage of Moses’ acquaintance with God, that while he had a profound impression as to the real and awful Being with whom he had come in contact, the extent of his knowledge was not correspondent to the depth of his feeling. He had come into a real acquaintance with God; but it was at first, of necessity, a very imperfect and blundering one. The defective notions of Moses, with respect to God, find their New Testament parallel in the earth-born and earth-limited questions which the disciples so often addressed to Jesus. Hence, even though Moses has seen so much of God’s power and promptitude in dealing with every difficulty he has raised, he still remains uncertain whether God has taken into account this peril from the slain Egyptian. It is no easy thing to get to a real and operative conviction that God knows even the smallest transaction in the past life of every one of us.—Y. BY H.T. Exodus 4:18-31 Facing Egypt. "And the people believed, and when," etc. (Exodus 4:31). This section of the history may be homiletically treated under three geographical headings, which will keep the historical development prominent, without obscuring the moral and spiritual elements. I. MIDIAN. From Sinai Moses returned to Midian. Reuel now dead, Jethro, probably his son, becomes priest and sheikh of the tribe. [We take Jethro to have been the brother-in-law of Moses. See ’Speaker’s Commentary,’ additional note on Exodus 2:18. In this part of the story it is of moment to observe the situation of Midian—east, and perhaps also west, of the Elanitic Gulf. Hence travellers from Egypt to Midian, or vice versa, would come on the journey unto "the mount of God." Moses could not stay long in Midian. There was now pressing on him— 1. The original impulse (Exodus 2:11-14). 2. The commission of the Burning Bush. 3. The intelligence that it was now safe to go. [Exodus 2:19 furnishes a convenient opportunity for noticing the Old Testament formula, on the correct understanding of which so much depends, in which God is represented to have directly said and done what he may have done only mediately. Here, e.g; did God speak out of the air into the ear of Moses, or was the intelligence brought in the ordinary way, say by caravans across the desert? It is a large subject, but the following points are suggested: "God said," "God did’ this or that, are to this day formulae with the Arabs. This Oriental habit of the cousins of the Hebrews is the opposite of the Occidental. We suppress the name of God as much as possible; and if constrained to refer to the Divine Being, we allude to him as" Providence" or "Heaven." The Oriental habit is more direct and truer; for God is in the secondary cause, which fact some amongst ourselves ignore. The Arabian style of to-day was the Hebrew style, and the mode of the Old Testament. In the interpretation of this formula we must be careful not to assume always the direct or supernatural, though perhaps occasionally we shall have no other alternative. Indeed, no doubt that is so.] On the receipt of this news Moses paid fealty to the chief of the tribe which had given him a home for forty years; asked permission to return; obtained it, and set out with "rod," wife, two sons, and, no doubt, the usual service and attendants of a considerable caravan. II. THE DESERT—ON THE ROAD. On the road, which passed through scenes of incomparable grandeur, several incidents of the first importance occurred. 1. A word of Divine encouragement (Exodus 2:21-23). Jehovah inspired his servant with courage, warned him that success would not be immediate, and gave him the exact message for Pharaoh. [Whether all this came direct from God, or grew up in the mind of Moses, in the way of meditation, under the guidance of the Spirit, must be left to the decision of each.] But something may be here said on Exodus 2:21: "I will harden," etc. The objection will occur to every one—How can God punish men for that which he himself causes or does? This "hardening" may be here considered once for all. The following considerations will have weight:— 1. God is often in the Old Testament said to do what he only permits to be done. 2. In this passage of history (Exodus 4-14.) God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart ten times, Pharaoh to harden his own three times; and the fact that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened is stated five times. 3. Generally, until after the fifth plague, Pharaoh hardens his own heart; then, and only then, save in Exodus 7:13, God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart. 4. The fact seems to be that at first Pharaoh sinfully hardened his own heart, and then God permissively allowed the process to go on and confirmed it. 5. It must also be borne in mind that the very same gracious influences will either harden or soften, according to the subject. The same sun melts wax and hardens clay. The final responsibility of the hardening lay with Pharaoh. The homiletic applications are obvious; but see a striking poem in Dr. Taylor’s ’Moses’, by Dr. J. A. Alexander, beginning: "There is a time, we know not when." Another lesson is obvious, as soon as mentioned: We are not justified in looking for results which God has not promised. The deliverance of Israel was promised and certain, but there was no promise that Pharaoh would voluntarily yield. 2. A deed of Divine rebuke (Exodus 7:24 -26). This passage is obscure, difficult, yet full of moral significance: must therefore be put in a true light. The incident Shales itself to our minds thus: Moses came on the journey to a caravanserai, burdened with a grievous memory of duty neglected, of the Divine covenant virtually repudiated (Genesis 17:9-14). The younger son had not been circumcised. This neglect was weak; had been simply to please the Midianitish mother. Hence anxiety, contributing with other causes to fever and threatening death—"Jehovah met him," etc. Zipperah was persuaded to perform the rite. The "stone" would be a flint implement, considered more sacred than iron or bronze. To this day flint is used in New Guinea even for shaving the head. The task was performed unwillingly, hence her invective, twice repeated. Then Jehovah released Moses—"let him go." It was now clear that the wife in these matters was out of sympathy with Moses, and so, on the ground of moral incompatibility, was sent back with her children to the tents of Midian (Exodus 18:2), and the grand soul went on alone upon his mission. But the lesson:—The teachers of obedience must be themselves obedient. The law-giver must himself be marked by obedience to law. There is nothing small or great in questions of fidelity. How could Moses thereafter take a stand for righteousness if not himself above indictment? Some moral defects may be absolutely fatal to moral strength. 3. The meeting of the delivering allies—of Moses and Aaron—not like that of Wellington and Blucher, after the battle, but before the campaign. The following points may be noted:—Aaron moved at a Divine intimation. The two met at Sinai. Moses communicated to his brother the revelation and conference connected with the burning bush. Had not told Jethro. With him no blatant speaking of the deepest mysteries of spiritual life. III. EGYPT. Picture the familiarity of cities, monuments, and scenery, but the unfamiliar faces. No change, yet many changes. 1. The assembling of the elders. Moses, more wise than aforetime, knows that nothing can be done without the sympathy of the people. Can come into contact with them through the elders. This an argument for the organisation of the people. 2. The prominence of Aaron. At once takes his place. Note Moses’ unfamiliarity now with Hebrew and Egyptian, after the lapse of so many years, as well as natural want of eloquence. 3. The result. Great success! Belief! Sensation at the coming down of the delivering God! Every head bowed! Worship! God had said: They will believe—"they shall hearken to thy voice." Moses: "Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken to my voice." BUT THEY DID. Success even beyond our hopes, and the fulfilments of God beyond all our fears.—R. Exodus 4:24-26 The transition is abrupt from the promise of triumph over Pharaoh to the threat of instant death. But we must bear in mind that some days may have elapsed between the two, and that the sin which provoked the menace was probably not committed at the date of the promise. The narrative of Exo 4:24-26 is obscure from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is, that Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before she set out on the journey to Egypt. Childbirth, it must be remembered, in the East does not incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. On the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken place; but Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly consenting to the illegality. At the close of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest for the night, he was seized with a sudden and dangerous illness, which he regarded, and rightly regarded, as a God-inflicted punishment, sent to chastise his sin in breaking the Divine command (Genesis 17:10-12). Zipporah understood the matter in the same way; and, as her husband was too ill to perform the rite, she herself with her own hand cut off her boy’s foreskin, and, still indignant at what she had been forced to do, east it at her husband’s feet, with the reproach—"Surely a bloody husband art thou to me." The rite once performed, however reluctantly, God remitted his anger, and. allowed Moses to recover his health, and pursue his journey. Exodus 4:24 It came to pass by the way in the inn. "Inns," in our sense of the word, were unknown in the East for many ages after the time of Moses, and are still of very rare occurrence. Khans or caravanserais take their place. These are unfurnished buildings, open to all travellers, who thus obtain shelter gratis? but must provide themselves with food, bedding, and all other necessaries. It is questioned, however, if even such a place as this is here meant. Probably, the malon of Moses’ time was a mere recognised halting-place, in the vicinity of a well, at which travellers were accustomed to pass the night. The Lord met him and sought to kill him. A sudden seizure, followed by a dangerous illness, is generally thought to he intended (Knobel, Kalisch, Rosenmuller, Canon Cook); but the words seem more appropriate to a miraculous appearance, like that of the angel to Balaam (Numbers 22:31). Still, it is quite possible that nothing more than an illness is meant. Exodus 4:25 Zipporah took a sharp stone. Literally "a stone." Stone knives were commonly used in Egypt for making the incisions necessary when bodies were embalmed, and were regarded as purer than iron or bronze ones. Joshua ordered the preparation of stone knives for the circumcision of those born in the wilderness (Joshua 5:2); and the Jews seem to have used stone for circumcision for many ages, though before the compilation of the Talmud they had changed their practice. Cast it at his feet. Not, certainly, the child’s feet, but her husband’s, to whom at the same moment she addresses herself. A bloody husband. Literally, "a bridegroom of blood." The words are clearly a reproach; and the gist of the reproach seems to be that Moses was a husband who cost her dear, causing the blood of her sons to be shed in order to keep up a national usage which she regarded as barbarous. Exodus 4:26 So he let him go. i.e. "God let Moses go"—allowed him to escape death, accepted Zipporah’s tardy act as a removal of the cause of offence, and gave her husband back to her. Then she said, etc. This is not a second address of Zipporah to Moses, conceived in the same terms, but an explanation of her previous address. She called him "a bloody husband because of the circumcision." Literally, "of the circumcisions." The two circumcisions, of Gershom in Midian, and of Eliezer on the way to Egypt, are especially in the writer’s mind. One small duty neglected may frustrate the whole purpose of a life. To an Israelite the circumcision of his male children on the eighth day was a plain practical duty, resting upon a positive precept, which was unambiguous and peremptory. (See Genesis 17:10-14.) Moses, probably in deference to the wishes of his wife, who disliked the custom, had allowed his son, Eliezer, to remain uncircumcised beyond the appointed time, perhaps making the excuse to himself that during a journey such a rite could not conveniently be performed, and intending that the thing should be done when they reached Egypt. But the precept was plain—"He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you;’ and nothing had been said by God of any circumstances under which the rite might be deferred. It was the appointed means by which the child was to be brought into covenant with God; and if he died before the performance of the rite, he would die out of covenant, and so suffer a wrong. Moses probably thought that his sin was a little matter—perhaps hardly recognised it as a sin at all. But it was the "little rift within the lute" which destroyed the whole value of the instrument. He who "shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all" (James 2:10). God thought the neglect no small matter, and would have punished it, had it not been repaired, with death. It can never be a small matter to neglect any command of God, be it to perform a rite, or to undergo one, or to keep a particular day holy, or any other. When a positive command is admitted to have come from God, the obligation to obey it, as Bishop Butler observes, is moral. And so this little duty neglected, had nearly cost Moses his life, Zipporah her husband, the child his natural protector. Moses’ death at this period would have left the whole purpose of his life unaccomplished, have handed over the deliverance of Israel to another, and have caused his special powers and special training to have been wasted. Let men beware, then, of the neglect of little duties, the allowance in themselves of "little sins." Let them beware especially of being led into such "little sins," by over-complaisance to a wife, a friend, a companion. Many a man would have stood firm, but for such seductive influence. A man who is truly manly will resist it, and risk the loss of human affection, secure of the Divine approval. BY G.A. Exodus 4:19-29 My times are in Thy hand. Moses thought himself fit for his work at forty-eager to undertake it before the years increased; God waits until his self-confidence has abated, and then, at eighty, gives him his commission. I. THE GREAT . His errand is to Pharaoh, as an ambassador from the King of heaven to the king of Egypt. Notice— 1. His credentials. As coming in a king’s name he must be accredited by the king who sends him. God gives him signs, very simple but very significant. (1) The shepherd’s rod, emblem of his office, turned into a serpent, emblem of his new dignity. (2) A hand made leprous and cleansed, emblem of a people degraded but to be redeemed. (3) A libation of water turned to blood, emblem of life smitten by judgment. The signs are simple—a rod, a hand, a cup of water; so are most of God’s signs; yet by the way in which he uses them they accredit the messenger, and attest the authenticity of his message. 2. His message corresponds with the last two signs:— (1) A command. Israel in slavery is to be released. God will have his son free, the leprous cleansed. (2) A threat. If Pharaoh refuse, his son shall be slain; the joy of his life turned to blood. Such the commission given to Moses, and to fulfil which he starts for Egypt. II. THE GREAT TRIAL: Exodus 4:24-26. [Illustration:—A man about to enter into battle carefully selects his best weapon. Is it, however, really trustworthy?—has it no weak points? He must prove it that he may know. Proving looks like seeking to break; it is seeking to discover if breakage is possible.] God having selected Moses, must prove him before he uses him; so if the proof brings out weak points they may at any rate be remedied. "The Lord met him and sought to kill him." Two weak points were immediately discovered:— 1. A broken covenant. He who is selected to represent the covenant people, is himself shown to be a covenant-breaker! His son uncircumcised!! If judgment must fall on Egypt it must begin at the house of God. Moses must himself be purified before he can be allowed to denounce Pharaoh. 2. A refractory wife. The secret of the broken covenant was clearly the wilful obstinacy of Zipporah. She is compelled to do through fear what she would not yield from love. A man’s wife is meant for a help-meet; if not that, she may be his greatest hindrance. Let Zipporah return to Midian for the time (Exodus 18:2), and at least leave her husband unencumbered. So out of the trial God makes a way of escape; proves and reproves his servant that he may improve and approve him. III. THE GREAT : Exodus 4:27, Exodus 4:28. God does not do, what kings and rulers too often do, treat his envoys as mere machines, forgetting their human needs and cravings. If Zipporah is no help-meet for Moses, he shall have a help-meet who will more than satisfy him. In Aaron he finds sympathy, Exodus 4:27; to Aaron he can give his confidence, Exodus 4:28. His own strength is doubled in the friendship of one who thus shares his burdens. Application:— 1. God gives us commissions, but they are always accompanied by credentials. You say God calls you to do this? Show then the signs of your calling. 2. God’s envoys are not free from trials; rather, they are the more tried that they may be the more trustworthy. The Captain was perfected through suffering. 3. Whatever the commission, whatever the trial, God will empower us to fulfil the one and strengthen us to endure the other. One may well do without Zipporah when God sends him Aaron.—G. BY J. ORR Exodus 4:24-27 Interpretation of providence. This mysterious passage in the life of Moses suggests various reflections. The facts are few. Moses, probably in deference to Zipporah’s abhorrence of the rite, had neglected the circumcision of his child. This, in so eminent a servant of God, was a sin which could not be winked at. Least of all could it be overlooked at a time when the covenants were undergoing a species of resurrection, and when Moses was on his way to Egypt for the very purpose of giving effect to them. Hence this incident at the inn. Moses, apparently, was seized by an illness which threatened to be mortal, and a fatal result was only averted by Zipporah, who, at once divining the cause of the affliction, used a sharp stone, and performed the neglected rite. Thus was Moses taught that he who represents God before men must himself be blameless—guiltless of gross neglect of Divine commandments; taught also that service of God must be whole-hearted—that in the way of duty there is to be no conferring with flesh and blood—no pleasing of men at the cost of unfaithfulness to God. "He that loveth father or mother," etc. (Matthew 10:37). Besides these general lessons we draw from the incident such instruction as the following:— I. GOD OFTEN TEACHES US THAT HE IS ANGRY WITH US BY US WITH , LEAVING US TO FIND OUT THE CAUSE. Even Moses, with whom God had so often spoken, received on this occasion no other warning of his displeasure than this severe illness which so unexpectedly overtook him. Huxley remarks on Nature’s system of education "Nature’s discipline is not even a word and a blow, and the blow first; but the blow without the word. It is left to you to find out why your ears are boxed." The words apply as fitly to the relation of outward providences to moral and spiritual conditions—a class of relations which this writer would reject, but which nevertheless exist. II. , US OF DUTIES, OR OTHER SINS BY US, IS A READY OF MANY OF GOD’S . Zipporah guessed at once the cause of this trouble, and the result showed her guess to be correct. So Joseph’s brethren (Genesis 42:21). III. THE HOLIEST OF GOD’S ARE NOT FROM SEVERE . We may wonder that God should have chosen this particular time to put a valuable life in peril. It was, however, the summons to depart which brought matters to a crisis. Moses was not ignorant of this neglected duty, and to set out on so grave a mission, and leave it still neglected, was a sin calling for sharp rebuke. This is another illustration of the truth that God. punishes sins in his own children with even greater severity than he does the like sins in others. Do we ask, What if Moses had died? The question is needless. The Divine arrangements had all the facts in contemplation from the first. Had it been foreseen that the anticipated effect would not have followed from the stroke—that the trouble would have had a different ending—everything else would have been different to suit. Yet we may not doubt that Moses’ life was for the time really in peril, and that, had repentance not supervened, God would not have receded, even at the cost of a Moses, from inflicting upon him the extreme penalty of his unfaithfulness. IV. TRUE FOR WRONG, AND WHERE THAT IS , OF DUTIES. Exemplified in Zipporah. V. GOD IS ZEALOUS FOR THE OF HIS OWN . It might be pleaded, this is only a ceremony, an outward rite; what great importance is to be attached to it? But God had commanded it, and had even made it the badge of his covenant; therefore neglect of it was an act of disobedience, and implied a low esteem of covenant-privilege. The sacraments may be unduly and foolishly exalted; but there is an opposite sin of disesteeming and neglecting them.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 4:24 26 Neglect of the covenant on its human side. In Genesis 17:1-27. we find the covenant between God and Abram stated with great particularity and emphasis. On God’s side there were large promises to Abram of an’ abundant posterity and an everlasting possession, and on man’s side there was to be the faithful and regular practice of circumcision. Moses was going to Egypt now in virtue of this very covenant, and as the agent of God to advance it considerably towards its full effect; and yet, strange to say, he had with him an uncircumcised son. No wonder that God visited him by the way, and—when we look into all the probabilities of the case-no wonder that God made as if he would kill him. The very obscurities of this strange incident help to make it more impressive and admonitory. Consider I. WHAT THERE MAY BE IN THE TO THROW LIGHT ON THE CAUSE OF THE . It cannot have been that Moses was completely ignorant of God’s requirement. Had not God recalled the covenant to the particular attention of Moses? He had done so in a sufficiently suggestive way, not by repeating the terms of the covenant in full, but simply by referring to himself as the God of Abraham, IsaActs and Jacob. Having thus been reminded of the covenant, Moses was bound to make himself correctly acquainted with every provision and detail of it. This covenant had been delivered to Abram once for all, and was of such a kind that nothing but the most flagrant neglect could allow the sign of it off its human side to fall into disuse. It was a covenant written in the very body of every true Israelite. Doubtless Moses himself had been circumcised; yet here he is, going as the messenger of God to make progress in fulfilling God’s part of the covenant, and yet his own part, as a member of Israel, he is unmistakably neglecting. Hence we see that he could not have been ignorant; and more than that, neither could he have been forgetful. We are led to infer that easygoing compliance with his Midianite wife, Zipporah, was at the bottom of this neglected duty. It would appear indeed as if Moses had circumcised one son and then left the other uncircumcised. If so, he had shown gross inconsistency. More might have been said for him if both had been uncircumcised. Probably Zipporah, having soon the pain of her firstborn, had struggled and pleaded only too successfully for exemption in the case of the second. II. THE MODE BY WHICH GOD BRINGS MOSES TO A SENSE OF THE . "He sought to kill him." When God proceeds to such an extremity as this, it must be either because of some monstrous breach of duty, or to impress an important commandment by the most efficacious means that can be adopted. There is no need to suppose that Moses, knowing full well the importance of circumcision, yet deliberately omitted it. If so, his conduct would have been very bad indeed. There is a more reasonable and instructive aspect. He was brought nigh to death so that he might learn the truth-and learn it so as never to forget, never to neglect it—that no human being, whatever its claims and whatever its supplications, was to come between God and him. Let Moses now take his choice between pleasing his wife and obeying his God. He could only do God’s work by the most hearty obedience and attention. Nor was he here only as the messenger of God to Israel and Egypt; he was also the responsible head of a household. Leaders who are husbands and parents are watched in all their home relations. If Moses was going to let Zipporah rule and prevail by her womanly wiles in one instance, why not in others? The only way to keep things right was for Zipporah to take her orders from him, and as Moses was to choose between his wife and his God, so Zipporah between her husband and her child. She has to put her child to a passing pain in order that she may spare her husband from impending death. Indeed, poor woman, she had been greatly tried of late: compelled to leave her father and her dear native land, and go on an expedition the reasons of which would be but indifferently comprehended by her. Whichever way she turns, and whatever she does, there is something to vex her soul. Dearly had she paid for that chivalrous service which Moses had rendered her. and her sisters so many years before. The awkwardness of being unequally yoked is felt by the unbeliever as much as the believer.—Y. Exodus 4:27, Exodus 4:28 The scene suddenly shifts. Moses is left in the wilderness to recover his strength and make such arrangements with respect to his wife and children as he thinks best under the circumstances. We are carried away to Egypt and introduced to Aaron, Moses’ elder brother, of whom we have only heard previously that he could "speak well," and was to assist Moses as spokesman in his enterprise (Exodus 4:14-16). We now find God revealing himself to Aaron also, and directing his movements, as he had those of Moses. Aaron had perhaps already formed the design of visiting his brother (see Exodus 4:14), and would have sought him in Midian but for the direction now given him. That direction was probably more definite than is expressed in the text, and enabled him to set forth confidently, without the fear of missing his brother. At any rate, under God’s guidance he went and met him in the Sinaitic district. The joy of meeting is briefly described in the single phrase "he kissed him." The meeting was followed by a full explanation, on the part of Moses, both of the nature of his own mission and of the part which Aaron was to take in it. Exodus 4:27 Go into the wilderness. It is scarcely possible that this can have been the whole of the direction given, since the wilderness extended from the shores of the Mediterranean to the extreme point of the Sinaitic peninsula. The sacred writers study brevity, and leave much to be supplied by the common-sense of the reader. He went and met him in the mount of God. Compare above, Exodus 3:1, which shows that Horeb is meant. Horeb seems to have been the name for the entire mountain region, of which Sinai was a part. Kissed him. So Esau kissed Jacob after their long separation (Genesis 33:4), and Joseph, Benjamin and his other brethren (Genesis 45:14, Genesis 45:15). In the East men are more demonstrative than with us. Aaron’s kiss showed the gladness that was in his heart (supra, Exodus 3:14). Exodus 4:28 Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord. Perfect confidence between the two brothers was absolutely necessary for the success of their enterprise; and Moses wisely, at their very first interview, made Aaron acquainted with the entire series of Divine revelations that had been made to him, keeping nothing back, but communicating to him "all the words of the Lord." Who had sent him. Rather, "which he had laid upon him." (So the LXX; the Vulgate, Knobel, Kalisch, and others.) All the signs. Compare Exodus 4:3-9 and Exodus 4:23. God does not stint his help when he visits man. It might have seemed that God had now done enough to set on foot the deliverance of his people. He had appeared to Moses, overcome his reluctance to be leader, given him the power of working some great miracles, and allowed him to devolve a portion of his duties upon his brother; Moses was on his way to Egypt to carry out his commission, and Aaron was minded to go forth to meet and greet him. Humanly speaking, nothing more was needed for the initiation of the work. But God, who "seeth not as man seeth," does not stint his arm when he has taken a business in hand. It would expedite matters if Aaron were to be directed where to meet Moses, and the two brothers were to have their conference at once, and arrange their course of proceedings. So Aaron is visited, probably by an angel, and sent to meet Moses, and told where he will find him; and by these means the meeting is brought about with all speed, Aaron enlightened as to his duties, and plans arranged to be put in act as soon as Egypt is reached. The two brothers gain the advantage of sweet companionship some days or weeks earlier than they would have done if left to themselves, and their first interview with Pharaoh is advanced correspondingly. And as with his miraculous, so with his ordinary help. God does not stint it. His grace is ever sufficient for men. He gives them all that they can possibly need, and more than they would ever think of asking. He loves to pour out his blessings abundantly on those that are true to him; makes "all things work together for their good;" goes out of his way to procure advantages for them; loads them with his favours. Full confidence necessary between fellow-workers. Moses told Aaron "all the words of the Lord"—made "a clean breast" to him, kept back none of the counsel of God, so far as he had been made acquainted with it. A kind, a loving, and a prudent course. Half-confidences are valueless; they irritate rather than satisfy. If known to be half-confidences, they offend; if mistaken for full ones, they mislead and conduct to disaster. Those who are to be fellow-workers in any undertaking—more especially any great one—should have entire confidence each in each, and be wholly unreserved one towards the other. There is good sense and good advice in the motto, "Trust me not at all or all in all." Exodus 4:29-31 Moses seems to have parted with Zipporah and his children in Horeb, and to have sent them back to Jethro (Exodus 18:2), perhaps because they might have interfered with the work which he had to do, perhaps because he thought Egypt would be no pleasant residence for them during the coming struggle. He journeyed onward from Horeb with Aaron for his sole companion, and had abundant time for taking counsel with him, and exercising the influence over him which high intellect and education combined will always give to their possessor. The journey from Horeb to Goshen occupied probably some weeks. On arriving in Goshen, the two brothers, in obedience to the divine command (Exodus 3:16), proceeded at once to "gather together all the elders of Israel"—that is, all these who exercised local authority over their countrymen in the various districts which they inhabited. Through the mouth of Aaron, Moses declared all that had been revealed to him at the burning bush and subsequently, exhibiting at the same time the credentials which proved him an ambassador from God, i.e. the three miracles which he had been empowered to work at any moment (Exodus 4:2-8). The elders, being themselves convinced, summoned an assembly of the people, as is implied though not expressed in Exodus 4:30; and the people, having heard the words of Aaron and seen the signs, were also convinced, and bowing their heads, worshipped the God whose ambassadors had appeared before them. Exodus 4:29 On the elders of Israel, see note upon Exodus 3:16. It is clear that the Israelitish nation, though in bondage to the Egyptians, had a certain internal organisation of its own, and possessed a set of native officers. These were probably the hereditary heads of families. Moses and Aaron could have no authority to gather these persons together; but they issued an invitation, and it was accepted. The "elders" came to the meeting. Exodus 4:30 Aaron spake. Aaron at once entered on his office of "spokesman" (Exodus 4:16), declaring to the elders all God’s dealings with his brother. Aaron also, and not Moses, us we should have expected (Exodus 4:17), did the signs, God, by allowing him to do them, sanctioning this delegation of power. On later occasions, we find Aaron more than once required by God to work the miracles. (See below, Exodus 7:19; Exodus 8:5, Exodus 8:16.) In the sight of the people. It is not probable that the people were present at the first meeting of the elders; but the sacred historian, anxious to compress his narrative, and bent simply on conveying to us the fact of Aaron’s success with both elders and people, omits stages in the history which he supposes that any reader can supply, e.g. the doing of the signs in the sight of the elders, their belief in them, and their subsequent assembling of the people. Exodus 4:31 The people believed. This ready faith stands in strong contrast with the ordinary incredulous temper of the Israelitish people, who were "a faithless and stubborn generation"—a generation that "believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation" (Psalms 78:22). It would seem that under the pressure of affliction—having, humanly speaking, no hope—the stubborn spirit of the people had given way, and they were content to look to Jehovah and accept his promises, and believe in his messengers, notwithstanding their natural scepticism. No doubt the novelty of miracles helped to produce this state of feeling; and the fact that they were not called upon at present for any active exertion made acquiescence in what Moses put before them easier. When they heard that the Lord had visited—i.e. when the message contained in Exodus 3:16 was delivered to them. And that he had looked upon their affliction. Compare Exodus 3:7. They bowed their heads. Rather "they bowed down" (Kalisch), or "inclined themselves." And worshipped. Some understand an act of respect and ho-mage done to Moses and Aaron, in token of their acceptance by the people as leaders; but, though the words employed are sometimes used in this sense, the context is opposed to their having this sense in this place. "When the people heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel they bowed down and worshipped." Whom? Surely, the Lord. The blessing on obedience. Moses and Aaron, on their return to Egypt in company, carried out exactly the Divine directions, doing neither less nor more. They summoned the elders as commanded (Exodus 3:16); they delivered God’s message to them (ib.); they wrought the signs which they had been told to work (Exodus 4:17); they severally kept to their appointed offices; and the result was complete success so far. The elders and people hearkened unto them, believed, gave in their unqualified assent and consent to all that was put before them. And this was according to the promise of God, "they shall hearken to thy voice" (Exodus 3:18). Moses had disbelieved the promise, and exclaimed, "Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice" (Exodus 4:1); but Moses was now proved mistaken. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" (1 Corinthians 1:25). God knew better than Moses; he was faithful; he kept his word. As Moses and Aaron had been true to him, and followed exactly his commands, so he proved himself true to them, and amply rewarded their obedience. Moses and Aaron were from this time the accepted leaders of the nation. Worship the proper outcome of thankfulness. Israel, down-trodden, oppressed, crushed beneath an intolerable tyranny, no sooner hears the promise of deliverance, than it displays its gratitude by "bowing the head and worshipping." Many Christians talk of being thankful for God’s blessings vouchsafed to them, but never think of showing forth their thankfulness by any extra act of worship, or even any increased intensity in that portion of their ordinary worship which consists in thanksgiving. A sad sign this of modern lukewarmness, an indication that the "last times are drawing near, when "the love of many shall wax cold." Time was when each national success was at once celebrated by a "Te Deum," and when each blessing granted to an individual drew forth a special offering. The thankfulness that does not show itself in some such overt act must be a very poor thankfulness, a very weak and washed-out feeling. BY J. ORR Exodus 4:27, Exodus 4:28 A meeting of brothers. 1. By Divine appointment (cf. Exodus 4:14). 2. In a sacred place. 3. As cooperators in a good work. 4. With affection. 5. To exchange experiences.—J.O. Preaching and faith. I. THE WORD SPOKEN. 1. Should be the Word of God. The preacher is not set to deliver his own speculations, but to convey a message. 2. Should be exhibited with its appropriate evidence. 3. Should be declared to all. II. THE WORD . The people— 1. Appreciated the value of the word. 2. Believed the word. 3. Worshipped; a token of gratitude, submission, and obedience.—J.O. FIRST APPEAL OF MOSES TO PHARAOH, AND OF THE . Exodus 5:1-5 Having secured the adhesion of the Israelitish people, Moses and Aaron sought an interview with the Egyptian monarch who was now in possession of the throne. According to the bulk of modern authorities, and according to our own views of Egyptian history, this was Menephthah,the son and successor of Rameses II. Menephthah was a weak prince, whom events had favoured, and who had been thus led to have an exalted opinion of himself. A great invasion of Egypt had occurred at the beginning of his reign, which had been met and completely repulsed, not by his own skill or valour, but by the skill and valour of his generals. Menephthah himself had pointedly avoided incurring any danger. He claimed to be in direct communication with the Egyptian gods, who revealed themselves to him in visions, and pleaded a distinct command of Phthah as preventing him from putting himself at the head of his army. Still, he counted as his own all the successes gained by his generals, and was as vainglorious and arrogant as if he had himself performed prodigies of valour Such was the temper of the king before whom we believe that Moses and Aaron appeared. There would be no difficulty in any Egyptian subject, who had a prayer to make or a petition to present, obtaining an audience of the monarch, for it was an accepted principle of the administration that the kings were to hear all complaints, and admit to their presence all classes of the community. Exodus 5:1 And afterward. The interposition of some not inconsiderable space of time seems to be implied. Menephthah resided partly at Memphis, partly at Zoan (Tanis). Moses and Aaron may have had to wait until he returned from his southern to his northern capital. Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh. Aaron was, no doubt, the sole spokesman, but as he spoke for both, the plural is used. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. Literally, "Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel." Pharaoh would understand Jehovah to be a proper name, parallel to his own Phthah, Ra, Ammon, etc. Let my people go. The rationale of the demand is given in Exodus 8:26. The Israelites could not offer their proper sacrificial animals in the presence of the Egyptians without the risk of provoking a burst of religious animosity, since among the animals would necessarily be some which all, or many, of the Egyptians regarded as sacred, and under no circumstances to be killed. The fanaticism of the Egyptians on such occasions led to wars, tumults, and massacres. (See Plutarch, ’De Isid. et Osir.,’ § 44.) To avoid this danger the "feast" must be held beyond the bounds of Egypt—in the adjacent "wilderness." Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord? Rather, "Who is Jehovah?" Either Pharaoh is actually ignorant, or he pretends to be. The former is possible, since Jehovah was a name but little employed, until the return of Moses to Egypt. The latter, however, is more probable. That I should obey his voice. Why am I to obey his voice? What is your Jehovah to me? What authority has he over me? He is, at best, your god, not mine. I know not Jehovah. I acknowledge him not. He is not within the range of my Pantheon. Neither will I let Israel go, i.e. "nor even, if he were, would I consent to such a request as this from him." The Pharaohs assumed to be themselves gods, on a par with the national gods, and not bound to obey them. Exodus 5:3 And they said. Moses and Aaron are not abashed by a single refusal. They expostulate, and urge fresh reasons why Pharaoh should accede to their request. But first they explain that Jehovah is the God of the Hebrews, by which name the Israelites seem to have been generally known to the Egyptians (See Exodus 1:15, Exodus 1:16, Exodus 1:19; Exodus 2:6, Exodus 2:7.) Their God, they say, has met with them—made, that is. a special revelation of himself to them—an idea quite familiar to the king, and which he could not pretend to misunderstand and he has laid on them an express command. They are to go a three days’ journey into the desert—to be quite clear of interruption from the Egyptians. Will not Pharaoh allow them to obey the order? If they do not obey it, their God will be angry, and will punish them, either by sending a pestilence among them, or causing an invader to fall upon them with the sword. The eastern frontier of Egypt was at this time very open to invasion, and was actually threatened by a vast army some ten or fifteen years later. Exodus 5:4 The king makes no direct reply to this appeal, but turns upon his petitioners, and charges them with an offence against the crown. Why do they, Moses and Aaron, by summoning the people to meet together, and exciting their minds with vague hopes, "let the people from their works." This is damage to the crown, whoso labourers the people are, and he, the Pharaoh, will not have it. "Get you—all of you, people and leaders together—to your appointed tasks—your burdens." Exodus 5:5 The people are many. This is added as an aggravation of the offence charged in the last verse. The people are numerous. Therefore the greater damage is done to the crown by putting a stop to their labours. With these words the first interview between the Israelite leaders and the Egyptian monarch ends. Moses and Aaron, we must suppose, retired discomfited from the royal presence. God’s will often opposed by the great of the earth, and his servants rebuffed. Encouraged by their success with the elders and with the people (Exodus 4:29-31), Moses and Aaron would stop boldly into the presence of Pharaoh. It was, no doubt, known that they represented the feelings of an entire nation, a nation moreover of whom the Egyptians had begun to be afraid (Exodus 1:9, Exodus 1:10). The courtiers would treat them, at any rate, with outward politeness and respect. They knew also that God was on their side, and would ultimately, if not at the first, give them success. Under these circumstances they made their request boldly and with much plainness (Exodus 5:1 and Exodus 5:3). But they were met with the most complete antagonism. Pharaoh was in his own eves not only the greatest king upon the face of the earth, but an actual god. If we are right in supposing him to be Menephthah, he was the son of a king who had set up his own image to be worshipped side by side with those of Ammon, Phthah, and Horus, three of the greatest Egyptian deities. He viewed the demand made of him as preposterous, and had probably not the slightest belief in the power of Jehovah to do him harm. Who was Jehovah? and what had he to fear from him? A god—if he was a god—who had not been able to prevent his people from becoming a nation of slaves. He therefore treated the petition of Moses with absolute contempt. And so it has ever been, and will ever be, with the great of the earth. They are so exalted above their fellows, that they think "no harm can happen unto them." They do not set themselves to inquire what is really God’s will, but determinately carry out their own will in their own way. Even when they do not openly blaspheme, like this Pharaoh, and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:29-35), and Herod Antipas (Luke 23:11), they ignore God, reject the just demands of his ministers, refuse to be guided by their advice. Thus his servants are ever being rebuffed. They ask that slavery should everywhere cease, and are told that in some places it is a necessity. They plead against the licensing of vice, and are bidden not to interfere with sanitary arrangements. They ask for laws to restrain intoxication, and are denounced as seeking to lessen the national revenue. They cry for the abolition of vivisection, and are held up to ridicule as sickly sentimentalists. All this is to be expected, and should not discourage them. Let them, like Moses and Aaron, continually repeat their demands; urge them, in season and out of season. They may be sure that they will triumph at last. "The Lord is on their side;" they need not fear what flesh can do against them. BY H. T. Exodus 5:1-21 Failure. "I know not Jehovah," etc.: Exodus 5:2. We now come face to face with the king. As the king here becomes very prominent, we will keep him conspicuous in the outlining of this address. I. WITH THE KING. This is a convenient moment for introducing Pharaoh as the terrestrial representative of the Sun, as the vicegerent of Deity upon earth. Does it seem wonderful that men should receive a man in this capacity? But millions of professed Christians in this nineteenth century so receive the Pope. We will take the suggestions of the story in the time-order of the narrative. We have— 1. A lesson in courage. The two went to their audience with the king at the peril of their lives. Some might have remembered Moses. Their demand touched the honour and revenues of the king. Courage in facing responsibility is the lesson; leave consequences to our poor selves to God. 2. A suggestion as to the method of evangelic grace. Jehovah here calls himself for the first time in relation to the nation, as distinguished from the man Jacob, "the God of Israel." A crowd was just becoming a State and a Church, when Jehovah calls himself their God. First he is their God: then all possibilities are before them. Their history begins well. So now: first adopted children, and then the obedience of children. 3. A warning against want of catholicity. The tone of Pharaoh is that of the vicegerent of Deity, as against a tutelary god he deigned not to acknowledge. But he was wrong even on the principles of enlightened pagandom, which was forward to acknowledge the gods of all nations. Compare the policy of imperial Rome. 4. Teaching as to gradation in God’s demands. Here may be discussed the nature and propriety of the first demand for three days’ absence. Looking at things after the events, it may appear to some that here was a demand which concealed the real intention, viz. to return no more. But this would be to impeach the veracity of God! The demand really was for "a whole day’s prayer-meeting," with a day to go, a day to return. In the desert, as in consideration of Egyptian feeling; but probably within the frontier, for there were Egyptian garrisons in Forts of the desert of Sinai. A moderate demand! One that Pharaoh might well have complied with. Compliance might have led to further negotiation; and this Pharaoh might have stood out in history as co-operating in the deliverance and formation of the Church of God. Instead of that he set himself against the small demand, and was unready for the greater (Exodus 6:11) when it came. And so we see him through the mist of ages, "moving ghost-like to his doom." It is a picture of the method of God. He asks first for the simple, reasonable, easy etc. etc. II. ORDERS FROM THE KING. "The very same day!" Such is the restlessness of the tyrant-spirit. The orders were addressed to the "drivers," Egyptians, and to the "clerks" of the works, Hebrews. Note the large employment of "clerks," as evidenced by the monuments. The appointment of these "clerks" would contribute much to the organisation of Israel, and so prepare for the Exodus. As to the orders—explain them. Bricks a government monopoly; witness the royal mark on many to this day. Same number of bricks as before, but people to gather in the corn-fields the straw (in harvest only the ear cut off) previously allowed by the government, chop it, and mix it with the clay. Terrible cruelty of these orders-in-council in such a climate. III. TO THE KING. For the sake of vividly and pictorially bringing up the condition of the people, note the time of straw-collecting: time of harvest—end of April; then a hot pestilential sand-wind often blows over the land of Egypt for fifty days; the effects on health, tone, skin, eyes (in the land of ophthalmia), of so working in blazing sun, in clouds of dust, in hopeless slavery. They return to the horrid brickfields; fail; fierce punishments, as to this day in the same land. IV. WITH THE KING, The "clerks" of the works constitute a deputation to the king, perhaps by virtue of a "right of petition." The king accuses them of being "idle." To understand this, think of the gigantic public works, the terrific labour, the perishing of thousands, the likelihood that such a taunt would spring to tyrannical lips. The king refuses, perhaps threatens the lives of the "clerks." See verse 21—"to put a sword," etc. Here again, that which seemed most against the people made for them. The treatment of the "clerks" brought them into sympathy with their enslaved brethren. Israel closed its ranks. The fellowship of suffering prepared for the companionship of pilgrimage. There was, too, a present blessing. Spiritual feelings were quickened, heaven came nearer, the pitying love of God became more precious. One can imagine such scenes as those in which the slaves of the Southern States, through horrid swamps and over mighty rivers, in the dead of night "stole away to Jesus." "In that hour, when night is calmest, Sing they from some Sacred Psalmist, In a voice so sweet and clear That I cannot choose but hear. "And the voice of their devotion Fills my soul with strange emotion; For its tones by turns are glad, Sweetly solemn, wildly sad." [Adaped from .] V. TO THE OF THE KING OF KINGS. Moses and Aaron, somewhere near the palace, were waiting to know the result of the audience of the "clerks" with the king. The "clerks," irritated and angry, turned on the God-given leaders: verse 21. [Note in the Hebrews the expression "to stink in the eyes," and the fact that pungent odours do affect the eyes! A dreadful trouble to Moses and Aaron! In conclusion, observe— 1. The cruelty that is ever incident to sin. "Man’s inhumanity to man" a universal fact. "The dark places of the earth are full," etc.; so places alight with modern civilisation. The incidents of any gin-palace! There is, too, a cruelty of word and manner. Soul-wounds deeper than sword-gashes. No cure save under the sanctifying power of the Cross of self-abnegating love. 2. The pain that attends all emancipations. The first efforts of Moses and Aaron led to nothing but disaster. See Hebrews 6:9. So with the agony of emancipation in America. So always and everywhere. So with reforms within the Church. So with crises of soul-history. 3. The discouragement that may fall to leaders. 4. The encouragement we all have. Note here— (1) The appointment of the "clerks;" (2) The personal danger into which they came; (3) The uniting all Israel into a fellowship of grief that they might dare the desert. All this came out of the oppression; but tended to salvation. Our darkest experiences rosy be our best friends. 5. Through what sorrow all come to the final emancipation.—R. BY G. A. Exodus 5:1-23 The people of Jehovah detained and oppressed by the representative of the prince of this world; no doubt as to the strength of the latter—is it possible for his spoils to be wrested from him? The strong man armed has thus far kept his palace (Luke 11:21), and his goods (cf. Revelation 18:13) have been in peace, so far as outward disturbance is concerned. Now comes one who claims to be the stronger. What may be expected to. happen? I. THE . 1. The tyrant. Picture the king. Wholly self-satisfied, worshipped as a god, absolute ruler over the lives of thousands. Surrounded by obsequious servants—none to contradict him, none to disobey. Enthroned in palace. Enter— 2. The envoys. Two men—one grown old in slavery, one for forty years a shepherd, looking now at all this pomp as a man who dimly recalls some dream. Does he think of what might have been, perhaps he himself seated upon the throne (cf. Hebrews 11:24)? Greater honour to be the unknown envoy of Jehovah than to be the Pharaoh who receives his message. 3. The message. Strange words for such a king to hear (1) a command, not a request. The sender of the message speaks as to a servant. (2) The slaves of Pharaoh claimed as the people of Jehovah; his right denied to the possession of his goods. 4. The reply. The demand met by a contemptuous refusal Who is Jehovah? I know not Jehovah!" If the message is authoritative, yet the envoys are sufficiently humble—they even plead with him that, for the sake of the people, he will grant them permission and opportunity to sacrifice (Exodus 5:3). All to no purpose; the strong man is secure in his possessions and means to keep them in his grasp. II. .—Pharaoh, was not quite so indifferent as he seemed. If there is to be war, he will gain such advantage as may be gained by making the first hostile movement. His slaves at any rate shall be taught that rebellion is not likely to be successful. Effect of his policy:— 1. On people. So long as he had been undisturbed his goods were in peace; now that he is disturbed the miserable peace of his chattels is disturbed too. [Man in prison, treated with greater rigour on the rumour of an attempted rescue.] Early spring, just after the corn has been cut; chopped straw needed to mix with the clay in brickmaking; let these discontented rebels gather their own. Israelites obliged to scatter themselves over the country; all complaints stifled with blows. Result, Exodus 5:20, Exodus 5:21, great discouragement and distrust of Moses and Aaron. "This comes of interfering." Six months’ worse tyranny than ever. 2. On himself. Six months to realise the success of his policy; feels more secure than ever; heart is harder; pride greater (cf. Romans 2:4, Romans 2:5). 3. On Moses. Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23. Disheartened, but only for a little; repulsed by Pharaoh, suspected by the people, he is driven back on God; like the giant who gained strength each time he clasped the ground, so becoming more invincible with each new overthrow, finds God his refuge and his strength also. God is pledged to secure final victory. The slaves must be freed; not because they can win freedom, but because God has promised to free them. Apply, from our Lord’s parable, Luke 11:21, Luke 11:22, Satan the strong man who has many slaves. His power seems at first to increase when moved by the rumour of redemption we attempt to follow the dictates of our Deliverer (cf. Romans 7:9-11). Content with slavery, there is quietude; trying after freedom we find trouble and affliction. [Illustr. A habit, not hard to endure, but hard to break. The chain of sin is easy to wear; they only know how fast it holds who try to struggle free of it.] Cf. again Romans 7:1-25. with St. Paul. as with Israel; the bondage seemed worse than ever when the hope of freedom was the most alluring. In either ease the ground of hope, not in the sufferer, but away outside him. God prompts to the struggle against the oppressor, but he does not let victory depend on us; that rests with him. The promise to deliver is contained in the call to freedom. It is not, "I will help you when you are strong," nothing said about our strength at all; confidence rests on the fact that God. is Jehovah, the changeless One (cf. Exodus 6:2; Malachi 3:6). Let Israel obey Moses, and God must redeem them from Pharaoh. Let us obey Christ, and God must redeem us from the power of Satan.—G. BY J. ORR Exodus 5:1-4 A first interview. Accompanied by Aaron, Moses passes again through the hails of the Pharaohs from which he has been so long a stranger. Kings, courtiers, and people are different; but all else gates and pillars, courts, corridors, and reception-rooms—how unchanged since first he knew them! The feelings of the quondam prince must have been strangely mingled, as, after forty years of exile, he trod the familiar pavements, and looked upon the old splendours. But the narrative, absorbed in its mightier theme, has no word to spare for the emotions of a Moses. The long contest between Pharaoh and Jehovah is on the eve of its commencement, and the interest centres in its opening scene. It is this which occupies the verses before us. I. THE REQUEST (Exodus 5:1, Exodus 5:3). Behold Pharaoh on his throne of state, while the brothers stand before him delivering Jehovah’s message. The request preferred to him was— 1. Eminently righteous and reasonable. No monarch has a right to deprive a people of the opportunity of worshipping God according to their consciences. If he does, the people have a right to protest against it. Pharaoh could not be expected to understand the modern views of rights of conscience, but even by the light of his own time people were entitled to be permitted to worship their own gods, and to honour them by appropriate festivals. But not only had Pharaoh deprived the Hebrews of their liberty, and ground them to the earth by cruel oppression—both offences against righteousness, but he had taken from them, we may be certain, the opportunity of observing in a proper manner the festivals of their God. Moses and Aaron would have been within their rights, even without Divine command, had they demanded that the whole nation be set at liberty. Much more when they only asked that they be allowed for a brief space to retire into the wilderness, there, unmolested by the Egyptians, to sacrifice to the Lord. 2. Supported by Divine command. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel." Pharaoh, it is true, could plead that he did not know Jehovah; but when he saw these men’s sincerity, and how they dreaded incurring their God’s anger (Exodus 5:3), it was his duty to have inquired further. The evil was that he did not care to know. He treated the whole matter with impious and disdainful contempt. 3. Unaccompanied by signs. Moses and Aaron had no occasion to exhibit signs. Pharaoh was not in a mood to pay the slightest attention to them. He did not even dispute that this was a bona fide message from Jehovah, but took the ground of simple refusal to obey it. Yet there may have been a reason for working no miracles at the opening of the conflict. God proceeds with men step by step. The first appeal is to be made, not to the king’s fears, but to his sense of fairness, his humanity, and feeling of religion. He must be convicted on this lower ground before sterner measures are used to coerce him to submission. It might be true that purely moral considerations would have little effect upon him; but if so, this had to be made manifest. God deals with men first of all in the open court of conscience, and it is there—in the region of ordinary morals—that hardening usually begins. II. PHARAOH’S REPLY (Exodus 5:2). It was, as already stated, a haughty and angry refusal, showing total disregard of the rights and wishes of the Hebrews, and setting Jehovah at defiance. The king’s disposition, as brought to light in it, is seen to be— 1. Proud. He probably regarded the request of the brothers as an instance of astounding audacity. Who were they, two slave-born men, that they should presume to ask from him, the lord of mighty Egypt, that the people be allowed to rest from their labours? His pride may have blinded him to the righteousness of their demand; but it could not lessen his responsibility. We are judged, not according to the impression which righteous and merciful appeals make upon us—that may be his—but by the inherent righteousness of the appeals, and by the effects which they ought to have produced. 2. Headstrong. Before venturing so defiantly to scout Jehovah and his message, it would surely have been well for Pharaoh to have inquired a little further into the character and powers of this Being of whom the Hebrews stood so much in awe. He had not the excuse which many moderns would plead, that he did not believe in gods or in the supernatural in any shape. Pharaoh had no right, from his own point of view, to scout the possibility of "the God of the Hebrews" having met with them; and neither, so far as appears from the narrative, did he, though he chose to regard the story as a fiction. Many reject the Gospel, never having given its claims their serious attention; but this will not excuse them. They cannot plead that, had they believed it to be true, they would have acted otherwise. Their sin is that in their headstrongness they will not trouble themselves to inquire whether it is true. 3. Profane. After all, what Pharaoh’s reply amounted to was this, that, let Jehovah be who or what he might, he (Pharaoh) set him at naught—would not obey him. The message might or might not come from a God, he did not care. Thus he "set his mouth against the heavens" (Psalms 73:9), and "exalted himself above all that is called God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4)—not an uncommon phase of pride. But the presumptuously wicked will do well to remember that, if Pharaoh thus exalted himself, it was to his own destruction. His very pride was a challenge to Jehovah to destroy him.—J.O. BY J. God’s demand and Pharaoh’s answer. I. THE DEMAND. 1. Its modesty. They merely ask liberty to depart on a three days’ journey into the wilderness. 2. It was asked in good faith; it was not a cover for escape. God would give deliverance; but that was left in God’s hand; and meanwhile they asked only for liberty to worship him. 3. Its reasonableness: they could not sacrifice the sacred animals of the Egyptians before their faces. 4. Its necessity. Pharaoh might not know Jehovah, but they knew him, and must serve him, "lest he fall upon us with the pestilence or the sword." The demand of the Church still is liberty to serve God in his own appointed way. It must be had. Luther’s "God help me; I can do no other! We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). II. THE REFUSAL. 1. Its presumption. He did not know Jehovah, and therefore the message was a lie! Unbelief makes the bounds of its knowledge the bounds of truth and possibility. The pretensions of modern agnosticism. 2. It was a refusal of justice; it was a resolve to continue oppression. Unbelief is the brother and helper of wrong-doing. 3. It was made with reproach and insult. They were encouraging idleness and sedition: "Get ye to your burdens" "These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also." 4. The rage of the wicked is often the best commendation of God’s servants. It is a testimony to their faithfulness.—U. BY D. YOUNG Pharaoh’s first response: his answer in word. Moses and Aaron, somehow or other, have found their way into Pharaoh’s presence. All things, so far, have happened as God said they would happen. The very brevity and compactness of the record at the end of Exo 4:1-31. is an instructive comment on the way in which Moses had mistaken comparative shadows for substantial difficulties. The actual meeting of Moses with Israel is dismissed in a few satisfactory and significant words; as much as to say that enough space had already been occupied in detailing the difficulties started by Moses in his ignorance and alarm. It is when Moses and Pharaoh meet that the tug of war really begins. Moses addresses to Pharaoh the commanded request, and is met, as was to be expected, with a prompt and contemptuous defiance. Observe— I. PHARAOH, IN HIS TO MOSES, PUTS A WHICH GOD ALONE CAN ANSWER. "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?" This was evidently in Pharaoh’s opinion a question which needed no answer at all. It had nothing interrogative about it, except the form. Taking the form of a question, it served to express more forcibly Pharaoh’s defiant spirit. There was, in his opinion, really no need to consider or confer at all. "Am I not the great Pharaoh, successor to many great Pharaohs before me? Is not my power accepted and undisputed far and wide?" He could not so much as comprehend any danger unless it took the form of physical force; and not only so, but a form plainly visible—near, threatening, overwhelming. If only some great king had been approaching—strong with the strength of a large and victorious army—to demand the liberation of Israel, Pharaoh would not so have spoken. To him the invisible was as the unreal. Pharaoh listens to Moses, and what does he hear?—a claim that seems to dispute his supremacy, from this new deity, whose image he has never seen, whose name mayhap his priests have told him is not that of any deity worshipped in Canaan of which they have ever heard. Certainly it looks a large claim upon the first presentation of it, small as it is in comparison with what is to follow. This, then, is what he hears, and the audacity and presumption of it are not diminished by what he sees. There stand Moses and Aaron, completely devoid in person and surroundings of anything to impress the king with the peril of refusing their request. Surely if the men who say they are sent look so contemptible, the unseen being from whom they say they come may be safely neglected. Such is the reasoning, silently powerful, if not openly expressed, of those who despise and reject the claims of God. Christ is judged of, not as he is in himself, but by the superficial aspect of Christians. Because they are often low in station, or inconsistent in life, or lacking in disposition and ability to make much outward show, the world thinks that there is little or nothing behind them. It’ is the folly of only too many to take Pharaoh’s stand. For the right reception of the things of God we need all possible humility and openmindedness; what then is to be done, if upon the very first approach of religion, we pooh-pooh it as mere superstition, folly, and delusion? 2. This was a question to which Moses could have given a very effective and alarming answer if only he had been allowed opportunity. Moses, fresh from the revelations and sanctities of Horeb, could have told Pharaoh such a story of the workings of Jehovah as would have been enough, and more than enough, to guide the steps of a right-minded listener. Not only his own personal experience; not only the sight of the burning bush, the rod transformed, the leprous hand, the blood where water ought to be; but also the fulness, the terrible fulness of Jehovah’s power in the earlier days of the world, were within his reach to speak about. He could have told Pharaoh very admonitory things concerning Sodom and the Deluge if only he had been willing to listen. We may well believe that the effect of Pharaoh’s defiant attitude would be to send Moses away striving to refresh and sustain his mind with the evidences, so available and so abundant, that in spite of this proud king’s contempt, Jehovah, in his vast power and resources, was indeed no vain imagination. When the proud and self-sufficient ask this Pharaoh-question, it is for us to make such answer as may be reassuring to ourselves; not to doubt our own eyesight because others are blind, our own heating because others are deaf. How few sometimes may know, when thousands err. The truth which we may not be able to make even probable to others, we must strive so to grasp and penetrate, that more and more it may be felt as certain and satisfying to ourselves. 3. Thus we see how the Lord himself needed to deal with this question. Knowledge of God is of many kinds, according to the disposition of the person who is to be taught, and according to the use which God purposes to make of him. Pharaoh was evidently not going to be a docile scholar in God’s school—one who comes to it willing and eager, thirsting for a refreshing knowledge of the living God. But still he had to be a scholar, willingly or not. He had to learn this much at least, that he was transgressing on the peculiar possessions of God when he sported with Israel in his despotic caprice. It is for no man to say that his present real ignorance gives assurance that he will never come to some knowledge of God. It may be as pitifully true of the atheist as it is encouragingly true of the godly, that what he knows not now, he will know hereafter. Now he knows not God, but in due time he will know him; not dubiously, not distantly, but in the most practical and it may be most painful and humiliating manner. Pharaoh says, with a sneer on his face, and derision in his voice, "Who is Jehovah?" That question is duly answered by Jehovah in signs and plagues, and the last answer we hear anything about on earth comes unmistakable and sublime, amid the roll of the Red Sea’s returning waters. II. But Pharaoh not only puts this defiant question; HE UTTERS A MOST WHICH GOD ALONE CAN ALTER. "Neither will I let Israel go." What then are Israel’s chances for the future? There was every certainty that, if left to himself, Pharaoh would go on, tyrannous and oppressive as ever. From a human point of view he had everything to help him in sticking to his resolution. His fears, if he had any—the wealth which he and his people had gained from the incessant toils of Israel—the great dislocations and changes which would have been produced by even a temporary withdrawal of Israel—all these things helped to a firm maintenance of the resolution. It was a resolution which had strong and active support in all the baser feelings of his own breast. It is just in the firmness and haughtiness of such a resolution, revealing as it does the spirit of the man, that we get the reason for such an accumulation of calamities as came upon his land. Here is another significant illustration of the manifold power of God, that he could break down so much proud determination. There was no change in Pharaoh’s feeling; no conversion to an equitable and compassionate mind; he simply yielded, because he could not help himself, to continuous and increasing pressure, and God alone was able to exert that pressure. Pharaoh here is but the visible and unconscious exponent of that dark Power which is behind all evil men and cruel and selfish policies. That Power, holding men in all sorts of bitter disappointments and degrading miseries, virtually says, "I will not let them go." Our confidence ought ever to be, that though we can do nothing to break this bitter bondage, God, who forced the foe of Israel to relax Iris voracious grasp, will by his own means force freedom for us from every interference of our spiritual foe. It was Pharaoh’s sad prerogative to shut his own heart, to shut it persistently, to shut it for ever, against the authority and benedictions of Jehovah. But no one, though he be as mighty and arrogant as a thousand Pharaohs, can fasten us up from God, if so be we are willing to go to him, from whom alone we can gain a pure and eternal life.—Y. Exodus 5:6-9 Rulers are not always content simply to refuse inconvenient demands. Sometimes they set to work with much ingenuity and worldly wisdom to prevent their repetition. This is especially the case where they entertain a fear of their petitioners. The Spartans removed Helots, who had earned their freedom, by the Crypteia. The massacre of St. Bartholomew was caused by the Huguenot demand for freedom of worship and the difficulty of repressing it. The Pharaoh now is not content to let things take their course, but devises a plan by which he hopes to crush altogether the aspirations of the Hebrew people, and secure himself against the recurrence of any such appeal as that which had been made to him by Moses and Aaron. The Israelites had recently been employed chiefly in brickmaking. They had had to dig the clay and temper it, to mix it with straw, and mould it into the form of bricks; but the straw had been supplied to them. The king determined that this should be no longer done; the Israelites should find the straw for themselves. It has been estimated that by this change their labour was "more than doubled." (Canon Cook.) It was a not unreasonable expectation that under this system popular meetings would cease (Exodus 5:9); and that Moses and Aaron, not being backed up by the voice of the people, would discontinue their agitation. Exodus 5:6 The same day. Pharaoh lost no time. Having conceived his idea, he issued his order at once-on the very day of the interview with the two leaders. It would be well if the children of light were as "wise" and as energetic on all occasions as the children of darkness. Taskmasters and officers. The word translated "taskmaster" here is not the same as the expression similarly rendered in Exodus 1:11; and it is thought not to designate the same class. The sarey massim of the former passage are thought to be general superintendents of works, few in number and of high rank, the nogeshim of the present place to be subordinates, numerous and inferior in position. Both of these classes were probably Egyptians. The "officers" (shoterim) were undoubtedly Hebrews. They were especially employed in keeping the tale of the bricks, and seeing that they reached the proper amount. Literally, the word shoterim means "scribes," and is so rendered in most passages. Exodus 5:7 Straw to make brick. Straw was used in Egypt to bind together the clay, or mud, which was, of course, the main material of the bricks. , to raise crops of cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Numbers 11:5), to catch fish (ibid.), and attend public meetings (Exodus 4:30, Exodus 4:31). They had, in fact, had time which they could call their own. Now this was to be so no more. The Pharaoh, however, misrepresents and exaggerates, speaking as if their forced labours had been a mere nothing, and mere want of occupation had led them to raise the cry—"Let us go and sacrifice." It would have been far nearer the truth to say, that the severity and continuousness of their labours had made the notion of festival time, during which they would cease from their toils, generally popular. Exodus 5:9 Let there more work be laid upon the men. Rather, as in the margin, "Let the work be heavy upon the men." Let the tasks set them be such as to occupy all their time, and not leave them any spare moments in which they may be tempted to listen to mischievous talkers, like Moses and Aaron) who flatter them with vain (literally, lying, words. Pharaoh, no doubt, imagined that the hopes raised by the two brothers were vain and illusive. He was utterly blind as to the course which events were about to take. The picture of a tyrant-crafty, energetic, and unsparing. Scripture contains abundant portraitures, not only of good, but also of bad men, the Holy Spirit seeming to be as desirous of arousing our indignation against vice as our sympathy with virtue. Portraits are given us, as more effectual than precepts or general descriptions, appealing as they do to our feelings and imagination rather than to our intellect. The dramatic exhibition of a Pharaoh, an Ahab, a Sennacherib, a Judas Iscariot, is calculated at once to strike the soul and to remain indelibly impressed upon it. Here we have the portrait of a tyrant, characterised especially by three qualities— 1. Craft or cleverness; 2. Energy; and 3. Mercilessness. (1) Pharaoh’s craft is shown, first in the skilful way in which he "turns the tables" upon Moses and Aaron, stopping their mouths with the charge that they are "letting the people from their labours," and "endamaging the king." (See Ezra 4:13.) Secondly, it is shown in the rapidity and ingenuity of his thought—"More work must be laid upon the Israelites—let them be given no straw." Thirdly, it is shown further on in his attempts to secure the return of the Israelites by the detention of their children (Exodus 10:10) or of their cattle (Exodus 10:24). (2) Pharaoh’s energy appears in the immediate steps that he took to carry his plan out by giving orders for the withholding of the straw without any diminution in the tale of bricks, "the same day" (Exodus 5:6). Finally, (3) his mercilessness is seen, first, in his refusing a very moderato request (Exodus 5:1, Exodus 5:2); secondly, in his meeting the demand for a relaxation of labour by an addition to it; thirdly and especially, in his making such an addition as was impossible of performance, and involved a continued series of punishments (Exodus 5:14-21). Pharaoh did not perhaps know the exact amount of misery which he was inflicting; but he was reckless in respect to it—he did not care what it might cost; the sighs and the groans of a whole nation were as nothing to him; and he adds insult to injury by the reproach (Exodus 5:8 and Exodus 5:17)—"Ye are idle, ye are idle." Bricks without straw. The requirement of "bricks without straw" is not always made by a tyrannical king. All employers of labour who expect certain results without allowing sufficient time for them, and then complain that the work is scamped, are guilty of it. So is the father who expects his son to turn out a great scholar, without giving him the necessary books and the necessary instruction to make him one. So is the mistress who scolds her cook for not sending up a first-rate dinner, yet grudges every penny for the kitchen expenses. There are congregations which demand perpetual sermons of a high quality, yet do not either provide their pastors with sufficient money to buy books, or allow them sufficient leisure time for reading them. There are incumbents who act similarly by their curates, mercantile men who, mutatis mutandis, act so by their clerks, officials of all kinds who so treat their subordinates. The demand for bricks without straw is, unfortunately, far too common a demand. Let this note be set against it, that it is Pharaonic and tyrannical. Vain words. There can be no doubt that "vain words" are unworthy of attention, deserve contempt, are foolish, unjustifiable. But what are "vain words’? What is the test whereby we are to know whether words are vain or not? Simply, the issue of them. Pharaoh thought that the promises of deliverance wherewith Moses and Aaron had excited the people were "vain words." Sennacherib described similarly the words of trust and confidence in God uttered by Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:20). The Athenians thought the same of St Paul’s words concerning the resurrection (Acts 17:32). But we know that, in none of these cases, were the words uttered "vain." The event justified or will justify them. When words then are uttered by any grave authority, especially if they are uttered in the name of God, we should hesitate to call them "vain." We should await the end. Full often, what the scoffer has called "vain words" turn out "words of truth and soberness"—words which tell with terrible force against those who have despised and rejected them—words which to have heard and despised is condemnation in the sight of the Almighty. BY J. ORR Exodus 5:4-10 Increased cruelty. View Pharaoh’s conduct as illustrative— I. OF THE VIEW WHICH A WORLDLY MAN TAXES OF . "Ye are idle" (Exodus 5:8). This way of putting the matter was partly a pretext—a tyrant’s excuse for adding to burdens already sufficiently heavy; but it had so far a ground in Pharaoh’s real way of viewing things, that he doubtless regarded the desire to go and sacrifice as an idle, foolish notion, one which would not have come into the people’s heads had they been worked hard enough, and which it was his interest to drive out again as soon as possible. Observe in this— 1. A total incapacity to understand the origin of religious aspirations. Pharaoh had no better account to give of them than that they sprang from idleness. They were the fruit of a roving, unsettled disposition. The cure for them was harder work. This is precisely how the world looks on religion. It is the unpractical dream of people whose working faculties are not in sufficiently vigorous exercise. Of a true thirsting of the soul for God the world has not the slightest comprehension. 2. A total want of sympathy with these aspirations. Indulgence in them would be idling—a foolish and profitless waste of time. It is not idling to watch the markets, to speculate on stock, to read novels, to attend the Derby, to run to theatres, to spend evenings in the ball-room, to hunt, fish, shoot, or travel on the Continent, to waste hours in society gossip; but it would be idling to pray, or worship God, or engage in Christian work, or attend to the interests of the soul. To snatch an hour from business to attend a prayer-meeting would be reckoned egregious folly, and as little are the hours at one’s disposal when business is over to be spent in such "foolishness." Even the Sabbath, so far as it cannot be utilised for pleasure, is deemed a day "wasted "—a weariness (Amos 8:6; Malachi 2:13). 3. A total disregard of the rights of others in connection with these aspirations. Thoroughgoing men of the world neither take pains to conceal their own contempt for religion ("vain words," Exodus 5:9), nor trouble themselves with any scruples as to the rights of others. They will, without hesitation, take from the religiously-disposed their opportunities of serving God, if these stand in the way of their own interests. Gladly, had they the power, would they turn the Sabbath into a work-day for the many that it might become (as on the Continent) a play-day for the few. Their own domestics and workpeople are over-driven, and unscrupulously deprived of Sabbath and sanctuary privileges. Where even the plea of humanity is disregarded, the plea of religion is not likely to be allowed much weight. II. OF THE ALARMS FELT BY A TYRANT AT THE OF FREE IN THE OF HIS TYRANNY. Pharaoh shrewdly foresaw the consequences of a further spread of these new-fangled ideas among the people. The request to go and sacrifice would not be long in being followed by a demand for freedom. Despotism and the spirit of liberty cannot coalesce. The tyrant knows that his power is put in peril the moment people begin to think for themselves—to cherish dreams of freedom—to be moved by religious enthusiasms. His rule can only be maintained at the cost of the extinction in his subjects of the last vestige of mental and spiritual independence. If a spiritual movement like this which sprang up in Israel begins to show itself, it must be stamped out at once, and at whatever cost of suffering and bloodshed. Whatever tends to produce such movements is looked on with hostility. This applies to all kinds of despotisms—civil, ecclesiastical, industrial, social. Hence, under despotic governments, the gagging of the press, suppression of free institutions, restriction of liberty of speech, ostracism of men of public spirit, and opposition to progress and to liberal ideas generally. Hence the antagonism of the Roman Church to learning and science, with the baleful effects which have followed from that antagonism in countries where her influence is supreme (see Laveleye on ’Protestantism and Catholicism in their Bearings upon the Liberty and Prosperity of Nations’; and histories of the Reformation in Spain and Italy). "It has been wittily said, that in Madrid, provided you avoid saying anything concerning government, or religion, or politics, or morals, or statesmen, or bodies of reputation, or the opera, or any other public amusement, or any one who is engaged in any business, you may print what you please, under correction of two or three censors’ (McCrie). Hence the antipathy of the slave-drivers of industry—those who grind the faces of the poor, making their profit out of their poverty and helplessness—to the diffusion of intelligence among the masses. Hence, in slave-holding countries, the laws against teaching slaves to read, etc. The-slave-holder cannot afford to encourage the spread of intelligence, of anything which will enable his slave to realise his manhood. But tyranny of this kind is self-condemned. 1. As unnatural. It requires the extinction and suppression of everything noble and good in human nature. It sets itself in opposition to intelligence, freedom, progress, religion, and all holy and spiritual aspirations. 2. As inhuman. In consolidating its dominion, it stoops to perpetrate the grossest cruelties. Think of the work of the Inquisition! Think of the blood that has been shed on the shrine of civil liberty! Think of the George Harrises of slavery! "What business had his slave to be marching round the country, inventing machines, and holding up his head among gentlemen? He’d soon put a stop to it. He’d take him back, and put him to hoeing and digging, and see if he’d step about so smart?" (’Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’) See also, 3. Its weakness. Tyranny of this kind cannot endure. Under the influence of ideas from without, a mental and moral awakening is certain to come some day, and the tyrant’s power is doomed. III. OF THE CRUELTY OF WHICH MEN GET TO BE CAPABLE IN THE PURSUIT OF ENDS: Exodus 5:6-9. Pharaoh was determined to keep the Hebrews in slavery; and so, to suppress this new spirit of discontent which had broken out among them, he must heat their furnace sevenfold, and heap cruelty on cruelty. He may have urged the plea of state necessity, and justified himself by the reflection that less severe measures would not have served his purpose—that he was driven to cruelty by the logic of events. A vain plea in any case, and one which only a heart rendered callous by a long course of inhumanity could have brought itself to entertain. Yet Pharaoh was thus far right, that, once a career of iniquity has been entered upon, events take the matter out of the sinner’s hands, and leave him no alternative but either to abandon his evil courses, or be driven on from one cruelty to a worse. And, contemporaneously with the movement of events, there is going on a hardening of the heart, which makes the cruelty possible. It is wonderful what pitiless deeds men get to be capable of, who have others in their power, and who acknowledge no higher law than their own interests. We have only to recall the iniquities of the slave-trade, connived at by many of our most respectable merchants; the inhumanities attendant on the employment of women and young children in mines and factories, as brought to light by Parliamentary Commissions; the former semi-brutal condition of agricultural labourers; the underpaying of needle-women; the horrors of the "sweating system;" the instances of cruelty and rapacity exhibited in the emigration trade, which are described as "among the most atrocious that have ever disgraced human nature" (Chambers’s ’Encyc.’); the reckless disregard of the lives of sailors in their being sent to sea in heavily laden and untrustworthy ships (Plimsoll)—to see how far, even in a civilised country, the thirst of gain will carry men, under circumstances where they can count upon impunity, and evade the censure of public opinion. A Pharaoh could hardly do worse. "Small manufacturers, working with insufficient capital, and in times of depression not having the wherewith to meet their engagements, are often obliged to become dependants on the wholesale houses with which they deal; and are then cruelly taken advantage of … He (the manufacturer) is obliged to work at the wholesaler’s terms, and ruin almost certainly follows … As was said to us by one of the larger silk-hosiers, who had watched the destruction of many of his smaller brethren—’They may be spared for a while as a cat spares a mouse; but they are sure to be eaten up in the end … "We read that in Hindostan, the ryots, when crops fall short, borrow from the Jews to buy seed, and once in their clutches are doomed. It seems that our commercial world can furnish parallels" (H. Spencer). Learn: 1. To avoid the beginning of a course of injustice. 2. To guard against the hardening of the heart by cruelty. 3. To have an open ear to the cry of the oppressed, and a readiness to support every righteous measure for their protection and relief. 4. See in Pharaoh’s tyranny an image of the pitiless tyranny of Satan. He, too, is absolutely merciless in the power he obtains over us. His service is one which grows increasingly more rigorous. He, too, would have us make bricks without straw, driving us on by our lusts and passions in pursuit of ends impossible (in his service) of attainment. More acute than Pharaoh, be gets the sinner himself to believe that it is "idle" to sacrifice to God, and by this means lures him to his service, where he soon binds him in chains more terrible and galling than any which earthly tyrant ever put upon his slaves.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 5:6-14 The increase of trouble for God’s people no proof of the failure of his purpose. I. THE DEMANDS OF GOD PROVOKE THE WRATH OF THE UNGODLY. The mad persistence of Pharaoh in his injustice is marked— 1. In his haste: his commands were issued "the same day." 2. In the severity of the decree: they should find their own straw, and yet deliver the same number of bricks. 3. In his determination to have his commands obeyed. It is not meant to be an idle threat: the overseers are "straitly charged." When God’s word is resisted the soul is inflamed to greater evil. The unregenerate spirit is the same everywhere. God’s claim has only to be pressed home to be repelled in the same fashion. II. THE WAY TO LIES THROUGH DEEPER TROUBLE. Israel’s case was now harder than it was before (Exodus 5:11-14), and solely because God had arisen to fight for them: but it was the last struggle of a doomed foe. It is thus— 1. In the Church’s struggle with the world of unbelief: God’s message is met with scorn, repression, and opposition of science falsely so called. But these shall vanish away like smoke, and their utterances and deeds will at last be the monuments of their infamy. 2. In the contest with the dominion of sin in the soul. The might of sin is felt most when the Spirit’s call is first heard; but God has said, "Let my people go," and the wrath of the enemy will soon be swallowed up in his destruction. 3. In the breaking of the yoke of death. When God’s call is heard, "Come up higher," we wrestle in pain and mortal weakness with the dread adversary. He seems to triumph. But the last tie that bound us is broken, and we bid an eternal farewell to the bondage and the grief.—U. Exodus 5:10-14 The command of Pharaoh gone forth—no straw was to be provided for the Israelites, they were themselves to gather straw. The taskmasters could not soften the edict; they could only promulgate it (Exodus 5:10, Exodus 5:11). And the Israelites could only choose between rebelling and endeavouring to obey. To rebel seemed hopeless; Moses and Aaron did not advise rebellion, and so the attempt was made to carry out Pharaoh’s behest (Exodus 5:12). But experience proved that obedience to it was impossible. Though the people did their best, and the native officers set over them did their best, and the Egyptian taskmasters hurried them on as much as possible (Exodus 5:13), the result was that the tale of bricks fell short. Then, according to a barbarous practice said to be even now not unknown in Egypt (Kalisch), the native officers who Had not delivered in the appointed "tale of bricks" were bastinadoed, suffering agonies for no fault of their own (Exodus 5:16), but because the people Had been set an impossible task. Exodus 5:10 The taskmasters … went out, i.e. quitted the royal palace to which they Had been summoned (Exodus 5:6), and proceeded to the places where the people worked. The vicinity of Zoan was probably one great brickfield. Thus saith Pharaoh. The exact words of Pharaoh. (Exodus 5:7) are not repeated, but modified, according to men’s ordinary practice in similar cases. Exodus 5:11 Get you straw where ye can find it. Straw was not valued in Egypt. Reaping was effected either by gathering the ears, or by cutting the stalks of the corn at a short distance below the heads; and the straw was then left almost entirely upon the ground. Grass was so plentiful that it was not required for fodder, and there was no employment of it as litter in farmyards. Thus abundance of straw could be gathered in the cornfields after harvest; and as there were many harvests, some sort of straw was probably obtainable in the Delta at almost all seasons of the year. To collect it, however, and chop it small, as required in brickmaking, consumed much time, and left too little for the actual making of the bricks. Exodus 5:12 The people were mattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt. The expression used is hyperbolical, and not to be understood literally. A tolerably wide dispersion over the central and eastern portions of the Delta is probably intended. Stubble instead of straw. Rather, "stubble for the straw." Teben, the word translated straw, seems to he properly "chopped straw" (stramenta minutim concisa, Cook). The Israelites, who had been accustomed to have this provided for them, gathered now long stalks of stubble in the fields, which they had subsequently to make into teben by chopping it into short bits. Exodus 5:13, Exodus 5:14 The taskmasters hasted them. The Egyptian overseers, armed with rods, went about among the toiling Israelites continually, and "hasted them" by dealing out blows freely on all who made any pause in their work. The unceasing toil lasted from morning to night; yet still the required" tale" could not be produced; and consequently the native officers, whose business it was to produce the "tale," were punished by the bastinado at the close of the day not giving in the proper amount. Kalisch observes—"Even now the Arabic fellahs, whose position is very analogous to that of the Israelites described in our text, are treated by the Turks in the same manner. Arabic overseers have to give an account of the labours of their countrymen to the Turkish taskmasters, who often chastise them mercilessly for the real or imputed of. fences of the Arabic workmen." A blind obedience to the commands of tyrants not laudable. The Egyptian taskmasters seem to have carried out their monarch’s orders to the full, if not with inward satisfaction, at any rate without visible repugnance. They published abroad the orders given without in any way softening them (Exodus 5:10, Exodus 5:11), harassed the Israeli people all day long by "hasting them" (Exodus 5:13), and bastinadoed the Israelite officers at night (Exodus 5:14). How different their conduct from that of the midwives, when another Pharaoh sought to make them the instruments of his cruelty! Weak women defied the tyrant and disobeyed his commands. Strong sturdy men were content to be his slavish tools and accomplices. But so it is often. "Out of weakness God perfects strength." He "makes the weak things of the world to confound the strong" And the consequence is, that the weak, who show themselves strong, obtain his approval and the enduring praise of men, like the midwives; while the strong, who show themselves weak, are condemned by him, and covered with everlasting obloquy, like these taskmasters. Exodus 5:14 Vicarious suffering. Vicarious suffering is a blessed thing only when undergone voluntarily. In all other cases it is unjust, oppressive, cruel At the English court under the early Stuarts there was a boy who had to receive all the punishments deserved by the heir-apparent. This was a piece of detestable tyranny. The execution of children for the offences of their parents, which prevailed under the judges (Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25) and the kings of Israel (2 Kings 9:26) was still worse; and bad not even the show of justice about it, since it was not accepted in lieu of the parents’ suffering, but was additional to it. The Oriental system of punishing "head men" for any offence or default of. those under their jurisdiction, goes on the idea that they can and ought to prevent such sins of commission or omission. But this idea is not in accord with facts. Frequently they cannot; sometimes they neither can nor ought. In all such cases the punishment inflicted is an injustice; and the system itself must consequently be regarded as no better than an organised and licensed tyranny. Yet large tracts of Asia and Africa groan under it. "How long, O Lord, how long?" BY J. ORR Exodus 5:10-15 Bricks without straw. Tyrants seldom lack subordinates, as cruel as themselves, to execute their hateful mandates. Not only are these subordinates generally ready to curry favour with their lord by executing his orders with punctilious rigour, but, when they get to know that particular persons are in disfavour, they find a positive delight in bullying and insulting the unhappy victims, and in subjecting them to every species of vexatious interference. The callous taskmasters entered heartily into Pharaoh’s plans—withheld from the Israelites the straw, while requiring of them the full tale of bricks, and then mercilessly beating the officers for failing to get the people to accomplish the impossible. View in their behaviour— I. A PICTURE OF THE NOT OF MAN BY HIS FELLOW-MAN. Society abounds in tyrants, who, like Pharaoh’s taskmasters— 1. Demand the unreasonable. 2. Expect the impossible. And the unreasonable in extreme cases is one with the impossible. 3. Are insolent and violent in enforcing their unreasonable demands. The workman, e.g; is scolded because he cannot, in a given time, produce work of given quantity and quality, though production to the extent required is shown to involve a physical impossibility. The public servant is abused because he has not wrought miracles in his particular department, though perhaps he has received neither the material nor the moral support to which he was entitled. The clergyman is blamed for deficiency in pulpit power, while endless calls are made upon him for work of other kinds, which dissipate his energies, and eat into his time for study. The wife is rated by her husband, because comforts and luxuries are not forthcoming, which his wasteful expenditure in other directions prevents her from obtaining. With like unreasonableness, buyers in commercial houses are rated because, they cannot buy, and sellers because they cannot sell; and it is broadly hinted to the latter that if means are not discovered for effecting sales, and disposing of perhaps worthless goods, the penalty will be dismissal. And there are worse tyrannies behind. Most iniquitous of all is the system of exacting work from the necessitous, which imposes an unnatural and injurious strain upon their bodily and mental powers, while renumerating it by a pittance barely sufficient to keep soul and body together. The straw of which these bricks are made is the flesh and blood of living human beings—the fibre of despairing hearts. In short, bricks without straw are asked wherever work is required which overtaxes the strength and capability of those from whom it is sought, or where the time, means, or assistance necessary for accomplishing it is denied. To rage, scold, threaten, or punish, because feats which border on the impossible are not accomplished, is simply to play over again the part of Pharaoh’s taskmasters. II. A TO THE WHICH MAN FROM GOD. Unbelief and slothfulness, indeed, would fain persuade us of the opposite. Their voice is, "I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown," etc. (Matthew 25:24). And it may be pleaded in support of this that God’s demands in respect of obedience go far beyond the sinner’s powers. He inherits a depraved nature, yet he is held guilty for its actings, and the demand stands unchanged, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," etc. (Deuteronomy 6:5). The standard by which he is judged is that of absolute holiness, while yet it is admitted that he is naturally incapable of a single holy thought or resolve. But in this way of putting matters various things are forgotten. 1. The law of duty is a fixed quantity, and even God, by an act of will, cannot remove a sinner from under its obligations. 2. There is an obvious distinction between natural and moral inability. The hardened thief cannot plead his incorrigible thievishness as an excuse for non-fulfilment of the duties of honesty. It is his sin that he is thievish. 3. Depraved beings are condemned for being what they are (evil-disposed, cruel, lustful, selfish, etc.), and for the bad things which they do, not for the good things which they ought to do, but are now incapable of doing. The devil, e.g; is condemned because he is a devil, and acts devilishly; not because it is still expected of him that he will love God with all his heart, etc; and because he fails to do this. But the true answer, as respects God’s treatment of mankind, is a very different one. The sinner is not to be allowed to forget that if he has fallen and destroyed himself, God has brought him help. The very God against whom he has sinned desires his recovery, and has provided for it. He has made provision in Christ for the atonement (covering) of his sins. He asks nothing from him of a spiritual nature which his grace is not promised to enable him to accomplish. God presents himself in the Gospel, not as the sinner’s exacting taskmaster, but as his friend and Saviour, ready, however multiplied and aggravated his offences—though they be as scarlet and red like crimson—to make them as the snow and wool (Isaiah 1:18). True, the sinner cannot renew his own heart, but surely he is answerable for the response he makes to the outward word, and to the teachings and drawings of the Spirit, who, given his submission, will willingly renew it for him. True also he cannot, even in the gracious state, render perfect obedience, but over and against this is to be put the truth that perfect obedience is not required of any in order to justification, and that, if only he is faithful, his imperfections will, for Christ’s sake, be graciously forgiven him. And the same just and gracious principles rule in God’s actings with his servants. Service is accepted "according to what a man hath, and not according to that he hath not’ (2 Corinthians 8:12). No making bricks without straw here. The servant with the two talents is held only responsible for the two, not for five (Matthew 25:23). Justice, tempered by grace, is the rule for all.—J.O. Exodus 5:15-19 Smarting under the sense of injustice, the Israelite officers "came and cried to Pharaoh" (Exodus 5:15), supposing that he could not have intended such manifest unfairness and cruelty. They were conscious to themselves of having done their utmost, and of having failed simply because the thing required was impossible. Surely the king would understand this, if they pointed it out, and would either allow straw as before, or diminish the number of the bricks. But the king had no desire for justice, and did not even pretend to it. He asked for no particulars, ordered no inquiry into the ground of complaint; but turned upon the complainants with the cuckoo cry—"Idle, idle yourselves—else ye had no time to come here; go, work—go, work." Then the officers felt that they were indeed "in evil case" (Exodus 5:19)—the king was determined not to do justice—no hope remained—they must be beaten again and again, until they died of the punishment (Exodus 5:21). Exodus 5:15 Came and cried. The shrill "cry" of Orientals when making complaint has often been noticed by travellers, and is probably here alluded to. To Pharaoh. See the "Introductory paragraph" at the beginning of the chapter, where it has been noticed that complainants had free access to the presence of Egyptian kings. Exodus 5:16 They say to us. Or, "they keep saying to us." The participle is used, which implies continuance or repetition. The fruit is in thine own people. Literally, "Thine own people is in fault," or "sins." Exodus 5:17 Ye are idle, etc. Compare Exodus 5:8. Pharaoh is evidently pleased with his "happy thought." It seems to him clever, witty, humorous, to tax overworked people with idleness; and equally clever to say to religious people—"Your religion is a mere pretence. You do not want to worship. You want a holiday." We may remark further that idleness and hypocrisy were two sins of the deepest dye, according to Egyptian notions. Exodus 5:18 Go therefore now and work—i.e. "Off with you to the brickfields at once, and get to your own special work of superintendence, which you are neglecting so long as you remain here. It is useless to remain. I reject both of your requests. Straw shall not be given; and the tale of bricks required shall be no less." Exodus 5:19 The officers … did see that they were in evil case. See the "Introductory paragraph" to this section, and comp. Exodus 5:21. Exodus 5:15-18 A wicked man’s persistence in wrong-doing. Pharaoh when he first gave the order to withhold straw (Exodus 5:7), may not have known the amount of misery he was causing. He may have meant no more than to give the people full occupation, and so prevent such gatherings as that from which Moses and Aaron had come (Exodus 4:29-31), when they appeared before him with their demands. He may not have realised to himself the idea that he was setting his bondsmen an impossible task. But now this fact was brought home to him, and he was asked, as a matter of simple justice, either to let straw be furnished as before, or to allow some diminution in the number of the bricks. It can scarcely be doubted that he knew and felt the demand made to be just. There were the officers before him with the wheals upon their backs. Would they have incurred the severe punishment, could they by any possibility have avoided it? Pharaoh must have known that they would not. But he would not relent. As he had begun, he would continue. He had been mere cruel than he meant; but he did not care—it was only Hebrews and bondsmen who had suffered; what mattered their agonies? So he dismisses the complainants with jeers and scoffs: "Ye are idle, ye are hypocrites; go, work." So bad men almost always go on from bad to worse by a "facile descent;" severity deepens into cruelty, unkindness into injustice, religious indifference into impiety. Stop, then, the beginnings of wrong-doing. Principiis obsta. Crush the nascent germs of vice in thy heart, O man! Master them, or they will master thee! Sufferings, even at the hand of lawful authorities, not always deserved. "Thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people." Punishment often visits the wrong back. Kings commit injuries or follies, and their subjects suffer. Employers are greedy of gain, and their "hands" must work overtime, go without sleep, trench on the Sunday rest. Wholesale tradesmen adulterate goods, and retail traders are blamed and lose custom. Justice itself is often at fault, and punishes the wrong person—sometimes by a mere mistake, as when the wrong man is hanged for a murder; but sometimes also through a defect in the law itself which judges have to administer; as when Christians were delivered to the wild beasts for not sacrificing to the divinity of the emperor, or Protestants were burnt at the stake for denying transubstantiation. It is not to be assumed that the law is always right. The law of any country at any time is only the expression of the will of those who are in authority at the time, and has no more divinity or sacredness about it than they have. Those who transgress the law will, of course, be punished for it; but that fact proves nothing as to their good- or ill-desert. The greatest benefactors of mankind have had to set human law at defiance, and to endure its penalties. Their answer to the authorities who persecute them might constantly be, "Thy servants are beaten, but the fault is in thine own people." BY J. ORR Exodus 5:15-20 Unheeded expostulation. Pharaoh’s treatment of the officers of the children of Israel, when they appeared before him to expostulate with him on his cruelty, betrays his consciousness of the injustice of his cause. I. AN UNJUST CAUSE BETRAYS ITSELF.— 1. By refusal to listen to reason. The Hebrews had reason on their side, and Pharaoh had not. And because he had not, and knew it, he would not hear them, would not enter into any argument with them. This is the sure mark of a weak cause. People are usually willing enough to defend any of their doings which they think defensible. But when causes are indefensible, and they know this, they do not care to have the light let in upon them. "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20). 2. By clutching at flimsy and trumped-up pretexts. "Ye are idle; ye are idle; therefore ye say," etc. (Exodus 5:17). Pharaoh knew as well as any that they were not idle, but it served his purpose to put forward this pretence. 3. By falling back in the end on the right of the strong hand (Exodus 5:16). This is the tyrant’s unfailing resort. If he cannot argue, he can compel. If he cannot justify his courses, he can fall back upon his power to enforce submission. His might is his right. Pharaoh had the power, and he meant to use it, so the Israelites might save themselves the trouble of expostulating. This sort of authority, resting on force, without support in righteousness or reason, is necessarily precarious. It can, in the nature of things, only last so long as the power to compel remains with it. No throne is so insecure as that propped up on bayonets. II. AN UNJUST CAUSE ADHERED TO AND — 1. Reacts injuriously upon the moral nature. The refusal to listen to expostulation was a new stage in Pharaoh’s hardening. Besides fortifying his determination to brook no interference in his courses, and strengthening the cruelty of his disposition—anew called into action by the increased oppression of the Hebrews—it necessarily reacted to deprive him of a fresh portion of his moral susceptibility. This is the Nemesis of sin; it leaves the sinner less susceptible with each new appeal that is resisted; it darkens while it indurates; not only strengthens him m evil courses, but increasingly disqualifies him for perceiving the truth and reasonableness of the dissuasives that are addressed to him. Pharaoh’s hardening still moves in the region of ordinary morals (see on Exodus 5:1-4). The first step in it was the recoil of his pride and wilfulness against what he knew to be the righteous demand of Moses and Aaron. Another step is the rejection of this righteous appeal. 2. Exposes the tyrant to the just judgment of God. The Hebrews were helpless to resist Pharaoh, but there was Another, whose question, "Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?" he would not be able so easily to set aside. God was keeping the account, and for all these things would yet call him to judgment (Ecclesiastes 11:9; Ecclesiastes 12:14); while the king’s temporary success in his ways, building him up in a presumptuous selfconfidence, and confirming him in his boast of superiority to Jehovah, was a further step in his hardening—a ripening for destruction. 3. Is a fresh call for God to interfere on behalf of the oppressed. This new wrong, instead of leading the Israelites to despair, should only have lent fresh vehemence to their prayers, for it gave them a new plea with which to urge their cause. "For shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry to him day and night, though he bear long with them" (Luke 18:7).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 5:4-18 Pharaoh’s first response: his answer in deed. Pharaoh has given a proud verbal refusal to the request of Moses: but he is not contented to stop with words. The first result, discouraging and discrediting of Moses’ application, is still further to increase burdens and hardships already scarcely tolerable. I. HOW THIS TO ISRAEL —that is, how it originated as far as Pharaoh’s part in it was concerned. It came through his utterly mistaken notions as to Moses and Israel. Pharaoh, as an alert politician, was bound to inquire how it was that Moses had been led to prefer this request; and he came to the conclusion that the people had too much leisure time—did their work far too easily—and thus left an opportunity for the success of any designing demagogue, such as he judged Moses to be. And, indeed, Pharaoh’s conjecture showed a very plausible appearance of shrewd insight into human nature. All such readers of this narrative as utterly disbelieve the reality of Divine intervention and supremacy in human affairs, will say that Pharaoh was not far wrong; whereas he was utterly wrong. Moses went into the presence of Pharaoh because the power of God constrained him. He would have gone anywhere to escape the task, if only he could have done it with safety and self-respect. Pharaoh little knew what a profound sense of unworthiness dwelt in the breast of Moses. Other feelings might come and go, mount to flow and sink to ebb; that remained, more penetrating and subduing the more he had to do with God, and the more he had to do with Israel Pharaoh was also utterly mistaken as to the people. The request for liberty had not come from them. They of their own accord and carnal judgment would never have thought of such a request. As soon might the helpless victim of a raging beast of prey turn to it with a real expectation of mercy. The prisoner may devise many plans of escape: but he would reckon it a mere provocative of more painful and stringent captivity, if he addressed to his gaoler a formal request for liberty. Pharaoh then, in his ignorance of God, proved ignorant and mistaken in the whole of his policy. Every view is mistaken, egregiously mistaken, that leaves out the thought of God as a living, intimate, ever-watchful Power. II. THAT ALL THIS CRUEL DID NOTHING AT ALL FOR PHARAOH. If it had done anything, however little, to delay the final disaster, it would have been something to say: but it did nothing at all He treated Moses as a mere politician, and Israel as being only in a state of incipient insurrection. If such had been the reality of things, then his policy, however damnable for its cruelty, would have merited at least this admission, that there was a real adaptation of means to ends. But Pharaoh was as yet utterly unconscious of his real enemy. His mind was in a state of darkness, deep as that outward darkness which later overspread his land. All his efforts, summed up and stated in the largest way, simply came to this—that he was making very bitter the temporal life of a fleeting generation. But he himself had not arrested by a single step the advance of a righteous and omnipotent God. Struggling against the visible Moses and the visible Israel, he knew nothing of how to resist the invisible God. A man may rage about, putting out all candles and lamps, leaving us for awhile in darkness, but he has not retarded the sunrise by even the minutest fragment of time. This is our glory and our comfort, if we have the spirit of Christ dwelling in us, that we are contending against one who has only carnal weapons. We are not allowed to take carnal weapons; they are of no use to us; and never should we forget that they are of no use to those who are against us. Pharaoh did not delay God’s liberating work; that work went on in all the majestic ease of its divinity, amid the smitings of the oppressor and the wailings of the oppressed. Making bricks without straw was mere child’s-play compared with the enterprise on which Pharaoh was now embarked. He might as well have gone out with the sword and spear against the pestilence and the famine, as against Israel with a mere increase of oppression and cruelty. III. THIS CRUELTY SHOWED THE NEED OF DIVINE . If Pharaoh was powerless to delay the advance of God, he was very powerful to shut out interference from any other quarter. Help in God, sure and sufficient help, but help only in God, was one of the great lessons which all these painful years were meant to teach Israel. Pharaoh had unmistakable power of the human, despotic, might-makes-right sort over Israel. As the inquisitor by an easy nod signifies to give the thumbscrew another turn, so Pharaoh had only to send out his royal wish, and all the taskmasters had Israel at once in fresh agony. And just so we have to be taught by a bitter experience that as Christ is a Saviour from sin, with all its fatal fruits, so he is the only Saviour. The first attempt at a real protest and resistance against sin brings out all its power. Though the sinner’s miseries do not begin when Christ the accredited deliverer makes his first approach in deliver, there is nevertheless a distinct accession to them. Christ cannot challenge the power of sin in any of us without rousing up into intense activity the evil already working in our breasts. Pharaoh was not really a more powerful ruler after the visit of Moses than he was before; but the disposition and power then became manifest. The hearts of the generation in the midst of which Christ lived and died were not of exceptional malignity or obduracy. The generation immediately before and the generation immediately after, would have treated him in exactly the same way. But it was necessary for him to draw out sin into a full revelation of its hideous potency, in order that it might be made perfectly clear that none but himself could deal with it. True, Pharaoh was glorying in what was only a fabric of delusions and a refuge of lies; but, frail though it was, no breath of man had strength enough to blow it down. None but God could make the effectual and dissipating storm to descend upon it.—Y. BY J. Verse 15-6:1 The troubled find consolation in God only. The three cries. I. ISRAEL’S WITH PHARAOH (15-19). They complain to him of the wrongs they suffer; but he who does not hear God will not listen to man. 1. It was reasonable to expect that their remonstrance might lead to redress. Pharaoh’s decree might have. been issued under momentary irritation. 2. They came with humility and modesty. They brought no railing accusation. They used no threats. They did not even make. a silent show of their strength. And yet the only outcome of their appeal is deeper grief, more utter hopelessness (19). They who have no hope but in man will find little to sustain them. II. THEIR OF MOSES AND AARON (20, 21). 1. They spoke truth. The demand, for liberty of worship had been seized by Pharaoh as a pretext for more oppressive measures. 2. They did not speak the whole truth. God and his purpose were kept out of sight. They were counted as nothing. How often is this done in our despondency and murmuring! 3. Their reproaches, though met by silence and grief equal to their own, brought no help to them. There is as little help in upbraiding friends for failure as in spreading their injustice before foes. III. MOSES’ CRY TO GOD. 1. He "returned to the Lord." He did not seek in unburden his soul even to Aaron. The first step to help is to seek God’s presence. 2. The holy boldness of his prayer. The grieved spirit is poured out. There is nothing kept back. God does not complain of our boldness, but of our restraining prayer before him. 3. God’s answer (Exodus 6:1). (1) This very failure shows God’s truth (Exodus 4:21). (2) God shall fight for them: "Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh." (3) Pharaoh’s wrath and power will serve only to make their deliverance perfect. He will "drive them out of his land." Israel found no consolation; Moses does.—U. Exodus 5:20, Exodus 5:21 On quitting the presence of Pharaoh, the officers of the Israelites, burning with the sense of the injustice done them, and deeply apprehensive with respect to their own future, found Moses and Aaron waiting in the precincts of the court to know the result of their application. It need cause no surprise that they poured out their pent-up indignation upon them. Were not Moses and Aaron the sole cause of the existing state of things? Did not the extreme affliction of the people, did not their own sufferings in the past, did not their apprehended sufferings in the future, originate wholly in the seductive words which the two brothers had addressed to them at the assembly of the people? (Exodus 4:29-31). Accordingly, they denounced, almost cursed their officious would-be deliverers (Exodus 5:21). "The Lord look upon you, and judge" between you and us, whether the blame of this whole matter does not lie upon you, its initiators—you have made us to be abhorred in the sight of Pharaoh, and of the Egyptians generally you have brought us into danger of our lives—the Lord judge you!" Exodus 5:20 Who stood in the way. Rather, "who waited to meet them." It was not accident, but design, that had brought the two brothers to the spot. They were as anxious as the officers to know what course Pharaoh would take—whether he would relax the burthens of the people or no—whether he would have compassion or the contrary. Exodus 5:21 They said unto them. The officers were too full of their wrongs to wait until questioned. They took the word, and, without relating the result of their interview, implied it. The Lord look upon you, and judge, they said, meaning "the Lord (Jehovah) consider your conduct, and judge it" not exactly, "condemn it and punish it" (Keil and Delitzsch)—but "pass sentence on it," "judge whether it has been right or not." We make this appeal because ye have at any rate done us a great injury—ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh. (Note the mixed metaphor, which shows- perhaps rather that "in the eyes" had lost its original meaning, and come to signify no more than "with" or "in respect of," than that the literal meaning of making a person’s savour to "stink" did not occur to the writer.) Nay, ye have done more—ye have put a sword in the hand of his servants to slay us. That is to say, "ye have armed them with a weapon wherewith we expect that they will take our lives." Either they will beat us to death—and death is a not infrequent result of a repeated employment of the bastinado—or when they find that punishment unavailing they will execute us as traitors. On the use of the bastinado as a punishment in Egypt, see Chabas, ’Melanges Egyptologiques,’ 3me serie, vol. 1. pp. 100-6. The servants of God liable to reproach from friends no less than enemies, Moses and Aaron had borne the reproaches and scoffs of Pharaoh (Exodus 5:4-8) without flinching. It was natural that an enemy should revile them. Pharaoh might tax them with idleness and insincerity in religion, if he pleased. The stab did not penetrate very deep, nor cause a very grievous smart. But when their brethren turned upon them and uttered reproaches, it was different. Then the wound went to the heart; the pain was bitter, scarce endurable. It made them misdoubt themselves. Had they really not acted for the best? Had they been self-seeking, or vainglorious, or reckless, or even injudicious? Such thoughts will always occur even to the best men, if on their plans seeming to have miscarried their friends reproach them. The best men best know their own frailty, and how easy it is for man to mar God’s work by his own imperfections. It requires a very brave soul to bear up against the reproaches of friends, especially when there seems to be a ground for them. The more careful therefore should friends be not to reproach God’s servants causelessly, or unless they can point out where they have been wrong. Actions are not to be always judged by their results, or, at any rate, not by their immediate results. Moses and Aaron had done quite right; they had obeyed God; they were bound to act as they had acted. It had not pleased God to give success to their efforts as yet. The officers should have had patience, should have prayed to God for relief, but should have forborne from reproaching the innocent. BY J. ORR Exodus 5:20-23 Murmuring and faith. The Israelites were naturally sorely disappointed at the issue of the interview with Pharaoh; and with the unreasonableness so often seen in those whose expectations have received a check, they turned on Moses and Aaron, and accused these innocent men of being the authors of their misfortune. Moses and Aaron themselves were almost as dumbfounded as their accusers at the turn events had taken; but one of them, at least, behaved with wisdom. The Israelites accused men: Moses took his complaint to God, and opened up to him all the soreness of his heart. This portion of the narrative suggests the following reflections:— I. GOD’S OFTEN ASSUMES AN ASPECT OF GREAT MYSTERY TO US. It did so to Moses and the Israelites (Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23). They had concluded that now that God had taken up their cause, their trials and sorrows were at an end; but in entertaining so comfortable a hope, they found they were deceived. The first step on the road to the promised deliverance had plunged them into a worse plight than ever. They had almost felt the breath of liberty on their cheeks, when suddenly their hopes are dashed from them, and the situation darkens till in its pitiless rigour it becomes well-nigh unendurable. So God’s providence is often to the godliest a sore and perplexing mystery. It is not merely that things are not going as we wish, or as fast as we expect—this need not surprise us, though oftentimes it does—but that Jehovah seems acting contrary to his own perfections, to his character, to his revealed purpose, to the promise on which he has encouraged us to trust. The wicked prosper; the righteous are afflicted (Psalms 37:1-40.; 73.). Prayers seem unanswered, and the hopes we had begun to cherish, the expectations we had built upon his Word, are bitterly disappointed. The race seems to the swift, and the battle to the strong of this world, while "waters of a full cup are wrung out" to the saints whom God has pledged himself to bless and to protect. This is what distresses us, and the distress is not surprising. II. THE MYSTERY WHICH MEETS US IN GOD’S ACTS AS A TEST OF . It drove Moses to prayer, but the multitude to murmurings and reproaches. As this storm burst over Israel, the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed (Luke 2:35). Doubters would curse themselves for trusting to one whom, they would declare, they had always suspected of deceiving them; the timid would be heard reiterating, "We told you it would come to this; we saw it from the first!" while the profane would break out into open blasphemies, and the superficial crowd—those who had been most carried away by the enthusiasm—would groan and weep in utter disconsolateness, and pour out rash accusations against Heaven and against Moses and Aaron, who had brought them into all this trouble. Yet with foolish inconsistency they would call on the God they were mistrusting to judge between them and the men who had brought to them his message (Exodus 5:21). Comp. Christian and Pliable at the Slough of Despond in ’Pilgrim’s Progress.’ Mystery in God’s providence, in itself a moral necessity and inevitable, is thus used by him for important ends in the testing and disciplining of character. It brings to light our weaknesses; sifts the chaff from the wheat; educates us to trust; convinces us of ignorance; disenchants us of illusive hopes; leads us to prayer and wrestling with God. Thus it prepares us for further discoveries of the Divine wisdom when the time comes for the veil being removed, and educates us for higher service. III. THE MYSTERY WHICH GOD’S ARISES FROM OUR PARTIAL AND OF HIS PLAN. Had God’s purpose been simply to get Israel out of Egypt in the easiest way possible, and with least cost of suffering to the people, the permission of this new cruelty would indeed have been inexplicable. But it is not in this way, or for such ends, or on these terms, that God Conducts the government of his world. The error of Israel lay in looking on this one little bit of an unfinished work, and in judging of it without reference to the whole design of which it was a part. For God’s purpose was not merely that the people should be delivered, but that they should be delivered in such a way, and with such accompaniments of power and judgment, as should illustriously glorify his own perfections, and print the memory of his goodness on their hearts for ever; while, as regards Pharaoh, his desire was to glorify his power upon him (Exodus 9:16), and make him an example to all after ages of the folly of resisting the Almighty. This being the end, it was obviously indispensable that events should not be unduly hastened, but allowed, as far as possible, to take a natural course. Time and scope must be given to Pharaoh to develop his real disposition, and the development must not be prematurely interfered with. The people must be led by a way they knew not, and in paths they had not known; the way chosen could not be the absolutely shortest, but must include many turnings and windings, and even seem at times to be bending backwards; but the end would be "to make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight" (Isaiah 42:16). And this is truly the explanation of all our difficulties with regard to Divine providence. It is not God who is at fault, but our own haste and shortsightedness, that perceive not all the ends he has in view, nor how wonderfully he is working towards those ends by the very circumstances which perplex and baffle us. We know but "in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). The thoughts of Infinite Wisdom cannot all be made plain to us. The little that is before us we see, but how much lies beyond which is involved in the hiding of his power! (Habakkuk 3:4.) Our walking must be "by faith;" not "by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 5:19-21 Thoughtless smiters of a brother in adversity. This whole chapter particularly abounds in illustrations of human ignorance and error. We have seen in what dense darkness was the mind of Pharaoh; and under what utter misapprehensions he multiplied the sorrows of Israel. Now we are introduced to the leaders of Israel, treating Moses with equal injustice, because they are not able to see the difference between the human instrument and the Divine hand that holds it. No more than Pharaoh can they pierce through Moses to the mighty God behind him. It says in Exodus 4:31, that when the people saw the signs they believed; here is conduct which shows for how little their faith counted. As soon as they were set to make bricks without straw, their faith utterly vanished. Yet surely the truth of God remained. Present human cruelty, let it press ever so hard, cannot alter past manifestations of Divine power. The God who gave his Son the parable of the Sower was prepared for such a lapse into unbelief on the part of his people. His signs were like the seeds which found no depth of earth; when persecution arose because of the message of Moses, the people were straightway offended. Consider— I. IN WHAT A STATE OF MIND MOSES WOULD BE WHEN THESE HIM. We know from his own language (Exodus 4:22, Exodus 4:23)what his state of mind was after the attack; but even before it he must have been a prey to deep grief and gloomy apprehensions. We may be sure that when these officers came upon him, they did not find proofs of indifference and carelessness in his face. lie must have been very popular just after he had wrought the signs; as popular as Jesus was after he had fed the five thousand. Aaron, doubtless, had been instructed by him to enlarge on the history of Abraham, IsaActs and Jacob, and bring out into the boldest relief the terms of the Divine promises. Thus the confidence and expectation of the people—a reception altogether beyond his hopes—would lift him also into a confidence and expectation all the more precious because of his previous despondency. And now, as he sees the condition of his brethren, that despondency is more painful than ever. No imagination of ours can exaggerate the perplexity and sadness into which Moses would be thrown. II. THUS WE ARE CALLED TO NOTICE THE OF MOSES’ TO HIS PAINFUL . He thought a great deal more upon their Sorrows than they did upon his. The grief of selfish people, in the reckless abandonment with which it speaks and acts, furnishes as painful evidence as we can find of the extent to which human nature has fallen from its first estate. It is a greedy, insatiable feeling. It is an awful thing to consider that the very concentration of our thoughts on our own sufferings makes us to increase the sufferings of others. Why, even when others are to blame, we might safely leave them to the observant, unforgetting God, to their own consciences, and to the ultimate harvest which every doer of wrong must reap; and very often they are not to blame at all. If only these smarting Israelites had been able, in a right spirit, to look at the heart of Moses, they would have seen occasion for supporting him with the greatest tenderness, gratitude, and patient endurance. What right had they to complain of Moses? lie had told them a coherent, straightforward story, given them the signs; and they, in return, had believed him for the very works’ sake. If there is any time when we should be slow to speak, it is in our sorrow. We do well then to be silent, until such times as God has purged out of our minds all selfish desires and groundless expectations. When all these are gone, and the truth which he alone can plant is also ripened, then we shall be able to say, "It was good for us to be afflicted;’ at present Israel said that it was bad—as bad as bad could be—and Moses was the convenient person on whom they could lay the blame. III. THESE HAD NOT INSIGHT ENOUGH TO LOOK BEYOND FIRST . They could not look through the pain of the present to a future which was only attainable through that present. Thus the disciples spoke in deep perplexity and disappointment concerning their missing Master as if he had vanished like a dream,, of the night. "We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel. So they spoke, not having appreciated his recent word, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." We shall do well to consider in every enterprise, that first consequences are very deceptive. When they bring hardship we must not, therefore, turn back; when they bring pleasure, we must not therefore conclude that still greater pleasures lie beyond. Israel had no right to make any assumptions whatever as to the first consequences of Moses’ visit to Pharaoh. The true and only safe position for Israel to take up was this: "Here are these signs; they are signs that Jehovah has sent Moses, and is with him; let us accept them in full and patient reliance." A man does not dispute the truth of the finger-post which points him into the right road, because soon after he has passed it he comes to a worse bit of travelling than any he has had before. There is a profound and admonitory generalisation in that way of indicating Christian experience which puts the Slough of Despond so early in the pilgrim’s journey: and if first consequences that bring hardship are to be mistrusted, surely we must be even more cautious when the first consequences are full of pleasure. Though we be told to remember our Creator in the days of our youth—his claims, his expectations, and his judgment-day—the danger is that we shall only too easily forget all this, and remember only that we are strong, ambitious, able to enjoy, and with abundant opportunities for enjoyment. We must always mistrust the mere pleasure of our senses; the pleasure of tastes and likings. Liking a thing is never a sufficient reason for doing it; disliking never a sufficient reason for refusing to do it. God appeals to our prudence, to our conscience, to our pity, to our fears, but never to our tastes. And. be it ever remembered, that there is one first consequence which never deceives nor disappoints those who put themselves in the way of it. Do that which is right in the sight of God, and there is an immediate and pure pleasure at the heart, which all the waves and. billows of adversity cannot wash away. For instance, we cannot believe for a moment that Moses regretted his compliance with the commands of Jehovah. They had been clear and imperative, steady and unrelaxing in their pressure on his conscience. The pain from the reproaches of Israel was bad enough; but it would have been a far worse pain, if he had sought to flee from the test of the burning bush, and, Jonah-like, bury himself with his sheep in the very depths of the wilderness.—Y. Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23 The two brothers made no reply to the words of the officers. Perhaps their hearts were too full for speech; perhaps they knew not what to say. Whatever faith they had, it did no doubt seem a hard thing that their interference, Divinely ordered as it was, should have produced as yet nothing but an aggravation of their misery to the Israelite people. They could not understand the course of the Divine action. God had warned them not to expect success at once (Exodus 3:19; Exodus 4:21); but he had said nothing of evil consequences following upon their first efforts. Thus we can well understand that the two brothers (and especially Moses, the more impetuous of them) were bitterly grieved and disappointed. They felt their cup of sorrow to be full—the reproaches of the officers made it overflow. Hence the bitterness of the complaint with which this chapter terminates, and which introduces the long series of precious promise, contained in the opening section of Exo 6:1-30. Exodus 5:22 Moses returned unto the Lord. We are not to understand that Moses had forsaken God and now "returned" to him but simply that in his trouble he had recourse to God, took his sorrow to the Throne of Grace, and poured it out before the Almighty A good example truly, and one which Christians in all their trials would do well to follow. Lord, wherefore, etc. The words, no doubt, are bold. They have been said to "approach to irreverence." But there are parallels to them, which have never been regarded as irreverent, in the Psalms: e.g. "O God, why hast thou cast us off for ever? Why does thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?" (Psalms 74:1) "How long wilt thou hide thyself? Where are thy former lovingkindnesses? Wherefore hast thou made all men for nought?" (Psalms 89:46-49), and the like. Kalisch seems right in saying that "the desponding complaint of Moses was not the result of disbelief or doubt, but the effort of a pious soul struggling after a deeper penetration into the mysteries of the Almighty." Exodus 5:23 He hath done evil to this people. See above, Exodus 5:7-9, and Exodus 5:14. Pharaoh had increased the burdens of the whole nation, and in this way "done evil" to them. He had also brought the punishment of scourging on a number of the chiefs. Neither hast thou delivered thy people at all. The promised deliverance (Exodus 3:8, Exodus 3:20) had not come—there was no sign of it—the people was suffering under a more cruel bondage than ever. The religious soul takes its griefs straight to God. When our hopes are disappointed, when matters fall out otherwise than as we wish, when our enemies resist us, and our friends load us with reproach, how sweet to have a safe refuge whither we may betake ourselves, even the besom of our most loving God! "Truly God is loving unto Israel." His hand may be slack, "as men count slackness;" but it is not crippled or paralysed—it is always "mighty to save." Worldlings take their difficulties and their troubles to counsellors whom they deem wise, or to friends whom they regard as powerful, or to subordinates whom they think to be crafty, but never to God. The religious soul’s first instinct in deep trouble is to seek solitude, to fly from man, and to pour out all its grief before the Lord. It will even venture, like Moses, to expostulate—to ask to be shown the reason why God has disappointed it and troubled it—to demand "Why is thy wrath so hot? ’ and "When wilt thou comfort me?" It does not doubt but that in the end all will be right, that God will do as he has promised; but it wants to be sustained, upheld, comforted as to the intermediate time—to be assured that God "has not forgotten to be gracious" that he is still nigh at hand, that he "will not leave it nor forsake it." OF MOSES, AND OF HIS MISSION. Exodus 6:1-8 The expostulation of Moses did not offend God. God gave him, in reply to it, a most gracious series of promises and assurances, well calculated to calm his fears, assuage his griefs, and comfort his heart; and he confirmed the whole to him by his name JEHOVAH, "the Only Existent," and therefore" the Eternal and Immutable." This name he had previously revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, as his peculiar name, and the one by which he would choose to be called (Exodus 3:13-15). He had also told him to proclaim this name to the people. This command is now repeated (Exodus 6:6) very solemnly; and with it are coupled the promises above alluded to. 1. That God would certainly bring the Israelites out of Egypt, despite the unwillingness of Pharaoh (Exodus 6:1 and Exodus 6:6), 2. That he would do this "with a stretched-out arm," and by means of "great judgments" (Exodus 6:6); 3. That he would keep the covenant which he had made with the patriarchs to give their descendants the laud of Canaan (Exodus 6:4) and would assuredly "bring in" the Israelites to that land, and "give it them for an heritage" (Exodus 6:8). Exodus 6:1 Now shalt thou see. There was encouragement in the very word "now." Moses’ complaint was, that God delayed his coming, would not show himself, was "slack concerning his promise." In reply he is told that there is to be no longer any delay—the work is just about to commence. "Now shalt thou see." With a strong hand shall he let them go. The "strong hand" is not Pharaoh’s, but God’s. "By means of my strong hand" (or "overpowering might") "laid upon him shall he be induced to let them go," and similarly with the other clause. Drive them out. This phrase well expresses the final anxiety of Pharaoh to be rid of the Israelites. (See Exodus 12:31, Exodus 12:22.) Exodus 6:2 And God spake. The promise of the first verse was, apparently, given first, and was quite distinct from all the others—perhaps separated from them by an interval of hours, or days. It was especially addressed to Moses. The rest was in the main (Exodus 6:6-8) a message to the people. I am the Lord. Or, "I am JEHOVAH." Compare Exodus 3:15, and note ad loc. Exodus 6:3 I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty. See Genesis 17:1 for the revelation of this name to Abraham, and Genesis 35:11 for its repetition to Jacob. We do not find the full name used by God in any appearance to Isaac; but IsaActs himself uses it in Genesis 28:3. By my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. The explanation of this passage is by no means easy. God himself, according to Genesis 15:7, revealed himself to Abraham as Jehovah before declaring his name to be El-Shaddai (God Almighty); and again revealed himself to Jacob as Jehovah-Elohim (Genesis 38:13). Abraham named the place where he had been about to sacrifice Isaac, "Jehovah-jireh" (Genesis 22:14). That Moses regarded the name as known even earlier, appears from Genesis 4:1. It was probably as old as language. The apparent meaning of the present passage cannot therefore be its true meaning. No writer would so contradict himself. Perhaps the true sense is, "I was known to them as a Being of might and power, not as mere absolute (and so eternal and immutable) existence." This meaning of the word, though its etymological and original meaning, may have been unknown to the patriarchs, who were not etymologists. It was first distinctly declared to Moses at Sinai (Exodus 3:14, Exodus 3:15). Exodus 6:4 I have established my covenant with them. Compare Genesis 15:18-21; Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:8; Genesis 26:3; Genesis 28:13. The land of Canaan, in a narrow acceptation, reached "from Sidon unto Gaza" (Genesis 10:19); in a wider sense it included the whole tract between "the river of Egypt (Wady-el-Arish) and the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18). It was this larger tract which was promised by God to Abraham. The land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. Literally, "the land of their sojourns wherein they sojourned." (So Kalisch.) It was by permission of the lords of the soil—the Canaaaites, Perizzites, Hittites, and others, that Abraham and his descendants dwelt in Canaan to the time of Jacob’s descent into Egypt. (See Genesis 12:6; Genesis 13:7; Genesis 23:7; Genesis 27:46, etc.) Exodus 6:5 I have also heard the groaning. Compare Exodus 2:24 and Exodus 3:9. The repetition is in consequence of Moses’ expostulation (Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23), and is to assure the Israelites that God has not forgotten them, but will sustain them under their afflictions, and will shortly deliver them. Exodus 6:6 Say unto the children of Israel. God felt for the disappointment which the people had suffered in finding no alleviation of their toils, but the reverse, after their hopes had been raised high by the words of Moses (Exodus 4:31). He therefore sent them an inspiriting and gracious message. "They should be rid of their bondage; they should be brought out; they should be redeemed and delivered by his mighty arm and miraculous intervention. He, Jehovah, had said it." Faith would lay hold on this assurance and cling to it, even though God still delayed his coming, and did not precipitate matters. A stretched-out arm. Arms are stretched out by men to help and save. An outstretched arm in the Egyptian writing meant "action." The phrase, elsewhere so common, is here used for the first time. (Compare, however, Exodus 3:20.) It was significant of active, energetic help. Great judgments. These had been previously hinted at (Exodus 3:20 and Exodus 4:22) but had not been previously called "judgments." Compare Genesis 15:14: "Also that nation whom they serve will I judge." The plagues of Egypt were not merely "wonders," but punishments inflicted on a proud and cruel nation by a Judge. Exodus 6:7, Exodus 6:8 The promises are continued, heaped one upon another. 1. God will take them for his own people. 2. He will be, in a special sense, their God. 3. They shall clearly know that it is he who brings them forth out of Egypt. 4. They shall be brought into the promised land. 5. The land shall be made over to them, and become their own inheritance. The Israelites were formally taken to be God’s people at Sinai (Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6); where, at the same time, he became (specially but not exclusively) their God (Exodus 20:1; Exodus 29:45, Exodus 29:40). They had evidence that it was he who brought them forth in the pillar of fire and of a cloud (Exodus 13:21; Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20, etc.). They were brought into the promised land by Joshua (Joshua 4:1), and given the full possession of it by him and his successors—the various judges and kings, until at last, under David and Solomon, they held the entire tract that had been promised to Abraham (see 1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chronicles 9:26). Exodus 6:8 The land which I did swear to give it to Abraham etc. See Genesis 22:16-18; Genesis 26:3, etc. The only formal oath is recorded in Genesis 22:16; but an oath is perhaps implied in every covenant between God and man. God’s faithfulness is pledged to the performance of the terms of the covenant on his part. I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord. Rather, "I will give it you for an heritage, I the Lord" (or "I Jehovah," or "I the Eternal One"). "You have the pledge of my Eternity and Immutability that it shall be yours." God’s condescension to a weak faith. As the Lord Jesus condescended to Thomas, and bade him "reach hither his finger and behold his hands, and reach hither his hand and thrust it into his side," so that he might be no longer "faithless, but believing"(John 20:27), so Jehovah now declared to Moses that, if he could not walk by faith, sight should be vouchsafed to him. "Now shalt thou see," etc. Human infirmity is so greet, man’s faith is so weak, the best are so liable to accesses of distrust and despondency, that, if God were extreme to mark what is in this way done amiss, few indeed would be those who could "abide it." Therefore, in his mercy, he condescends. Well for man could he breathe continually the higher, rarer, atmosphere of faith. But, if he cannot, yet has Godward aspirations, so that he takes his distrust and his despondency to God, as Moses did, God will in no wise cast him out. He will not "break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax." He will accept the imperfect service that is still service, and allow his servant to work in a lower sphere. Henceforth the faith of Moses was not much tried—he had soon sight to walk by. When once the series of plagues began, he could no longer ask, "Why is it that thou hast sent me?" He could see that the end was being advanced—the deliverance being extorted from the king—and that the day of final triumph was fast coming. Exodus 6:2, Exodus 6:3 God’s names and their importance. With men a name is simply a "mark of difference"—a mode of distinguishing one individual from another; and the particular name that a man bears is, generally speaking, a matter of the very slightest importance. But with God the case is otherwise. The names of God have always been among all men significant names. If their signification is clear, or generally known, then men’s views of the Supreme Being are vitally affected by the names under which they know him. Persons whose only name for God is Dyaus or Tien—"the heaven"—are not likely to be strongly apprehensive of the personality and spirituality of the Creator. If God is known as Ammon, the main idea of him will be, that he is a riddle and a mystery; if as Shaddai, that he is powerful; if as Mazda, that he is wise or bounteous. When monotheism is firmly established, it is well that God should be known by many names, as El, Elohim, Adonai, Eliun, Shaddai, Jehovah, because then his many and various attributes are better apprehended. If, however, God is to be known by one name only, or by one special name, while there is none more pure or lofty than Jehovah—"the Self-Existent "—there is none more tender and loving than our own English name, God—i.e. "the Good." Exodus 6:4-8 God a keeper of covenants. God is declared in Scripture to be one who "keepeth covenant and mercy, yea, to a thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9). He is ever faithful. He cannot lie. He is not a man that he should repent. The bow which he set in the cloud, when he covenanted with Noah that the waters should no more become a flood to destroy all flesh, is still there, and the promise of which it was the sign has been kept—there has come no repetition of the Flood, no second destruction of mankind by water. God has kept the covenant which he made with Israel at Sinai—first, on the side of promise, in giving them all the good things which he said he would give them; and then, on the side of threatening, in bringing upon them all the calamities which he said he would bring. With Christians, too, God enters into covenant at their baptism, promising them protection, spiritual aid, and eternal life in heaven, on their maintaining faith and repentance. This covenant, like his others, he will assuredly keep. Let them be but true to him, and they need have no fear but that he will be true to them. The Promised Land will be theirs—he will give it to them for an heritage—he, Jehovah! BY J. ORR Exodus 6:1-9 A Divine commentary on a Divine name. The antiquity of the name Jehovah, setting aside direct testimonies to its occurrence in earlier scriptures, is sufficiently proved by its etymology (from havah, an old—and, in the days of Moses, obsolete—form of the verb "to be"), and from its presence (in composition) in pre-Mosaic proper names (e.g. Exodus 6:20). It is absurd to press this passage in proof of the ignorance of the patriarchs of this name of God, when one observes— 1. That the context plainly relates to a commentary which God was about to give on this name in deeds. 2. That the name is not here announced, but is presupposed as known—"My name Jehovah." 3. That in Exodus 3:14-16, where it is announced, it is expressly referred to as a name of older date—God styling himself repeatedly, "Jehovah God of your fathers." The knowledge of God by this name in the present passage has obvious reference to a knowledge derived from manifestation of the attributes implied in the meaning of the name. I. "JEHOVAH" IN WITH "EL-SHADDAI" (Exodus 3:3). 1. El-Shaddai means, as translated, "God Almighty." It denotes in God the simple attribute of power—All-Mightiness—power exerted chiefly in the region of the natural life. 2. Jehovah, on the other hand, has a deeper and wider, an infinitely fuller and richer meaning. It denotes God as possessed of the perfections of the Absolute—self-identical and changeless because self-existent and eternal. God’s eternally what he is (Exodus 3:14)—the Being who is and remains one with himself in all he thinks, purposes, and does. This implies, together with immutability, the attribute of self-determining freedom, and that unlimited rule (dominion, sovereignty) in the worlds of matter and mind, which is of the essence of the conception of the Absolute. Hence such passages as these:—"I am Jehovah, I change not" (Malachi 3:6); "Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and in all. deep places" (Psalms 130:6); "Jehovah, he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath; there is none else" (Deuteronomy 4:39). Jehovah is, moreover, the God of gracious purpose. It is this which gave the name its depth of interest to the Hebrew bondsmen, who were not likely to be greatly influenced by purely ontological conceptions. The chosen sphere for the manifestation of the attributes denoted by these names of God was that marked out by the promises of the Covenant. El-Shaddai, e.g; while declaring the possession by God of the attribute of power in general, had immediate reference to the manifestations of power which God would give in the birth of Isaac, and in the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham of a numerous posterity (Genesis 16:1-7). It was power working in the interests of grace, in subserviency to love. The same is true of the name Jehovah. A view of God in his bare absoluteness would awaken only a speculative interest; but it is different when this self-existent, eternal Being is seen entering into history, and revealing himself as the God of compassionating love. Grace and mercy are felt to be no longer foreign to the meaning of the name, but to be as much a part of it as changelessness and freedom. This, accordingly, was what the name told to Israel; not simply that there was an Absolute, or even that he who had entered into covenant with the Fathers, and was now about to undertake their deliverance, was this absolute God; but rather, that it was in the work of their salvation that his perfections as Absolute were to be surprisingly and surpassingly exhibited. Their redemption was to be a chosen field for the manifestation of his Jehovah attributes. There would be given in it a discovery and demonstration of these surpassing everything that had hitherto been known. And was not this glorious comfort to a nation lying in darkness and the shadow of death! II. THE OF THIS . 1. God revealed as El-Shaddai (Exodus 3:3). God was made known as El-Shaddai in the birth of IsaActs (Romans 4:17-22), in the care exercised over the patriarchs in their wanderings (Genesis 28:15), in the provision made for their temporal necessities (Genesis 45:5-9), in the increase and preservation of the chosen race in Egypt (Exodus 1:7, Exodus 1:12, Exodus 1:20; Exodus 3:2). This name, however, was inadequate to express the richer aspects and relations of the Divine character brought to light in the Exodus, and in the subsequent experiences of the people. 2. The transition from El-Shaddai to Jehovah. Exodus 3:4-6 narrate the steps by which the way was prepared for the new and higher manifestation. The preparation involved— (1) The establishment of a covenant of promise (Exodus 3:4). If God is revealed as Jehovah when seen acting with unbounded freedom in fulfilment of a purpose, then it was necessary, in order that the freedom and sovereignty of the worker might be rendered completely manifest, that the purpose should be previously declared. Only on the basis of a previously declared purpose could the Jehovah attributes be conspicuously and conclusively displayed. (See interesting remarks on this in Bruce’s ’Chief End of Revelation’ Revelation 4:1-11.) (2) The development of a crisis in the situation of Israel (Exodus 3:5). This crisis was marked on the human side by the sufferings of Israel reaching a pitch of intensity which imperatively called for a Divine interposition; and on the Divine side, by God arousing himself, and determining himself to interfere on their behalf (Exodus 2:23-25). We have already seen that the bondage was not without Divine permission. We have traced it in— (1) A punishment for sins, (2) A trial of faith, and (3) A moral preparation. We have now to view in it a situation providentially prepared with the design of affording the tidiest possible scope for the display of the truth, grace, power, and all-embracing sovereignty of the great Being who was revealing himself in Israel’s history. 3. God revealed as Jehovah (Exodus 3:6-9). This revelation would embrace— (1) The deliverance of the people from the bondage and misery of Egypt, and this with great accompaniments of power and judgment (Exodus 3:6). (2) Their adoption by God as a people to himself (Exodus 3:7). (3) Their final settlement in Canaan, in fulfilment of promise (Exodus 3:8). By such deeds would God make it manifest that he was indeed Jehovah, their God. He would display his might; would demonstrate his supremacy as Moral Ruler; would magnify his covenant-keeping faithfulness; would reveal himself as the Living Personal God, working freely in history in pursuance of gracious purposes, and, in spite of all human opposition, bringing them to pass. Lessons:— 1. How wonderful to contemplate God in the majesty of his perfections as the Great I Am—the absolute and unconditioned Being! But what language will express the condescension and grace displayed in the stooping down of this absolute Being to enter into covenant engagements with man, even to the extent of binding himself with oaths to fulfil the promises given by his own free goodness. 2. The manifestation of the Jehovah attributes in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt has its higher counterpart in the discovery of them since made in the redemption of men from sin and Satan through Christ. Christ redeems us from sin’s burden and from Satan’s tyranny. He does this in virtue of the "stretched-out arm" and "mighty judgments" with which, while on earth, he overcame the Prince of the power of this world; himself also enduring the judgment of God in being "made sin for us," "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." By this atonement and victory, in the might of which he has now ascended on high, leading captivity captive, we, being reconciled to God, are formed into a people for his praise, and he becomes our God; the same power that redeemed us working in us to deliver us from sin in our members, and to prepare us for a heavenly inheritance; to which, as the goal of all God’s leading of us, the promises immovably point forward (Romans 8:1, Romans 8:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 4:8; Colossians 1:12-15; Colossians 2:15; 1 Peter 2:3-10; 1 Peter 2:9, 1 Peter 2:10).—J.O. Exodus 6:7 A rich promise. The promise is as rich as it is wonderful, and as wonderful as it is rich—"I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God." It includes— 1. The highest honour. Who speaks? The absolute God. To whom? A nation of bondsmen. Yet he says—"I will take you," etc. And he did it, even as he still takes sinners in Christ into union and fellowship with himself—adopting them as sons, admitting them to covenant, making them heirs, etc. 2. The highest privilege. All promise and all blessing, for time and for eternity, are wrapped up in this single but most comprehensive word—"I will be to you a God." 3. The most indissoluble of relations. It lasts through time, and extends into eternity, enduring as long as God and the soul and Christ endure, and that is for ever (cf. Matthew 22:31, Matthew 22:32).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG God encourages Moses in his despondency. We have here— I. MOSES THE OF JEHOVAH. Observe— 1. Moses in all his perplexity still acts upon the firm assurance that there is a Jehovah to resort to. "He returned unto the Lord." Neither the reproaches of the people nor his own disappointment made him at all to doubt that he was dealing with a glorious, awful, and Divine existence outside of himself. It seems just as much a matter of course for Moses to meet with Jehovah, as it had been for the Israelite officers to meet with Moses. This is one good result of all the discussion (for hardly any other term will sufficiently indicate it) which Moses has had with Jehovah concerning his own fitness. Every time God spoke he stood out before the mind of his servant more distinctly and impressively as a real existence. The troubled heart of Moses leads him here into a set of very ignorant questions; but these were a small evil compared with what might have happened, viz. a lapse into utter atheism. 2. Moses, like the Israelite officers makes the mistake of going by first consequences. He does not rebuke the officers for wrong expectations and hasty conclusions. By his language in approaching God, he admits to the full that these officers have reason for their reproaches. They have appealed to Jehovah as against Moses; Moses in turn can only appeal to Jehovah, not against them, but—to justify himself. How easy it is for a man, even though fully persuaded of God’s existence, to have utterly erroneous thoughts of his purposes and of his ways of working. Evidently it will need a gradual process—and not without temporary retrogressions—in order to lift Moses above such conceptions of deity as he had gained in Egypt and Midian, and by all his acquaintance with current idolatries. It is easier to remember the name I AM than to understand the thing signified by the name. 3. In particular, Moses blundered in thinking of deliverance, not as a process, but as an act—something to be achieved by a miracle as instantaneous and complete as those which he had wrought before Israel. One of the most pernicious misapprehensions of the Gospel is that which looks on salvation as an instantaneous thing—which speaks of the saved, instead of using the more exact description, "those who are being saved" (Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Philippians 2:12; 1 Peter 1:9). First of all, we put our shallow, unspiritual notions into the Word of God, and then turn round in amazement, because his actions do not correspond with our ideas of what they should be. 4. We see from this utterance of Moses, how a man may make the first step towards freedom and Divine fulfilments of gracious purposes to him, and yet not know it. Moses having gone to Pharaoh, had met with nothing but rebuff; and was further compelled to see his brethren treated more cruelly than ever. He thinks nothing has been done, because he can see nothing, but he is utterly mistaken. The Israelites, had they only known it, were nearer salvation—a great deal nearer—than when they first believed. "Wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people?" says Moses to Jehovah. Wherefore? indeed!—only we should ever ask all-important questions in their proper order. First, "Is it so?" and then, "Why is it so?" It was not true that Jehovah was evilly entreating the people. The liberating work was really begum, even though Moses could see no sign of it. When, from the point of view given by the catastrophe of the Red Sea, we look back on this first interview, then we see that it was also the first step in a solemn gradation—for Moses and Israel, the first step upwards; and just as surely for Pharaoh, the first step downwards. II. GOD GIVES AN ANSWER FULL OF . 1. Notice the absence of anything in the shape of rebuke. These words of Moses had a very offensive and dishonouring sound, but we do not read that Jehovah’s anger was kindled against Moses (Exodus 4:14), or that he sought to kill him (Exodus 4:24). When there is a want of due and prompt submission to the commandments of God, especially when they are plain and decisive ones, then God begins to threaten. But when the thing lacking is a want of understanding as to God’s way, then he patiently extends sympathy, and endeavours to give light and truth. A commander severely punishes a subordinate when he neglects plain orders at a critical juncture; but he would be very unreasonable if he expected him all at once to appreciate the plan of a campaign. Moses would have been very differently treated, if, after the reproaches of the officers, be had shown a spirit of disobedience towards Jehovah. 2. As to the substance of God’s reply, what can be said that he has not said already; save that he puts the old truths and promises more emphatically, more comprehensively than ever? The first appeal to Moses is, to rest as far as he can in an undisturbed sense of the power of God. That power belongs to Jehovah is the one thing which Moses has seen most clearly, felt most deeply; and God began by assuring him that he will yet be convinced how strong the Divine hand is. The strong man, violently and wastefully laying hold of Jehovah’s possessions, will be utterly subdued by a far stronger than himself. The next point to be noticed is that though, as we have said, there was no expressed rebuke, yet there are elements in this reply of God, out of which Moses, reflecting on what was expressed, could construct a rebuke for himself. Moses is not showing a faith equal to that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet they were without the revelation of this name JEHOVAH. Moses, who had been told more of the Divine nature than Abraham was told, ought to have believed not less readily and steadily than Abraham. Rest if you can, Moses, in all the comforts that flow from a due consideration of this great and exhaustless Name! Then God goes on to speak of his own faithfulness, of the covenant which was constantly in the Divine mind. Was it for Moses to speak as if God was unmindful of that covenant; he to speak, who but lately had shown his own want of regard to the human side of it, and been in deadly pork[ because of his uncircumcised son! The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is Jehovah, the great I Am. If, then, he made a covenant with all its promises yesterday, be sure that to-day he is doing something to carry that covenant out. If, yesterday, he expressed compassion for the oppressed, and wrath with the oppressor, be sure that he has not relapsed into cold indifference to-day. These capricious sympathies are reserved for men and women who will weep over the mimic and exaggerated sorrows of the stage, and then go home to harden their hearts against the terrible sorrows of real life. When we read over the words of Moses here, and compare them with the words of God, we see how contracted were the views of Moses, and how gloriously enlarged were the views of God. Moses is thinking simply of deliverance—how to get the present generation from under the yoke of the oppressor; but God has in his mind a great plan, of which the deliverance from Pharaoh is but one stage in the development, and that a very brief stage. To the completion of this plan the liberation of Israel was necessary, and therefore this liberation would assuredly be achieved. Moses, so to speak, was low down in a hollow; he could get no proper view of the distances; he could not get a due impression of all this tract of time, from God’s first appearing to Abraham down to the securing of the inheritance; and therefore he may well be excused if he speaks hastily. But God looks down from his throne in eternity. The whole stretch of the work lies before him, and thus beholding it, he can but reiterate his promises, exhibit the great features of his plan, and counsel Moses and Israel to do the one thing needful, i.e. continue obediently waiting upon him in the generation in which they live. Let us do what God tells us, being perfectly sure that he sees what we cannot see, and that, because he is the God who cannot lie, he sets all things before us just as they are. 3. Another thing is to be considered here, which, though omitted from Jehovah’s answer to Moses, ought not to be neglected by us. For typical purposes, the welfare and future of Israel is the great thing spoken of; Pharaoh is looked at simply as the cruel adversary and oppressor of Israel. Hence just those things are stated which most effectively show his complete downfall. But we must remember that the things which are stated at any particular time are only a small part of what are in the mind of God. He states not all the considerations which inspire his acts, but only such as it may be well for us to know. Pharaoh had to be dealt with as a man, even though the record is’ emphatically constructed so as to set him forth merely as a type. It would have been manifestly unjust to bring upon him sudden and terrible destruction of all his power, without an appearance of appeal to his voluntary action.—Y. BY J. Exodus 6:2-8 The message to afflicted Israel. I. THE WORD TO THE LEADER: Exodus 6:2-5. The message must be from faith to faith. The heart of God’s servant must first be revived ere he can impart strength to the people. 1. He is reminded of God’s faithfulness: "I am Jehovah." We cannot grasp this truth without deliverance from fear. 2. The darkness will only make God’s glory shine out the more resplendently. Their present sufferings will mark a new era in God’s revelation of himself. Known before as the Almighty, he will now reveal himself as Jehovah, "the faithful One," who remembers and fulfils his promises. 3. Having grasped the truth regarding God’s faithfulness he is led back to the promises by which the Lord has bound himself. 4. The assurance of present sympathy and speedy deliverance. He has heard their groaning and called to remembrance his pledged word. To dwell in these truths is to possess light and power. God’s word will then be a joy to our hearts, and will be in our lips consolation and strength for the fainting ones around us. II. THE WORD TO THE PEOPLE: Exodus 6:6-8. 1. It is shut in between the reiterated assurance, "I am Jehovah," Exodus 6:6-9. For them, too, the truth to rest in is God’s faithfulness. 2. The deliverance will be accompanied by the revelation of God’s terribleness (Exodus 6:6). Israel never forgot those days, and never will. 3. God will wed them to himself. He does not deliver us and then leave us: "I will take you to me for a people and I will be to you a God." 4. He will fulfil all the promises and give them the land for a heritage. This is the Gospel message: Our bonds will be broken—God will bind us to himself and give us his people’s heritage. Have we received it? Is it a living hope, an abiding joy to us?—U. BY G. A. Exodus 6:2-3 The Lord thy God is one God. God appeared to the fathers of the race under one name; to their successors under another. Name is more than title; it is the character, or aspect of character, denoted by the title. Jehovah would seem to have been a title of God before the time of Moses; but to him, and to the Israelites through him, was first revealed that aspect of the Divine character which explained and justified the title. Notice— I. ONE MAY KNOW GOD WITHOUT KNOWING ALL ABOUT HIM. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob certainly knew God. They believed in him as an Almighty Ruler—one who was ruling them, and who would fulfil his promise to them. His power and his trustworthiness were the characteristics they most relied on. Their faith centred in his name El-Shaddai, and as a living practical faith it tended to secure the righteousness for which—as seed for fruit—it was reckoned. [Illustration:—Certain medicines, in earlier years, were trusted and used successfully to produce certain effects; yet other uses remained unknown until long afterwards.] God was trusted by the patriarchs to the extent of their then knowledge, though they knew nothing of other characteristics which were to be afterwards revealed. II. WE MAY KNOW GOD UNDER ASPECTS, AND YET KNOW THE SAME GOD. No doubt the revelation of a new name, the fixing of the attention upon a new aspect of the Divine character, must have been, at first, somewhat startling to those who held by the old traditions. Those taught to believe in El-Shaddai may have held the new believers in Jehovah unorthodox. Yet both, in so far as their belief was genuine, knew and trusted the same God. Jehovah was El-Shaddai only viewed from a new standpoint. There was no contradiction between the two names—one God owned both. III. WE MAY EXPECT AS THE OLD ORDER CHANGES TO VIEW GOD UNDER OTHER THAN THE OLD . The new revelation resulted from new conditions. The old order having changed, a new standpoint was necessitated, whence God must be viewed under a new aspect. [Illustration:—The properties of a medicine are discovered little by little, as new diseases cause it to be applied in different ways.] New conditions must result in new discoveries as to the "properties" of God. Application:—God is one; Truth is one; yet God and Truth are many-sided—we see them differently according to the position which we occupy. Some people are in a great hurry to denounce all novelty as heresy; but novelty may mean nothing more than a new point of view, whereas heresy results from distorted vision; it sees wrongly, through personal idiosyncrasy, that which, from the same standpoint, is seen clearly by the clear-eyed. We do well to suspect ourselves when our conclusions differ from those of others. We may test such conclusions in two ways:— 1. What are the conditions under which they have been arrived at? If the conditions have changed, we may expect the conclusions to be different. 2. Do they contradict old beliefs? If so, they should be suspected—or, Do they merely embrace them within a wider faith? If so, they may sufficiently justify themselves. We may expect new revelations, but we must not hurriedly accept novelties. New names will be made known, but they are never really inconsistent with the old.—G. Exodus 6:9 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick. The Israelites, who had expected a speedy deliverance, and found themselves only the more down-trodden for Moses’ interference, were too much dispirited to be cheered even by the gracious promises and assurances which Moses was commissioned to give. They had no longer any trust in one who they thought had deceived them. He was a dreamer, a visionary, if no worse. They did not intend hearkening to him any more. "Anguish of spirit" possessed their souls, and "cruel bondage" claimed their bodies, day after day. They had not even the time, had they had the will, to hearken. Anguish of spirit. Literally, "shortness." Compare Job 21:4. Their spirit was shortened—they had lost all heart, as we say, so cruel had been their disappointment. The contrast between their feelings now, and when Moses first addressed them (Exodus 4:31), is strong, but "fully accounted for by the change of circumstances". (Cook). Cruel bondage. Bondage, i.e; far more oppressive and continuous than. it had been (Exodus 5:9-14). The Samaritan version adds: "And they said to him, Let us alone, and let us serve the Egyptians; for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in a wilderness," an addition which receives some support from Exodus 14:12. Spiritual deadness produced by extreme physical need. It is the worst result of long-continued oppression that it brings its victims into a state of apathy. Servile insurrections are rare—servile wars all but unknown. Slavery so crushes men, so brutalises, so deadens them, that they lose all heart, all spirit, all hope, almost all feeling. Defenders of slavery call the proper objects of the "institution" live machines; and "live machines" is exactly what it tends to make them. What is to stir a mass so sluggish and inert that it vegetates rather than lives? Not the name of God (Exodus 6:3). It falls on closed ears—it has no meaning to them, conveys no idea, arouses no thought. Not the mention of a covenant (Exodus 6:4, Exodus 6:5). They cannot realise so complex a notion—cannot understand what the word means. Not promises (Exodus 6:6-8). A promise has no power unless embraced by faith; and the down-trodden have no faith, either in themselves or in others. So the most stirring appeals are made in vain—the brightest hopes and prospects presented to no purpose. And as with oppression, so with all extreme depression and destitution. Hopeless poverty, constant battle with the wolf at the door, continual striving to keep off starvation from themselves, their wives, and children, reduces a population to a condition in which it becomes dead to spiritual things, and not only appears to be, but is, unimpressible. It is so occupied with the cares of this life that it has no thought for another. It has bid farewell to hope, and with hope to fear. It is reckless. The preacher can do nothing with it until he has changed the physical conditions of its existence. He must first address himself to the people’s physical wants. Let these be provided for, let the struggle for existence slacken, let hope dawn on the despairing souls, and all will at once be different. As the unbound earth opens to receive seed at the genial breath of spring, so these torpid souls may be brought to take in the seed of life, by having their bodies warmed and clothed and cared for. BY H. T. Exodus 6:11, Exodus 6:13 The new commission. And Moses spoke so, etc.: Exodus 6:9. I. THE OF FAITH. Describe the treatment of Moses and Aaron. They acted under Divine direction, did their very best, but just because everything did not go well instantly, and that through the frowardness and waywardness of others, the people turned upon them, and upbraided them as accessories to their slavery. [See Matthew Henry for some valuable practical notes on this and other parts of this passage from Exodus 5:22-6:13. Moses felt this keenly, and in a moral sense retreated upon his base—that is, upon God. Compare Hezekiah and the letter. Alone with God, Moses complained. Moses is very bold—tells God to his face that he has not delivered Israel at all; that he has brought evil upon the nation, already oppressed to the border of despair; and challenges the Eternal as to his own commission. All this is high tragedy in the realms of spiritual life, and may well demand consideration. Consider— 1. The audacity of Moses. See Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23. Is this the language of enquiry or entreaty? Not at all. Of impetuosity, of remonstrance; it borders on the irreverent; the tone is angry, and nearly rebellious. [Note—Such a speech as this would never have been put into the mouth of Moses by any later writer—sure mark this, that we have the history under the hand of Moses.] Such expressions are not uncommon with Old Testament saints. See especially Jeremiah 20:7, et seq. We learn that believers do not stand related to God as stones lying under a cast-iron canopy of destiny. They are quivering sensibilities in the presence of the Father of spirits. What they feel, they may say; better to say it. And if an earthly parent will make allowances for an angry, misapprehending child, shall not our Father in heaven? "Let us therefore come boldly," etc. 2. The error of Moses. God was all the time working in the direction of salvation for the people and of extraordinary eminence for Moses; but he thought everything looked the other way. A similar error may be ours. 3. The accomplishment of the Divine purpose in Moses. To draw him away from all secondary causes, to dependence on and communion with God. II. THE OF GOD. In answer to the cry of Moses, God made five announcements of the very first importance. They were made with distinctness, formality, and solemnity. Note—Them may have been an interval of months between the cry and these announcements. Note also, that this is not a second account of the revelation of the Burning Bush. The true explanation of the likeness between the two revelations is, that Moses having fallen into a desponding state of mind, God recalled to him first principles. So now, one cure at least for discouragement is to fall back on elemental Gospel truths. God announced— 1. His resolve: Jeremiah 20:1, see Hebrew; and expound the true meaning. Pharaoh would be forced, not only to "send" Israel out, but to "drive" them out. 2. His name. First, God gave again his proper name, "Jehovah;" and then we have a positive and a negative declaration— (1) Positive. To the fathers God had been known as El-Shaddai—God all-sufficient—that is, to and for them in their moving tents. (2) Negative. This may not mean that "Jehovah" had never fallen on their ear; but this, that all in that name had not dawned on their intelligence. God’s revelation of himself is always gradual. So it is in the gradual unfolding of the successive Bible economies. And so it is still. Modern science cannot give us a different idea of God; but an enlarged idea, and one vastly illuminated. Dr. Chalmers when delivering his "Astronomical Discourses’ had a grander idea of God than John Milton. Geology tells us of the aeons through which he works. Microscopical revelations tell of the infinitude of his condescensions. As Diderot said: "Elargissez Dieu"—Enlarge your idea of God. 3. His covenant: verse 4. 4. His sympathy: verse 5. With new sorrows. 5. His salvation: verses 6, 7, 8. It is impossible to read these verses without noting the parallel with a still greater salvation. God promised— (1) Deliverance. Note the "burden-bearing" (see the Hebrews) of sin—its essential servitude—the redemption price—the power, the outstretched arm, with which salvation is wrought—the judgment on powers of darkness, Colossians 2:15. (2) Adoption. (3) The land of rest. These blessings for us, as for them, on the condition of implicit trust. III. THE POWER OF SORROW: Colossians 2:9. The contrast now and Exodus 4:31. "On a former occasion the people were comparatively at ease, accustomed to their lot, sufficiently afflicted to long for deliverance, and sufficiently free in spirit to hope for it." Now!—Exodus 4:9. Observe the Hebrews, "shortness of breath," i.e. such as comes with anguish; or may not the meaning be, "shortness of spirit," as we say "shortness of temper"? This verse is against the theory that Israel, by sheer force of religious enthusiasm, emancipated itself. For them, as for us, no salvation save in Jehovah their God. Sorrow may shut out comfort. How many mistakenly stay away from the sanctuary because of their grief! IV. THE OF THE GOD. In this extremity of woe, God appears. The demand once was for a three days’ absence; now God uncovers all his purpose. Exodus 4:11 is the ultimatum of God. This new commission overwhelms Moses with a deeper sense of incompetence. He pleads— 1. The aversion of his own people. Effective homiletic use may here be made of the fact, that much of the strength of ministers, which might be used against the enemies of God, is used in dealing with the frowardness.of his professed friends. 2. His own infirmity. There may be here a sense of moral unfitness—"uncircumcised lips"—and a latent reference to the disobedience, Exodus 4:24-26. God did not allow these pleas; but put the two leaders forward once more into the position of responsibility, peril, and honour (Exodus 4:13).—R. BY D. YOUNG The pains of the lower life shutting out the blessings of the higher one. They hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage." Notice that this reason, and not some other, is stated for the indifference of Israel to the glorious words which Moses was commanded to repeat to them. We might fairly have expected some other reason to be stated; as, for instance, "We have been deceived once, and are not again to be put off with fair words;" or, "This array of promises is very grand and imposing, but there is nothing in them." But they are emphatically represented as not even attending to what Moses had to say. Their minds were effectually closed by preoccupation with something else. They were so much harassed in body and mind as to lack not only the inclination, but even the ability, to give Moses a proper hearing. And so Pharaoh’s policy had this effect at least, that it prevented the people, for a while, from considering things belonging to their highest welfare. Only we must bear in mind that as the liberating advance of God was not in the least hindered by the cruelty of Pharaoh, so neither was it hindered by the negligence of Israel. A Pharaoh could not hinder, so the people could neither help nor hinder. When they were yet without strength, utterly without strength, in due time God intervened to deliver them. I. There is thus suggested to us how we should keep in mind ONE GREAT CAUSE OF TO THE GOSPEL. A message like that of the Gospel of Christ finds great difficulty in its way from preoccupation of any kind, seeing that the mind of man cannot properly entertain two great topics of thought at the same time. Some one thing must hold a first place in thought; and when the heart is occupied with the presence of worldly cares, whatever form they take, then it must be peculiarly hard for the Gospel to find a foothold. God, when he seeks love and service from us, looks to find his rivals in ambition, in pleasure, in fiches; and we are used to hear frequent warnings against these rivals. But what rival is more dangerous than (say) poverty, that cleaving, biting, pinching spirit, which, when once it gets hold of a man, never lets him forget that it is near. What chance is there then to bring out of the heart a deep conviction of sin and spiritual need? The difficulties of getting the natural man to attend to spiritual concerns are immensely increased by poverty as well as by riches. If, upon some considerations, it is seen to be hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, upon other considerations it is seen to be equally hard for the poor. The poor have the Gospel presented to them, but alas! it is often hard work to persuade them that it is a Gospel. Go to them, and how are you often met? It may be that your very exemption from a life-long struggle for daily bread blinds you to their peculiar difficulties. You are not able to see that grim wolf which is incessantly at the door, and never out of their thoughts. What wonder if at first—and indeed habitually—the poor should think that there is little or nothing in religion! Often they show their feeling very plainly by bitter and savage words. They want a gospel; but not your gospel. They do not care for a gospel which, while it makes large offers, makes also large demands. They do not care to be asked for self-denial, self-respect, contentment, and patient submission to hard conditions which cannot be easily or immediately altered. They want a gospel which will give, and give just what they choose to ask. The privations, the struggles, the agonies of the poor reduce them often nearer to the spirit of wild beasts than of human beings. Give them what indulges their appetites, and they will welcome you. Minister to the cravings of the flesh, and they will wait as long as you are disposed to supply. But proclaim unpalatable truths, and you might as well -speak in a wilderness. We might pursue a similar line of thought in considering the anguish of spirit and cruel bondage of heathendom. The missionary often has to speak to those whose minds are oppressed with terrible visions of deities who can only be propitiated by laborious and agonising penances. Read what is said concerning the life-long austerities of some Hindoo devotees, and then consider whether you have not in them a bondage of spirit which may only too effectually shut out even the most attractive truths of the Gospel. We might speak also of the cruel bondage of worldly conventions; the incessant and weary struggle to keep up social position—a struggle which, however ridiculous it may be made to look, is, in the eyes of multitudes, a great necessity. And if a man feels a thing a necessity, then you must, at least in your first approaches to him, treat it as a necessity. And last, but not least, there is the anguish and bondage of disease, physical pain, perhaps approaching death. The sick send, or are supposed to send, for ministers of religion, but how plain it is in the great bulk of instances that such resorts are utterly ineffectual to bring the sick person to God! There may be an appearance of repentance, a pretence of understanding the way of salvation; but when we know that the actual motive is the fear of death, and not the bitter consciousness of sin, then we cannot but distrust all the action following upon the motive. When a human being, in youth, in health, and with the prospect. of a long life, professes to be smitten with convictions of sin, and begins to seek for a Saviour, we know where we are in considering his position. His apparent motive has everything in the circumstances to approve itself as a real one. But when the appearance of interest in Divine things only comes consequent on the alarms of a dangerous, perhaps a fatal illness, then we suspect that the cry for salvation is a selfish and ignorant one; and how can we be sure that it will be anything but a vain one? A courteous pretence of listening to the message of God when there is no real apprehension of it is practically the same thing as not listening at all. II. NOTE THE WHICH IS BROUGHT AGAINST THE GOSPEL FROM ITS TO DEAL WITH ALL THIS ANGUISH AND BONDAGE OF MEN. There is a plausible argument—one very frequently urged, and alas! very easily deceiving—that the Gospel of Christ does nothing immediately for the social improvement of the world. What is more common than the cry, when some hideous blot and ulcer of society is suddenly revealed, "Here we stand, having only got so far, after more than eighteen centuries of Christianity!" And in hearing talk of this kind, which is sometimes sincere, but oftener is mere cant, we have not so much to reply to others as to enlighten and reassure ourselves. How easily it might have been said with respect to these Israelites, "God is no deliverer, else he would at once take these people—this living, suffering generation—out of all their pains." What God might have done we cannot tell; we only know what he actually did. The light of the whole transaction shows that Jehovah was unquestionably a deliverer; that however a single generation might suffer, the whole nation was in due time, and at the best time, fully redeemed. And in like manner, by the consideration of ultimate results as well as present experiences, we gain the assurance that God is truly the deliverer of men from all spiritual bondage, all spiritual pain. Our frequent folly as defenders of the faith is in saying more than there is any need to say. Let us keep within safe, practical, provable assertions, and these will give an answer enough for the present need. The Gospel of Christ, we know, does something, immediately, for every one who, in response to its great invitation, believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Real belief in him will at once irradiate the meanest hovel, the most squalid circumstances, with a light which may most truly be described as The light that never was on sea or land. No combination of favourable social surroundings will ever bring that light; nothing will bring it but the soul’s own free and intelligent admission of Jesus as Saviour and Lord. His presence thus obtained gives joy in the midst of the bitterest anguish, liberty in the midst of the most grinding bondage. The more that people believe in Christ, the more we shall have of his effectual presence in the world; and the more we have of his effectual presence, the nearer we shall come to that perpetual summer when the ice that now wraps so many human hearts will be utterly and lastingly melted away. Social reformers who are not also humble Christians, with all their pretensions and all their zeal, are’ only touching secondary causes; relieving symptoms without cutting at the root of disease. No human being ever did or ever will get clear of anguish and bondage except by submitting to Christ. And no one ever submitted to Christ without having the certain assurance given, that in due time all sorrow and sighing would for ever flee away.—Y. Exodus 6:10-12 The Israelites having shown themselves, for the time, unimpressible, God commands Moses to make his next effort upon the Pharaoh. He is to enter into his presence once more, and demand, without circumlocution or obscurity, that the Israelites be allowed to quit the land (Exodus 6:11). Moses, however, demurs. He had done God’s will with respect to the people readily and at once, expecting that, as he had persuaded them before, so he would a second time. But he had been disappointed; the people had refused to listen to him. Immediately all his original self-distrust and diffidence recurred—even the old form of diffidence, distrust of his ability to persuade men (Exodus 4:10). How shall he expect to persuade Pharaoh, who had already rejected him (Exodus 5:2-5), when he bad just failed with his own countrymen, who previously had "believed" his report (Exodus 4:31)? Exodus 6:11 Out of his land. Note the advance in the demand. No longer is there any limitation to a three days’ journey, as at first (Exodus 3:18; Exodus 5:3). The children of Israel are to be let go altogether "out of the land." So generally, if God lays a light burthen upon us and we refuse it, we may expect him to exchange our light burthen for a heavier one. We had better accept the first cross he offers. Exodus 6:12 Uncircumcised lips, i.e. "lips inefficient for the purpose for which lips are given;" as "uncircumcised ears" are ears that cannot hearken (Jeremiah 6:10), and an "uncircumcised heart" a heart that cannot understand (Jeremiah 9:26). The meaning is the same as in Exodus 4:10, where Moses says that he is "slow of speech and of a slow tongue." Nothing can be determined from the expression as to the exact cause of the imperfection of which complaint is made. The servant of God must labour unceasingly. Scarcely has Moses made one attempt at service and failed than God requires of him another service. "Go in, speak unto Pharaoh." In the career of God’s servants there is "no rest, no pause." Failure here must be redeemed by effort there. And in this unceasing continuance of service one thing is especially remarkable. After failure, not a lighter but a heavier duty is commonly imposed on men. If they prove unable to convince their kindred, they are given a mission to strangers; if they fail with men of low degree, they are appointed to preach to princes. God will have them redeem failure by fresh effort. God knows the causes of their failure, and introduces them to new spheres, where those causes will not operate, or operate less. A man who has failed in a humble sphere not unfrequently succeeds in a higher one. The servant of God must not care greatly about the sphere to which he is called, but seek to do his best in each while he remains in it. He will thus— 1. Be always labouring for God; 2. Be always exercising and so improving his own mental and spiritual gifts; and 3. Be of far more benefit to others than if he sat idle half his time waiting for such a call as seemed to him altogether fitting and suitable. "The time is short." We must "work while it is day—the night cometh when no man can work." BY J. ORR Exodus 6:9-14, Exodus 6:28-30 Shaken faith, and an unshaken purpose. In these verses we have— I. A PAINFUL RESULT OF . The children of Israel, hard-driven by their taskmasters, and sunk in misery, were so stupefied with sorrow, as to have no longer any heart for their cheering tidings brought to them by Moses. Their despair had its ground in unbelief. They judged Moses a deceiver. They had trusted him before, and they reflected that the only outcome of it had been this unprecedented aggravation of their wretchedness. His fine promises must now go for what they were worth; they were past deriving comfort from them! Yet observe how in all this— 1. They wronged God. God had not deserted them as they thought. He was on the very eve of fulfilling every promise he had made them. We see the error in their case; it would be well if we could always see it as clearly in our own. 2. Made their trials harder. For if trials are hard enough to bear even with faith in the goodness and help of God, how much harder are they to bear without it! 3. Shut themselves out from Divinely-sent consolation. Their despondency led them. to refuse the very message which would have given them relief. How often is the same thing witnessed under severe affliction! There is a kind of perversity in grief, which leads it to "refuse to be comforted." God is mistrusted. The heart abandons itself to its despair. It sinks in gloom and wretchedness. It turns the very truth of God into a lie, and refuses Scripture and Gospel consolations. Unhappy condition! And as foolish as unhappy—for God is never nearer to the suffering spirit, never more ready to hear its cry, probably never nearer bringing it deliverance, than just when it is thus shutting out his consolations, and refusing him its confidence. II. TYPICAL IN SERVICE (Exodus 6:9, Exodus 6:13, Exodus 6:30). Moses was sorely discouraged— 1. At the unbelieving despair of the people. He could make no impression on them. They seemed hardened in their misery. So swallowed up were they in their grief, so crushed with sorrow, that their minds seemed to have lost all elasticity, all power of responding to the gladdest of tidings. This is a difficulty one has often to contend with in spiritual work—the spiritless, despairing condition induced by long experience of misfortune. The city missionary, e.g; has frequently to encounter it in going among the dwellings of the very poor. His heart sickens as he realises how little chance his Gospel has of finding acceptance in homes where all the surroundings are wretched, and where from year’s end to year’s end, there is being carried on the same heartless, monotonous "struggle for existence." But this insensibility to religion induced by suffering is not peculiar to the poor. Far from it. You will find it wherever men are sore beset with trouble, and have no firm, rooted faith in God to support them under it. Absorbed in "the sorrow of the world," they have no ear for spiritual comfort, and almost spurn it as a mockery. 2. At the prospect of having to go again before Pharaoh. Having failed with the people, how should he hope to prevail with Pharaoh, emboldened as that monarch would be with the success of a previous refusal? The element of discouragement here is the depressing sense of failure. Moses had failed in the part of the work which seemed easiest, and in which on the former occasion he had succeeded; how, then, should he look for success in the more difficult part of it, where previously he had sustained defeat? Observe carefully that on this point Moses’ plea was not admitted. (1) We are bad judges of what is failure. What Moses counted-defeats were not defeats at all, but at most delays. The history of missions furnishes striking illustrations of the danger of too hastily concluding that a work has failed because no immediate fruits are visible. Nothing has been more common in missionary experience (South Seas, Madagascar, Tinnivelly, the Kohls, etc.) than times of extraordinary fruitfulness following upon long periods of seeming failure—ten, twenty, thirty years often passing without a single convert. These were seasons of trial of faith, and had the missions been abandoned, as timid counsellors advised, the whole blessing would have been lost. (2) It is the doing of our duty we arc held responsible for, not the failure or success which may attend it. That remains with God. The lesson is that in spiritual work there must be no talk of abandonment; no putting of the hand to the plough and then looking back; no flinging away of our weapons because the outlook is discouraging. Our part is to labour on, believing that "in due season we shall reap if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9). 3. By the revived sense of personal deficiencies. "How then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips!" Moses had Aaron, it was true, to speak for him, but there was a certain clumsiness in this method of two men going in, the one to speak for the other, and Moses felt his deficiency only the more keenly on account of it. He seems to have despaired of having any influence with Pharaoh, who would look on him with contempt. Moses forgot that in work of this kind no man "goeth a warfare any time at his own charges" (1 Corinthians 9:7), and that, if God sent him, God would qualify and support him, would give him strength for every duty he had to perform (cf. Exodus 7:1-7). III. GOD’S PURPOSE ITSELF IN THE MIDST OF HUMAN AND (Exodus 6:11, Exodus 6:13, Exodus 6:29). This is a most remarkable feature in the narrative—how, high and clear above all notes of doubt and hesitancy on the side of man, and at the very time when things are wearing their most untoward aspect, God expresses himself with perfect decision as to the deliverance of the people. Hope in the hearts of the people seemed extinct; even the faith of a Moses was staggering at the obstacles to be encountered. These fears and tremblings, however, are all on the human side; he who names himself Jehovah is raised infinitely above them, and has clearly in his view not only the certainty of his purpose being fulfilled, but all the steps by which the fulfilment is to be brought about. How should this give us confidence when we are trembling for the cause of Truth! We cannot see the end from the beginning, but Jehovah can, and we can stay ourselves on his knowledge of what is dark to us. It is enough for us to know that no contingency can arise which he is not aware of and has not prepared himself to cope with; that no opposition can erect itself against his counsel, which it is not within his power to overthrow. The counsel of the Lord stands for ever—the one stable fact in the midst of earthly vicissitude and change, of all ebb and flow of human hopes and fears. That surely is enough to lean upon, in the dark and troubled hours of our own and of the world’s existence. IV. FRESH OF THE OF THE , Allusion has already been made to the theory that the Exodus had its origin, not in a supernatural interposition of God, but in some gigantic spiritual movement springing up among the people themselves. The facts in this chapter, if anything of the character of history belongs to them, conclusively dispose of that theory. So far from the people of Israel being in a state of hopeful enthusiasm, ready to make great efforts for their own deliverance, they appear as utterly crushed and broken-spirited—totally "without strength." There was doubtless a profound purpose in God’s permitting them to be brought into this condition. 1. It made more manifest the fact that their deliverance did not originate with themselves. And 2. It furnishes a striking image of Gospel truth. We too were "without strength" when, "in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6). There was the want of will as well as of power to do anything of ourselves. God has interposed, and done all for us.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Verse 10-7:7 The uncircumcised lips. I. " LIPS." Enquire what the significance of this strange expression mail be, as coming from Moses. It can hardly have been a current proverbial phrase adopted for the occasion by Moses, as a still more forcible statement of what he had said before on his felt inability as a speaker. There is no reason to suppose that up to this time there was any such feeling among the Israelites as would originate the expression "uncircumcised lips." They had, indeed, in one instance professed themselves very tenacious of the outward form (Genesis 34:15), but a general appreciation of the inward and spiritual meaning of this form was not to be expected. Hence we may take these words of Moses as giving a fresh, original and emphatic expression of how deeply Moses felt himself lacking in qualification for this serious enterprise. And evidently also, Moses was doing more than give a forcible variation of the old tale. The new expression goes deeper in its significance than "slow of speech and slow of tongue." It indicates that Moses had been pondering, as indeed he had reason to ponder, the meaning of circumcision. Circumcision was a separating sign, the sign of a peculiar destiny and inheritance, of peculiar duties and privileges. But so far it seemed only to have produced outward separation without inward differences, differences of feeling and disposition. Moses could not see that circumcision had done anything to give him ability for his peculiar task. His way of speaking may therefore be taken as a sign of advance in his appreciation of what was necessary to do Jehovah’s work. Hitherto his great concern had been because of natural defects in mere organs of action. He had not thought so much of what was lacking in the life that lay behind the organs, and acted through them. But now we gain some hint that Moses sees what is really wanted. The thing wanted is not simply to be lifted up to the level of men who have all natural qualifications for effective speech, but to be lifted altogether above the ordinary level. Though Moses was "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue," others were not; but they were all of "uncircumcised lips." Moses, we may take it, has now got beyond the personal reluctance which actuated him in his pleas at Horeb. The avengers of the slain Egyptian no longer frown upon him from the horizon of memory. But now comes in this new plea, urged in a worthier spirit, and with a mournful consciousness of its permanent force. It is a plea which is not a mere excuse, but possesses more of the dignity of a reason. II. JEHOVAH IN HIS REPLY MAKES NO DIRECT TO THIS OF THE LIPS. When Moses aforetime had spoken of his vocal defects, God at once reminded him that defects of this sort were beyond human responsibility, and he also indicated the clear provision through Aaron for the supply of them. Here, indeed, he again takes the opportunity of repeating to Moses that so far as vocal defects are concerned, Aaron will amply compensate for them. But as to the lips being uncircumcised, while this is indeed true, it is a state of things which does not bear upon the present need. Suppose the lips are circumcised—that is, suppose that Moses in his words is brought into full sympathy with the purposes of God—it will make no difference in the immediate results. Pharaoh’s heart is being hardened; his ears are being closed. It matters not with what purity, simplicity, devotion, and faithfulness we speak, if we speak to that which is insensible. Let us by all means blame ourselves for the faulty way in which we speak and live the message of God, but our faults do not account for the indifference and the rejections of other men. These faults bring us under censure for our unfaithfulness, but they do not excuse the unbeliever for his neglect. If but one clear word concerning Jesus be spoken—spoken only once—it is enough to fix responsibility on the auditor. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." If ever being on earth spoke with circumcised lips, it was Jesus himself, yet how idly fell all his solemn, weighty, truthful words upon the ear of Pharisee and Sadducee. Moses will have blame enough by-and-by, first, cruel and undeserved blame from Israel; and next, the censure and penalty from Jehovah for the lapse at Meribah. At present, though he is speaking of an unquestionable defect, he is speaking of it in a premature and inapplicable way. He must indeed know the circumcision of the lip and of all other natural faculties; for this is consequent on the circumcision of the heart. But the great object of all this circumcision is not to secure his acceptance with Pharaoh or with any other sinful or rebellious man. It is rather to secure his acceptance with God, and especially his full enjoyment of all that comes through tiffs acceptance. III. JEHOVAH POINTS OUT THE WAY IN WHICH PHARAOH SHALL BE BROUGHT TO . 1. In the sight of Pharoh, Moses is to become a God. In effect Pharaoh has said that Jehovah is no God, and in his heart he thinks Moses a presumptuous impostor. Pharaoh is therefore in a state of mind in which it is impossible to reveal Jehovah to him, but Moses in his own person shall set forth—shall incarnate, so to speak—all that Pharaoh can understand or needs to understand of the Divine Fewer. Tie shall be compelled to respect the ever-increasing power of Moses. He may hate it, he may make some attempts to resist it, but at the same time the very force of circumstances will bear it in on his mind as a tremendous reality. He shall see how all these successive devastations of his land are connected in some inscrutable way with the presence of Moses and the waving of his red. Whatever the blindness of his heart so that seeing he does not perceive, he will be obliged to perceive that the strength of Moses does not lie in any visible, terrestrial forces. With all Iris obduracy, Pharaoh has a certain sense of awe before Moses, and doubtless this is the reason why no attempt is made to treat the person of Moses with violence. 2. Notice the way in which God here applies the method of mediation. Moses was not a mediator as from Pharaoh upwards to Jehovah, but he was a mediator from Jehovah downwards to Pharaoh. God thus seizes upon the disposition among the ignorant to venerate inscrutable power. Pharaoh will not listen to Moses speaking, but when the signs begin, and especially when they advance far beyond anything which his own magicians can simulate, he is ready to look on Moses as having something of a Divine nature. God looked for the impressible part in Pharaoh’s mind and found it here. The way in which Pharaoh evidently came to regard Moses (God’s word in Exodus 7:1 being the voucher for the feeling) is illustrated by the attitude towards Paul and Barnabas of the Lystrans (Acts 14:8-13) and towards Paul of the Melitans (Acts 28:6). 3. Notice how God lays emphasis on Pharaoh’s continued indifference to any verbal message. "Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you." The thoughts of Moses are to be turned away more and more from his own lips or from any other faculty. He is to see that the great antagonists in this contest—even though he is made as a God to Pharaoh—are Jehovah and Pharaoh themselves. It is necessary that Pharaoh should have ample opportunity to show the extent of his passive strength, how long and how stiffly he can resist the constraints of Divine omnipotence. Goal stoops to a patient struggle with this obdurate monarch that he may thereby present, to all who read the Scriptures, an illustration of the complete way in which his power deals with the most stubborn assertions of human power. The Israelites, even with all their sufferings, had as yet seen only a part of what Pharaoh could do. They had seen him in cruel action; they had also to see him in stolid endurance. So Moses had seen signs of Divine power; but he had yet to see that power itself in extensive and awful operation. On the one hand Pharaoh is to be revealed, bringing out all his resources again and again, until at last they are swallowed in the catastrophe of the Red Sea. Then, he is done with, but the operations of Divine power are only as it were beginning. It is a great matter that we should thus see the powers arrayed against God, working at the utmost of their strength; that we may feel how immeasurably the power of God transcends them.—Y. BY J. Exodus 6:9-12 The contagion of despair. I. ISRAEL’S OF THE . They hearkened not "for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage." 1. The sympathy of the Word of God. Their case stated not only fairly but with infinite compassion. 2. Israel’s folly. Their anguish is permitted to stand between them and God their only helper—their sickness between them and the great Physician; multitudes will not hear because they have no sense of need, and multitudes again because their need is so very great. Israel in their folly typical: (1) The poor’’ the lapsed masses." (2) Those passing through heavy trial. (3) The bereaved. (4) Those battling despairingly with besetting sin. How often have these no ear for the rich consolations of the promises of God! II. THE OF MOSES. 1. Failure among his own people crushes utterly hope of success among strangers and foes. If Israel will not hear, who have everything to gain, will Pharaoh, who has everything to lose? 2. The old sense of his insufficiency again overpowers him. Deaf ears, unmoved hearts, unconsecrated lives in the Church, paralyse the preacher in his appeals to those that are without.—U Exodus 6:13-27 At this point the narrative is interrupted The author, or the final compiler—perhaps Joshua—thought it desirable to insert here a genealogical section, taking up the fatuity history of Israel from the point at which it was left in Exodus 1:5, where the sons of Jacob were enumerated. The whole political system of Israel was based upon the tribal relation; and it was of the last importance, politically, to hand down the divisions and subdivisions of families. The lists here given, probably prepared by Moses in a separate document, had to be inserted somewhere. The present seemed a fitting place. The narrative had reached a turning-point. All the preliminaries were over—the action of the Exodus itself was about to begin. A dramatist would have made Acts 1 end and Acts 2 commence. A poet would have begun a new canto. In the imperfect bibliography of the time, it was thought best to make a division by a parenthetic insertion. Exodus 6:13 Seems to belong to what follows rather than to what precedes. There is no emphasis on the words and to Aaron, as if God, having found Moses singly to be irre-sponsive, had now given a charge to both the brothers conjointly (Rashi). Rather the verse is a concise summary of chs. 3-5; prefixed to the genealogy when it was a separate document, and preserved when the compiler placed the document in the text Exodus 6:14 These be the heads of their fathers’ houses. By "fathers’ houses" are meant families (see 1 Chronicles 4:38; 1 Chronicles 5:13; 1 Chronicles 7:40; 1 Chronicles 9:9, etc.); and "the heads of fathers’ houses" are simply the acknowledged chiefs and founders of families. The main families of the tribe of Reuben were those of Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carrel, actual sons of the patriarch (See Genesis 46:9; and compare 1 Chronicles 5:3.) Exodus 6:15 The sons of Simeon. The list corresponds exactly, both in the names and in the order, with that given in Genesis 46:10, but differs considerably from 1 Chronicles 4:24, and Numbers 26:12. In both the latter places Jemuel appears as Nemuel, and Zohar as Zerah, while Obad is omitted. In 1 Chronicles 4:24, Jachin appears as Jarib. It would seem that the family of Obad died out and disappeared soon after the Israelites quitted Egypt. The family of Shaul, on the other hand, increased and multiplied (1 Chronicles 4:25-27). Exodus 6:16 The sons of Levi. The same three sons are given in Genesis 46:11; Numbers 3:17; and 1 Chronicles 6:2. According to their generations. This phrase is introduced because the writer does not here stop at the sons, but proceeds on to the grandsons, great-grandsons, and other descendants. (See 1 Chronicles 6:17-25.) He is concerned especially in this place with the descent of Moses, and therefore with the genealogy of the tribe of Levi, and has only inserted any account of the families descended from Reuben and Simeon, that he might not seem to disregard the claims of primogeniture. The years of the life of Levi. These began about forty or fifty years before the descent into Egypt, which took place after the birth of all his three sons, as appears front Genesis 46:8-11. The length of Levi’s life is recorded, not from any chronological considerations, but to show God’s blessing upon the family of Moses, which gave such length of days to so many of his ancestors. Exodus 6:17 The sons of Gershon. The line of Gershon, as the eldest, is taken first. Moses and Aaron are descended from the second son. Shimi is called "Shimei" in 1 Chronicles 6:17; but there is no difference in the original. Exodus 6:18 The sons of Kohath. The same names are given in 1 Chronicles 6:2 and 1 Chronicles 6:15. The years of the life of Kohath. Kohath, who was probably about twenty at the time of the descent into Egypt, must have considerably outlived Joseph, who died about seventy years after the descent. His eldest son, Amram, is not likely to have been born much later than his father’s thirtieth year. (See Genesis 11:12-24.) Amram would thus have been contemporary with Joseph for above fifty years. Exodus 6:19 The sons of Merari. The same names occur in 1 Chronicles 6:19 and 1 Chronicles 23:21, Mahali, by a difference of pointing, becoming Mahli. The Mahlites and Mushites were among the most important of the Levitical families (Numbers 3:33; Numbers 26:58). Exodus 6:20 Amram. That this Amram is the "man of the house of Levi" mentioned in Exodus 2:1, cannot be doubted; but it is scarcely possible that he should be the Amram of Exo 2:18, the actual son of Kohath and contemporary of Joseph. He is probably a descendant of the sixth or seventh generation, who bore the same name, and was the head of the Amramite house. That house, at the time of the Exodus, numbered above two thousand males (Numbers 3:27, Numbers 3:28). See the excellent remarks of Keil and Delitzsch, ’Biblical Commentary,’ vol. 1. p. 470, E. T.; and compare Kurtz, ’History of Old Covenant,’ vol. 2. p. 144, and Cook, in ’Speaker’s Commentary,’ vol. 1. p. 274. Jochebed his father’s sister. Marriages with aunts and nieces have been common in many countries, and are not forbidden by any natural instinct. They first became unlawful by the positive command recorded in Le Exodus 18:12. The name Jochebed is the earliest known compounded with Jah, or Jehovah. It means "the glory of Jehovah." She bare him Aaron and Moses. Aaron is placed first, as being older than Moses (Exodus 7:7). Miriam is omitted, since the object of the writer is confined to tracing descent in the male line. Exodus 6:21 The sons of Izhar. Korah is mentioned as a "son (descendant) of Izhar" in Numbers 16:1 and 1 Chronicles 6:38. The other "sons" are not elsewhere mentioned. Zithri in this verse should be Zichri. Exodus 6:22 The sons of Uzziel. Mishael and Elzaphan are again mentioned as "sons of Uzziel" in Le Exodus 10:4. They were employed by Moses to carry the bodies of Nadab and Abihu out of the camp. Elzaphan, called Elizaphan, is mentioned as head of the Ko-hathites in Numbers 3:30. Exodus 6:23 Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab. Amminadah had not been previously mentioned. He was a descendant of Judah, through Pharez and Hezron, and held a place in the line of our Lord’s ancestry. (See 1 Chronicles 2:3-10. Matthew 1:5.) Naashon was at this time "prince of the tribe of Judah" (Number Exodus 2:3). Nadab and Abihu. On their fate, see Le Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:2. Eleazar became high-priest upon the death of Aaron (Numbers 20:23-28). His death is related in Joshua 24:33. Exodus 6:24 The sons of Korah. All Korah’s sons were not cut off with him (Numbers 26:11). Three at least survived, and became the heads of "families of the Korhites." Exodus 6:25 Eleazar … took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife. Putiel is not elsewhere mentioned. The name is thought to be half Egyptian (compare Poti-phar) and to mean "dedicated to God." She bare him Phinehas. This Phinehas became high priest on the death of Eleazar (Judges 20:28). The heads of the fathom i.e. "the patriarchal chiefs." Exodus 6:26, Exodus 6:27 The genealogy being concluded as a separate document, its author appends a notice that the Aaron and Moses mentioned in it (Exodus 6:20) are the very Aaron and Moses who received the Divine command to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, and who appeared before Pharaoh, and "spoke to him" on their behalf. As the heading of the document was kept upon its insertion into the narrative of the Exodus (see the comment on Exodus 6:13), so its concluding sentences were kept, though (according to modem ideas) superfluous. Exodus 6:26 According to their armies. The term "armies" had not been previously used of the Israelitish people; but it occurs in Exodus 7:4, which was probably in the mind of the writer who drew up the genealogy The historical character of real revelation. Among the religions of the world which are based on the contents of a written volume, none has such an historical character as the religion of Christians. Most nations have evolved their religion out of their internal consciousness, and have then, after a certain lapse of time, thrown into a narrative form the supposed revelations made to this or that individual secretly, and by him committed to writing. These revelations—to give them the name—are not connected with any series of events, are not, properly speaking, historical at all, but belong to the domain of thought, contemplation, philosophy. It is quite otherwise with the religion of the Bible. Both in the Old Testament and in the New our attention is directed primarily and mainly to a series of facts. Religion is not put before us in an abstract, but in a concrete form. The Bible represents to us "God in history." We learn the nature and the will of God from his dealings with nations and individuals at definite times and in definite places. It is a necessary consequence of such a mode of inculcating religious truth, that very dry and mundane details must from time to time be obtruded upon the reader, in order that the narrative may be clear, and that he may understand the circumstances of time and place with which each writer in his turn has to deal. In this way genealogies come in. History cannot be understood without them. We want to know who the individuals are who are introduced afresh at each new stage in the narrative, and in what relation they stand to those other individuals with whom the narrative is concerned before and after. Genealogies convey this knowledge. Many think them uninteresting; but they are not so to any thoughtful person. For (1) they raise the salutary thought of the rapid flight of time and the speedy passing away of one generation after another, Οἵηπερφυλλῶνγενέητοίηδεκαὶἀνδρῶν. (2) They show us how good men and bad, great men and little, are intermixed in the world, arise under the same conditions, seem produced by the same circumstances; and thus they force us to see what a vast power the human will has in shaping human character, and even in determining the course of earthly events. Hence they remind us of our responsibilities. (3) They hold up to us warnings and examples—warnings in the names to which there is attached the savour of evil deeds never to be forgotten so long as the world endures—Nadabs, Abihus, Korahs; examples in those, familiar to us as household words, which we no sooner hear or see than there rush to our thought a crowd of glorious and heroic actions. Being dead, these men still speak to us—theirs is a death "full of immortality." Exodus 6:28-30 The remainder of this chapter is scarcely more than a recapitulation. The author, or compiler, having interposed his genealogical section, has to take up the narrative from Exodus 6:12, where he broke off, and does so by almost repeating the words of Exo 6:10-12. The only important addition is the insertion of the words—"I am the Lord" (Exodus 6:29), and the only important variation, the substitution of "Speak thou unto Pharaoh all that I say unto thee’ (ibid.), for "Speak unto Pharaoh … that he let the children of Israel go out of his land" (Exodus 6:11). Exodus 6:29 I am the Lord. It is not improbable that every revelation made to Moses was authenticated by these initial words—which have the force of that initial phrase, so constant in the later prophets—"Thus saith the Lord." Exodus 6:30 All that I say unto thee. To the general command thus expressed, was probably appended the particular injunction of Exo 6:11, not here repeated—Speak thou unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land." The sacred historians continually abbreviate BY J. ORR Exodus 6:14 28 The genealogy of Moses and Aaron. Beside its direct interest as setting in an exact light the descent and relationship of the two principal figures in the succeeding history—Moses, the Lawgiver of Israel, and Aaron, the head of the priesthood—this genealogical register presents us with several points deserving of attention. We are taught by it— I. TO THE DIVINE IS THE OF ITS . 1. The men selected—Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:26, Exodus 6:27). Selection, as implying the previous or foreseen existence of variously qualified objects from which the selection is made is scarcely the fitting term to express the fact we have in view, viz. the preparing and raising up at this particular time and place, and from this particular stock, of a man of the special mould of Moses, with an eye to the accomplishment by him of a certain work. The appearance of great men at particular junctures of history is assuredly not to be attributed to chance. It is a shallow view of the Divine election which regards it as simply availing itself of happy varieties of character spontaneously presenting themselves in the course of natural development; as a workman might choose from a set of ready-made tools those best suited for his purpose. Election, if one may so speak, presides at the making of its object (Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.) as well as uses it when made (see Lange’s ’Dogmatics’). The question is not simply how, a man of Moses’ gifts and qualifications being given, God should use him in the way he did, but rather, how a man of this spiritual build came at that precise juncture to be there at all—broke out at that point in the genealogical tree and not at another. This is the true problem, and the solution can only be found in the Divine arrangements. 2. The sovereignty of the selection. We cannot but be struck by the almost studious departure in this list from the lines of descent which would imply natural pre-eminence. (1) Moses is not descended from Reuben and Simeon, the eldest sons of Jacob (Exodus 6:14, Exodus 6:15). The only purpose, apparently, served by the introduction of these two names in the genealogy is to show that Moses did not spring from them. (2) Neither did he spring from Judah or Joseph—the sons of Jacob who fell heirs to the birthright forfeited by the sin of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:1, 1 Chronicles 5:2). The genealogy stops, as having attained its end, before it gets their length. (3) He sprang from Levi—a tribe originally united with Simeon under a curse (Genesis 49:7)—yet not from the oldest branch of it, but from Kohath, the second son (Exodus 6:16-19). (4) Moses himself was not the eldest son of Amram, but stood by descent in a secondary relation to Aaron, who was afterwards to occupy so secondary a position in relation to him. What are we taught by these facts, if not the lesson so strongly emphasised in Romans 9:1-33; that mere natural advantages constitute no ground of pre-eminence in the kingdom of God; that the spiritual everywhere rules and controls the natural. Examples may be drawn from every part of Scripture history. Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau; Ephraim, not Manasseh; David, not his elder brothers; etc. The Jehovah attributes of freedom and sovereignty, to which this chapter introduces us, find not their least conspicuous illustration in this section of it. II. TO TRACE, , IN THE OF THE DIVINE , VARIOUS LAWS. The sovereignty of God is degraded whenever it is viewed as mere arbitrariness or caprice, as a liberty of indifference, or as anything else than the perfectly free and self-determined action of an all-wise, all-holy, all-good Will, working at every moment for the accomplishment of wise and good ends. Studied in this light, it will be recognised that it has not only (1) its inherent laws of operation, but (2) its self-imposed limitations. Partial glimpses of some of these laws are here afforded us. 1. The natural, while subordinate to the spiritual, is taken as the basis of it. There is to he recognised a congruity between the instrument and the use to which it is to be put; between the man, in respect of his physical, mental, and moral endowments, and the work for which he is designed. Election works in the natural sphere prior to its being revealed in the spiritual. Moses, for example, was, on his natural side, the product of a long line of causes operating through successive generations for the production of just such a man as he was. He was a descendant of Levi, as truly as any other. Inherited organisation was a fact of quite as capital importance in his case as in the case of any of his contemporaries. It had as much to do with the kind and quality of his manhood. Compare also Patti, separated from his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15), and essentially the same man after his conversion as before it. The mould in which he was cast by nature was that which specially fitted him for the work he had to do as an apostle. 2. The purpose of God is wrought out not fatalistically, but in harmony with the laws of human freedom, and through man’s moral self-determinations. This principle also receives striking illustration in the names of this list. The derivation of Moses from Levi, and not from Reuben or Simeon, has a connection with facts in the moral history of the respective tribes. Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, the progenitors, were all three originally of so wicked a disposition as virtually to undergo their father’s curse. Reuben lost the birthright, and Simeon and Levi were denied an inheritance with their brethren (Genesis 49:3-8). The descendants of the two former followed closely in the footsteps of their ancestors, and consequently never recovered themselves. It was different with the tribe of Levi, which by earnest piety and zeal seems to have risen to the rank of moral leadership even in Egypt, and was honoured to give birth to Moses and Aaron. And greater honour still was in reserve for it; for while in its letter "I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel"—the curse was not repealed, an entirely new turn was given to it by the election of the tribe to the priesthood and service of the sanctuary. The curse was changed into a blessing. Had Reuben and Simeon followed in Levi’s footsteps, who can doubt but that mercy would have been shown to them also? 3. Election flows by preference in the lines of pious descent. Moses and Aaron were the children of pious parents. The names of Moses’ father—Amram, "the kindred of the lofty one"—and of his mother—she "whose glory is Jehovah" (verse 20), testify to the piety of his ancestry. The instruction he received from them in early life, and during the visits he paid to their home, would not be without an important influence upon his character, and he had the benefit of their unceasing prayers. Aaron had even greater home advantages, in being with his parents till character was fully formed. This also is an important fact in its bearing on God’s election of them to special service. The faith and prayers of parents have an important influence on the salvation of their children. By far the larger number of pious men and women in the world have come from pious homes. (See numerous illustrations of this in Dr. Norman MacLeod’s ’Home School.’) The Church historian, Neander, has noticed in how many cases "pious mothers" had to do with the planting of the seeds of Christianity in the souls of those who afterwards produced great effects as teachers of the Church. He instances Nonna, the mother of Gregory of Nazianzum; Arethusa of Antioch, the mother of Chrysostom; the mother of Theodoret; and Monica, the mother of Augustine. (See the whole passage in ’Church History,’ vol. 3. sect. 2, 1.) III. THAT HONOR IN GOD’S SIGHT IS BY , 1. As regards position. The true centre point of honour in this genealogy is verse 20—that which includes the names of Moses and Aaron. It was the spiritual greatness of these men which secured for them this honour. 2. As regards rise and fall, Reuben was "the firstborn of Israel" (verse 14), but he lost through sin the prerogatives of birth. He is eclipsed by Levi, who, through piety, rose from a degraded position to one of honour. Korah, whose name, from considerations of relationship, is honourably prominent in this select list (verses 21-24), subsequently destroyed himself by his rebellion (Numbers 16:1-50.). His posterity, however (another illustration of the same law), rose to high spiritual honour in the minstrelsy of the temple. 3. As regards relationship. The families of the tribe of Levi, grouped around the names of Moses and Aaron, some in nearer, some in more distant relations, draw honour from the association. The chief prominence is given to the Kohathites, as most nearly related to the sons of Amram. This distinction was subsequently confirmed by the appointment of this family to the charge of the sacred Ark, and of the vessels of the sanctuary (Numbers 4:4-16). Relationship with the good thus confers honour, and secures privilege. The highest of all examples of this is the honour and privilege conferred through relationship to Christ.—J.O. Exodus 7:1-9 Once more God made allowance for the weakness and self-distrust of Moses, severely tried as he had been by his former failure to persuade Pharaoh (Exodus 5:1-5) and his recent rejection by the people of Israel (Exodus 6:9). He made allowance, and raised his courage and his spirits by fresh promises, and by a call upon him for immediate action. The process of deliverance, God assured him, was just about to begin. Miracles would be wrought until Pharaoh’s stubbornness was overcome. He was himself to begin the series at once by casting his rod upon the ground, that it might become a serpent (Exodus 7:9). From this point Moses’ diffidence wholly disappears. Once launched upon his Heaven-directed course, assured of his miraculous powers, committed to a struggle with the powerful Egyptian king, he persevered without blenching or wavering until success crowned his efforts. Exodus 7:1 I have made thee a god to Pharaoh. Moses was diffident of appearing a second time before Pharaoh, who was so much his worldly superior. God reminds him that he is in truth very much Pharaoh’s superior. If Pharaoh has earthly, he has unearthly power. He is to Pharaoh "as a god," with a right to command his obedience, and with strength to enforce his commands. Aaron shall be thy prophet, i.e. "thy spokesman"—the interpreter of thy will to others. Compare Exodus 4:16. Exodus 7:2 Thou shalt speak. The Septuagint and the Vulgate have, "Thou shalt speak to him," which undoubtedly gives the true sense. Moses was to speak to Aaron, Aaron to Pharaoh. (See Exodus 4:15, Exodus 4:16.) Exodus 7:3 I will harden Pharaoh’s heart. See the comment on Exodus 4:21. And multiply my signs and my wonders. The idea of a long series of miracles is here, for the first time, distinctly introduced. Three signs had been given (Exodus 4:3-9); one further miracle had been mentioned (Exodus 4:23). Now a multiplication of signs and wonders is promised. Compare Exodus 3:20, and Exodus 6:6, which, however, are not so explicit as the present passage. Exodus 7:4 That I may lay my hand on Egypt. Pharaoh’s obstinacy was foreseen and foreknown. He was allowed to set his will against God’s, in order that there might be a great display of Almighty power, such as would attract the attention both of the Egyptians generally and of all the surrounding nations. God’s glory would be thereby promoted, and there would be a general dread of interfering with his people. (See Exodus 15:14-16; Deuteronomy 2:25; Deuteronomy 11:25, etc.) Bring forth my armies. See the comment on Exodus 6:26. Great judgments. See above, Exodus 6:6. Exodus 7:5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord. Rather, "that I am Jehovah"—i.e. that I answer to my Name—that I am the only God who is truly existent, other so-called gods being nonentities. They will know this and feel this when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, as I am about to stretch it forth. Exodus 7:6 Moses and Aaron did as the Lord commanded them. This statement is general, and anticipative of the entire series of interviews beginning here (Exodus 7:10), and terminating (Exodus 10:29) with the words, "I will see thy face no more." The obedience of Moses and Aaron was perfect and continuous from this time forward until Egypt was quitted. Exodus 7:7 Fourscore years old. This age is confirmed by the statement (in Deuteronomy 31:2; Deuteronomy 34:7) that Moses was a hundred and twenty at his death. It is also accepted as exact by St. Stephen (Acts 7:23, Acts 7:30). Moderns are surprised that at such an age a man could undertake and carry through a difficult and dangerous enterprise; but in Egypt one hundred and ten years was not considered a very exceptionally long life, and men frequently retained their full vigour till seventy or eighty. Exodus 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak to you, saying, Shew a miracle. It is obvious that there would have been an impropriety in Moses and Aaron offering a sign to Pharaoh until he asked for one. They claimed to be ambassadors of Jehovah, and to speak in his name (Exodus 5:1). Unless they were misdoubted, it was not for them to produce their credentials. Hence they worked no miracle at their former interview. Now, however, the time was come when their credentials would be demanded, and an express command was given them to exhibit the first "sign." Exodus 7:1, Exodus 7:2 God assigns to each man his intellectual grade. Three different intellectual grades are here set before us—that of the thinker, that of the expounder, and that of the mere recipient. Pharaoh, notwithstanding his exalted earthly rank, occupies the lowest position. He is to hang on the words of Aaron, who is to be to him as a prophet of the Most High. Aaron himself is to hang on the words of Moses, and to be simply his mouthpiece. Moses is to stand to both (compare Exodus 4:16) as God. And here note, that the positions are not self-assumed—God assigns them. So there are leaders of thought in all ages, to whom God has given their intellectual gifts, whom he has marked out for intellectual pre-eminency, and whom he makes to stand to the rest of men as gods. Sometimes they are their own prophets—they combine, that is, the power of utterance with the power of thought. But very often they need an interpreter. Their lips are uncircumcised. They lack eloquence; or they even lack the power of putting their thoughts into words, and require a "prophet," to publish their views to the world. The "prophet-interpreter" occupies a position very much below theirs, but still one requiring important and peculiar gifts, such as God alone can give. He must have the intelligence to catch the true bearing, connection, and force of the ideas presented to him, often in rude and uncouth language, like statues rough-hewn. He must be able to work up the rough material into presentable form. He must have a gift of language, if not a gift of speech. The great mass of men occupy a lower rank than either of these; they can neither originate, nor skilfully interpret; it remains that they be content to receive. God has given to them their humble position, as he has given to the others their loftier ones. They should cultivate their receptivity. They should be satisfied to listen and learn. They should remember that if, on the one hand, οὗτοςμὲνπανάριστοςὂςαὐτὸςπάντανοήσῃ—on the other, ἐσθλὸςδαυ) ka)kei=noj o$j eu) ei)po&nti pi&qhtai Exodus 7:3-5 The fierceness of man turns to God’s praise. The most signal triumphs of Divine power are those in which the resistance to it is the most determined. The greatest of all victories was probably that which was gained when—after "war in heaven"—Satan was seen, like lightning, falling from heaven to earth. Since then, great triumphs, tending to God’s praise, occur whenever the right and the truth succeed against seemingly insuperable opposition. When the boy shepherd with his sling and stone smites to the earth the gigantic Philistine—when the proud Sennacherib after all his boasts has to leave Jerusalem unhurt and fly to Nineveh—when Epiphanes is defied and baffled by a handful of Jewish mountaineers—when victory is finally gained by "Athanasius contra mundum," God’s might is seen and recognised, as it would not have been, unless overwhelming strength had seemed to be arrayed against comparative weakness. When the "heathen rage," and the "kings of the earth and rulers" are on their side, and the cry of defiance goes forth: "Let us break God’s bands asunder, and cast away his cords from us"—then God is most apt to show his might—to "refrain the spirit of princes," and make it manifest that he "is wonderful among the kings of the earth." The longer and fiercer the opposition, the more conspicuously is God’s praise shown forth. Blow follows blow until the opposing power is shattered, smitten to the ground, laid prostrate. Then is the time for the song of triumph: "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the right way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed arc all they that put their trust in him!" (Psalms 51:10-12). Miracles the credentials of an ambassador from God. It is not easy to see any way in which God could authenticate a message as coming from him, except by giving the messenger supernatural powers. Conceivably, he might proclaim his will from heaven directly, in terms of human speech. But even then doubts would be raised as to the words uttered; men’s recollections of them would differ; some would question whether words were used at all, and would hold that it had "thundered" (John 12:29). If, to avoid such results, he speaks to man through man, how is he to make it clear that his prophet has indeed been sent by him? He cannot make his messenger impeccable, if he is still to be man. He cannot give him irresistible eloquence, for eloquence is at once suspected; the reason rises up against it and resists it. What other course is there, but to impart to his messenger a portion of his own command over nature—in other words, to give him the power of working miracles? The light of nature seems to have taught Pharaoh to ask for this proof. The same light taught Nicodemus to accept it—"No man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3:2). So it will ever be with simple men in simple times. It is only when men have become sophisticated, when they have darkened the light that is in them by "foolish questionings" and "oppositions of science falsely so called," that they begin to see specious objections to miracles, and regard them as "difficulties in the way of receiving a revelation" rather than as convincing evidences of it. We may properly call upon an opponent to tell us what evidence of a Divine mission he would accept, if he rejects miracles as an evidence, and wait for his answer. We shall probably find that ὁἀναιρῶνταύτηντὴνπίστινοὐπανὺπιστότεραἐρεῖ ("he who destroys this basis of belief will not discover a surer one").—Aristotle. BY J. ORR Exodus 7:1-8 A god to Pharaoh. Moses was in the trying position of being sent out anew upon a mission in which hitherto he had not had the slightest particle of success. His discouragement was natural. Pharaoh, on a previous occasion, had repulsed him. He had lost the ear even of his own people. The situation, since his former interview with the monarch, had altered for the worse. To proceed further was like rowing against wind and tide, with little prospect of ever reaching shore. Discouragement wrought in the usual way. It led him to magnify difficulties. He brought up again his old objection of his deficiencies of speech. Even with Aaron as an intermediary, he felt how awkward it would be to appear in the presence of Pharaoh, and not be able to deliver his own message. His inability of speech would certainly, he thought, expose him to contempt. Yet observe, God forebore with him. His reluctance was not without sin, but God, who knows our frame, does not expect to find in us all at once the perfection of angels, and is compassionate of our weakness. We have here, therefore— I. A SERVANT . God told Moses— 1. That he would clothe him with an authority which even Pharaoh would be compelled to respect. "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1). It was not with words only that Moses was sent to Pharaoh. Powers would be given him to enforce his words with deeds. The judgments he would bring upon the land would clothe him with a supernatural terror—make him a superhuman and almost a divine person—in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants. (Cf. Exodus 12:3.) So God gives attestation to his servants still, making it evident by the power of the Holy Ghost upon them, that they come in his name, and speak with his authority. He accompanies their word with Divine power, giving it efficacy to arrest, convict, and convert, and compelling the haughtiest of the earth to acknowledge the source of their message. So Felix trembled before Paul (Acts 24:25). Paul’s Gospel came to the Thessalonians, "not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thessalonians 1:5). 2. That the work of deliverance would be no longer delayed. This also was implied in what God said to Moses: the time had come for speech to be exchanged for action. Everything indicated that the "charge" with which Moses was now entrusted was to be the final one. It should encourage desponding servants to reflect that God has his "set time" for the fulfilment of every promise; and that, when this period arrives, all their mourning will be turned into joy. II. THE COURSE OF ISRAEL’S . 1. Foretold because foreseen. It is God’s prerogative that he knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 42:9). Nothing can take him by surprise. He knows all the way his purposes are to travel. The whole future lies mapped out, as in a clear-drawn chart, before him. 2. Foreseen because pre-ordained. God, like Christ in the miracle of the loaves, knew in himself what he would do (John 6:6). Nothing was left to chance in his arrangements. The steps in his plan were fixed beforehand. What would be done would be according to God’s "determinate counsel and foreknowledge" (Acts 2:23)—would be "whatsoever (his) hand and (his) counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28). The deliverance was arranged in such a way as most to glorify the power and greatness of the Deliverer, and demonstrate his superiority to heathen idols. This in no wise implies that violence was in the very least done to human freedom, though it suggests that God can so interweave the volitions of men, in the situations in which he places them, into his purposes, as to leave not one of them outside his settled plan. The chief difficulty is in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, here (Exodus 7:3) represented as an ordained link in the chain of God’s designs. But if this hardening simply means that God will place Pharaoh, already a bad man, in circumstances which he knows infallibly will harden his heart, and if this is done justly, and in punishment of former sins, the hardening taking effect through unalterable laws of the moral nature, which also are of God’s ordainment, it is difficult to see what righteous objection can be taken to it. 3. Foretold for wise ends. Similar predictions of the course of the deliverance had been made at earlier stages (cf. Exodus 3:19-22; Exodus 4:21-24; Exodus 6:1-9). They are here repeated (1) For the instruction of Moses, that he might be prepared for all that was to happen—that he might understand and cooperate with God in the execution of his designs. (2) For the re-invigoration of Moses’ faith. (3) That it might be evidenced by the working-out of this fore-announced plan, that the God of Israel was indeed Jehovah, a free, personal Being, working in history for the accomplishment of gracious purposes. "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him" (Psalms 25:14). God takes Moses into his counsel, and discovers to him something of his plan of operation. So he does in the Scriptures with his Church (Revelation 1:1). II. A GLIMPSE OF GOD’S END IN (Exodus 7:3, Exodus 7:4). The end is twofold— 1. The manifestation of the utterly free and unconstrained character of his grace and mercy in the salvation of man; and 2. What is the necessary counterpart of this, the manifestation of his power and justice in the infliction of judgments upon his enemies. Even evil is thus made to contribute indirectly to the ultimate and eternal establishment of the righteousness of God.—J.O. Heart-hardening. On this subject, see above, and on Exodus 4:21. The present seems an appropriate place for a somewhat fuller treatment. I. AS FROM GOD. "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart." This, assuredly, is more than simple permission. God hardens the heart— 1. Through the operation of the laws of our moral constitution, These laws, of which God is the author, and through which he operates in the soul, ordain hardening as the penalty of evil conduct, of resistance to truth, and of all misimprovement and abuse of privilege. 2. Through his providence—as when God, in the execution of his judgments, places a wicked man in situations which he knows can only have a hardening effect upon him. He does this in righteousness. "God, having permitted evil to exist, must thereafter of necessity permit it also to run its whole course in the way of showing itself to be what it really is, as that which aims at the defeat of the Divine purpose, and the consequent dissolution of the universe." This involves hardening. 3. Through a direct judgment in the soul of the individual, God smiting him with a spirit of blindness and infatuation in punishment of obstinate resistance to the truth. This is the most difficult of all aspects of hardening, but it only cuts the knot, does not untie it, to put superficial meanings upon the scriptures which allege the reality of the judgment (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). It is to be viewed as connected with what may be called the internal providence of God in the workings of the human mind; his government of the mind in the wide and obscure regions of its involuntary activities. The direction taken by these activities, seeing that they do not spring from man’s own will, must be as truly under the regulation of Providence, and be determined in quite as special a manner, as are the outward circumstances of our lot, or those so-called fortuities concerning which we are assured: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." (Matthew 10:29). It is a significant fact that, as sin advances, the sinner becomes less and less a free agent, falls increasingly under the dominion of necessity. The involuntary activities of the soul gain ground upon the voluntary. The hardening may be conceived of, partly as the result of a withdrawal of light and restraining grace; partly as a giving of the sou] up to the delusions of the adversary, "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2), whose will gradually occupies the region in the moral life vacated by the human will, and asserts there a correspondingly greater power of control; and partly as the result of a direct Divine ordering of the course of thought, feeling, and imagination. Hengstenberg acutely remarks: "It appears to proceed from design, that the hardening at the beginning of the plagues is attributed, in a preponderating degree, to Pharaoh, and towards the end to God. The higher the plagues rise, so much the more does Pharaoh’s hardening assume a supernatural character, so much the more obvious is it to refer it to its supernatural causality." II. IN ITSELF . The heart is the centre of personality, the source of moral life, the seat of the will, the conscience, and the affections (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 15:18). The hardening of the heart may be viewed under two aspects: 1. More generally as the result of growth in sin, with consequent loss of moral and religious susceptibility; and 2. As hardening against God, the author of its moral life. We have but to put these two things together—the heart, the seat of moral life, hardening itself against the Author of its moral life—to see that such hardening is of necessity fatal, an act of moral suicide. It may elucidate the subject to remark that in every process of hardening there is something which the heart parts with, something which it resists, and something which it becomes. There is, in other words (1) That which the heart hardens itself in, viz. some evil quality, say injustice, cruelty, lust, hate, secret enmity to God, which quality gradually becomes a fixed element in character; (2) that which the heart hardens itself against, viz. the influences of truth, love, and righteousness, in whatever ways these are brought to bear upon it, whether in the promptings of conscience, the movements of natural sensibility, the remonstrances of parents and friends, the Word of God, the internal strivings of the Spirit; and (3) that which the heart parts with in hardening, viz. with its original susceptibility to truth, with its sensitiveness to moral influences, with its religious feeling, with its natural generosity, etc. The result is blindness, callousness, lostness to the feeling of right, to the sense of shame, to the authority of God, to the voice of truth, even to true self-interest. All hardening is thus double-sided; hardening in hate, e.g; being at the same time hardening against love, with a loss of the capacity of love; hardening in injustice being a hardening against justice, with a loss of the capacity for moral discernment; hardening in cruelty being a hardening against kindliness, with a corresponding destruction of the benevolent sensibilities; hardening against God being at the same time hardening in self-hood, in egoism, with a loss of the capacity of faith. We hence conclude: 1. All evil hardens, and all hardening in moral evil is in principle hardening against God. The hardening may begin at the circumference of the moral nature, and involve the centre, or it may begin at the centre, and work out to the circumference. Men may be enemies to God in their mind by wicked works (Colossians 1:21), they may have "the understanding darkened," and be "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness (marg. hardness) of their hearts," and being "past feeling" may give "themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Ephesians 4:17-19), and yet be strangers to God’s revealed truth. All sin, all resistance to light, all disobedience to conscience, has this hardening effect (cf. Romans 1:19-32). But it is a will which has broken from God which is thus in various ways hardening itself, and enmity to God is latent in the process. The moment the truth of God is brought to bear on such a nature, this latent enmity is made manifest, and, as in the case of Pharaoh, further hardening is the result. Conversely, 2. Hardening against God is hardening in moral evil. The hardening may begin at the centre, in resistance to God’s known will, and to the strivings of his Spirit, and thence spread through the whole moral nature. This is the deepest and fundamental hardening, and of itself gives a character to the being. A heart hardened in its interior against its Maker would be entitled to be called hard, no matter what superficial qualities of a pleasant kind remained to it, and no matter how correct the moral conduct. 3. Hardening results in a very special degree from resistance to the Word of God, to Divine revelation. This is the type of hardening which is chiefly spoken of in Scripture, and which gives rise to what it specially calls "the hard and impenitent heart" (Romans 2:5). All revelation of God, especially his revelation in Christ, has a testing power, and if resisted produces a hardness which speedily becomes obduracy. God may be resisted in his Word, his Spirit, his servants, his chastisements, and in the testimony to his existence and authority written on the soul itself. But the highest form of resistance—the worst and deadliest—is resistance to the Spirit drawing to Christ. III. THE OF PHARAOH WITH UNDER THE GOSPEL. Pharaoh stands out in Scripture as the typical instance of hardening of the heart. 1. He and Jehovah stood in direct opposition to each other. 2. God’s will was made known to him in a way he could not mistake. He pretended at first to doubt, but doubt soon became impossible. 3. He resisted to the last. And the longer he resisted, his heart grew harder. 4. His resistance was his ruin. In considering the case of this monarch, however, and comparing it with our own, we have to remember— 1. That Pharaoh was a heathen king. He was naturally prejudiced in favour of the gods of Egypt. He had at first no knowledge of Jehovah. But we have had from infancy the advantage of a knowledge of the true God, of his existence, his attributes, and his demands. 2. Pharaoh had a heathen upbringing. His moral training was vastly inferior to that which most have enjoyed who hear the Gospel. 3. The influences he resisted were outward influences—strokes of judgment. The hardening produced by resistance to the inward influences of Christianity, strivings of the Spirit, etc; is necessarily of a deeper kind. 4. What was demanded of Pharaoh was the liberation of a nation of slaves—in our case it is required that we part with sins, and yield up heart and will to the Creator and Redeemer. Outward compliance would have sufficed in his case; in ours, the Compliance must be inward and spiritual. Here, again, inasmuch as the demand goes deeper, the hardening produced by resistance is of necessity deeper also. There is now possible to man the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4 6). 5. The motives in the two eases are not comparable. In the one case, God revealed in judgments; in the other, in transcendent love and mercy. Conclusion:—"To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" (Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 3:8, Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 3:15, Hebrews 4:7). Beware, in Connection with this hardening, of "the deceitfulness of sin," The heart has many ways of disguising from itself the fact that it is resisting God, and hardening itself in opposition to him. One form is procrastination. Not yet—a more convenient season. A second is compromise. We shall find attempts at this with Pharaoh. By Conceding part of what is asked-giving up some sin to which the heart is less attached—we hide from ourselves the fact that we are resisting the chief demand. Herod observed John the Baptist, and "when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly’ (Mark 6:20). The forms of godliness, as in the Pharisees, may Conceal from the heart its denial of the power thereof. Conscience is quieted by church-membership, by a religious profession. There is disguised resistance in all insincere repentance. This is seen in Pharaoh’s relentings. Even when the resistance becomes more avowed, there are ways of partially disguising the fact that it is indeed God we are resisting. Possibly the heart tries to wriggle out of the duty of submission by cavilling at the evidence of revelation. Or, objection is perhaps taken to something in the manner or form in which the truth has been presented; some alleged defect of taste, or infelicity of illustration, or rashness of statement, or blunder in science, or possibly a slip in grammar. Any straw will serve which admits of being clutched at. So conviction is pushed off, decision is delayed, resistance is kept up, and all the while the heart is getting harder—less sensible of the truth, more ensnared in error. It is well also to remember that even failure to profit by the word, without active resistance to it (if such a thing is possible)—simple want of care in the cherishing of good impressions, and too rash an exposure to the influences which tend to dissipate and destroy them—will result in their disappearance, and in a consequent hardening of the heart. The impressions will not readily return with the same vividness. To-day, then, and now, hear and obey the voice of God.—J.O. BY J. Chap. 6:28-7:7 God still glorified amid human weakness and sin. I. MOSES’ (Exodus 6:1-30. Exodus 6:28-30). The command was—"Speak thou unto Pharaoh." Moses in his despondency is overpowered by the sense of his infirmity. He fears the ridicule of the Egyptian court. There are times when the sense of our unfitness for speaking God’s words crushes us. Let us take heed lest lowly self-judgment pass into unbelief and disobedience. The loss of faith in ourselves is no reason why we should cease to trust God. II. GOD’S REMEDY (Exodus 7:1-25. Exodus 7:1, Exodus 7:2). Moses’ slowness of speech is veiled by unthought-of glory. He that feared the derision of Pharaoh is surrounded with dreadful majesty and made as God to him. To obedient faith, felt incompetency for the task God calls us to, will only be the occasion of his bestowing upon us more abundant honour. Our very defects can be transformed into power. A man’s very awkwardness often disarms criticism and appeals to the heart as the most faultless elegance can never do. III. JEHOVAH WILL BE IN PHARAOH’S (Exodus 7:3-5). 1. They are forewarned of Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal. We are not sent on God’s errand with False expectations. 2. God’s purpose will be accomplished, not defeated, by that opposition. His defiance will only call forth the revelation of God’s terribleness. Where sin has sought to dwell and to reign, the terrors of God’s judgment will alone be remembered. 3. Egypt will also know that God is Jehovah—the faithful One. God’s name will be written in their punishment as well as in Israel’s redemption. IV. THE VERY AGE OF GOD’S WILL PRAISE HIM (Exodus 7:7). The childhood of Samuel, the youth of Daniel, the old age of Moses and Aaron are arguments of unconquerable strength for the feeble and despised to trust and toil. 1. There is a place for all. 2. No man’s day is over if he will only yield to God. The dying thief who believed in his dying agonies has been among the mightiest preachers of God’s infinite grace.—U. THE FIRST SIGN, AND ITS FAILURE TO . Obeying the command given them (Exodus 7:2, Exodus 7:9), Moses and Aaron went to the court a second time, and entering into the royal presence, probably repeated their demand—as from God—that the king would let the Children of Israel go (Exodus 6:11), when Pharaoh objected that they had no authority to speak to him in God’s name, and required an evidence of their authority, either in the actual words of Exo 7:9 ("Shew a miracle for you"), or in some equivalent ones. Aaron hereupon cast down on the ground the rod which Moses had brought from Midian, and it became a serpent (Exodus 7:10). Possibly Pharaoh may have been prepared for this. He may have been told that this was one among the signs which had been done in the sight of the elders and people of Israel when the two brothers first came back from Midian (Exodus 4:30). If he knew of it, no doubt the "magicians" knew of it, and had prepared themselves. Pharaoh summoned them, as was natural, to his presence, and consulted them with respect to the portent, whereupon they too cast down the rods which they were carrying in their hands, and they "became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods" (Exodus 7:12). (For the explanation of those facts, see the comment below). Pharaoh was to some extent impressed by the miracle, but not so as to yield. His heart remained hard, and he refused to let the people go. Exodus 7:10 Aaron cast down his rod. The rod is called indifferently "Aaron’s rod" and "Moses’ rod," because, though properly the rod of Moses (Exodus 4:2), yet ordinarily it was placed in the hands of Aaron (Exodus 7:19, Exodus 7:20; Exodus 8:5, Exodus 8:17, etc.) It became a serpent. The word for "serpent" is not the same as was used before (Exodus 4:3); but it is not clear that a different species is meant. More probably it is regarded by the writer as a synonym. Exodus 7:11 Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers. That magic was an object of much attention and study in Egypt is abundantly evident from "The tale of Setnau", "The Magic Papyrus", and many other writings. It consisted, to a large extent, in charms, which were thought to have power over men and beasts, especially over reptiles. What amount of skill and power the Egyptian magicians possessed may perhaps be doubted. Many commentators believe them to have been in actual communication With the unseen world, and to have worked their wonders by the assistance of evil spirits. Others, who reject this explanation, believe that they themselves were in possession of certain supernatural gifts. But the commonest view at the present day regards them as simply persons who had a knowledge of many secrets of nature which were generally unknown, and who used this knowledge to impress men with a belief in their supernatural power. The words used to express "magicians" and "enchantments" support this view. The magicians are called khakamim, "wise men," "men educated in human and divine wisdom" (Keil and Delitzsch); mekashshephim, "charmers," "mutterers of magic words" (Gesenius); and khartummim, which is thought to mean either "sacred scribes" or "bearers of sacred words" (Cook). The word translated "enchantments" is lehatim, which means "secret" or "hidden arts" (Gesenius). On the whole, we regard it as most probable that the Egyptian "magicians" of this time were jugglers of a high class, well skilled in serpent-charming and other kindred arts, but not possessed of any supernatural powers. The magicians of Egypt did in like manner with their enchantments. The magicians, aware of the wonder which would probably be wrought, had prepared themselves; they had brought serpents, charmed and stiffened so as to look like rods in their hands; and when Aaron’s rod became a serpent, they threw their stiffened snakes upon the ground, and disenchanted them, so that they were seen to be what they were—shakos, and not really rods. Exodus 7:12 But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. Aaron’s serpent turned upon its rivals and devoured them, thus exhibiting a marked superiority. Exodus 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Rather, "But Pharaoh’s heart was hard." The verb employed is not active, but neuter; and "his heart" is not the accusative, but the nominative. Pharaoh’s heart was too hard for the sign to make much impression on it. He did not see that Moses had done much more than his own magicians could do. As the Lord had said. See Exodus 7:4. Exodus 7:10-12 False imitations of things Divine not difficult of detection. It is Satan’s wont, in all ages and on all possible occasions, to set up counterfeits of things Divine, in order to confuse men’s minds, and make them mistake the false for the true. Aaron no sooner works a true miracle, a real proof that he is a prophet of God (Exodus 7:1), than Satan’s instruments, the magicians of Egypt, are ready with an imitation of the miracle, on which they base a claim that Pharaoh is not to listen to Aaron, but to them. "Curious arts" (Acts 19:19) and "lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9) were employed to discredit the genuine miracles of the Apostles. False Christs rose up in various places, soon after the lifetime of our Lord, claiming to be the Messiah spoken of by the prophets, who "showed great signs and wonders," capable of deceiving, if it had been possible, even "the very elect" (Matthew 24:24). Apocryphal gospels were put out by the side of the true ones. A new and mystic philosophy was set up as the real "knowledge" which the Son of God had come to reveal, and new religions, like Gnosticism and Manichaeism, disputed with real Christianity the right to be viewed as the actual religion of Jesus. Fanatics, at the time of the Reformation, parodied the Reformed religion, and established "Churches of the True Saints," which while affecting extreme purity fell practically into fearful excesses. Even at the present day rivals are set up to the revelation of God given us in the Bible—and the religious books of the Egyptians, or the Hindoos, or the Persians, or the Buddhists, or the Mahometans, are declared to be just as good, just as much from God, just as deserving of our attention, as the Old and New Testaments. But, if men are honest and do not wish to be deceived, it is easy, with a little patience, to detect each spurious imitation. Aaron’s rod swallowed up the rods of the magicians. It remained—they ceased to exist altogether. The "curious arts" and "lying wonders" of those who opposed the Apostles, if examined into, would have been found either mere tricks, or weak devices of Satan, with none of the power, the dignity, the awfulness, of a true miracle. And time brought them to nought—they built up nothing—effected nothing. So with the "false Christs," and the apocryphal gospels, and the religions of Gnosticism and Manichaeism, and the fanatical sects of the Reformation period: they took no hold on the world—the truth "swallowed them up"—they vanished away. With the spurious "revelations," if the case is not the same, it is nearly the same—if they have not, all of them, vanished, they are all of them, vanishing. Brought into contact with the truth—placed side by side with it—they cannot maintain themselves—they are "swallowed up" after a while. The ancient pantheism of Egypt perished in the fourth century; the religion of Zoroaster is almost non-existent; that of the Vedas is now crumbling to decay in the schools of Calcutta and Benares. Mahometanism shows signs of breaking up. When Thibet and China are freely opened to Christian missions, the last day of Buddhism will not be far off. The Divine sweeps away the human—Aaron’s rod swallows up its rivals. BY J. ORR Exodus 7:8-14 The rod turned into a serpent. On this sign, notice— I. ITS . 1. Its distinctness from the similar sign wrought for the conviction of the Israelites. On the meaning of the latter, see Exodus 4:1-6. There the serpent into which the rod was turned seemed to denote the power of the monarch—the royal and divine power of Egypt—of which the serpent was an Egyptian emblem. However threatening the aspect of this power to Moses and the Israelites, the sign taught them not to fear it, and promised victory over -it. Here, on the contrary, the serpent is a menace to Pharaoh. It speaks to him in his own language, and tells him of a royal and Divine power opposed to his which he will do well not to provoke. The sign was harmless in itself, but menacing in its import. 2. Its relation to Egyptian magic. On this, see the exposition. The magicians produced an imitation of the miracle, but this very circumstance was turned into an occasion of greater humiliation to them. "Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods." The truth taught was the impotence of magic arts as opposed to the power of Jehovah. Royalty, divinity, magic, all are represented as overthrown in this significant marvel. Note—God seldom destroys a sinner without first warning him. The warnings are such that, if taken in time, worse consequences may be escaped. Conscience warns, the Spirit warns, providence warns. Red danger-signals stand at the opening of every path of crime, if the deluded transgressor would but take heed to them. II. ITS VALUE. It was ordered to be wrought in answer to Pharaoh’s demand for a miracle (Exodus 4:9). Presumably, Pharaoh made the request, then the wonder was performed. Note here— 1. The human mind naturally craves for miracle as an evidence of revelation. The evidence of outward miracle is not the highest, but neither’ should it be disparaged. It is the kind of evidence which minds at an inferior stage of development are most capable of appreciating, while, in connection with other circumstances, it is a powerful confirmation to the faith even of those who might possibly dispense with it. Christ’s repeated refusal of a sign was not based upon the principle that signs were unnecessary, but upon the fact that a superabundance of signs had already been given. A faith resting merely on miracles (John 2:23, John 2:24) may be destitute of moral worth, but miracles had their value in certifying the source of the message, as well as in arousing attention, and they were themselves vehicles of moral teaching. 2. God satisfies this craving of the mind by granting the evidence required. It does not lessen, but greatly enhances, the value of this evidence that most of the miracles of Scripture are not merely credentials of the revelation, but constitutive parts of it. See this truth wrought out in the chapter on "The Function of Miracle in Revelation’ in Dr. Alex. Bruce’s book, ’The Chief End of Revelation.’ This able writer, however, is unnecessarily vehement in his polemic against the view that miracles are also wrought in proof of revelation; especially as in the latter part of his discussion he really admits all that the advocates of the so-called "traditional" view would think worth contending for. "Take away miracle from a revelation of grace, and the revelation can hardly be known for what it is … With the miracles retained as an essential part of the story, a gracious purpose towards a chosen people is indubitable; without them, it is very doubtful indeed Retain the miracles, and the gracious purpose is stringently proved, and the contrary opinion excluded as untenable. The miracles and the purpose thus stand or fall together. To certify, beyond all doubt, a gracious purpose, miracle is necessary.. In the case before us, the evidential function must be allowed to be the leading one. 3. Pharaoh’s request for the miracle. It is a significant circumstance that whereas on the previous occasion (Exodus 5:1-5) Pharaoh made no request for a sign, he asks for one at this second interview. The unexpected reappearance of these two men, renewing their former demand, and doing so with even more emphasis and decision than at first, must have produced a startling effect upon him. Truth, to a certain extent, carries its own credentials with it. There must have been that in the manner and speech of these grave and aged men (verse 7) which repelled the hypothesis that they were impostors. Probably Pharaoh had never been quite sure that their mission was mere pretence. A secret fear of the God whose worshippers he knew he was maltreating may have mingled with his thoughts, and kept him in vague uneasiness. He may thus have been more disturbed by the former demand than he cared to allow, and now thought it prudent to satisfy himself further. Professed disbelief in the Bible is in the same way often accompanied by a lurking suspicion that there is more in its teaching than is admitted. III. ITS EFFECT UPON THE MONARCH. 1. He permitted himself to be imposed on by the counterfeit of the magicians. Their imitation of the miracle furnished him with a plausible excuse for ascribing the work to magic. It gave him a pretext for unbelief. He wished one, and he got it. He ignored the strong points in the evidence, and fixed on the partial resemblance to the miracle in the feats of his tricksters. There were at least three circumstances which should have made him pause, and, if not convinced, ask for further proof. (1) The miracle of Moses and Aaron was not done by enchantments. (2) The men who did the wonder themselves asserted that it was wrought by Divine power. (3) The superiority of their power to that of the magicians was evinced by Aaron’s rod swallowing up the rods of the others. And seeing that the miracle of God’s messengers was real, while that of the magicians was (so far as we can judge) but a juggler’s trick, there were probably numerous other circumstances of difference between them, on which, had Pharaoh been anxious to ascertain the truth, his mind would naturally have rested. But Pharaoh’s mind was not honest. He wished to disbelieve, and he did it. 2. He refused the request. He hardened himself, i.e. the unwillingness of his heart to look at the truth, now that it had got something to stay itself upon, solidified into a fixed, hard determination to resist the demand made upon him. Note— (1) God tries men’s dispositions by furnishing them with evidence which, while abundantly sufficient to convince minds that are honest, leaves numerous loopholes of escape to those indisposed to receive it. (2) It is the easiest thing in the world, if one wants to do it, to find pretexts for unbelief. We are far from asserting that all doubt is dishonest, but it is unquestionable that under the cloak of honest intellectual inquiry a great dean that is not honest is frequently concealed. To a mind unwilling to be convinced, there is nothing easier than to evade evidence. Specious counter-arguments are never far to seek. Any specious reply to Christian books, any naturalistic hypothesis, any flimsy parallel, will serve the purpose. The text directs attention to the method of false parallels—a favourite one with modem sceptics. Parallels are hunted up between Christianity and the ethnic religions. Superficial resemblances in ethics, doctrine and ritual, are laid hold upon and magnified. Christ is compared with Buddha and Confucius, or his miracles are put in comparison with the ecclesiastical miracles of the middle ages. And thus his religion is supposed to be reduced to the naturalistic level. The defeat of all such attempts is shadowed forth in the miracle before us.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 7:8-13 The credentials of God’s ambassadors to the froward. I. THE DEMANDS OF GOD, THOUGH , CANNOT BE . The rod which Pharaoh refuses to be shepherded by, cast down before him, springs into life. To those who refuse obedience to God’s Word, that Word will cling and become a living thing. Israel thought to have done with God and to be like the heathen: it was a vain dream. Pharaoh would shake off care, and become like one of whom God had asked nothing: the dream was equally vain. We may deny God, but his words will live and pursue us. II. THE WILL BE THE OF THE FROWARD. The rod cast from the hand becomes a serpent. The vain demand for righteousness will at last become the sentence of condemnation, and the sin that is clung to, the sting of death. III. THE WARNING BECOMES THE LOUDER, THE GREATER THE EFFORT TO DEADEN ITS EFFECT. The rods of the magicians were swallowed up and the rod of God left more terrible than it was before. The Divine retribution will swallow up every comfort and stay which the sinful may summon to sustain them.—U. BY D. YOUNG The first sign to Pharaoh: the rod becomes a serpent. I. NOTICE THE REQUEST WHICH JEHOVAH THAT PHARAOH MAY MAKE. Perhaps we might even say, will make. "When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you." This is a great change from his former attitude, that he should be capable of stooping to such a request. But men who have despotic power sometimes do strange and contradictory things. The freaks of tyrants in the way of a seeming liberality and kindliness are among the curiosities of history. Pharaoh may have said to himself, "It will be rare sport to give this monomaniActs full scope; let him with his own failure expose the delusion under which he is suffering; it may be the shortest way out of the difficulty." On the other hand, it is not at all improbable that some news of the signs wrought before Israel had percolated through all the barriers which stand between a palace and the life of the common people; and Pharaoh may have wished to discover how far the rumour was founded in reality. Though when we have said all by way of suggesting secondary causes for the request, we must come in the end to this feeling, that the only sufficient way of accounting for it is to treat it as an impulse from Jehovah himself. Certainly his providence must have much to do with gaining access to Pharaoh and keeping up the communications of Moses with him. God can lead Pharaoh, even when he knows not that he is led. Men are walking in the way of God’s providence and serving his purposes, even when quite satisfied in the ignorance of their hearts that they are walking in their own way. II. NOTICE THE MIRACLE ITSELF. Doubtless the rod in question was the same which had been a serpent twice already; so that by this time Moses must have looked upon it with great serenity of confidence. It is now impossible for us to say why the Lord began his manifestations of power to Pharaoh with this rather than with some other sign. Reasons discernible at the time are not discernible now; the light which would have revealed them has long since died away. We can but see that there was much in the miracle which would have taught valuable lessons to Pharaoh, if only he had received it in the simplicity of one who is really looking for truth and guidance. He would have learned not to despise the absence of promise in the external appearance of things. He would have learned that a thing is not ridiculous because it is laughed at. He would have felt, too, that as the innocent and unimposing rod became suddenly a dangerous serpent, so this Moses—humble, unsustained and impotent as he seemed—might also become all at once a destroying force utterly beyond resistance by any Egyptian defence. Nor must we forget that the choice of this particular sign. may have been influenced by the fact that the magicians had a favourite and imposing trick of their art which, to the uninstructed eye, resembled it. They seemed to do, by their magic, what Moses really did by Divine power, and so their skill, while it had for one result a renewed defiance of Jehovah on the part of Pharaoh, had another result in this, that it led up to a strengthening of the faith of Moses. He might not be able to explain how the magicians did their wonders; but he knew very well that he was no magician himself, and that his rod had been Divinely changed, whatever cause had been at work to change the others. And then, at last, whatever perplexity remained in his mind was swept away when he saw the power of God rising supreme over mere trickery, and the serpent from his rod swallowing up the serpents from the other rods. III. NOTICE THE OF THESE . They know that their wonders are lying wonders. Powers great by nature, trained and increased with the utmost ingenuity, and which were intended to be and might have been for the good of their fellow-men, they turn without any compunction into instruments for the promotion of their selfish glory. They know that, whatever their pretences may be, they are not acting in a straightforward and humble service of supernatural power. They know that when Pharaoh puts confidence in them, he is putting confidence in a lie. Furthermore, they must have known that there was something in the transformation of Moses’ rod which wanted accounting for. Magicians understand each other’s tricks quite well, and it must have been evident to them that Moses was no magician. They know in their consciences that he is greater than themselves; but what can they say? Committed to lies, they must go on with them. They must pretend to have as much power as Moses, even if they have it not; and thus the induced necessities of their dark and secret arts compel them to hide the truth from Pharaoh. Nor was it any real excuse that Pharaoh was willing to be deceived. His destruction ultimately came from his own perversity; but he also presents the melancholy spectacle of being surrounded by those who, if only they had been truthful, might have interposed some obstacles in his downward way. IV. NOTICE THE STATE IN WHICH PHARAOH WAS LEFT, EVEN AFTER THE OF THE MIRACLE. When Aaron’s rod had swallowed up the others, he still remained unimpressed. It seems as if he had allowed his attention to be fixed on one part of the miracle, while another he regarded but carelessly. When his magicians seemed to produce serpents from rods, this was just according to his inclinations, and he made much of it. Moses could do nothing more than the magicians could do. But when their serpents were swallowed up—well, it was not a very encouraging sight—but still it might be accounted for. And so we are in danger of depreciating the significance of God’s works by not looking at them in every part. Every part is to be regarded, if we are to get the full impression of the whole. If the magicians did what Moses did, it was equally evident that Moses did what the magicians did. A child could see that his power was at least equal to theirs. If Pharaoh had not been blinded by vanity and by traditional reliance on his magicians, he would have demanded that these magicians should do something more than Moses had done. What an illustration we have here, of how, when a man gets away from right thoughts of God, he soon comes to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Pharaoh believes his lying magicians, though he will not believe the truthful servant of a true God. He has no discriminating power to find the difference between things, which, however they may resemble each other outwardly, are yet inwardly quite opposed. He thinks that he has power enough with his gods to meet whatever power has yet been brought against him. It has been already made evident that there is no sense of pity or justice in him; and it is now made plain that he is not to be reached by the exhibition before him of a significant symbol of pain and destruction. Pharaoh must be touched more closely still—must be made to suffer, and suffer most dreadfully, before he will consent to let Israel go.—Y. THE FIRST PLAGUE. The first miracle had been exhibited, and had failed. It had been a mere "sign,’’ and in no respect a "judgment." Now the "judgments ’ were to begin. God manifests himself again to Moses, and gives him exact directions what he is to do. He is to meet Pharaoh on the banks of the Nile, and to warn him that a plague is coming upon all Egypt on account of his obstinacy; that the waters of the Nile will be turned to blood, so that the ash will die, and the river stink, and the Egyptians loathe to drink of the water of the river (Exodus 7:15-18). Pharaoh not yielding, making no sign, the threat is to be immediately followed by the act. In the sight of Pharaoh and his court, or at any rate of his train of attendants (Exodus 7:20), Aaron is to stretch his rod over the Nile, and the water is at once to become blood, the fish to die, and the river in a short time to become offensive, or, in the simple and direct language of the Bible, to stink. The commands given by God are executed, and the result is as declared beforehand by Moses (Exodus 7:20, Exodus 7:21). Exodus 7:14 Pharaoh’s heart is hardened. Rather, "is hard, is dull." The adjective used is entirely unconnected with the verb of the preceding verse. Exodus 7:15 In the morning. The expression used both here and again in Exodus:20 seems rather to imply a daily custom of the Pharaoh. It is conjectured; not without reason, that among the recognised duties of the monarch at this time was the offering of a morning sacrifice to the Nile on the banks of the river (Keil and Delitzsch, Kalisch, etc.). Possibly, however, this may not have been the case, and God may have chosen for certain miracles particular days, on which the king was about to proceed to the river in view of some special ceremony connected with the annual inundation. Against he come. Literally, "to meet him." In their hand. When the time came for smiting the waters, the rod was transferred to Aaron’s hand (verse 19). Exodus 7:16 The Lord God … hath sent me unto thee. Rather, "sent me unto thee." The reference is to the original sending (Exodus 5:1). Thou wouldest not hear. Literally, "Thou hast not heard," i.e. up to this time thou hast not obeyed the command given to thee. Exodus 7:17 In this thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Pharaoh had declared on the occasion specially referred to, "I know not Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go" (Exodus 5:2). He is now told that he shall "know Jehovah" in the coming visitation; he shall know, i.e; that there is a great and truly existent God who controls nature, does as he will even with the Nile, which the Egyptians regarded as a great deity; and can turn, if he see fit, the greatest blessings into curses. Behold, I will smite. God here speaks of the acts of Moses and Aaron as his own acts, and of their hands as his hand, because they were mere instruments through which he worked. The Roman law said: "Qui facit per alium, tacit per se." The waters … shall be turned to blood. Not simply, "shall be of the colour of blood," as Rosenmuller paraphrases, but shall become and be, to all intents and purposes, blood. It is idle to ask whether the water would have answered to all the modern tests, microscopic and other, by which blood is known. The question cannot be answered. An that we are entitled to conclude from the words of the text is, that the water had all the physical appearance the look, taste, smell, texture of blood: and hence, that it was certainly not merely discoloured by the red soil of Abyssinia, nor by cryptegamic plants and infusoria. Water thus changed would neither kill fish, nor "stink," nor be utterly undrinkable. Exodus 7:18 The fish … shall die. This would increase the greatness of the calamity, for the Egyptians lived to a very large extent upon fish, which was taken in the Nile, in the canals, and the Lake Morris (Herod. 2.149). The river shall stink. As Keil and Delitzsch observe, "this seems to indicate putrefaction." The Egyptians shall loathe to drink. The expression is stronger in Exodus 7:24, where we find that "they could not drink." We may presume that at first, not supposing that the fluid could really be blood, they tried to drink it, took it into their mouths, and possibly swallowed some, but that very soon they found they could not continue to do so. Exodus 7:19 Say unto Aaron. There is an omission here (and generally throughout the account of the plagues) of the performance by Moses of God’s behest. The Samaritan Pentateuch in each case supplies the omission. It has been argued (Kennicott) that the Hebrew narrative has been contracted; but most critics agree that the incomplete form is the early one, and that, in the Samar. version, the original narrative has been expanded. The waters of Egypt … streams … rivers … ponds … pools of water. The waters of Lower Egypt, where this miracle was wrought, consisted of (1) the various branches of the Nile, natural and artificial, which were seven when Herodotus wrote (Herod. 2.17), whence the Nile was called "septemfluus," or "septemgeminus;" (2) the canals derived from each branch to fertilise the lands along its banks; (3) ponds, marshes, and pools, the results of the overflowing of the Nile, or of its percolation through its banks on either side; and (4) artificial reservoirs, wherein water was stored for use after the inundation was over. The four terms of the text seem applicable to this four-fold division, and "show an accurate knowledge of Egypt" (Cook), and of its water system. The "streams" are the Nile branches; the" rivers correspond to the canals; the "ponds" are the natural accumulations of waters in permanent lakes or in temporary pools and marshes; while the "pools," or "gatherings of waters" (margin), are the reservoirs made by art. Aaron was to stretch out his rod over the Nile, but with the intent to smite all the Egyptian waters, and all the waters would at once be smitten, the streams and the canals and the natural lakes and the reservoirs. The miracle would even extend to private dwell-trigs, and the change would take place throughout all the land of Egypt, not only in respect of the open waters spread over the country, but even in respect of that stored, as was usual, in houses, and contained either in vessels of wood or in vessels of stone. With respect to these, it is to be observed that the Nile water was much improved by keeping, since the sediment subsided; and that tanks, sometimes of wood, sometimes of stone, were usual adjuncts of all the better class of houses. Exodus 7:20 He lifted up the rod. "He" must be understood to mean "Aaron" (see Exodus 7:19); but the writer is too much engrossed with the general run of his narrative to be careful about minutia. All that he wants to impress upon us is, that the rod was used as an instrument for the working of the miracle. He is not thinking of who it was that used it. In the sight of Pharaoh. See the comment on Exodus 7:15. And of his servants. Either "his courtiers generally," or, at any rate, a large troop of attendants. Exodus 7:21 The fish that was in the river died. It is most natural to understand "all the fish." There was blood, etc. Literally, "and the blood was throughout all the land of Egypt." The exact intention of the phrase is doubtful, since undoubtedly "in numberless instances, the Hebrew terms which imply universality must be understood in a limited sense (Cook). "All the land" may mean no more than "all the Delta." Exodus 7:17-20 God’s punishments appropriate and terrible (Exodus 7:17-20), There was something peculiarly appropriate in the first judgment falling upon the Nile. The Nile had been made the instrument of destruction to the Israelites by the first tyrannical Pharaoh (probably Seti I.). It had been defiled with the blood of thousands of innocent victims. Crocodiles had in its waters crushed the tender limbs of those helpless infants, and had stained them with a gore that in God’s sight could never be forgotten. The king, and the persons who were his instruments, had in so doing polluted their own holy river, transgressed their own law, offered insults to one of the holiest of their own deities. And all for the destruction of God’s people. So, now that destruction was coming upon themselves, now that the firstborn were doomed (Exodus 4:23), and the catastrophe of the Red Sea was impending, the appropriate sign, which threatened carnage, was given—the Nile was made to run with blood. The Egyptians had among their traditions one which said that the Nile had once for eleven days flowed with honey. As this supposed miracle indicated a time of peace and prosperity, so the present actual one boded war and destruction. Again, Pharaoh’s especial crime at this time was, that he despised God. God therefore caused his own chief deity to be despised. There are indications that, about this period, a special Nile-worship had set in. Hapi, the Nile-god, was identified with Phthah and Ammon—he was declared to stand "alone and self-created"—to be "the Father of all the gods," "the Chief on the waters," "the Creator of all good things," "the Lord of terrors and of choicest joys." "Mortals" were said to "extol him, and the cycle of Gods"—he stood above them all as the One Unseen and Inscrutable Being. "He is not graven in marble," it was said; "he is not beheld; he hath neither ministrants nor offerings; he is not adored in sanctuaries; his abode is not known; no shrine of his is found with painted figures; there is no building that can contain him;" and again, "unknown is his name in heaven; he doth not manifest his forms; vain are all representations." Menephthah was a special devotee of Hapi. Nothing could have seemed to him more terrible and shocking, than the conversion of his pure, clean, refreshing, life-giving, god-like stream, into a mass of revolting putridity. And on the people the judgment was still more terrible. Under ordinary circumstances, the whole nation depended on the Nile for its water supply. There were no streams in the country other than the Nile branches, no brooks, no rills, no springs or fountains. The sudden conversion of all the readily accessible water—even such as was stored in houses—into blood, was sickening, horrible, tremendous. Scarcely could any severer punishment of the people have been devised. If a partial remedy had not been found (Exodus 7:24), it would have been impossible for them to endure through the "seven days" (Exodus 7:25). So fearful are the judgments of God upon those who offend him I BY J. ORR Exodus 7:14-25 The Nile turned into blood. The first of the series of plagues which fell on Egypt was of a truly terrific character. At the stretching out of the red of Aaron, the broad, swift-flowing current of. the rising Nile suddenly assumed the hue and qualities of blood. The stroke fell also on the reservoirs, canals, and ponds. Whatever connection may be traced between this plague and natural phenomena (see Hengstenberg) it is plain that it stood on an entirely different footing from changes produced under purely natural conditions. 1. The water was rendered wholly unfit for use. 2. It became deadly in its properties (Exodus 7:18). 3. The stroke was instantaneous. 4. It was pre-announced. 5. It descended on the river at the summons of Moses and Aaron. 6. It lasted exactly seven days (Exodus 7:25). An event of this kind was palpably of supernatural origin. Contrast Moses with Christ, the one beginning the series of wonders by turning the river into blood; the other, in his first miracle, turning the water into wine (John 2:1-12). The contrast of judgment and mercy, of law and Gospel. Consider— I. THE DEMAND RENEWED WITH THE OF THREAT (Exodus 7:16-19). 1. The demand was that which Pharaoh had hitherto resisted. It was a demand righteous and reasonable in itself—"Let my people go," etc. It had come to him, moreover, as the command of Jehovah, and proof had been given him that such was its character. Still he had resisted it. This, however, did not dispose of the demand, which now confronts him again. 2. The demand which Pharaoh would not freely grant, he is now to be compelled to grant. If he will not bow to reason, to persuasion, to evidence, he must bow to power. An unprecedented calamity would overtake his land: "In this shalt thou know that I am the Lord; behold, I will smite with the rod," etc. (Exodus 7:17). Note— (1) Reasonable means are exhausted with the sinner before compulsion is resorted to. God is unwilling to proceed to extremities. (2) Nevertheless, if gentler methods fail, means will be used which will compel submission. "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God" (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10, Philippians 2:11). (3) Excuses are not admitted for wilful unbelief. Pharaoh would probably have pleaded as a ground for his refusal, that he did not believe that the command in question proceeded from Jehovah. No such plea will be admitted in the court of heaven. Every allowance will be made for involuntary ignorance, but none for wilful unbelief. What the sinner is asked to do is righteous and reasonable in itself; is made known to him as God’s will; and is evidenced to be such by many infallible proofs. Refusal to acknowledge the sufficiency of this evidence does not exculpate from the guilt of disobedience. The question is not—Does he, or will he, admit its sufficiency, but is it sufficient? Not, Does it convince him? but, Ought it to convince him? Our errors, follies, and mistakes will not hinder the Almighty from executing his purposes. If we stand in the way of them, and will not bend, we must be crushed. II. THE PLAGUE AS A SIGN TO EGYPT. The smiting of the Nile was— 1. A proof of the power of Jehovah (Exodus 7:17). It showed him to be an actually existing Being, demonstrated his supremacy in nature, and made manifest his determination to punish resistance to his will. 2. A blow at Egyptian idolatry. It turned the river Nile, which itself was worshipped as a divinity, into an object of loathsomeness and source of death to its worshippers. They were the chief gods of Egypt, too, who were supposed to be embodied in the river. How clear the proof of the vanity of the idols, and of the unchallengeable superiority of Jehovah! Yet we do net learn that one idol the less was worshipped in Egypt as the result of it. 3. A warning of worse evil to come. The Nile was in a sense symbolical of Egypt, of whose prosperity it was the source. The turning of this river into blood was in fact a prophecy or threat of utter ruin to the state. The succeeding plagues are merely the unfolding of the threat contained in this one. 4. The removal of the plague at the end of seven days betokened the unwillingness of God to proceed to extremities. It is very noticeable that the plague was removed unasked, and while Pharaoh was still hardening his heart. So long-suffering is God that he will try all means with sinners before finally giving them up. The lessons for ourselves from this plague are these— (1) The certainty of God’s threatenings being executed. (2) The terrible punishments in reserve for disobedience. (3) The ease with which God can smite a nation, and bring it to the point of ruin. The smiting of the Erie meant the immediate paralysis of all industry, commerce, and agriculture throughout the land of Egypt, while, had the plague lasted a few days longer, the result would have been the death of the whole population. We call this "miracle," but miracle is only the coming forth into visibility of the hand which is at all times working in the phenomena of nature, and in the affairs of history. By famine, by pestilence, by blight of crops, by clap of war, turning the river of a nation’s life into very literal blood, by the simplest natural agencies, if so it pleased him—could Jehovah speedily reduce our national pride, and smite at the fountain-heads the sources of our national prosperity. A very sensible proof was given of this—of the readiness with which the trade of a whole country could be paralysed, and great cities reduced in no long period to absolute starvation, by a slight change in natural conditions—in the great snowstorm of January 1881. Had the storm lasted but a week or two longer, the effects would have been as serious to cities like London, and to the country as a whole, as this smiting. of the Nile in Egypt. (4) God’s judgments are anticipative. Judgments in this life forewarn of judgments beyond. III. THE PUERILE OF THE (Exodus 7:22). 1. The magicians could not remove the plague; they could only with the few drops of water at their command produce a feeble imitation of it. How futile is this as a disproof of God’s agency! So it is a pitiable way of disposing of God’s judgments to show that something like them can be produced by undivine means. The savant, e.g; may produce in his laboratory an imitation of rain or thunder, and may think that he has thereby disproved God’s agency in any infliction he may send upon a land through these instrumentalities; but this is small comfort to the country that is being smitten by them. 2. The attempts of the magicians to refute the pretensions of Moses only resulted in making the supernatural character of the plague more manifest. In the same way, the efforts of sceptics to disprove, e.g; the Divine origin of the religion of the Bible, or of the book itself, only end in making its Divinity more apparent. "The more conclusively you demonstrate to the human reason that that which exists ought not to exist, so much the more do you enhance the miracle of its existence. That must be the most astounding of all facts that still exists notwithstanding the gravest objections to its existence." IV. THE OF PHARAOH (Exodus 7:22, Exodus 7:23). The hardening of Pharaoh here enters on a new phase. It was— 1. Hardening against conviction. Pharaoh must have felt in this case that he was in presence of a true work of God. The puny efforts of his magicians could not possibly impose upon him. But he would not yield. He would not obey conviction. 2. Hardening under punishment. Pharaoh was in the position of one who, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck (Proverbs 29:1). He had risked, even after this last warning, the chances of the threatening turning out to be untrue. Now, to his utter discomfiture, the stroke descends, and his empire is on the point of ruin. Yet he hardened himself in resistance. 3. Hardening which was deliberate. "Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also" (Exodus 7:23). He had reached a point at which he could only stiffen himself in his determination to resist God, by refusing to think, by deliberately turning away from the light and resolving not to face the question of his duty. The monarch knows his duty, and knows that he knows it, yet. he will not obey. 4. Hardening obstinately persevered in. He held out through all the seven days of the duration of the plague. Hardening of this kind speedily robs the soul of its few remaining sparks of susceptibility to truth.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The first plague: the water turned to blood. I. THE PLACE WHERE MOSES WAS TO MEET PHARAOH. Moses was not always to be put to it to find his entrance into the palace. God can arrange things so that Pharaoh shall come to meet him. The instructions given to Moses at once call to our minds how Pharaoh’s daughter, eighty years before, had come down to the river to find and protect a helpless babe, and how that same babe—having passed through many chequered years, and many strange experiences at the hands both of God and men—has to meet with another Pharaoh. We are not told why Pharaoh went down to the water; it may have been to worship, for the Egyptians held the Nile in pious regard. But as the narrative says nothing on this point, we had better not assume it. It is sufficient to observe that Pharaoh was led down to the stream, to see it, the great benefactor of his land, turned into a curse. II. THE WARNING GIVEN TO PHARAOH OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. This warning is not peculiar to the first plague. Warning is mentioned as having been given along with most of the others, and possibly it was given where it is not mentioned. But it is of course a thing to be specially noted that God did not begin this succession of disasters without due and solemn warning. Not that there was any formal appeal to Pharaoh. It rather seems to be taken for granted that an appeal will be of no use. But even though Pharaoh disregarded, it was a good thing to say beforehand what was about to happen. Moses himself, and Aaron, and all devout Israelites who had eyes to perceive, could thus see God’s plan opening out more and more. All information is good that makes us feel how God is working upon an ascertained and settled plan. III. THE PLAGUE ITSELF, Water is changed to blood. Two of the great elements that belong to life are thus put in sharp contrast. Water is an element scarcely less distributed than the air itself. It is one of those common blessings which are so common that we take them with no manner of doubt that we are perfectly sure of them, come what may. The importance of water is seen by nothing more than by the frequent references to it in Scripture as illustrative of spiritual blessings. There is water to drink; water to cleanse; water to fertilise vegetation. This element God takes, and all at once, over a wide stretch of territory, turns it to blood. Thus we see how he can make mere natural things a blessing or a curse according to his will. Water is a blessing, and blood a blessing, according to circumstances of time and place. There is suffering when blood is where water ought to be; and equally there is suffering if water is where blood ought to be. Here there was great suffering because blood was where water was meant to be. When the people came for water to drink, to cook, to wash, to water plants, they found only blood; and yet that very blood was the same in its composition with the liquid which flowed incessantly through their own bodies. Their health depended on its richness, its purity, and the regularity of its flow. On the other hand, consider the poor man who came to Christ to be cured of the dropsy (Luke 14:2). He had to complain, not that blood was where water ought to be, but that water was where blood ought to be. And here we claim that this miracle is not sufficiently explained by saying that the water was turned into something like blood. We must take it that there was a conversion of the water literally into blood. We are here just at the beginning of a critical and sublime exhibition of signs and wonders. Why, then, needlessly make admissions which will diminish the force of these? Granting the supernatural at all, let us be ready to grant it to the full where the statements of the text require it. The Being who changed a rod to a serpent could change, if need were, the waters of the whole globe into blood. We should be careful not to admit, without sufficient reason, anything to diminish the horrors of this plague. What a poor picture it presents to the imagination to think of streams stained with red earth or microscopic infusoria! How much more impressive in every way—how much more consistent with high conceptions of the anger of Jehovah, and of the punitive aspect of his power—to think of blood, real blood everywhere, "vast rolling streams, florid and high-coloured," and becoming after a while, a stagnating, clotting, putrescent mass. Very fitly does Matthew Henry remark on this plague:—"One of the first miracles Moses wrought was turning water into blood, but one of the first miracles our Lord Jesus wrought was turning water into wine; for the law was given by Moses, and it was a dispensation of death and terror; but grace and truth, which, like wine, make glad the heart, came by Jesus Christ." IV. THE RIVALRY OF THE . They also were able, or seemed to be able, to turn water into blood. There are, indeed, some difficulties in understanding the nature of their action here—whether it was mere trickery and deception, or whether God did allow water, as it passed through their hands, to be changed to blood. An understanding of these points is, however, of secondary importance. The thing of moment is to mark how unimpressed the magicians themselves seem to have been with the terrible spectacle presented to them. It was not for Pharaoh only to take heed to this river of blood; the intimation was for them also. But they clung, as privileged men almost always do cling, to their position and influence. Not only was Pharaoh’s kingdom in danger, but their standing as the professed agents of supernatural powers. They went on, vainly contending against this new manifestation of power, though surely in their hearts they must have felt it was destined to prevail And their conduct was made worse by the fact that they were pursuing it in the midst of general suffering. V. THE TO THE NEXT PLAGUE. What was this interval for? Surely to give Pharaoh time—time to consider the miracle in all its bearings, and get over the rashness and pride which prompted his first thoughts of continued resistance. We know not if, during these seven days, the river slowly returned to its natural state. Perhaps there was no sharp dividing line between the plagues; one may have come on as another faded away. Seven days, then, were given to Pharaoh to change his mind; but it is very hard for a man, even in seven days, to say he has been utterly wrong. And then there is the success of these magicians to keep him astray. Yet what was there in them to give satisfaction? It seemed they could do the same thing which Moses was doing, viz. change water into blood. If only they could have changed blood into water again, then they might have been of some use and comfort to Pharaoh.—Y. BY J. The water turned into blood. I. THE . There were two elements in it. 1. The deprivation: water, one of the most essential of all God’s gifts, was suddenly made useless. 2. The horror. Had all the water of Egypt suddenly disappeared, the punishment had been infinitely less. Instead of water, there was blood and corruption. 3. It was a judgment on Egypt’s idolatry. The things we set in God’s stead will be made an abomination and a horror to us. 4. It was the revelation of Egypt’s guilt; beneath these waters the babes of Israel had sunk in their hopeless struggle with death. The abused gifts of God will be removed, but the horror of their abuse will abide. I. THE ATTEMPT TO GOD’S AGENCY IN THE . The magicians could increase the plague, and therefore it was not from the hand of God! The same argument is used still to prevent misfortune being considered as a chastisement and warning from God. Men can see in it chance only, or man’s hand, not the Lord’s. III. PHARAOH’S DOGGED REFUSAL TO OBEY. He "turned and went into his house" (Exodus 7:23). This would prolong his punishment, but could not conquer God. Instead of bowing to God’s word, we may shut ourselves in with our sin, but we only bind judgment upon us, and tempt God to inflict a heavier blow.—U. On the occurrence of the second sign and first plague, the magicians were again consulted; and, by means which it is impossible to do more the. conjecture, they produced a seeming transformation into blood of a certain quantity of water. The inquiry, whence they procured the water, is answered by Exodus 7:24. That they actually turned water into blood is scarcely asserted in the vague "did so" of Exodus 7:22. Perhaps they had recourse to sleight of hand, and made a substitution, like modem conjurors; perhaps they merely turned the water of a red colour. All that was necessary was to convince Pharaoh that they were able to do what Moses and Aaron had done—there was no one to watch, and test, and examine their pretended miracle, which consequently passed muster, though it may have been no more than a trick. Pharaoh, however, suffered himself to be convinced, and "turned and went into his house" without paying any attention to the marvel wrought (Exodus 7:23). Exodus 7:22 The magicians of Egypt did so. They could not do what Moses and Aaron had done—stretch out, that is, a rod over the Nile, and turn it and all its branches, and ponds, and pools, into blood, for this was already done. They could only show their skill upon some small quantity of water in a cup or other vessel. No doubt they produced some apparent change, which was accepted by Pharaoh as an equivalent to what had been effected by the Israelite chiefs, but which must have fallen far short of it. Pharaoh would not be a severe critic. Exodus 7:23 Pharaoh turned—i.e. "returned"—quitted the river-hank, satisfied with what the magicians had done, and went back to the palace. Neither did he set his heart to this also. A better translation is that of Booth-royd—"Nor did he lay even this to heart." In the expression "even this" there is an allusion to the previous neglect of the first sign (Exodus 7:13). Exodus 7:22, Exodus 7:23 The power of Satan is with all deceivableness. Satan himself, and wicked men, his instruments, are especially strong in the power of deception. Satan deceived Eve (1 Timothy 2:14). The lying spirit deceived Ahab (1 Kings 22:22). Rebekah and Jacob together deceived Isaac. Gehazi deceived Naaman. Bad men are clever and plausible, and keensighted, and painstaking, and careful—they lay their plans skilfully, and carry them out boldly, and are usually successful. The magicians had not only their own credit at stake, but also that of the priests, who were in league with them. They would not be very scrupulous what means they used, so that they could persuade the Pharaoh that whatever Moses and Aaron could do, they could do: and they succeeded. The "father of lies" no doubt suggested to them some clever method of seeming to perform the same sort of miracle as the Israelitish leaders had performed—they adopted it, and cheated the eyes of the beholders. When men wished to nip the religion of Christ in the bud, they called its Founder "that deceiver" (Matthew 27:63). Deceit is a device of Satan. In nothing are the powers of light and darkness more contrasted than in the simpleness, the straightforward sincerity that characterises the former, and the crookedness, the tortuousness, the insincerity that goes with the latter. He who is "the Way" and "the Life," is also "the Truth." All who would have fellowship with him must "walk in truth." Necessity is the mother of invention. Finding the Nile water continue utterly undrinkable, the Egyptians bethought themselves of a means of obtaining water to which they never had recourse in ordinary times. This was to dig pits or wells at some distance from the river, and so obtain the moisture that lay in the ground, no doubt derived from the river originally, but already there before the change of the water into blood took place. This, it appears, remained water, and was drinkable, though probably not very agreeable, since, owing to the nitrous quality of the soil in Egypt, well-water has always a bitter and brackish taste. It sufficed, however, for drinking and culinary purposes during the "seven days" that the plague continued (Exodus 7:25). Exodus 7:24 All the Egyptians digged. Not the Hebrews. The water stored in the houses of the Hebrews in reservoirs, cisterns, and the like, was (it would seem) not vitiated; and this would suffice for the consumption of seven days. Water to drink. Blood would not become water by percolation through earth, as Canon Cook appears to think; but there might have been sufficient water in the ground before the plague began, to fill the wells dug, for seven days. Exodus 7:25 And seven days were fulfilled. This note of time has been regarded as merely fixing the interval between the first plague and the second. But it is more natural to regard it as marking the duration of the first plague. The intervals between one plague and another are nowhere estimated. God allows men to seek and obtain alleviations of his judgments. We are not intended to sit down under the judgments of God, and fold our hands, and do nothing. Whether it be war, or pestilence, or famine, or any other Heaven-sent calamity that comes upon us for our sins and those of our nation, we must beware of sinking into apathy under the infliction, and allowing it simply to run its course. God does not desire that we should show our submission in this way. He gives us thought, and ingenuity, and inventiveness, that, in every difficulty we may devise remedies, and so lessen our own and our neighbours’ sufferings. Oriental nations view each calamity that comes upon them as Kismet, "fate," and make no exertions to meet it, stem it, minimise it. Christians should act otherwise. They should so far imitate the Egyptians as to set to work actively, to do what can be done in the way of relief and alleviation. God freely allows this. He did not punish the Egyptians for digging, or frustrate their efforts by preventing the water that was in the ground from filling the wells, or by rendering it undrinkable. And so he allows cholera or plague, or even ordinary sickness, which is his judgment on an individual, to be met by care, attention, cleanliness, remedial measures, and is so far from interfering against such exertions, that he blesses them, and for the most part renders them effectual. BY H. T. Chaps. 7-10 The great conflict. "For I will at this time send all my plagues," etc.: Exodus 9:14. Keeping the last tremendous visitation apart, for it stands out in lone grandeur in the story, it is well to take the other nine plagues together in any homiletic, use we make of them; for— 1. They have many features in common. 2. And are closely connected with one another. A landscape should not be cut up, when we can see at a sweep the whole panorama. The subject, then, is Jehovah’s conflict with this great idolatrous world-power. I. THE AGENT. What was Moses? What was his Divine legation? 1. He was a patriot-deliverer, ranking with Tell, Bruce, etc. etc; as the saviour of his nation—but more! 2. A statesman—the creator (under God) of first a polity, and then a nation. He taught free men to govern themselves, under God. But Moses was more! 3. A prophet of the living God. Moses was intensely religious. He ranks with the greatest spiritual leaders of the world. His peer is Elijah, though Elijah was not quite equal. So great are they both that they appear on Tabor with the transfigured Lord. God, eternity, the soul, law, salvation, religion are the master motives of this great spirit. All that Moses was besides is to be traced to this deep root. The lesson is obvious: religion first—then the things that accompany salvation. II. HIS DEEDS. 1. Their historic reality. Two facts certain— (1) Israel in Egypt. (2) Israel in Canaan. he historic problem is: How was the transition made? (1) Kings are not in the habit of emancipating races (2) Israel never won its own freedom. Nor (3) was Egypt overthrown by a foreign power, and so in the confusion Israel emerged to liberty. (4) The Deliverer was God, and the mode, that described in the book. 2. Their exact nature. Exposition here of the miracles seriatim, with a careful note of the specialities of each. This as a foundation for the discussion of the question: Were the plagues natural or supernatural? They were either (1) natural; or (2) supernatural; or (3) natural in kind, but supernatural in degree, in circumstances and in concomitants. See Exodus 10:12, Exodus 10:19; Exodus 14:21. Our view is the last. But that the visitations were direct from the hand of God is clear from— (1) Their colossal proportions. (2) Their concentration upon one epoch. (3) Their relation to the moral controversy. (4) Their gradation. (5) Dependence on the word of Moses. [On the evidential value of the plagues, see ’Speaker’s Commentary,’ vol. 1:241. 3. Their objective. This word here used in a military sense. What was the Divine object in these visitations? To hurl thunderbolts against the idolatries of Egypt: Exodus 12:12. For detail, see Dr. Alexander’s Kitto’s Cycle; p. 751, vol. 1.4. Their superiority to the acts of the magicians. Full discussion of the questions—What the magicians really did, and how they did it, will be found in the Congregational Lectures by Rev. Walter Scott, of Airedale College, on "The Existence of Evil Spirits," 145-156. The conclusion, sustained by argument, is that they were adepts in sleight of hand. But, for homiletic purposes, show the grandeur of the scale on which Moses acted, and the imposing character of his deeds as a moral demonstration to the idolaters of Egypt. 5. Their climacteric character. When God deals with sinners, he begins afar off, and only very gradually draws near and close to their deepest life and acutest feeling. So here he touches first the river—then comfort (frogs, Ice, flies)—then cattle—then the skin of the people—then food (hail and locusts)—then threatens life by the suffocating effects of the fifty days’ sand-storm darkness—at last life itself. "I will sing of mercy" as well as "of judgment," etc. III. HIS WORDS. Fine homiletic use may be made of the verbal controversy which went on between Moses and Pharaoh all the time of these visitations, and which increased in tragic vehemence as blow after blow descended. Note Pharaoh’s waverings, relentings, and anon persistence; and also the occasional passionate entreaties of the hardened sinner on behalf of the awestruck and repentant people. But "whom the gods purpose to destroy they first of all madden." IV. EFFECTS. 1. On the Egyptians. Leading some finally to attach themselves to the redeemed of the Lord. 2. On Moses. Called to a stupendous work. Timid. Trained to confidence in God, and obedience to his slightest word. Note!—So God is ever training his servants. 3. On Israel, through Moses. V. LESSONS. The main ones of this great controversy. 1. The object of God in dealing with men. To beat down the idolatries of the human heart—to reveal himself—his law—his salvation—to reconcile men with himself. 2. The inevitable conflict, i.e. until God’s purpose be accomplished. Show the reality of this conflict in the case of every sinner. Message after message, mercy after mercy, judgment after judgment. If men will not be reconciled, then there must be antagonism; to that antagonism there can be but one end. It is in this sense that Amos challenges Israel—"Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel." This is the word of the Lord as "a man of war." 3. The futility of the repentance of fear. Case of Pharaoh. Case of every sinner. Fear, however, has its mission—to awaken to concern. But no repentance is solid, lasting in its effect, but that which takes place in view of the love of our Father as seen in the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord.—R. BY G. A. The Lord, he is the God. Egypt was a pleasant land—"the garden of the Lord" (Genesis 13:10). The river, the source of its fertility, was fenced off from desert on either side by cliff ranges—canopied from morning to evening by the ever blue, bright sky. No wonder that the inhabitants should think much of such a land, that they should come to say of river, land, sky, "These be thy gods, O Egypt!" The veil of nature, which should reveal—as by shadow cast on sheet—may hide, the unseen God: cf. Romans 1:20. The struggle with Pharaoh shows us God asserting himself—proving himself "God of gods" as well as "Lord of lords." Regarding the river as the source of fertility; the land as the sphere for fertility; the sky as the guardian of fertility—see how God openly manifests the dependence of each and all on him. I. THE RIVER. "The beneficent Nile, the very life of the state and of the people" (Stanley). (1) Middle of June—season of annual overflow. To all appearance more than ever divine-Pharaoh (Exodus 7:15) probably openly acknowledging its divinity. Suddenly turned into blood—loathsome; no longer a source of fertility, but a source of corruption and death—at the command of Jehovah, the unrecognised invisible source whence the fertilising power had been derived. (2) Later. Subsidence of the water. The river mud seems to breed frogs. Compelled at the Divine command to fructify not grain but reptiles. (3) Later. Even the dust of the sun-dried mud turned by Jehovah into a tormenting pest. "The river is mine, and the soil which it deposits is mine; even the very dust which it leaves is mine. Have not I, the Lord, made all these things?" II. THE LAND. So far the fiver has been made to plague the land; but Jehovah needs no intermediary. He has direct power over the land also. (1) Exodus 8:21, Exodus 8:22. Swarms of flies (gnats) coming up as it were out of the ground. Yet land severed from land—Goshen spared, "so that thou mayest know that I am Jehovah in the midst of the land" (2) Exodus 9:3. Murrain in the cattle—the creatures most nearly connected with the land; identified with its prosperity; deified as its representatives—at a set time, within appointed limits. (3) Exodus 9:9. Pestilence on man and beast. The furnace-ash strewed heavenwards. The land as modified by human agency turned into a plague upon the men who used it. "The land is mine, and the cattle are mine, the very furnace-ash which ye might almost clam as self-made is mine. Have not I, the Lord, made all these things?" III. THE SKY. The previous plague (Exodus 9:8) "toward the heaven," seems to challenge the sky divinities. Now they also are to be proved subject. 1. Exodus 9:22. At the word of Jehovah the protector becomes the devastator. Clouds gather and pour out water. Pharaoh and Egypt, too, shall know that the earth belongs to no sky divinity, but to Jehovah: Exodus 5:1-23:29. 2. Exodus 10:13. The winds, compelled into Jehovah’s service, become charioteers for his locust armies. 3. Exodus 10:21. The sun, source of light, chief of the gods—even he is draped in darkness at the word of Jehovah. "The sky is mine with its clouds and winds, even the sun in all his glory. Have not I, the Lord, made all these things?" Application:—People still forget God—still, practically, deify his gifts, and so plant them as to hide the Giver of them. The world, our respectable every-day world, not unlike Egypt. Health (life, ζωὴ), the river that fertilises it. Circumstances (life, βίος), the land fertilised. Thought, intelligence, wisdom, the sky which seems to canopy and protect both. Deify them and forget the God above them, and God will yet manifest himself by strange plagues on your divinities. Your river shall be turned into blood, and your sun into darkness [cf. Tennyson, "Palace of Art."] These things, too—health, happiness, intelligence—he will surely show that he and no other has maple them all.—G. THE SECOND PLAGUE. After an interval which there are no means of estimating, the second plague followed the first. Again, while the main purpose of the plague was to punish the nation by which Israel had been so long oppressed, the secondary object of throwing contempt upon their, religion was main-rained. Frogs were among the Egyptian sacred animals. One of their deities, Heka, was a frog-headed goddess; and they seem to have regarded the frog as a sacred emblem of creative power. The great multiplication of frogs, whereby they became an annoyance and a curse, was a trial and strain to the entire Egyptian religious system. The Egyptians might not kill them; yet they destroyed all their comfort, all their happiness. Their animal-worship was thus proved absurd and ridiculous. They were obliged to respect the creatures which they hated—to preserve the animals they would fain have swept from the face of the earth. It is perhaps somewhat difficult for modern Europeans to imagine the plague that frogs might be. The peculiar kind, which has the scientific name of Rana Mosaica, resembles our toad, and is a disgusting object, which crawls rather than leaps, and croaks perpetually. To have the whole country filled with these disgusting reptiles, to be unable to walk in the streets without treading on them, to find them not only occupying one’s doorstep but in possession of one’s house, in one’s bed-chamber, and upon one’s bed, to hear their dismal croak perpetually, to see nothing but their loathsome forms whithersoever one looked, to be in perpetual contact with them and feel the repulsion of their cold, rough, clammy skin, would be perhaps as severe a punishment as can well be conceived. Nations are known to have deserted their homes, and fled to a foreign land to escape from it. "In Paeonia and Dardania,"says Phoenias, a disciple of Aristotle, "there appeared once suddenly such a number of frogs, that they filled the houses and the streets. Therefore—as killing them, or shutting the doors, was of no avail; as even the vessels were full of them, the water infected, and all food uneatable; as they could scarcely set their foot upon the ground without treading on heaps of them, and as they were vexed by the smell of the great numbers which died—they fled from that region altogether". In Egypt, the young frogs come out of the waters in the month of September, when the inundation is beginning to subside. Even now they sometimes amount to a severe visitation. Exodus 8:1 Go unto Pharaoh. The second plague is given simply as a plague, not as a sign. It is first threatened (Exodus 8:2), and then accomplished (Exodus 8:6), an interval being allowed, that Pharaoh might change his mind, and escape the plague, if he chose. Exodus 8:2 Frogs. The word used for "frog," viz. tseparda, is thought to be Egyptian, and to remain (abbreviated) in the modern dofda, which is in common use, and designates the species known to naturalists as "Rana Mosaica." Exodus 8:3 The river shall bring forth frogs. The frogs do not often come directly out of the river. They are bred in the pools and marshes which the Nile leaves as it is retiring. These, however, may be viewed as detached fragments of the river. Thine house … thy bed-chamber … thy bed. The extreme cleanliness of the Egyptians (Herod. 2:37) rendered this visitation peculiarly disagreeable to them. The frogs under ordinary circumstances do not think of entering houses. Ovens in Egypt were probably baking-pans. These were heated from within by a fire of wood, which was withdrawn after a time and the dough attached by pressure to the interior of the vessels. Kneading-troughs were vessels in which the dough was prepared. Both these and ovens are represented in the Egyptian tombs. (See Rosellini,’ Mon. Civ.’ pl: 84, 85.) Exodus 8:5 Over the streams … rivers … ponds. See the comment on Exodus 7:19. Exodus 8:6 The frogs came up. Literally, "The frog came up," the word being used to designate the class or species. Exodus 8:7 The magicians did so … and brought up frogs. Here again, as in their imitation of the first plague (Exodus 7:22), sleight of hand may have been the means employed by the magicians; or possibly they may have merely claimed that their enchantments "brought up" frogs, which were in reality the consequence of Aaron’s act (Exodus 8:2). Exodus 8:1-8 God can scourge men beyond endurance with a whip of straw. A frog seems an innocent and harmless reptile enough, not pleasing nor attractive, but scarcely calculated to cause much suffering. When the Egyptians made frogs sacred, they had no notion of one day finding them an intolerable annoyance. But God can make, of the least of his creatures, a weapon to wound, a whip to scourge men. Minute microscopic fungi and entozoa destroy crops and wither up the human frame. Huge ships are utterly ruined by the working of the Teredo navalis. White ants bring down houses. And so, on this occasion, poor weak frogs made the lives of the Egyptians a burthen to them. Forced to tread on them as they walked, to feel them crawling upon their naked feet, to see them covering the floors of their chambers and the soft cushions of their beds, finding them in their ovens, their kneading-troughs, the culinary and other vessels, scarcely able to keep them out of their food, always hearing their melancholy croak, the unfortunate wretches had not a moment’s comfort or peace. Constant dropping wears out a stone. A trivial annoyance becomes intolerable by repetition and persistence. Thus, even the obdurate Pharaoh, who had borne the first plague till God chose to remove it without a symptom of yielding, is cowed by the second plague, and "calls for Moses and Aaron"(Exodus 8:8). BY J. ORR Exodus 8:1 -39 Three plagues-frogs, lice, flies. On the precise character of these three plagues, see the exposition. They are to be viewed in their relation to the Egyptians.— 1. As an intensification of the natural plagues of the land. 2. As a proof of the almightiness of Jehovah (see on Exodus 7:17), and of the folly of further contest with him (Exodus 8:10, Exodus 8:22). 3. As a demonstration of the vanity of the idols. The Egyptian gods were utterly powerless to aid their worshippers. There was not the shadow of help to be derived from them. This was the more remarkable that several of the gods were worshipped as protectors from the very classes of plagues which were here brought upon the country. There were fly-gods, to protect against flies, deities to protect against frogs, etc. And the defeat of the idols was remarkable from this other fact, that several of the agents employed as scourges of Egypt were themselves ranked as deities. This was the case with the river, and with many of the creatures, e.g. the beetle, probably included under "flies." 4. The removal of the plagues when Pharaoh showed signs of submission, was a proof of God’s mercy, and a token to the monarch of his sincerity in his dealings with him generally. Taken in connection with Pharaoh’s behaviour under them, the three plagues read us valuable lessons. They teach— I. THE OF GOD in THE KINGDOM OF NATURE. All creatures, all agencies, are under his control. They come and go, march and countermarch, act in separation or combination, at his pleasure. He sent the hornets before the Israelites to drive out the Amorites from their strong castles (Exodus 22:28). He frequently punished Israel by sending armies of locusts to devour the produce of the fields (Joe 1:1-20, Joe 2:1-32; Amos 4:1-13.). Jehovah was at the head of these armies (Joe 2:11), and so was he at the head of the armies of frogs, gnats, flies, and other noxious insects that drove the Egyptians to a state of desperation. This is a striking thought, in as full accordance with a sound philosophy and with the facts presented to us in nature, as with the teaching of Christ, who bids us see the Father’s hand even in the fall of a sparrow. What account can be given, e.g; of the minatory instincts of birds, save that suggested by this thought of Jehovah’s rule, regulating their motions, and guiding them in their long and perilous journeys (Jeremiah 8:7). He rules. He alone rules. "An idol is nothing"(1 Corinthians 8:4). II. THE OF MAN IN THE HANDS OF JEHOVAH. 1. God’s entire control of all things in creation gives him command of exhaustless resources for the punishment of his enemies. When the river was healed at the end of seven days, Pharaoh may have thought that his trouble had blown past—that the plagues were at an end. But lo! a new plague is brought upon him, of which he had never dreamed, a plague of "frogs," also from the river. Then in swift successive strokes came the plagues of gnats, of mixed insects, of murrain of beasts, of boils, etc; each breaking out from some new and totally unexpected quarter. If ever the Egyptians thought, Surely the arrows in the quiver of this mighty god are at length all spent, they were speedily undeceived by the breaking forth upon them of some fresh plague. The Almighty’s quiver is not thus easily exhausted. There is at every stage in his chastisements an infinite reserve of power to chastise us further, and in new forms. 2. Natural agents are a frequent means by which God chastises the rebellious. It is really a truer philosophy which sees God behind all action of natural force, and all movements of the irrational creatures, than that which sees only second causes, only laws and instincts, and refuses to recognise the Supreme Orderer in their movements and combinations. There need be no scruple in acknowledging second causes, or even, in a sense, a reign of unvarying law; but the "laws" of nature are one thing, and the "course" of nature another, and this latter the Theist believes to be no more of chance than the former, while the Christian is taught to trace a Divine purpose and end in its minutest ramifications. Hail, snow, fire, and vapour; stormy wind; rain and thunder; insect and reptile life; plague and famine; disease in its myriad forms—all are weapons in the hands of God by which he can fulfil his. righteous will to punish. 3. The minutest forms of life are used by God as his sorest scourges. Thomas Scott acutely remarks that the plagues would have been easier to bear, and would not have been felt to be so humiliating, had the agents in them been lions and tigers, or other animals of the nobler sort; or perhaps foreign enemies. There would at least have been dignity in succumbing to the attacks of hordes of powerful foes. But how intolerably humiliating to be conquered by shoals of frogs or by insignificant and contemptible creatures like lice and flies! Yet Pharaoh could more easily have contended with the former classes of enemies than with these latter. One army can charge another with at least some chance of success; and protection is possible against enemies that are of a size which admits of their being shot, hunted, trapped, or kept out by walls and defences; but nothing of this kind is possible with the minuter creatures. It was impossible to erect defences against locusts; and to this hour, man is helpless against their ravages. A stray Colorado beetle may be put to death; but if that form of life were developed to but a small extent among us, it would be impossible to shield ourselves effectually from its destructive operations. Numbers of diseases have now been traced to the presence of germs in the atmosphere and in our food and drink, and it is the very minuteness of these germs—their microscopic and infinitesimal character—which makes them so deadly and so difficult to cope with. When the potato disease appeared in 1846, nothing could be done to check its spread, and little can be done yet to guard against its assaults! The fungus is of a kind which eludes our efforts to deal with it. Plague and pestilence (Plague of London, Black Death, Cholera, etc.), while depending to a very large extent on material conditions for their development, yet seem connected in their origin with similar organic germs. In this whole wide region, accordingly, God has under his control potent invisible agencies, which ordinarily his providence keeps in check, but which at any hour might be converted into most terrific scourges. He has at command a literally exhaustless array of weapons with which to assail us, if we provoke his chastisements; armies countless in numbers, invisible in form, unseen in their modes of attack, and against which no weapons can be forged likely to secure safety. As knowledge advances, means are discovered for partially protecting ourselves against this or that disorder (sanitary science, vaccination, etc.); but just as, perhaps, we are beginning to think with the Egyptians that the evil day is past, some new plague develops itself (e.g. the potato murrain) of which formerly we had no conception. We are still in God’s hands and as helpless as ever. The "last days" will probably be marked by a singular intensification of natural plagues (Luke 21:25; Revelation 16:1-12). III. THE OF TO GOD THAT LIE IN HUMAN NATURE. It might have been judged impossible that, after being convinced, as Pharaoh at an early stage in these proceedings must have been, of the reality and power of the Being with whom he was contending—that he was indeed Jehovah, the God of the whole earth—the monarch should still have persevered in his mad resistance. Twice, in the course of this chapter, he is brought to the point of acknowledging the futility of further opposition; yet, immediately on the plague being removed, he reverts to the policy of non-submission. He must have known that he had nothing to gain by it. If he was infatuated enough at first to think that the Almighty, having removed one plague, could not, or would not, send another, he must have been speedily disabused of that impression. It was no longer a question of self-interest with him, for the loss and pain caused by these successive plagues more than counterbalanced any gain he could hope to derive from the retention of the Israelites. Neither had he on his side, in opposition to this command of the Hebrews’ God, the least shadow of right or reason, with which to sustain himself. Yet without one conceivable motive save that furnished by his own pride and obstinacy, and by hatred of the Being who was thus coercing him, Pharaoh continued to resist. Conquered for the moment, he returned to his defiant attitude the instant pressure was removed. And this defiant attitude he maintained, with increasing hardness of heart till the very end. Here then we see the possibility of a being finally resisting grace. It appals us to think of the possibilities of resistance to the Almighty thus tying in the constitution of our wills, but the fact is not to be ignored. It is a proof of our original greatness. It reveals to us our immortality. It shows us the possibility of a final loss of the soul. If it be thought that Gospel influences are certain to accomplish that which could not be expected by terrors and judgments, and that changes may be wrought in eternity, which cannot be wrought in time, we have to remember that an even worse hardening is possible under the dispensation of the Son and Spirit than was possible to Pharaoh, and that human nature in the future state is essentially the same as human nature now. No good reason can be shown why a will which resists all that God can do to subdue it here may not from the same motives resist all gracious influences brought to bear on it hereafter. No one, at least, looking to the possibilities of resistance manifested on earth, could guarantee that it will not do so. The tendency to a fixed state of the will in evil as in good, renders the possibility of an ultimate recovery of those who habitually resist light here extremely problematical, even on the grounds of philosophy. If we turn to Scripture, it is difficult to see what warrant we have to expect it. The dream of a future dispensation of grace, and of universal restoration, must find support somewhere else than in its statements. ]f we accept the plain teaching of Christ and the Apostles, there are those who will finally resist, and their number will not be few. The gift of will is a great, but it is also an infinitely perilous one. Even Dr. Farrar says, "I cannot tell whether some souls may not resist God for ever, and therefore may not be for ever shut out from his presence". IV. GOD’S TO BE OF THE SINNER. Though Pharaoh had hardened himself so obstinately, yet, on the first signs of his relenting, mercy was shown to him (verse 9). There was on God’s part, even a hastening to be gracious. Pharaoh was taken at his word. He was trusted. No guarantees were taken from him that he would fulfil his word, save his simple promise. God might have delayed the removal of the plague till the actual order for Israel’s departure from the land had been given. But the plague was removed at once, that Pharaoh might be left to his freedom, and that his heart might be won by the exhibition of the divine goodness to him. And this was done, not merely on the first, but on the second occasion of his entreaty, and after his first promise had been broken (verse 29). So willing is God to do the sinner every justice, and to grant him every opportunity, which may result in his salvation, lie does not wait for complete conversion, but welcomes in man the first signs of a disposition to return to Him. He is as plenteous in mercy as tie is severe in judgment, if mercy is despised. V. THE EFFECT OF IN OF HEART. It is obvious from this chapter that Pharaoh was making rapid progress in hardening himself. Going back a stage or two, we can trace that progress in very marked degrees. We find him hardening himself— 1. Against a miracle which was plainly from God, but which he tried to persuade himself was only a work of magic—the conversion of the rod into a serpent. 2. Against a miracle which he knew to be from God, but against the influence of which his obstinacy enabled him to hold out—the turning of the Nile into blood. 3. Against a miracle which he not only knew to be from God, but which convinced him of the hopelessness of further resistance, and which was removed from him at his own request—the plague of frogs. 4. Against his own promise to release the Israelites. 5. Against a miracle which even his magicians failed to imitate, and declared to be the finger of God, (verse 19)—the plague of lice. Having broken his promise, Pharaoh now felt, probably, that he must brave it out. 6. Against a miracle which showed yet more distinctly that the work was God’s by the difference which was put between the Egyptians and the Israelites dwelling in Goshen—the plague of flies (verses 22, 23). This seems to have produced a powerful impression upon the king, and he again besought the removal of the plague. 7. Against a second solemn promise, and after being expressly warned against deceitful dealing (verse 29). As the result of all, Pharaoh was acquiring facility in hardening himself, was rapidly losing his susceptibility to truth, was becoming infatuated in his obstinacy, and was strengthening his will in the habit of resistance. Thus fatally does hardening make progress!—J.O. Exodus 8:1-16 The plague of frogs. Observe on this plague, in addition to what has been said above. I. PHARAOH’S UNDER THE FIRST PLAGUE WROUGHT NO ESCAPE, EITHER FROM THE DIVINE COMMAND OR FROM THE DIVINE POWER (Exodus 8:1). He probably thought, now that the river was healed, that he had done with Jehovah’s demand, and perhaps congratulated himself that he had succeeded in holding out. But divine commands are not thus to be got rid of. They are not to be got rid of by resistance. They are not to be got rid of even by braving out the penalty. They come back and back to us, and always with the old alternative, obey, or incur new punishment. Our most furious opposition cannot rid us of the obligation of rendering to Jesus in the Gospel "the obedience of faith," nor shall we escape judgment if we refuse. II. THE SECOND PLAGUE INDUCED A WHICH THE FIRST FAILED TO EXTORT (Exodus 8:8). It was submission under compulsion, but it testified to a remarkable change in the king’s views about Moses and Jehovah. It was not long since he had been erecting himself in his pride in supreme defiance of both. Moses and Aaron he had treated as base-born slaves, and had ordered them back to their burdens (Exodus 5:4). He had scorned the message of their God, and had shown his contempt for it by heaping new insults on Jehovah’s worshippers. So impressed was even Moses by his lordly greatness, that he had shrunk from exposing himself to the proud king’s despite, lie thought it was useless for him to attempt to go to Pharaoh. Very different were Pharaoh’s ideas about Moses and Jehovah now he had been smitten by the invisible hand of this God with these two reeling blows, and already he was on his knees asking for deliverance. The vaunting sinner will change his views of the living God when once he falls into His hands. III. THE SECOND PLAGUE THE OF MOSES AND PHARAOH, MAKING PHARAOH THE SUITOR, AND MOSES THE PERSON SUED TO (Exodus 8:8). What a humiliation to this haughty monarch! How much better for himself had he yielded at first, and with a good grace, to the righteous demand made upon him! Nothing is gained by resistance to God, but ultimate pain and humiliation. As Pharaoh was humbled, so Moses was exalted, lie began to be "a god" to Pharaoh. Like reversals of the positions of the great ones of the world and despised servants of God have frequently been witnessed. Compare Paul and Felix (Acts 24:25); Paul and the centurion, in the shipwreck at Malta (Acts 28:1-31.). IV. THE SECOND PLAGUE RAISED MOSES TO NEW HONOURS BY MAKING HIS THE MEDIUM OF (Exodus 8:9-12). God might have removed the plague at Pharaoh’s simple request, conveyed to him by Moses. In point of fact, he made the intercession of Moses the condition and medium of it. The same thing is seen in the history of Elijah (1 Kings 18:41-46). This, 1. Put honour upon Moses. 2. Taught the value of "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man"( Genesis 18:23-33; James 1:15-18). 3. Gave Moses himself a deeper interest in the event. 4. Trained him for the higher function of mediation on behalf of Israel. It would give him confidence in intercession, would enable him to realise the reality of his power with God, would help in developing the faculty of earnest and sustained prayer. 5. It shadowed forth the higher mediation. Pharaoh was so abandoned in evil, so insincere even in his repentance, that his request, as it were, could only become prevailing when taken up by a holier nature and presented as its own. This is the key to all spiritual intercession, and involves the principle which reaches its full expression in the mediation of our Saviour. V. THE REMOVAL OF THE PLAGUE IN PHARAOH’S OF HIS PROMISE, AND IN HIS FURTHER . The severity of the plague had for the moment unmanned him. His power of further resistance had broken down. But the will to resist was not in the least altered, and when the plague was removed, his obstinate disposition reasserted itself, and produced new rebellion. Rage and pride must at this crisis have overpowered reason, as well as conscience, for Pharaoh could hardly doubt but that his breach of promise would bring new trouble upon him. He did, however, return to his contumacy, and by the act cut down another of the bridges which might have conducted him back to peace with God, and to safety and honour in his kingdom. Terror of any kind, the approach, perhaps, of death, or of what seems to threaten death, often produces quakings of soul, and transient repentances. If these are not followed up on recovery—if recovery or escape is granted—they react to induce a very special hardening. A heart seldom gets the better of vows made in a season of deep sorrow, and afterwards, with the return of health and prosperity, renounced. VI. MINOR LESSONS. 1. God’s visitations are not vague and general. They will find us out in every sphere and department of our lives. His stroke will be felt in everything (Exodus 8:3, Exodus 8:4). 2. The power of God’s servants (Exodus 8:5, Exodus 8:6: 12, 13). The stretching out of the rod brought frogs on Egypt. The intercession of Moses removed them. The prayers of a good man are both to be feared and to be desired. Feared, if they are against us; desired, if they are for us. It is lawful to pray, not for the ruin of our enemies’ souls, but for the discomfiture of their projects, and the overthrow of their ungodly schemes (Revelation 11:5, Revelation 11:6). 3. The duty of courtesy, and of returning good for evil (Exodus 8:9, Exodus 8:10). Moses, at the very time of his triumph over Pharaoh, treated him with studious respect, and was ready to pray, at his request, for the removal of the plague. 4. The power of life and death as vested in God (Exodus 8:13, Exodus 8:14). 5. Man’s abuse of God’s kindness (Exodus 8:15). A respite granted; therefore Pharaoh hardened himself (cf. Romans 2:4).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 8:1-15 The seared plague: the frogs. In intimating the first plague, Moses made no forms! demand upon Pharaoh to liberate Israel, though of course the demand was really contained in the intimation. But now as the second plague approaches, the formal demand once again is heard. Pharaoh is left for no long time without a distinct appeal which he must face either with consent or refusal. And so now Moses addresses him in the same words as on his first visit: "Let my people go." It is a challenge to the man who holds by violence and brute force that which is not his own. It is not a mere combat between potentate and potentate. "That they may serve me,"—awful is the wickedness of hindering God’s people from serving him. I. NOTICE THE OF THIS SECOND PLAGUE. Hitherto there has been something evidently sublime in God’s treatment of Pharaoh. God’s treatment is of course always sublime; but up to this point even Pharaoh must have felt that he was being treated as a king ought to be treated. The messengers of Jehovah were only mean men in appearance, but the first plague itself was certainly an impressive one. We may imagine that Pharaoh would even say to himself with a sort of proud satisfaction, "How great my power must be when all the waters of my land are turned to blood in order to coerce me." He would feel flattered by what we may call the dignity of the attack upon him. But now observe how God changes his mode of working, and proceeds to use little things to humiliate Pharaoh. As he uses those who are reckoned the feeble and contemptible among men, so he uses the feeble and contemptible among the lower creation. He sends out frogs all over the land of Egypt. If only it had been an incursion of lions from the desert, roaring through the streets of the city and tearing down the people, or if it had been a host of mighty beasts trampling down his fields, then Pharaoh would have felt there was dignity in such a mode of attack;—but frogs! frogs followed by gnats, and gnats by flies! A plague to be made out of frogs seems almost too absurd to think of; and yet we see from the event that these despised little creatures forced Pharaoh to an appeal which not all the evident sublimity of the first plague could extort. More curses could come out of the river than the conversion of it into blood. This plague of the frogs we may judge to have been felt as inconvenient and irritating rather than dangerous. How ridiculous it must have been to have these agile little animals, millions of them, finding their way everywhere. No place safe from them, not even the well-guarded chambers of Pharaoh himself. Here was a plague that did not wait for the people to make acquaintance with it, as when they went to the streams and pools and found them blood. It forced itself upon them by day and by night, as they sat at their meals and as they lay in their beds. The thing that is constantly inconvenient and troublesome, may bring a man to his knees sooner even than a peril which more closely concerns his life. II. THUS WE COME TO OBSERVE PHARAOH’S FIRST SIGN OF . Notice that as to what will actually have power to produce a certain result, God is a far better judge than we can be. We should have said, "put the frogs first and the blood afterwards; Pharaoh will yield to the blood what he will not yield to the frogs." But when it comes to a trial, it is quite the contrary. The frogs are so tormenting that they must be got rid of, even at a cost of a humiliating promise. Not even the success of the magicians in bringing up frogs, makes the torment more endurable; and so, perhaps somewhat to the astonishment of Moses, who might hardly expect such a sudden change, Pharaoh makes a promise in the most general terms to let the people forth for sacrifice. But mark, the moment Moses begins to press him and fix for a day, he procrastinates. The moment there is any relaxation of pressure upon him, he takes advantage of it. Already he begins to show that he will yield as little as he can. Give him a chance of fixing his time, and he naturally says "to-morrow." Unpleasant things are always put off until to-morrow, either on a supposition that the unpleasantness may be diminished, or on a chance that it may be escaped altogether. And then when to-morrow comes, "to-morrow" is again the cry. Notice that Moses complies with Pharaoh’s wish for this slight delay. One day is nothing so far as Israel is concerned. They can easily wait, if only the granting of this one day will make Pharaoh’s yielding more agreeable to himself. God never humiliates for the sake of humiliating. He chooses the humiliation of his enemies—as when he sends a plague of frogs,—because it is the most effectual means to his own ends. But the moment there is a profession of repentance, the humiliation stops, and opportunity is given to make the profession a reality.—Y. How long the plague of frogs endured, we are not told. Probably every effort was made, short of intentionally killing them, to get rid of them. Snakes, and chameleons, and ibises would destroy many—others would be crushed beneath wheels, trampled on by animals, squeezed to death by the opening of doors, unintentionally killed by men. But the vacancies made were constantly filled; and there seemed no prospect of the infliction passing away. The influence of his counsellors would under these circumstances be brought to bear upon the mind of the Pharaoh—he would be warned that his subjects were attributing their sufferings to his obstinacy—he would be recommended—perhaps pressed—to yield, and would find in the annoyance which he individually endured a strong motive for compliance. Accordingly, he after a while sent for the two Israelite chiefs, and made the request recorded in the text. Exodus 8:8 Intreat the Lord—i.e; "Intreat your God, Jehovah, who has sent this plague, and can doubtless take it away." An acknowledgment of Jehovah’s power is now for the first time forced from the reluctant king, who has hitherto boasted that "he knew not Jehovah" (Exodus 5:2). I will let the people go. The royal word is passed. A positive promise is made. If the Pharaoh does not keep his word, he will outrage even Egyptian morality—he will be without excuse. Exodus 8:9 Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me. Probably a phrase of ordinary courtesy, meaning—"I submit to thy will have the honour of my submission." When shall I intreat? Literally "For when"—i.e; "for what date shall I make my prayer to God?" And so Pharaoh’s answer is not "To-morrow," as in the Authorised Version, but "For tomorrow." Thy houses. It would seem that the frogs had invaded more than one palace of the Pharaoh. He had perhaps quitted Tanis, and gone to Memphis, when the plague came; but the frogs pursued him there. Exodus 8:10 To-morrow. See the comment on Exodus 8:9. That thou mayest know. Moses accepts the date fixed by the Pharaoh, and makes an appeal to him to recognise the unapproachable power and glory of Jehovah, if the event corresponds with the time agreed upon. Exodus 8:12 Moses cried unto the Lord. The expression used is a strong one, and seems to imply special earnestness in the prayer. Moses had ventured to fix a definite time for the removal of the plague, without (so far as appears) any special command of God. Hence earnest prayer (as Kalisch notes) was doubly necessary. (Compare 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Kings 18:37.) Exodus 8:13 The villages. The translation "courts" or "court-yards," is preferred by some. Houses in Egypt had generally a court-yard attached to them. Exodus 8:14 They gathered them together upon heaps. Literally "heaps upon heaps." And the land stank. Even when the relief came, it was not entire relief. The putrefaction of the dead bodies filled the whole land with a fetid odour. Exodus 8:15 When Pharaoh saw that there was respite. Literally, "a taking of breath," i.e; "a breathing-space." He hardened his heart. He became hard and merciless once more, believing that the danger was past, and not expecting any fresh visitation. As Isaiah says—"Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness" (Isaiah 26:10). Bad men "despise the riches of God’s goodness and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth them to repentance." In this way, they "treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:4, Romans 2:5), either in this world or in the world to come. As the Lord had said. See Exodus 3:19; Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:4. Exodus 8:8-13 God’s mercy when men repent ever so little. The object of the judgments, as well as of the goodness of God is "to lead men to repentance "(Romans 2:4). He "wouldeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live"(Ezekiel 33:11). His cry is ever," Why will ye die, O house of Israel?" And sometimes His judgments have their proper effect on men, partially at any rate. Ahab repented to some extent when woe was denounced upon his house by Elijah—he "rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly"(1 Kings 21:27). The Ninevites "repented at the preaching of Jonah"—the king "proclaimed a fast," and "rose from his throne, and put his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and lay in ashes"—the people moreover, "put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them"(Jonah 3:5-7). And so Pharaoh seems to have repented, in a certain sense, at this time. He abated his pride, and came down from the high position which he had assumed, sent for God’s ministers, begged their prayers, and promised compliance with the Divine commands. Probably he was not conscious to himself of insincerity. His spirit was humbled—he was convinced of the power of Jehovah—he believed in the Divine mission of Moses and Aaron—he promised, intending to perform; and God, though knowing well how short-lived his repentance would be, suffered himself to be intreated, took away His heavy hand, and gave to Pharaoh, as He gave to Ahab and to the Ninevites, "a breathing space." We see by this, that such is the mercy of God, such His love for sinners who are not yet wholly hardened, that He looks with favour on the slighest relenting, the least indication of a desire to turn away from sin, forsake it, and turn to righteousness. And this divine pattern must be followed by His ministers. They must not assume that any professed repentance is insincere. They may have their own private belief, as Moses doubtless had; but it is their business to welcome the first show of penitence; to come when the sinner asks their aid, to give him the benefit of their prayers, to seek to obtain for him a remission or alleviation of God’s judgments. And further, they will do well to imitate the humility and courtesy of Moses. "A proud look and high stomach" on their part are unsuitable when the sinner abases himself. It is their duty, and their highest wisdom, to be "all things to all men"—to meet repentance half-way—to assist it, forward it, encourage it. No doubt, repentance under the pressure of judgment—such, e.g; as sickness—is in itself suspicious and doubtful; but the wise minister will keep his doubts to himself, and bend his whole mind to the fixing, furthering, and deepening of the repentance, so that (if passible) it may issue in a real conversion of the soul to God. Double-minded men, unstable in all their ways. An Egyptian king was not likely, unless exceptionally gifted by nature, to be firm, fixed, and stable in his conduct. Flattered and indulged from infancy, no sooner did he obtain the crown, than he found himself recognised as a divinity by the great mass of his subjects, and regarded as one who "could do no wrong." Occasionally, he may have been so fortunate as to fall under the influence of a wise counsellor, but in general he would have been surrounded by advisers only anxious to please by echoing to him his own wishes and ideas. This Pharaoh—whether he was Menephthah, or any one else—was evidently a weak, impulsive, double-minded monarch. He wavered between good and bad impulses, now inclining one way, now another. He was sure therefore to be unstable in his ways. Similar, though less pronounced, instability attaches to all those whose souls are not anchored upon the firm and unchangeable basis of fixed principles. It is fatal to the consistency of a career that a man should be double-minded. No man can serve God and Mammon. There is no fellowship between light and darkness, or between Christ and Belial. A man should make his choice, and not "halt between two opinions." If Jehovah be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him. Shifting, unstable, uncertain, variable souls earn universal contempt, and are powerless to effect anything but their own ruin. THE THIRD PLAGUE. The breach of promise on the part of Pharaoh (Exodus 8:15), was punished by the third plague, which was inflicted without being announced. It is disputed among the best critics, whether the plague was really one of "lice"(as given in the Authorised Version) or of mosquitoes. To the present writer the arguments in favour of mosquitoes seem to preponderate; and he believes the kinnim to represent those subtle pests. Such is the view of the LXX. translators, of Philo, Artapanus, Origen, Rosenmuller, Gesenins, Geddes, Boothroyd, Keil, and Kalisch. Mosquitoes are, under ordinary circumstances, a terrible annoyance in Egypt, when the inundation is going off, especially about October. Their power to annoy is witnessed to in ancient times by Herodotus (2.95), Philo, and St. Augustine; in modem by Wilkinson and others. That Aaron was ordered to produce them out of "the dust of the land," whereas mosquitoes come from larvae deposited in stagnant waters (Cook), is only a proof that God can transform any kind of matter into any other. He who made man of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) could with still greater ease have transformed that dust into gnats. It is undoubtedly remarkable that the magi-clans could not produce the kinnim; but this disability does not help us to determine what exactly the kinnim were. Conceivably, the magicians were tired of the contest, and feeling that they would ultimately be worsted in it, withdrew before the circumstances compelled them to withdraw. Exodus 8:16 Lice. Kinnim—the word is only found here and in the Psalms which celebrate the Exodus (Psalms 78:46; Psalms 105:31). It was understood as "lice"by Josephus, the Talmudical writers, Bochart, Pool, and our translators in the reign of James I. But the great weight of authority is in favour of the rendering "gnats" or "mosquitoes." See the preceding paragraph. It must also be berne in mind that the nearest Egyptian equivalent, khennems, has the signification of mosquito. Exodus 8:17 And in beast. Kalisch notes that mosquitoes - molest especially beasts, as oxen and horses, flying into their eyes and nostrils, driving them to madness and fury, and sometimes even torturing them to death." He quotes Theodoret, Hist. Ecclesiastes 8:1-17.26. Exodus 8:18 The magicians did so with their enchantments. The magicians stretched out their rods over certain collections of dust, but no gnats were produced; which would be the natural result, if they had made no secret arrangements. No reason can be assigned why they should not have seemed to produce gnats, as easily as frogs, if they had employed all the arts of which they were masters in so doing. But events had convinced them that they could not cope with Moses and Aaron; and it would seem that they therefore declined further contest, Exodus 8:19 The magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God. Or "of a God." It is not probable that the magicians believed in a single God, or intended in what they said to express any monotheistic idea. All that they meant to say was—"This is beyond the power of man—it is supernatural—some god must be helping the Israelites." No doubt they had come to this conclusion by a careful scrutiny of all the miracles hitherto wrought by Aaron. He hearkened not unto them. The magicians were minded to resist no longer; but Pharaoh was otherwise minded. It is quite possible that the mosquito plague did not greatly annoy him. He would probably possess lofty apartments above the height to which the mosquito ascends (Herod. 2.95); or he may have guarded himself by mosquito curtains of the finest Egyptian muslin. His subjects would naturally suffer from such a plague far more than he. As the Lord had said. See the comment on the same phrase in Exodus 8:11 Moral avalanches not easily arrested when once set in motion. The magicians had begun by exciting Pharaoh to obstinate unbelief and resistance to the Divine Will They had, by artifice or otherwise, persuaded him that there was nothing so very marvellous in the wonders wrought by Moses and Aaron, nothing that indicated a Divine author of the wonders. They had thus encouraged and stimulated him to embark upon a fatal course. Now, they would fain have stopped him, but they could not. His pride and self-conceit—his honour, as no doubt he thought it, were concerned in the struggle upon which he had entered—to give way would be to acknowledge himself worsted in a contest with two contemptible Hebrews. In vain did the magicians change their tone, and make the acknowledgment—"This is the finger of God"—their altered spirit had no effect upon him. No—whoever changed or blenched—he would persevere—his heart had become hardened—if now and then he quailed, and seemed on the verge of yielding, yet after a time he drew back—always provoking God more and more by his continual perverseness, until at last all Egypt was involved in destruction (Exodus 12:29, Exodus 12:30; Exodus 14:27-30). The magicians, who had had a large share in causing his entrance upon an evil course, found themselves unable to arrest his steps, and must be regarded as in part responsible for the final catastrophe. So nations are often urged by evil counsellors into wars or rebellions, which they soon bitterly regret; but it is too late to stop the evil. Men in business are recommended to adopt questionable means of pushing or retrieving their fortunes, and embark on courses from which their advisers would fain withdraw them; but it is impossible. Advisers should recognise the greatness of their responsibility from the first, and set themselves against the very beginning of evil, else they will find the course of affairs soon get beyond their control—they will be utterly powerless to stop the avalanche which they have set in motion. BY J. ORR Exodus 8:16-19 The plague of lice. The precise nature of the visitation is matter of dispute. The word "Kinnim" seems to include various kinds of poisonous flies and insects (Geikie; and see Exposition). Some take it to denote mosquitoes. The plague stands at any rate in immediate relation to the natural troubles of the country. Travellers tell how, as the Nile waters spread over the surface of the land, and moisten its fine dust, gnats and flies burst from their pupae, and spring into perfect existence. They "vivify instantaneously on the dust absorbing moisture enough to discolour it. As the flood advances slowly onwards, a black line of moving insects on the extreme verge moves with it"(Osburn). There is a terrible "tick" described by Sir Samuel Baker, which lives in hot sand and dust, and preys on the blood of animals. "From the size of a grain of sand, in its natural state, it swells to the size of a hazel nut," and is "the greatest enemy to man and beast." Here, then, was a new horror, the intolerableness of the plague being increased by the insignificance of the enemy, and the hopelessness of fighting it down. Note— I. THIS PLAGUE CAME FROM THE LAND, AS THE TWO FORMER FROM THE RIVER. Aaron "smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice (Kinnim) in man, and in beast"(Exodus 8:17). This was a new blow at Egyptian idolatry, the earth being worshipped as well as the river. The suddenness, extent, and fearfully aggravated character of the plague, and its appearance in immediate connection with Aaron’s act in smiting the earth, proved it to be of supernatural origin, while cognate with the phenomena of the country. 1. At the stroke of God’s anger, trouble may be made to break forth upon us from any quarter of our existence. Now, the river; again, the dust. The quarter it comes from is not likely to be that from which we are expecting it. 2. Troubles spring not from the dust (Job 5:6); but they may be made to rise so thickly around us that it may almost seem as if they did spring from it. 3. The most insignificant agencies (and circumstances) may be made the means of severe retribution. It is intensely painful to be made to suffer through things which we despise. 4. God’s retributions are often such as strike home to our tenderest points. The Egyptians—especially the priestly classes—were extremely cleanly, and this plague, if it was one of vermin, must have been a grievous infliction to them. II. THE THIRD PLAGUE CAME . We forfeit our claim to warnings by acting presumptuously (Proverbs 29:1). III. IT LED THE TO GIVE UP THE CONTEST (Exodus 8:19). We find them still standing before Pharaoh (Exodus 9:11), but from this point we hear of no more attempts at imitation. They may have abandoned the contest— 1. From a sense of shame. The paltriness of their attempts at imitating the miracles of Moses and Aaron was so apparent, that the magicians must almost have blushed at them. They would rather give up the attempt than expose themselves to more humiliations. 2. From astonishment. As experts in magical arts, they knew very well the difference between false miracles and real ones. They are confounded to find men who can work wonders of so stupendous a character, and this, manifestly, by the real assistance of Deity. 3. From fear and pain. They had no interest in courting a continuance of these terrible plagues, which they recognised as true works of God. They were as painful to them as to others, and they dreaded the consequences of perseverance in so unequal a conflict. We see from this (1) That involuntary testimony to the truth is often extracted from those whose inclinations would lead them to oppose it. There are remarkable examples in the life of Christ, e.g. "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him," etc. (John 11:47, John 11:48); and in the lives of the Apostles, e.g. Acts 4:16; Acts 16:17. The confessions of the demons in Christ’s history are of the same order. Many testimonies of an extraordinary kind have come from unbelievers. (2) That there are great differences in degree of moral hardihood. Pharaoh held out, but the magicians gave in. They were not converted to the truth, in the sense of becoming servants of Jehovah, but they thought it prudent not to go further in open opposition. Even this degree of submission saved them from being hardened as Pharaoh was subsequently. IV. THE PLAGUE HAD NO GOOD EFFECT ON PHARAOH (Acts 16:19). In itself, it was as likely to have produced submission as the previous one, and Pharaoh had now, in addition, the testimony of his own magicians to the reality of the wonder. But to place against this, there was the fact that he had already submitted, and had broken his promise. It was doubly bard to submit again, and stronger means would be required to bring him to the point of a second entreaty. Thus do the influences that work for our good gradually lose their power over us, because so frequently resisted. Every time a vow is made and token, a good resolution formed, and not kept, it is rendered harder to repeat the act.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The third plague-the gnats: the finger of God. I. THE PLAGUE ITSELF. From the water God comes to the land. He who has power over every drop of water has power over every grain of dust. Everywhere at his touch the inorganic becomes the organic. And he still keeps in the same line of action which has been begun with the frogs. He produces small creatures in immense numbers, rather than larger creatures in fewer numbers; that thus he may the more irritate and humiliate Pharaoh. Individually, the gnats are nothing; their delicate little bodies may be crushed out of existence between thumb and finger. Collectively, they amount to the dimensions of a plague. II. THE VERDICT OF THE UPON THIS PLAGUE. The noticeable thing in the plague of the gnats is not so much the new agents of chastisement as the discomfiture of the magicians. Not that they had been really successful before. On any view of their proceedings they were deceivers, for what they did was done either by trickery or by the power of God working through them; whereas they took it all to their own credit and the credit of Egypt’s deities. This was not success. No man can be called successful when he has the daily fear that his resources are coming to an end. Much that is reckoned success is only failure after all, ingeniously and impudently delayed. The verdict of the magicians was worthless so far as it seemed to indicate the real state of affairs. They say, "This is the finger of God," but we see only too clearly the motive of their admission. When an admission is extorted, as theirs was, it is deprived of all virtue and grace. That the magicians talked of the finger of God was no proof that the finger of God was present. They talked thus because they had no other way of cloaking their own shame, and accounting for their failure. The finger of God was not more evident in the gnats than in the frogs or in the bloody streams, or in the converted rod. He who could really see the finger of God in one of these, could see it in all the rest. That finger had been pointing all the time just as it pointed now. It was a question of hand rather than finger; and the hand was certainly pressing more heavily. Still, though the magicians took up this way of speaking merely for excuse, we have to thank them for an expressive and appropriate phrase. They, in their blind selfishness, speak of the finger of God, not knowing all they say; but the finger of God is a great and helpful reality to those who will lock for it and be guided by it. It should ever be our business to look for this great finger. In a world of weathercocks, blown about with changing and conflicting opinions, that finger ever points in one direction; and yet while it teaches us to maintain a rigorous adhesion to Christian principles, teaches us at the same time to maintain them in a spirit of wise expediency. He has no true eye for the finger of God who knows not when to bend that he may not break. Pharaoh would not recognise the finger even when his own magicians were compelled to make a show of recognition. When they were defeated he seemed to think they were no longer of any account among his advisers. Thus we have to notice again what poor judges we are of the relative severity of the plagues. Pharaoh was more affected by the frogs than by the gnats. Perhaps he was so disgusted with the failure of the magicians as to be filled with a more rebellious spirit than ever. They said they saw the finger of God; he stubbornly refused to see it. Whether a man will really see this finger depends on what he is looking for. Equally pernicious is it to see Divine power where it is not, and to fail in seeing it where it is.—Y. BY J. I. THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE DIVINE MERCY. This, like every third plague, came without warning. Opportunity was given twice to avert coming judgment. None is given now. Unannounced it startles them in the midst of their fancied security. 1. When men have baffled the servants of God by unrepentant stubbornness and broken vows the matter is not ended. God who has spoken will also act. 2. God will not always strive. Those who resist mercy pass on to meet sudden destruction. II. THE UPON THE OF EGYPT. In the two first plagues God’s hand was laid upon the river which the Egyptians worshipped as the giver of life. In this it was laid upon the land—also an Egyptian god and the giver of their food, etc. God proves that these are his servants, and that they will bless or harm according to his word. The works of God’s hands—earth, sea, etc.—are still regarded as bestowing good independently of his will. Let us not need Egypt’s chastisements to teach us that all are serving him, both in blessing and in judgment. III. THE WORLD’S WISDOM TURNED INTO . They who have hitherto contended so proudly with God are confounded before the basest of all the miracles. 1. The wisdom that seeks to rob man’s heart of God is brought to nothing before the gospel. With all its vaunted power it could not bring peace to a sinner’s heart nor change to his life. 2. Atheistic science, that can see God nowhere, will yet be confounded before his judgments.—U. THE FOURTH PLAGUE. It has been noticed that—setting apart the last and most terrible of the plagues, which stands as it were by itself—the remainder divide themselves into three groups of three each—two in each group coming with a warning, and the third without. (See Exodus 8:16; Exodus 9:8; Exodus 10:21.) In other respects, no great regularity is observable. There is a general principle of increasing severity in the afflictions, but it does not obtain throughout the entire series. The first three caused annoyance, rather than actual injury, either to persons or property. Of the next three, two were upon property, one upon both property and person (Exodus 9:10). Of the remaining three, two again inflicted injury on property, while one (the plague of darkness) was a mere personal annoyance. The exact character of the fourth plague depends on the proper translation of the word ’arob. The Jewish commentators connected this word with ’Ereb and ’Arab, words meaning "mingled" or "mixed;" and supposed a mixed multitude of animals—beasts, reptiles, and insects—to be meant. But the expression used throughout, which is ha-’arob, "the ’arob," marks very clearly a single definite species. So much was clear to the LXX; who rendered the word by κυνόμυια, "the dog-fly," which is not the common house-fly (Musca domestica), but a distinct species (Musca canina). Flies of this kind are said to constitute a terrible affliction in Egypt; but they attack men chiefly, and do no harm to houses or to the fruits of the field, whereas the ’arob is spoken of as a pest in the houses, and as "destroying the land" (Exodus 8:24). It has been, therefore, suggested that the Blatta orientalis, or kakerlaque, a kind of beetle, is really intended. These creatures suddenly appear upon the Nile in great numbers; they "inflict very painful bites with their jaws; gnaw and destroy clothes, household furniture, leather, and articles of every kind, and either consume or render unavailable all eatables"(Kalisch). They sometimes drive persons out of their houses; and they also devastate the fields. Exodus 8:20 Lo, he cometh forth to the water. See Exodus 7:15, and comment. It is suspected that on this occasion Pharaoh "went to the Nile with a procession to open the solemn festival "held in the autumn when the inundation was beginning to abate (Cook). Say unto him. Repeat, i.e; the Divine command so often given (Exodus 5:1; Exodus 7:16; Exodus 8:1). Exodus 8:21 Swarms of flies is an unfortunate translation of a single substantive in the singular number, accompanied by the article. A mixture, etc; is nearly as bad. The writer must mean some one definite species of animal, which he called "the ’arob." On the probable identification of the animal, see the Introductory paragraph to this Chapter. And also the ground. The ’arob, like the frogs, was to plague them both inside their houses and outside, but especially inside. Exodus 8:22 I will sever in that day the land of Goshen. On the position of the land of Goshen, see the Excursus on the Geography. The "severance" is a new feature, and one distinguishing the later from the earlier plagues. It was an additional mark of the miraculous character of the visitations, well calculated to impress all thoughtful and honest minds. By all such it would be seen that the God who could make this severance was no local God of the Hebrews only, but one whose power extended over the whole earth. Exodus 8:23 A division. Literally "a redemption," i.e; a sign that they are redeemed from bondage, and are "My people," not thine any longer. To-morrow. Particulars of time and place are fixed beforehand, to mark clearly that the visitation does not take place by chance, or by mere natural law, but by Gods positive decree and by his agency. Exodus 8:24 A grievous swarm of flies. Rather "a multitude of beetles." As with the frogs, so with the beetles, it aggravated the infliction, that, being sacred animals, they might not be destroyed or injured. Beetles were sacred to Ra, the sun-god; and one form of Ra, Chepra, was ordinarily represented under the form of a beetle, or as a man with a beetle for his heath The land was corrupted. Rather "destroyed;" i.e. grievously injured, or "devastated"(as Kalisch renders). The beetles seriously damaged the growing crops. Exodus 8:22, Exodus 8:23 God puts division between the good and bad, both here and hereafter In some respects the good and the bad appear to be treated alike in this life, and no difference to be made between them. "God maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). The Preacher’s experience was that "all things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth as he that feareth an oath"(Ecclesiastes 9:2). If God sends a pestilence upon a land, or a drought, or an excess of rain, or any other calamity, the good and the bad seem to suffer equally; no difference to be put between them. This is the first impression of the contemplative philosopher when he looks upon human life; and it is a true impression to a great extent. But there are limitations, which, though easily overlooked at the first glance, become apparent upon more careful examination. God does not treat all nations alike—he favours those which observe his laws; punishes those who disobey them. He seems sometimes especially to bless certain faithful families, as that of David, and to rain plagues upon others, as those of Saul, Herod the Great, and Napoleon. He gives, on the whole, to good men certain temporal advantages over bad men, as those which flow naturally (i.e. by his appointment) from industry, honesty, prudence, sobriety, and other virtues. The result is that "godliness" is said in Scripture to "have the promise of this life"(1 Timothy 4:8). And if we take into consideration the satisfaction of a good conscience, the confidence towards God, the calm trust, and the certain hope which sustain the good, and set in the opposite scale the doubts and fears and horrors of an evil conscience which afflict the bad, we shall have little doubt that the balance of happiness, even in this life, is with the servants of God. Still, no doubt the great "division" is put hereafter. "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats—and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left" (Matthew 25:31-33). Awful the separation, where between the two "there is a great gulf fixed"(Luke 16:26)—on the one side heavenly joy and perfect felicity—on the other, "the blackness of darkness for ever"(Jude 1:13). BY J. ORR Exodus 8:20-32 The plague of flies. This torment is thought by many to have embraced winged pests of all kinds. In this case, it would include the mosquito, cattle-fly, beetles, dog-flies, and numbers of others. But see the exposition. We have to note regarding it— I. PHARAOH FINDS AS BEFORE THAT THERE IS NO FROM THE HANDS OF GOD. He is met at the brink of the river, and confronted with the old alternative—"Let my people go else," etc. (Exodus 8:20, Exodus 8:21). The king, when he saw Moses, would have no difficulty in anticipating what was coming. The bitter greeting he would give him would be akin to that of Ahab to Elijah—"Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?"(1 Kings 21:20); nor would Moses’ reply be very different from that given by the prophet—"I have found thee; because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord." What madness in the king to keep up this foolish, this suicidal contest! But the conflict of every sinner with Jehovah is of the same infatuated character. Stroke after stroke descends, yet impenitence is persevered in. Well may God say, "Why should ye be stricken any more?"(Isaiah 1:5.) His demand, through all, abides unchanged. II. THE FOURTH PLAGUE SPRINGS FROM THE AIR. The sphere of judgment is widening and extending, taking in constantly new regions—water, earth, air. The voices that summon to repentance are heard from every side. A new demonstration of the universality of Jehovah’s rule-of the unlimited sweep of his dominion (Exodus 8:22). Flies are agents which God can employ as a scourge of nations still. We read of singular feats in the way of insect-taming; of flies, bees, and even lice being trained to obey orders, and go through wonderful evolutions. Man’s power of control over these minute creatures is but a feeble image of the power exercised over them by God. He enrols them among his battalions, and uses them to execute his commissions. III. A NEW SIGN IS THIS TIME GIVEN—THE OF THE LAND OF GOSHEN FROM THE REST OF EGYPT (Exodus 8:22, Exodus 8:23). The Israelites had probably been made fellow-sufferers with the Egyptians, at least in part, in the inconvenience experienced from the first three plagues. This was permitted, at once as a chastisement for their unbelief and murmurings, and as a purifying discipline. Nothing has been said as to the effect produced upon their minds by the outbreak of these terrific plagues; but they must have shown the Israelites the folly of their recent conduct, and wrought them up to a high pitch of expectation in the confidence that the day of their redemption was drawing near. With the production of this change of mind in the dwellers in Goshen, the nell for further inflictions upon them ceased, and a difference was thereafter put between them and the Egyptians. This astonishing separation was as clear a proof as could have been given of Jehovah’s absoluteness in the government of the creatures, of the extent of his rule, and of the care he exercised over his chosen people. Possibly, Pharaoh had hitherto been taking encouragement from the fact that Israel was involved in the calamities. He may have been led to question: 1. God’s power, seeing that he could not protect his own worshippers. It may have suggested itself to him that Jehovah’s power was limited, and therefore might successfully be braved. 2. God’s love for Israel. For if he loved them so much, why did he allow them to suffer? And if his interest in them was as weak as facts seemed to show, it was not impossible, if resistance was continued, that he might abandon them altogether. 3. The likelihood of God’s proceeding to extremities. God, Pharaoh may have thought, must stop somewhere, else his own people will be destroyed together with mine. The need of protecting them is a safeguard against his proceeding to extremes with me. The severance now effected between Goshen and the rest of Egypt was a cruel blow to all such hopes. Thenceforward it was plain that God did care for Israel, that his power was as great as his/ore, and that whatever happened to Egypt, Israel was as safe as the pavilion of the Divine protection could make it. The fact is not without significance to ourselves. It teaches us that a deep and broad line of demarcation is really being put in God’s thoughts between his own people and the rest of mankind, and that, whatever be the nature of his outward providence, he has their interests and well-being continually at heart. Those who encourage themselves in sin because they see that the righteous suffer with the wicked, and judge that this proves an absence of interest or care on the part of God, must submit to a great undeceiving. The last judgment will make a final separation (Matthew 25:31-35). IV. THE FOURTH PLAGUE BROUGHT PHARAOH A SECOND TIME TO THE POINT OF TO GOD’S . The separation of the territory of Israel seems greatly to have startled him, and he sent anew for Moses. The unwillingness of his mind to grant the required consent to the departure of the people is apparent from the interview. 1. Pharaoh proposes a compromise (Exodus 5:1-23:25). This is a common expedient with those who are hard pushed with questions of religion. It is, however, only a veil for the spirit of disobedience working underneath. The compromise proposed was unhesitatingly rejected by Moses. He had no authority to accept it. It was in its own nature an untenable one (Exodus 8:26). Nothing was to be gained by accepting it. By standing firm to his demand, he was certain to get the whole of what he wanted (Exodus 8:28), why then take a part? Had he accepted the compromise, it would probably only have embeldened Pharaoh to further resistance. God’s servants will do well to imitate Moses in this distrust of compromises. Little good ever comes of them. Principle, not expediency, should rule the Christian’s conduct. The intrusion of expediency into matters ecclesiastical has been a grievous source of weakness, of scandal, and of loss of spiritual power. 2. He ultimately yields. He concedes the whole demand; qualified only by the injunction not to go far away (Exodus 8:28). The interview leaves on one’s mind the impression of sincerity—of a real relenting, of however short a duration, on the part of Pharaoh. Just so much the more fatal to his spiritual life was the subsequent hardening. V. THOUGH WARNED BY MOSES OF THE PERIL OF ACTING , PHARAOH ANEW HIS HEART (Exodus 8:32). Hardening, after the experience just described, may be regarded as almost settling Pharaoh’s doom. He would soon be, if he was not already, irrecoverable. God had trusted him a second time, and this was the result. Obstinacy was passing into obduracy.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The fourth plague-the flies: the immunities of Goshen. The mere change from one chastising agent to another is not a matter to be dwelt on in considering this plague. We note that God makes the change from gnats to flies, and that Pharaoh, who was obdurate before the gnats, is so far affected before the flies as to make an offer of submission; but it is obviously impossible for us to see why the flies should be more efficacious than the gnats. The important thing is, not the gradation from gnats to flies, but the way in which Goshen was protected by Jehovah, and thereby proclaimed as under his favour. As in the third plague we are to notice the discomfiture of the magicians, rather than the gnats themselves, so in the fourth plague we are to notice the immunities that were secured to Goshen, rather than the flies. Thus we mark how majestically and how worthily of himself Jehovah moves on from point to point towards the climax of his visitations on Pharaoh. To say that these plagues increased in severity is not to say much. Their succession in this respect is not so traceable as the succession of the events which happened in connection with them. In considering these events in their succession, we see more clearly how far this narrative of the plagues is from being the construction of a mere story-teller. There is a certain Divine art as to what is inserted and what omitted; but of this we may be sure, that nothing is invented. Underneath the condensed and pregnant record there is a tremendous and bitter reality. Consider then— I. THIS OF GOSHEN. 1. Note what this protection did for the Israelites. Had they then up to this time been sharers in the inconveniences and perils of the first three plagues? We must conclude that they had been; and that Jehovah only now deemed it fitting to extend special exemption to them. It was well for them to share somewhat of the sufferings of the Egyptians. (And we must bear in mind that however much they shared of these sufferings, yet afterwards, in the wilderness, the recollection of the comforts and delicacies of Egypt rose above all the recollection of the sufferings. Exodus 16:3; Numbers 11:4-6.) But now, with the fourth plague, the time has come to make a perceptible difference between Israelite and Egyptian. True, the contest is advancing, but there is still much to be done; and it is well to give Israel timely encouragements. They must wait a while to be liberated from Pharaoh’s thraldom, yet surely it must rejoice and comfort their hearts to see themselves, even though in bondage, free from the afflictions which are coming ever more thickly upon Egypt. Though they have not all they want, it is something to have such a clear sign that God has marked them for his own. Even in this world, with all his sufferings, temporal disadvantages, and opportunities of gain missed, because he is a Christian, the Christian has that which makes the world to envy and to fear. For a while we must share in the world’s sufferings, but the world cannot share in our joys. Israel has to suffer with Pharaoh in the beginning, but presently it escapes; whereas Pharaoh cannot by any plan extend Goshen among the habitations of his own people. If we would have the comforts of Goshen we must go there, fraternise with them that dwell there, and join ourselves on to them. 2. Note what this protection may have done for the Egyptians. It may have done much in the way of revelation as to the cause of their troubles. Up to this point, most of them, even while they experienced great sufferings, had no knowledge of what caused the sufferings. It is very improbable that the demands of Moses had become known to the great bulk of the people. To national troubles they were doubtless used at times—such troubles as had come to their ancestors in the seven years of famine—but these plagues were altogether beyond precedent, and must have provoked much active enquiry as to what possible cause could produce them. And now when this sharp division is made between Egypt and Goshen, this line evidently not of man’s making, the Egyptian people cannot but feel at once that there must be some connection between their sufferings and the state of the Israelites. Hence— 3. It is possible that here we have the real reason why Pharaoh is now driven again into a sort of submission. What if he were more concerned at the absence of the flies from Goshen than at the presence of them among his own people! Might not this extraordinary exemption set his own people thinking too much, and cause his house to be divided against itself? II. HIS TO MOSES OF . Pharaoh, on the occasion of his former yielding (Exodus 8:10), proposed to let the people go "to-morrow." Now he varies the terms of compromise. The people shall offer their sacrifices in the land. This offer he seems to have made in complete ignorance of the difficulties which lay in the way from the feelings of his own people. A fine man this, to be the ruler of a great kingdom! One who had to be taught the feelings of his own people by a stranger. Like most despots; he did not understand how vain it was to contend against the strength of custom and popular sentiment, particularly in matters of religion. Not only were the rites of Israelitish worship different from those of Egyptian worship, but one of the animals most frequently used for Israelitish sacrifice, would if so used before the Egyptians, have been viewed by them with the utmost repugnance. It was no visionary peril which Moses indicated. Whately, in his annotated edition of Bacon’s Essays: speaking on this very subject of the strength of popular custom, illustrates it, curiously enough, from the conduct of the Alexandrian populace at a much later time. "When the Romans took possession of Egypt, the people submitted without the least resistance to have their lives and property at the mercy of a foreign nation: ’but one of the Roman soldiers happening to kill a cat in the streets of Alexandria, they rose on him and tore him limb from limb, and the excitement was so violent, that the generals overlooked the outrage for fear of insurrection."—In the land of Egypt then, says Moses; the sacrifices of Israel cannot be; and of course beyond the sufficient reason stated by Moses, there were others which there was no need to state, and which Pharaoh could not have understood, even if they had been stated.—But Pharaoh is driven from one proviso only to seek refuge in another. If the people go out, they are not to go very far. And yet this offer, conditional as it seemed, was not conditional in reality. It was enough to serve the purpose of Moses, and he could readily accept it. Once a bird is outside of the cage, a very few minutes will take it clear away from the risk of re-capture. If Pharaoh only lets Israel out of his hands, it matters not how far, the rest will settle itself. This promise was enough to justify Moses, in interceding for a withdrawal of the heavy hand of Jehovah; and Jehovah, in granting the request. Thus a second time was Pharaoh taken at his word. God, we see, takes men at their word when they make right resolutions. If they make wrong, selfish resolutions, he would have them alter them. But once they have resolved rightly, he holds them to the resolution, and gives opportunity to carry it out. God withdrew the flies, as he had withdrawn the frogs. There seems even something as miraculous about the withdrawal as about the original infliction. It might have been expected that a few of the flies would remain, just one here and there, but there remained not one. Lastly, notice what is now coming to be the regular result of Pharaoh’s temporary yieldings. He gives way a little to pressure, but as soon as the pressure is removed, he returns to his original position. All these yieldings of his are but as the slight appearance of thaw when the sun is at his best on a keen winter’s day. Pharaoh was thawed just a little on the surface of his nature. As soon as the heat of the present plague departed, the frost in his proud heart set in with more severity than ever.—Y. BY J. The Fourth Plague. I. THE OF EGYPT IS MADE ITS SCOURGE. 1. The land was covered with the sacred beetle. It swarmed upon the ground and in their homes. No movement was possible without crushing or treading under foot the insect they adored. When God overthrows idolatries the very reverence with which the idols have been regarded deepens the chastisement. When the covetous sink under the loss of wealth, they themselves have given its weight to the blow which crushes them. 2. The land was destroyed by it. No prayer or propitiation served to avert the judgment. A land is ever corrupted by its idolatry. With the knowledge and worship of the true God, purity and righteousness and truth are put far from it. The soul is marred and wasted by covetousness. II. THE BETWEEN GOSHEN AND EGYPT. 1. Hitherto there had been no separation. Up to a certain point the just and the unjust suffer in common. 2. Beyond this, God shields his loved ones. They are alike visited by sorrow, etc.; but while there is darkness and the ministration of death in the abodes of the unrepentant, there is light and the ministration of life in the dwellings of the righteous. III. THE . Nothing less than God’s demand can be accepted. If we are to go free and to obtain the inheritance, we must make no compromise with the world or with sin; we must offer to God the full unfettered worship he demands. There must be full and complete separation between Egypt and Israel, the Church and the world, else it will be impossible to present before God the sacrifices he asks for. A Church unseparated from the world will be a worldly Church. IV. PHARAOH’S BROKEN FAITH. We have no reason to doubt that he was sincere when he made the promise (Exodus 8:28). How many vows sincerely made in trouble are forgotten in the ease they sought to purchase! Under the pressure of affliction men are ready to sacrifice much to which, when God’s hand is removed, they cling as to their life.—U. The fourth plague moves the Pharaoh more than any preceding one. He still cannot bring himself to grant the demand of Moses; but he offers a compromise. The Israelites shall have a respite from their toils, and be permitted to hold their festival, and offer the needful sacrifices in Egypt (Exodus 8:25). When this offer is for good reasons not accepted, he yields even further—he will let the people go and sacrifice in the wilderness—only they must not "go far away"(Exodus 8:28). Having made this promise, he obtains for the second time the intercession of Moses and the discontinuance of the plague in consequence of it. But then, as before, when he saw that there was respite (Exodus 8:15), he retracted his promise, hardened himself, and refused to allow the people to quit Egypt (Exodus 8:32). Exodus 8:25 In the land—i.e; in Egypt within the limits of my dominions, so that I may not lose sight of you—far less run the risk of losing you altogether. Exodus 8:26 It is not meet so to do. So many animals were held sacred by the Egyptians, some universally, some partially, that, if they held a great festival anywhere in Egypt, the Israelites could not avoid offending the religious feelings of their neighbours. Some animals would be sure to be sacrificed—white cows, or heifers, for instance—by some of the people, which the Egyptians regarded it as sacrilegious to put to death. A bloody conflict, or even a civil war, might be the consequence. By the abomination of the Egyptians seems to be meant animals of which the Egyptians would abominate the killing. It has generally been supposed that either cows alone, or "cows, bulls and oxen" are meant; but recent researches seem to show that it was only white cows which it was absolutely unlawful to sacrifice. Will they not stone us? Death was the legal penalty for wilfully killing any sacred animal in Egypt (Herod. 2.65). On one occasion even a Roman ambassador was put to death for accidentally killing a eat (Diod. Sic. 1.88). Stoning does not appear to have been a legal punishment in Egypt, so that we must suppose Moses to have feared the people present taking the law into their own hands, seizing the sacrificers, and killing them by this ready method. Exodus 8:27 Three days’ journey into the wilderness. This was the demand made from the first (Exodus 5:3) by Divine direction (Exodus 3:18). Its object was to secure the absence of Egyptians as witnesses. As he shall command us. Compare Exodus 10:26, where Moses observes—"We know not with what we must serve the Lord until we come thither." Divine directions were expected as to the number and the selection of the victims. Exodus 8:28 Only ye shall not go very far away. Here for the first time Pharaoh shows his real objection to letting the Israelites go—he is afraid that they will escape him. So he suggests the compromise, that they shall just enter the wilderness on his eastern border, remaining near the frontier, and therefore within his reach. Moses seems to have made no objection to this proviso. As Kalisch says, "he committal himself entirely to the guidance and direction of God." The three days’ journey which he had requested by Divine command (Exodus 3:18) would not take him far beyond the Egyptian frontier. Entreat for me. Compare Exodus 8:8. An abbreviated form is now used, as sufficiently intelligible. Exodus 8:29 To-morrow. As Pharaoh had fixed the "morrow" for the departure of the second plague (Exodus 8:10), so Moses now announces a similar date for the departure of the fourth. He adds a remonstrance against any further deceit or tergiversation, which Pharaoh must have felt to be well deserved. Exodus 8:31 There remained not one. The hand of God was shewn in the removal no less than in the infliction of the plagues. The complete disappearance was as abnormal as the sudden coming. Exodus 8:32 At this time also. Compare Exodus 7:13, Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:15. Exodus 8:25, Exodus 8:26 Compromise not allowable in religious matters. The struggles of political and social life, the conflicting claims of races, nations, states, classes, parties, are usually terminated, and perhaps, under the existing condition of things, are best terminated, by compromise. Let neither side get all it wants—let both yield something to the other—let the prudent and the moderate on each side seek an intermediate course between the two extremes advocated—and the result is often peace and something approaching to contentment. Compromise is the soul of diplomacy—the idol of clever Parliamentary leaders and party managers—the oil, as has been said, whereby the wheels Of the world are made to run smoothly. But in religion, compromise is out of place. (1) There must be no compromise on any question of morality. If a thing is wrong, it must be got rid of, not tolerated under certain restrictions; e.g; slavery, prostitution, vivisection, intemperance. A compromise between vice and virtue is an insult to virtue. (2) There must be no compromise with respect to doctrine. Doctrine is either false or true; and between truth and falsity there is no half-way house. Half a truth is a lie. To compromise the truth, is to give place to a lie. (3) There must be no compromise with respect to any Christian duty. The laws of God are plain and must be obeyed. Not to obey them is to disobey them. Moses was ordered to lead his people out of Egypt. To have accepted Pharaoh’s offer would have been a flagrant breach of the command given to him. It was not necessary for him to see any ill consequences, in order that he should feel bound to reject it. Ill consequences even could none have been foreseen—would have been sure to follow. For he would have forfeited God’s blessing—he would have entered on the path of disobedience—to curry favour with an earthly monarch he would have offended against the King of Heaven. The duty of God’s servants to rebuke the great of the earth. "Let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more." Deceit is despicable in the meanest of men. How much more in a king! Subterfuge, tricks, lies, are said to be the refuge of the weak, the only resource whereby they can meet and defend themselves against the violence and oppressiveness of the strong. What need has a king of them? A king drags his honour in the dust when he forfeits his word, and does more to lower the dignity of kings in general than fifty rebels or revolutionists. Our own "King Charles the Martyr" has lost half the sympathy which he would otherwise have obtained, by his lamentable want of straightforwardness and steadfastness. And when kings err, in this or any other way, it is the duty of those who have the opportunity, to rebuke them. Elijah rebuked Ahab; Azariah, son of Oded, rebuked Asa; Eliezer, Jehoshaphat; Azarlah the high priest, Uzziah; John Baptist, Herod Antipas. Jesus himself spoke of Herod as "that fox," The great are very apt to urge that whoever says a word in their dispraise is "speaking evil of dignities"(Jude 1:8), and so offending against the law of God. But the examples cited show that "dignities" have no claim to exemption from the rebukes and reproofs of God’s servants. Dignities ought to be above needing rebuke. They ought to set an example of virtue and highmindedness, and, above all, of regard for their word, when once they have pledged it. What might be forgiven in inferior men, cannot be Pardoned in them. "Be wise, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth." "A city set on a hill cannot be hid." THE FIFTH PLAGUE. Hitherto the plagues had been directed rather against the persons of the Egyptians than against their property. Property had perhaps suffered somewhat in the preceding plague, if it was really one of the Blatta orientalis; but otherwise the various afflictions had caused nothing but pain and annoyance to the person. Now this was to be changed. Property was to be made to suffer. It remained to be seen whether the Pharaoh would be impressed more deeply by calamities which impoverished his subjects than by those which merely caused them personal annoyance and suffering. The hand of God was first laid upon the carrie, or rather upon the domesticated animals in general (Exodus 9:3). These were made to suffer from a "murrain" or epidemic pestilence, which carried off vast numbers. Such visitations are not uncommon in Egypt, and generally fall with especial force on the Delta, where the existing Pharaoh and the Hebrew people resided. The miraculous character of the visitation at this time was indicated, 1. By its announcement, and appearance on the day appointed (Exodus 9:3-6); 2. By its severity (Exodus 9:6); and 3. By its attacking the Egyptian cattle only (Exodus 9:7). Pharaoh seems, however, to have been almost lees moved by this plague than by any other. Exodus 9:1 Excepting in the designation of Jehovah as "the Lord God of the Hebrews," this verse is an almost exact repetition of the first verse of Exo 8:1-32. Such repetitious are very characteristic of the most ancient writings. Exodus 9:3 Thy cattle which is in the field. The word "cattle" here is to be taken generally, as including under it the various kinds particularised. The cattle are mentioned as being at this time "in the field," because during the inundation all of them were brought in and housed, while, after the waters had retired, and the land had dried, most of them were turned out to graze. This is always the time at which epidemics break out. The horses, the asses, etc. Horses, which had been unknown prior to the Hyksos invasion, and which consequently do not appear in the list of animals presented to Abraham (Genesis 12:16), first became common under the eighteenth dynasty, when they seem to have been employed exclusively in war. Their use for agricultural purposes, which is perhaps here indicated, was not till later. The ass was employed in great numbers at all times in Egypt. Women and children rode on them, men sometimes in a sort of litter between two of them. They were chiefly used for carrying burthens, which were sometimes of enormous size (Lepsius, Denkmaler, Part 2. pls. 42a, 47, 56, 80c, etc.). The camels. Camels are not represented on any Egyptian monument; but they are occasionally mentioned in the inscriptions. They are called kauri or kamaru. There is no doubt of their employment by the Egyptians as beasts of burthen in the traffic with Syria and with the Sinaitic peninsula. Exodus 9:4 The Lord shall sever. Compare Exodus 8:22. There shall nothing die, etc The original is more emphatic, and might be rendered literally—" There shall not die of all that is the children’s of Israel a thing." Exodus 9:5 To-morrow. God may have interposed the interval in order that such as believed the announcement might save their animals by bringing them in out of the fields. All the cattle died—i.e, all that were "in the field" (Exodus 9:3). Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent. This time the king had the curiosity to send out and see whether the Israelites had been spared. Though he found the fact correspond to the announcement, he was not seriously impressed. Perhaps he thought the Israelites took better care of their cattle and were better cattle doctors than his own people. Or he may have attributed the escape of their animals to the more healthy air of Goshen. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. The plague affected him less than others had done, rather than more. He was so rich that an affliction which touched nothing but property seemed a trivial matter What cared he for the sufferings of the poor beasts, or the ruin of those who depended upon the breeding and feeding of cattle Exodus 9:1-7 The burthen of man’s sin presses on the brute creation, as well as on man himself. "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22). Brutes are to a large extent co-partners with man in his sorrows and his wretchedness. But brute suffering is the product of man’s sin. Mostly it is directly caused by man. Man not only kills animals for his food, but he chases them for his diversion, mutilates them for his convenience, vivisects them for his supposed benefit. In chasing them, he wounds more than he kills; in mutilating them, he often removes parts necessary for their comfort; in vivisecting them, he knowingly makes them suffer excruciating pain. His use of them as beasts of draught and burden is a lighter form of evil than any of these; but in the aggregate it causes, perhaps, as much suffering. Again, man makes the horse his companion in war, and exposes him to the most hideous wounds, the most horrid deaths. Nor does the list of his misdoings as respects the animal world end here. To children the wanton torture of insects seems to be a chief delight. For the production of certain delicacies of the table, turkeys and other animals are made to undergo untold agonies. Slow death is inflicted on calves, to make the veal white. Finally, animals are often involved in the Divine judgments by which nations are visited for their sins. "Much cattle" would have perished miserably, if Nineveh had not repented at Jonah’s preaching. The beasts endure as much as the men when cities are blockaded. Occasionally, as in this plague, the beasts themselves are the direct sufferers, and God punishes man through them. No doubt there is a mystery in this. The suffering of innocent dumb animals is hard to reconcile with the goodness of God. His causing pain to them for man’s fault is even more strange. How persons who have a fixed belief that the brute creation enjoys no future life, overcome the difficulty, we knew not. But the solution of it may, we think, be found in the Scripture which tells of "the spirit of the beast which goeth downward" (Ecclesiastes 3:21). If the spirit of a beast survives, it may find compensation in another life for what it has suffered here. Man’s coldness and deadness with respect to animal suffering is as marvellous as anything in his nature and history. "Pharaoh’s heart" was utterly hard to it. He did not even ask that the plague should be removed. The sufferings and miserable death of thousands of beasts made not the slightest impression upon him. Probably he did not give their sufferings a thought. And even among Christians, is it not much the same? How few protest against even such enormities as promiscuous vivisection! How few, in grieving over the horrors of war, think of the pain which is borne by the animals engaged in it! How few give so much as a sigh to the labour, the weariness, the suffering of millions of poor dumb brute beasts engaged in ministering to their pleasures, amusements, convenience! We grieve bitterly for our own troubles. We have a tear of sympathy, perhaps, for the griefs of humanity generally. But for the rest of creation, "groaning and travailing in pain together until now," we have scarcely a thought. How different from him who was led to spare Nineveh (Jonah 4:11) because therein were "more than six score thousand persons that could not discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle!’ BY J. ORR Exodus 9:1-8 The plague of murrain of beasts. I. THE AGAIN (Exodus 9:1, Exodus 9:2). Surely Pharaoh was well warned. The analogy of the third plague would have led us to expect that on this occasion—after a second and glaring breach of faith—there would have been no warning. Yet mercy waits upon him. Faithless though he had been, if even yet he will let the people go, all will be forgiven. If not—then judgments. Mark how sacredly, in all this, the freedom of Pharaoh is respected. "He was not put on the actual rack or held over a slow fire till his cruel hand relaxed, and let the Hebrew bondmen go. The appeal was loud, and each time it was repeated he and his people were shaken more severely than before; but after every demand there was a respite, a pause, an opportunity to ponder, and either yield the point or recall a past concession." (Hamilton.) II. A MURRAIN OF CATTLE (verses 3-7). This was the form assumed by the fifth plague. It is to be viewed, 1. As a new blow at Egyptian idolatry. The sacredness of the cow and ox are hinted at in Exodus 8:26. It may well have been that the sacred beasts themselves, the bull Apis, the calf Mnevis, and the rest, were smitten by the pestilence. 2. As a fresh illustration of the manifold resources of Jehovah. The mortality which came upon the cattle was universal in its sweep, carrying off, not only sheep and oxen, but horses, asses, and camels; destructive in its effects, the greater proportion of the cattle of each class falling victims to it; yet carefully discriminative, attacking the cattle of the Egyptians, but leaving unharmed those of the Israelites (Exodus 8:6). 3. As a plague of increased severity. The loss sustained by the Egyptians in this mowing down of their cattle was the greatest they had yet experienced. Cattle constitute a large part of the wealth of every nation. They are of importance for food, for burden, and for the produce of the dairy. What a loss it would be to our own nation were our sheep, cows, oxen, horses, and asses, all suddenly destroyed! In the East the oxen were employed for draught, and in the operations of agriculture. Yet the plague was but the intensification of a natural calamity—one with the effects of which we are not wholly unfamiliar. It may seem "advanced" to scoff at the agency of God in cattle-plague visitations, but the truer philosophy will reverently recognise the fact of such agency, and will not regard it as in the least incompatible with any secondary causes which may be shown to be involved in the production and spread of the disorder. God has this weapon equally with others at his command for chastening a disobedient people. Our wisdom, surely, is to be at peace with him. 4. As a forewarning of greater judgment. As yet the persons of the Egyptians had escaped. The plagues, however, were coming nearer and nearer them. Their cattle had been smitten, and what could the next stroke be, but an infliction upon themselves? III. THIS PLAGUE ALSO (Exodus 8:7). Pharaoh sent to see if any of the cattle of the children of Israel had died. The connection seems to indicate that his hardening was partly the result of the news that they had all escaped. This, instead of softening, maddened and embittered him. Hitherto Pharaoh has been seen hardening himself in spite of the influences brought to bear on him. The fact is to be noted that the plagues here begin to produce a positively evil effect. That which ought to have softened and converted, now only enrages, and confirms in the bad resolution.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The fifth plague-the murrain among the beasts. I. THE USE WHICH GOD HERE MAKES OF THE LOWER . In the three plagues immediately preceding God made the lower creation his scourges. He took little creatures, the bare existence of which many, not perceiving the wisdom of God, think to be unnecessary; and these he increased into a vast and most vexatious multitude. The killing of a frog, a gnat, a fly, we are accustomed in our heedlessness to make nothing of; such killing is but sport to thoughtless lads. But we think very differently of such animals as are spoken of in this fifth plague; horses, oxen, asses, sheep, all animals comprehended here under the general term cattle. We should feel it hardly possible to have too many of them. This certainly was the view in ancient times in Scriptural countries, for we read of the wealth of men as being generally measured by the number of animals they possessed. Thus we are led to notice in the course of these plagues, how God, in his view of the lower creation, rises high above our view. We look at the lower animals according to their use to us, and thus classify them as helpful or hurtful; God looks at them according to their use to him, and in his hands they all become abundantly helpful to further his ends. He uses the frogs, gnats, and flies (or beetles) to inconvenience Pharaoh and his people, if thereby a change of mind may be wrought, and when this fails he takes the cattle and causes them to be destroyed in order to bring about, if possible, the same result. Thus creation serves Jehovah; whether living or dying, destroying or destroyed. II. A OF THE UNITY IN WHICH ALL IS BOUND. A question may be raised as to the goodness of God in thus destroying those creatures because of the wickedness of man. Why should they suffer because of Pharaoh’s obduracy? The answer is that the whole creation of God is bound up in a marvellous unity, from the lowest thing that has life, right up to man himself. It is for man himself to help in settling how far the lower creation shall suffer for his sake. It is no more possible for man to do wrong and the rest of sentient creatures to escape the consequences of his wrong-doing, than it is for man to live recklessly in his own person and expect the organs and limbs of his body to escape suffering. Animals are not to be looked at in themselves, but as being created for the comfort and service of man, and especially that in his use of them it may be shown what his own notions of a right use are. Let man do right, and all living creatures within the circle of his influence share in the blessed consequences; let him do wrong, and their lives must also be disarranged. III. OBSERVE IN THIS PLAGUE HOW THE IS OF ISRAEL’S FROM THE MURRAIN. The wealth of Israel was peculiarly pastoral wealth; of the very kind, therefore, which was smitten in this plague. Hence all the more noticeable is the exemption of the Israelites and all the more impressive. If it had been a pestilence coming down upon the country generally, irrespective of territory and of special Divine control, it would have injured Israel a great deal more than Egypt. IV. WHAT A CLEAR THERE IS IN THIS PLAGUE OF HOW AND THE OF PHARAOH IS . He is inflexible, not only without reason, but against reason. Not content with dismissing the rumours that come to his ears concerning the exemption of Israel’s cattle from the pestilence, he sends to certify himself of the fact, which makes his continued obduracy all the more evidently unreasonable. What excuse was there for a man who asked in the way Pharaoh asked, even after it had been made clear to him that of the cattle of the children of Israel not one had died? It is sad when a man dismisses in this way even the appearance of having reason for what he does, when he says, "I will not, because I will not, and there is an end of it."—Y. BY J. GOD’S MERCY IN . Hitherto no great loss had been inflicted; now their cattle is taken. In God’s mercy the afflictions deepen that Egypt may forsake the path of death. When the Lord’s hand falls in heavier blows it is to save from something worse which lies beyond. Israel’s calamities preceded her captivity. God’s chastisements fall that we may not be condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:32). II. DOES NOT ALWAYS COMPEL . Pharaoh had already two proofs that the murrain was from the hand of God. He had foretold it, and it came at the time he said it would come. He himself seeks a third proof; he sends to Goshen, and finds that there was "not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead." Yet he does not bow under the hand of God. Conviction may co-exist with impenitence and stubborn persistence in sin, but, when it does, it is the mark of a soul given over to destruction. The devils believe and tremble.—U. THE SIXTH PLAGUE. The sixth plague was sent, like the third, without notice given. It was also, like the third, a plague which inflicted direct injury upon the person. There was a very solemn warning in it; for the same power that could afflict the body with "boils and blains," i.e; with a severe cutaneous disease accompanied by pustulous ulcers—could also (it must have been felt) smite it with death. It is uncertain what exactly the malady was. Some have supposed elephantiasis, some "black leprosy," some merely an eruptive disease such as is even now common m Egypt during the autumn. But it is, at any rate, evident that the malady was exceedingly severe—"the magicians could not stand before Moses" because of it (Exodus 9:11). If it was "the botch of Egypt" (Deuteronomy 28:27), as seems probable, since the name in the Hebrew is the same, it was incurable. Pharaoh and his people were warned by it that God’s power would be shown on themselves, not in the way of mere annoyance—as with the earlier plagues—but of serious injury—and if so, why not of death? Thus, the sixth plague heralded the tenth, and, except the tenth, was the most severe of all. Exodus 9:8 Ashes of the furnace. Rather "soot from the furnace." The word commonly used in Hebrew for "ashes" is different. Many recondite reasons have been brought forward for the directions here given. But perhaps the object was simply to show that as water, and earth (Exodus 8:13) and air (Exodus 10:13) could be turned into plagues, so fire could be. The "soot of the furnace" might well represent fire, and was peculiarly appropriate for the preduction of a disease which was in the main an "inflammation." It is not likely that Moses imitated any superstitious practice of the priests of Egypt. Toward the heaven. The act indicated that the plague would come from heaven—i.e. from God. In the sight of Pharaoh. Compare Exodus 7:20 It is probable that the symbolic act which brought the plague was performed "in the sight of Pharaoh" in every case, except where the plague was unannounced, though the fact is not always recorded. Exodus 9:9 It shall become small dust. Rather, "It shall be as dust." No physical change is intended by the expression used, but simply that the "soot" or "ash" should be spread by the air throughout all Egypt, as dust was wont to be spread. And shall be a boil breaking forth with blains. Literally, "an inflammation, begetting pustules." The description would apply to almost any eruptive disease. The attempts definitely to determine what exactly the malady was, seem to be futile—more especially as diseases are continually changing their forms, and a malady which belongs to the fourteenth or fifteenth century before our era is almost certain to have been different from any now prevalent. The word "blains"—now obsolete as a separate word—appears in "chilblains." Exodus 9:10 The furnace. It is perhaps not very important what kind of "furnace" is meant. But the point has been seriously debated. Some suppose a furnace for the consumption of victims, human or other; some a baking oven, or cooking stove; others a furnace for smelting metal; others again a limekiln. The ordinary meaning of the word used, kibshon, is a "brick-kiln;" but bricks were not often baked in Egypt. Nor is it at all clear that any victims were ever consumed in furnaces. Probably either a brick-kiln or a furnace for the smelting of metals is meant. Exodus 9:11 The magicians could not stand. It is gathered from this that the magicians had, up to this time, been always in attendance when the miracles were wrought, though they had now for some time failed to produce any counterfeits of them. On this occasion their persistency was punished by the sudden falling of the pestilence upon themselves with such severity that they were forced to quit the royal presence and hasten to their homes to be nursed. Exodus 9:12 And the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Up to this time the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart has been ascribed to himself, or expressed indefinitely as a process that was continually going on—now for the first time it is positively stated that God hardened his heart, as he had threatened that he would (Exodus 4:21). On the general law of God’s dealings with wicked men, see the comment on the above passage Exodus 9:8-12 Sin punished by physical suffering, but such suffering not always a punishment for sin. God has many weapons in his quiver wherewith to chastise sin. One of them is physical pain. He can cause the limbs to ache, the temples to throb, the blood to be inflamed, the breathing to labour, the head to be racked, the nerves to thrill and tingle—the whole body, from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, to be nothing but a mass of "wounds and bruises, and putrifying sores." There is no part of our frame, no process, no function, but can be made the seat of an intolerable agony. God, for the most part, spares us, in the hope that his goodness and long-suffering will lead us to repentance. He had long spared Pharaoh and the Egyptians—had shown them his power in ways that annoyed and harassed, but did not seriously hurt. Now he must adopt severer measures. So his hand is laid upon their bodies, which are smitten with disease, disfigured, made loathsome to the eye, and racked with physical suffering. Here we may note three things:— I. GOD SIN TO A LARGE EXTENT IN THIS WAY. Many sins have physical consequences attached to them by a natural law, which are in the highest degree painful, which injure the health, destroy the tissues, produce disease, madness, idiocy. Men know these consequences, but hope that they may individually escape them. As Moses and Aaron warned in vain, so now vain too often are the uplifted voices of God’s ministers. Nine-tenths, probably, of the physical suffering in England at the present day is caused by those sins of intemperance and uncleanness which are the crying evils of our age and country, and which nothing seems able to uproot or even seriously to diminish. Children are born now for the most part with the seeds of disease in them, which are the consequence of their parents’ vices. They lack the physical stamina and the moral vigour which they would have possessed, had their parents led good, pious, consistent, religious lives. They have unhealthy appetites, desires, cravings, which they would not have had but for their parents’ sins. Too often, to all this is added the force of bad example. Intemperance and uncleanness follow, and the inborn germs of disease are stimulated into activity; pain follows pain, agony follows agony. A wretched, life is terminated by an early death. If they leave children behind them, their case is even more hopeless. The physical taint is deepened. The moral strength to resist is weaker. Happy is it if God takes the little ones away from the evil to come. II. GOD DOES NOT EXEMPT FROM THIS , EITHER THE WEALTHY OR THE HIGHLY . "The boil was on the magicians." The taint of uncleanness, the mental weakness which results from habits of intemperance afflict the great, the rich, the "upper ten thousand," as surely as their humbler fellow-subjects who herd in courts and alleys. There are great families in which it is a well-known fact that intemperance has become hereditary. There are others where the heir never lives to the age of thirty. No rank—not even royal rank—exempts from subjection to hygienic laws. Neither does intellect nor education. It may be that the intellectual and highly educated are less likely than others to plunge into dissipation and sensual vices. But if, in spite of their higher nature, they give the reins to their lower, the same results follow as in the case of the least gifted of their fellow-men. Retribution reaches them. They "receive within themselves the reward of their iniquity." Their physical nature, no less than their moral, is tainted; and pain, suffering, often agony, are their portion. III. THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE OFTEN HARDEN . The boil was on the magicians; but we do not hear that the magicians submitted themselves, or owned the supremacy of Jehovah. So now, those whose sin draws down upon them suffering rarely repent, rarely forsake their sin, rarely humble themselves beneath the chastening rod of the Almighty. No doubt drunkards are occasionally reformed and profligates reclaimed. But for one lost sheep thus recovered, how many scores perish in their evil courses, and descend the rapid incline which conducts to the gulf of destruction? We are amazed at the obstinacy of Pharaoh; but we are most of us just as obstinate. Nothing will induce us to give up our pet vices. We cling to them, even when the boil is upon us. If we give them up for a time, we recur to them. If we leave them off in act, we dwell fondly upon them in thought and imagination. O hard human hearts, that will not yield to God’s discipline of pain, when sent as chastisement! What can ye expect, but that chastisement will give place to vengeance? Physical suffering is sometimes sent, not to punish, but to refine and purify. Job’s comforters supposed that one so afflicted must have committed some great crime, or be concealing some habitual vice of a grave character. But it was not so. The sufferings of saints are blessing. They give a fellowship with Christ, which nothing else can give. They make the saint rehearse in thought, over and over again, each step of that grievous, yet blessed via dolorosa, along which he went upon his way to the Cross of Calvary. They intensify faith and love—they give assurance of acceptance (Hebrews 12:6)—they elevate, purify, sanctify. Earth has no lovelier sight than that not uncommon one of a crippled sufferer, stretched day after day and year after year upon a bed of pain, yet always cheerful, always thoughtful for others, always helpful by advice, kind word, even (if their strength allows) kind acts. Such Blessed ones live with Christ, suffer with Christ, feel themselves to be in Christ; as St. Paul says, they "fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in their flesh" (Colossians 1:24), and "are joyful in their tribulation" (2 Corinthians 7:4). BY J. ORR Exodus 9:8-13 The plague of boils and blains. This plague, like the third, was unannounced. God varies his methods. There was need for some token being given of God’s severe displeasure at Pharaoh’s gross abuse of his goodness and forbearance. This plaque is distinguished from the rest by being introduced with a significant action. I. THE ACTION THE PLAGUE (Exodus 9:8-10). Hitherto the only actions employed had been the stretching out of Aaron’s rod, and in the case of the third plague, the smiting of the dust with it. Now, Moses is instructed to take handfuls of the ashes from the furnace and sprinkle them towards heaven in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants. The performance of so solemn an act implied that a new stage was being reached in Pharaoh’s hardening, as also in God’s punitive dealings with him. From this point onwards matters are rapidly developed to a crisis. The act was symbolical, and may be variously interpreted. 1. As a challenge to the Egyptian Deities, specially Neit, "who bore the designation of, The Great Mother of the highest heaven" and was worshipped as the tutelary goddess of Lower Egypt" (Canon Cook). 2. As connected with the scattering of the ashes of human victims to avert evil from the land. This was done, or had been done, in the days of the Shepherds, in the worship of Sutech or Typhon. The victims were usually foreigners, perhaps often Hebrews. "After being burnt alive on a high altar, their ashes were scattered in the air by the priests, in the belief that they would avert evil from all parts whither they were blown" (Geikie). The sprinkling of ashes by Moses, and their descent, not in blessing, but in boils and blains, would thus have a terrible significance. 3. As symbolical of the laying of a curse upon the people. It is, at least in some parts of the East, a practice to take ashes and throw them into the air, in token of giving effect to an imprecation. Most probable of all,— 4. As a symbol of retribution for the sufferings of Israel. The "furnace" is a common Scripture emblem for the bitter slavery of the Hebrews (Genesis 15:17; Deuteronomy 4:20; 1 Kings 8:57; Is. 48:10; Jeremiah 11:4). Ashes taken from the furnace and sprinkled towards heaven, whence they descended in a plague, would thus naturally symbolise the return upon Pharaoh and his servants of the cruelties with Which they had afflicted Israel. The cry of the sufferers in the furnace had entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. The evil deeds of the afflicters were now to come back upon them in retribution. It was as though the ashes of the victims sacrificed in the long tyranny were rising in vengeance against the oppressor. II. THE OF THE PLAGUE IN THE SMITING OF THE PERSONS (verse 10). The disease with which the Egyptians were smitten was painful, loathsome, and excruciatingly severe as compared with ordinary inflictions of a similar nature: Tortured in their bodies, they were "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was " … meet (Romans 1:27). This experience of sore personal suffering ought surely to have arrested their folly. It showed them how absolutely helpless they were in the hands of God. The plague was universal (verse 11). Not one could beast against another. The plague was peculiarly afflictive to a people which prided itself on its cleanliness. It smote beasts as well as men. What a terrible calamity! The whole head was sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the crown of the head there was no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores (Isaiah 1:6). Yet, instead of repenting, the people appear only to have been stung to further revolt. So it was, at least, with their king. 1. An image of the condition of the sinner. 2. A new proof of the power of God. The hand of God is to be seen in the infliction of diseases. God threatens, in Deuteronomy, to lay the evil diseases of Egypt upon the Israelites if they should prove disobedient (Deuteronomy 29:1-29:60). 3. An instance of the inefficacy of bodily sufferings to produce repentance. Cf. Revelation 16:10, Revelation 16:11, "They gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds." III. THE DEFEAT OF THE (Revelation 16:11). They could not now even stand before Moses. Pharaoh is being left more and more alone in his resistance. IV. PHARAOH STILL (Revelation 16:12). Before, one plague was the utmost he could hold out against. He yielded under the second and the fourth. Now he maintains his attitude of resistance under two plagues in succession.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The sixth plague-the boils and blains. Only the barest conjectures are possible as to why these ashes of the furnace were taken as materials whence to draw this sixth plague. If we look at the first two plagues we see that they come out of the water. The next plague, that of the gnats, comes out of the dust of the earth, and the flies may be taken as having the same origin. The murrain probably arose through a vitiating change in the food of the animals; and here again we are directed to look downwards to the earth, out of which comes the food both for man and beast. Next comes this sixth plague, and by the mention of ashes of the furnace it would almost seem as if God meant his people to understand that all the useful elements in nature were to do their part in plaguing Pharaoh. Water has had. its share, the earth its share, fire now gets its share; and there only remains the air above and around, and out of this, sure enough, there presently came the hail, the locusts, Warping on the Eastern wind, and the thick darkness. Thus, in all visible directions where man looks for blessing, God meets him with a stern intimation that he can turn the blessing into a curse. So much for the origin of this plague; now with regard to its form.—NOTE, I. THAT GOD’S NOW ADVANCE TO TAKE UP THEIR ABODE IN THE BODIES OF PHARAOH AND HIS PEOPLE. As God can take the lower animals, which he has made for our use, and turn them at his pleasure into a blessing or a curse, so he can come nearer still, and make our bodies, which are agents of the most exquisite pleasures, into agents of pain just as exquisite. Notice that in the very mode of infliction there was a mixture of severity and mercy. Severity, because undoubtedly there would be terrible pain; mercy, because probably the pain was confined to the surface of the body; none the easier to bear, certainly; and yet easier in this, that it did not belong to an affliction of the great vital organs. Severity again, on the other hand, just because it affected the sensitive surface of the body. It is through our sensations that God has caused so much both of pleasure and information to come. Thus God, who had given so much delight to Pharaoh and his people, through making them so sensitive to the outward world, now deranges all the minute nerves and vessels, and by spreading boils and blains over the surface of the body he effectually stops all enjoyment of life. We know that it is possible for a person to be seriously ill-even fatally so, perhaps confined as a hopeless invalid for years—and yet to get considerable enjoyment out of life, as in reading and in light occupations for the mind. But what pleasure can be got when, from head to foot, the body is covered with boils and blains? As long as this sort of pain lasts, little else can be thought of than how to get rid of it. II. As in the plague of the gnats, so here in the plague of the boils and blains, OUR IS TO THE . On the former occasion, with or without sincerity, they had said, "This is the finger of God;" now they are in themselves, so to speak, the finger of God. They can neither avert nor dissemble their subjection to the power that works through Moses. At first, doubtless, they had looked upon him with haughtiness, audacity, and scorn, as being hardly worth a moment’s attention. Very likely it was counted a great condescension to turn the rods into serpents. But now, whatever feeling be in their hearts, the hold that Jehovah has on their bodies is only too evident. Silence and outward serenity are impossible under such suffering as this. The twitchings of the face cannot be concealed, the groan cannot be suppressed, the unquailing attitude cannot be maintained. Who shall tell what individual humiliations and defeats lie behind this brief expression: "The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils." Because of the boils! It was not a very dignified sort of disaster; not very pleasant to recall in after times. These magicians, we may imagine, had scorned the very name of Jehovah, worse, mayhap, than Pharaoh himself. And now in these boils and blains there is, suppressed as it were, scorn and mockery from Jehovah in return. Opposers of God may not only have to be brought down from their wide, but in such a way as will involve them in ridicule and shame. The exposure of falsehood is only a work of time, and as we see here, it can be accomplished in a comparatively short time. Pain effectually drives away all dissembling, and nature proves too much even for the man to whom art has become second nature.—Y. BY J. I. The Sixth Plague. THE MEANS USED. Ashes were taken from the brick-kiln in which the Israelites toiled, and in Pharaoh’s presence sprinkled in mute appeal toward heaven. The memorials of oppression lifted up before God will fall in anguish upon the oppressors (James 5:1-5). The French Revolution and the ages of giant wrong that had gone before. American slavery and its punishment. II. THE OF THE . There was no warning. The dust was cast up, and immediately the plague was upon man and beast. The judgment of wickedness will come as in a moment. Sodom. The flood. III. THE SHAME OF THE . 1. Upon them the plague seems to have been more severe than upon others. Upon the abettors of other men’s tyranny and wrong, God’s judgment will fall heaviest. The deep responsibility of Christian teachers and men of influence and talent. Let them see to it that they are on the side of righteousness, and not of the world’s class—selfishness and manifold wrong. 2. They were brought to shame in the presence of those who trusted in them. The falsehood of their pretensions was exposed by their inability to defend themselves. When God visits for the world’s sin, there will be everlasting confusion and shame for its apologists and abettors.—U. THE SEVENTH PLAGUE. The sixth plague had had no effect at all upon the hard heart of the Pharaoh, who cared nothing for the physical sufferings of his subjects, and apparently was not himself afflicted by the malady. Moses was therefore ordered to appear before him once more, and warn him of further and yet more terrible visitations which were impending. The long message (Exodus 9:13-19) is without any previous parallel, and contains matter calculated to make an impression even upon the most callous of mortals. First there is an announcement that God is about to send "all his plagues" upon king and people (Exodus 9:14); then a solemn warning that a pestilence might have been sent which would have swept both king and people from the face of the earth (Exodus 9:15); and finally (Exodus 9:18) an announcement of the actual judgment immediately impending, which is to be a hailstorm of a severity never previously known in Egypt, and but rarely experienced elsewhere. Pharaoh is moreover told that the whole object of his having been allowed by God to continue in existence is the glory about to accrue to his name from the exhibition of his power in the deliverance of his people (Exodus 9:16). A peculiar feature of the plague is the warning (Exodus 9:19) whereby those who believed the words of Moses, were enabled to escape a great part of the ill effects of the storm. It is a remarkable indication of the impression made by the previous plagues, that the warning was taken by a considerable number of the Egyptians, who by this means saved their cattle and their slaves (Exodus 9:20). The injury caused by the plague was very great. The flax and barley crops, which were the most advanced suffered complete destruction. Men and beasts were wounded by the hail-stones, which might have been—as hail-stones sometimes are—jagged pieces of ice; and some were even killed, either by the hail (see Joshua 10:11), or by the lightning which accompanied it. Even trees were damaged by the force of the storm, which destroyed the foliage and broke the branches. Exodus 9:13 Rise up early. Compare Exodus 7:15, and Exodus 8:20. The practice of the Egyptian kings to rise early and proceed at once to the dispatch of business is noted by Herodotus. It is a common practice of oriental monarchs. And say unto him. The same message is constantly repeated in the same words as a token of God’s unchangingness. See Exodus 8:1-20; Exodus 9:1; Exodus 10:3; etc. Exodus 9:14 I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart. A very emphatic announcement. At this time contrasts the immediate future with the past, and tells Pharaoh that the hour of mild warnings and slight plagues is gone by. Now he is to expect something far more terrible God will send all his plagues—every worst form of evil—in rapid succession; and will send them against his heart. Each will strike a blow on that perverse and obdurate heart—each will stir his nature to its inmost depths. Conscience will wake up and insist on being heard. All the numerous brood of selfish fears and alarms will bestir themselves. He will tremble, and be amazed and perplexed. He will forego his pride and humble himself, and beg the Israelites to be gone, and even intreat that, ere they depart, the leaders whom he has so long opposed, will give him their blessing (Exodus 12:32). That thou mayest know. Pharaoh was himself to be convinced that the Lord God of Israel was, at any rate, the greatest of all gods. He was not likely to desert at once and altogether the religion in which he had been brought up, or to regard its gods as nonexistent. But he might be persuaded of one thing—that Jehovah was far above them. And this he practically acknowledges in Exodus 9:27 and Exodus 9:28. Exodus 9:15 For now I will stretch out my hand. It is generally agreed by modern writers that this translation fails to give the true sense of the original God does not here announce what he is going to do, but what he might have done, and would have done, but for certain considerations. Translate, "For now might I have stretched out my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence; and then thou hadst been cut off from the earth." Scripture shows that pestilence is always in God’s power, and may at any time be let loose to scourge his foes, and sweep them into the pit of destruction. (See Le Exodus 26:25; Numbers 11:33; Numbers 14:12; Numbers 16:46; 2 Samuel 24:13-15, etc.) He had not done now what he might have done, and what Pharaoh’s obstinacy might well have provoked him to do; and why? On account of the considerations contained in the next verse. Exodus 9:16 And in very deed, etc. Rather, "But truly for this cause have I caused thee to stand," i.e; "kept thee alive and sustained thee in the position thou occupiest" for to shew to thee my power—i.e; to impress thee, if it is possible that thou canst be impressed, with the greatness of my power, and the foolishness of any attempt to resist it, and also that my name may be declared throughout all the earth—i.e; that attention may be called widely among the neighbouring nations to the great truth that there is really but one God, who alone can deliver, and whom it is impossible to resist. Exodus 9:17 As yet. Rather "still." And the whole verse should be rendered—"Dost thou still oppose thyself against my people, so as not to let them go." The verb translated "oppose"—("exalt" in the A.V.)—is strictly "to raise a mound, or bank," thence "to obstruct," "oppose." Exodus 9:18 To-morrow about this time. As it might have been thought that Moses had done nothing very extraordinary in predicting a storm for the next day, a more exact note of time than usual was here given. Compare Exodus 8:23; Exodus 9:5. I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail. Rain, and, still more, hail are comparatively rare in Egypt, though not so rare as stated by some ancient authors (Herod, 3.10; Pomp. Mela, De Situ Orbis, 1.9). A good deal of rain falls in the Lower Country, where the north wind brings air loaded with vapour from the Mediterranean; particularly in the winter months from December to March. Snow, and hail, and thunder are during those months not very uncommon, having been witnessed by many modern travellers, as Pococke, Wansleben, Seetzen, Perry, Tooke, and others. They are seldom, however, of any great severity. Such a storm as here described (see especially Exodus 9:23, Exodus 9:24) would be quite strange and abnormal; no Egyptian would have experienced anything approaching to it, and hence the deep impression that it made (Exodus 9:27). Since the foundation thereof. Not "since the original formation of the country" at the Creation, or by subsequent alluvial deposits, as Herodotus thought (2.5-11), but "since Egypt became a nation" (see Exodus 9:24). Modern Egyptologists, or at any rate a large number of them, carry back this event to a date completely irreconcilable with the Biblical chronology—Bockh to b.c. 5702, Unger to b.c. 5613, Mariette and Lenormant to b.c. 5004, Brugsch to b.c. 4455, Lepsius to b.c. 3852, and Bunsen (in one place) to b.c. 3623. The early Egyptian chronology is, however, altogether uncertain, as the variety in these dates sufficiently intimates. Of the dynasties before the (so-called) eighteenth, only seven are proved to be historical, and the time that the Old and Middle Empires lasted is exceedingly doubtful. All the known facts are sufficiently met by such a date as b.c. 2500-2400 for the Pyramid Kings, before whose time we have nothing authentic. This is a date which comes well within the period allowed for the formation of nations by the chronology of the Septuagint and Samaritan versions. Exodus 9:19 Thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field. During winter and early spring, the Egyptians kept their cattle "in the field," as other nations commonly do. When the inundation began, they were obliged to bring them into the cities and enclosed villages, and house them. The time of the "Plague of Hail" appears by all the indications w have been the middle of February. They shall die. Human life was now for the first time threatened. Any herdsmen that remained with the cattle in the open field and did not seek the shelter of houses or sheds would be smitten by the huge jagged hailstones with such force that they would be killed outright, or else die of their wounds. Exodus 9:20 He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh. It is a new fact that any of the Egyptians had been brought to "fear the word of Jehovah." Probably, the effect of the plagues had been gradually to convince a considerable number, not so much that Jehovah was the one True God as that he was a great and powerful god, whose chastisements were to be feared. Consequently there were now a certain number among the "servants of Pharaoh" who pro-fired by the warning given (Exodus 9:19), and housed their cattle and herdsmen, in anticipation of the coming storm. Exodus 9:21 He that regarded not. If there were men who believed in the power and truthfulness of Jehovah, there were probably more who did not believe. As Lot "seemed as one that mocked unto his sons-in-law" (Genesis 19:14), so Moses and Aaron appeared to the great mass of the Egyptians. As observed above, a hail-storm that could endanger life, either of man or beast, was beyond all Egyptian experience, and must have seemed almost impossible. Exodus 9:22 Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven. The action was appropriate, as the plague was to come from the heaven. Similarly, in the first and second plagues, Aaron’s hand had been stretched out upon the waters (Exodus 7:19, Exodus 7:20; Exodus 8:6); and in the third upon "the dust of the ground" (Exodus 8:17). And upon every herb of the field—i.e; upon all forms of vegetable life. (Compare Genesis 1:30; Genesis 9:3.) Exodus 9:23 Moses stretched forth his rod. In the last set of three plagues, the earthly agent was Moses (Exodus 9:10; Exodus 10:13, Exodus 10:22), whose diffidence seems to have worn off as time went on, and he became accustomed to put himself forward. Thunder and hail. Thunder had not been predicted; but it is a common accompaniment of a hail-storm, the change of temperature produced by the discharge of electricity no doubt conducing to the formation of hailstones. The fire ran along upon the ground. Some very peculiar electrical display seems to be intended—something corresponding to the phenomena called "fireballs," where the electric fluid does not merely flash momentarily, but remains for several seconds, or even minutes, before it disappears. Exodus 9:24 Fire mingled with the hail. Rather, "There was hail, and in the midst of the hail a fire infolding itself." The expression used is the same which occurs in Ezekiel 1:4. It seems to mean a fire that was not a mere flash, but collected itself into a mass and was seen for some considerable time. Exodus 9:25 The hall smote. It is to the hail and not to the lightning that the great destruction of men and beasts is attributed. Such lightning, however, as is spoken of, would probably kill some. All that was in the field. According to the warning given (Exodus 9:19), the herdsmen and cattle left in the open air and not brought into the sheds were killed. The hail emote every herb of the field. Even in our own temperate climate, which is free from all atmospheric extremes, hailstorms occasionally do so much damage to crops that it has been found desirable to organise a special insurance against loss from this cause. Such hail as that described in the text would greatly injure every crop that was many inches above the soil, and entirely destroy such as had gone to ear. (See below, Exodus 9:31.) Broke every tree—i.e; damaged the smaller branches and twigs, thus destroying the prospect of fruit. Exodus 9:26 Only in the land of Goshen, etc. Compare Exodus 8:22; Exodus 9:4; Exodus 10:23. Exodus 9:13-19 The method of the Divine Rule over bad men illustrated by God’s message to Pharaoh. The message illustrates, 1. THE LONG- OF GOD TOWARDS SINNERS. "For now might I have stretched out my hand and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence"(Exodus 9:15). Pharaoh had opposed himself to God so long, had shown himself in various ways so wicked, that he well deserved to have been stricken with plague and made to perish miserably. He had been insolent and blasphemous, when first appealed to in the name of Jehovah (Exodus 5:2); cruel and vindictive, when he increased the Israelites’ burdens (Exodus 5:7-9); hard-hearted, when the taskmasters complained to him (Exodus 5:15-18); obdurate and perverse, in resisting so many signs and wonders wrought for the purpose of moving him (Exodus 7:10-13, Exodus 7:20-23; Exodus 8:5, Exodus 8:6, Exodus 8:16-19, Exodus 8:20-24; Exodus 9:6, Exodus 9:7, Exodus 9:10-12); pitiless and false, in twice breaking his promises (Exodus 8:8-15, Exodus 8:28-32). Yet God had spared him. He had "made him to stand" (Exodus 9:16)—i.e; preserved him in being—and had retained him in his high station, when he might readily have caused his overthrow by conspiracy or otherwise. So long-suffering was he, that he even now addressed to him fresh warnings, and gave him fresh signs of his power, thus by his goodness striving to lead him to repentance. II. THE POWER OF GOD TO BREAK THE WILL EVEN OF THE MOST SINNER. God can so multiply, and vary, and prolong his judgments, that at last the power of endurance, even in the case of the most obdurate sinner, is worn out. First he sends comparatively slight afflictions, then more serious ones; finally, if the stubborn will still refuses to bend, he visits the offender with "all his plagues" (Exodus 9:14). Man cannot triumph over God. Kings may oppose their wills to his, but they cannot make him succumb. He "refrains the spirit of princes," and shows himself "wonderful among the kings of the earth" (Psalms 76:12). Even the greatest monarchs—this present Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar—are powerless against him. He "refrains" them, breaks them, humbles them, works his will in spite of them. And at what a cost to themselves! Unfortunately kings, and even less exalted sinners, will rarely learn wisdom till too late. He has to send "all his plagues" upon them; whereas, if they had been wise, they might have escaped with a light chastisement. III. THE FACT THAT ALL OF GOD’S WILL BY SINNERS TENDS TO , AND IS TO , HIS GLORY. "The fierceness of man turns to God’s praise; He has endowed men with free will, and allows them the free exercise of their free will, because, do as they like, they cannot thwart his purposes. Being, as he is, the God of order, and not of confusion or anarchy, he could not have allowed flee will at all to his creatures, if their employment of it prevented the accomplishment of his own designs and intentions. But it does not; it is foreseen, taken into account, provided for. And the only result of men’s opposition to his will is the increase of his glory and of his praise. Great kings are seen arraying themselves against God, determining to take Jerusalem, like Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:35), or to destroy the infant Church, like Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-3), or to rebuild Jerusalem, like the apostate Julian, or to crush the Reformation, like Philip II. of Spain—and they do their utmost; they levy armies, or man fleets, or collect materials and engage thousands of workmen, or murder and imprison at their pleasure-but nothing comes of it. Their efforts fail utterly. And the sole result of all their exertions is, that men see and recognise God’s hand in their overthrow, and that his glory is thereby increased. All this is commonly declared in Scripture, and especially in the Psalms (Psalms 2:4; Psalms 5:10; Psalms 7:11-17; Psalms 9:15-20, etc.). The message sent by God to Pharaoh through Moses adds, that the result is designed. "For this cause have I made thee stand (marg.), for to show to thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth"(verse 16). Compare Exodus 14:17, Exodus 14:18; Exodus 15:14-16; Joshua 2:9-11. BY J. ORR Exodus 9:13-35 The plague of hail. This plague was introduced with ampler remonstrance. Moses was commanded to proceed to Pharaoh, and to warn him in stronger and more decisive language than he had yet employed of the folly of this insane resistance. Exodus 9:15 should probably be translated, "For now indeed had I stretched forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, thou hadst then been out off from the earth;" and then Exodus 9:16 will give the reason why God had not cut Pharaoh off, but had "made him stand" (marg.), viz.: that he might show forth in him his power. It does not follow that God would not have preferred to use Pharaoh for his glory in another way than that of destroying him. This strong representation of God’s purpose was itself designed to influence the king for good, and had a spark of sense remained to him, it would have wrought an immediate change in his volitions. In that case God’s procedure would have undergone a corresponding alteration. For God wills not the death of any sinner, and threatenings of this kind, as shown by the case of the Ninevites, are always conditional (Jonah 4:1-11.). At the same time, God’s sovereignty is seen in the way in which he utilizes the wicked man whose persistence in his wickedness is foreseen by him. "God might have caused Pharaoh to be born in a cabin, where his proud obstinacy would have been displayed with no less self-will, but without any historical consequence; on the other hand, he might have placed on the throne of Egypt at that time a weak, easy-going man, who would have yielded at the first shock. What would have happened? Pharaoh in his obscure position would not have been less arrogant and perverse, but Israel would have gone forth from Egypt without eclat … God did not therefore create the indomitable pride of Pharaoh as it were to gain a point of resistance, and reflect his glory; he was content to use it for this purpose" (Godet on Romans 4:17, Romans 4:18). Notice— I. THE RAISING UP (Exodus 9:16). We are taught, 1. That God can find a use even for the wicked (Proverbs 16:4). 2. That God places wicked men in positions in which their true character is manifested, and his own power and righteousness are glorified in their judgment. 3. That this is not the primary desire of God in relation to any wicked man. He would prefer his conversion. If it be urged that the situations in which men are placed are not always those most favourable to their conversion, this may be conceded. But they are not placed in these positions arbitrarily, but under a system of administration which regards each individual, not simply as an end in himself, but as a means to a yet higher end, the carrying forward of the world purpose as a whole. God cannot deal with the individual as if there were no such thing as history, or as if that individual constituted the sum-total of humanity, or as if his salvation were the only and the all-ruling consideration in the arrangement of the world. God disposes of the evil of the world, decrees the lines and directions of its developments, the persons in whom, and the situations under which, it will be permitted to reveal and concentrate itself, but he neither creates the evil, nor delights in it, and is all the while working for its final and effectual overthrow. No situation in which God places man nessitates him to be evil. 4. That the sinner’s evil, accordingly, is his own, and his ruin self-wrought. This is shown—and notably in the case of Pharaoh—by the fact that God’s dealings with him are fitted to change him if he will be changed (Matthew 23:37). II. A PLAGUE WITH (Exodus 18:23-26). This plague, like many of its predecessors, was, 1. Severe in its character (Exodus 9:24). 2. Destructive in its effects (Exodus 9:25). 3. Distinguishing in its range. It spared the land of Goshen (Exodus 9:26). But the peculiar circumstance connected with it—that which marked it as the first of a new order of plagues—was, 4. Its combination of terror with sublimity, its power to appal as well as to punish. A last attempt was to be made to break down the opposition of the monarch by displays of God’s majesty and omnipotence which should shake his very heart (Exodus 9:14). Instead of frogs, lice, flies, pestilence, and boils on man and beast, Pharaoh was now to be made to hear "voices of God" in the thunder (Exodus 9:28, Hebrews); was to see dreadful lightnings, masses of fire, descending from the sky, and rolling in balls of fire along the ground (Exodus 9:23); was to witness his land smitten with terrific hail "very grievous," the like of which had never been seen in Egypt "since it became a nation" (Exodus 9:24). A thunderstorm is at all times terrible, and when very severe, inspires an awe which few natures can resist. Accompanied by preternatural terrors, its effect would be simply overwhelming. This was the intention here. The strokes of God were to go to the king’s heart. They were to convince him that there was "none like Jehovah in all the earth" (Exodus 9:14). They were to be plagues, as Calvin says, "that would not only strike the head and arms, but penetrate the very heart, and inflict a mortal wound." The thunder is introduced as being "the mightiest manifestation of the omnipotence of God, which speaks therein to men (Revelation 10:3, Revelation 10:4), and warns them of the terrors of judgment" (Keil). On the peculiar effect of the thunderstorm in awakening the religious nature, see a paper on "God in Nature and History," Expositor, March, 1881. To the superstitious minds of the heathen these unexampled terrors would seem of awful significance. III. TWOFOLD EFFECTS OF (Exodus 9:20, Exodus 9:21). 1. God’s judgments, like his overtures of grace, are seldom wholly ineffectual. If the king was hardened, there were at least some in Egypt who had become alive to the gravity of the situation, "who feared the word of the Lord." Such were to be found even among the servants of Pharaoh, in the palace itself. The preaching of the Gospel, even under the most unpropitious circumstances, will seldom fail of some fruit. There were "certain men" which "clave" to Paul, "and believed" at Athens; "among the which was Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them" (Acts 17:34). There were "saints"—mirabile dictu—even in Nero’s palace (Philippians 4:22). 2. The division of men, in their relation to the Word of God, is a very simple one. There are those who fear and regard it, and there are those who disregard and disobey it. Paul speaks of those to whom Gospel-preaching is a savour of death unto death, and of those to whom it is a savour of life unto life (2 Corinthians 2:16). Between the two classes there is no third. The effects of his own preaching are thus summed up, "And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not" (Acts 28:24). 3. Faith reveals itself in obedience. He that feared God’s word brought in his cattle; he that disregarded it left them in the fields. 4. The wisdom of regarding God, and the folly of disregarding him, were made manifest by the result. IV. PHARAOH’S (Exodus 9:27, Exodus 9:28). The supernatural concomitants of this appalling visitation so unnerved the king that he was induced again to send for Moses. tie did not yield till the plague was actually on the land, and only then, because he could not help it. The terms in which he makes his submission show, 1. His undisguised terror. 2. His thorough conviction that he was in the hands of the God of the whole earth. Pharaoh had by this time had a course of instruction in the "evidences," which left no room for further doubt. The most striking feature in his submission, however, is, 3. His confession of sin. "I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked" (Exodus 9:27). It was good that Pharaoh should be brought to see that it was a righteous demand he was resisting, and that he was inexcusable in resisting it. This much at least the plagues had forced him to acknowledge, and it gave his hardening a yet graver character when subsequently he retracted his word given. But the superficiality of the repentance is very obvious. "I have sinned this time;" there is here no adequate sense of the sin he had been guilty of. False repentances have their root in superficial views of sin. They may be produced by terror, under compulsion; but they are accompanied by no real change of heart; and renewed hardening is the only possible outcome of them. "As for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord God"(Exodus 9:30). V. WITH MERCY. God’s mercy in connection with this plague is conspicuous— 1. In giving the warning, so that those who regarded his word had the opportunity of removing their servants and cattle (Exodus 9:20, Exodus 9:21). 2. In sparing the wheat and rye (Exodus 9:31, Exodus 9:32). 3. In removing the plague at the request of Pharaoh, presented through Moses (Exodus 9:28, Exodus 9:29). VI. . 1. Pharaoh hardened himself (Exodus 9:34, Exodus 9:35). We ask, in surprise, how was such a thing possible? Pride, hate, anger, obstinacy furnish the explanation, though it is truly difficult to conceive how they could so madden a mind as to make it capable of persevering in a course of resistance. There is the fact, however, and it is full of terrible warning to us. The hardening was obviously now of the most serious possible kind. Pharaoh’s nature had been thoroughly awakened. He was no loner sinning in ignorance, but against clear light and conviction. He had confessed his sin, and promised to obey. Hardening, under these circumstances, was as nearly "sin against the Holy Ghost" as was then possible (John 9:41). 2. His servants hardened themselves (Exodus 9:34). This is a fact which should be well pondered. It might have been thought that only a Pharaoh was capable of such fatuousness. We learn here that there were natures among his servants as susceptible of hardening as his own. We do not need to be Pharaohs to be capable of hardening our hearts against God. Persons in obscure positions can do it as readily as those on the pinnacles of greatness. The king’s influence, however, had doubtless much to do with his servants’ conduct. They took their cue from their lord. Had he submitted himself, they would have done so also. Because he hardened himself, they must follow suit. What folly! to destroy themselves for the sake of being like a king—of being in the fashion. Learn also the potency of example. Those in high positions have a powerful influence over those dependent upon them. Well for them if they use that influence for God’s glory, and not to ruin souls!—J.O. BY H. T. The road to ruin. "And in very deed for this cause," etc. (Exodus 9:16). The character and conduct of Pharaoh as a probationer under the moral government of the Ever Living God is worthy of special and separate consideration. That he was such a probationer should not be simply assumed, but made clearly manifest. All the great light of natural religion shone upon his path (Romans 1:19-25), like stars in heaven upon the path of every soul. Then there is the inward witness that speaks of the soul, of God, of duty, of immortality (Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15). Within the confines of his empire existed a nation of no less than two millions, to whom had already been confided a part, at least, of the "oracles of God." They were the recipients of such revelations as God had already vouchsafed. Their beliefs ought not to have been unknown to him. Two missionaries, direct from God, Moses and Aaron, were his teachers. They Came with full credentials. Providential judgments, not untempered with mercy (for warning after warning came), spake with trumpet tongue. Some of his own people, convinced, probably penitent, pleaded for the right. And yet this soul went from bad to worse. We indicate the stages on the road to ruin. It is only necessary to premise that though the stages are broadly manifest enough, they, in so complicated a character, occasionally overlap, and are blended with each other. I. . Pharaoh’s of the blankest kind (Exodus 9:2). [Read correctly, "Who is Jehovah"?] The man a God unto himself, as all infidels practically are. The representative of the Sun-God. Note the independent stand he takes all through this controversy, as against Jehovah. [On this see Kurtz, Hist. of Old Cov. 2:292. II. . So does the pendulum ever swing back from the extremes of belief or non-belief. No soul can rest in that infidelity which virtually deifies self. Hence Pharaoh played off against the representatives of Jehovah, the representatives of the polytheism of Egypt—the magicians. SO in modern times. There are the credulities of atheism. Men who will not believe in the sublime truths of revelation fall to intellectual drivelling. Notable instance, Comte’s "Religion of Humanity." After all, this is a witness that man cannot live without religion. [In this connection note the connection between magic and idolatry, and of that, possibly, with demons, Kurtz, 2:246-259. III. ALARM. In Pharaoh’s case this was especially manifest after the second (Exodus 8:8), fourth (Exodus 8:25), seventh (Exodus 9:27), and eighth (Exodus 10:16) visitations. IV. . After the seventh (Exodus 9:27). No wonder, for God had said before this judgment, "I will at this time send all my plagues upon thy heart." Coming calamity was to be of a deeper and more searching kind. The man seems to have had an access of real and honest feeling. Sees the sin of the people as well as his own. Confesses. But the confession was not followed up. V. PROMISE—. After second (Exodus 8:8-15), fourth (Exodus 8:28-32), and seventh (Exodus 9:28-35) plagues. A very common thing with sinners under Divine discipline—promises of amendment—but the sweep onward of the bias toward iniquity is like that of a mighty river, and carries the most earnest vows into the gulf of oblivion. VI. TO . See Exodus 8:25-28, Exodus 10:8-11, Exodus 10:24. Such penitence as Pharaoh had was one of conditions and compromise. Israel’s festival must be "in the land;" then not "far away; "then only the men should go; then all might go, but the cattle must stay behind. So "We will give up sin, but only part of it. We will yield ninety-nine points, not the hundredth. We will give up what we do not care for so much, but keep What we peculiarly like. We will keep all the commandments, but not give up our money.** We will gain the credit and reputation of religion, but shun the pain and denial of it." (see on "Pharaoh," in Munro’s "Sermons on Characters of the Old Testament," vol. 1. ser. 15.) VII. . Stolidity in matters of such high import as religion is a very dangerous condition. Pharaoh assumed after fifth and sixth visitations an attitude of hardened indifference (Exodus 9:7-12). VIII. OF HEART. Except in the objective announcement made to Moses at the first, there is no statement that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart till after the sixth plague (Exodus 9:12). Up to that time Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or the fact simply is stated, that his heart was hardened. In this matter man acts first sinfully, then God judicially. IX. TO APPEAL OF OTHERS. See Exodus 9:20, and Exodus 10:7. X. RUIN.—R. BY BY D. YOUNG Exodus 9:13-16 The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness of it. In this comprehensive message from Jehovah, standing as it does about midway in the course of his judgments upon Pharaoh, we have a peculiar and impressive application of the foregoing word of the Psalmist (Psalms 24:1). The word "earth," it will be noticed, stands in a very prominent position in each of the Exodus 9:14, Exodus 9:15, Exodus 9:16. Evidently, then, we should give the word an equally prominent position in our thoughts, and connect with it the truths to be drawn out of this message. It will then be seen that Jehovah has many ways of showing that the earth is his and the fulness of it. It is all his; not Pharaoh’s, not any other potentate’s, not even Israel’s—except as Israel is chosen by Jehovah, duly trained and prepared by him, subjected and obedient to him. We have to consider this message, then, under three heads, as suggested by the occurrence of the word "earth" in these three verses. Note, however, first, the way in which Moses approaches Pharaoh on this occasion. In Exodus 7:15, he is told to get to Pharaoh in the morning and meet him by the river’s brink; thus there is a general indication of time and a particular indication of place. In Exodus 8:20, he is told to go early in the morning, as Pharaoh comes forth to the water; thus there is a more particular indication of time, Now, in Exodus 9:13, there is the same particular indication of time, but no reference to place. Thus it seems as if we got a gradation, a sign of increasing pressure and urgency upon Pharaoh. Moses has to be ready for Pharaoh at the very beginning of the day, and then, whenever and wherever he may meet with him, he can deliver his message at once. Pharaoh had the whole day to consider as to the things Which were about to happen on the morrow. And now— I. THERE IS NO ONE LIKE JEHOVAH IN THE WHOLE EARTH, AND PHARAOH 18 TO BE MADE TO KNOW THIS. Such is the statement of Exo 9:14; and of course the whole gist of it lies in the bringing of Pharaoh to a clear and unmistakable knowledge of the supremacy of God over all terrestrial powers. That there is none like God in all the earth may be true, but the thing wanted is to bring that truth distinctly and practically before our minds, and if profitably for us also, then so much the better This end had to be achieved in the instance of Pharaoh by persistent attacks of Jehovah upon him, attacks ever increasing in effective force, till at last they proved irresistible. It was not enough for others to be assured by Pharaoh’s doom that there was none like God in all the earth. Pharaoh must know it for himself, and confess it, not by the ambiguous channel of speech, but by a most decisive act, the committal of which he cannot avoid (Exodus 12:31-33). And that he may be brought to such a knowledge is the reason of the severe plagues that remain. We might, indeed, count it enough to be told that Jehovah had sent all his plagues. We might rest upon Jehovah’s character, and say that whatever he does is right, even though there be much that at first staggers us, and that continues to perplex. But the reason for all these plagues is plainly stated, and if it be looked into ’it will be seen an ample, cheering, and encouraging reason. Though Jehovah is Sovereign of the universe, he does not treat Pharaoh in an arbitrary way; he acts, not as one who says that might makes right, but as using his might in order to secure the attainment of right. Pharaoh’s way, on the contrary, is an arbitrary one, without the slightest mitigation or concealment. Everything rests simply on his will; and yet will is too dignified a word—whim would be nearer the mark. And now that proud will is to be subdued and dissolved, so far, at least, as to flow forth in the liberation of Israel, even though immediately they be liberated it hardens again to its former rigidity. The announcement Moses was now to make to Pharaoh we may fairly say would have been inappropriate at an earlier time. It becomes God, in his first approaches to men, to draw them, if perchance for their own sakes they may willingly submit; afterwards, when they will not be drawn, then for the sake of others they have to be driven. It is not until Pharaoh fully manifests his selfishness, his malignity, and the reasonless persistency of his refusal, that God indicates the approach of all his plagues. The man has been humbled in his circumstances, but his pride of heart remains as erect as ever; and so the full force of Jehovah has to be Brought upon it in order to lay it low. tic is at last to feel in himself, whatever he may say, that the true question is not "Who is Jehovah, that Pharaoh should let Israel go?" but, "Who is Pharaoh, that he should keep Israel back?" He has gotten some rudiments and beginnings of this knowledge already, even though they have made no difference in his practice. Every time he has opened his eyes. he has seen something fresh, which, however quickly he might close his eyes again, he could not unsee. And now he is on the very point of getting more knowledge, and that in a way very disagreeable to a despot. With alarming rapidity, his people are about to be impressed with the supremacy of Jehovah (Exodus 9:20; Exodus 10:7). II. Notice the peculiar reference in Exodus 9:15 to THE OF PHARAOH. It is spoken of as a being cut off from the earth. It seems that our English version does not give the right tense-rendering in this verse, and that the reference is not to what will happen in the future, but to what might have already happened in the past. If Pharaoh was not already a dead man, and Israel a free people, there was nothing in this delay for Pharaoh to plume himself upon. Jehovah might have smitten him with pestilence, and slain the strong, proud man on his bed, amid humiliations and pains which would have been aggravated by the vanity of the regal splendours around him. tie might have made Egypt one great expanse of the dead, a land which the Israelites could have spoiled at their leisure, and then gone forth at any time most convenient to themselves. And if Jehovah did not thus slay Pharaoh and liberate Israel, it was because he had purposes of his own to accomplish by the lengthened life of the one and the intensified sufferings of the other. But apart from the question ,of time, what awful significance there is in the expression, "cut off from the earth!" To this separation, made most effectual, Pharaoh came at last. In considering this expression, notice first of all the suggestion of our connection with the earth. A thing cannot be cut off from the earth unless first of all it is connected with it. In respect of many things the connection may seem very slight and unimportant; but in the instance of a human being, the connection is evidently intimate and important; and, until our connection with heaven is established, not only important, but all-important. We are connected with the earth by what we get from it. The very limitations of our bodily constitution remind us of our dependence upon the earth. We are not like the birds with wings to soar away from it, nor like fishes who can breathe vital air under water; we are emphatically of the solid earth. To its kindly fruits we look for our sustenance, and out of it also comes our clothing and shelter. And then from the earth in its still larger sense, "the great globe itself," consider what comes to us in the way of occupation, instruction, interest, pleasure, opportunities of getting and giving in all sorts of ways. From all this Pharaoh was at last cut off; and from all this we also must one day be cut off. Cut off from the earth, as the tree, at the roots of which the axe has long lain. When the tree has fallen it is still near the earth, but it gets nothing from it. The question for us to ask is, whether, while the tree of our natural earthly life still stands, we are having the roots of a nobler, richer life, even a Divine one, striking down into the heavenly places? The cutting off from earth will matter little, if the vanished life is found elsewhere, more flourishing and fruitful than ever it was here. III. Notice from Exodus 9:16 that THE VERY PURPOSE OF PHARAOH’S IS TO MAKE A OF THE POWER AND GLORY OF GOD. God did not treat Pharaoh differently from thousands of others, as far as the essence of his decling with him is concerned. All who act as Pharaoh acted will suffer as Pharaoh suffered. He was not a throned puppet, a mere machine in the hands of Divine power; if he had been, no instruction and no warning could be got from him for the guidance of voluntary beings like ourselves. But being a downright selfish, proud, malignant man, God put him in this high position that he might effectually publish both his folly and his doom, and the power and name of that great Being whom he had so pertinaciously defied. He was born a Pharaoh, put in royal prerogative and possessions by no choice of his own, but we may most truly say, by the sovereign disposal of Jehovah. Thousands have been as stubborn against chastisement as he, and have gone down to a destruction as real, even though its circumstances have not been miraculous, imposing and memorable. The difference is that Pharaoh’s career was to be known; and not only known, but known as is the course of the sun and the moon, all round the earth. One such career is enough to be recorded in a way so prominent; one capital instance of human folly and weakness and Divine wisdom and power, blazing up like a beacon-fire out of the darkness of that distant past. Little did Pharaoh dream that, by his very perversity and humiliation, he was making a name for himself such as none made who went before or followed him, either in peace or in war. His memory is dragged in a perpetual procession of triumph at Jehovah’s chariot-wheels. And as it is with evil men, so it is with good. As there have been many of the Pharaoh stubbornness, though only one of the Pharaoh notoriety, so there have been many meek and gentle as Moses, though only Moses has been set for the whole world to gaze upon. It is more important to have Abraham’s faith than it is to have Abraham’s fame; more important to have the spiritual susceptibilities, experiences and aspirations of David, than the power which could put them into immortal Psalms. A man is not to be reckoned more wicked because the story of his execrable deeds is borne on every wind. A man is not better because he is better known. A few are taken for examples and located in history, as only God in his wisdom is able to locate them. He is a God who presides not only over life, but over biography as well.—Y. BY G. A. Harden not your hearts. Our position in considering the dealings of God with men, resembles the position of scholars in some school observing and criticizing the conduct of the master. Certain inferences cannot be drawn from partial knowledge. Moreover, God’s dealings with us resemble, to some extent, the dealings of a tutor with his scholars. Where intelligent appreciation is impossible through immaturity of intelligence, then action must seem arbitrary, however perfect may be the justification. Consider— I. GOD’S WITH PHARAOH. We cannot, in this view, separate Pharaoh from the social conditions which shaped his life. Great king as he was, yet, in God’s sight, he was but a man with great influence—a man intimately connected with other men whose training and destiny were as important as his own. [Illustration: In school—one boy specially influential. The conduct of the master towards him must be regulated by considerations as to what is due to the whole body of scholars. The master must act for the general welfare, without partiality towards any.] Had Pharaoh been the sole occupant of Egypt, he might have been treated differently. As one amongst many, the treatment he received is justified, if it can be shown to have tended to the benefit of the community of which he formed a part. [Illustration: Suppose boy in school, bigger and stronger than other scholars, exerting a bad influence, bullying. Teacher will speak to him. Knowing, however, his character, may foresee that speech will irritate, make him more obstinate. Still, speech ignored, must go on to enforce it by punishment, well knowing, all the while, that punishment will increase the obstinacy of the individual recipient. Finally, may have to expel; yet, in justice to the rest, only finally, seeing that premature expulsion would but weaken his authority.] So God (1) spoke to Pharaoh by Moses (Exodus 5:1), then (2) punished him again and again (Exodus 9:14), only (3) finally expelled him; foreseeing all the while that his treatment would but harden the offender, yet persisting in it for the good of others, to strengthen and maintain his own authority (Exodus 9:16). II. EFFECT ON PHARAOH OF GOD’S WITH HIM. Keeping to illustration, the effect on Pharaoh was just what might have been, and was, anticipated. 1. Effect of speech. Warnings and threats alike disregarded. The man so full of his own importance that he would not listen; would not allow the existence of a superior; only irritated; made more obstinate (cf. Exodus 5:1-23.). 2. Effect of punishment. Pain inflicted proves power to inflict pain. Pain felt prompts to any action which may bring relief. Hence we find:— (1) Verbal confession, "I have sinned"[just like boy, feeling punishment, ready to say anything which may remit the pain]. (2) A hardened heart. The disposition was not altered by the infliction. "I have sinned" only meant "I have suffered." Once-remove the suffering, and the sufferer showed himself more obdurate than ever. It would have been easy to remove Pharaoh at once; but he occupied an exemplary position, and must, for the sake of others, be treated in an exemplary manner. Expulsion came at last, but God retained him in his position so long as it was needful thereby to teach others his power (Exodus 9:16). Perfectly just to all; for even Pharaoh, though his conduct was foreseen, yet had it in his own power to alter it. Hardened like clay beneath the sun’s heat, his own self-determination made him like the clay; it might have made him like the snow, in which case his obduracy would have melted. Apply. Many like Pharaoh, yet all do not act as he did under like treatment. (Cf. Jonah 3:1-10.; Daniel 4:31-34.) The same treatment may soften as well as harden. The heart, the self-will, the seat of the mischief—and there is a remedy for that (cf. Ezekiel 36:1-38.), but not whether we will or no (Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 3:8). Other ways in which hearts are hardened—Pharaoh’s by active resistance, others by persistent inattention. [Illustration—the disregarded alarum.] So Israel got used to God’s dealing with them; so, too often we do (cf. Romans 2:4, Romans 2:5; Psalms 95:8).—G. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 9:17-35 The seventh plague-the hail mingled with fire. I. THE PLAGUE ITSELF, 1. God has his "to-morrow"(Exodus 9:18) as well as Pharaoh (Exodus 8:10). Only when Pharaoh’s "to-morrow" comes, there comes with it the evidence that he means not what he says. But when God’s" to-morrow" comes there is the evidence of his perfect stability, how he settles everything beforehand, even to the very hour. "Tomorrow, about this time." A whole twenty-four hours then Pharaoh gets for consideration, although really he needs it not, and cannot be expected to profit by it. But as we see presently, it is serviceable to protect the fight-minded among his people. Perhaps the very period of consideration would make Pharaoh even to despise the prediction. He would say to himself that a hailstorm, however severe, could be lived through, and the damage from it soon made right again. 2. This plague comes from a new direction. The heavens join the earth in serving God against Pharaoh. Our minds are at once directed to the opening of the windows of heaven (Genesis 7:11), and the raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah of brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. But we see at once the great difference between these two visitations and this one. Terrible as it was, it was not destructive as they, nor was it meant to be. God never acts so that obliteration comes instead of chastisement, or chastisement instead of obliteration. He nicely graduates his agencies so as to attain the desired results. And yet, though this plague was not a Sodom experience, it was a sufficiently dreadful one. There was nothing in Egyptian annals to dwarf it. All the power which God has stored up in the atmosphere, and which, by its wide and minute diffusion, he makes such a blessing, is now concentrated so as to become correspondingly destructive. When man will not obey, God can show the rest of his creation in remarkable obedience. Man is seen becoming more and more repugnant to Divine control, while over against him other things are seen becoming more and more amenable. What an impressive reminder is thus given to us, concerning our departure from God, and the discord that departure has produced. God sent thunder, and hail, and lightning. Even a slight thunder-storm disturbs the mind, and what a profound commotion of the soul this unequalled storm must have produced. The sound of that thunder, one would think, remained in the ears of those who heard it down to their latest hour. As to the lightning, we know more of its causes than did the Egyptians; but all our science will never rob it of its wonder and terror. Franklin has taken away the mystery of it to our intellects, but God has taken care that its power over our hearts should remain. When flash after flash fills the heavens, the most vulgar and sensual of men is awed out of his sordid composure, at least, for the time. II. THE OF GOD IN THIS PLAGUE, 1. The exemption of Goshen from the storm. "Where the children of Israel were, there was no hail." This exemption now comes almost as a matter of course. How clear it thus becomes to those who receive this miracle of the hail in spirit and in truth, that God has complete power over all the order of the sky, sending rain, snow, hail, as it pleases him, gathering the most dreadful of tempests over one district, and leaving another district that skirted it—perhaps even lay inside of it as an inner circle—perfectly secure. In Goshen they heard the thunder, saw the lightning, marked the fall of the bruising hail-stones, but these things touched them not. Here is the oft quoted suave marl magno of Lucretius to perfection. God having thus shown here, as elsewhere, his control of the heavens, it is a rational thing enough to supplicate changes of the weather. We are then supplicating for what is quite possible of attainment, even though it might possibly be better in such things to take humbly and trustfully what God may send. 2. But much more notable here than the exemption of Goshen, is the discriminating way in which God treats the Egyptian people. More and more have they been getting the opportunity to discover whence and wherefore these visitations have come on their land. A certain preparation was necessary to give them the power fairly and fully to appreciate the appeal of Jehovah in Exodus 9:19. The very exemptions of Goshen already would have done much to lead them to some perception of the real state of affairs, and all along indeed each wonder had said, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." There are some who are deaf, even to thunder, and others to whom the still, small voice speaks in the clearest of tones and the plainest of words concerning all truth and duty. Notice with what wisdom God acted in taking a plague of this sort to discriminate among the Egyptians. They had the chance of sheltering themselves from its worst consequences by a timely attention to his warning. The test was effectual as to who feared the word of Jehovah. All that he wanted was that the fear should lead to belief in the prediction, and action corresponding with the belief. When it becomes needful to exempt Goshen, then assuredly it is also just to give right-minded, open-minded, and prudent Egyptians the chance, if not of exemption, at all events, of relief. They are not all Egypt who are of Egypt, as they are not all Israel who are Of Israel. Among the nominal believers there are the worst of infidels; and among the nominal infidels there may be, not, of course, the best of believers, but those whose germinant faith may grow up into the most abundant and glorious fruit-bearing. Notice how this was the experience of the Apostles; they constantly found faith and unbelief side by side (Acts 13:42-45; Acts 14:1-4; Acts 17:4, Acts 17:12, Acts 17:34; Acts 19:8, Acts 19:9). Nowhere is this stated more impressively and antithetically than at the very close of the apostolic story; "Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not" (Acts 28:24). Men themselves are continually making preliminary and unconscious separation between the sheep and the goats. III. THE FRESH AND PROMISE WHICH THIS PLAGUE. AT LAST EXTORTS FROM PHARAOH. This confession has a very hopeful appearance upon the surface; but then we suddenly remember how hopeless God himself is of any permanent yielding from Pharaoh, any surrender of his entire nature. Nothing is easier than to say, "I have sinned;" nothing is harder than to say it with right knowledge of what sin is, and deep contrition and humiliation, because of its all-dominating presence in the life. Pharaoh uses strong words here, and there is a great appearance of spontaneity and sincerity, but God is not deceived; and we only need to look into the words to be very quickly undeceived ourselves. Indeed, as we examine Pharaoh’s utterance, we find that by a most effective contrast it shows us how to discern the elements of an adequate and acceptable confession of sin. 1. Such a confession must have reference to a permanent state of the character. Sin is not a mere outward act, so that a man may sometimes be sinning, and sometimes not sinning. "I have sinned this time." This time! There you have the mark of a mere lip acknowledgment; of one who confounds the mere selfish dangers and discomforts that grow out of sin with sin itself. The right confession therefore, is the word of one who has come to a knowledge of the deep and accursed fountain within, of those reservoirs in the thoughts and intents of the heart whence all particular actions flow. He who rightly confesses knows that it is a life that needs to be cleansed, and not a mere limb that needs to be amputated. 2. It must be absorbingly personal. It must occupy in the most imperative fashion all the individual consciousness. If there is any time when, as one may say, it is a man’s duty to look on his own things, and not the things of others, it is when he is labouring to get the proper conviction of sin. He is not to lose himself in the crowd; he is to stand out before his own mind’s eye—self so unsparingly revealed to self—that nothing less will do to say than, "I am the chief of sinners." For not till a man knows what it is to be the chief of sinners is he in the way of discovering what it is to be the chief of saints. "I and my people are wicked," says Pharaoh. It was a false unity; a claim of unity dictated even by pride, for he had become incapable of thinking of his people apart from himself. He calls them one in wickedness, when they were not one; for some had this possibility of goodness at least, that they feared Jehovah enough to follow his counsels (Exodus 9:20). And later, when the mixed multitude went out with Israel (Exodus 12:38), what then became of the boast, "I and my people"? 3. It must desire the removal of sin itself; of the guilty conscience, the depraved imagination, the unbrotherly and unneighbourly feelings, the intellect darkened with ignorance and error. Above all, it will desire to have the life reconciled, filial, and serviceable towards God. What is the avoidance of physical suffering and loss, compared with the sweeping away of far more intimate elements of misery? Only when there are such desires in the heart will the word "I have sinned" operate to secure an immediate reversal of the life. Israel said "we have sinned," when they had rebelled against Jehovah because of the distasteful report of the spies. What their confession was worth is seen in the immediate sequel (Numbers 14:40 45). Balaam said to the angel in the way, "I have sinned," but for all that he did not turn back; he was only too glad to go forward and work for the wages of unrighteousness (Numbers 22:34). 4. It must be a confession to God himself, and not a mere talk to others about God being righteous. All that Pharaoh wanted was to have Moses entreat for the withdrawal of present suffering. The acknowledgment, such as it was, was to Moses and not to Jehovah. Now confessions of this sort are useless. The thing wanted is, not a supplication to possible intercessors, but to the Holy One on high, seen through and above the mediating agent. It is not enough to be brought to a knowledge of Jesus as saving from sin; indeed we may only be deluding ourselves with mere words, except as we gain that glorious part of the salvation which consists in the knowledge of him whom Jesus himself knew so well, and desired, with such earnest desire, to reveal to his disciples also.—Y. BY J. Exodus 9:13-21 Mercy in Judgment. I. GOD’S PURPOSE IN DEALING WITH THE WICKED BY AND NOT BY (13-16). God might have desolated the land, and let Israel pass unquestioned through the midst of it. But in Pharaoh and his people the Lord would, by foretold, continued, deepening chastisements, reveal the terror and resistlessness of his power. He would make the heart of the oppressor quail in every age and nation, and stir up the oppressed to hope and prayer. But for this prolonged contest with Pharaoh we should have lacked much that has gone to deepen holy fear of God and trust in him. II. HOW GOD LEADS UP THE WEAKEST FAITH INTO (20, 21). 1. Warning was given, and those who had merely faith enough to believe that God’s word might be kept, had time to save their servants and their cattle. 2. In the after contrast between themselves and those who had despised the warning, faith would spring up into full assurance. The trust we give to God, like the seed we cast into the soil, is given back to us an hundredfold. How God answers the prayer, "Lord increase our faith."—U. The plague of hail impressed the Pharaoh more than any previous one. It was the first which had inflicted death on men. It was a most striking and terrible manifestation. It was quite unlike anything which the Egyptians had ever experienced before (Exodus 9:18, Exodus 9:24). It was, by manifest miracle, made to fall on the Egyptians only (Exodus 9:26). Pharaoh was therefore more humbled than ever previously. He acknowledged that he "had sinned" (Exodus 9:27); he added a confession that "Jehovah [alone] was righteous, he and his people wicked" (ibid.). And, as twice before, he expressed his willingness to let the Israelites take their departure if the plague were removed (Exodus 9:28). The ultimate results, however, were not any better than before. No sooner had Moses prayed to God, and procured the cessation of the plague, than the king repented of his repentance, "hardened his heart;" and, once more casting his promise to the winds, refused to permit the Israelites to depart (Exodus 9:33-35). His people joined him in this act of obduracy (Exodus 9:34), perhaps thinking that they had now suffered the worst that could befall them. Exodus 9:27 And Pharaoh sent. Compare Exodus 8:8, and Exodus 8:25-28. Pharaoh had been driven to entreat only twice before. I have sinned this time. The meaning is, "I acknowledge this time that I have sinned" (Kaliseh, Cook). "I do not any longer maintain that my conduct has been right." The confession is made for the first time, and seems to have been extorted by the terrible nature of the plague, which, instead of passing off, like most storms, continued. The Lord is righteous, etc. Literally, "Jehovah is the Just One; and I and my people are the sinners." The confession seems, at first sight, ample and satisfactory; but there is perhaps some shifting of sin, that was all his own, upon the Egyptian "people," which indicates disingenuousness. Exodus 9:28 Mighty thunderings. Literally, as in the margin, "voices of God." Thunder was regarded by many nations of antiquity as the actual voice of a god. In the Vedic theology, Indra spoke in thunder. The Egyptian view on the subject has not been ascertained. Exodus 9:29 As soon as I am gone out of the city. "The city" is probably Tanis (Zoan). We may gather from the expression of this verse, and again of Exo 9:33, that Moses and Aaron did not live in the city, but in the country with the other Israelites. When it was necessary for them to have an interview with the king, they sought the city: when their interview was over they quitted it. To obtain for Pharaoh a speedy accomplishment of his wish, Moses undertakes to pray for the removal of the plague as soon as he is outside the city walls. That thou mayest know that the earth is the Lord’s. The phrase used is ambiguous. It may mean either "that the earth is Jehovah’s," or "that the land (of Egypt) is his." On the whole, perhaps the former rendering is the best. The other plagues sufficiently showed that Egypt was Jehovah’s; this, which came from the open heaven that surrounds and embraces the whole world, indicated that the entire earth was his. (Comp. Psalms 24:1: "The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof: the world, and they that dwell therein.") Exodus 9:30 I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord. True fear of God is shown by obedience to his commands. Pharaoh and his servants had the sort of fear which devils have—" they believed and trembled." But they had not yet that real reverential fear which is joined with love, and has, as its fruit, obedience. So the event showed. (See Exodus 9:34, Exodus 9:35.) Exodus 9:31, Exodus 9:32 These verses seem out of place, containing, as they do, an account of the damage done by the hail, and being thus exegetical of Exo 9:25. They are a sort of afterthought, inserted parenthetically, and prepare the way for the understanding of the next plague; since, if the damage done by the hail had extended to all the crops, there would have been nothing left for the locusts to devour. Exodus 9:31 The flax and the barley was smitten. Flax was largely cultivated by the Egyptians, who preferred linen garments to any other (Herod. 2:37), and allowed the priests to wear nothing but linen. Several kinds of flax are mentioned as grown in Egypt (Plin. H. N. 19.1); and the neighbourhood of Tanis is expressly said to have been one of the places where the flax was produced. The flax is boiled, i.e. blossoms towards the end of January or beginning of February, and the barley comes into ear about the same time, being commonly cut in March. Barley was employed largely as the food of horses, and was used also for the manufacture of beer, which was a common Egyptian beverage. A certain quantity was made by the poorer classes into bread. Exodus 9:32 The wheat and the rie were not smitten, for they were not grown up. In Egypt the wheat harvest is at least a month later than the barley harvest, coming in April, whereas the barley harvest is finished by the end of March. Rye was not grown in Egypt; and it is generally agreed that the Hebrew word here translated "rie" means the Holcus sorghum, or doora, which is the only grain besides wheat and barley represented on the Egyptian monuments. The doora is now raised commonly as an after-crop; but, if sown late in the autumn, it would ripen about the same time as the wheat. Exodus 9:33 The rain was not poured upon the earth. Rain had not been previously mentioned, as it was no part of the plague, that is, it caused no damage. But Moses, recording the cessation as an eye-witness, recollects that rain was mingled with the hail, and that, at his prayer, the thunder, the hail, and the rain all ceased. The touch is one which no later writer would have introduced. Exodus 9:34 He sinned yet more, and hardened his heart. Altogether there are three different Hebrew verbs, which our translators have rendered by "harden," or "hardened"—kabad, qashah, and khazaq. The first of these, which occurs in Exodus 7:14; Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:7 and Exodus 9:34, is the weakest of the three, and means to be "dull" or "heavy," rather than "to be hard." The second, which appears in Exodus 7:3, and Exodus 13:15, is a stronger term, and means "to be hard," or, in the Hiphil, "to make hard." But the third has the most intensive sense, implying fixed and stubborn resolution. It occurs in Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:19; Exodus 9:35; and elsewhere. He and his servants. Pharaoh’s "servants," i.e. the officers of his court, still, it would seem, upheld the king in his impious and mad course, either out of complaisance, or because they were really not yet convinced of the resistless might of Jehovah. After the eighth plague, we shall find their tone change (Exodus 10:7). Exodus 9:35 As the Lord had spoken by Moses. Compare Exodus 3:19; Exodus 4:21; and Exodus 7:3, Exodus 7:4 Exodus 9:27-30 The mock repentance of a half-awakened sinner counterfeits the true, but has features by which it may be known. It is not always easy to distinguish between a true and a mock repentance. Here was the Pharaoh at this time very visibly—it might have seemed deeply—impressed. He was disquieted—he was alarmed—he was ready to humble himself—to make confession—to promise obedience in the future. In what did his repentance differ from true, godly penitence? What points did it possess in common with such penitence? What points did it lack? I. IT THE FEATURE OF SELF-. "I have sinned this time—I and my people are wicked." Confession of sin is a very important point in true penitence. There can be no true penitence without it. "I said, I will Confess my sin unto the Lord, and so thou forgavest the wickedness of my sin" (Psalms 32:5). But it may be made, under a sort of compulsion, as a necessity, without the rightful feeling of contrition, or sorrow for sin, out of which it should spring, and apart from which it is valueless. We may doubt whether Pharaoh’s confession sprang from a true, contrite heart. There was a ring of insincerity in it. "I, and my people," he said, "are wicked." True penitence leads us to confess our own sins, not those of others. There was no occasion for introducing the mention of his people’s sins, and, as it were, merging his own in theirs. The people had not been appealed to, in order that they might say whether the Israelites should be allowed to depart or not. They had no doubt many sins of their own to answer for; but they had had no part in this particular sin. There is a covert self-justification in the introduction of the words "and my people," as if the national sentiment had been too strong for him, and he had only "refused to let Israel go" in consequence of it. II. IT THE FEATURE OF GOD’S HONOUR. "The Lord is righteous," or "Jehovah is the righteous one," was such a full and frank acknowledgment of the perfect justice and righteousness of God as the heart of man does not very readily make, unless in moments of exaltation. We need not suppose that the monarch was insincere in his utterance. He was temporarily lifted up out of himself—so impressed with the power and greatness of Jehovah, that he had for the time true thoughts and high thoughts concerning him. He had doubtless a very insufficient feeling or appreciation of the awful purity and holiness of God; but he did feel his justice. He knew in his inmost heart that he had deserved the judgments sent upon him, and meant to acknowledge this. He was willing that God should be "justified in his sayings, and overcome when He was judged" (Romans 3:4). He may not have had an adequate sense of the full meaning of his own words, but he had some sense of their meaning, and did not merely repeat, parrot-like, phrases from a ritual. III. IT THE OF SELF- AND OF APPEAL TO THE OF GOD FOR AID. Pharaoh "sent and called for Moses and Aaron." Not very long before, he had dismissed them from his presence as impertinent intruders, with the words, "Get you to your burdens" (Exodus 5:4). Now he appeals to them for succour. He asks their prayers—"Intreat for me." Such appeals are constantly made, both by the true and by the mock penitent. Reliance on self disappears. God’s ministers take their due place as ambassadors for him and stewards of his mysteries. They are asked to intercede for the sinner, to frame a prayer for him, and offer it on his behalf. All this is fitting under the circumstances; for lips long unaccustomed to prayer cannot at once offer it acceptably, and intercessory prayer is especially valuable at the time when the half-awakened soul feels a yearning towards God, to which, if unassisted, it is unable to give effect. IV. IT THE FEATURE OF MAKING PROMISE OF . "I will let you go." Let but his prayer be granted, let but the plague be removed, and the king promises that all his opposition to the will of Jehovah shall cease—the children of Israel shall be "let go," they shall not be detained any longer. Amendment of life is the crown and apex of repentance, and is rightly first resolved upon, then professed, finally practised by the true penitent. But profession alone is no criterion of the nature of the repentance. The sole certain criterion is the result. If the resolutions made are kept, if the profession is carried out in act, then the repentance is proved to have been genuine; if the reverse is the case, then it was spurious. The event, however, can alone show how the case stands. Meanwhile, as we must "judge nothing before the time," it would seem to be best that in every case a professed repentance should be treated as real when it is put forward, whatever suspicions may be entertained respecting it. No harm is done by treating a mock penitent as if he were a real one. Great harm might be done by a mistaken rejection of a true penitent. V. IT LACKED, HOWEVER, THE FEATURE OF INTENSE HATRED OF SIN. The sinner who truly repents desires above all things the pardon and removal of his sin. He cares little, comparatively, for the removal of its chastisement. Sin, which separates him from God, is the great object of his abhorrence; and when he asks the prayers of ministers or other pious persons, he requests them to intercede for him, that he may find pardon and cleansing, may have his past sins forgiven, and strength granted him to forsake sin in the future. When Pharaoh, instead of such a prayer as this, asked for nothing but the removal of the temporal evil which had been sent upon him as a punishment, it was easy for one experienced in the words of man to see that his was not a real, genuine repentance. And this Moses seems to have perceived. "As for thee and thy servants," he said to the king, "I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord God." I know that the fear which now fills your hearts is not the true fear of God—not a dread of his displeasure, but of the pains and sufferings that he can inflict. I know that what you seek is not reconcilement with God, but exemption from calamity. You are driven upon your course by alarm and terror, not drawn by love. I know that when the affliction is removed you will relapse into your former condition. Some more terrible judgment will be needed to make you really yield. Note, then, that the minister, if he possesses spiritual discernment, may generally detect an unreal repentance, and, however closely it apes the true, may escape being deceived by it. BY J. Exodus 9:22-35 I. THE TERRORS OF GOD’S MIGHT. In that awful war of elements any moment might have been his last, and Pharaoh trembled. This plague evoked from him the first confession of sin. Hitherto he had reluctantly granted the request of Moses: now he casts himself as a sinner (27, 28) on God’s mercy, and entreats the prayers of God’s servant for himself and his people. There is a point at which the stoutest heart will be broken, and the cry be wrung from the lips, "I have sinned." "Can thine heart endure," etc. (Ezekiel 22:14). III. THE OF BORN ONLY OF TERROR. God might thus bow all men under him, but the conquest would be worth nothing: men’s hearts would not be won. When the terror is gone, Pharaoh’s confession fails (30, 34, 35), for it has no root in any true knowledge of himself. He sees the darkness of God’s frown, not the vileness of his transgressions. God is met with, not in the tempest and the fire, but in the still small voice which speaks within the breast. Many pass through gates of terror to hear this; but till God’s voice is heard there, speaking of sin and righteousness and judgment, there is no true return of the soul to him. III. THE FULNESS OF GOD’S MERCY. God knows the worthlessness of the confession, yet he is entreated for Pharaoh and the Egyptians. God’s pity rests where men will have none upon themselves. Though they believe not, he cannot deny himself.—U. THE EIGHTH PLAGUE. Notwithstanding his self-condemnation and acknowledgment of the righteousness of God in all the judgments that had been sent upon him (Exodus 9:27), Pharaoh no sooner found that the seventh plague had ceased than he reverted to his old obstinacy. He both wilfully hardened his own heart (Exodus 9:34); and God, by the unfailing operation of his moral laws, further blunted or hardened it (Exodus 10:1). Accordingly, it became necessary that his stubbornness should be punished by one other severe infliction. Locusts, God’s "great army," as they are elsewhere called (Joe 2:25), were the instrument chosen, so that once more the judgment should seem to come from heaven, and that it should be exactly fitted to complete the destruction which the hail had left unaccomplished (Exodus 10:5). Locusts, when they come in full force, are among the most terrible of all the judgments that can befall a country. "A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness" (Joe 2:3). They destroy every atom of foliage—crops, vegetables, shrubs, trees—even the bark of the fruit-trees suffers—the stems are injured, the smaller branches completely peeled and "made white" (Joe 1:7). When Moses threatened this infliction, his words produced at once a great effect. The officers of the court—"Pharaoh’s servants," as they are called—for the first time endeavoured to exert an influence over the king—"Let the men go," they said; "knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?" (Exodus 10:7). And the king so far yielded that—also for the first time—he let himself be influenced by the mere threat of a judgment. tie would have let the Israelites depart, before the locusts came, if only they would have left their "little ones" behind them . Moses, however, could not consent to this limitation; and so the plague came in fall severity the locusts covered the whole face of the earth, so that the land was darkened with them (Exodus 10:15); and all that the hail had left, including the whole of the wheat and doora harvests, was destroyed. Then Pharaoh made fresh acknowledgment of his sin, and fresh appeals for intercession—with the old result that the plague was removed, and that he remained as obdurate as ever (Exodus 10:16-20). Exodus 10:1 Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart. The word "I" is expressed in the original and is emphatic. It is not merely that Pharaoh has hardened himself (Exodus 9:34); but I have "dulled" or "hardened" him. Therefore condescend to see him once more, and to bear my message to him. The heart of his servants. Compare Exodus 9:34. As Pharaoh’s determination began to waver the influence of the court officers increased. Hence the frequent mention of them in this part of the narrative. That I might shew them my signs. The "fierceness of man" was being "turned to God’s praise." It resulted from the obstinacy of Pharaoh that more and greater miracles were wrought, more wonderful signs shown, and that by these means both the Israelites themselves, and the heathen nations in contact with them, were the more deeply impressed. Exodus 10:2 That thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son. The Psalms show how after generations dwelt in thought upon the memory of the great deeds done in Egypt and the deliverance wrought there. (See especially Psalms 78:1-72; Psalms 105:1-45; Psalms 106:1-48; but compare also Psalms 68:6, Psalms 68:7; Psalms 77:14-20; Psalms 81:5, Psalms 81:6; Psalms 114:1-3; Psalms 135:8, Psalms 135:9; Psalms 136:10-15.) Exodus 10:3 How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself! The confession recorded in Exodus 9:27 had been a distinct act of self-humiliation; but it had been cancelled by subsequent self-assertion (Exodus 9:34, Exodus 9:35). And, moreover, humility of speech was not what God had been for months requiring of Pharaoh, but submission in act. He would not really "humble himself" until he gave the oft- demanded permission to the Israelites, that they might depart from Egypt. Exodus 10:4 To-morrow. Again a warning is given, and a space of time interposed, during which the king may repent and submit himself, if he chooses. The locusts. The species intended is probably either the Aeridium peregrinum or the Oedipoda migratoria. Both are common in Arabia and Syria, and both are known in Egypt. They are said to be equally destructive. The Hebrew name, arbeh, points to the "multitudinous" character of the visitation. A traveller in Syria says—"It is difficult to express the effect produced on us by the sight of the whole atmosphere filled on all sides and to a great height by an innumerable quantity of these insects, whose flight was slow and uniform, and whose noise resembled that of rain; the sky was darkened, and the light of the sun considerably weakened. In a moment the terraces of the houses, the streets, and all the fields were covered by these insects." Into thy coast—i.e. "across thy border, into thy territories." The locust is only an occasional visitant in Egypt, and seems always to arrive from some foreign country. Exodus 10:5 They shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth. This is one of the points most frequently noticed by travellers. "The ground is covered with them for several leagues," says Volney. "The steppes," says Clarke, "were entirely covered by their bodies." "Over an area of 1600 or 1800 square miles," observes Barrow, "the whole surface might literally be said to be covered with them." They shall eat the residue of that which escaped. Locusts eat every atom of verdure in the district attacked by them. "In A.D. 1004," says Barhebraeus, "a large swarm of locusts appeared in the land of Mosul and Baghdad, and it was very grievous in Shiraz. It left no herb nor even leaf on the trees. When their swarms appear," writes Volney, "everything green vanishes instantaneously from the fields, as if a curtain were rolled up; the trees and plants stand leafless, and nothing is seen but naked boughs and stalks." And shall eat every tree. The damage done by locusts to trees is very great. "He (the locust) has laid my vine waste, and barked my fig-tree; he hath made it clean bare and east it away; the branches thereof are made white" (Joe 1:7). Travellers constantly notice this fact. "When they have devoured all other vegetables," says one, "they attack the trees, consuming first the leaves, then the bark." "After having consumed herbage, fruit, leaves of trees," says another, "they attacked even their young shoots and their bark." "They are particularly injurious to the palm-trees," writes a third; "these they strip of every leaf and green particle, the trees remaining like skeletons with bare branches." A fourth notes that "the bushes were eaten quite bare, though the animals could not have been long on the spot. They sat by hundreds on a bush, gnawing the rind and the woody fibres." Exodus 10:6 They shall fill thy houses. Compare Joe 2:9. The witness of modern travellers is to the same effect. Morier says "They entered the inmost recesses of the houses, were found in every corner, stuck to our clothes, and infested our food". Burckhardt observes—"They overwhelm the province of Nedjd sometimes to such a degree that, having destroyed the harvest, they penetrate by thousands into the private dwellings, and devour whatsoever they can find, even the leather of the water vessels". An older traveller, Beauplan, writes as follows:—"In June 1646, at Novgorod, it was prodigious to behold them, because they were hatched there that spring, and being as yet scarce able to fly, the ground was all covered, and the air so full of them that I could not eat in my chamber without a candle, all the houses being full of them, even the stables, barns, chambers, garrets, and cellars. I caused cannon-powder and sulphur to be burnt to expel them, but all to no purpose; for when the door Was opened, an infinite number came in, and the others went fluttering about; and it was a troublesome thing, when a man went abroad, to be hit on the face by those creatures, on the nose, eyes, or cheeks, so that there was no opening one’s mouth but some would get in. Yet all this was nothing; for when we were to eat they gave us no respite; and when we went to cut a piece of meat, we cut a locust with it, and when a man opened his mouth to put in a morsel, he was sure to chew one of them." Oriental houses, it is to be borne in mind, have no better protection than lattice-work in the windows, so that locusts have free access to the apartments, even when the doers are shut. Which neither thy fathers, nor thy fathers’ fathers have seen. Inroads of locusts are not common in Egypt. Only one reference has been found to them in the native records. When they occur, they are as destructive as elsewhere. Denon witnessed one in the early part of the present century. Two others were witnessed by Carsten Niebuhr and Forskal in 1761 and 1762; and another by Tisehendorf comparatively recently. The meaning in the text is probably that no such visitation as that now sent had been seen previously, not that Egypt had been hitherto free from the scourge. He turned himself and went out. Moses did not wait to learn what effect his announcement would have. He" knew "that Pharaoh would not fear the Lord. (See Exodus 9:30.) Exodus 10:7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him. This marks quite a new phase in the proceedings. Hitherto the courtiers generally had been dumb. Once the magicians had ventured to say—"This is the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19); but otherwise the entire court had been passive, and left the king to himself. They are even said to have "hardened their hearts" like him (Exodus 9:34). But now at last they break their silence and interfere. Having lost most of their cattle, and a large part of the year’s crops, the great men became alarmed—they were large landed proprietors, and the destruction of the wheat and doora crops would seriously impoverish, if not actually ruin them. Moreover, it is to be noted that they interfere before the plague has begun, when it is simply threatened, which shows that they had come to believe in the power of Moses. Such a belief on the part of some had appeared, when the plague of hail was threatened (Exodus 9:20); now it would seem to have become general. A snare to us—i.e. "a peril"—"a source of danger," the species being put for the genus. Exodus 10:8 Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh. Pharaoh did not condescend so far as to send for them, but he allowed his courtiers to bring them to him. And he so far took the advice of his courtiers, that he began by a general permission to the Israelites to take their departure. This concession, however, he almost immediately retracted by a question, which implied that all were not to depart. Who are they that shall go? It seems somewhat strange that the king had not yet clearly understood what the demand made of him was. But perhaps he had not cared to know, since he had had no intention of granting it. Exodus 10:9 And Moses said, We will go with our young, and with our old. This statement was at any rate unambiguous, and no doubt could henceforth be even pretended as to what the demand was. The whole nation, with its flocks and herds, was to take its departure, since a feast was to be held in which all the nation ought to participate. The Egyptians were accustomed to the attendance of children at national festivals (Herod. 2.60). Exodus 10:10 And he said, etc. Pharaoh’s reply to the plain statement of Moses is full of scorn and anger, as if he would say—"When was ever so extravagant and outrageous a demand made? How can it be supposed that I would listen to it? So may Jehovah help you, as I will help you in this—to let you go, with your families." (Taph is "family," or household, not "little ones." See Exodus 1:1.) Look to it; for evil is before you. Or, "Look to it; for you have evil in view." Beware, i.e; of what you are about. You entertain the evil design of robbing me of my slaves—a design which I shall not allow you to carry out. There is no direct threat, only an indirect one, implied in "Look to it." Exodus 10:11 Go now ye that are men. Or, "ye that are adult males." The word is different from that used in Exodus 10:7, which includes women and children. And serve the Lord; for that ye did desire. Pharaoh seems to argue that the request to "serve the Lord" implied the departure of the men only, as if women and children could not offer an acceptable service. But he must have known that women and children attended his own national festivals. (See the comment on Exodus 10:9.) Probably, he knew that his argument was sophistical. And they were driven out. Literally, "One drove them out." Pharaoh’s manifest displeasure was an indication to the court officials that he wished the interview ended, and as the brothers did not at once voluntarily quit the presence, an officer thrust them out. This was an insult not previously offered them, and shows how Pharaoh’s rage increased as he saw more and more clearly that he would have to yield and allow the departure of the entire nation. Exodus 10:13 The Lord brought an east wind. Locusts generally come with a wind; and, indeed, cannot fly far without one. An east wind would in this case have brought them from northern Arabia, which is a tract where they are often bred in large numbers. Denon, the French traveller, notes that an enormous cloud of locusts which invaded Egypt during his stay, came from the east. All that day. The rest of the day on which Moses and Aaron had had their interview with the Pharaoh. Exodus 10:14 The locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt. This statement is very emphatic, and seems to imply that the plague was more widely extended than any that had preceded it. Egypt extends about 520 miles from north to south, but except in the Delta is not more than about 20 miles wide. Columns of locusts of the length of 500 miles have been noticed by travellers (Moor in Kirby on Entomology, letter 6.), and 20 miles is not an unusual width for them. But such a length and such a breadth are not elsewhere recorded in combination. Thus the visitation was, in its extent as well as in its circumstances, plainly abnormal. Exodus 10:15 The land was darkened. It is not quite clear whether the darkness here spoken of was caused by the locusts when they were still on the wing or after they had settled. It is a fact that the insects come in such dense clouds that while on the wing they obscure the light of the sun, and turn noonday into twilight. And it is also a fact that with their dull brownish bodies and wings they darken the ground after they have settled. Perhaps it is most probable that this last is the fact noticed. (Compare Exodus 10:5.) All the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. Injury to fruit by the hail had not been expressly mentioned in the account of that plague, though perhaps it may be regarded as implied in the expression—that the hail "brake every tree of the field" (Exodus 10:25). The damage which locusts do to fruit is well known. They devour it with the green crops, the herbage, and the foliage, before setting to work upon the harder materials, as reeds, twigs, and the bark of trees. In Egypt the principal fruits would be figs, pomegranates; mulberries, grapes, olives, peaches, pears, plums, and apples; together with dates, and the produce of the persea, and the nebk or sidr. The fruit of the nebk is ripe in March. There remained not any green thing. "It is sufficient," observes one writer, "if these terrible columns stop half an hour on a spot, for everything growing on it, vines, olive-trees, and corn, to be entirely destroyed. After they have passed, nothing remains but the large branches and the roots, which, being underground, have escaped their voracity." "Where-ever they settle," says another, "it looks as if fire had burnt up everything." "The country did not seem to be burnt," declares a third, "but to be covered with snow, through the whiteness of the trees and the dryness of the herbs." A fourth sums up his account of the ravages committed by locusts thus—"According to all accounts, wherever the swarms of locusts arrive, the vegetables are entirely consumed and destroyed, appearing as if they had been burnt by fire." Exodus 10:16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste. Literally, as in the margin, "hasted to call for M. and A." He had made similar appeals before (Exodus 8:8, Exodus 8:25; Exodus 9:27), but never with such haste and urgency. Evidently, the locusts were felt as a severer infliction than any previous one. I have sinned. So, after the plague of hail (Exodus 9:27); but here we have the further acknowledgment, against the Lord your God and against you; "against the Lord," in disobeying his commands; "against. you," in making you premises and then refusing to keep them (Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:34, Exodus 9:35). Exodus 10:17 Only this once. Compare Genesis 18:32. Pharaoh kept this promise. He did not ask any more for the removal of a plague. This death only—i.e. "this fatal visitation"—this visitation, which, by producing famine, causes numerous deaths in a nation. Pharaoh feels now, as his courtiers had felt when the plague was first threatened, that "Egypt is destroyed" (Genesis 18:7). Exodus 10:18 He … intreated the Lord. Moses complied, though Pharaoh had this time made no distinct promise of releasing the people. He had learnt that no dependence was to be placed on such promises, and that it was idle to exact them. If anything could have touched the dull and hard heart of the king, it would have been the gentleness and magnanimity shown by Moses in uttering no word of reproach, making no conditions, but simply granting his request as soon as it was made, and obtaining the removal of the plague. Exodus 10:19 And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind. Literally, "a very strong sea-wind"—i.e. one which blew from the Mediterranean, and which might, therefore, so far, be north, north-west, or north-east. As it blew the locusts into the "Sea of Weeds," i.e. the Red Sea, it must have been actually a north-west wind, and so passing obliquely over Egypt, have carried the locusts in a south-easterly direction. Cast them into the Red Sea. Literally, "the Sea of Weeds." No commentater doubts that the Red Sea is here meant. It ’seems to have received its Hebrew appellation, Yam Suph, "Sea of Weeds," either from the quantity of sea-weed which it throws up, or, more probably, from the fact that anciently its north-western recess was connected with a marshy tract extending from the present head of the Gulf of Suez nearly to the Bitter Lakes, in which grew abundant weeds and water-plants. There remained not one locust. The sudden and entire departure of locusts is as remarkable as their coming. "At the hour of prime," says one writer, "they began to depart, and at midday there was not one remaining.", "A wind from the south-west," says another, "which had brought them, so completely drove them forwards that not a vestige of them was to be seen two hours afterwards". Exodus 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. The word used here is the intensive one, khazoq, instead of the milder kabod of Exo 10:1. Pharaoh’s prolonged obstinacy and impenitence was receiving aggravation by the working of the just laws of God. (See the comment on Exodus 4:21.) Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:2 God’s mercies and wondrous works to be kept in perpetual remembrance. Man’s forgetfulness of God’s benefits is one of the saddest features of his existing condition and character. He needs continual urging and exhortation to the duty of remembering them. I. HE FORGETS THOSE WHICH ARE AND . (a) Temporal benefits. Life, strength, health, intellect, the power to act, the capacity to enjoy, the ability to think, speak, write, are God’s gifts, bestowed lavishly on the human race, and in civilised countries possessed in some measure by almost every member of the community. And, for the most part, they are possessed continuously. At any moment any one of them might be withdrawn; but, as it pleases God to make them constant, they are scarcely viewed as gifts at all. The Church would have men thank God, at least twice a day, for their "creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life." But how few perform this duty! Creation, preservation, daily sustenance, even health, are taken as matters of course, which come to us naturally; not considered to be, as they are, precious gifts bestowed upon us by God. (b) Spiritual benefits. Atonement, redemption, reconciliation, effected for us once for all by our Lord’s death upon the Cross; and pardon, assisting grace, spiritual strength, given us continually, are equally ignored and forgotten. At any rate, the lively sense of them is wanting. Few say, with David, Constantly, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits; who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercies; who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s" (Psalms 103:1-5). II. HE FORGETS EVEN MERCIES. A man escapes with life from an accident that might have been fatal; recovers from an illness in which his life was despaired of; is awakened suddenly to a sense of religion when he had long gone on in Coldness and utter deadness; and he thinks at first that nothing can ever take the thought of the blessing which he has received out of his remembrance. He is ready to exclaim, ten times a day, "Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will tell you what he hath done for my soul!" But soon all fades away and grows dim; the vivid remembrance passes from him; he thinks less and less of what seems now a distant time; he neglects to speak of it, even to his children. Instead of "telling in the ears of his son, and of his son’s son, what things God wrought for him in the old timer he does not so much as think of them. Very offensive to God must be this forgetfulness. He works his works of mercy and of power for the very purpose "that men may tell of them and have them in remembrance," may "teach them to their sons and their sons’ sons," may keep them "as tokens upon their hands, and as frontlets between their eyes," may "tell them to the following generation." III. OF MERCIES IS BEST SECURED BY THE OF . God instituted the Passover, and other Jewish feasts, that the memory of his great mercies to his people in Egypt and the wilderness should not pass away (Exodus 12:24 27). So the Christian Church has observed Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day. Such occasions are properly called "commemorations." And individuals may well follow the Church, by commemorating important events in their own lives, so they do it— (1) Gratefully; (2) Prayerfully; and (3) Unostentatiously. Exodus 10:3-6 God’s long-suffering towards the wicked has a limit. "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself?" (Exodus 10:3). "The goodness of God endureth yet daily." His forbearance and long-suffering are wonderful. Yet they have a limit. God will not proceed to judgment— I. UNTIL THE SINNER HAS HAD FULL FOR . Pharaoh had been first warned (Exodus 5:3), then shown a sign (Exodus 7:10-12); after this, punished by seven distinct plagues, each of which was well calculated to strike terror into the soul, and thereby to stir it to repentance. He had been told by his own magicians that one of them, at any rate, could be ascribed to nothing but "the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19). He had been impressed, alarmed, humbled so far as to make confession of sin (Exodus 9:27), and to promise three several times that he would let the Israelites depart from Egypt (Exodus 8:8, Exodus 8:28; Exodus 9:28). But all had been of no avail. No sooner was a plague removed at his humble entreaty than he resumed all his old pride and arrogance, retracted his promise, and showed himself as stiff-necked as at the first. The time during which his trim had lasted, and God’s patience endured, must have been more than a year—surely ample opportunity! II. UNTIL IT IS THAT THERE IS NO HOPE THAT HE WILL REPENT. "What could have been done more in my vineyard, that I have not done to it?" God asks in Isaiah (Isaiah 5:4). And what more could he have done to turn Pharaoh from his evil ways, that he had not done on this occasion? Exhortations, warnings, miracles, light plagues, heavy plagues, had all been tried, and no real, permanent impression made. The worst of all was, that when some kind of impression was made, no good result ensued. Fear—abject, servile, cowardly fear—was the dominant feeling aroused; and even this did not last, but disappeared the moment that the plague was removed. Pharaoh was thus constantly "sinning yet more" (Exodus 9:34). Instead of improving under the chastening hand of God, he was continually growing worse. His heart was becoming harder. His reformation was more hopeless. III. UNTIL GOD’S IN THE OF HIS WILL BY THE SINNER ARE . God intended that through Pharaoh’s resistance to his will, and the final failure of his resistance, his own name should be glorified and "declared throughout all the earth" (Exodus 9:16). It required a period of some length—a tolerably prolonged contest—to rivet the attention both of the Egyptians generally, and of the surrounding nations. After somewhat more than a year this result had been attained. There was, consequently, no need of further delay; and the last three plagues, which followed rapidly the one upon the other, were of the nature of judgments. Exodus 10:7-11 Man’s interposition with good advice may come too late. It is impossible to say what effect the opposition and remonstrances of his nobles and chief officers might not have had upon Pharaoh, if they had been persistently offered from the first. But his magicians had for some time aided and abetted his resistance to God’s will, as declared by Moses; and had even used the arts whereof they were masters to make, the miracles which Moses wrought seem trifles. And the rest of the Court officials had held their peace, neither actively supporting the monarch, nor opposing him. It was only when the land had been afflicted by seven plagues, and an eighth was impending, that they summoned courage to express disapproval of the king’s past conduct, and to recommend a different course. "How long shall this man be a snare unto us? Let the men go," they said. But the advice came too late. Pharaoh had, so to speak, committed himself. He had engaged in a contest from which he could not retire without disgrace. He had become heated and hardened; and, the more the conviction came home to him that he must yield the main demand, the more did it seem to him a point of honour not to grant the whole of what had been asked. But practically, this was the same thing as granting nothing, since Moses would not be content with less than the whole. The interposition of the Court officials was therefore futile. Let those whose position entitles them to offer advice to men in power bear in mind four things— (1) The importance of promptness in bringing their influence to bear; (2) the advantage of taking a consistent line from first to last; (3) the danger of inaction and neutrality; and (4) the necessity of pressing their advice when it has been once given, and of not allowing it to be set aside. If the "servants of Pharaoh" had followed up the interposition recorded in Exodus 10:7 by further representations and remonstrances, they would have had some slight chance of producing an effect. But a single isolated remonstrance was valueless. Exodus 10:12-15 The terribleness of God’s severer judgments. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the bands of the living God." "Our God is a consuming fire." "If the wicked turn not, God will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors" (Psalms 7:11-13). Every calamity which can visit man is at his disposal. God’s punishments are terrible— I. BECAUSE HE IS . He can smite with a thousand weapons—with all the varieties of physical pain—aches, sores, wounds, boils, nerve affections, inflammation, short breath, imperfect heart action, faintings, palpitations, weakness, cramps, chills, shiverings—with mental sufferings, bad spirits, depression, despondency, grief, anguish, fear, want of brain power, loss of self-controls distaste for exertion, etc.; with misfortunes—sickness, mutilation, loss of friends, ill-health, bereavement, death. He can accumulate sorrows, reiterate blows, allow no respite, proceed from bad to worse, utterly crush and destroy those who have offended him and made themselves his enemies. II. BECAUSE HE IS JUST. God’s judgments are the outcome of his justice, and therefore most terrible. What have we not deserved at his hands? If, after all his gentle teaching, all his mild persuading, the preaching of his ministers, the promptings of his Holy Spirit, the warnings furnished by the circumstances of life, the special chastisements sent to evoke repentance, men continue obdurate—what remains but a "fearful looking for of judgment and of fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries"? (Hebrews 10:27.) If each sin committed is to receive its full, due, and appropriate penalty, what suffering can be sufficient? Even in this life, the vengeances that have overtaken the impenitent, have sometimes been most fearful; what must the full tale be if we take in the consideration of another? III. BECAUSE HE IS , AND CANNOT LIE OR REPENT. God in his Word has plainly, clearly, unmistakably, over and over again, declared that the impenitent sinner shall be punished everlastingly. In vain men attempt to escape the manifest force of the words and to turn them to another meaning. As surely as the life of the blessed is never-ending, so is the "death" of the wicked. Vainly says one, that he would willingly give up his hope of everlasting life, if so be that by such sacrifice he could end the eternal sufferings of the lost ones. It is not what man feels, what he thinks he would do, or even what he would actually do, were it in his power, that proves anything; the question is one of fact. God tells us what he is about to do, and he will assuredly do it, whatever we may think or feel. "These (the wicked) shall go into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life everlasting" (Matthew 25:46). Oh! terrible voice of most just judgment which shall be pronounced on those to whom it shall be said, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41)] The crowning terror of the judgment of God is the perpetuity which he has declared attaches to it. Exodus 10:16-20 The agency of nature used by God both in inflicting and removing judgments. God’s footsteps are not known. Since Eden was lost to us it has pleased him, for inscrutable reasons, to withdraw himself behind the screen of nature, and to work out his purposes—in the main, through natural agencies. He punishes idleness and imprudence by poverty and contempt; intemperance and uncleanness, by disease; inordinate ambition, by collapse of schemes, loss of battles, deposition, exile, early death. Civil government is one of the agencies which he uses for punishing a whole class of offences; hygienic laws are another. It is comparatively seldom that he descends visibly to judgment, as when he burnt up the cities of the plains. So, even when he was miraculously punishing Egypt and Pharaoh, he used, as far as was possible, the agency of nature. Frog, mosquitoes, beetles, thunder, hail, locusts, worked his will—natural agents, suited to the season and the country—only known by faith to have come at his bidding, and departed when he gave the order. And he brought the locusts and took them away, by a wind. So the temporal punishments of the wicked came constantly along the ordinary channels of life, rash speculation producing bankruptcy; profligacy, disease; dishonesty, distrust; ill-temper, general aversion. Men curse their ill-luck when calamity comes on them, and attribute to chance what is really the doing of God’s retributive hand. The east wind, they say, brought the locusts on them; but they do not ask who brought the east wind out of his treasury. God uses natural means also to remove judgments. "A wind takes the locusts away." A severe winter stops a pestilence. An invasion of their own territory recalls devastating hordes to its defence, and frees the land which they were ravaging. Reaction sets in when revolution goes too far, and the guillotine makes short work of the revolutionists. Want stimulates industry, and industry removes the pressure of want. Even when men’s prayers are manifestly answered by the cessation of thought, or rain, or the recovery from sickness of one given over by the physicians, the change comes about in a natural way. A little cloud rises up out of the deep, and overspreads the heavens, and the drought is gone. The wind shifts a few points, and the "plague of rain" ceases. The fever abates, little by little, the patient finds that he can take nourishment; so the crisis is past, and nature, or "the strength of his constitution," as men say, has saved him. The changes are natural ones; but God, who is behind nature, has caused the changes, and, as much as miracles, they are his work. BY J. ORR Exodus 10:1-7 A new Message. Even yet God had not done with the King of Egypt. He sends Moses again to ply him with reproof and threatening. The final stroke is put off as long as possible. If "by all means" (1 Corinthians 9:22) Pharaoh can be saved, he will not be lost for want of the opportunity. God tells Moses his design in dealing with the monarch as he did, and gives him a new message to carry to the royal presence. I. GOD’S DESIGN (Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:2). He had hardened Pharaoh’s heart and the heart of his servants, that he might show these his signs before him, and that he might secure their being had in remembrance through all succeeding generations in Israel. This bespeaks, on God’s part— 1. Definite purpose in the shaping of the events which culminated in the Exodus. As Jehovah, the all-ruling one, it lay with him to determine what shape these events would assume, so as best to accomplish the end he had in view in the deliverance. It was of his ordering that a ruler of Pharaoh’s stamp occupied the throne of Egypt at that particular time; that the king was able to hold out as he did against his often reiterated, and powerfully enforced, command; that the monarch’s life was spared, when he might have been smitten and destroyed (Exodus 9:15, Exodus 9:16); that the Exodus was of so glorious and memorable a character. 2. It indicates the nature of the design. "That ye may know how that I am the Lord’ (Exodus 10:2). We have already seen (Exodus 6:1-30.) that the central motive in this whole series of events was the manifestation of God in his character of Jehovah—the absolute, all-ruling, omnipotent Lord, who works in history, in mercy, and judgment, for the accomplishment of gracious ends. The design was (1) To demonstrate the fact that such a Being as is denoted by the name Jehovah, existed; that there is an absolute, all-ruling, omnipotent, gracious God; (2) to raise the mind to a proper conception of his greatness, by giving an exhibition, on a scale of impressive magnitude, of his actual working in mercy and judgment for the salvation of his people; and (3) to make thereby a revelation of himself which would lay the foundation of future covenant relations with Israel, and ultimately of an universal religion reposing on the truths of his unity, spirituality, sanctity, omnipotence, and love. Subordinate objects were the making known of his power and greatness to Pharaoh himself (Exodus 7:17; Exodus 8:22; Exodus 9:13, Exodus 9:29), and to the surrounding nations (Exodus 9:16). The design thus indicated required that the facts should be of a kind which admitted of no dispute; that they should palpably and conclusively demonstrate the character of God to be as asserted; and that they should be of so striking and awful a description, as to print themselves indelibly upon the memory of the nation. These conditions were fulfilled in the events of the Exodus. (3) It shows how God intended his mighty works to be kept in remembrance. "That thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son," etc. (Exodus 10:2). God provided for the handing down of a knowledge of these wonders (1) By giving them a character which secured that they should not be forgotten. The memory of these "wonders in the land of Ham’ (Psalms 105:27) rings down in Israel to the latest generations (see Psalms 78:1-72; Psalms 105:1-45; Psalms 106:1-48; Psalms 135:1-21; Psalms 126:1-6, etc.); (2) by embodying them in a written record; (3) by enjoining on parents the duty of faithfully narrating them to their children (Exodus 13:14; Deuteronomy 4:9; Deuteronomy 5:7, Deuteronomy 5:20-23; Deuteronomy 11:19; Psalms 78:3-7). Bible history will soon get to be forgotten if the story is not taken up and diligently taught by loving parental lips. II. GOD’S —humility. "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?" (Exodus 10:3.) This lays the finger on the root principle of Pharaoh’s opposition, pride. Pride, the undue exaltation of the ego, is a hateful quality of character, even as between man and man. How much more, as between man and God! It is described as "the condemnation of the devil" (1 Timothy 4:6). Pride puffs the soul up in undue conceit of itself, and leads it to spurn at God’s dictation and control. It aims at a false independence. It would wish to be as God. In the worldly spirit it manifests itself as "the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). In the self-righteous spirit it manifests itself as spiritual pride. It excludes every quality which ought to exist in a soul rightly exercised towards its Creator. Faith, love, humility, the feeling of dependence, gratitude for benefits, regard for the Creator’s glory—it shuts out all. It is incompatible with the sense of sin, with the spirit of contrition, with humble acceptance of salvation through another. It is the great barrier to the submission of the heart to God and Christ, inciting instead to naked and impious rebellion. The degree and persistency of the opposition to God which pride is able to inspire may be well studied in the case of Pharaoh. III. GOD’S THREAT (Exodus 10:4 7). He would bring upon the land a plague of locusts. The magnitude of the visitation would place it beyond comparison with anything that had ever been known. See below. IV. MOSES GOING OUT FROM PHARAOH. "And he turned himself, and went out from Pharaoh" (Exodus 10:6). He delivered his message, and did not wait for an answer. This should have told Pharaoh that the bow was now stretched to its utmost, and that to strain it further by continued resistance would be to break it. His courtiers seem to have perceived this (Exodus 10:7). Moses’ going out was a prelude to the final breaking off of negotiations (Exodus 10:29). View it also as a studied intimation— 1. Of his indignation at the past conduct of the king (cf. Exodus 11:8). 2. Of his conviction of the hopelessness of producing any good impression on his hardened nature. 3. Of the certainty of God’s purpose being fulfilled, whether Pharaoh willed it or no. It was for Pharaoh’s interest to attend to the warning which had now again been given him, but his refusal to attend to it would only injure himself and his people; it would not prevent God’s will from being accomplished.—J.O. Exodus 10:7-21 The plague of locusts. Of the two principal terms used to denote "hardening," one means "to strengthen, or make firm," the other, "to make heavy, or obtuse." It is the latter of these (used also in Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:7) which is used in Exodus 9:34, and Exodus 10:1. The growing obtuseness of Pharaoh’s mind is very apparent from the narrative. He is losing the power of right judgment. He began by hardening himself (making his heart strong and firm) against Jehovah, and he is reaping the penalty in a blinded understanding. This obtuseness shows itself in various ways, notably in the want of unity in his conduct. He is like a man at bay, who feels that he is powerless to resist, but cannot bring himself to yield. His power of self-control is leaving him, and his action, in consequence, consists of a succession of mad rushes, now in one direction, now in another. External influences—the remonstrance of courtiers, the terrors occasioned by the plagues—produce immediate effects upon him; but the recoil of pride and rage, which speedily supervenes, carries him further from reason than ever. Now he is suing in pitiable self-humiliation for forgiveness; again he is furious and unrestrained in his defiance. Passion is usurping the place of reason, and drives him to and fro with ungovernable violence. We are reminded of the heathen saying, "Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first madden;’ but it is not God who is destroying Pharaoh; it is Pharaoh who is destroying himself. If God maddens him, it is by plying him with the influences which ought to have had a directly opposite effect. Pharaoh, like every other sinner, must bear the responsibility of his own ruin. I. THE OF PHARAOH’S (Exodus 10:7). These may be the same servants who up to this time had hardened themselves (Exodus 9:34). If so, they now see the folly of further contest. More and more Pharaoh is being left to stand alone. First, his magicians gave in (Exodus 8:19), then a portion of his servants (Exodus 9:20); now, apparently, his courtiers are deserting him in a body. It shows the indomitable stubbornness of the king, that under these circumstances he should still hold out. Observe, 1. The subjects of a government have often a truer perception of what is needed for the safety of a country than their rulers and leaders. Pharaoh’s servants saw the full gravity of the situation, to which the monarch was so blind. "Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?" Rulers are frequently blinded by their pride, passion, prejudices, and private wishes, to the real necessities of a political situation. 2. Hardening against God makes the heart indifferent to the interests of others. The ungodly mind is at bottom selfish. We have seen already (Exodus 5:1-23.) to what lengths in cruelty ungodly men will go in pursuit of their personal ends. We have also seen that hardening at the centre of the nature is bound to spread till it embraces the whole man (on Exodus 7:3). Pharaoh is an illustration of this. He was unboundedly proud; and "pride," says Muller, "is the basest and most glaring form that selfishness can assume." It is an egoistic sin; a sin of the will more than of the affections; a sin rooted in the centre of the personality. But Pharaoh was more than proud; he was God-defying. He had consciously and wilfully hardened himself against the Almighty, under most terrible displays of his omnipotence. Driven to bay in such a contest, it was not to be expected that he would be much influenced by the thought of the suffering he was bringing upon others. Egypt might be destroyed, but Pharaoh recked little of that, or, possibly, still tried to persuade himself that the worst might be averted. The remonstrance of his courtiers produced a momentary wavering, but defiance breaks out again in Exodus 10:10 in stronger terms than ever. II. A RENEWED ATTEMPT AT (Exodus 10:8-12). Pharaoh sends for Moses and Aaron, and asks who they are that are to go to sacrifice (Exodus 10:8): the reply was decisive; "we will go with our young and with our old," etc. (Exodus 10:9). At this Pharaoh is transported with ungovernable rage. He accuses the Hebrew brothers of desiring to take an evil advantage of his permission, and practically challenges Jehovah to do his worst against him (Exodus 10:10). He will consent to the men going to serve the Lord, but to nothing more (Exodus 10:11). Moses and Aaron were then "driven" from his presence. We are reminded here of the transports of Saul, and his malicious rage at David (1 Samuel 19:1-24.). Notice on this, 1. Wicked men distrust God. Pharaoh had no reason to question Jehovah’s sincerity. God had proved his sincerity by his previous dealings with him. And had God actually demanded—what ultimately would have been required—the entire departure of the people from the land, what right had he, their oppressor, to object? 2. Wicked men would fain compound with God. They will give up something, if God will let them retain the rest. There is a sweetness to a proud nature in being able to get even part of its own way. 3. The thing wicked men will not do is to concede the whole demand which God makes on them. What God requires supremely is the surrender of the will, and this the recalcitrant heart will not stoop to yield. Part it will surrender, but not the whole. Outward vices, pleasures, worldly possessions, friendships, these, at a pinch, may be given up; but not the heart’s love and obedience, which is the thing chiefly asked for; not the" little ones" of the heart’s secret sins, or the "flocks and herds" for the pure inward sacrifice (see Pusey on Micah 6:6-9). III. THE LOCUST (Exodus 10:12-16). The predicted plague was accordingly brought upon the land. It was the second of what we may call the greater plagues—the plagues that were to be laid upon the king’s "heart" (Exodus 9:14). They were plagues of a character to appal and overwhelm; to lay hold of the nature on the side on which it is susceptible of impressions from the awful and terrific; to awaken into intense activity its slumbering sense of the infinite; to rouse in the soul the apprehension of present Deity. The first was the plague of hail, thunderings, and lightnings; the second was this plague of locusts. The points on which stress is laid in this second plague are— 1. The supernatural character of the visitation. 2. The appalling numbers of the enemy. 3. The havoc wrought by them. We may compare the language here with the description of the locusts in Joe 2:1-32; and it may be concluded that the effects described as following from the latter visitation were more than paralleled by the terror and anguish created by the descent of this scourge on Egypt. "Before their face the people would be much pained; all faces would gather blackness" (Joe 2:6). It would seem as if the earth quaked before them; as if the heavens trembled; as if sun and moon had become dark, and the stars had withdrawn their shining (Joe 2:10)! The devastation was rapid and complete. "The land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness" (Joe 2:3). Had the plague not speedily been removed Egypt verily would have been destroyed. How mighty is Jehovah! How universal his empire! These locusts were brought from afar (Joe 2:13). All agents in nature serve him; winds (cast and west), locusts (cf. Joe 2:11), as well as hail and thunder. He has but to speak the word, and all we have will be taken from us (Joe 2:15). IV. PHARAOH’S PLIGHT AND FURTHER (Joe 2:16-21). What we have here is a specimen of one of those violent contrasts in Pharaoh’s later moods to which reference has been made above. Nothing could be more humiliating, more abject, more truly painful, in its self-effacement than this new appeal of the king to Moses. He had sinned, shined both against God, and against Moses and Aaron; would they forgive him this once, only this once, and entreat God that he would take away from him this death only? (Joe 2:16, Joe 2:17.) Contrast this with Joe 2:10, or with Joe 2:28, and it can hardly be believed that we are looking on the same man. Pharaoh had never humbled himself so far before. He beseeches for mercy; almost cringes before Moses and Aaron in his anxiety to have this dreadful plague removed. Yet there is no real change of heart. The moment the locusts are gone pride reasserts its sway, and he hardens himself as formerly. Learn— 1. That false repentance may be connected with other than superficial states of feeling. Pharaoh was here in real terror, in mortal anguish of spirit. The pains of hell had truly got hold on him (Psalms 116:3). Yet his repentance was a false one. 2. That false repentance may ape every outward symptom of real repentance. Who that saw Pharaoh in that bath of anguish, and heard him pouring out those impassioned entreaties and confessions, but would have supposed that the hard heart had at length been subdued? The confession of sin is unreserved and unqualified. The submission is absolute. Pharaoh was aware of how little he deserved to be further trusted, and pied to be tried again, "only this once," Yet the repentance was through and through a false one—the product of mere natural terror—the repentance of a heart, not one fibre of which was altered in its moral quality. 3. That false repentance may not be consciously insincere. There is no reason to question that Pharaoh was for the time sincere enough in the promises he’ made. They were wrung from him, but he meant to give effect to them. But the momentary willingness he felt to purchase exemption from trouble by granting Jehovah’s demand had quite disappeared by the time the plague was removed. The repentance was false. 4. The test of a repentance being false or true is the fruits yielded by it. The test is not the depth of our convictions, the anguish of our minds, the profuseness of our confessions, the apparent sincerity of our vows, it is the kind of deeds which follow (Matthew 3:8). We have need in this matter of repentance to distrust ourselves, to beware of being imposed on by others, and to be careful in public instruction that the real nature of repentance is lucidly expounded.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 10:1-19 The Eighth Plague: the locusts. I. THE WITH RESPECT TO THE OF THE HEART. In Exodus 9:34 we are told that when the hail and the thunder ceased, Pharaoh hardened his heart, he and his servants. Note here two things: 1. How Pharaoh’s heart was hardened just after he had made a confession of sin; from which we see how little he understood by the word "sin," and how little he meant by the confession. 2. The combination of his servants with him in this hardening; from which we may judge that just as some among his servants had been taken further away from him by their prudent and believing action when the hail was threatened (Exodus 9:20), so others had been drawn still nearer to their master, and made larger sharers in his obstinacy and pride. The unbelieving, who left their servants and their cattle in the fields, not only lost their property when the hail descended, but afterwards they became worse men. And now in Exodus 10:1, not only is there a statement that the hearts of Pharaoh and his servants were hardened, but God in his own person says, "I have hardened his heart," etc. Then after this statement, so emphatic in the expression of it, however difficult to understand in the meaning of it, God goes on to explain why he has thus hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his servants. In the first place, it gives an opportunity for showing God’s signs before Pharaoh—"all my plagues" (Exodus 9:14). Thus God would turn our attention here to the thing of chief importance, namely, what he was doing himself. Important it certainly is to notice what Pharaoh is doing, but far more important to notice what Jehovah is doing. We may easily give too much time to thinking of Pharaoh, and too little to thinking of Jehovah. Thus God would ever direct us into the steps of practical wisdom. We are constantly tempted to ask questions which cannot be answered, while we as constantly neglect to ask questions which both can be answered and ought to be answered. The conduct of Pharaoh is indeed a fascinating problem for those who love to consider the play of motives in the human heart. In considering him there is ample room for the imagination to work out the conception of a very impressive character. Thus, we might come to many conclusions with respect to Pharaoh, some of them right, but in all likelihood most of them wrong, perhaps egregiously wrong. These are matters in which God has not given opportunity for knowledge; the depths of Pharaoh’s personality are concealed from us. There is true and important knowledge to be gained, but it is in another direction. The marvellous, exhaustless power of God is to be more prominent in our thoughts than the erratic and violent plunging of Pharaoh from one extreme to another. Amid all that is dark, densely dark, one thing is clear and clear because God meant it to be clear, and took care to make it so—namely, that all this conduct of Pharaoh was the occasion for unmistakable and multiplied signs of the power of God. One is here reminded of the question of the disciples to Jesus (John 9:2), "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" To this question more answers than one were possible; but Jesus gave the answer that was appropriate to the occasion. The man was born blind, that the works of God should be made manifest in him. So not only was Pharaoh’s heart hardened, but God himself hardened that heart, in order that these signs might be shown before him. Then, in the second place, these signs being wrought before -Pharaoh, became also matters for consideration, recollection, and tradition to the Israelites themselves. Moses, taken as the representative of Israel, is to tell to his son, and to his son’s son, what things God had done in Egypt. Here is ample occasion given for the observant and devout in Israel to note the doings of Jehovah and communicate them with all earnestness and reverence from age to age. Surely it was worth a little waiting, a little temporal suffering, to have such chapters written as these which record Israel’s experiences in Egypt! What are the sufferings, merely in body and in circumstances, of one generation, compared with the ennobling thoughts of God, and the consequent inspiration and comfort which may through these very sufferings be transmitted to many generations following! Why it is even a great privilege for one generation to be poor, that through its poverty many generations may become rich. III. HOW THE OF THE LOCUST-PLAGUE IS SHOWN BY THE EFFECTS ON THE OF IT. 1. There are the expostulations of Pharaoh’s servants with him (Exodus 10:7). They, at all events, are not disposed to wait for the coming of the locusts. That the locust-plague was a very dreadful one, we may partly gather from other intimations in the Scriptures with respect to these voracious insects, advancing in their innumerable hosts (Deuteronomy 28:38, Deuteronomy 28:42; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Joe 1:4; Nahum 3:15). The experiences of modern travellers in the East are also such as to assure us that the expectation of a visit from the locust is enough to excite the most alarming thoughts (see in particular Dr. Thomson’s observations on the locust in The Land and the Book). But in truth we hardly need to go beyond the conduct of Pharaoh’s servants themselves. The very name locust was enough to startle them into precautionary activity; they did not wait for the reality. Some of them, indeed, had anticipated the destructive effect of the hail, and taken suitable precautions; but others felt there was room for question whether, after all, the hail would be so pernicious. In their presumption they guessed that a hailstorm could inflict only a slight and reparable damage. But what could escape the locusts? Every green thing was well known to perish before their voracity. Even what might be called an ordinary visitation from them would be no trifle; how much more such a visitation as Pharaoh’s servants had now every reason to believe would come upon them! For the time was long past when they doubted concerning the power of Moses to bring what he threatened. It is no longer a question of the power of Moses, but of the endurance of Egypt. In all likelihood the thought now prevailing in the minds of Pharaoh’s servants—possibly in Pharaoh’s own mind—was that this run of calamity would presently come to an end, if only it was patiently endured. For in ancient Egypt there was doubtless some such proverb as might be Englished into our common saying, "It is a long lane that has no turning." Egypt has known the long lane of seven plagues; surely it cannot be much longer. And yet it may easily be long enough to destroy them before they get out of it. Locusts to come, when Moses speaks about them, may be reckoned as good as come, if something be not done promptly to avert their approach; and once come, then how long will the food of Egypt remain, either for man or beast! No wonder, then, that Pharaoh’s servants turned upon him with such warm—one may almost say threatening—expostulations. The prospect of an immediate and almost instantaneous stoppage of supplies was enough to bring them hastening, as with one consent, to beg a timely submission from their master. 2. There is the extraordinary yielding of Pharaoh to these expostulations. Nothing less than extraordinary can it be called. His yieldings hitherto have been under actual chastise-meat. He has waited for the blow to be struck before he begged for mercy. But now, upon the mere threatening of the blow, he is moved to make overtures of submission. We shall have to notice of what a partial and worthless sort this submission was; at present, the main thing to mark is that there was a submission at all. He could not afford to trifle with the warnings of his servants. Hitherto, in all probability, they had been largely flatterers, men who fooled Pharaoh to the top of his bent with compliments as to his absolute power; but now they are turned into speakers of plain and bitter truth; and though Pharaoh may not like it, the very fact that he is thus addressed is enough to show him that he must arrange terms of surrender before another battle has even begun. Thus, by merely studying the conduct of Pharaoh and his servants before the locusts came, we see very clearly what a terrible plague they were. The plague of the locusts was a great deal more than a variation from the plagues of the frogs, the gnats and the flies. III. Consider how, in spite of all the dread inspired by the thought of these locusts, PHARAOH’S PRIDE STILL HINDERS . It was in an emergency of his government, and under pressure from his panic-stricken servants, that he consented to treat with Moses. Moses comes, and Pharaoh makes him an offer, which Moses of course cannot accept, seeing that he really has no power to treat; he has but the one unchangeable demand; it is a righteous demand, and therefore the righteous Jehovah cannot permit it to be diminished. But the rejection of Pharaoh’s offer gives him a convenient loophole of escape into his former stubbornness. He can turn to his servants and say, "See what an unreasonable man this is. He comes expecting that in the terms of peace I am to yield all, and he is to yield nothing. Better to risk the locusts, and if need be, perish in the midst of our desolated fields, than live dishonoured by yielding up all Israel at his inexorable request." Speaking in some such spirit as this, we may well believe that Pharaoh stirred up his servants, and won them to support him in continuing his dogged resistance. It is a noble principle to die with honour rather than live with shame; it is the very principle that in its holiest illustration has crowded the ranks of Christian martyrdom. But when a principle of this sort gets into the mouth of a Pharaoh, he may so pervert it as to bring about the worst results. There is no manlier way of closing life than to die for truth and Christ; but it is a poor thing to become, as Pharaoh evidently would have his servants become, the victims of a degraded patriotism. It was all very well to talk loud and drive Moses and Aaron from his presence; but what was the good? the locusts were coming none the less. The fact is, that all suggestions of prudent and timely surrender were cast to the winds. The pride of the tyrant is touched, and it makes him blind to everything else. He rushes ahead, reckless of what may come on the morrow, if only he can gain the passionate satisfaction of driving Moses out of his presence to-day. There is no reasoning With a man in a passion; all arguments are alike to him. IV. PHARAOH’S AND THE OF IT. He drove Moses and Aaron out of his presence, but nevertheless he had to yield, and that in a peculiarly humiliating way. When he saw the locusts actually at work, then he came face to face with reality; and reality sobers a man. He had to send in haste for the men whom he had driven away, for the locusts were in haste. Every minute he delayed brought Egypt nearer and nearer to starvation. Oh, foolish Pharaoh! just for the pleasure, the sweet, momentary pleasure of driving Moses out of your presence, to risk the horrors of this ravaging host. Notice further, for it is a remarkable thing, that while Pharaoh begs most humbly for mercy, he makes fie formal promise of liberation. The promise, we feel, was really there, all the more emphatic and more evidently unconditional, just because unspoken. Any way, the time had come when formal promises from Pharaoh mattered little, seeing they were never kept. The great thing was that he should be made to feel the pressure of God’s hand upon him, so that he could not but cry to escape from it. Every time he thus cried and begged, as he here so piteously does—all his stubbornness for the time melted away into invisibility—he showed in the clearest manner the power of Jehovah. Jehovah’s end, in this particular plague of the locusts, was gained when Pharaoh begged that they might be driven away—Y The tales of a grandfather. Jehovah tells Moses, as the representative of Israel, that these glorious Divine actions in Egypt are to be matters of careful instruction in after ages. Each parent is to speak of them to his children, and each grandparent to his grandchildren. And is there not something particularly suggestive in this expression, "thy son’s son"? It brings before us the aged Israelite, his own part in the toil and strife of the world accomplished, his strength exhausted, the scene of his occupations left to a younger generation, and he himself quietly waiting for the close. How is he to occupy his time? Not in utter idleness, for that is good for no man, however long and hard he may have worked. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE NINTH PLAGUE. The ninth plague, like the third and the sixth, was inflicted without special warning. God had announced, after the plague of boils, that he was about to "send all his plagues upon the heart" of the king; and so a succession of inflictions was to be expected. The ninth plague probably followed the eighth after a very short interval. It is rightly regarded as an aggravation of a well-known natural phenomenon—the Khamsin, or "Wind of the Desert" which commonly visits Egypt about the time of the vernal equinox, and is accompanied by an awful and weird darkness. This is caused by the dense clouds of fine sand which the wind brings with it, which intercept the sun’s light, and produce a darkness beyond that of our worst fogs, and compared by some travellers to "the most gloomy night." The wind is depressing and annoying to an extreme degree. "While it lasts no man rises from his place; men and beasts hide themselves; the inhabitants of towns and villages shut themselves up in their houses, in underground apartments, or vaults." It usually blows for a space of two, or at most three, days, and sometimes with great violence, though more often with only moderate force. The visitation here recorded was peculiar, 1. In its extent, covering as it did "all the land d Egypt;" 2. In its intensity—"they saw not one another" (Exodus 10:23)—"darkness which may be felt" (Exodus 10:21); 3. In its circumscription, extending, as it did, to all Egypt except only the land of Goshen (Exodus 10:23). These circumstances made Pharaoh at once recognise its heaven-sent character, and request its removal of Moses, whom he sought to persuade by conceding the departure of the Israelites with their families. He marred, however, the whole grace of this concession by a proviso that they should leave behind them their flocks and herds, viewing these as, equally with their families, a security for their return. Moses therefore indignantly rejected his offer—the flocks and the herds should go with them—he would not have a hoof left behind—they did not know what sacrifices would be required at the feast which they were about to keep, or how many (Exodus 10:25, Exodus 10:26)—therefore they must take all. Pharaoh, greatly angered, forthwith broke up the conference (Exodus 10:28), but not, as it would seem, before Moses, equally displeased, had announced the tenth plague, and the results which would follow it (Exodus 11:4-8). Exodus 10:21 Darkness which may be felt. Literally, "and one shall feel, or grasp, darkness." The hyperbole is no doubt extreme; but the general sentiment of mankind has approved the phrase, which exactly expresses what men feel in absolute and complete darkness. Kalisch renders, "a darkness in which men grope." But the grammatical construction does not allow of this. Exodus 10:22 A thick darkness.—Literally, "An obscurity of darkness." The phrase is intensitive. Exodus 10:23 They saw not one another. Or, "Man did not see his brother." The descriptive phrases previously used are poetic, and might imply many different degrees of obscurity. This seems distinctly to shew that pitch darkness is meant. Such absolute obscurity is far beyond anything which the khamsin produces, even when it is most severe, and indicates the miraculous character of the visitation. Neither rose any from his place for three days. It is not meant that no one moved about his house, but that no one quitted it. (Compare Exodus 16:29, where the phrase used is similar.) No one went out into the unnatural darkness out of doors, which he dreaded. All stayed at home, and did what they had to do by the artificial light of lamps or torches. All the children of Israel had light in their dwellings. It is not explained how this was effected. Some suppose that the sand-storm did not extend to the land of Goshen. But in that case, such Egyptians as lived among the Israelites—their neighbours. (Exodus 11:2)—would have shared the benefit, which seems not to have been the case. I should rather suppose that the storm was general, and that the Israelites were supplied with a light, not that of the sun, by miracle. Exodus 10:24 Only let your flocks and your herds be stayed. The pitch darkness is more than Pharaoh can bear. On the third day of its duration probably, he sends a messenger who succeeds in finding Moses, and conducting him to the monarch’s presence. He has made up his mind to yield another point—that on which he insisted so strongly at the last interview (Exodus 10:10, Exodus 10:11)—he will let the Israelites go with their families—only, their flocks and herds must remain behind. This will be, he considers, a sufficient security for their return; since without cattle they would be unable to support life for many days in the wilderness. Your little ones. Rather, "your families." Exodus 10:25, Exodus 10:26 Moses absolutely refuses the suggested compromise. He had already declared on a former occasion, "With our young and with our old we will go; with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds we will go" (Exodus 10:9). He is not inclined to retract now, after two additional plagues, what he had demanded before them. He does not refuse, however, to set forth his reasons. The cattle must go because the feast which they are about to keep requires sacrifices- they must all go, because the Israelites do not as yet know what animals, or how many of each, will be required of them. The feast was a new thing, without precedent; its ritual was not yet laid down. No exact directions were to be expected, until the place was reached where God intended that it should be celebrated. Exodus 10:27 Hardened—Again the strong expression, yekhazak, is used, as in Exodus 10:20. Exodus 10:28 And Pharaoh said, etc. The reply of Pharaoh indicates violent anger. No doubt he thought that now the intention of Moses to deprive him altogether of the services of so many hundred thousand slaves was palpable, and scarcely concealed. Greatly enraged, he gives vent to his rage, with the want of self-control common among Oriental monarchs—rudely bids Moses be gone (Get thee from me), threatens him (take heed to thyself), and bids hires never more seek his presence, under the penalty of instant death, if he makes his appearance. Considering the degree of civilization, refinement, and politeness to which the Egyptians had attained under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, such an outbreak must be regarded as abnormal, and as implying violent excitement. Exodus 10:29 And Moses said, etc. The reply of Moses, so far, is simple and dignified. Thou hast spoken well, he says—"thou hast made a right decision—further interviews between me and thee are useless, can lead to no result, only waste time. This shall be our last interview—I will see thy face no more." It is generally agreed however that Moses did not quit the presence with these words; but continued to address Pharaoh for some little time, making his parting speech in the terms which are recorded in Exodus 10:4-8 of the next chapter. Having announced the Tenth Plague, the coming destruction of the first-born, he turned and "went out from Pharaoh in a great anger" (Exodus 11:8). Exodus 10:21-23 The children of darkness have darkness, and the children of light have light as their portion. From the beginning of the creation God "divided the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4); and ever since the two have been antagonistic the one to the other. Angels as well as men are divided into two classes—bright and glorious spirits that dwell in the light of God’s presence, and are called" angels of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14); and gloomy spirits of evil, whom God has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for final judgment (Jude 1:6). So Scripture speaks of man as divided into those who are "of the night and of darkness," and those who are "children of light and of the day in (1 Thessalonians 5:5). I. THE OF , THOSE WHO LOVE RATHER THAN LIGHT, HAVE TO THEM. 1. Spiritual darkness. "Because they do not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gives them over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28). Their "foolish heart is darkened" (Romans 1:21). They grow continually more blind and more ignorant, more incapable of seeing and understanding the things of the Spirit, since these are "spiritually discerned." Their senses not being "exercised by reason of use to discern both good and evil," they lose the power of discernment, and "put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." "The light that is within them"—i.e; the conscience—having "become darkness, how great is that darkness"! 2. Mental darkness. They "grope as the blind in darkness" (Deuteronomy 28:29). They have no clue to the real nature of the universe of which they are a part, or of the world in which they live. They are mentally sightless, unable to perceive the force of arguments and evidences which would convince any one whose mental vision God had not judicially blinded. They sometimes in these days call themselves "Agnostics," implying thereby that they know nothing, see nothing, have no convictions. Not unfrequently they allow them- selves to be imposed upon by the most gross illusions, giving that faith to the ravings of Spiritualists which they refuse to the Word of God. Or they accept as certain truth the unverified speculations and hypotheses of so-called scientific men, and consider Revelation to be overruled and set aside by the guesses of a few physiologists. 3. Ultimately, as it would seem, they receive as their portion, physical darknes. "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into cuter darkness" (Matthew 25:30). "The children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness" (Matthew 8:12). "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jud Revelation 1:13). II. THE OF LIGHT, THOSE WHO LOVE LIGHT, HAVE LIGHT FOR THEIR PORTION. "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Christ gives his followers, 1. Spiritual light. "The commandment is a lamp, the law is light" (Proverbs 6:23). "By doing the will of God, men come to know of the doctrine, whether it is of God’ (John 7:17). Their spiritual discernment is continually increased. Whatever the amount of spiritual darkness around them—in the midst of the clouds of Deism, Pantheism, Agnosticism, scientific materialism, and Atheism, they "have light in their dwellings." Theirs is the true enlightenment. The Lord their God enlightens their darkness (Psalms 18:28); opens the eyes of their understanding (Ephesians 1:18); fills them with knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding (Colossians 1:9). 2. Mental light. The true Christian "has a right judgment in all things." God gives to those who are his "the spirit of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). Not, that Christians are always clever—they may be slow, dull, devoid of all quickness or mental brightness. But they will be soberminded, not easily misled; they will see through sophisms, even if they cannot expose them; they will not be imposed upon by charlatans or soi-disant "philosophers." They will "try the spirits" that seek to lead them astray, and not very often be deceived by them. 3. A final reward of heavenly, ineffable, soul-satisfying light. After the resurrection of the dead, "they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament" (Daniel 12:3). They shall dwell where there is light, and" no darkness at all." "The nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light" of that city which shall have "no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of God will lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof" (Revelation 21:23, Revelation 21:24). "There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light, and they shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 22:5). Exodus 10:24-26 Compromise the favourite resort of the worldly-minded, the abomination of the spiritually-minded. Pharaoh had tried compromise more than once and failed (Exodus 8:25-28; Exodus 10:8-11); but he must needs try it again. This marks the tenacity with which the worldly-minded cling to what they think the height of policy, but what is, in reality, a weak and unworthy subterfuge. Pharaoh did not wish to grant any part of the request of Moses; but, if he must yield to some extent, he would save his dignity and his interest, he thought, by yielding less than what was demanded. On four occasions he makes four different offers. I. THEY MAY WORSHIP GOD THEY PLEASE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EGYPT (Exodus 8:25). A foolish offer, which, if accepted, would certainly have led to a riot and possibly to a civil war (Exodus 8:26). But Pharaoh had only thought of his own dignity, not of the consequences. So civil rulers frequently ask the Church of Christ to concede this or that for the honour of the State, when the concession would do the State the greatest possible injury. In their short-sightedness they do not see that in striking at the Church they will wound themselves. In their zeal for their own honour, they do not care how much the Church, or even how much the State suffers. II. THEY MAY WORSHIP GOD IN THE , ONLY THEY MUST NOT GO VERY FAR AWAY (Exodus 8:28). This offer was an improvement; it did not require a plain violation of the express command of God. But it was insidious. It was made with the view of compelling a return. Pharaoh suspected from the first that the message, "Let my people go," meant "let them go altogether." This, until stunned by the dread infliction of the last plague, he was fully resolved not to do. He would let them go as a cat lets a mouse go, so far but not further—not out of his reach. So kings will give their people liberty, or the Church liberty, but only within narrow limits—in seeming rather than in reality—to such an extent as will not interfere with their being the real master, and re-asserting their absolute power at their pleasure. Once more Pharaoh was short-sighted. Had his offer been accepted, and had he then attempted to compel a return, he would only have precipitated some such catastrophe as befel his army at the Red Sea. III. THEY MAY GO THE THREE DAYS’ JOURNEY INTO THE , ONLY THEY MUST LEAVE THEIR BEHIND (Exodus 10:8-11). The rejection of his first and second offers left Pharaoh no choice but to allow of the Israelites departing beyond his reach. So he devises a compromise, by which he thinks to lure them back. They shall leave their families behind. But God had said, "Let my people go," and children are as essential an element in the composition of a nation as either women or men. This offer was therefore more contrary to the Divine message which he had received than his second one. Worldly-minded men will frequently, while pretending to offer a better compromise, offer a worse; and, both in private and public dealings, it behoves prudent persons to be on their guard, and not imagine that every fresh bid that is made must be an advance. The law of auction does not hold good either in private or in parliamentary bargaining. IV. THEY MAY GO THE THREE DAYS’ JOURNEY INTO THE , AND TAKE THEIR , IF THEY WILL ONLY LEAVE THEIR CATTLE BEHIND (Exodus 10:24). This was the most crafty suggestion of all. The cattle had not been mentioned in the Divine message, nor could it be said that they were part of the nation. The king could require the detention of the cattle without infringing the letter of the Divine command. But he secured the return of the nation to Egypt as certainly by this plan as by the retention of the families. A nomadic people could not subsist for many weeks—scarcely for many days, without its flocks and herds. The Israelites would have been starved into surrender. Moses, however, without taking this objection, was able to point out that the terms of the message, rightly weighed with reference to all the circumstances, embraced the cattle, since sacrifice was spoken of, unaccompanied by any limitation. Once more, therefore, he was enabled to decline the compromise suggested as an infraction of the command which he had received, when its terms were rightly understood. Worldly men are continually placing their own construction on the words of God’s messages, and saying that this or that should be given up as not plainly contained in them. The example of Moses justifies Christians in scanning narrowly the whole bearing and intention of each message, and insisting on what it implies as much as upon what it expresses. True wisdom will teach them not to be driven to a compromise by worldly men’s explanations of the Divine Word. They will study it for themselves, and guide their conduct by their own reading (under God’s guidance) of the commands given them. Further, the example of Moses in rejecting all the four offers of Pharaoh, may teach us to suspect, misdoubt, and carefully examine every proposed compromise; the essence of compromise in religion being the surrender of something Divinely ordered or instituted for the sake of some supposed temporal convenience or advantage. It can really never be right to give up the smallest fragment of revealed truth, or to allow the infraction of the least of God’s commandments for even the greatest conceivable amount of temporal benefit either to ourselves or others. Exodus 10:25 Bad men, when unable to overcome good men’s scruples, throw off the mask of friendliness, and show themselves in their true colours. The circumstances of human life are continually bringing good men and bad men into contact and intercourse. Three results may follow:— 1. The bad may corrupt the good. This is the result too often. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." Few can touch pitch and not be defiled. 2. The good may convert the bad. The first Christians converted a world that lay in wickedness. Esther softened the heart of Ahasuerus. St. Ambrose, by long withstanding his will, converted Theodosius. 3. Neither may make any impression upon the other. In this case, while the good man merely regrets his inability to turn the bad man to righteousness, the bad man, baffled in his attempts to overcome the scruples of the good man and lead him astray, is apt to be greatly provoked, and to threaten, or even proceed to violence. "Take heed to thyself—in the day thou seest my face thou shalt die." What a spring of bitterness wells up from the evil heart of the sinner who feels himself opposed successfully, thwarted in his schemes, and baffled! While he still hopes to succeed all is smooth speaking. "I have sinned." "Forgive my sin this once only." "Go ye, serve the Lord." When he finds that he cannot prevail, there is a sudden and complete change. Benefits are forgotten; friendliness is a thing of the past; even the prescribed forms of politeness are set aside. The wild beast that lies hid in each unregenerate man shows itself, and the friendly acquaintance of months or years is ready to tear his opposer to pieces. BY J. ORR Exodus 10:21-29 The plague of darkness. This was the third of the great plagues, and it came, as in certain previous instances, unannounced. I. THE LAST OF THE PLAGUES (Exodus 10:21-24). The plagues, viewed as trials of Pharaoh’s character, end with this one. The death of the first-born was a judgment, and gave Pharaoh no further space for repentance. We may view this last of the nine plagues: 1. As awful in itself. Whatever its natural basis, the preternatural intensity of the darkness now brought upon the land told plainly enough that it was one of the wonders of Jehovah. For three whole days no one human being in Egypt saw another, even artificial light, it would appear, failing them in their necessity. The fearfulness of the plague was heightened to those stricken by it by the fact that the Israelites "had light in their dwellings"; also by the fact that the sun in his different phases was the chief object of their worship. When one reflects on the terrors which accompany darkness in any case; on the singular effect it has in working on the imagination, and in intensifying its alarms, it will be felt how truly this was a plague laid upon the heart (Exodus 9:14). Darkness suddenly descending on a land invariably awakens superstitious fears, fills multitudes with forebodings of calamity, creates apprehensions of the near approach of the day of judgment; what, then, would be the effect on the Egyptians when they "saw their crystal atmosphere and resplendent heavens suddenly compelled to wear an aspect of indescribable terror and appalling gloom"? We may gather how great was the distress from the fact of the king being compelled, after all that had happened, again to send for Moses (Exodus 10:24). 2. As symbolic of a spiritual condition. Egypt was enveloped in the wrath of God. The stroke of that wrath, which might have been averted by timely repentance, was about to descend in the destruction of the first-born. Darkness was in the king’s soul. The darkness of doom was weaving itself around his fortunes. Of all this, surely the physical darkness, which, like a dread funeral pall, descended on the land, must be taken as a symbol. When Christ, the sin-bearer, hung on Calvary, a great darkness, in like manner, covered the whole land (Matthew 27:45). The darkness without was but the symbol of a deeper darkness in which Christ’s spirit was enveloped. The sinner’s condition is one of darkness altogether. He is dark spiritually (2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 4:6). He is dark, as under the wrath of God (Ephesians 2:3). God’s people are "children of light," but the transgressor’s soul is buried in deadliest gloom (Ephesians 5:8). The place of woe is described as "the outer darkness" (Matthew 25:30). II. PHARAOH’S LAST ATTEMPT (Exodus 10:24-27). 1. It was made under dire compulsion. The darkness had shaken his heart to its foundations. It is noteworthy that each of these three last plagues extorted from him a full or partial consent. The lesser plagues, severe though they were, had not had this effect. He could hold out under two, and in one case under three of them. 2. It was, like the former, an attempt at compromise. He would let the "little ones" go, but the flocks and herds were to be left; an absurd prohibition, when the object was to sacrifice. It is made painfully evident that Pharaoh’s judgment has left him; that he has become absolutely reckless; that he is no longer his own master; that he is being driven by his passions in opposition to all right reason and prudence; that the end, accordingly, is very near. 3. It testifies to his increasing hardness. (1) There is on this occasion no confession of sin. (2) Neither does Pharaoh concede the whole demand. (3) He ends the scene with violence, ordering Moses never to appear again before him, under penalty of death. III. PHARAOH’S (Exodus 10:29). Moses took Pharaoh at his word. "Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face no more." God’s work with this great, bad man was ended, save as the judgment for which he had prepared himself was now to be inflicted upon him. He had not been given up till every conceivable means had been exhausted to bring him to repentance. He had been tried with reason and with threatening; with gentleness and with severity; with mercy and with judgments. He had been reproved, expostulated with, warned, and frequently chastised. His prayers for respite had in every case been heard. He had been trusted in his promises to let Israel go, and when he had broken them was still forborne with and trusted again. Plagues of every kind had been sent upon him. He had suffered incalculable loss, had endured sore bodily pain, had been shaken in his soul with supernatural terrors. His first plea, of ignorance, and his second, of want of evidence, had been completely shattered. He had been made to confess that he had sinned, and that Jehovah was righteous. Yet under all and through all he had gone on hardening himself, till, finally, even God could wring no confession of sin from him, and his mind had become utterly fatuous, and regardless of consequences. What more was to be done with Pharaoh? Even that which must be done with ourselves under like circumstances—he was rejected, reprobated, given over to destruction. "Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?" (Luke 13:7). It was the same fate which overtook Israel when the nation became finally corrupt and hardened.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 10:20-29 The Ninth Plague-the darkness. I. THE PLAGUE ITSELF. As with the plagues of the gnats and of the boils and blains, so with this plague—there is no record of any formal intimation of its coming. If such an intimation was absent, we feel that there was good reason for the absence. Though Pharaoh had abased himself in great fear and consternation, so that he might get rid of the locusts, yet the moment they were gone all his stubbornness returned in full force. What use was it, then, any longer to hold threatenings over a man of this sort? Indeed, the proper way of considering this ninth plague seems to be to regard it chiefly as a stepping-stone to the last and decisive visitation. An announcement beforehand would not have been wanting, if at all likely to make any serious difference in Pharaoh’s conduct. With respect to the plague itself, four points are noticeable—the kind of it, the degree, the duration, and the customary exemption of the Israelites. 1. The kind of it. It was a plague of darkness. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. He is light, and light continually streams forth from him; and without him the minds of men are in dense darkness as to all that is best in knowledge and most substantial in hope for the time to come. When we consider how much is said about spiritual light and spiritual darkness in the Scriptures, it will be seen how appropriate it was that before Jehovah closed his earthly dealings with Pharaoh he should bring his land under this impenetrable cloud. It was a fitting scourge to come upon a king and people whose minds were so darkened to the perception of God. The light and truth which break forth from God vainly struggled to shine through into Pharaoh’s heart. This plague was a sort of approach to the primal chaos, a movement towards dissolving the cosmos into the formless, unillumined mass from which it sprang. God’s first great Word in making order was to say, "Let there be light"; now we almost imagine a corresponding word, "Let there be darkness." The sun, though it may pass over Egypt as usual, no longer rules the day; not a ray penetrates to accommodate and cheer the bewildered land. 2. The degree of this darkness. Jehovah tells Moses it will be a darkness which may be felt. Not that it was literally palpable, but rather that the darkness was so dense, so utterly beyond all experience, that it could not possibly be described by language taken from the use of the sense of vision. It was not enough to say, as with respect to the hail and the locusts, that there had been no such experience in Egypt since it became a nation. A new sort of darkness required a new mode of expression to indicate it; and thus by a bold figure the darkness is introduced as affecting not only the usual sense of sight, but the sense of touch as well. The privation of light was in the highest conceivable degree. And here it is surely well to dismiss from our minds all attempts, however well intended, to find a natural basis for this plague. That Jehovah might have made a darkness, and a very terrible one, by increasing and intensifying natural elements and causes is quite true; but somehow, such a view of this plague does not satisfy the demands of the strong terms which are used. Far better is it to suppose that in some mysterious way light lost its radiating power when it came into the Egyptian atmosphere. Doubtless even artificial lights proved useless. If the sun could not pierce into Egypt, little lamps and earth-lights were not likely to succeed. 3. The duration of it. It lasted for three days. In this duration lay its peculiar severity. Even a darkness that might be felt would not be much if it was a momentary visitation. But when it extended for three days, disarranging and paralyzing all work, then the magnitude of the visitation would fully appear. It was indeed a plague more terrible in reality than in threatening, and in continuance than in its first embrace. In itself it was not a painful thing; it did not irritate like the frogs, the gnats, and the flies; it did not destroy like the murrain, the hail, and the locusts. It simply settled down on the land, and while it lasted made one of the most informing and gladdening of the senses utterly useless. Even these who loved the darkness because their deeds were evil, would feel, after three days of it, that they were having too much of a good thing. It was just the kind of plague that by the very continuance of it would grow in horror, and at last precipitate a panic. Darkness is the time favourable to all terrifying imaginations. 4. The exemption of the Israelites. The district where they dwelt had light in their dwellings. Here was, indeed, a more impressive and significant separation than any Jehovah had yet made; and that he should thus separate between Israel and Egypt, as between light and the deepest darkness, was a thing to be expected, considering how soon the Israelites were to go out of the land altogether. II. THE BY PHARAOH AND THE OF IT BY MOSES. After three days of the darkness that might be felt, Pharaoh is again brought to his knees, suing for mercy, and, as usual, he offers something which formerly he had refused. Only a little while ago he had set his face against liberating the little ones of Israel. Now he has got so far as to say all the people may depart—all the human beings—but the flocks and herds must stay behind; and these, of course, were the very substance of Israel’s wealth (Genesis 46:31; Genesis 47:6). And not only so, but at present they would look all the more considerable in comparison with the murrain-swept flocks and herds of Egypt. If Pharaoh can only get this request, he thinks he will both serve his dignity and do something to retrieve his fortunes. What a difference between this last interview with Moses and the first! Pharaoh, who began with refusing to yield anything, nay, who by way of answer made the existing bondage even more oppressive, is now, after a course of nine plagues, willing to yield everything—everything but the property of Israel. This, indeed, has been a great way to bring him, but it has all been done by a kind of main force. Pharaoh’s ignorance of Jehovah’s character and demands remains unabated, amid all his experience of Jehovah’s power. He cannot yet understand that Jehovah is not to be bargained with. He wants the flocks and herds, as if it were a small matter to keep them back, whereas just one reason why the flocks and herds are so abundant is that there may be enough for sacrifice. Jehovah had a use and place for every Israelite, the oldest and the youngest, and all their belongings. It was an answer of Moses, profoundly suitable to the occasion, when he said, "We know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither." He had been sent to Pharaoh to demand all, and he could take nothing less. Interesting questions arise here, but there is no information by which we can answer them. Pharaoh called to Moses (Exodus 10:24)—but how came they together in this dense darkness? or was it that Moses waited there in the darkness these three days? Then when Pharaoh spoke, did the darkness at once begin to pass away? We must almost assume that it did, the purpose of its coming having been served the moment Pharaoh is got another step onward in his yielding. But on all these points we have no direct information. Jehovah now hastens the readers of the narrative to the final catastrophe. Where we, in our curiosity, desire particulars, he omits, in order that he may be particular and exact in matters of abiding importance. He is presently to speak of the Passover with great minuteness. Details of future and continuous duty are of more moment than mere picturesque embellishments of a passing judgment on Egypt. Thus we are left to infer that the darkness had vanished when for the last time Pharaoh refused to let Israel go. And it must be admitted that there was everything in the inflexible answer of Moses to make Pharaoh, being such a man as he was, equally inflexible. "There shall not a hoof be left behind." Israel moves altogether, if it moves at all. This was a very exasperating way for a despot to be spoken to, especially one who felt that he had yielded so much. Indeed, it must have been very astonishing to him to reflect how far he had gone in a path where once it would have seemed ridiculous to suppose that he could take a single step. But now once again he says—in the same reasonless, passionate way that has marked him all along—"Not a step further." After nine plagues he is still the same man at heart. The slightest provocation, and his pride is all aflame, more sensitive than gunpowder to the spark. Nay, most marvellous of all, from the depth of nine successive humiliations he beans to threaten Moses with death. Surely this was the very quintessence of passion and blind rage. The only parallel we can find for it is in the furious, final rush of some great, savage brute, maddened by the shots of the hunter, and making recklessly towards him. What gains he by this advance? He simply comes within easy reach, and another shot from the same weapon, held with perfect coolness and control, lays him dead in the dust. The saddest part of the reflection on Pharaoh’s career is, that it gives the essence of so many human lives beside. The hand with which God would clear our corruption away—were we only willing for it to be cleared—stirs it up into a more self-destroying energy and efficacy, if we in our perversity and ignorance determine that the corruption should remain.—Y. BY G. A. A darkness which might be felt suggests the existence of a darkness which is not felt. Consider:— I. THE UNFELT . [Illustration. Stream in summer on sunny day reflects sun, sky, etc. Contrast with condition in winter, hard, dull, icebound; it has hardened and no longer reflects. If it could be conscious, still flowing on, it might not feel much difference, scarcely aware of the strange casing shutting it out from warmth and beauty.] Pharaoh and his people, like the stream, once had light (cf. John 1:9; Romans 1:19, Romans 1:20). Then "hardened their hearts." So self-conditioned them that beneath God’s influence they could not but harden (Exodus 10:1). The hard heart, like the hard ice-coating, shuts out the light and ensures darkness (Romans 1:21), none the less such darkness not felt (cf. Ephesians 4:17, Ephesians 4:18). A terrible judgment, moral darkness, usually resulting from man’s own fault; little by little it grows and deepens until it shuts out not merely light, but even the memory of vanished light (cf. John 9:39-41). The immediate precursor of ruin, that "quenching of the Spirit," which paves the way for "blasphemy." II. THE THAT WAS FELT. Pharaoh would not recognise Jehovah. He shut out the light from him and gloried in his moral darkness. Again and again did Jehovah flash home the truth of his existence to hearts which seemed almost judgment proof. Each new judgment was but followed by deeper darkness, the crack through which light seemed to pierce being deliberately blocked up when the fright was over. Self-chosen moral darkness is met by God-sent physical darkness; the darkness of the tempest, the darkness of the locust clouds, lastly, the concentrated darkness of this ninth plague. Through all, the object is to pierce and, if it may be, dispel the moral darkness; a kind of homoeopathic treatment, which, if it do not cure, may kill. [Illustration. The frozen stream. Light fire upon the surface. Clouds and flame shut out the sunlight more than ever, yet heat may melt the ice covering, and, if so, then light can enter. If not, when fire is extinguished, the ash-strewn surface more impervious to light than ever.] Pharaoh at first seemed to be thawing (Exodus 10:24), but he only felt the heat, he did not recognise the light. When the heat passed, darker than ever (27-29). The last chance gone, what left? (Jude 1:13). God still meets this self-chosen moral darkness by similar methods. Judgments which may be felt flash momentary light upon the self-inflicted darkness which is not felt. He wills that all men should come to repentance; if we shut our hearts to the inner voice, he summons us by outer voices, which cannot but attract attention. They may, however, be disregarded; the power of man’s self-will in this world seems strong enough to resist anything. III. LIGHT IN THE . 1. Physical. Egyptians had made a difference between themselves and Israel, a difference which had driven Israel to seek help from God. Now God confirms that difference. The light, perhaps, not perfect. [If darkness caused by sand-storm from S.W. may have been such light as was obtainable at the fringe of the storm cloud.] Still it was sufficient, a sign of God’s care and watchfulness for those who were prepared to receive and recognise it. And this the Israelites were prepared to do, for the light in the dwelling was the type of light in the heart. 2. Moral. They had been "in darkness," the darkness of slavery and idolatry (cf. Joshua 24:14); but the light had dawned upon them, and, however imperfectly, they had recognised and welcomed it. The cry in the darkness (Psalms 130:6) had been heard and answered. By God’s help the inner light had been quickened and fostered; and to those who have the inner light, however feeble, he gives help that it may grow brighter. He will not quench the smoking flax, but fan it to a flame (cf. Psalms 18:27-28). Application. There is one who is the Light of the World. The great thing for us is to walk in the light (1 John 1:5-7). If we do not, darkness can but deepen till the night come (John 9:4; cf. Job 18:18). Yet even those in darkness of their own making, God, in his love, still tries to lighten (cf. his dealings with the Egyptians; also our Lord’s with the Jews, John 9:39). If the light is still resisted, then cf. Matthew 25:30. If we do walk in the light so far as we know it, then cf. Proverbs 4:18. Even when dark for others, still light for us, Isaiah 60:1, Isaiah 60:2; and if the darkness does, as it sometimes will, overshadow us, even so Psalm exit. 4; Isaiah 1:10.—G. We have here a parenthetic statement of something that had previously happened. Before Moses was summoned to appear in the presence of Pharaoh as related in Exodus 10:24, it had been expressly revealed to him by God, 1. That one more plague, and one only, was impending; 2. That this infliction would be effectual, and be followed by the departure of the Israelites; and, 3. That instead of reluctantly allowing them to withdraw from his kingdom, the monarch would be eager for their departure and would actually hasten it. He had also been told that the time was now come when the promise made to him in Mount Horeb, that his people should "spoil the Egyptians" (Exodus 3:22), would receive its accomplishment. The Israelites, before departing, were to ask their Egyptian neighbours for any articles of gold and silver that they possessed, and would receive them (Exodus 10:2). The reasons for this extraordinary generosity on the part of the Egyptians are then mentioned, in prolongation of the parenthesis. 1. God "gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians"; and 2. The circumstances of the time had exalted Moses, and made him be looked upon as "very great" (Exodus 10:3), so that there was a general inclination to carry out his wishes. Exodus 11:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses. Rather, "Now the Lord had said unto Moses." The Hebrew has no form for the pluperfect tease, and is consequently obliged to make up for the grammatical deficiency by using the simple preterite in a pluperfect sense. We cannot definitely fix the time when Moses had received this revelation; but the expression, one plague more, shows that it was after the commencement of the "plague of darkness." When he shall let you go, he shall surely thrust you out altogether. The Hebrew win not bear this rendering. It runs distinctly thus—"When he shall let you go altogether, he will assuredly thrust you out hence." As Canon Cook notes, "the meaning is—when at last he lets you depart, with children, flocks, herds, and all your possessions, he will compel you to depart in haste". It has been well noticed by the same writer that both this announcement, and the previous relentings of Pharaoh, would have caused Moses to have preparations made, and to hold the Israelites in readiness for a start upon their journey almost at any moment. No doubt a most careful and elaborate organization of the people must have been necessary; but there had been abundant time for such arrangements during the twelvemonth that had elapsed since the return of Moses from Midian. Exodus 11:2 Every man … every woman. In Exodus 3:22 only women had been mentioned. Now the terms of the direction were enlarged. It is worthy of notice that gold and silver ornaments—ear-rings, collars, armlets, bracelets, and anklets, were worn almost as much by the Egyptian men of the Rameside period as by the women. Borrow. On this faulty translation, see the comment on Exodus 3:22. Jewels. Literally, "articles." The word is one of a very wide meaning, and might include drinking-cups and other vessels; but from the statement in Exodus 3:22, that they were to "put them on their sons and on their daughters" it is clear that personal ornaments are especially meant. Exodus 11:3 And the Lord gave the people favour—i.e. When the time came. See below, Exodus 12:36. Moreover the man Moses, etc. It has been supposed that this is an interpolation, and argued that Moses, being so "meek" as he was (Numbers 12:3), would not have spoken of himself in the terms here used. But very great here only means "very influential;" and the fact is stated, not to glorify Moses, but to account for the ornaments being so generally given. Moreover, it is highly improbable that any other writer than himself would have so baldly and bluntly designated Moses as the man Moses. (Compare Deuteronomy 33:1; Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:1, Joshua 1:13, Joshua 1:15; Joshua 14:6, Joshua 14:7; Joshua 22:2, Joshua 22:4; etc.) The "greatness" which Moses had now attained was due to the powers which he had shown. First of all, he had confounded the magicians (Exodus 8:18, Exodus 8:19); then he had so far impressed the courtiers that a number of them took advantage of one of his warnings and thereby saved their cattle and slaves (Exodus 9:20). Finally, he had forced the entire Court to acknowledge that it lay in his power to destroy or save Egypt (Exodus 10:7). He had after that parleyed with the king very much as an equal (Exodus 10:8-11; Exodus 16:1-36 -18). It is no wonder that the Egyptians, who regarded their king as a "great god," were deeply impressed. Exodus 11:1-3 Crises bring out men’s characters, and cause them to be properly appreciated. It is evident that, as the crisis approached, Pharaoh sank in the estimation of his subjects, while Moses rose. Pharaoh showed himself changeable, faithless, careless of his subjects’ good, rude, violent. He was about to show himself ready to rush from one extreme into the other (Exodus 11:1), and to "thrust out" the people whom he had so long detained. The conduct of Moses had been consistent, dignified, patriotic, bold, and courageous. He had come to be regarded by the Egyptians as "very great," and the conduct of the Israelite people had also obtained approval. Their patience, fortitude, submission to their leaders, and quiet endurance of suffering, had won upon the Egyptians, and caused them to be regarded with favour. So it is generally in crises. I. CRISES BRING OUT THE OF THE BAD, THEIR DEFECTS, Under the pressure of circumstances obstinacy becomes infatuation, indifference to human suffering develops into active cruelty, self-conceit into overbearing presumption, ill-temper into violence. At the near approach of danger the rash grow reckless, the timid cowardly, the hesitating wholly unstable, the selfish utterly egoist. In quiet times defects escape notice, which become palpable when a man is in difficulties. Many a king has reigned with credit till a crisis came, and then lost all his reputation, because his character could not bear the strain put upon it. Such times are like bursts of hot weather, under which "ill weeds grow apace." II. THE OF THE BETTER SORT OF MEN ARE AND UNDER CRISES. All the higher powers of the mind, all the nobler elements of the moral character, are brought into play by crises, and through their exercise strengthened and developed. Promptitude, resolution, boldness, trust in God, come with the call for them; and the discipline of a year under such circumstances does the work of twenty. The Moses of Exo 10:1-29; Exodus 11:1-10. is a very different man from the Moses of Exo 3:1-22. He is firm, resolute, self-reliant, may we not add, eloquent? No wonder that he was "very great" in the eyes both of the great officers of Pharaoh’s court and of the people. He had withstood and baffled the magicians; he had withstood Pharaoh; he had never blenched nor wavered; he had never lost his temper. With a calm, equable, unfailing persistence, he had gone on preferring the same demand, threatening punishments if it were not granted, inflicting them, removing them on the slightest show of repentance and relenting. He had thus won the respect both of the Court and of the common people, as much as Pharaoh had lost it, and was now generally looked up to and regarded with feelings of admiration and approval. So the true character of the Christian minister is often brought out, tested, and recognised in times of severe trial and calamity, in a siege, a famine, a pestilence, a strike; and a respect is won, which twenty years of ordinary quiet work would not have elicited. Let ministers see to it, that they make the most of such occasions, not for their own honour, but for God’s. BY J. ORR Exodus 11:1-4 The beginning of the end. I. THE STROKE STILL IN RESERVE (Exodus 11:1). God would bring on Pharaoh "one plague more." This would be effectual. It would lead him to let the people go from Egypt. So eager would he be for their departure, that he would even thrust them out in haste. The nature of this final stroke is described in Exodus 11:4-7. It would be the death in one night of the first-born of man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt. This stroke might have been delivered earlier, but, 1. It might not at an earlier stage have had the same effect. 2. There was mercy to Pharaoh in giving him the opportunity of yielding under less severe inflictions before visiting him with this last and decisive one. 3. The previous plagues gave Pharaoh, moreover, an opportunity of doing freely what he now was driven to do under irresistible compulsion. 4. The final stroke was delayed that by the succession of plagues which were brought on Egypt, the deliverance might be rendered more imposing, and made more memorable. The object was not simply to get Israel out of Egypt in the easiest way possible, but to bring them forth in the way most glorifying to God’s justice, holiness, and power. This has been already shown (Exodus 6:1-30.; Exodus 7:3, Exodus 7:5; Exodus 9:15, Exodus 9:16; Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:2). II. THE COMMAND TO ASK FROM THE (Exodus 11:2, Exodus 11:3). 1. The request. The Israelites were to borrow, or ask, from the Egyptians "jewels of silver, and jewels of gold;" "raiment" also, and whatever else they required (Exodus 3:22; Exodus 12:35, Exodus 12:36). (1) The people were entitled to these gifts in repayment for past unrequited services; as compensation for losses and sufferings during the century of slavery. The principle of "compensation" is a prominent one in modern legislation. Governments have been mindful, in decreeing slave-emancipation, of compensation to the owners; God bethought himself of compensation to the slaves. Which is the more reasonable? (2) God authorised the people to demand these gifts. A demand, coming under the circumstances from Jehovah, was equivalent to a command. And after what had happened, it was impossible for any reasonable mind to doubt that the demand had come from God. This was sanction sufficient. The Lord gives, and the Lord is entitled to take away (Job 1:21). "The Lord hath need of it" is sufficient reason for giving up anything (Luke 19:34). 2. The response. The plague would be influential in leading the Egyptians to give of their wealth to the Israelites (cf. Exodus 12:36). God would so incline their hearts. This willingness to part with their valuables arose not so much (1) From gratitude for past benefits, as (2) From a desire to stand well with a people who were so eminently favoured of God, and (3) From fear of God, and a desire to get rid of this people, who had proved so terrible a snare to them, as quickly and as peaceably as possible. Suggestions of the passage: (1) The hearts of men are in God’s hands (Proverbs 21:1). He rules in hearts as well as in the midst of worlds. Without interfering with freedom, or employing other than natural motives, he can secretly incline the heart in the direction he desires. (2) The time will come when the world will be glad to stand well with the Church. (3) There is much in the world that the Church may legitimately covet to possess. The "world" is a much abused term. "As the Church in its collective capacity is the region of holiness, so the world is that of sin. But it must be carefully observed, that the view is taken of it in its totality, not of each of the parts. As a whole, moral corruption was (in New Testament times) so interwoven with its entire civilisation that it imparted to it the general aspect of evil. As the teaching of the New Testament by no means asserts that all the various elements which meet in the kingdom of God are good, so it is equally far from intending to affirm that every portion of human civilisation, as it then existed, was the contrary. Many things were only rendered evil by their connection with the prevailing moral corruption." (Rev. C. A. Row.) 4. The Church will ultimately be enriched with the spoils of the world (Revelation 21:24-26). 5. Whatever service God requires of his people, he will see that they are suitably equipped for it, and that their needs are, in his providence, abundantly supplied (Philippians 4:18). 6. The people of God will not ultimately suffer loss from adherence to him. 7. God can make even the enemy a means of benefit to his cause. III. THE OF MOSES. "Moreover, the man Moses was very great," etc. (Exodus 11:3). The promise was thus fulfilled. "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh ’ (Exodus 7:1). This greatness of Moses was, 1. Got without his seeking for it. Like Jesus, he came not doing his own will, but the will of him that sent him (John 5:38). 2. Got without his expecting it. Moses looked for anything but honour in the service to which he had been called. Remember his deep despondency at the entrance on his task, and for long after (Exodus 3:11; Exodus 4:10-13; Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23; Exodus 6:12, Exodus 6:30). 3. Got in doing God’s work. 4. Got by God’s power resting on him (cf. Deuteronomy 34:10-12). The service of God is the path of true greatness, and leads to undying honour (Romans 2:7, Romans 2:10).—J.O. BY J. How God justifies the trust of all who hope in his mercy. I. THE OF THE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. 1. The preceding plagues had terrified for a moment; this will crush resistance. The stroke long delayed was now at length to fall. The last awful pause had come, during which Egypt waited in dread, and Israel in hope mingled with awe. 2. The like moment will come in God’s contest with sin. There will be a last awful pause, and then the trump of God shall sound. 3. The last hour of this earthly life of ours will also come, and the soul be freed from the grasp of sorrow, and pass up through the pearly gates into the father’s home. II. ITS . "He shall surely thrust you out hence altogether." Every bond will be broken. 1. The churches of God shall no more feel the world’s afflicting hand. 2. Sin shall have no more dominion over God’s redeemed. God’s deliverance comes slowly, but when it does come it is full and lasting. III. IT WILL BE WITH GREAT . It will not be an escape with mere life. To their own shall be added the wealth of their foes. 1. The riches of the nations will yet be the possession of the people of God. 2. This will be only the type of the true riches with which the redeemed shall be endowed. IV. AND WITH GREAT HONOUR. The despised bondsmen were girt with reverence and awe, such as had never encircled the throne of the Pharaohs. The true kings of the earth for whose manifestation the world waits are the sons of God. They will be, too, the princes of heaven, co-heirs with Christ, sharers of the throne of the Son of God.—U. The writer returns here to his account of the last interview between Moses and Pharaoh, repeating the introductory words of Exo 10:29—"and Moses said." Having accepted his dismissal, and declared that he would not see the face of Pharaoh any more (ibid.), Moses, before quitting the presence, proceeded to announce the last plague, prefacing the announcement, as usual (Exodus 7:17; Exodus 8:2; Exodus 9:1, Exodus 9:13; Exodus 10:3), with the solemn declaration, which showed that he acted in the matter merely as God’s instrument—" Thus saith Jehovah." He makes the announcement with the utmost plainness, noting the exact Lime of the visitation (Exodus 10:4)—its extent (Exodus 10:5)—the terrible "cry" that would follow (Exodus 10:6) the complete exemption of the Israelites (Exodus 10:7)—the message which Pharaoh would send him by his servants, to depart at once—and his own intention of acting on it (Exodus 10:8). Then, without waiting for a reply, in hot anger at the prolonged obstinacy of the monarch, he went out. Exodus 11:4 About midnight.—Compare Exodus 12:29. It would add to the horror of the infliction that it should come in the depth of the night. Probably the night intended was not the next night, but one left purposely indefinite, that terror and suspense might work upon the mind of Pharaoh. Shall I go out. The word "I" is repressed in the original, and is emphatic. This crowning plague Jehovah inflicts by no instrumentality, but takes wholly upon himself. (See Exodus 12:12, Exodus 12:13, Exodus 12:23, Exodus 12:27, Exodus 12:29.) Exodus 11:5 All the first-born. The law of primogeniture prevailed in Egypt, as among most of the nations of antiquity. The monarchy (under the New Empire, at any rate) was hereditary, and the eldest son was known as erpa suten sa, or "hereditary Crown Prince." Estates descended to the eldest son, and in many cases high dignities also. No severer blow could have been sent on the nation, if it were not to be annihilated, than the less in each house of the hope of the family—the parents’ stay, the other children’s guardian and protector. Who sitteth. "Sitteth" refers to "Pharaoh," not to "first-born." The meaning is, "from the first-born of the king who occupies the throne to the first-born of the humblest slave or servant. This last is represented by the handmaid who is behind the mill; since grinding at a mill was regarded as one of the severest and most irksome forms of labour. The work was commonly assigned to captives (Isaiah 47:1, Isaiah 47:2; Judges 16:21). It was done by either one or two persons sitting, and consisted in rotating rapidly the upper millstone upon the lower by means of a handle. All the first-born of beasts. Not the first-born of cattle only, but of all beasts. The Egyptians had pet animals in most houses, dogs, apes, monkeys, perhaps cats and ichneumons. Most temples had sacred animals, and in most districts of Egypt, some beasts were regarded as sacred, and might not be killed, their death being viewed as a calamity. The loss of so many animals would consequently be felt by the Egyptians as a sensible aggravation of the infliction. It would wound them both in their domestic and in their religious sensibilities. Exodus 11:6 There shall be a great cry. The violence of Oriental emotions, and the freedom with which they are vented are well known. Herodotus relates that the Egyptians stript themselves and beat their breasts at funerals (2:85) No doubt they also uttered shrill lamentations, as did the Greeks (Lucian, De Luetu, § 12) and the Persians (Herod. Exodus 9:24). With bitter mourning in every house, the "cry" might well be one, such as there had been none like before, neither would there be any like again. Exodus 11:7 Shall not a dog move his tongue. So far from a sudden destruction coming upon them, there shall not so much as a dog bark at them- They shall incur no hurt—no danger. (Compare Joshua 10:21.) That ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference—i.e; "that both ye courtiers and all Egypt may know how great a difference God puts between us—his peculiar people-and you wretched idolaters." Exodus 11:8 All these thy servants—i.e; all these courtiers here present. Shall come. Literally, "shall descend." Kalisch observes that by the Hebrew idiom "going from a nobler place to one of less distinction is called descending". And bow down. Make obeisance to me, as if I were a king. The last of the plagues would cause the courtiers to look on Moses as the real king of the land, and pay him royal honours. All the people that follow thee. Literally, as in the margin, "that is at thy feet;" i.e; that follows and obeys thee." The Egyptians looked on Moses as king, or at any rate prince of his nation. In a great anger. Literally, "in heat of anger." The abrupt dismissal (Exodus 10:28), the threat against his life (ibid.) and the announcement that no more interviews would be granted him moved the indignation of Moses, who was not conscious to himself of having done anything to deserve such treatment. He had answered the king calmly and temperately (Exodus 10:29; Exodus 11:4-8); but knew what his feelings had been, and here records them. Exodus 11:5-7 The issues of life and death are in the hand of God. For the most part there is, or there seems to be, one event to the righteous and to the wicked (Ecclesiastes 9:2). Death happens alike to all, and does not appear to choose his victims on any principle of sparing good and punishing ill desert. War, famine, pestilence, sweep away equally the good and the bad. This is the general law of God’s providence; but he makes occasional exceptions. The issues of life and death are really his. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father. If he see fit, he can "put a difference" between his own people and others. He can strike with death whomsoever he pleases; he can spare those whom he chooses to spare. We see him here:— I. MAKING DEATH AN OF , NOT ON THOSE WHO DIE, BUT ON THOSE WHO SURVIVE. Pharaoh is punished, and the Egyptians generally are punished, by the sudden death of the first-born. They had deserved this retribution by their cruelty to the Hebrews, and especially by the drowning of the Hebrew male children (Exodus 1:22). It afflicted all, however, alike, whether they had taken part in the above-mentioned cruelties or not. This was because it was a national chastisement; and the case had been the same with almost all the other plagues. II. TERROR INTO A WHOLE BY WITH DEATH A CERTAIN NUMBER. Death is the main fear of worldly men. Anything else may be endured, made up for, made the best of. But for death there is no help, no remedy. The awful phantom is, as far as possible, kept out of sight, unthought of, unprepared for, thrust into the background. Men live as if they had a freehold of life, not a leasehold. When the gaunt spectre draws near; when, in the shape of cholera or fever, he makes his entrance upon the scene and challenges attention, the result is, for the most part, a panic. So it was in Egypt. The Egyptians wrote much of death, reminded each other of death (Herod. 2:78), prepared tombs for themselves with great care speculated largely upon the condition of souls in another world; but it would seem that they shrank, as much as ordinary men, from near contact with the grisly phantom. It was now about to be suddenly brought home to them how thin a barrier separates between the two worlds. In the presence of death they would wake up to the realities of life. They would be conquered, submissive, ready to do whatever was God’s will. Some such results are traceable whenever and wherever imminent death threatens a large number, and are to be watched for by the minister, who will find his opportunity at such seasons, and should take advantage of it. III. SHOWING HIS FAVOUR TO HIS OWN PEOPLE BY THEM WHOLLY FROM THE . Against the Israelites not even a dog would move his tongue (Exodus 11:7). With mortality all around them, with a corpse in each Egyptian house, with animals lying dead on all sides, in the open country as well as in the towns and houses, they would be completely free from the visitation; a special providence would save and protect them. Such an exemption was, of course, miraculous, and is well nigh unparalleled. But still there have been cases where God’s people have suffered marvellously little in a time of pestilence, when it has seemed to strike almost none but reckless and vicious lives, when an arm has appeared to be extended over the righteous. At such times what praise and gratitude are not due to God for "putting a difference between the Egyptians and Israel!" He spares when we deserve punishment, and in his wrath thinks upon mercy. He gives a token of his approval to men of regular lives and temperate habits, by "passing them over" when he walks through the land dealing out destruction. Righteous anger. It seems to be supposed by some that the true Christian ought never to be angry. St. Paul certainly says in one place, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour be put away from you" (Ephesians 4:31); and in another, "Put ye off all these, anger, wrath, malice" (Colossians 3:8). But he guards himself from being misunderstood by giving a command in one of these very chapters (Ephesians 4:26), "Be ye angry, and sin not." He was himself angry when he said to the High Priest, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (Acts 23:3), and to the jailer at Philippi, "They have beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily: but let them come themselves and fetch us out" (Acts 16:37). There is such a thing as "righteous anger;" and it was righteous anger which Moses felt at this time. He was indignant— I. BECAUSE GOD WAS SPURNED AND HIS MADE OF NO ACCOUNT. Pharaoh, after temporising, and professing contrition, and suggesting a variety of compromises, had declared himself finally against God—cast his words behind his back—and resolved on following out his own will, and defying the Almighty. Bold, unblushing wickedness may well make the minister of God angry. It is an insult to God’s majesty. It is a contradiction of man’s moral nature, it is an open enlisting in the service of Satan. II. BECAUSE HIS WERE WRONGED, BY BEING OF THEIR JUST HOPES. Pharaoh’s professions, his promises, his attempts at compromise had given the Israelites a right to expect that he would yield in the end. His sudden stiffness was an injury to them, with which Moses did well to sympathise. How should he not be indignant, when the just rights of his nation were wholly ignored, their patience despised, and their legitimate expectations baulked? His anger, so far as it arose out of sympathy for them, was justified— (a) by the bitterness of their feelings; (b) by the heartiness in which he had thrown himself into their cause; (c) by the apparent hopelessness of their case, if the king now drew back. III. BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN HIMSELF AND ILL-USED. The anger which springs from a sense of wrong done to oneself is less noble than that which arises from a sense of wrong done to our fellows, and still less noble than that which has its origin in zeal for the honour of God; but still it is not illegitimate. Wrong done to oneself is nevertheless wrong, and, as wrong, properly stirs up anger within us. Moses had been ill-used by Pharaoh from first to last, derided (Exodus 5:4), trifled with (Exodus 8:26-32; Exodus 10:16-20), driven from his presence (Exodus 10:11); and now at last had been deprived of his right to make personal representations to the monarch, and even threatened with death (Exodus 10:28). And why? What evil had he done? He had simply delivered God’s messages to Pharaoh, and inflicted the plagues at God’s command. Of his own mere notion he had done nothing but shorten the duration of the plagues by entreating God from time to time at Pharaoh’s request. Even, therefore, if his "heat of anger" had been caused solely by the wrong done to himself, it would have been justified. BY J. ORR Exodus 11:4-10 A finale. These verses end the story of how God wrought with Pharaoh to subdue him to his will. They prepare us for the catastrophe which brought the long conflict to a termination, and forced a way of egress for two millions of Hebrews through the barred gates of Egypt. I. LAST WORDS TO PHARAOH (verses 4-9). Verses 1-3 of this chapter are obviously parenthetical. They relate to a communication made to Moses prior to the visit to Pharaoh recorded in Exodus 10:24-29, and in anticipation of it. The substance of that communication is now conveyed to the king. Having delivered his message as God had directed, Moses finally leaves the royal presence (Exodus 10:9). The present passage is therefore to be read in immediate connection with Exodus 10:29. Pharaoh would see the face of Moses no more—i.e; as a commissioner from Jehovah—but before leaving, Moses has words to speak which are to Pharaoh the knell of doom. The judgment he announces is the death of the first-born. On this observe— 1. It was a judgment-stroke more terrible than any which had preceded. This is plain from the nature of it. What, put one with the other in the balance, was the discomfort, pain, loss, terror, devastation of crops, and darkening of the earth, caused by the previous plagues, to this tremendous horror of finding in one night, in each home throughout the land, a dead first-born? The wound here was truly mortal. The first-born is the special joy of parents. He is loved, fondled, tended, admired, as few of the children are which come after him. The pride of the parents centres in him. Their hopes are largely built up on what he may become. He has drawn to himself, and embodies, a larger share of their thought, interest, sympathy, and affection than perhaps they are well aware of. He is the pillar of their household. They look to him to bear up its honour when their own heads are laid in the dust. To touch him is to touch the apple of their eye, to quench the central illumination of their home. They are proud of him as a babe, the first occupant of the cradle; they are proud of him as a boy, unfolding his mental and physical powers in rivalry with his youthful peers; they are proud of him as a young man, when thought and decision begin to stamp their lines upon his brow, and manly dignity gives a new grace to his deportment. With the help of such considerations, try to estimate the wrench to the heart’s tenderest affections, in the million homes of Egypt, by the simultaneous discovery that in each. there is a ghastly corpse, and that the corpse of the first-born. No wonder there was "a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more" (Exodus 10:6). Natural affection retains a mighty hold of natures often otherwise very depraved. And there is no reason to suppose that, taken in the mass, the people of Egypt were characterised by a greater want of it than others. Even the tiger has a tigerish love of his cubs, and, wicked man though he was, the pride of Pharaoh in his first-born may have been of no ordinary, intensity. Note then the following circumstances as indicative of the especial horror of this judgment. (1) It would be supernatural. Natural causes were more or less involved in the other plagues, but this judgment was to be inflicted by the direct stroke of the Almighty. (2) It would be sudden. There would be no preliminary symptoms, no warning of approaching death. (3) It would be at midnight. The darkest and" eeriest" hour of the whole twenty-four, the hour specially associated with the gasping out of the spirit in death. (4) It would be universal. There would not be a house in which there was not one dead (Exodus 12:30). Not one left to comfort another. All alike swallowed up in indescribable sorrow, in blackest grief and bitterest lamentation—the woe of each intensifying the woe of all the rest. What a horror was this! Death in a house is always oppressive to the spirit. The muffled steps and woe-disfigured faces tell the melancholy tale to every visitor. When the death is of one high in rank, the mourning is proportionately deep and widely spread. But death in every city, in every street, in every house, among high and low alike, who will unfold the misery which this implied, or do justice to the ghastly sense of mortality with which it would fill the breasts of the survivors! The nearest image we can form of it is the state of a town or district where a pestilence is raging, and corpses are being hurried to the dead-house in hundreds. And even this falls immeasurably short of the reality. (5) It would embrace all ranks and ages. Palace and hovel would have its dead son. The first-born of beasts would be added to the slain. But in the general mourning over dead men this would be but little regarded. 2. It was a judgment-stroke bearing reference to God’s relation to Israel. The key to the form which it assumed is furnished in Exodus 4:22, Exodus 4:23. "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-born; and I say unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me; and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born." See Homily on Exodus 12:29-31. Israel was God’s first-born in relation to the "many nations" of the redeemed world, which in its fulness was to embrace "all kindreds, peoples, and tongues" (Genesis 17:5; Romans 4:16-19; Revelation 7:9). "As the first-born in God’s elect is to be spared and rescued, so the first-born in the house of the enemy, the beginning of his increase and the heir of his substance, must be destroyed—the one a proof that the whole family were appointed to life and blessing, the other, in like manner, a proof that all who were aliens from God’s covenant of grace equally deserved, and should certainly in due time inherit, the evils of perdition" (Fairbairn). We may connect the judgment more simply with that law of symmetry which appears in so many of God’s judgments, the retribution being modelled after the pattern of the crime to which it is related. Examples: Haman hanged on his own gallows (Esther 5:14); Adoni-bezek mutilated in his thumbs and great toes (Judges 1:6, Judges 1:7); David punished for adultery by dishonour done to his own concubines (2 Samuel 16:20-23), etc. So Pharaoh, the would-be destroyer of God’s first-born, is punished in the destruction of his own first-born. The jus talionis has a startling field of operations in the Divine judgments. 3. It was a judgment involving the whole of Egypt in suffering for the sin of the ruler. This was the case in all the plagues; but it is specially noticeable in this, where the judgment strikes a direct blow at every hearth. It may be said, doubtless with truth, that Egypt, in this severe judgment, was punished also for its own wickedness, the people, in the matter of the oppression of the Israelites, having been active partners in the guilt of the monarch. It is obvious, however, that the immediate occasion of this terrible blow falling on the land was the continued hardness of heart of Pharaoh. Had he relented, the judgment would not have fallen; it was because he did not relent that it actually fell. We come back here to that principle of solidarity which rules so widely in God’s moral administration. The many rise or fall with the one; the rewards of righteousness and the penalties of transgression alike overflow upon those related to the immediate agent. The widest applications of this principle are those stated in Romans 5:12-21—the ruin of the race in Adam; the redemption of the race in Christ. 4. It was a judgment in which a marked distinction ’teas to be put between the Egyptians and the Hebrews (Romans 5:7). Israel, however, was only exempted from like doom by resort to the blood of atonement—a lesson as to their natural state of condemnation, and as to the channel through which alone redeeming grace could flow to them. II. THE OF MOSES. "Moses went out from Pharaoh in a great anger" (Romans 5:8). 1. There are occasions on which it is lawful to be angry. This was one of them. He would have been a man utterly without soul who would not have been roused to indignation by the towering pride and extraordinary ingratitude and faithlessness of Pharaoh, not to speak of the insults he was heaping on Jehovah, and the violence threatened against Moses himself. 2. The meekest nature is that which, on proper occasions, is capable of the most burning and vehement anger. On the relation of the anger of Moses to his meekness, see Homily on Exodus 2:12. Another example is found in the apostle John—the apostle of love. The highest example of all is the Son of Man, "meek and lowly in heart," yet capable of terrible and scathing wrath—"the wrath of the Lamb". III. A SUMMING UP (verses 9, 10). The conclusion of the series of plagues having been reached, and negotiations with Pharaoh having been finally broken off, Moses sums up the results. The notable point is, that it was all as the Lord had said. It had been foretold that Pharaoh would not hearken, and neither had he hearkened; but his hardening had been the occasion of God’s multiplying his wonders in the land of Egypt. The climax of the hardening was reached under this last warning. Infuriated by his passion, Pharaoh appears to have paid no heed to it. Yet the fact that he did not, illustrates a point already dwelt upon—the tendency of hardening against God to involve the whole moral nature, extending at last to the destruction even of the natural affections. We have seen how reckless Pharaoh had become of the well-being of his subjects (Exodus 10:7). See him now perilling the life of his own son, not to speak of the lives of the first-born throughout the whole land, that he may be spared the humiliation of submitting to Jehovah! Perilling, even, is too weak a word, for experience had taught him that God’s threatenings in no case went unfulfilled. "Sacrificing" would be the more proper term. Even to this length was Pharaoh ultimately driven by his enmity against God, and his example remains as a melancholy warning to ourselves.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 11:4 10; Exodus 12:29-36 The tenth plague and its decisive result-the destruction of the first-born. In Exodus 10:29, Moses says to Pharaoh, "I will see thy face again no more," while in Exodus 11:4-8, he is represented as making to Pharaoh an announcement of the last plague. Perhaps the best way of clearing this apparent contradiction is to suppose that in the narrative as it originally stood there was really no break between Exodus 10:29 and Exodus 11:4, and that the three intervening verses were afterwards introduced in some way which we cannot now explain. So taking the narrative, all is made straightforward and additionally impressive. Moses followed up his intimation that Pharaoh should see his face no more, with a statement which plainly showed the reason why. No more would he come into Pharaoh’s presence uninvited by Pharaoh, simply because there would no more be need to do so. Jehovah was about to deal the last blow without any human instrumentality whatever. I. TRY TO OF THE OF FORCES IN THIS LAST PLAGUE, WHICH MADE IT SO FOR ITS PURPOSE. 1. There was the hour chosen—midnight. It was not like the rest of the plagues, which extended over a more or less period of time; but, being a momentary blow, the most impressive moment could be chosen for striking it. This was midnight, the time of security, repose, and deep silence. Each family was gathered together under its own roof; not separated, as might have been the case during the day, each one at his appointed work. There was no bustle of business, as there might have been at noon, to help in drowning and qualifying the horror of the transaction. 2. There was an element of peculiar force in the very class of persons who were smitten. Not only had Jehovah advanced to take away the lives of human beings, but he had directed his destructions, with evident and unerring purpose, upon one particular class. The destruction was not as a mere decimation, the taking of one out of so many, it mattered not who, so long as one was taken. In every household it was the first-born who lay dead. No regard was shown to personal character or special circumstances. All the first-born were stricken, the virtuous as well as the vicious; the amiable, promising youth from whom much was expected, and the scapegrace who was bringing a father’s grey hairs with sorrow to the grave; the young man who might be the only son of his mother and she a widow, alike with him who was the first-born among many brethren. The first-born is the centre of so many hopes and calculations, that when he is stricken there may be the instantaneous reaction of an irretrievable despair. Zechariah speaks very emphatically of those who are in bitterness for their first-born (Zechariah 12:10). In many cases the firstborn would also be the just-born. 3. There was an element that helped to bring decision in the very greatness of the cry that was elicited. How far the announcement made to Pharaoh had travelled we know not; but it must have gone far enough to produce a consentaneous cry of recognition when the blow was struck. Pharaoh would know, and also his courtiers, and many at different points through the city, even before they came out of their houses, that it was by no ordinary death the first-born had died. Each one, thus already informed, would suspect the whole terrible truth with respect to all the first-born of the land. In this way certainty would come that the prediction was fulfilled, even before information on the point was actually obtained. Bad news travels quickly, and all the quicker when special facilities have been prepared by Jehovah himself, as they evidently were in this instance. Remember, also, the demonstrative, vociferous mode of expressing sorrow in bereavement which prevails among Eastern nations. There was hardly an hour of the day or night but from some home in Egypt there went up the wail of the bereaved; but here was a simultaneous wail from every home, and that not over the aged or the sick whose death was expected, but over those the great majority of whom would be young, strong, and vivacious. Thus the very emotions which produced this extraordinary cry, the cry itself served in turn to intensify, and thus to exalt into complete mastery. What wonder, then, that from the king downward the people were swept away by their emotions, and, without thought of past gains or future losses, hurried Israel out of their land in the precipitate way here recorded! Avarice, pride, worldly consequence—all the motives which hold dominion in selfish human breasts—lost their seats for the moment. It was only for a moment, but that moment was time long enough effectually to serve the purposes of God. 4. There was the fact that with all these elements of force and terror in the tenth plague itself, there had been nine such serious visitations before it. It was like the last blow of the battering-ram, which, though it may have in itself more force than preceding blows, yet gains not the least part of its efficiency from the shaking which these preceding blows have produced. It is by no means certain that if this destruction of the first-born had come at first it.would have had the same effect. II. Notice, as illustrated by this announcement to Pharaoh, sow THE SAME FACTS ARE STATED TO PEOPLE. Pharaoh is plainly told, that amid all this great smiting of Egypt’s first-born, Israel will continue perfectly secure. The impression we get is, that not only will there be freedom for Israel from the specific effects of this plague, but even an unusual exemption from ordinary mischances. Not a dog is to move his tongue against any living creature in Israel. The protection would be complete; the favour and discrimination of Jehovah most manifest. But whence all this came, and in what it consisted, Pharaoh cannot be informed. The difference between Israel and Egypt will be plain enough; but the virtue of the slain lamb and the sprinkled blood are hidden from his eyes—all this could not be explained to him. If it could have been explained to him, it would never have needed to be explained. In other words, Pharaoh would never have come into such an extremity as that where the death of the first-born landed him. Thus we are helped to see the reason why to some there come revelations producing security and gladness of heart, and to others nothing but tidings of disaster and disappointment. Every great fact of God’s dealings has a bright side and a dark side; and if we will not live so that the bright side may be revealed to us, then inevitably we must come face to face with the dark one. Moses told Pharaoh that the death of the first-born was coming, but he only turned away more scornful, stubborn, and infatuated than ever; he told the children of Israel to make the Paschal preparations, and, minute and exact as these preparations were, they at once went away and made them. God might have told Pharaoh all about how Israel was protected, but what would have been the use? If we would discover why great Divine revelations are hidden from us, we must look in our own hearts. A man can never know the comforts and beauties that belong to the temperate zone as long as he stubbornly abides in the frigid one. III. THIS LAST PLAGUE IN THE ACTUAL EFFECTS OF IT. 1. It produced immediate action on the part of Pharaoh, and, what is very noticeable, on the part of the people also. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night. He had sent them away with a menace of death, if they ventured again into his presence; but only a few short hours pass and he has to beg them to hurry and save him. We should never threaten and bluster, for we know not how soon we may have to swallow our words again. He did not wait till morning, even till the early morning. Every moment would bring to him news from a widening circle, and quicken him into the promptest action possible. And yet, immediate as this action appears, we know that it had been led up to very gradually. Jehovah had been for a long time undermining the strength of Pharaoh; and if it now collapsed in a moment instead of crumbling away, it-was because the massive fabric had lost, bit by bit, the foundation on which it had been raised. And in the same way we may be sure that everything in the world which is unjust, ungodly, and tyrannical, is being undermined. There is no proud and stubborn soul but God is working upon it by something substantially the same as the nine plagues; and the tenth plague will come in due time to produce its immediate and decisive effect. 2. The action took the shape of complete and eager liberation. Egypt was filled with panic and terror to the exclusion of every other motive. The full significance of Pharaoh’s words in verses 31, 32, can only be seen by comparing them, first, with his contemptuous treatment of Moses in the beginning (Exodus 5:2); and next, with his procrastinating, half-giving, half-grasping attitude during the course of the plagues (Exodus 8:10, Exodus 8:25; Exodus 10:8-11, Exodus 10:24). Pharaoh began as one whose foot was on the rock—he was sure he could not be shaken; then he was made to feel himself as more and more in a state of unstable equilibrium; and now at last he is utterly prostrate at Moses’ feet. He who said he would grant nothing, now grants everything. He who, in response to the first request of Moses, added to the severities of the bondage already existing, now, when all requests have ceased, not only undoes the fetters, but hurries the captives out of his realm, as if each of them was a mass of fatal infection.—Y. Before proceeding to relate the last and greatest of the plagues, the author allows himself a momentary pause while he casts his eye back on the whole series of miracles hitherto wrought in Egypt, on the circumstances under which they had been wrought, their failure to move the stubborn will of Pharaoh, and the cause of that failure, the hardening of his heart, which hardening the author once more ascribes to Jehovah. With this summary he terminates the second great division of his work, that which began with Exodus 2:1-25; and which traces the history of Moses from his birth to the close of his direct dealings with Pharaoh. Exodus 11:9 And the Lord said. Rather, "had said." God had forewarned Moses that Pharaoh’s heart would be hardened (Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3), and that, in spite of all the miracles which he was empowered to perform before him, he would not let the people go (Exodus 3:19; Exodus 4:21). It was not until God took Pharaoh’s punishment altogether into his own hands, and himself came down and smote all the first-born, that the king’s obstinacy was overcome, and he proceeded to "thrust the people out." That my wonders may be multiplied. Compare Exodus 3:20; Exodus 7:3. If Pharaoh had yielded at the first, or even after two or three miracles, God’s greatness and power would not have been shown forth very remarkably. Neither the Egyptians nor the neighbouring nations would have been much impressed. The circumstances would soon have been forgotten. As it was, the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, while it delayed the departure of the Israelites for a year, and so added to their sufferings, was of advantage to them in various ways:— 1. It gave them time to organise them elves, and make all necessary preparations for a sudden departure. 2. It deeply impressed the Egyptians, and led them to abstain from all interference with the Israelites for above three centuries. 3. It impressed the neighbouring nations also to.some extent, and either prevented them from offering opposition to the Israelites, or made them contend with less heart, and so with less success against them. Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these plagues before Pharaoh. Aaron’s agency is not always mentioned, and seems to have been less marked in the later than in the earlier miracles, Moses gradually gaining self-reliance. In passing from the subject of the plagues wrought by the two brothers, it may be useful to give a synopsis of them, distinguishing those which came without warning from those which were announced beforehand, and noting, where possible, their actual worker, their duration, their physical source, and the hurt which they did. Plagues. Announced or Not. Actual Worker. Duration. Physical Source. Hurt which they did. 1. River turned into blood announced Aaron 7 days water annoyance to man and beast. 2. Frogs do. Unknown do annoyance to man 3. Mosquitoes not [dust of the earth] annoyance to man and beast 4. Beetles God air (?) annoyance and loss to man 5. Murrain 6. Boils Moses [ashes of the furnace] suffering to man and beast 7. Hail air loss to man 8. Locusts east wind 9. Darkness 3 days annoyance and horror to man Man’s ill-doing but causes God’s wonders to be multiplied (Exodus 11:9). God’s wonders are either such as occur in the general course of his providence, or such as are abnormal and extraordinary. It is these last of which Moses especially speaks to us in the Book of Exodus. But the same law which applies to the abnormal wonders, applies also to those which are constant and ordinary. Men’s perverseness leads to their multiplication. I. PARDON OF SIN IS THROUGH HUMAN . Nothing is a greater marvel than God’s pardon of sin. How "the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity"—he who "is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity"—can pardon sin, is one of those mysteries which must ever remain—in this life, at any rate—unfathomable. Man pardons his fellow-sinner without much difficulty, because he is his fellow-sinner—because he feels that he is himself so much in need of forgiveness. But for a perfect Being to pardon what is utterly alien to his own nature, what he must despise and abhor, what in his eyes is vile, base, mean, wicked, despicable, detestable—is a truth which faith may accept, but which reason is quite incompetent to understand. Yet God does pardon. St. Paul must have been pardoned his persecution of the saints, before he was called to be "a chosen vessel." God bids us ask for pardon, and he would not bid us ask for that which he could not or would not give. And the marvel of pardon is being daily augmented, heaped up, multiplied, by the ever-increasing sum of human transgression. II. GOD THE SPIRIT’S GROWS AND THROUGH THE SAME. God the Father declared once upon a time, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3). Yet near five thousand years have elapsed, and his Spirit strives still. Man turns away from his Spirit, "grieves" him, vexes him, is deaf to his pleadings, sets at nought his counsel, wills none of his reproof (Proverbs 1:25)—yet he does not withdraw himself. He "gives us the comfort of his help again"—he "will not leave us, nor forsake us." We may, no doubt, if we persist in evil courses, and set to work determinedly to drive him from us, in course of time cause him to withdraw, alienate him wholly, "quench" him. But, short of such alienation, our sins do but cause him to multiply the wonders of his love and his long-suffering, to be ever more gracious and more merciful, to plead with us more persuasively, more constantly, and save us, as it were, in spite of ourselves. III. CHRIST’S OF HIS CHURCH IS SHOWN MORE AND MORE AS ITS IN POWER AND . In prosperous times God seems to do little for his Church; but let danger come, let men rise up against it, let Gebal and Ammon and Amalek be confederate together, and raise the cry, "Down with it, down with it, even to the ground," and the wonders which he proceeds to work on its behalf are simply astounding. Arius would corrupt its doctrine with the Court at his back, and Arius is smitten in the dead of the night by a death as silent, sudden, and inscrutable as that which came in the time of Moses on all the first-born of the Egyptians. Julian would crush it by depriving its ministers of support and its members of education, and Julian is cut off in the flower of his age by the javelin of an unknown enemy. Atheism, Agnosticism, Rationalism, Materialism, and often immorality league themselves against it at the present day, and lo! from without evidences are made to rise up out of crumbling heaps of rubbish in Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt; while from within is developed a new life, a new zeal, a new vigour and activity, which give sure promise of triumph over the coalition. Man’s opposition to God provokes God to arise and show forth his might, to confound and scatter his foes. So men may be led at last to know that he, whose name is Jehovah, is truly "the Most High over all the earth" (Psalms 83:18). FIRST OF THE . THE OF THE AND THE REASONS FOR IT.—In the interval allowed by God, according to the precedent of former announced plagues, between the warning concerning the first-born and the execution, Moses received instructions for the institution of a new religious rite, founded possibly upon some previous national usage, but so re-shaped, re-cast, and remodelled as to have an entirely new and fresh character. In all Eastern nations, the coming in of spring was observed as a jocund and festive time, with offerings, processions, and songs of rejoicings. When the date of the vernal equinox was known, it was naturally made the starting-point for these festivities. Early flowers and fruits, the fresh ears of the most forward kinds of grain, or the grain itself extracted from the ears, were presented as thank-offerings in the temples; hymns were sung, and acknowledgments made of God’s goodness. Such a festival was celebrated each year in Egypt; and it is so consonant to man’s natural feelings, that, if the family of Jacob did not bring the observance with them from Palestine, they are likely to have adopted it, when they became to some extent agriculturists (Deuteronomy 11:10) under the Pharaohs. It is, however, a pure conjecture (Ewald) that the name given to this festival was Pesach, from the sun’s "passing over" at this time into the sign of Aries. The real name is unknown, and there is every, reason to believe that the term Pesach was now for the first time given a religious sense (upon the ground noticed in Exodus 12:11, Exodus 12:12) to what was in reality a new rite. God, being about to smite with death the first-born in each Egyptian house, required the Israelites to save themselves by means of a sacrifice. Each Israelite householder was to select a lamb (or a kid) on the tenth day of the current month (Exodus 12:3), and to keep it separate from the flock until the fourteenth day at even, when he was to kill it, to dip some hyssop in the blood (Exodus 12:22) and to strike with the hyssop on the two posts and lintel of his doorway (Exodus 12:7), so leaving the mark of the blood on it. He was then the same night to roast the lamb whole, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exodus 12:8-10). He was to have his dress close girt about him, his sandals on his feet, and his staff in his hand; to be prepared, that is, for a journey. If he did all this, God, when he went through the land to smite and destroy, would "pass over" the house upon which there was the blood, and spare all that dwelt in it. Otherwise the plague would be upon them to destroy them (Exodus 12:11, Exodus 12:13). Such were the directions given for immediate observance, and such was the Passover proper. The lamb itself was primarily the Pesach (Exodus 12:11), the "pass," which secured safety. From this the name spread to the entire festival. Having, by the directions recorded in Exodus 12:3-13 instituted the festival, God proceeded, in Exodus 12:14-20, to require its continued celebration year after year, and to give additional rules as to the mode of its annual observance. 1. The festival was to last seven days. 2. No leavened bread was to be eaten during that space, and leaven was even to be put away altogether out of all houses. 3. On the first day of the seven and on the last, there was to be "a holy convocation" or gathering for worship. 4. No work not strictly necessary was to Be done on these days. Other directions were given at a later date. 1. Besides the Paschal lamb, with which the festival commenced, and which was to be a domestic rite, public sacrifices were appointed for each day of the seven—to consist of two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, and one goat, with appropriate "meat-offerings" (Numbers 28:19-24). 2. On the second day of the feast, "the morrow after the sabbath," the first fruits of the harvest were to be presented in the shape of a ripe sheaf (of barley) which was to be a wave-offering, and to be accompanied by the sacrifice of a lamb with meat and drink offerings (Leviticus 23:10-14). By this regulation the festival was made to embody the old spring feast, and to have thus a double aspect. Exodus 12:1 The Lord spake.—According to the Biblical record, neither Moses nor Aaron introduced any legislation of their own, either at this time or later. The whole system, religious, political, and ecclesiastical, was received by Divine Revelation, commanded by God, and merely established by the agency of the two brothers. In the land of Egypt. The introduction of these words seems to show that we have here a separate document on the subject of the Passover, written independently of what has preceded, some time after the exodus, and placed here without alteration, when Moses gathered together his various writings into a single work. Exodus 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months. The Israelite year would seem to have hitherto commenced with the autumnal equinox (Exodus 23:16), or at any rate with the month Tisri (or Ethanim), which corresponded to our October. Henceforth two reckonings were employed, one for sacred, the other for civil purposes, the first month of each year, sacred or civil, being the seventh month of the other. Abib, "the month of ears"—our April, nearly—became now the first month of the ecclesiastical year, while Tisri became its seventh or sabbatical month. It is remarkable that neither the Egyptians nor the Babylonians agreed with the original Israelite practice, the Egyptians commencing their year with Thoth, or July; and the Babylonians and Assyrians theirs with Nisannu, or April. Exodus 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation. Under the existing circumstances Moses could only venture to summon the elders of Israel to a meeting. He necessarily left it to them to signify his wishes to the people. (See Exodus 12:21.) A lamb. The Hebrew word is one of much wider meaning than our "lamb." It is applicable to both sheep and goats, and to either animal without limit of age, In the present case the age was fixed at a year by subsequent enactment (Exodus 12:5); but the offerer was left free with respect to the species. It is curious that, such being the case, the lamb alone should, so far as appears, ever have been offered. According to the house of their fathers. Literally, "for a father’s house," i.e. for a family. Exodus 12:4 If the household be too little for the lamb—i.e; "too few to consume it at a sitting." Usage in course of time fixed the minimum number at ten. (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 6.9, § 3.) The whole family, men, women and children participated. The lamb was generally slain between the ninth hour (3 p.m.) and the eleventh (5 p.m.). Let him and his neighbour take it according to the number of the souls. If there were a household of only five, which could not possibly consume the lamb, any large neighbouring family was to send five or six of its number, to make up the deficiency. Every man according to his eating, etc. It is difficult to see what sense our translators intended. The real direction is that, in providing a proper number of guests, consideration should be had of the amount which they would be likely to eat. Children and the very aged were not to be reckoned as if they were men in the vigour of life. Translate—"Each man according to his eating shall ye count towards the lamb." Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish. Natural piety would teach that "the blind, the lame, and the sick" should not be selected for sacrifice (Malachi 1:8). The Law afterwards expressly forbade any blemished animals—"blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed"—to be offered for any of the stated sacrifices, though they might be given as free-will offerings (Le Exodus 22:20-25). The absence of blemish was especially important in a victim which was to typify One "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." A male. As standing in place of and redeeming the first-born of the males in each family. Of the first year. Perhaps as then more approaching to the ideal of perfect innocence. The requirement was not a usual one. Or from the goats. Theodoret says the proviso was made for the relief of the poorer class of persons; but practically it seems not to have taken effect. When people were poor, their richer neighbours supplied them with lambs (Kalisch). Exodus 12:6 Ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day. The interval of four days (see Exodus 12:3) was probably intended to give ample time for the thorough inspection of the lamb, and for obtaining another, if any defect was discovered. The precept is not observed by the modern Jews; and the later Targum (which belongs to the sixth century after Christ) teaches that it was only intended to apply to the first institution; but the text of Exodus is wholly against this. The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it. One of the main peculiarities of the Paschal sacrifice was this—that the head of each family was entitled—in the early times was required to offer the sacrifice for himself. In it no one intervened between the individual and God. Thus it was recognised that the whole nation was a nation of priests, as are Christians also, according to St. John (Revelation 1:6) and St. Peter (1 Peter 2:5). The intervention of Levites at a late date (2 Chronicles 30:17; 2 Chronicles 35:5, etc.) was contrary to the original institution. In the evening. Litterally, "between the two evenings." This phrase has been explained in two ways. Some regard the first evening as commencing when the sun begins visibly to decline from the zenith, i.e. about two or three o’clock; and the second as following the sunset. Others say, that the sunset introduces the first evening, and that the second begins when the twilight ends, which they consider to have been "an hour and twenty minutes later" (Ebn Ezra, quoted by Kalisch). The use of the phrase in John 16:12, and the command in Deuteronomy 16:6—"Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun," seem to be decisive in favour of the second explanation. The first arose out of the later practice. When the lambs were sacrificed in the temple by a continual succession of offerers, it became impossible to complete the sacrifices in the short time originally allowed. Of necessity the work of killing the victims was commenced pretty early in the afternoon, and continued till after sunset. The interpretation of the direction was then altered, to bring it into accord with the altered practice. Exodus 12:7 They shall take of the blood. The blood, which, according to Hebrew ideas, "is the life," and so the very essence of the sacrifice, was always regarded as the special symbol of that expiation and atonement, with a view to which sacrifice was instituted. As by the Paschal sacrifice atonement was made for the house, which was therefore to escape unscathed, the sign of atonement was to be conspicuously placed upon it. And strike. The "striking" was to be by means of a bunch of hyssop dipped in the blood (Exodus 12:22). The selection of the doorway as the part of the house to receive the stains of blood is probably to be connected with the idea that the secondary agency producing death, whatever it was, would enter by the door—and if the door showed the house to have been atoned for, would not enter. The upper door-past. The word used is elsewhere translated "lintel" (Exodus 12:22, Exodus 12:23); but it seems properly to mean the latticed window which was commonly placed over a doorway in Egyptian houses, and which is often represented in the facades of tombs. It is derived from a root signifying "to look out." Exodus 12:8 Roast with firs. The meat of sacrificial meals was commonly boiled by the Hebrews (1 Samuel 2:14, 1 Samuel 2:15). The command to roast the Paschal lamb is accounted for: 1. By its being a simpler and quicker process than boiling; 2. By a special sanctity being regarded as attaching to fire; 3. By the difficulty of cooking the animal whole unless it were roasted. Justin Martyr’s statement that for roasting two wooden spits were required, placed at right angles the one to the other, and thus extending the victim on a cross, will seem to many a better ground for the direction than any of these. And unleavened bread. See below, verse. 18. With bitter herbs. Literally, "with bitternesses." That herbs, or vegetables of some kind, are intended, there is no reasonable doubt. The Mishna enumerates endive, chicory, wild lettuce, and nettles among the herbs that might be eaten. It is a strange notion of Kurtz’s, that the bitter herbs were a condiment, and "communicated a more agreeable flavour to the food." Undoubtedly they were a disagreeable accompaniment, and represented at once the bitterness of the Egyptian bondage (Exodus 1:14) and the need of self-denial, if we would feed on Christ. Exodus 12:9 Eat not of it raw. The injunction appears to moderns superfluous; but an ὠμοφαγία, or eating of the raw flesh of victims sacrificed, seems to have been practised by several heathen nations in ancient times, more especially in the worship of Dionysus or Bacchus. Its head with its legs. The lamb was to be roasted whole—according to some, as a symbol of the unity of Israel, and especially of the political unit which they were to become so soon as they quitted Egypt; but, as we learn from St. John (John 19:36), still more to prefigure the unbroken body of Him whom the lamb especially represented, the true propitiation and atonement and deliverer of His people from the destroyer, our Lord Jesus Christ. The purtenance thereof. Rather, "the intestines thereof." The Jewish commentators say that the intestines were first taken out, washed, and cleansed, after which they were replaced, and the lamb roasted in a sort of oven. Exodus 12:10 Ye shall let nothing of it remain till the morning. The whole of the flesh was to be consumed by the guests, and at one sitting, lest there should be any even accidental profanation of the food by man or animal, if part were put away. The English Church, acting on the same principle of careful reverence, declines to allow any reservation of the Eucharistic elements, requiring the whole of the consecrated bread and wine to be consumed by the Priest and communicants in the Church immediately after the service. That which remaineth—i.e; the bones, and any small fragments of the flesh necessarily adhering to them. Ye shall burn with fire. Thus only could its complete disappearance, and seeming annihilation be secured. It does not appear that this burning was viewed as a sacrificial act. Exodus 12:11 With your loins girded, etc. Completely prepared, i.e; to start on your journey—with the loose wrapper (beged), ordinarily worn, collected together and fastened by a girdle about the waist; with sandals on the feet, which were not commonly worn in houses; and with walking-sticks in the hand. There were some Jews who regarded these directions as of perpetual obligation; but the general view was that they applied to the first occasion only, when alone they would have answered any useful purpose. You shall eat it in haste. As not knowing at what moment you may be summoned to start on your journey, and as having to see to the burning of the bones after the flesh was eaten, which would take some time. It is the Lord’s Passover. Very emphatic words! "This is no common meal," they seem to say, "it is not even an ordinary sacrificial repast. The lamb is Jehovah’s. It is his pass-sign—the mark of his protection, the precious means of your preservation from death. As such view it; and though ye eat it in haste, eat it with reverence." Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through, etc. God now proceeds to give the reason for the institution of the new ceremony, and to explain the new term pesach. "I have commanded this rite," He says, "because I am about to go through the whole land of Egypt as a destroyer, executing judgment; I am about to smite and kill every one of the firstborn both of man and beast. I shall enter into every house, and slay the first-born in it, unless I see upon the house the token of the blood of the lamb. In that ease I shall pass over the house, and you will escape the plague." It would clear the sense if the opening words of Exo 12:12 were translated—"For I shall go through," instead of "pass through." The word translated "pass through" has no connection at all with that rendered "pass over." Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. These words are exegetical of the word "beast," which immediately precedes. Animal worship was an important part of the religion of the Egyptians. At four great cities, Memphis, Heliopolis, Hermonthis, a sort of suburb of Thebes, and Momemphis in the Western Delta, animals were maintained, which were viewed as actual incarnations of deity—the Apis Bull at Memphis, a bull called Mnevis at Heliopolis, one termed Bacis or Pacts at Hermonthis, and at Momemphis a White Cow. If any of these were at the time animals that had "opened the womb," death must have fallen upon them. Thus would judgment have been executed, literally, upon Egyptian "gods." But, besides these, the whole country was filled with sacred animals, regarded as emblematic of certain particular deities, and as belonging to them. Sheep were sacred to Kneph, goats to Khem, cows to Athor, cats to Pasht, dogs and jackals to Anubis, lions to Horus, crocodiles to Set and Sabak, hippopotami to Taouris, cynocephalous apes to Thoth, frogs to Heka. A sudden mortality among the sacred animals would be felt by the Egyptians as a blow struck against the gods to whom they belonged, and as a judgment upon them. It is scarcely necessary to understand literally the expression "all the gods," and to defend it by the assertion that "not a single deity of Egypt but was represented by some beast." Such an assertion cannot be proved; and is probably not correct. It has often been remarked, and is generally allowed, that Scripture uses universal expressions, where most, or even many, of a class are meant. I am the Lord. Rather as in Exodus 6:8, "Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment, I, Jehovah." Exodus 12:13 The blood shall be to you for a token, etc. The blood was not to be a token to the Israelites, but to God for them. Translate—"and the blood shall be as a token for you upon the houses that you are there." It shall distinguish the houses in which you dwell from the others. I will pass over you. This is the emphatic clause. God would pass by, or over the house on which the blood was, spare it, slay none of its inmates; and from this action of His, the lamb itself, and the feast whereof it was the principal part, were to be termed "the Passover." It has been proposed to connect the Hebrew pesach with the Egyptian pesh, "to stretch, or extend (protection)"; but the name "Tiphsach," borne by the place of passage over the Euphrates (1 Kings 4:24), would seem to indicate that "crossing," or "passing over" is the primary meaning of the root. Exodus 12:14-20 Hitherto the directions given have had reference, primarily and mainly, if not wholly, to the first celebration of the Passover on the night preceding the Exodus. Now, it is announced, (1) That the observance is to be an annual one; and (2) That it is to he accompanied with certain additional features in the future. These are (a) the eating of unleavened bread for seven days after the killing of the Passover; (b) the putting away of leaven out of the houses; (c)the holding of meetings for worship on the first day and the last; and (d) the observance on these days of a sabbatical rest. Exodus 12:14 This day shall be to you for a memorial. Annual festivals, in commemoration of events believed to have happened, were common in the religion of Egypt, and probably not wholly strange to the religious ideas of the Hebrews. (See the "Introduction" to this chapter.) They were now required to make the 14th of Abib such a day, and to observe it continually year after year "throughout their generations." There is commendable faithfulness in the obedience still rendered to the command at the present day; and it must be confessed that the strong expression—throughout your generations and as an ordinance for ever—excuse to a great extent the reluctance of the Jews to accept Christianity. They have already, however, considerably varied from the terms of the original appointment. May they not one day see that the Passover will still be truly kept by participation in the Easter eucharist, wherein Christians feed upon "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"—the antitype, of which the Paschal lamb was the type—the true sustenance of souls—the centre and source of all real unity—the one "perfect and sufficient sacrifice, and oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world"? The Church requires an Easter communion of all her members, proclaims that on that day, Christ our passover being slain, we are to keep the feast; and thus, so far as in her lies, maintains the festival as "an ordinance for ever," to be observed through all her generations. Exodus 12:15 Seven days. There is no indication that the week of seven days was admitted by the ancient Egyptians, or even known to them. Apparently, the nation which first adopted it was that of the Babylonians. Abraham may have brought it with him from "Ur of the Chaldees;" and from him it may have passed to Jacob, and so to Moses. That the week was known in the family of Abraham before the giving of the law, appears from Genesis 29:27, Genesis 29:28. Unleavened bread is typical of purity of heart, leaven being an emblem of corruption (Matthew 16:6-12; 1 Corinthians 5:7). "Leaven," says Plutarch, "comes from corruption, and corrupts the dough with which it is mixed; and every fermentation seems to be a putrefaction." The primary command to celebrate the first passover with unleavened instead of leavened bread (Genesis 29:8), must be attributed wholly to this symbolism. But the permanent institution of a "feast of unleavened bread," to last a week, had a double bearing. Partly, it was designed to deepen and intensify the conviction that corruption and impurity disqualify for religions service; but it was also partly intended as a commemoration of the fact, that in their hasty flight from Egypt the bread which they took with them was unleavened The requirement to "put away leaven out of their houses" is probably intended to teach, that for family worship to he acceptable, the entire household must be pure, and that to effect this result the head of the household must, so far as he can, eject the leaven of sin from his establishment. Whosoever eateth … shall be out off from Israel. Expelled, i.e, from the congregation, or excommunicated. If a man wilfully transgresses any plain precept of God, even though it be a positive one, he should he severed from the Church, until he confess his fault, and repent, and do penance for it. Such was the ’, godly discipline" of the primitive Church; and it were well if the Churches of these modern times had more of it. Exodus 12:16 On the first day there shall be an holy convocation. After the Paschal meal on the evening of the 14th of Abib, there was to be a solemn assembly of the people on the next day for religions worship. The name "convocation;" applied to these gatherings, seems to show that originally the people were summoned to such meetings, as they still are by the muezzin from the minarets of mosques in Mahommedan countries, and by bells from the steeples of churches in Christian ones. And on the seventh day. On the 22nd of Abib—the seventh day after the first holy convocation on the 15th (see Le Exodus 23:4-8). Only two of the Jewish festivals were of this duration—the feast of unleavened bread, and the feast of tabernacles (Leviticus 23:39-42). The Christian Church has adopted the usage for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsuntide, where the last day of the week is known technically as "the octave." No manner of work shall be done in them. Festival-days were in all countries days of abstention from the ordinary business of life, which could not conveniently be carried on conjointly with attendance at the services, meetings, processions, etc; wherein the festival consisted. But absolute cessation from all work was nowhere strictly commanded except among the Hebrews, where it appears to have been connected with the belief in God’s absolute rest after the six days of creation. The command here given was solemnly repeated in the law (Le Exodus 23:6 - 8). Exodus 12:17 In this self-same day. The 15th of Abib—the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Have I brought your hosts out. This expression seems to prove that we have in the injunctions of Exo 12:14-20, not the exact words of the revelation on the subject made by God to Moses before the institution of the Passover, but a re-casting of the words after the exodus had taken place. Otherwise, the expression must have been, "I will bring your hosts out." As an ordinance for ever. Easter eve, the day on which Satan was despoiled by the preaching of Jesus to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), and on which the Church first realises its deliverance from the bondage of sin by the Atonement of Good Friday, is the Christian continuance of the first day of unleavened bread, and so answers to this text, as Good Friday to the similar command in Exodus 12:14. Exodus 12:18 In the first month. The word "month" seems to have accidentally dropt out of the Hebrew text. In the evening. The Hebrew day commenced with the evening (Genesis 1:5); but the evening here intended is that at the close of the 14th of Abib, which began the 15th. Similarly, the evening of the 21st is here that which commenced the 22nd. Exodus 12:19 This is not a mere "vain repetition" of Exodus 12:15. It adds an important extension of the punitive clause—"that soul shall be cut off from Israel"—from Israelites proper to proselytes. We are thus reminded, at the very time when Israel is about to become a nation and to enter upon its inheritance of exclusive privileges, that no exclusion of the Gentries by reason of race or descent was ever contemplated by God, either at the giving of the law, or at any other time. In Abraham all the families of them were to be blessed (Genesis 12:3). It was always open to any Gentiles to join themselves to Israel by becoming "proselytes of justice," adopting circumcision and the general observance of the law, and joining the Israelite community. The whole law is full of references to persons of this class (Exodus 20:10; Exodus 23:12; Le Exodus 16:29; Exodus 17:10; Exodus 18:26; Exodus 20:2; Exodus 24:16; Numbers 35:15; Deuteronomy 5:14; Deuteronomy 16:11-14; Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:19; Deuteronomy 27:19; Deuteronomy 29:11, etc.). It must have been largely recruited in the times immediately following the exodus from the "mixed multitude" which accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 12:38), and from the Kenites who joined them in the wilderness (Numbers 10:29-31; Judges 1:16). Born in the land—i.e; an Israelite by birth—"the land" is, no doubt, Canaan, which is regarded as the true "Land of Israel" from the time when it was assigned by God to the posterity of Abraham (Genesis 15:18). Exodus 12:20 Here again there is no repetition, but an extension. "Ye shall eat nothing leavened," not only no leavened bread (Exodus 12:15), but no leavened cake of any kind. And "in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread," i.e; wherever ye dwell, whether in Egypt, or in the wilderness, or in Palestine, or in Babylonia, or in Media, this law shall be observed. So the Jews observe it everywhere to this day, though they no longer sacrifice the Paschal lamb. Exodus 12:1-2 The advantages of an ecclesiastical calendar. With their new position as an independent nation, and their new privileges as God’s redeemed people (Exodus 6:6), the Israelites received the gift of a new ecclesiastical calendar. Their civil calendar remaining as before, their civil year commencing with Tisri, about the time of the autumnal equinox, and consisting of twelve months of alternately twenty-nine and thirty days, they were now commanded to adopt a new departure for their sacred year, and to reckon its commencement from Abib or Nisan, which began about the time of the vernal equinox, or March 21. This was advantageous to them in several ways. I. IT SECURED THEM A TIME OF AND , NOT ALREADY BY WORLDLY CARES. The commencement of a civil year naturally brings with it various civil and worldly cares, which occupy the mind, demand the attention, and distract the thoughts. The worldly position has to be reviewed, accounts made up, stock taken, debts claimed and paid, subscriptions renewed or discontinued, agents communicated with, orders given, arrangements made in some instances for the whole of the coming twelvemonth; and the result is, that the mind of most men is then so occupied, not to say harassed, that it cannot turn itself with any vigour or freshness to the contemplation of things heavenly and spiritual. Of great value then, and importance, is it that religion should have a separate time to itself for a review of the spiritual position, for the taking of stock in a religious sense, the balancing of the account with heaven, the forming of plans for the spiritual life beforehand, since that life has as much need to be carefully provided for as the worldly life. The opening of a year being the natural time for such a review, the new arrangement made naturally suggested it, and provided a quiet time for it. II. IT GAVE THE IDEAS WITH THE ABOUT TO BE A GREATER HOLD ON MEN’S THAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE CASE. Everyone recognises the importance of a new beginning. A religion naturally strikes its key-note at the commencement of its round of services. As the coming of Christ into the world is the very essence of Christianity, the ecclesiastical year of Christendom commences with Advent. Thus Christians are taught that the foundation-stone of their religion, the root out of which it all springs, is the Incarnation. For Mosaism the key-note was deliverance from Egypt, and covenant relationship with God as His people by means of sacrifice. Deliverance from Egypt was redemption from servitude, and the commencement of a free national life. Sacrifice was the appointed means of keeping up and renewing the covenant relationship begun in circumcision. In the Passover these two thoughts were blended together, and Israel had to meditate on both. The one thought was necessary to call forth that loving trust in the favour and goodness of God, which lies at the root of all acceptable service; the other was needed to give ease to the conscience, to reassure the trembling sinner, and remove his sense of a guilt that separated him from God, and made his circumcision unavailing. The prominence given to these ideas by the position of the Paschal Festival, impressed them upon the minds of the Israelites as fundamental and vital truths. III. IT GAVE THE A STATUS AND A OF , WHICH MAN’S RESPECT FOR IT. In all times and countries the suspicion occurs to some, that religion is but a form of statecraft, a politic invention of governors to render government more easy. Anything that marks the co-ordinate authority of Church and State in their separate spheres, and especially the independence of the Church, is valuable, as an obstacle to Erastianism, and an indication of the Church’s inherent right to regulate Church affairs. An ecclesiastical calendar distinct from the civil calendar is no doubt a little matter; but it implies an important principle, and is perhaps not without some influence over the general tone of thought and feeling in a country. Exodus 12:3-20 The Passover Proper. The Passover may be viewed:— I. AS A RITE. Instituted with reference to the tenth plague, and as a means by which the first-born of the Israelites might be saved from destruction, but accompanied by ceremonies which were connected with the prospective departure of the whole nation out of Egypt, the Passover feast, as established "by an ordinance for ever," commemorated two distinct and different things. (1) The passing over of the houses of the Israelites by Jehovah, when he went through the land in the character of "destroyer" (Exodus 12:23), to smite the first-born; and (2) the hurried departure of the nation out of Egypt in the night, with bread for their journey, which they had not had time to leaven (Exodus 12:34). It was thus intended to remind them of two great mercies; the lesser one being the escape of their first-born from sudden death, and the greater one the deliverance of the whole people from the bondage and affliction of Egypt, with the consequence of such deliverance, the establishment of them as a nation under the direct government of God, and under laws which were communicated to them by God himself at Sinai. Man is so apt to forget the benefits which God confers upon him, that it has been found necessary, or at least desirable, in almost all countries, to establish, by authority, days of commemoration, when national deliverances, national triumphs, national recoveries, shall be brought prominently before the mind of the nation, and pressed upon its attention. The Passover must be regarded as one of the most effective of such commemorative ceremonies. It has continued to be celebrated for above three thousand years. It brings vividly to the recollection of the Jew that night of trepidation and excitement, when the lamb was first killed, the blood dashed upon the doorposts, and the sequel waited for—that night, when "about midnight" was heard "a great cry," and in every house the Egyptians bewailed one dead—that night, in which, after the cry, a murmur arose, and the Egyptians became "urgent" (Exodus 12:33), and insisted that the Israelites should quit the land forthwith. It has all the political advantage of a great national celebration; and it exalts the political idea by uniting it with religious enthusiasm. II. AS A FEAST OF . The sacrifices of the Paschal week, with the exception of the Paschal lamb and the daily goat, must be viewed as thank-offerings. They consisted of fourteen bullocks, seven rams, and forty-nine lambs of the first year, provided by. the priests, and offered to God in the name of the nation. They were burnt on the altar as holocausts, accompanied by meat-offerings of flour mingled with oil. At the same time individuals offered their own private thank-offerings. So far, the special object of the thanksgiving was the great deliverance, with which might be conjoined, in thought, God’s further mercies in the history of the nation. On the second day of the feast, however, another subject of thankfulness was introduced. The season of the year was that in which the earliest grain ripened in Palestine; according to a conjecture already made, it was the time when the return of spring had been long celebrated among the Semites by a traditional observance. As "each return of the Passover festival was intended to remind the Israelites of their national regeneration" (Kalisch), it was thought appropriate to bring the festival into connection with the regeneration of nature, and the return of vernal vegetation. On the second day, therefore, a sheaf of the first ripe barley was offered as the first-fruits of the coming harvest, and thanks were rendered to God for his bounty in once more bringing to perfection the fruits of the earth. During the remainder of the week, both subjects occupied the thoughts of the worshippers, who passed the time in innocent festivities, as songs, music, and dancing. III. AS A . We have not to guess at the symbolical meaning of the Passover, as of so much that is contained in the Jewish law. Scripture distinctly declares it. "Christ, our Passover, is slain," says St. Paul; "therefore let us keep the feast." Christ, who was prefigured and foreshown in every sacrifice, was symbolised especially by the Paschal victim. He was "the Lamb of God’ (John 1:29), "without spot or blemish" (1 Peter 1:19), "holy, harmless, undefiled" (Hebrews 7:26); offered to keep off "the destroyer," saving us by His blood from death (Acts 20:28); slain that we might feed upon His flesh (John 6:51). The Paschal lamb, when prepared for sacrifice, presented, as Justin Martyr informs us, a lively image of the Saviour upon "the accursed tree," being extended on a cross formed of two wooden spits, one longitudinal, and one transverse, placed at right angles each to the other. "Not a bone of it was to be broken," that it might the better typify Him whom God preserved from this indignity (Psalms 34:20; John 19:33). It was to be consumed entirely, as Christ is to be taken entire into the heart of the faithful (Galatians 4:19). Scripture also distinctly declares the symbolical meaning of the unleavened bread. "Let us keep the feast," says St. Paul, "not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." He who would feed on Christ must first put away from him all corruption and impurity, eject all leaven out of the house wherein his spirit dwells, make himself fit to sit down at that heavenly banquet, by getting rid of all those "evil things which come from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:23). There may be some doubt, however, as to the symbolism of the "bitter herbs," which Scripture leaves unexplained. The exegesis, that the bitter herbs symbolised the sufferings of the Israelites in Egypt, if taken as exhausting the meaning, is unsatisfactory. The memory of past sufferings inflicted by others is not a necessary accompaniment of present festal joy, though it may enhance that joy by contrast. The "bitterness" should be something that is always requisite before the soul can find in Christ rest, peace, and enjoyment—something that must ever accompany that rest, peace, and enjoyment, and, so long as we are in the flesh, remain inseparable from it. Two things of this kind suggest themselves—repentance and self-denial. The bitter herbs may perhaps symbolise both, pointing on the one hand to the important truth, that real repentance is a continuous act, never ceasing, while we live below, and on the other to the necessity of men’s "taking up their cross daily," and striving towards perfectness through suffering. The Passover continued in the Eucharist. It was expressly declared that the Passover was instituted to be observed as a feast "by an ordinance for ever." Jews are justified in remaining Jews, if they cannot otherwise continue to celebrate it. But they can. The Passover is continued in the Eucharist. Hence St. Paul’s words at Easter time—" Christ, our Passover, is crucified for us; therefore let us keep the feast" (1. Corinthians Exodus 5:7, Exodus 5:8). I. THE IS THE AFTER OF THE EVENT, WINCH THE AND . The reality underlying both being the Lord’s death upon the cross as a propitiation for the sins of man, this death was set forth in anticipation by the Paschal sacrifice; it is now "shown forth" after the event, in the Eucharist, "until Christ come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). The bread and wine represent the humanity of Christ as truly as the Paschal lamb represented it. The Eucharistic ceremony is "a perpetual memory (ἀνάμνησις) of his precious death," and in some respects a more lively setting forth of that central event of history than ever was the Paschal ceremony. II. THE SETS FORTH THE ’S FROM BONDAGE, AS THE DID THE JEW’S. The true bondage is the bondage of sin. This is the "Egypt" from which man requires to be delivered. The death of Christ, which the Eucharist "shews forth," is the one and only remedy for sin, the one and only means Whereby it becomes possible for man to shake off the grievous yoke from his shoulders, and become free. By His meritorious sacrifice the guilt of sin is removed; by His assisting grace, given most abundantly through the Eucharist, the power of sin is destroyed, and its taint gradually purged out of our nature. III. THE IS A FEAST OF TO THE , AS THE WAS TO THE JEW. The very name of Eucharist, which became the usual name of the Holy Communion as early as the second century, indicates how essential a feature of it thanksgiving was felt to be. "We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thee thanks for thy great glory, O Lord God"—this is the general key-note of Eucharistic services. And naturally. For, if the Jew had much to thank God for, the Christian has more. Redemption, justification, assisting grace, sanctification, union with Christ—clear and distinct promise of everlasting life—are his, and crowd upon his mind in connection with this sacrament. IV. THE , LIKE THE , IS A FEAST UPON A . In the Passover, as generally in sacrifices, the victim was first offered on behalf of the sacrificers—in this case the household, and then the flesh of the victim furnished a solemn sacrificial meal to the members of the household. In the Eucharist, where the true victim is Christ himself, whose sacrifice upon the cross is alone propitiatory, a commemoration of the death of Christ is made, and then there follows a feast of the most sacred kind. Whatever benefits may have flowed from participation in the Paschal festival are far exceeded by those attached to the "Supper of the Lord." The Jew felt himself by participation in the Passover festival incorporated anew into the community of Israel; the Christian, by worthy participation in the Eucharist, is engrafted anew into Christ. BY J. ORR The beginning of months. The exodus from Egypt was the birthday of the nation of Israel. In commemoration of this great event, the day from which the (religious) year began was changed. The month Abib was thenceforth to be "the beginning of months." The civil year continued to begin with Tisri (cf. Exodus 23:16). I. , THE TRUE -POINT OF HUMAN . The day when salvation comes to a man’s house (Luke 19:9; Acts 16:34) is the true "beginning of days" to him. 1. It is the commencement of a new life. "Born again" (John 3:3); "passed from death into life’ (John 5:24); "a new creature" (2 Corinthians 5:17). "The years we spent before we turned to the Lord are not worth counting; the best that can happen to them is to be buried out of sight" (Dr. J. M. Gibson). 2. It is the day of separation from the world. Some think that up to this time the Israelites had used the Egyptian calendar, which began about the time of the summer solstice. "From this time, however, all connection with Egypt was to be broken off, and the commencement of the sacred year was to commemorate the time when Jehovah led them forth to liberty and independence" (Geikie). 3. It is the day which begins the journey to heaven. Redemption is the beginning of the new life: it is, however, but the beginning. The wilderness journey follows it. Conversion is not a resting-place, but a starting-point. It begins, but does not complete, salvation. II. TIME, A OF GOD’S MIGHTY WORKS. Even on so immaterial a thing as time, God has inscribed a memorial of His three greatest works. 1. Creation. He has built into the structure of the week an imperishable record of the six days’ work. 2. The Exodus. The order of the year in Israel was made to testify to the deliverance from Egypt. 3. The Christian redemption. The advent of Christ has founded an era. The bitterest enemy of the Gospel is compelled to do it, at least, the involuntary homage of dating his years from the Lord’s advent. By his use of the Christian calendar, the infidel testifies unwittingly to the power of the religion which he seeks to overthrow. III. THE SPHERES OF THE SACRED AND THE CIVIL ARE . One indication of this, even in the polity of Israel, is seen in the fact that the sacred year began in one month, and the civil in another.—J.O. Exodus 12:1-29 The Passover. God’s last and overwhelming blow was about to be struck at Egypt. In anticipation of that blow, and in immediate connection with the exodus, God gave directions for the observance of a Passover. I. THE IN ITS WITH THE HISTORY. For details of the ritual, see the verses of the chapter. 1. The design of the Passover was to make plain to Israel the ground on which its salvation was bestowed—the ground, viz; of Atonement. "The more recent plagues had fallen on Egypt alone. The children of Israel were saved from them. But though the salvation was obvious, the way of salvation had not yet been indicated. But now that the last and heaviest plague is about to fall, not only will Israel be saved from it, but the ground on which (the whole) salvation is bestowed will be made plain." 2. The connection of the Passover with the exodus. In this relation it is to be viewed more especially as a purificatory sacrifice. Such a sacrifice was peculiarly appropriate on the night of leaving Egypt, and one would probably have been appointed, even had no such special reason existed for it as the judgment on the first-born. 3. The connection of the Passover with the judgment on the first-born. Israel was God’s Son, His firstborn (Exodus 10:22), and is in turn represented by his first-born; and so with Egypt. Because Pharaoh would not let Israel (God’s first-born) go, God had declared his purpose of smiting "all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast" (Exodus 12:12); the punishment in this case, as frequently in God’s Providence (cf. Isaiah 30:16), taking a form analogous to the sin it is designed to chastise. "The first-born represented the family, so that judgment of the first-born stood for judgment upon all, and redemption of the first-born stood for the redemption of all" (Dr. Gibson). Accordingly, not the firstborn merely, but the entire household, as represented in him, was redeemed by the blood of the Passover, and joined in the subsequent feast upon the lamb (Exodus 12:8). Note, there was a peculiar fitness in the Passover being instituted at this particular crisis. (1) The death of the firstborn was a judgment pure and simple; not, like the hail, locusts, etc; an admonitory plague. (2) It gave a heightened and impressive character to the salvation that redemption by blood, redemption by power, and the emergence of the people from slavery into distinct existence as a people of God, were thus seen going hand in hand. The analogy with the Christian redemption is obvious. 4. The teaching of the Passover. It taught the people (1) that naturally they were as justly exposed to wrath as the people of Egypt. "Whether viewed in their individual or in their collective capacity, they were themselves of Egypt—collectively, a part of the nation, without any separate and independent existence of their own, vassals of the enemy, and inhabitants of the doomed territory—individually, also, partakers of the guilt and corruption of Egypt" (Fairbairn). "If the test had been one of character, it is quite certain that the line would not have been run so as to range all Egypt on the one side, and all Israel on the other. No one can suppose that all the real worth and excellence were on the side of the latter, and all the meanness and wickedness on the side of the former. In fact, the children of Israel had shared only too deeply in the sins of Egypt, and, accordingly, if they are to be saved, it must be on some other ground than their own merits" (Gibson). (2) That the medium of their salvation—the ground on which it was bestowed—was blood of atonement. It is vain to deny that the Passover victim was truly a propitiatory sacrifice. The use made of its blood is proof sufficient of that. The lamb died in room of the first-born. Sprinkled on the door-posts and lintels, its blood sheltered the inmates of the dwelling from the stroke of the destroyer (Exodus 12:21-24). "A sinless victim, the household might, as it were, hide behind it, and escape the just punishment of their sins" (Kohler in Geikie). The Passover thus emphatically taught the necessity of atonement for the covering of guilt. No thoughtful Israelite but must have deeply realised the truth, "Without shedding of blood is no remission’ (Hebrews 9:22). (3) The solidarity of the nation. The observance of the Passover was to be an act, not of individuals, but of households and groups of households, and in a wider sense, of the nation as a whole. The Israelites were thus taught to feel their unity as before God—their oneness in guilt as in redemption. (a) In guilt. Each was involved in guilt and doom, not only through his own sins, but through the sins of the nation of which he formed a part (cf. Isaiah 6:5; Matthew 23:35). (b) In redemption. This was beautifully symbolised in the eating of the lamb. The lamb was to be roasted entire, and placed on the table undivided (Exodus 12:9). "By avoiding the breaking of the bones (Exodus 12:46), the animal was preserved in complete integrity, undisturbed and entire (Psalms 34:20)… There was no other reason for this than that all who took part in this one animal, i.e. all who ate of it, should look upon themselves as one whole, one community, like those who eat the New Testament Passover, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7), of whom the apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:17), ’We being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.’" (Bahr.) (4) It pointed to an atonement in the future. For, manifestly, there lay in the blood of the lamb no real virtue to take away sin. It declared the necessity of atonement, but could not adequately provide it. The life of a beast was no proper substitute for the life of a first-born son. The Passover, therefore, from its very nature, is to be viewed as a type. It pointed on to Christ, in whom all the types of sacrifices find complete fulfilment. (5) The various features of the ritual were symbolic. The unleavened bread was indicative of haste (Deuteronomy 16:3); the bitter herbs of the affliction of Egypt, etc. These circumstances, like the blamelessness of the victim, the sprinkling of the blood, etc; had also spiritual significance. See below, Homily on Exodus 12:21-29. It is to be remarked, in general, that "the earthly relations then existing, and the operations of God in connection with them, were framed on purpose to represent and foreshadow corresponding but immensely superior ones, connected with the work and kingdom of Christ." (Fairbairn.) II. THE AS AN FOR LATER (Exodus 12:14, Exodus 12:24 28). In this respect, the Passover is to be viewed— 1. As an historical witness to the reality of the events of the exodus. See below; also Homily on Deuteronomy 16:1-9. The Passover, like the Lord’s Supper, was an institution which, in the nature of things, could not have been set up later than the event professedly commemorated. 2. As a perpetuation of the original sacrifice. The blood of the lambs was year by year presented to God. This marked that the true sacrifice had not yet been offered (Hebrews 10:1-3). Now that Christ has died, and has "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:12), there is no room for further sacrifice, and the Lord’s Supper is to be regarded as simply a commemorative ordinance and means of grace. The doctrine of the mass has no foundation in true scriptural analogy. 3. As a means of grace. It was a feast, collecting the Israelites in great numbers at the sanctuary, and reviving in their minds the memory of the great deliverance, in which had been laid the foundation of their national existence. The lamb, slain on their behalf, roasted with fire, and set on the table before their eyes, to be handled and eaten by them, in solemn observance of a Divine command, gave them a vivid sense of the reality of the facts they were commemorating. The Lord’s Supper, in like manner, is a powerful means of impressing mind and heart, an act of communion on the part of Christian believers, and a true source of nourishment (through spiritual participation in Christ) to the soul. 4. The observance of the Passover was connected with oral instruction (verses 26, 27). This was a further guarantee for the handing down of a faithful, ungarbled tradition of the meaning of the ceremony; added to the interest of the service; took advantage of a favourable opportunity to impress the minds of the young; and helped to keep alive in all classes of the community a vivid remembrance of God’s mighty works. III. THE FEAST OF BREAD (Deuteronomy 16:14-21). The ordinance for this feast was probably given at Succoth, on the day succeeding the exodus (see Deuteronomy 16:17, and Exodus 13:5-8). It is inserted here on account of its internal connection with the Passover. It is to be viewed— 1. As a memorial of the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt. The Israelites had evidently intended to leaven their dough on the night of the exodus, but were prevented by the haste (verse 34). "For thou earnest out of the land in haste" (Deuteronomy 16:3). This is the historical groundwork of the institution. 2. As a symbol of spiritual truth. (1) The feast lasted seven days, a complete circle of time. (2) It was rounded off at the beginning and end by an holy convocation. This marked it as a sacred period. (3) Sacrifices were offered during its course (Numbers 13:16-26; Deuteronomy 15:2). (4) The bread eaten was to be unleavened. So strict was the injunction on this point that the Israelite found eating leaven during these seven days was to be "cut off," i.e; excommunicated. The general idea of the feast was, therefore, to represent what redeemed life in its entirety ought to be—a life purged from the leaven of "malice and wickedness," and devoted to God’s service in "sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians 5:8). "The exodus formed the groundwork of the feast, because it was by this that Israel had been introduced into a new vital element" (Keil). The "walk in newness of life" follows on redemption. We may apply the precept about "cutting off from Israel" to the exclusion of immoral and impure members from the Church.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 12:1-28 The institution of the Passover. Moses has now done with requesting and threatening Pharaoh. He leaves Pharaoh to the terrible smiting hand of Jehovah, and turns, when it is quite time to turn, to his own people. He who would not listen had to be left for those who would listen. It is now manifest that Moses is to be profitably occupied with matters which cannot any longer be delayed. It was needful to give warning concerning the death of the first-born to the Israelites quite as much as to Pharaoh. For some time they had been the passive, the scarcely conscious objects of Divine mercy and power. Painfully conscious they were of the physical hardships which Pharaoh inflicted on them, but they had little or no thought of deprivations and hindrances with respect to higher things. God had been leading them forward by a way they knew not, and now the hour has come for them to know the way and walk in it with understanding, choice, circumspection, and diligence. All at once, from being passive spectators in the background, they came forward to be prime actors in the very front; and God is here telling them through Moses what to do, and how they are to do it. More is to be done than simply wait for God’s coming at midnight: that coming has to be made ready for with great solemnity and minuteness of preparation. I. NOTICE HOW JEHOVAH HERE BRINGS THE ELEMENT INTO THE OF HIS PEOPLE AND THEIR WITH HIM. They are to be delivered, only as they are willing to be delivered. They are to signify their willing regard to conform with the will of God. The matter is made almost a personal one; if not brought before every Israelite, it is brought before every head of a household. Hitherto the immunities of the people during the course of the plagues had been secured in a mere external way. The protection belonged to a certain territory, and the Israelites had to exert no attention, take no trouble, in order to secure the protection. God kept the flies, the hail, and the darkness out of Goshen without requiring any mark upon the habitations and property of His people. But now, as the last visitation from God draws nigh, they have to take a part, and a very decided part, in making their exemption effectual. Jehovah comes, treating all who are in Egypt as belonging fully to Egypt, and it is for the Israelites to show by some significant act the deep difference which separates between them and the Egyptians. There had been, up to this time, certain differences between the Egyptian and the Israelite which did not depend upon the Israelite’s choice. The Egyptian was master, and the Israelite slave; assuredly the Israelite had not chosen that. An Egyptian might soon lose all trace of his personal ancestry, but every Israelite could trace his ancestry back to Jacob, to Isaac, to Abraham; and this was a matter he had not chosen. The Egyptian belonged to a nation which had been smitten with nine plagues, but from the later and severer of these the Israelite dwelling in Goshen had been free; yet this freedom had been secured without making it to depend on the Israelite’s own action. But now, as the day of redemption draws near, Jehovah reminds every Israelite that underneath all the differences which, in carrying out His purposes, He may make to exist among men, there is a common humanity. Before Him who comes smiting at midnight there is neither Israelite nor Egyptian, bond nor free; everything depends on the sprinkled blood; and the sprinkled blood depends on whether the Israelite has put it on his door of his own accord. If, that night, the Israelite did not of his own accord make a difference between himself and the Egyptian, then no natural distinction or past immunity was of the slightest avail. Even already it is being shown that circumcision availeth nothing, but a new creature. Israel can only be truly Israel as he is Israel inwardly. The mark upon the door without must come from the perfect heart and willing mind within. The only great abiding differences between man and man are such as we, fully considering our position, concur in making of our own free will True it is that we cannot establish and complete these differences in our own strength; but it is very certain that God will not do this—indeed, by the very limitations of the thing to be done, he cannot—except as we willingly and with alacrity give him opportunity. II. In these instructions for the Passover, GOD BRINGS THE ELEMENT OF PURE FAITH INTO ACTIVE . In Hebrews 11:28 we are told that by faith Moses kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the first-born should touch them. And this faith extended from Moses to every head of a household in Israel. The whole instructions imply a trustful, disciplined spirit, on the part of those receiving them. Up to this time nothing had been required of them except to stand still and wait while God dealt with Pharaoh. They are left on one side, treated as helpless captives, whom it is vain to ask for what they cannot give. But now they are asked for something, and they have not only to render it willingly, but with the obedience of faith (Romans 16:26). They are asked to slay a number of lambs, the number being determined according to a settled proportion. When the lambs are slain, the blood is to be sprinkled on the doors of each Israelite dwelling, and the flesh, prepared in a peculiar and exact way, is to be eaten by the inhabitants. Well, what should all this have to do with the protection of Israel? How should it advance the captives towards deliverance? If God had told them to get ready swords and spears, and discipline themselves for battle there would have been something intelligible in such instructions, something according to the schemes of human wisdom. But God does not deliver as men would deliver. It pleased him, in the fulness of time and by the foolishness of a slain lamb and sprinkled blood to save Israel. And yet it was not the slain lamb and sprinkled blood that saved by themselves. Moses and Aaron might have slain so many lambs and sprinkled their blood, and yet there would have been no efficacy in them. Their efficacy as protectors was not a natural efficacy. The efficacy lay in this: that the lambs were slain and the blood sprinkled in the obedience of faith. The thing done and the spirit in which it is done—truth and faith-go together in resistless power. There must be truth; faith by itself does nothing; for a man may believe a lie and then where is he? There must be faith; truth by itself does nothing; just as food does nothing unless a man takes it into his stomach. Of course it was quite possible for a sceptical Israelite to say, "What can there be in this sprinkled blood?"—and the very fact that such a question was possible shows how God was shutting his people up to pure faith. He asks them to act simply on the word of Moses. That word was now to be a sufficient reason for their conduct. Moses had done enough to show from whom he came. It is interesting to notice how faith stands here, asked for, the first thing, by Moses, even as it was afterwards by Jesus. As the Israelites believed because Moses spoke, so we must believe because Jesus speaks. Jesus speaks truth because it is true; but we must receive it and believe it, not because in our natural reason we can see it as true, but because of the ascertained and well-accredited character of him who speaks it. And we must show our faith by our works, as these Israelites did. It was not required of them to understand how this sprinkled blood operated. They acted as believing that it would operate, and the indisputable fact is that they were saved. It is a great deal more important to have a thing done, than to be able to understand all the ins and outs by which it is done. A man does not refuse to wind up his watch, because he cannot understand its intricate mechanism. His purposes are served, if he understands enough to turn the key. And so our purposes are served, if we have enough practical faith in Jesus to gain actual salvation through him. Exactly how Jesus saves, is a question which we may ask again and again, and vainly ask. Let us not, in asking it, waste time and risk eternity, when by the prompt and full obedience of faith, we may know in our experience, that however obscure the process may be, the result itself is a real and abiding one. III. Looking back on this passover lamb in the light of the finished work of Jesus, we see HOW AMPLE A TYPE IT IS OF HIM WHO WAS TO COME AFTER AND STAND BETWEEN THE SINNER AND THE GOD. 1. The lamb was taken so as to bind families and neighbours together. This reminds us of Him, who gathers round himself, in every place, those who form the true family, the new family; joined together not after the temporary, dissolving order of nature, but after the abiding, ever-consolidating order of grace. Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, there the true Lamb of God is present in all those relations of which the passover lamb gave but a foreshadowing. The true families are made by the coalescence of those who, living in one neighbourhood, have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. 2. The passover lamb was without blemish. Consider what is said in this respect of Jesus. 3. It was a male of the first year. So Jesus was taken in the freshness and strength of his manhood (Luke 3:23). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE FIRST . Having received the Divine directions as to the new rite, if not with all the fulness ultimately given them, yet with sufficient fulness for the immediate purpose, Moses proceeded to communicate the Divine Will to the people under his protection. Having already aroused the jealousy and hatred of Pharaoh, he could not summon a general assembly of the people, but he ventured to call a meeting of the elders, or heads of principal families, and through them communicated the orders which he had received to the entire nation. We find, in the directions which he gave, two small points which are not comprised in the record of God’s words to him. 1. The designation of the "hyssop," as the instrument, by which the blood was to be placed on the side-posts and lintel (Exodus 12:22); and, 2. The injunction not to quit the house "until the morning." These points may have been contained in the original directions, though omitted from the record for brevity; or they may have been added by Moses of his own authority. On the other hand, several very main points of the original directions are not repeated in the injunctions given to the elders, though there can be no doubt that they were communicated. Exodus 12:21 Draw out—i.e; "Withdraw from the flock." (See Exodus 12:3.) A lamb. The word used is generic, and would not exclude the offering of a goat. Exodus 12:22 A bunch of hyssop. The hyssop was regarded as having purging or purifying qualities, and was used in the cleansing of the leper (Le Exodus 14:4), and of the leprous house (ibid. 51-52), and also formed an element in the "water of separation" (Numbers 19:6). It was a species of plant which grew on walls, and was generally low and insignificant (1 Kings 4:33), yet which could furnish a stick or stalk of some length (John 19:29). It must also have been a common plant in Egypt, the wilderness, and Palestine. Two suggestions are made with respect to it. One, that it was a species of marjoram common in both Egypt and Syria; the other that it was the caper plant (Capparis spinosa), which abounds especially in the Desert. It is in favour of this latter identification, that the modern Arabic name for the caper plant is asaf or asuf, which excellently represents the Hebrew ezob, the word uniformly rendered in our version by "hyssop" The blood that is in the basin. The Septuagint and Vulgate render—"that is on the threshold." Saph—the word translated "basin" has the double meaning. None of you shall go out. Moses may well have given this advice on his own authority, without any Divine command. (See introductory paragraph.) He would feel that beyond the protection of the blood of the lamb, there was no assurance of safety. Exodus 12:23 Compare Exodus 12:12, Exodus 12:13 which are closely followed. The only important difference is, the new expression, "The Lord will not suffer the destroyer to come in," which has generally been regarded as implying, that the actual agent in the killing of the first-born was a "destroying angel." But it is to be noted that elsewhere Jehovah himself is everywhere spoken of as the sole agent; and that in the present passage the word used has the meaning of "destruction" no less than that of "destroyer." Bishop Lowth’s idea of an opposition between God and the destroying angel (Comment on Isaiah 31:1-9.5) is scarcely tenable. Exodus 12:24 To thee and to thy children. The change from the plural to the singular is curious, Perhaps, we are to understand that Moses insisted on the perpetuity of the ordinance to each of the elders severally. Exodus 12:25 The land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised. See above, Exodus 3:8-17; Exodus 6:4; and compare Genesis 17:8; Genesis 28:4, etc. Exodus 12:26 When your children shall say unto you, what mean ye by this service. Apparently, Moses adds these injunctions by his own sole authority. He assumes that curiosity will be aroused by the strange and peculiar features of the Paschal ceremony, and that each generation in succession will wish to know its meaning and origin. Exodus 12:27 It is the sacrifice. It has been denied that the Paschal lamb was, in the true sense of the word, a sacrifice (Carpzov and others). But this passage alone is decisive on the question, and proves that it was. Moreover, it was offered in the holy place ; the blood of it was sprinkled upon the altar, and the fat was burnt (2 Chronicles 30:16; 2 Chronicles 35:11). Compare also Exodus 23:18; Numbers 9:7; Deuteronomy 16:2. The people bowed the head and worshipped. Rather, "and made obeisance." Compare Exodus 4:31. By "the people" seems to be meant "the elders of the people." (See Exodus 4:21.) Exodus 12:28 So did they. The long series of miracles wrought by Moses and Aaron had so impressed the people, that they yielded an undoubting and ready obedience. No safety for man beyond the limits protected by the Lamb’s atoning blood. No Israelite was to pass beyond the door of his house until the morning, lest he should be destroyed by the destroyer. Within the precincts, protected by the blood of the lamb, he was safe. Let Christians beware of stepping beyond the limits whereto the atoning blood extends. Those step beyond the limits— I. WHO TEMPT GOD BY WITH SIN. Atonement has been made for us, we feel We have had moments of assurance that atonement and forgiveness are ours. We have had an impression that we were safe. At once the Evil One begins to whisper to our hearts that there is no longer any need of our walking warily, of our being afraid to put ourselves in temptation’s way, of our flying all contact with evil; and we are too apt to listen to his suggestions, to regard the danger of falling from grace as past, and to allow ourselves a liberty in which there is too often awful peril. We draw near the confines of sin, confident that we shall sin no more; and lo! we are entangled in the meshes. And why? Because we have gone beyond the limits protected by the atoning blood. We have opened the door and stepped out. We have turned our backs upon the redeeming marks and put them behind us. We have been over-trustful in our own strength. II. WHO ARE PUFFED UP BY THE THOUGHT OF THEIR AND . "Pride goeth before a fall." Pride was the great temptation of the Jew, who felt himself one of God’s peculiar people, to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Romans 9:4). And pride often tempts the Christian, who has realised the work of Christ on his behalf, and the greatness of the salvation wrought for him. But pride is one of the deadly sins, and at once severs the soul from Christ. The blood of the covenant does not extend its protection over the paths which are trodden by the foot of pride. He who enters on them has wandered beyond the door which bears the redemption-marks, and is open to the assaults of the destroyer. III. WHO FOLD THEIR HANDS AND CEASE TO BE ZEALOUS OF GOOD WORKS, AS THOUGH THEY HAD ALREADY . Though we cannot, by anything that we can do, merit our own salvation, or redeem ourselves or others (Psalms 49:7), yet God will have us "work while it is day," and the atoning blood of Christ atones for those only who are "careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8). Idleness, apathy, sloth, are contrary to his will and his word; and the man who indulges in them has strayed beyond the prescribed limits and lost the needful protection. Well for him if he discovers his mistake in time to return, and ,6 do again the first works" (Revelation 2:5), and so regain the lost shelter! It is needless to say that the atoning blood can avail none who (1) reject the atonement; or, (2) despise it, by giving it no thought; or, (3) trample it under foot by leading an immoral and ungodly life. These are as far removed from its protection as were the Egyptians. Exodus 12:26, Exodus 12:27 The obligation of men to teach the true meaning of rites and ceremonies to their children. The rites and ceremonies of a religion are liable to be misunderstood in two ways. 1. They may be regarded as unimportant, trifling, nay, even as superstitious—a weight and an encumbrance on true vital religion. Or, 2. They may be assigned more importance than is their due; considered to be that in which religion mainly consists, believed to have an inherent power and efficacy which is far from belonging to them. Men are prone to extremes; and most persons are naturally inclined either unduly to exalt, or unduly to depreciate religious ceremonies. Of the two evils, undue depreciation would seem to be the worse, for the following reason:— I. UNDUE OF (a) tends to make them of little service to men when they actually take part in them, since they neither prepare themselves properly beforehand, so as to derive from them the benefit they might, nor enter into them with much heart at the time of their occurrence, nor help their effect by devout meditation upon them afterwards. (b) It causes an infrequent participation in the ceremonies by the depreciators, who, expecting but little benefit in the future, and being conscious of but little benefit in the past, allow small obstacles to prevent their attendance at services which they do not value. (c) In extreme cases, it produces either complete abstention from, or sometimes actual abrogation of the rite, whereby advantages are forfeited on the part of whole sections of believers which would otherwise have been enjoyed by them. Thus the Society of Friends loses the benefit of both sacraments, with sad results to the spiritual life of numbers. II. UNDUE OF has the advantage of at any rate retaining them in use, so that their benefit is not wholly lost. It often, however, greatly lessens the benefit (a) by exaggerated and superstitious views of its nature, and (b) by the attribution of the benefit to the mere formal participation in the rite irrespective of the participator’s preparation, attention, and devoutness at the time. Further, it is apt to produce such a reliance on the ceremonies as is unfavourable to practical efforts at improving the moral character and making advances towards Christian perfection. Careful instruction in the true nature and value of ceremonial observances is thus of the highest importance; and parents should perhaps scarcely wait till their children "ask the meaning" of public worship, baptism, confirmation, the Lord’s supper, etc; before enlightening them on the true nature and value of each. In so doing, it will always be of use to set forth the historical origin of each usage, to show when and how it arose, and to draw attention to what Scripture says on the subject. Men’s private views are various, and may be mistaken, but the Scriptures cannot but be true; and a knowledge of what is contained in the Bible with respect to each Christian rite or ceremony will be an excellent basis for the formation of a sound and healthy opinion on the subject when, in the course of time, the different views of different sections of believers come to be known. BY J. ORR Exodus 12:21-29 Christ our Passover. The Passover was an eminent type of Christ. It was probably to it the Baptist referred when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John L 29). Paul gives a decisive utterance on the question in the words: "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7). I. POINTS OF ANALOGY BETWEEN THE TRUE AND ITS TYPE. 1. In both the death of a blameless victim. The lamb, physically blameless (Exodus 12:5); Christ, morally faultless. A sinful world needs a sinless Saviour. It has one in Christ. The sinlessness of Christ, a moral miracle. Proofs of this sinlessness. (1) Christ asserts his own freedom from sin (John 8:29-46; John 14:30). (2) In no part of his conduct does he betray the least consciousness of guilt. Yet it is admitted that Jesus possessed the finest moral insight of any man who has ever lived. (3) His apostles, one and all, believed him to be sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). (4) His enemies could find no fault in him (Matthew 26:60; Matthew 27:23, Matthew 27:24). (5) The very traitor confessed the innocence of Christ (Matthew 27:4). (6) The delineation of his character in the gospels bears out the averment of his moral blamelessness. (7) The captious efforts which have been made, by fixing on a few paltry points in the gospel narratives to impeach Christ’s sinlessness, indirectly prove it. "As if sin could ever need to be made out against a real sinner in this small way of special pleading; or as if it were ever the way of sin to err in single particles, or homoeopathic quantities of wrong’ (Bushnell). 2. In both, the design is to secure redemption from a dreadful evil. In the one case, from the wrath of God revealed against Egypt in the smiting of its first-born. In the other, from the yet more terrible wrath of God revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Romans 1:18). "Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come" (1 Thessalonians 1:10). "Saved from wrath through him" (Romans 5:9). 3. In both, the principle of the deliverance is that of vicarious sacrifice. The lamb was substituted for the first-born. It protected the house, on whose door-posts the blood was sprinkled, from the stroke of the avenger. The substitutionary character of the death of Christ is, in like manner, affirmed in innumerable Scriptures. Jesus "died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6). He "suffered for sins, the just for the unjust" (1 Peter 3:18). He gave "his life a ransom for many ’ (Matthew 19:28). His blood is a propitiation (Romans 3:25). There is just ground for the remark of Coleridge (we quote from memory) that a man who would deal with the language of his father’s will, as Unitarians on this and other points do with the language of the New Testament, would be liable to an action at law. 4. In both, there was need for an act of personal, appropriating faith. "The people bowed the head, and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded "(Exodus 12:27, Exodus 12:28). "Through faith (they) kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood," etc. (Hebrews 11:28). Their faith showed itself in sprinkling the blood on their door-posts and lintels, and in sheltering themselves under it. Nothing short of this would have availed to save them. So it is not knowledge about Christ, but faith in him; personal application to his blood, and trust in it as the means of salvation, which secures our safety. Faith is the bunch of hyssop. 5. In both, the slain lamb becomes the food of the new life. There was, on the part of the Israelites, a sacrificial feast upon the flesh of the lamb. This denoted, indeed, peace and fellowship with God, but it was also an act of nourishment. Similarly, under the Gospel, the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ. We make him ours by inward appropriation and assimilation, and so are spiritually nourished for all holy service (cf. John 6:1-71.). Minor typical features might be insisted upon (male of the first year, roast with fire, not a bone broken, unleavened bread, hitter herbs of contrition, etc.), but the above are the broad and outstanding ones. II. THE OF THE TRUE . It belongs to the nature of a type that it should be surpassed by the antitype. The type is taken from a lower sphere than the thing which it represents. So completely, in the case of the passover, does the reality rise above the type, that when we begin to reflect on it the sense of likeness is all but swallowed up in the sense of disproportion. How great, 1. The contrast in the redemptions. The redemption from Egypt, though spiritual elements were involved in it, was primarily a redemption from the power of Pharaoh, and from a temporal judgment about to fall on Egypt. Underlying it, there was the need for a yet greater redemption—a redemption from the curse of a broken law, and from the tyranny of sin and Satan; from death spiritual, temporal, and eternal. It is this higher redemption which Christ has achieved, altering, through his death, the whole relation of God to man, and of (believing)man to God. 2. The contrast in the victims. That, an irrational lamb; this, the Eternal Son of God in human nature, the Lord’s own Christ. 3. The contrast in the efficacy of the blood. The blood of the passover lamb had no inherent virtue to take away sin. Whatever virtue it possessed arose from God’s appointment, or from its typical relation to the sacrifice of Christ. Its imperfection as a sacrifice was seen (1) In the multitude of the victims. (2) In the repetition of the service (Hebrews 10:1-3). But what the flowing of the blood of millions of lambs, year by year slain in atonement for sin could not achieve, Christ has achieved once for all by the offering up of his holy body and soul. The dignity of his person, the greatness of his love, his holy will, the spirit of perfect self-sacrifice in which he, himself sinless, offered himself up to bear the curse of sin for the unholy, confers upon his oblation an exhaustless meritoriousness. Its worth and sufficiency are infinite (Hebrews 10:10-15; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 2:2). 4. The contrast in the specific blessings obtained. The difference in these springs from the contrast in the redemptions. Israel obtained (1) Escape from judgment. (2) Outward liberty. (3) Guidance, care, and instruction in the desert. (4) Ultimately, an earthly inheritance. We receive, through Christ, (1) Pardon of all sins. (2) A complete justifying righteousness, carrying with it the title to eternal life. (3) Renewal and sanctification by the Spirit. (4) Every needed temporal and spiritual blessing in life. (5) Heaven at the close, with triumph over death, the hope of a resurrection, and of final perfecting in glory.—J.O. What mean ye by this service? Apply to the Lord’s Supper. I. A TO BE PUT BY THE TO HIMSELF. Qualification for the Lord’s table includes "knowledge to discern the Lord’s body," as well as "faith to feed upon him." II. A LIKELY TO BE PUT TO THE By HIS . 1. The children are presumed to be spectators of the ordinance. It is well that children should be present during the administration of the sacraments. It awakens their interest. It leads them to inquire. 2. The ordinance is fitted to attract attention. An external interest attaches to it. It appeals to the senses. The symbolic acts and movements prompt to inquiry. 3. It furnishes an excellent opportunity for imparting instruction. Children will attend to an explanation of the sacraments, who will pay little attention to a book or a sermon. The symbolism of the ordinance aids instruction; makes it vivid and impressive. III. A WHICH THE PARENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO HIS . It is a sad matter when a parent is incapable of sitting down, and instructing his children in the meaning of the sacramental symbol. It betrays something worse than ignorance; not improbably, a total want of spiritual religion. IV. THE ANSWER TO THIS A OF THE OF OUR FAITH. The Jew had to answer to his child—"It is the sacrifice, of the Lord’s passover," etc. (Exodus 12:27). The Christian has to answer, "It is the memorial of our Lord’s death, in atonement for our sins." He has to tell— 1. How we were in guilt and danger. 2. How, for the love wherewith he loved us, Christ gave himself up to the death for our redemption. 3. How, for his sake, we are forgiven and accepted. 4. How the ungodly world has still God’s wrath resting upon it. It is wonderful to reflect how simply, yet how perfectly, God has provided for the handing down of a testimony to these great truths in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. The pulpit may fail to preach the doctrine of atonement; Rationalistic and Unitarian teachers may deny it; but as often as the Lord’s Supper is observed, on the model of the New Testament, the truth is anew proclaimed in unmistakable symbols. To give a child a satisfactory explanation of the Lord’s Supper, embodying the words of institution, would be almost of necessity, to preach a sermon on the atonement.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 12:26-27 The children’s question in Canaan. I. IT WAS A TO BE . The service was one to provoke curiosity. It was not some daily action of the household, of which the children learned the meaning and purpose almost unconsciously. The grinding of the corn, the kneading of the dough, in a very short time explained themselves. But when as the beginning of the year drew round, it brought with it these special observances, the slaying and eating of the lamb and the seven days of unleavened bread, there was everything to make a child ask, "What is this being done for?" God makes one thing to fit into another. He institutes services of such a kind, with such elements of novelty and impressiveness in them, that the children make it easier for them to be instructed in the things that belong to his will. And what was true concerning this passover service, is also true, more or less, concerning all that is revealed in the Scriptures. The great facts of Divine revelation are such as to provoke curiosity, even in a child’s mind. If it be true that the Scriptures are given to guide us all the way through life, then what is more reasonable to expect than that God will have placed much in them to stir up attention and inquiry from those who are just at the beginning of life? II. HENCE THIS WAS A TO BE . Every advantage was to be taken of childish curiosity. Inquisitive children are often reckoned a nuisance, and told to be quiet; yet such a policy as this, though it may save trouble in the present, may lead to a great deal more trouble in the future. A stupid child who never asks questions, is to be reckoned an object of pity and a source of peril. God has always in mind how to make each generation better instructed than the one going before; more obedient to him, and more serviceable for his purposes. The temptation of the grown people in Israel was to undervalue what was going on in the minds of their children. Remember how Mary and Joseph suffered through their want of forethought on this point. The God who watches human beings all the way from the cradle to the grave knows well how children, even very little children, have their own thoughts about things; and he wanted the people to give them every encouragement and information. One question wisely answered leads to the asking of other questions. Thus, by the continuance of an inquiring mood in the mind, and thus only, is profitable information to be given. Information is not to be poured into the mind as into a bucket; it must be taken as food, with appetite, and digestive and assimilating power. Thus if the question were not asked, if, while the passover preparations were being made, a child stood by in stolid unconcern, or ran away heedlessly to play, such conduct would fill a wise parent with solicitude. He would look upon it as being even more serious than a failure of physical health. He would do all he could by timely suggestions to bring the question forth. Ingenuity and patience may do much to bring curiosity into action, and if the question were not asked it would have to be assumed. The narrative of the passover was a most important one for every Israelite child to hear and remember; and if only the narrative was begun, it might soon excite the requisite and much desired interest. III. IT WAS A WHICH GAVE GREAT SCOPE FOR TO THE IN THE OF IT. God, indeed, directs how it is to be answered; but of course, it is not meant that there was to be a formal, parrot-like confinement to these words. What, for instance, could be more gratifying to the children, who in after times asked this question, than to begin by pointing out to them, how God himself expected them to ask this question? Then the words he had directed Moses to provide for an answer, might be repeated. But it would have been a poor spiritless answer, unpleasing to God, and profitless to the children, if it had stopped with the bare utterance of the words in Exodus 12:27. There was room for much to be said, that would very peculiarly impress the mind of a thoughtful child. It might be reminded that whereas, now, little children were born in the freedom of Canaan, some among their forefathers had been born in the bondage of Egypt. It might be told of that Pharaoh who had threatened the men* children with destruction. In particular, the story of the infant Moses might be told. So now, in those parts of the world where the idols are abolished, and former idolaters are gathered round the throne of grace for Christian worship, an opportunity is given for explaining to the children, in how much better a state, and with how much better surroundings they are brought up. "What mean ye by this service?’ was a question which could be answered in form, and yet with such absence of heart, as utterly to chill and thwart the eager inquirer. Whereas, if it were only answered with evident care, with amplitude of detail, with loving desire to interest and satisfy, then the child thus favoured, would be laid under great obligations to be thankful in feeling, and devoted in service. A question of this sort gave great opportunity. Happy those who could seize the opportunity at once, and use it to the full. IV. IT WAS A WHICH CAME TO CALL EVERY , AT THE ANNUAL OF THE , TO A CAREFUL OF HIS OWN WITH RESPECT TO IT. It was a question which helped to guard against formality. A little child may render a great service, without knowing it, even to a grown man. God can send the little ones, to test, to rebuke, to warn, to stir out of lethargy. "What mean ye by this service?" How is the Israelite of the grown generation to answer this question? He may tell the child what the service is intended for, the historical facts out of which it arose, and the Divine appointments concerning it; but after all, this is no real answer to the question. It may be an answer to satisfy the inquiring child, and yet leave the person who has to give it, with a barbed arrow in his memory and conscience. Notice the precise terms of the question. What mean ye by this service? How should the child ask in any other terms? It looks and sees the parents doing something new and strange; and to them it naturally looks for explanation and guidance. The question is not simply, "Why is this thing being done?’ but "Why are you doing it, and what do you mean by it?" It became only too possible in the lapse of ages, to go through this service in a cold, mechanical, utterly unprofitable way. Not so, we may be sure, was it observed the first time in Egypt, on the night of deliverance. Then all was excitement, novelty, and overflowing emotion. Be it ours, in considering all outward and visible acts in connection with religion, all symbolic and commemorative institutions, to ask ourselves in great closeness and candour of personal self-application, "What mean we by this service?’ Do we mean anything at all, and if so, what is it that we mean? To answer this is not easy: it is not meant to be easy. Perhaps one great reason why there are such marked and unabated differences of opinion with respect to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is, that we have never sufficiently considered the question, "What mean ye by these services?’ It is hard work to be quit of mere superstition, mere clinging to outward observances as matters of custom, tradition, and respectability. It is very certain that to this question of the children, put in all its particular emphasis, only too many fathers in Israel would have been forced to reply, "We do this thing because our fathers did it." Remember that forms are, in themselves, nothing to the invisible, spiritual God. Their value is as containing, protecting and expressing what we have to present. That which pleased Jehovah and profited Israel was not the outward passover service, but the intelligence, the perceptions, the gratitude, the aspirations, and the hopes that lay behind it.—Y. Exodus 12:21-28 Israel and the sacrifice for sin. I. CHRIST SLAIN BY US. The lamb’s blood was not only shed for them, but also by them. The crucifying of Jesus by the Jews, the revelation of what lies in every unrenewed heart. "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced." II. WHAT IS NEEDFUL FOR . 1. Appropriating faith. It was the blood applied with their own hands to the door of the dwelling that saved those within. It is not enough that the blood be shed. Is it upon our gates? Have we set it by faith between us and destruction? 2. It must be applied as God directs us. It was sprinkled on the lintel and doorposts—not within, but without. It is not enough that we believe. We must make open profession of our faith. 3. We must abide within until the day dawn and salvation come. To put that blood (which should be between us and the world) behind us, no longer to hide within it but to forget it, is to renounce salvation. Are we without or within the blood-stained gateway? We are saved if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. II. GOD’S GIVES PERFECT (Exodus 12:25). The shed blood stands between us and death. The awe and joy of redeemed Israel, a faint emblem of the awe and joy which we shall feel, who shall see the judgment of sin but only from afar. IV. THE DUTY OF THE . 1. Perpetual remembrance (Exodus 12:23). We must, in the ordinance of Christ’s own appointment, shew his death till he come. 2. The handing down the knowledge of salvation (Exodus 12:26, Exodus 12:27). Christians should glory in the story of the Cross. Exodus 12:29, Exodus 12:30 THE TENTH PLAGUE. At last the time had come for the dealing of the final blow. Nine plagues had been sent, nine inflictions endured, and no serious effect had been produced. Once or twice Pharaoh had wavered, had made profession of submitting himself, had even acknowledged his sin. But each time he had relapsed into obstinacy. Now at length the fiat had gone forth for that last plague which had been announced the first (Exodus 4:23). Pharaoh’s own son, his firstborn, the heir to his throne, was smitten with death, in common with all the other male Egyptians who had "opened the womb." What the effect on the king would have been, had he alone suffered, we cannot certainly say. As it was, the whole population of the country, nobles, tradesmen, peasants, suffered with him; and the feeling aroused was so intense that the popular movement left him no choice. The Egyptians everywhere "rose up in the night" (Exodus 12:30), and raised "a great cry," and insisted that the Israelites should depart at once (Exodus 12:33). Each man feared for himself, and felt his life insecure, so long as a single Israelite remained in the land. Exodus 12:29 At midnight. As prophesied by Moses (Exodus 11:4). The day had not been fixed, and this uncertainty must have added to the horror of the situation. The first-born of Pharaoh. We have no proof that the eldest son of Menephthah died before his father, unless we take this passage as proving it. He left a son, called Seti-Menephthah, or Seti II, who either succeeded him, or reigned after a short interval, during which the throne was held by Ammonmes, a usurper. The first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon. This phrase takes the place of another expression, viz. "the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill" (Exodus 11:5). In both cases, the general meaning is, "all, from the highest to the lowest." This is perhaps the whole that is in the writer’s thought; but it is also true that captives in dungeons were in some cases employed in turning hand-mills (Judges 16:21). And all the first-born of cattle. Rather, "of beasts." There is no limitation of the plague to domesticated animals. Exodus 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, and all his servants. This general disturbance differentiates the present visitations from that which came upon the host of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:35). Then, the calamity came with such silence and secrecy, that the deaths were not suspected until men rose to go about their various tasks in the morning Now, every household seems to have been aroused from its sleep in the night. We must suppose sharp and painful illness, terminating after a few hours in death. The disaster itself may have been one from which Egypt often suffers in the spring of the year (Kalisch); but its attacking all the firstborn and no others, and no Israelites, as well as its announcement, plainly showed it to be miraculous. There was a great cry. See the comment on Exodus 11:6. For there was not a house where there was not one dead. This is perhaps a slight hyperbole. There would be many families in which there was no son; and some houses might contain no male who had opened the womb. It is always to be borne in mind, that the language of Scripture—especially where exciting and tragical events are narrated—is poetical, or at the least highly rhetorical. The death of the first-born. From the death of the first-born we may learn:— I. THE OF GOD’S LONG . That punishment will overtake the wicked sooner or later was the conviction of heathendom no less than of the Jewish and Christian worlds. Horace says—"Judgment may halt, but yet it rarely fails to overtake the guilty one at last." Tibullus—"Wretch, though at first thy sin no judgment meet, vengeance will come at length with silent feet." But the greater heaviness of the punishment that is long deferred does not appear to have attracted their notice. Yet experience might have taught it them. Who has not seen the long triumphant career of a thoroughly bad man, crowned with success for years, seeming to turn all he touched to gold, "flourishing," as the Psalmist has it, "like a green bay tree," yet ending in calamities and misfortunes so striking, and so heaped one upon another, as to draw general attention? It is invidious, perhaps, to note instances; but the present generation has seen at least one example among the crowned heads of Europe. And Scripture is full of examples. How long God’s Spirit strove with men in the antediluvian world, as they proceeded from one wickedness to another, heaping up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, till the flood came and swept away the ungodly! For what a prolonged term of years must the long-suffering of God have borne with the cities of the plain, as they more and more corrupted themselves, till in all Sodom there were not ten godly men left! And then, how signal the punishment! Again, what an instance is Ahab of the operation of the law! Flourishing in every way, in spite of his numerous sins—his idolatries, cruelties, selfishness, meanness, hatred of God’s servants—victorious over Benhadad, supported by all the forces of Jehoshaphat, encouraged by his successes to undertake an aggressive war against Syria—and then struck down in a moment, slain by an arrow shot at a venture (1 Kings 22:34)—his blood licked up by dogs—his wife and seventy sons murdered! The Pharaohs and the Egyptians had now worked their wicked will on Israel for a century or more, since the king arose "who knew not Joseph"—all this time they had been treasuring up to themselves wrath (Romans 2:5)—and now it had fallen upon them in full force. Let sinners beware of trying the forbearance and long-suffering of God too far—let them tremble when all goes well with them, and no punishment comes. Let them be assured that the account of their offences is strictly kept, and that for each they will have to suffer. Delay does but mean accumulation. However long suspended, the bolt will fall at last, and it will be proportioned in its severity to the length of the delay, and the amount of the wrath stored up. II. THE WITH WHICH THEY COME UPON MEN. It was night—it was the hour of repose, of peace, silence, tranquillity. All had gone to rest unsuspectingly. No one anticipated evil. Each said to himself, as he lay down, "To-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant," when suddenly, without warning, there was death everywhere. Fathers saw the light of their eyes snatched from them—mothers beheld their darlings struggling in the agonies of dissolution. A shrill, prolonged cry sounded throughout the land. So the flood came upon man unawares (Luke 17:27)—and a sudden destruction overthrew the cities of the plain (ib. 28, 29)—and Ahab found himself mortally wounded when he was thinking of nothing but victory—and in the height of his pride Herod Agrippa was seized with a fearful malady—and Uzziah’s leprosy smote him in a moment—and in the night of his feast was Belshazzar slain. Wicked men are for the most part thinking of nothing less when the judgments of God fall upon them. They have said to their soul—"Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry," when the dread sentence goes forth—"Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee." God’s judgments often come in the night. We know not what a day, nor what a night may bring forth. Let us commend our souls to God when we lie down to rest, and repeat the prayer of the Litany against sudden death. III. THE WITH WHICH THEY ARE DEALT OUT UPON ALL OF MEN. "Pale death smites equally the poor man’s but and the king’s palace," says a heathen moralist. And so it is with all God’s judgments. He is no respecter of persons. "Without respect of persons he judgeth according to every man’s work" (1 Peter 1:17). Greatness furnishes no security against him. His messengers can enter the palace, elude the sentinels, pass the locked doors, make their way into the secret chamber, smite the monarch, sleeping or waking, with disease, or death, or frenzy. Nor can obscurity escape him; "All things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." The lowest dungeon, the most wretched garret, the obscurest cellars are within his ken, their inmates known, the moral condition of each and all of them noted. His judgments find men out as easily in the darkest haunts of vice, or the most wretched abodes of poverty, as in royal mansions. And as greatness will not prevent him from chastising, so neither will meanness The "woman behind the mill," the "captive in the dungeon" are his creatures and his servants, no less than the great, and must be either his true servants, or rebels against his authority. If they are the-latter, their obscurity and insignificance will not save them from his judgments, any more than the great man’s greatness will save him. Vice must not look for impunity because it is low-placed, and hides itself in a corner. BY J. ORR Exodus 12:29-31 The death of the first-born, On this see Exodus 11:4-7. Observe here— I. THIS IS BASED ON THE OF . Hitherto, the plagues had fallen on the Egyptians indiscriminately. Now, a change is made to the principle of representation. Egypt, Israel also, is represented in its first-born. When a death-penalty was to be inflicted, the lines had to be drawn more sharp and clear. We are reminded that this principle of representation holds a vitally important place in God’s moral government. The illustrations which more immediately affect ourselves are, first, the representation of the race in Adam, and second, its representation in Christ (Romans 5:12-21). Hence it is not altogether fanciful to trace a relation to Christ even in this judgment on the first-born. 1. Christ is the great first-born of the race. We catch some glimpse of this by looking at the matter from the side of Israel. Israel, as God’s son, his first-born, is admitted to have been a type of Christ (cf. Matthew 2:15). Much more were the first-born in Israel—the special representatives of this peculiar feature in the calling of the nation—types of Christ. They resembled him in that they bore the guilt of the rest of the people. But Christ, as the Son of man, sustained a relation to more than Israel. He is, we may say, the great First-born of the race. Egypt as well as Israel was represented in him. 2. The death of Christ is not only God’s great means of saving the world, but it is God’s great judgment upon the sin of the world. It is indeed the one, because it is the other. There is thus in the death of Christ, beth the Israel side and the Egypt side. There is some shadow of vicarious endurance of penalty—of the one suffering for, and bearing the guilt of, the many—even in the destruction of Egypt’s first-born. 3. The death of Christ, which brings salvation to the believing, is the earnest of final doom to the unbelieving portion of the race. This also is exhibited in principle in the history of the exodus. In strictness, the first-born were viewed as having died, both in Israel and Egypt. The Egyptian first-born died in person; the Israelitish first-born in the substituted Lamb. The death of a first-born in person could typify judgment in the room, or in the name, of others; but the first-born being himself one of the guilty, his death could not (even in type) properly redeem. Hence the substitution of the lamb, which held forth in prophecy the coming of the true and sinless first-born, whose death would redeem. But Christ’s death, to the unbelieving part of mankind—the wilfully and obstinately unbelieving—is a prophecy, not of salvation, but of judgment. God’s judgment on sin in the person of Christ, the first-born, is the earnest of the doom which will descend on all who refuse him as a Saviour. And this was the meaning of the death of the first-born in Egypt. That death did not redeem, but forewarned Egypt of yet worse doom in store for it if it continued in its sins. The first-born endured, passed under, God’s judgment, for the sin of the nation; and so has Christ passed under, endured God’s judgment, for the sin even of the unbelieving. Egypt, not less than Israel, was represented in him; but to the one (Egypt as representative of hostility to the kingdom of God) his death means doom; to the other (Israel as representative of the people of God) it means salvation. II. THIS PHARAOH TO RELAX HIS HOLD ON ISRAEL. It was the consummating blow. Imagination fails in the attempt to realise it. As we write, accounts come to hand of the terrific storm of Oct. 14, attended by a lamentable loss of life on the Berwickshire coast of Scotland. The storm was sudden, and preluded by an awful and ominous darkness. Cf. with remarks on ninth plague the following:—"I noticed a black-looking cloud over by the school, which shortly spread over all the sky out by the Head. Sea, sky and ground all seemed to be turning one universal grey-blue tint, and a horrible sort of stillness fell over everything. The women were all gathering at their doors, feeling that something awful was coming. No fewer than 200 fishermen and others are believed to have perished, the village of Eyemouth alone losing 129. So connected by intermarriage is the population of the villages and hamlets, that there is scarcely a family in any of them which is not called to mourn its dead. The scenes are heart-rending. Business in every shape and form is paralysed." An image this, and yet how faint, of the cry that went up in Egypt that night, when in every house there was found one dead. Yet no stroke less severe would have served the purpose, and this one is to be studied in view of the fact that it did prove effectual for its end. Observe, 1. It was a death-stroke. Death has a singular power in subduing and melting the heart. It is the most powerful solvent God can apply to a rebellious nature. It is sometimes tried when gentler means have failed. God removes your idol. He lays your dear one in the dust. You have resisted milder influences, will you yield to this? Your heart is for the moment bowed and broken, will the repentance prove lasting, or will it be, like Pharaoh’s, only for a time? 2. It is a death-grip upon the soul which is needed to make sin relax its hold upon it. "The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gut hold upon me; I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord: O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul" (Psalms 116:3, Psalms 116:4). God comes in the preaching of his law, and lays his hand, a hand carrying death in it, upon the soul of the trembling transgressor, who then for the first time realises the fatal and unspeakably awful position in which he has placed himself by sin. It is a death-sentence which is written in his conscience. 3. That which completes the liberation of the soul is a view of the meaning of the death of christ. Terror alone will not melt the heart. There is needed to effect this the influence of love. And where is love to be seen in such wonderful manifestation as at the Cross of Christ? What see we there? The first-born of the race expiring in awful agony under the judgment of God for our sins. Is not this a spectacle to melt the heart? It is powerful enough, if earnestly contemplated, to make the Pharaoh that is within us all relinquish his grip upon the captive spirit. What read we of the prospective conversion of Israel?—"They shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son; and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born" (Zechariah 12:10). See again, Acts 2:36, Acts 2:37, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts," etc. Cf. also Revelation 2:7. The Cross inspires mourning— (1) By the spectacle it presents of holy suffering. (2) By the recollection of who it is that there suffers. (3) By the thought that it is our own sins which are the cause of this suffering. (4) By the thought that it is the judgment of God in the infliction of the curse of sin which the Holy one is thus enduring. (5) By the conviction of sin, and the dread of Divine justice, thus awakened. (6) Above all, by the infinite love shown in this gift of the Son, and in the Son’s willingness to endure this awful agony and shame for our salvation.—J.O. THE The first action seems to have been taken by Pharaoh. The "cry" of the people had no doubt been heard in the palace, and he was aware that the blow had not fallen on himself alone, and may have anticipated what the people’s feelings would be; but he did not wait for any direct pressure to be put upon him before yielding. He sent his chief officers (Exodus 11:8) while it was still night (Exodus 12:31), to inform Moses and Aaron, not only that they might, but that they must take their departure immediately, with all the people, and added that they might take with them their flocks and herds. The surrender was thus complete; and it was accompanied by a request which we should scarcely have expected. Pharaoh craved at the hands of the two brothers a blessing! We are not told how his request was received; but that it should have been made is a striking indication of how his pride was humbled. The overture from Pharaoh was followed rapidly by a popular movement, which was universal and irresistible. The Egyptians "rose up" everywhere, and "were urgent upon the people," to "send them out of the land in haste" (Exodus 12:33); and to expedite their departure readily supplied them at their request with gold and silver and raiment (Exodus 12:35), thus voluntarily spoiling themselves for the benefit of the foreigners. The Israelites, long previously prepared for the moment which had now arrived, made their final arrangements, and before the day was over a lengthy column was set in motion, and proceeded from Rameses, which seems to have been a suburb of Tunis, to an unknown place called Succoth, which must have lain towards the south-east, and was probably not very remote from the capital Exodus 12:31 And he called for Moses and Aaron. Kalisch understands this as a summons to the King’s presence, and even supposes that the two brothers complied, notwithstanding what Moses had said (Exodus 10:29). But perhaps no more is meant than at Pharaoh’s instance Moses and Aaron were summoned to an interview with some of the Court officials (see Exodus 11:8). As ye have said. Literally, "according to your words." The reference is to such passages as Exodus 8:1, Exodus 8:20; Exodus 9:1, Exodus 9:13. Exodus 12:32 Also take your flocks and your herds. Pharaoh thus retracted the prohibition of Exo 10:24, and "gave the sacrifices and burnt-offerings" which Moses had required (Exodus 10:25). Bless me also. Pharaoh was probably accustomed to receive blessings from his own priests, and had thus been led to value them. His desire for a blessing from Moses and Aaron, ere they departed, probably sprang from a conviction—based on the miracles which he had witnessed—that their intercession would avail more with God than that of his own hierarchy. Exodus 12:33 The Egyptians were urgent upon the people. The Egyptians feared that, if any further delay took place, the God of the Hebrews might not be content with slaying all the first-born, but might punish with death the whole nation, or at any rate all the males. It is easy to see how their desire to get rid of the Israelites would expedite matters, and enable all to set out upon the journey on the same day. Exodus 12:34 The people took their dough. They probably regarded dough as more convenient for a journey than flour, and so made their flour into dough before starting; but they had no time to add leaven. Their kneading-troughs. This rendering is correct, both here and in the two other places where the word occurs (Exodus 8:3, and Deuteronomy 28:5). Kneading-troughs would be a necessity in the desert, and, if like those of the modern Arabs, which are merely small wooden bowls, would be light and portable. The dough and kneading-troughs, with perhaps other necessaries, were carried, as the Arabs still carry many small objects, bound up in their clothes (i.e; in the beged or ample shawl) upon their shoulders. Exodus 12:35 The children of Israel did according to the word of Moses. See above, Exodus 11:2. They borrowed. On this mistranslation, see the comment upon Exodus 3:22. It is plain that the gold and silver articles and the raiment, were free-will gifts, which the Egyptians never expected to see again, and which the Hebrews asked and took, but in no sense "borrowed." Hengstenberg and Kurtz have shown clearly that the primary meaning of the words translated "borrowed" and "lent," is "asked" and "granted," and that the sense of "borrowing" and "lending" is only to be assigned them when it is required by the context. Exodus 12:36 So that they lent unto them such things as they required. Rather, "So that they granted them what they asked." They spoiled the Egyptians. See the comment on Exodus 3:22, ad fin. The result was that the Israelites went forth, not as slaves, but as conquerors, decked with the jewels of the Egyptians, as though they had conquered and despoiled them Exodus 12:31-36 Israel’s going forth from Egypt a pattern to oppressed Churches. Churches are sometimes enslaved and oppressed by the civil power. In unsuspecting confidence they have accepted the State’s protection, and entered into certain relations with it, supposed to be mutually advantageous. But, as time has gone on, the terms of the original arrangement have been disregarded; the civil power has made encroachments; has narrowed the Church’s liberties, has behaved oppressively towards it, has reduced it to actual slavery. A time comes at last when the bondage is felt to be intolerable; and the Church demands its liberty, claims to go out from under the yoke of the oppressor. Under such circumstances the following analogies are noticeable: I. THE CHURCH, LONG REFUSED THE LIBERTY WHICH IT HAS BEEN DRIVEN TO CLAIM, IS APT AT LAST TO BE "THRUST OUT" BY ITS . The early efforts of a down-trodden church after freedom are strenuously opposed, denounced as at once wrongful, foolish, and futile, sometimes punished by an increase in the oppression. The Church is set to "make bricks without straw." If this process fails, and the demand for freedom continues, the claims made are perhaps at the next stage derided. (See Exodus 5:2.) They are then for a long time determinedly and persistently refused. If occasionally a seeming concession is made, it is scarcely made before it is retracted. If still the Church will not give way, but continues the struggle, a crisis arrives. The State finds itself in difficulties. One inconvenience after another befals is in consequence of the prolonged conflict. At length it comes to be felt that the inconveniences of the struggle exceed the benefits of the connection; and a sudden change of policy takes place. The Church is sent adrift; cut away like an encumbering mass of wreck; bidden to shift for itself, and trouble the State no more. The State is glad to be rid of it. II. THE CHURCH FINDS ITSELF, ON , BY AND . In the first place, the attitude of the State towards it is apt to be hostile; and an attempt may even be made to coerce it and force it to resume its old position. Apart from this, it labours under many disadvantages. It has recollections of the "flesh-pots of Egypt," which offer a strong contrast to the fare whereto it is reduced. It has to enter on a dull and wearisome course; to plod forward toilsomely, painfully. It finds its movements hampered by encumbrances. All these things are against it. But if the nerves be braced to bear, if the will be resolute to turn away from all thought of the "flesh-pots," if the fact of freedom be kept before the mind’s eye and the old ills of slavery held in recollection, the difficulties of the early journey will pass away, the presence of God will be revealed, and after forty years of trial, the wilderness will have been passed through, and there will be a triumphant entrance into Canaan. III. THE CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE WITH IT ALL ITS OWN , AND IS , IF ARISE, TO "SPOIL THE ." Moses and Aaron would not stir without their flocks and herds—the main wealth of a pastoral nation. "Not a hoof," they said, "should be left behind" (Exodus 10:26). So the emancipated Church should take with her whatever is her own into the wilderness. She must not relinquish her property to the oppressor. It is really not hers, but God’s: she is trustee to God for it. She is entitled to say that she "knows not with what she must serve the Lord till she is come out." And she is entitled to ask for parting gifts when she is about to quit a known shelter and to confront the perils and dangers of an unknown future. If God gives her favour in the eyes of those whom she is leaving, she will do well to require of them their silver and their gold and their raiment—all that they have most precious—and take it with her, not as "borrowed" wealth, but as endowment freely "given," intentionally made over for a permanence, out of goodwill and affection, or out of compassion and pity. She will find a proper use for all that is most rich and most rare in the service of the sanctuary. BY J. ORR Pharaoh’s prayer. It has come then to this, that Pharaoh is glad to beg a blessing from the man whom at first he had so contemptuously spurned. "And bless me also." I. THE WICKED MAN IS OFTEN MADE AWARE OF THE OF HIS OWN PORTION, AS WITH THAT OF THE GODLY. He may be, often is, even when he refuses to acknowledge it, secretly conscious of the superior happiness of the good man. There come times, however, when severe affliction, the sense of a gnawing inward dissatisfaction, or special contact of some kind with a man of genuine piety, extorts the confession from him. He owns that the good man has a standing in the Divine favour; enjoys an invisible Divine protection; and is the possessor of a peace, happiness, and inward support, to which his own wretched life is utterly a stranger. II. THE WICKED MAN HAS DESIRES AFTER A SNARE IN THE GOOD OF GOD’S PEOPLE. He envies them. He feels in his heart that he is wretched and miserable beside them, and that it would be happiness to be like them. He says with Balaam, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and: let my last end be like his" (Numbers 23:10). III. THE WICKED MAN, IN HIS TIME OF TROUBLE, WILL OFTEN HUMBLE HIMSELF TO BEG THE PRAYERS OF THE GODLY. And this, though but a little before, he has been persecuting them. He feels that the good man has power with God. IV. THESE OF THE WICKED MAN ARE USUALLY .—J.O. Exodus 12:31-37 The dismissal. The blow had been so measured by infinite wisdom as to produce precisely the desired effect. Pharaoh "called for Moses and Aaron by night," etc. Observe— I. PHARAOH IS NOW AS ANXIOUS TO GET RID OF THE AS HE WAS TO KEEP THEM. It had been predicted at the beginning that this would be the issue of God’s dealings with him (Exodus 6:1). Note, 1. Pharaoh’s folly in resisting the demand of God so long. He has to concede everything at last. Had he yielded at the beginning, he could have done so with honour, and with the happiest results to his dynasty and kingdom. As it is, he has gained nothing, and has lost much, nearly all. He has ruined Egypt, suffered severely in his own person, lost his first-born, and irretrievably forfeited his prestige in the eyes of his subjects. Foolish king! and yet the same unequal and profitless contest is being repeated in the history of every sinner! 2. The dismissal is unconditional. No more talk of leaving the little ones, or the flocks and herds; or even of returning after the three days’ journey. Pharaoh wants no more to do with this fatal people. No one could any longer dream of the Israelites returning, or expect them to do so. They were "thrust out altogether" (Exodus 11:1). 3. He seeks a blessing (Exodus 12:32). He wished Moses to leave a blessing behind him. He would be blessed, and still continue in his sins. Beyond letting Israel go, he had no intention of renouncing his idols, and becoming a worshipper of the God he had so long defied. Many would like to be blessed, while cleaving to their sins. II. THE ARE AS EAGER AS THEIR MONARCH TO SEE THE SAFELY OUT OF EGYPT. 1. They were affrighted. "They said, we be all dead men’ (Exodus 12:33). They were perfectly right. Had Israel been detained longer, their nation would have been destroyed. It would be well if every sinner had as clear a perception of the effects of persistence in his evil. 2. They were urgent to send the people away. Not simply because this was what Jehovah had commanded, but because they were terrified to have them in their midst any longer. The Israelites were a people of ill-omen to them. They wished to get rid of the nation at once and for ever. This is not without significance. We remember how the Gadarenes besought Jesus that he would depart out of their coasts (Matthew 8:34). Worldly people have no liking for the company of the converted. Society bustles them out of its midst. Their old companions betray a singular uncomfortableness in their presence. They would rather have done with them. "Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways" (Job 21:14). Alas! the world that desires to be rid of the society of God’s people will one day get its wish. The separation they would fain hasten will take place, and for ever (Matthew 25:46). 3. They were willing to buy the departure of Israel (Exodus 12:35, Exodus 12:36). The Israelites asked, and the Egyptians freely gave, of jewels of gold, of jewels of silver, and of raiment. Thus, singularly did Providence provide for the enriching of the people in the hour of their exodus. They went forth, not in squalor and disorder, but as a triumphant host, laden with the spoils of the enemy. The spoils of the world will yet turn to the enrichment of the Church. III. THE MAKE NO DELAY IN OF THE OF FREEDOM (Exodus 12:34). Pharaoh did not need to tell them twice to leave the land. Their dough was unleavened, but, binding up their kneading-troughs in their clothes upon their shoulders, they prepared at once for departure. There are supreme moments in every man’s history, the improvement or non-improvement of which will decide his salvation. Many other things at such a moment may need to be left undone; but the man is insane who does not postpone everything to the making sure of his deliverance. Such times are not indolently to be waited for. The Lord is to be sought at once. But God’s ways of saving are varied. The seeking, as in Augnstine’s case, may go on a long time before God is found.—J.O. THE . There are, no doubts, great difficulties in conceiving the departure on one day, from one place, of "six hundred thousand that were men, beside children." The difficulty is increased when we find (from Numbers 1:3-43) that by "men" is meant males above twenty years of age. The entire body of Israelites is thus raised from over half a million to over two millions. The whole narrative, however, supposes some such number; and it is accepted by the best critics, as Ewald, Kalisch, Kurtz, Canon Cook, and others. As these two millions must have lived dispersed over a considerable space, and there could have been no advantage in their all assembling at Rameses (Tunis), we are probably to suppose the main body with Moses and Aaron to have stared from that place, while the others, obeying orders previously given, started from all parts of Goshen, and converged upon Succoth, which was the first rendezvous. Each body of travellers was accompanied by its flocks and herds, and followed by a number of slaves, dependants, and sympathisers not of Hebrew birth (Exodus 12:38), which still further enlarged their numbers. The extremely open character of the country, and the firmness of the soil at the time of year, would facilitate the journey. There was no marching along roads, which indeed did not exist. Each company could spread itself out at its pleasure, and go its own pace. All knew the point of meeting, and marched towards it, in converging lines, there being no obstacle to hinder them. Arrived in the vicinity of Succoth, they could bivouActs without hurt, in that fine climate, in the open air. Exodus 12:37 From Rameses. It has been doubted whether this "Rameses" is the same place as the "Raamses" of Exodus 1:11. But the doubt scarcely seems to be reasonable. The two words differ only in the pointing. Brugsch has clearly shown that Rameses (Pa-Ramesu) was a town newly built in the reign of Rameses II; partly erected by himself, in the immediate vicinity of the old city of Tanis or Zoan. It was the favourite capital of both Rameses II. and Menephthah. Succoth. The meaning of the word "Succoth" is "booths." Mr. Greville Chester tells us that "huts made of reeds" are common at the present day in the tract south-east of Tunis, and suggests that the Succoth here mentioned may have been at Salahiyeh, fifteen miles due south of Tunis. Tel-Defneh, at the same distance to the south-east, is perhaps a more probable site. Six hundred thousand. See the Introductory paragraph. At the time of the numbering recorded in Numbers 1:1-54, the males above twenty years of age were 625,550. Beside children. Rather, "beside families." The word used includes all the women, and the children under twenty. Exodus 12:38 A mixed multitude went up also with them. Kalisch supposes that these strangers were native Egyptians, anxious to escape the tyranny of the kings. Canon Cook suggests that they were "remains of the old Semitic population" of the Eastern provinces. Perhaps it is more probable that they consisted of fugitives from other subject races (as the Shartana) oppressed by the Pharaohs. We have again mention of this "mixed multitude" in Numbers 11:4, where we find that they were the first to regret the "flesh and the fish, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlick" which they had eaten in Egypt freely (Numbers 11:5). They thus set a bad example, which the Israelites followed. And flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. Compare Exodus 10:26. It has been noticed that this is important, as lessening the difficulties connected with the sustentation of the Israelites in the wilderness. But it increases, on the other hand, the difficulties connected with the march, and with the possibility of finding pasture for such large flocks and herds in the Sinaitic peninsula. Exodus 12:39 Unleavened cakes. Some of the modern Arabs make such cakes by simply mixing flour with water, and attaching flat circular pieces of the dough thus formed to the sides of their ovens after they have heated them. (Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie,? 45, and pl. 1, F.) Others put a lump of dough into the ashes of a wood fire, and cover it over with the embers for a short time. All Arab bread is unleavened. They were thrust out of Egypt. Compare Exodus 12:33. Exodus 12:37-38 In the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, after they had received permission to set out, two things are principally remarkable: 1. All were of one mind—none hung back; 2. A mixed multitude cast in their lot with them, elected to accompany them, and resolved to share their fortunes. The first of these two facts shows— I. THAT IN TIMES OF , UNDER DIVINE , A WHOLE NATION WILL ACT AS ONE MAN. Critical times are favourable to the formation of a national spirit. Let a powerful invader threaten a people, and differences are at once forgotten, quarrels made up, party spirit held in abeyance. All unite with equal zeal against the common enemy. Or again, let any wave of strong feeling come upon a people, desire of unity, or of freedom, or of taking part in a great enterprise, like the crusades, and much the same unanimity prevails. Such a spirit is found among the Jew-s who returned from the captivity with Zerubbabel, when in the seventh month they "gathered themselves together to Jerusalem as one man" (Ezra 3:1), to set up the altar of burnt offerings. Such a spirit appears again in the time of Nehemiah, when all the people with one accord kept a solemn fast on the 24th of Tisri (Nehemiah 9:1), and then "sealed to the covenant" (Nehemiah 10:1-29). But it was not very frequently exhibited. When proclamation was made by Cyrus the Great that all Israelites who chose might quit his dominions and "go up to Jerusalem and build the house of the Lord" (Ezra 1:3), it was only a portion of the nation, "whose spirit God had raised," that went forth. But now the whole people was of one mind. Braced by the severe discipline of suffering, their spirits raised—their whole moral tone exalted—by the long series of signs and wonders which they had witnessed, encouraged by the Divine promise of a "land flowing with milk and honey," and confident in the leadership of Moses, they all arose "as one man," left their abodes, their lands, their farming implements, their utensils, their furniture, and started for the rendezvous of Succoth. Such waves of popular feeling have been known from time to time, but scarcely to this extent. When Oubacha started on Jan. 5, 1771, with 70,000 families of Calmucks from the banks of the Volga for China, 15,000 families remained behind. But God now inspired the whole Israelite nation with one unanimous feeling; and all left Egypt together. The other fact shows— II. THAT THE OF A UNITED NATION IS , AND EXCITES OTHERS BEYOND ITS LIMITS TO FOLLOW ITS EXAMPLE. The contagious character of a revolutionary spirit has often been noticed. Even the war spirit, when strongly felt, is apt to be contagious, and to overleap national boundaries. Here we see that a righteous enthusiasm will also, on some occasions, catch hold of those seemingly beyond its range, who are in contact with it, and sweep such alien elements into its vortex. The "mixed multitude" who joined the Israelites had none of the reasonable grounds for hoping to better their condition that the Israelites had; but they entertained nevertheless expectations of, somehow or other, sharing in their advantages. They may have contained, 1. Some native Egyptians, connected with the Hebrews by marriage, for the example of Joseph is likely to have been followed; 2. Some slaves anxious for freedom; 3. Some members of oppressed races, held to labour in Egypt, as the Israelites had been. The later facts of the history show— III. THAT NEITHER OF THESE TWO FORMS OF IS TO BE RELIED UPON AS . The enthusiasm of Israel cooled wonderfully when they found themselves shut in between the host of Pharaoh and the Red Sea (Exodus 14:10-12). It was revived by the safe passage through the sea, but faded again rapidly under the toils and the monotony of the wilderness. Nor was that of the "mixed multitude" more lasting. They appear to have been the first to grow sick of the continual manna, and to have "lusted" after the rich and varied diet of Egypt (Numbers 11:4). The Israelites were seduced by them into similar misconduct; and the quails, and the plague which followed the quails (Numbers 11:31-33), were the consequence. Enthusiasm is a thing with which we cannot dispense; as a motive force for initiating a great movement, it is invaluable; but we must not trust to it for the accomplishment of anything which requires long and sustained effort. It is an abnormal and excessive stir of feeling, which must be followed by re-action. As it dies away, we must seek to supply its place by the ever increasing force of habit, which may be depended on for continuance. BY J. ORR Exodus 12:37-40 The exodus as a fact in history. The exodus from Egypt lay at the foundation of the national life of Israel. It appears in the history as a supernatural work of God. The subsequent legislation assumes it to have possessed this character. The bond of covenant declared to exist between the people and Jehovah had its ground in the same transaction. They were God’s people, and were bound to adhere to him, and to obey his laws, because he had so marvellously redeemed them. Every motive and appeal in the later books is drawn from the assumed truth of the events related here, and of those which happened afterwards in the wilderness. Obviously, therefore, the history of Israel presupposes the truth of this history; while if the narrative of the exodus, as here recorded, is admitted to be true, we are in immediate contact with supernatural facts of the most stupendous order. We do not mean to discuss the question in detail, but the following points may be indicated as suitable for popular treatment. I. . We touch only on that which relates to the number of the people (Exodus 12:37). The difficulty here is two-fold. 1. To account for the growth of the nation of Israel from seventy persons to over 2,000,000 in the space of time allowed for that increase. On this see the exposition. The difficulty is not serious (1) if we take the plain wording of the history, and admit that the sojourn in Egypt lasted 430 years (Exodus 12:40); (2) if we do the narrative the justice of allowing it to remain consistent with itself, the increase, on its own showing, being exceptional and marvellous (Exodus 1:7, Exodus 1:14, Exodus 1:20). (3) If we admit that the descendants of the households which doubtless accompanied Jacob into Egypt, are included in the numbers. But this supposition, however probable in itself, is really not necessary to vindicate the numbers. The truth is, that granting a highly exceptional rate of increase, with 430 years to increase in, the numbers, as will be seen on calculation, appear small, rather than too great. They certainly could not have been much less than the history makes them. The problem is quite soluble even on the hypothesis of the shorter reckoning, in favour of which there is not a little to be said (see Birk’s "Exodus of Israel"). 2. To account for the possibility of so vast a multitude, including women and children, with flocks and herds, effecting an exodus in a single night (and day). The feat in question is certainly unparalleled in history. Even granting what the narrative (as against Colenso) makes perfectly clear, that the Israelites were in a state of tolerably complete organisation, had ample warning to prepare for starting on that particular night, and had for months been on the tip-toe of expectation, as plague after plague descended on Egypt, it is still an event so stupendous as to be difficult of realisation. The narrative itself, however, does not fail to represent it as very extraordinary. And in pronouncing on its possibility, there are several circumstances not always, perhaps, sufficiently taken into account. Justice is not always done (1) to the perfectly superhuman efforts a nation can sometimes make in a great crisis of its history. Even an individual, at a time when feeling is highly strained, is capable of efforts and achievements, which, to read of them in cold blood, we might judge to be impossible. (2) To the order and discipline of which masses of people become capable when called to face an emergency on which they feel that existence itself depends. The picture sometimes drawn of a disorderly rabble pouring out of Egypt has no foundation in the history, and is false to psychology and experience. The narratives of shipwrecks (the Kent, the London, etc.), show us what crowds are capable of in the way of order and discipline, even with certain death staring them in the face. When a people, under the influence of one great overmastering idea, are called upon to execute difficult movements, or to unite their efforts towards one great end, it is incredible what they can accomplish. The feeling of solidarity takes possession of them. They are of one heart and soul. The mass moves and works as if one mind possessed it, as if it were a machine. Orders are obeyed with promptitude; movements are executed with rapidity and regularity; men are lifted for the time out of their littlenesses, and display a spirit of willingness, of helpfulness, and of self-sacrifice truly wonderful. All these conditions were present on the night of the exodus: the result was what might have been anticipated—the people were brought out with wonderful rapidity, and in regular order; "they went up harnessed"—"five in a rank" (Exodus 13:18). (3) We must add to these considerations, the singularly exalted state of the religious consciousness in the companies of the Israelites. Everything in their position combined to awe and solemnize them; to fill them with an overmastering consciousness of the Divine presence; to inspire them with boundless and grateful joy, yet a joy tempered with the awful sense of death, as forced upon them by the destruction of the first-born, and the lamentations of the bereaved Egyptians. This also would exercise a powerful and steadying influence upon their thoughts and behaviour, and would aid them in taking their measures with decision and speed. II. PROOFS. Those who pile up the difficulties of the Bible seldom do justice to the difficulties on the other side. We have to ask— 1. Is it not absurd to say that so extraordinary an event as, in any case, this exodus of Israel from Egypt must be admitted to have been, happened in the full light of the most powerful civilisation of ancient times, while yet the people who came out did not know, or could not remember, or could ever possibly forget how it happened? (Cf. Exodus 12:42.) The Israelites themselves did not believe that they did not know. They had but one story to give of it—the story that rings down in their psalms to latest generations—the same story which, with minute circumstantial detail, is embodied in these chapters. 2. If this is not how the children of Israel got out of Egypt, will the critic show us how they did get out? It is admitted on all hands that they were once in; that they were in bondage; that Egypt was at that time ruled by one or other of its most powerful monarchs; that they came out; yet did not come out by war, but peaceably. How then did they make their way out? If the whole history was different from that of which we have a record, how came it that no echo of it was preserved in Israel, and that this sober and matter-of-fact relation has come to take its place? 3. There is the institution of the Passover—a contemporary memorial. We have already expressed our belief that this ordinance was of a kind which could not have been set up at a time later than the events professedly commemorated by it. Glance at the alternative hypothesis. The basis of the institution, we are asked to believe, was an ancient spring festival, on which were grafted by degrees, as the tradition formed, the rites and ideas of a later age. This hypothesis, however, is not only unproved, but violates every law of historical probability. It must in any case be admitted (1) that the exodus took place at the time of the alleged agricultural festival. (2) That the festival thereafter assumed a new character, and was observed, in addition to its agricultural reference, as a memorial of the escape from Egypt. (3) That the use of unleavened bread in connection with it had reference to the haste of the flight. (4) Further, that an essential part of this festival was the offering of a sacrifice. (5) That, being at bottom a spring festival, it must have been observed, with but few interruptions, all down the later history of Israel. But if so much is admitted, we seem driven to admit more. For it is undeniable that the festival, as observed among the Jews, was connected most especially of all with the fact of a great judgment, which was believed to have fallen on Egypt on the night of the exodus, and from which the Israelites had been mercifully delivered by the sprinkling of the lamb’s blood upon the door-posts; a memorial of which was preserved in the name (Pass-over). "The relation to the natural year expressed in the Passover, was less marked than that in Pentecost or Tabernacles, while its historical import is deeper and more pointed. That part of its ceremonies which has a direct agricultural reference—the offering of the omer—holds a very subordinate place." (Dict. of the Bible.) It is for the sceptic, therefore, to explain how that which enters into the inmost meaning and heart of the observance, could possibly have been engrafted on it as an accident at a later period—yet a period not later than accords with the ritual prescribed in these very ancient written laws: how, moreover, the people could not only be persuaded to accept this new reading of an old familiar ordinance, but to believe that they had never known any other: that this had been the meaning and ritual of the ordinance from the beginning. 4. We have not as yet alluded to the Pentateuch, but of course the fact is not to be overlooked that the work before us claims to be historical; that it was probably written wholly or in large part by Moses himself; and that in style, circumstantially, vividness of narration, and minute accuracy of reference, it bears all the marks of a true and contemporary history.—J.O. The mixed multitude. The mass of this mixed multitude which left Egypt with Moses, would consist of foreign settlers in the Delta, victims, like the Hebrews, of the tyranny of the Pharaohs, and, like them, glad to take this opportunity of making their escape (cf. Exodus 1:10). The enthusiasm of a great body of people is contagious. When the Israelites left Egypt, numbers would be moved to leave with them. Recent events, too, had doubtless produced a powerful impression on these mixed populations; and knowing that God was with Israel, they naturally expected great benefits from joining the departing nation. They had not calculated on the trials of the desert, and afterwards "fell a-lusting" (Numbers 11:4), provoking Israel to sin, and bringing wrath upon the camp. I. JOIN THE RANKS OF THE CHURCH WHO HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON WITH HER SPIRIT AND AIMS. They are like the mixed crowd of hangers-on, which left Egypt with Israel. Their ideas, traditions, customs, maxims of life, habits of thought and feeling generally, are foreign to those of the true Israel of God. Yet they are moved to join the Church— 1. From motives of self-interest. 2. Under transient convictions. 3. Caught by a wave of religious enthusiasm. 4. Under partial apprehensions of the importance of religion. 5. Because others are doing it. They hang of necessity on the outskirts of the Church, taking little interest in her work, and acting as a drag upon her progress. II. THERE ARE MANY BY WHOM THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE , WHOSE SHE IS YET NOT TO REFUSE. The "mixed multitude" were not forbidden to go with Israel. Because, perhaps, they could not altogether be prevented. It is kindlier, however, to believe that Israel allowed the mixed crowd to accompany it, in the hope of ultimately incorporating them with the people of Jehovah. The Church is certainly not at liberty to encourage nominal adherence. She must do her very utmost to dissuade men from mere empty profession. Neither to swell her numbers, nor to add to her wealth, nor to increase her respectability in the eyes of the world, nor under a mistaken idea of "comprehension," must she open her doors to those who are known to be ungodly, or who give no evidence of serious religious intentions. Yet neither must she draw her lines too stringently. She must not presume to judge the heart, or to deal with men otherwise than on the ground of their professed motives and beliefs. She must teach, exhort, warn, and rigorously exclude all whose lives are openly inconsistent with the Gospel; but she must at the same time exercise great charity, and rather include ten who may possibly prove unworthy, than mistakenly exclude one whom Christ would be willing to receive. The responsibility in the matter of religious profession must, in great measure, be allowed to rest with the individual who professes. The Church is to consider, not only what is best for her, but the duty she owes to the world, in laying hold of those who are yet very imperfect, and training them for Christ. III. NOMINAL , HOWEVER, ARE NO SOURCE OF , BUT A GREAT TO THE CHURCH. It may be the Church’s duty to bear with them, but she can never derive benefit from them. She may benefit them, and in that hope should treat them tenderly, but they will never benefit her. They will be a drag upon her activity. In proportion to their numbers they will exert a chilling and detrimental influence. They will stand in the way of good schemes. They will "fall a-lusting," and provoke discontent. The morale of a Church can scarcely avoid being lowered by them. What then? Put them out? Not so. We shall work in vain to separate tares and wheat, and we are forbidden to act on this principle (Matthew 13:24-31). But, 1. Let us do what we can to keep down their number. Many churches and church office-bearers are greatly to blame for the indiscriminate way in which they receive persons to communion. We are bound to abide by the principles above laid down; but consistently-with these principles it should be our care to keep down nominal adherence as far as that is possible. Many of the character of the "mixed multitude" will find their way into the Church without our seeking for them, or giving them any encouragement. 2. Let us do what we can to change their nominal adherence into real adherence. Seek their good. Be not overcome by their evil, but try to overcome it by superior goodness. 3. Beware of their influence, and seek to keep it in check.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 12:29-42 Egypt’s sorrow: Israel’s joy. I. THE OF EGYPT EMBLEM AND PROMISE OF THE WORLD’S . 1. The time of visitation; midnight, when all were wrapt in deepest slumber and, notwithstanding the warning which had been given, busy only with dreams. The world will be surprised in the midst of its false security. "As it was in the days of Noel etc. 2. Its universality. There were none so high that God’s hand did not reach them, and none so low that they were overlooked. 3. The after anguish. The whole nation, steeped the one moment in deceitful slumber, the next torn with the most heartrending and hopeless grief. Their sin had slain their dearest and best. 4. It is a hopeless sorrow. Their grief cannot bring back their dead. The anguish of the wicked, like Esau’s, will find no place for repentance. II. THE OF ISRAEL THE EMBLEM AND PROMISE OF THE FULL OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD. 1. All that God had ever asked for them is granted. The demand for freedom to the people of God, and the breaking of the yoke laid upon the poor, will yet be obeyed in fear by the persecutor and the oppressor. 2. It is pressed upon them with all the eagerness of deadly fear. Israel never so desired the boon as the Egyptians that they should now accept it. The persecutors will come and worship at the Church’s feet. 3. They go forth laden with the treasures of Egypt (Isaiah 60:5-17). 4. They go forth awed by the proof of God’s faithfulness. To a day had he kept the promise given to the fathers (Exodus 12:41). The prophecies, now dim and misunderstood, will then be read in the light of God’s deeds, and like Israel of old, we shall know that God has kept the appointed time.—U. BY H.T. March at midnight. "This is that night of Jehovah" (Exodus 12:42). Observe the striking words of the text! "The night of Jehovah," a night in which he specially appeared and acted on behalf of Israel. For a description of the scenery of this eventful night see Dr. W. M. Taylor’s "Moses," 99-101. In the treatment of this subject considerable exposition will be necessary. For material, see expository section of this commentary. It may, in order to include all important points, be marshalled thus (under each head we give suggestive hints):— I. THE HAND THAT SMOTE. Most, if not all the nine earlier plagues, had a natural basis, the tenth had none. It was purely supernatural. They blended mercy (first warning and then withdrawal) with judgment. This was pure judgment. In them there was indeed a call to faith, but also room for unbelief. The demonstrations of God are seldom absolute. But the tenth judgment was awfully impressive. There is very little evidence of any secondary instrumentality, angelic, or any other; but see in the Hebrews 12:13, Hebrews 12:23. Jehovah this time smote with his own hand. II. THE VICTIMS. Firstborns. Of all beasts. Of men. But here distinguish between the first-borns of fathers and of mothers. In the tenth plague it was so, that the first-borns of mothers were the destroyed (Exodus 13:2). Now, these were the "sanctified" unto the Lord, first, as "living sacrifices," and as representing the consecration of each family, and then of the entire nation. But failing this consecration, their lives were forfeited. This was the case at that moment with the Israelites and Egyptians alike. In the case of the Egyptians the life of the first-born was taken, in that of the Israelites atoned for. Hence emerges a law of the Kingdom of God, that every soul that will not voluntarily consecrate himself to the Lord, must involuntarily come under the cloud of condemnation. III. THE . The gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12). This was so with the nine plagues, it was especially so with the tenth. The heir to the throne was regarded as an incarnation of the Deity; by this plague God pronounced him common clay with the rest. But the first-born of animals also fell. This was a blow again st the animal worship of the land. IV. OF THE VICTORY. Here discuss whether Pharaoh’s permission was conditioned or unconditioned; and show that with Pharaoh’s resistance God’s demands increased, and that the king’s surrender must have been absolute, in spite of 14:8, 9. Note the pathos of the prayer of the now broken-hearted, "Bless me also," 12:32. V. THE BATTLE ARRAY. See Hebrews 13:18. Perhaps a good translation, instead of "harnessed," would be "militant," as including the outer armedness, and the inner valorous and jubilant spirit; both which ideas are in the original. Observe; the nine or ten months of preparation, the organisation in which the "elders" and Hebrew "clerks" of the works may have taken part, the arms they surely possessed, as witness the battle at Rephidim—how probably they had become marshalled into detachments—and places of rendezvous been appointed. VI. THE FESTAL RAIMENT. Israel "asked," Egypt "gave," under Divine influence (Exodus 12:36), gold, silver, and raiment; these might be regarded as the "spoils" of Israel’s victory, under God. These spoils were such as women might ask of women (see Exodus 3:22—"neighbour" is Feminine in the Hebrew), and such as women value. They were to be put not only on themselves, but on sons and daughters. The contributions of the Egyptian women must have been immense in quantity and value. Now then, why this spoiling? That Israel might march, not like a horde of dirty, ragged slaves, but in festal army. Compared with the slavery of Egypt the future might have been one long holiday, one holy day unto the Lord. VII. OF THE JOY (12:38). Low caste people probably; even as it is at this day in the mission field of India. But the lesson is obvious—the Lord’s salvations are for the sinful, the outcast, and the miserable. VIII. TRUTHS . 1. The moment of salvation is the beginning of a new time. Israel’s history as a nation dates from that night (122). So the history of a soul dates from its conversion to God. 2. The new time is a festal time. 3. The redeemed should assume festal attire (Luke 15:22), a bright eye, a cheerful countenance, etc. 4. Still he must don armour, and the Church must be militant. 5. The Church should welcome all comers; for the miserable need salvation, and the most rude are capable of some service. Comp. Deuteronomy 29:11, with Exodus 12:38. 6. The salvations of God are full-orbed in their completeness. From the months of preparation till Israel went out in festal array, all was complete. 7. The moment of salvation is to be held in everlasting remembrance (see Exodus 12:42). So of the still greater salvation.—R. The narrative of the departure from Egypt is followed, not unnaturally, by a notification of the length of the sojourn, which is declared to have been a space of four hundred and thirty years. In the "Introduction" to the Book, we have examined the question, which here arises, 1. As to the soundness; and 2. As to the true meaning, of the Hebrew text, and have arrived at the conclusion that it is sound, and that it means what it says, viz; that 430 years elapsed between the arrival of Jacob in Egypt, with his sons, and sons’ sons, and their families, as related in Genesis 46:1-27, and the commencement of the exodus. The time is required by the genealogy of Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:22-27). It is in remarkable accordance with the traditions that Joseph was the minister of Apspi, and that the Jews went out under Menephthah. If not absolutely required for the multiplication of the race from "seventy souls" to above two millions, it is at any rate more in accord with that fact than the alternative number, 215. It is twice repeated, so that "the mistake of a copyist" is almost impossible. Exodus 12:40 The sojourning of the children of Israel, which dwelt in Egypt. Rather, "Which they sojourned in Egypt." Four hundred and thirty years. Literally "thirty years and four hundred years." Exodus 12:41 The self-same day … all the hosts went out. The setting forth upon the journey is regarded as the "going out"—not the actual exit, which was only effected by the passage of the Red Sea. Exodus 12:42 It is a night to be much observed. We must suppose that some of the Israelites actually commenced their march before the night was over, being "hastened" by the Egyptians (Exodus 12:33), and having all things in readiness; but the bulk of the people can scarcely have started before daybreak. This is that night of the Lord—i.e; the night concerning which directions had been already given (Exodus 12:6-11)—the only "night" for which any observances were appointed. In their generations. To all time—so long as they continue to be a people. On the bindingness of this commandment, see the comment on Exodus 12:14 of this chapter. Exodus 12:40-42 God’s discipline of his chosen ones. I. THE TRIALS OF GOD’S PEOPLE APE SEVERE, BUT HAVE A JOYFUL END AT LAST, The sojourn in Egypt was from first to last an affliction (Genesis 15:13). It was only on account of the famine in Canaan that Jacob consented to change his abode and his condition. In Canaan he and his had been free; had "served" no one; had lived like the sons of the desert. But in Egypt, even during the lifetime of Joseph, they entered on a species of servitude. Not only were they Pharaoh’s subjects, but to some extent his servants (Genesis 47:6). They were no longer free to come and go as they chose. They had a certain province assigned to them. They had, it is probable, to pay rent for their lands (Genesis 47:26). After a certain time, during which they suffered only this "light affliction," the severe oppression began. Their lives were "made bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field" (Exodus 1:14); then their children were massacred (ib. Exodus 12:22); lastly, they were required to "make bricks without straw’ (Exodus 5:7-19). So with God’s people generally. They are given a time of suffering. They have to learn to "endure hardness." But God afflicts them as a discipline, and makes even their worst afflictions tend to their growth in grace. At last their trial time is over. Sometimes in this world, oftener in another, they find their Canaan, and "enter into rest." II. THE TRIAL-TIME SEEMS LONG; BUT GOD ITS LENGTH, AND IT TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE. Four hundred and thirty years is a long space, even in the life of a nation. It is about the period of time which separates us from the rebellion of Jack Cade and the commencement of the "Wars of the Roses." The severe oppression of Israel was not, however, nearly so long as this. Perhaps it lasted only about a century. In any case, times and seasons are in God’s hands, and as he fixed four centuries for the entire servitude many years before it began (Genesis 15:13), so, we may be sure, he fixed the term in his own counsels for the severe oppression. And it is doubtless the same with individuals. God knows what kind and length of chastisement they need, and assigns to each of his chosen ones the term of suffering that is needful for him. III. IF THE TRIAL-TIME ENDS HERE, AND A SEASON OF , IT IS WELL TO OBSERVE YEARLY THE DAY OF THE CHANGE AS A DAY OF TO GOD. As national mercies are rightfully commemorated by national "days of thanksgiving," so the special blessings vouchsafed to individuals should receive private commemoration. The day, or night, that brought us out of the Egypt of sin, is especially worthy of such honour. Wherever known, it should be "observed unto the Lord." BY J. ORR Exodus 12:40-43 The Exodus. View it in three lights. I. AS AN OF SLAVES. God is the sworn foe of the slave-holder. Only in a very modified sense was slavery tolerated in Israel; and the laws were such as gradually to undermine the system. Historically, God’s religion has proved itself the great slave-liberator. 1. In Egypt. Here were two millions of a slave population set free in a single night. 2. In Israel. Consider the effect on the abolition of the slave system of the single precept in Exodus 12:44 of this chapter. The slave sat down with his master on equal terms at the board of the passover. The same thing happened in the Christian Church. When the Lord’s Supper was dispensed, the Christian slave remained; the master, if he was only a catechumen or a penitent, retired. 3. In Christian countries. Christianity, it is true, did not preach a crusade against slavery—a course which would only have led to a slave-revolt—but it inculcated truths and principles which undermined the system. Slavery was the corner-stone of the ancient civilisations. Philosophers defended it. The pagan religions did nothing to overthrow it. But the Christian Church took up from the very first the cause of the slave. The master who ill-treated his slave was excommunicated. He was compelled to marry the female slave whom he had seduced. He sat with his slave at the Lord’s table. The slave might hold office in the church, and thus become, in a spiritual point of view, the superior of his master. The influence of the Church was used to secure the liberation of the slave. Under Domitian, a prefect of Rome, named Chromatius, freed one thousand four hundred slaves who had become Christians, saying, "Those who have become the children of God ought to be no longer slaves of men." Says J. S. Mill, "In an age when the weak were prostrate at the feet of the strong, who was there but the Church to plead to the strong for the weak?" (Dissert. 2.155). The emancipation of four millions of American slaves—so long a blot on a so-called Christian civilisation—has been accomplished in our sight, a second exodus. "We can say to-day that, with some trifling exceptions, the soil of Christian nations is free from the disgrace of slavery. Under what influences have the efforts been produced which have brought about such a result? We have only to look at recent facts, and we see the whole clearly. What men, in the middle of last century, were the first to advocate and emancipate slaves? The Quakers of America, who held that bondage was contrary to the Gospel. What men have pleaded the cause of the negroes in the English Parliament with the most power and perseverance? Decided Christians—Wilberforce and Buxton. What spirit animated the book called Uncle Tom, which acted so powerfully upon opinion in favour of the negroes? A spirit steadfastly Christian. To what sentiment did the Czar of Russia appeal, when he gave liberty to twenty millions of men? Read his proclamation of Feb. 19th, 1864." (Ernest Naville.) Revealed religion—the religion of the Bible, is thus the great liberator of the slave. II. As, OF THE CHURCH. Many such deliverances has the Church, both in Old and in New Testament times, experienced since. Deliverances under the Judges; destruction of Sennacherib; edict of Cyrus, and return from captivity; Maccabaean Era. Read Christian Church history. See the Church emerging triumphant, laden with the spoils of the foe, from the days of persecution under the Roman Emperors. Later instances in the Albigenses, in the Lollards of England, in the Huguenots of France, in the Covenanters of Scotland, etc. III. As A TYPE OF A GREATER THAN ITSELF. Redemption from sin and wrath through Christ. See previous Homilies.—J.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE . The position of these verses is curious. We should have expected them to have followed immediately on Exodus 12:20, or else to have been reserved for the further consideration of the subject in Exodus 23:1-33. It is suggested, in order to account for their place, that they formed the matter of a special revelation made to Moses at Succoth. They comprise three main points:— 1. The absolute exclusion of all uncircumcised persons from participation in the passover rite; 2. The extension of the rite (implied in Exodus 23:19) to all full proselytes; and, 3. The injunction that not a bone of the lamb should be broken. (This last is repeated in Numbers 9:12) Exodus 12:43 This is the ordinance of the passover—i.e; "This is the law, in respect of the persons who are to partake of it"—there shall no stranger eat thereof, or literally, "No son of a stranger shall eat thereof." By a "stranger" here is meant one of a foreign race who wishes to retain his foreign character and to remain uncircumcised. Compare Exodus 12:48. Exodus 12:44 Every man’s servant that is bought for money. Or "every man’s slave." The Mosaic Law found servitude existing, and left it existing, only guarding against its extreme abuses (Exodus 21:20-27). It put no check on the traffic in slaves. When thou hast circumcised him. The Jewish commentators say, that the desire of the slave to receive the rite and become a Jew is here implied. But it would seem rather, that opposition and refusal is not thought of as possible (see Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:17). The case is like that of baptism among the barbarous nations, where no sooner was the king converted than a general order went forth for the baptism of his subjects, which no one thought of resisting. Then shall he eat thereof. It was a principle of the Jewish law that the slaves should be admitted to complete religious equality with the native Israelites. (compare Le Exodus 22:11). Exodus 12:45 A foreigner. Literally "a so-journer"—i.e; a foreigner who is merely passing through the land, or staying for a time, without intending to become a permanent resident. The Septuagint πάροικος well expresses the meaning. An hired servant. It is assumed that the "hired servant" will be a foreigner; and intended to guard against any compulsion being put upon him. Exodus 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten. Compare the directions in Exodus 12:3-10, which imply this, and see the comment on Exodus 12:10. Neither shall ye break a bone of it. Kalisch thinks that the lamb was a symbol of the unity of the nation, and was therefore not to have any of its bones broken. This view may be a true one, without being exhaustive. It may have been to mark the unity of the Church in Christ that his bones were not broken, and in view especially of that unity, that the type was made to correspond in this particular with the antitype. (See John 19:33-36.) Exodus 12:47 All the congregation … shall keep it. Rather "shall sacrifice it." (Compare Exodus 12:6.) Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49 And when a stranger, etc. Here we have the positive ordinance corresponding to the implied permission in Exodus 12:19, and modifying in the most important and striking way the prohibitive enactment of Exo 12:43. The "stranger," even if he only "sojourned" in the land, was to be put on exactly the same spiritual footing as the Israelite ("One law shall be," etc.) if only he and his would be circumcised, and so enter into covenant, Exodus 12:50 Thus did all the children of Israel—i.e; the Israelites, at their first passover, acted in accordance with these precepts, especially in admitting to the feast all circumcised persons, whether natives or foreigners, and rejecting all the uncircumcised. Exodus 12:51 This verse should be transferred to the commencement of the next chapter, which should run as follows:—"And it came to pass—on the self-same day that the Lord brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies—that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying," etc. The word "armies," which at first sight may seem inappropriate, occurs also in Exodus 6:26. It is probably intended to mark that the people were thoroughly organised, and marshalled in divisions resembling those of an army. Exodus 12:41-50 Passover precepts realised in Christian practice. The precepts were:— I. THAT NO , NOT EVEN THOUGH A HIRED SERVANT IN A HEBREW FAMILY, SHOULD EAT OF IT. Formally, baptism corresponds to circumcision, both of them admitting into covenant with God; and thus the rule of Christian communities generally, that the reception of baptism must precede that of the Lord’s Supper, is a carrying out of this precept. But it is also carried out in another way. Spiritually, the correspondent to the circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the spirit; and thus all Churches which warn the wicked from approaching the Lord’s table, do their best to enforce the precept, "No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." Hired servants of the Church, unless circumcised in heart, are as unfit to communicate as those who have no external connection with Divine things. Nay, may we not say more unfit? II. THAT ALL THE OF ISRAEL, FREEMEN AND SLAVES ALIKE, SHOULD EAT OF IT. The frequent exhortation of all Christian Churches to all their members to receive the Communion, especially at Easter-time, and the general allowance of the duty by those who have any real sense of religion constitute a realisation, to a considerable extent, of this precept in Christian practice. It is to be wished that the realisation were complete. The joint participation of freemen with slaves has always charactcrised the Christian Church; and though there have been Christian communities which have acted differently, the cases are too exceptional to deserve much notice, and are disappearing as slavery disappears. III. THAT IT SHOULD BE EATEN IN ONE PLACE, AND NONE OF IT CARRIED FORTH. Churches which allow not only reservation, but the carrying forth of the holy elements to the bedsides of the sick, break at any rate the letter of this precept. But the Reformed Churches, which disallow even reservation, keep close to it. IV. THAT NOT A BONE OF IT SHOULD BE BROKEN. This precept can only be spiritually observed, for in the Christian passover, the "flesh" to be eaten has no "bones." But it is spiritually kept wherever communicants are warned against dividing Christ in their thoughts, against separating his humanity from his Divinity, or against practising special devotion to any separate portion of his person, as to his "Sacred Heart" or his "Five wounds." It was the essence of one of the early forms of heresy to "divide Christ;" and on this account the Church of England protests in her second article of religion, that in him "two whole and perfect natures are joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is One Christ." BY J. ORR Exodus 12:43-51 The spirit of the Passover ordinance. The features to be specified reappear in the Lord’s Supper. The ordinance was— I. . (Exodus 12:43, Exodus 12:45, Exodus 12:48.) A stranger, an uncircumcised person, and a hired servant, were not to be permitted to oat of it. Their relation to Israel was wholly external. In like manner, the Lord’s Supper is exclusive. It excludes the stranger to the death of Christ, the uncircumcised in heart, and those who sustain a merely legal and hireling relation to the Church. These have "neither part nor lot" in the matter. II. YET . (Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49.) The sojourning stranger who wished to keep the passover had only to be circumcised—he and his males—to be admitted to the ordinance. He was then to be as one born in the land. This catholicity of spirit, and kindliness to foreigners, blending with a stern exclusiveness in religion, is characteristic of the whole Mosaic code. Cf. Vinet on the tolerance and intolerance of the Christian religion ("Vital Christianity"). The Lord’s Supper is the most catholic of ordinances. It overleaps all barriers of race, nationality, clime, and religion. At the Lord’s table there is neither Greek, nor Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. III. . (Exodus 12:44.) The master and slave sat down at the same board. See last homily. Christianity is the great social equaliser. IV. . (Exodus 12:46, Exodus 12:47.)It taught the congregation to feel its unity. 1. The lamb was to be eaten in one house. 2. Not a bone of it was to be broken. "Through the unity and integrity of the lamb given them to eat, the participants were to be joined into an undivided unity and fellowship with the Lord, who had provided them with the meal" (Keil). 3. All the congregation were to eat it. The Lord’s Supper, in like manner, is a social meal, in which the Church, eating "one bread," and drinking "one cup," declares itself to be "one body" (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 10:17). "The preservation of Christ, so that not a bone was broken, had the same signification; and God ordained this that he might appear as the true Paschal Lamb, that was slain for the sins of the world."—J.O. BY J. The Law of the Passover. I. WHAT GOD IN ITS . 1. God demands purity of communion. No stranger is to cat of it. (1) Our holy things are not to be profaned. The life of Christ is lowered and endangered by indiscriminate admission to the Lord’s table. (2) They are not to be degraded into superstitious rites. When they are given as if salvation resided in them, we are substituting idols for the unseen Saviour. The only safeguard for purity of worship is purity of communion. 2. It is not to be carried out from the midst of the household of faith. The peace and fellowship of the Gospel are only for the circumcised in heart. 3. Communion with Christ to be characterised by reverence and holy awe: not a bone of him is to be broken. 4. Every wall of partition is removed. All who believe have a right to join in the feast (Exodus 12:41-49); but they must come with the mark of God’s people,—a circumcised heart. II. THE OF FAITH IS BLESSED NOT ONLY WITH SAFETY BUT ALSO WITH . "Thus did all the children of Israel … and on the self-same day" they passed out of Egypt (Exodus 12:50, Exodus 12:51). Fellowship with Christ is deliverance from the bondage of evil.—U. OF THE . In connection with the deliverance from death of the Israelite first-born by the blood of the lamb, and still further to fix the remembrance of the historical facts in the mind of the nation, Moses was commissioned to declare all the firstborn of Israel for all future time, and all the firstborn of their domesticated animals "holy to the Lord." There was, perhaps, already in the minds of men a feeling that peculiar dignity attached to the first-born in each family; and this feeling was now strengthened by the assignment to them of a sacred character. God claimed them, and also the first-born of beasts, as His own. The clean beasts became his by sacrifice; but the unclean ones could not he similarly treated, and therefore had to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13) by the sacrifice of clean animals in their place. The first-born of men became at the first institution of the new ordinance God’s ministers; but as this system was not intended to continue, it was announced that they too would have to be "redeemed" (Exodus 13:13, Exodus 13:15). The exact mode of redeeming them was left to be settled afterwards, and will be found in Numbers 3:40-51; Numbers 18:16. Exodus 13:1 On the true grammatical nexus of this verse, see note on Exodus 12:51. The injunctions of Exo 12:2, and probably those of 3-15—were given to Moses on the very day of the setting-forth, most likely, at Succoth in the evening. Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me. Not by any positive ceremony, but by regarding it as "set apart unto the Lord" (Exodus 13:12)—made over to him, that is, as his own. All the first-born. The Hebrew word used is masculine, and by its proper force limits the command to the first-born males, who alone had been in danger from the tenth plague. Whatever openeth the womb. This clause added definiteness, showing that "first-born" did not contain any reference to any later Birth, and that it applied to every case where a woman’s first child was a male. It is mine. Or, "it shall be mine." I claim it. Exodus 13:3 And Moses said. Without relating the directions given to Moses any further, the author passes to the directions given by him. He thus, here and elsewhere, avoids unnecessary repetition. Remember this day. The injunction came with great force at the close of the first day’s journey, when the good-will of the Egyptians had been shown, and the people had been helped and speeded on their way, and felt that they were actually quitting the house of their bondage, and setting out for Canaan. By strength of hand the Lord brought you out—i.e.; "by His powerful protection has God brought you on your way thus far." Therefore, "Remember this day, and remember that nothing leavened is to be eaten on it" (see Exodus 12:15-20). Exodus 13:4 In the month Abib. The name of the month had not been previously mentioned. Some have derived it from the Egyptian Epiphi. As, however, ab means "greenness" in Hebrew, and abib "green ears of corn," while ibba meant "fruit" in Chaldee (Daniel 4:12, Daniel 4:14), and abbon means "green herbs" in Arabic, there is no need of a foreign derivation for the word. The month of "greenness," or of "green ears of corn," would be both appropriate and intelligible. Exodus 13:5 The land of the Canaanites, etc. Compare Exodus 3:8, Exodus 3:17. The six nations of these passages are reduced here to five by the omission of the Perizzites, one of the less important tribes. Which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. See Genesis 15:18; Genesis 24:7; and compare the comment on Exodus 6:8. That thou shalt keep this service. This injunction had been already given (Exodus 12:25) almost in the same words; but on the former occasion it was delivered to the elders only; now it is laid upon the whole people. Exodus 13:6 Seven days. Compare Exodus 12:15. In the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord. The feast lasted during the whole of the seven days, but the first day and the last were to be kept especially holy. (See Exodus 12:16; Le Exodus 23:6-8.) Exodus 13:7 Here again the injunctions are mere repetitious of commands already given in Exodus 12:1-51. (See Exodus 12:15 and Exodus 12:19.) Repetition was no doubt had recourse to in order to deepen the impression. Exodus 13:8 And thou shalt shew thy son. Repeated from Exodus 12:26, Exodus 12:27. Exodus 13:9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes. There can be no doubt that the Jewish system of tephillin, or "phylacteries," grew mainly out of this passage, and was intended as a fulfilment of the commands contained in it. The tephillin were strips of parchment with passages of Scripture written upon them and deposited in small boxes, which were fastened by a strap either to the left arm, or across the forehead. The modern Jews argue that they were what Moses here intended, and that their employment began from this time. Some Christian commentators agree with them. But the great majority argue, from supposed probability and from the entire absence of any reference to the actual wearing of tephillin in the Old Testament, that the custom must be, comparatively speaking, a modern one. It is generally supposed to have originated, with other superstitious practices, in the time of the Babylonish captivity. Those who take this view regard the words of Moses in the present passage as merely metaphorical, and compare them with Proverbs 3:3; Proverbs 6:21; Proverbs 7:3. Kalisch, however, observes with reason, that if the injunction to write passages of the Law on the door-posts of their houses (Deuteronomy 6:9; Deuteronomy 11:20) was intended to be understood literally, and was literally carried out (Isaiah 57:8), the commands with respect to tephillin, which are coupled with them (Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18) must have been similarly intended. And probability, which is said to be against the Mosaic origin of tephillin, may perhaps rather be urged in its favour. The Egyptian practice Of wearing as amulets "forms of words written on folds of papyrus tightly rolled up and sewn in linen" is well attested. Would it not be in harmony with the general character of his legislation, that Moses should adopt and regulate the custom, employing it to do honour to the Law and keep it in remembrance, without perhaps purging it wholly from superstitious ideas? Moses allowed the Israelites in many things "for the hardness of their hearts," content if he could introduce some improvement without insisting at once on an impracticable perfection. That the law of the Lord may be in thy month. The Israelites are instructed from the first, that the tephillin are to be a means to an end; and that the end is to be the retention of God’s law in their recollection—" in their mouth," and therefore in their heart, since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Exodus 13:10 This ordinance. The ordinance of unleavened bread. See Exodus 12:14, Exodus 12:24. Exodus 13:12 Set apart. The expression is especially appropriate to the case of first-born animals, which would have to be separated off from the rest of the flock, or of the herd, and "put aside" for Jehovah, so as not to be mixed up and confounded with the other lambs, kids, and calves. The males shall be the Lord’s. This limitation, implied in Exodus 13:2, is here brought prominently into notice. Exodus 13:13 Every firstling of an ass. The ass was the sole beast of burthen taken by the Israelites out of Egypt. (See Exodus 20:17.) Neither the horse nor the camel was among their possessions in the wilderness. This is agreeable to the Egyptian monuments, by which the camel appears to have been rare in Egypt at this time, and the horse as yet mainly used for war and by the nobles in their chariots. With a lamb. A lamb or a kid. The word used is the generic one. (See the comment on Exodus 12:3.) If thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck. This enactment was evidently made to prevent a refusal to redeem. It would not require to be put in force, since by refusing under such a penalty a man would suffer pecuniary loss. All the first-born of men among thy children. Rather "among thy sons." Shalt thou redeem. Later on, the amount of the redemption money was fixed at five shekels of the sanctuary for each. (Numbers 3:47.) Exodus 13:14 When thy son asketh thee. Compare Exodus 12:26, and the comment ad loc. Exodus 13:15 When Pharaoh would hardly let us go. Bather, "when Pharaoh hardened himself against letting us go." At his last interview with Moses, Pharaoh had absolutely refused to let them go with their cattle (Exodus 10:24-27), and Moses had absolutely refused to go without them. I sacrifice all that openeth the womb, being males. And being clean animals. The common sense of the reader or hearer, is expected to supply the restriction. Of my children. Rather, as in Exodus 13:13, "of my sons." Exodus 13:16 A sign … frontlets. See the comment on Exodus 13:9. It is the custom among the Jews to write this entire passage—Exodus 13:1-16—on two of the four strips of parchment contained in the tephillin. The others have inscribed on them Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and Deuteronomy 11:13-21. Exodus 13:1-16 The Dedication and Redemption of the First-born. In commemoration of the great mercy whereby their first-born sons were spared, when all those of the Egyptians were slain, God required the Israelites to do two things:— (1) To dedicate all their first-born sons, not only of the existing but of all future generations, to himself; and, (2) to redeem them, or buy them back for the purposes of secular life, by a money payment. It is analogous to this— I. THAT PARENTS ARE TO , NOT THEIR FIRST-BORN SONS ONLY, BUT ALL THEIR , TO GOD IN BAPTISM. All have deserved death. All have been in danger of it. All have been spared by the mercy of God, on account of the atoning blood of Christ. All therefore are to be dedicated by their parents to God’s service—brought to the font, and presented to him to be his faithful soldiers and servants until their life’s end. All are to receive a species of consecration, whereby they become "priests to God" (Revelation 1:6), and may have boldness to approach him without the intervention of a human mediator. But all are not to be ministers. The ministry is for such as have a special call, which cannot be known in infancy, or indeed until persons are well advanced towards manhood. II. THAT PARENTS HAVE, AFTER THEM, TO TAKE THEIR BACK, AS IT WERE, TO SECULAR LIFE. Hannah gave her son up to God from the time that she weaned him, took him to the Temple, and left him with the priests. Christians cannot do this. Though some of their sons may ultimately have a call to the ministry, this will not be the case with all, and they must act as if it would not be the case with any. They must take their children back to their houses, give them a secular education, and prepare them in most instances for secular life. But they have not to buy them back. This arises from the difference between the two dedications, the one having been a dedication to the ministry and the other not. Christians do not need to retract the dedication of their children by any subsequent act. They may and should maintain it. Laymen may lead lives as truly sanctified as clergymen. They may serve God as well, though in a different way. They may be, and should be "holy to the Lord." Who would not desire his children to be such? Exodus 13:3-16 The rightful use of Church ordinances. Church ordinances are (1) Commemorative; (2) Disciplinary; (3) Channels of supernatural grace. The benefits derivable from them depend mainly upon their rightful use. We learn from the instructions hero given to the Israelites by Moses, that their rightful use consists especially— I. IN THE REGULAR KEEPING OF THEM. "Thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to year." Spasmodic observance, enthusiastic and frequent at one time, perfunctory and infrequent at another, ten times this year, once the next, will bring no blessing, conduct to no good result. Each ordinance has its own time or times—baptism and confirmation once in a lifetime—the Holy Communion weekly, if opportunity offers; if not, monthly; or, at the least, thrice a year—attendance at public worship, each Sunday, twice—fasting, on Fridays and in Lent—commemoration of chief festivals, once a year—and so on. Fitness has in every ease been considered, and set times appointed at proper intervals. Let the rule of the Church be regularly followed, let there be no needless variation, no will-worship, no caprice, and the greatest benefit may be confidently anticipated. But following one’s own fancy in the matter, now observing rules, now breaking them, making ourselves in fact a law to ourselves, is a course that will assuredly obtain no blessing upon it. "Thou shalt keep each ordinance in his season." II. IN THE STRICT KEEPING OF THEM. "There shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy quarters." Lukewarmness, double-mindedness, half-and-half measures, are everywhere condemned in Scripture. "If the Lord be God, follow Him; if Baal, then follow him." "Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." If the ordinances of the Church are worth following at all, they are worth following strictly. If the Church says—"Put away gaiety and amusement during this or that season," then all gaiety and amusement should be put away—none should be seen "in all our quarters." If she appoints two services, or (as some understand it) three for Sundays, then men should not limit their attendance to one. If she urges frequent communions, they should attend frequently, and not be content with the minimum of three times in the year. III. IN THE KEEPING OF SUCH OF THEM AS ARE WITH . "Remember this day, in the which ye came out from Egypt"—"the Lord slew all the first-born—therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix." A large part of the ritual of every church is commemorative. Sunday is a commemoration. The Friday fast, enjoined by the Church of England and others, is a commemoration. Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, Ascension Day, are commemorations. And the Holy Communion is in part commemorative. To observe, in a certain sense, these days and seasons and ordinances, without giving serious thought to the historical events with which they are connected, and out of which they have arisen, is to lose half the benefit which their observance was intended to secure to us. It is scarcely, perhaps, to be supposed that any one could receive the Holy Communion without some thought of the death of Christ upon the Cross; but it must greatly conduce to the rite having its due and full operation on our minds and hearts, that we should vividly present to ourselves on the occasion a mental picture of the agonies suffered for us, that we should dwell in thought upon the whole scene of the trial and the crucifixion, and seek to realise its particulars. We cannot have too deeply impressed upon us the recollection of the day on which, and the means by which, God brought the Church of the first-born out of the spiritual bondage of Egypt, saved them from the destroyer, sanctified them, and made them his "peculiar people." IV. IN THE KEEPING OF THEM THROUGH TIMES OF . "When the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, thou shalt keep this service." The discipline of adversity is apt to draw men nearer to God than that of prosperity. Many are very careful and regular attendants on Church ordinances when they are afflicted, or in poor circumstances, or suffering from a bereavement; but, if the world smiles upon them, if they grow rich and respected, if men court and flatter them, they grow careless and irregular in such matters. They think that they cease to have the time for them; but in reality they cease to relish them. "The cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches," choke the good seed that was in them, and "they become unfruitful." They forget God, and the marvellous things that he hath done for them. Hence a warning is required. We must not let the "milk and honey" of Canon wean our hearts from God, or make us less zealous in his service, or less constant attendants upon his ordinances. The higher we are lifted up the more we need his grace; the greater attraction that the world offers to us, the more helpful to us are those holy rites and usages, which draw our thoughts away from earthly things, and fix them upon things Divine and heavenly. BY J. ORR Exodus 13:1-3, Exodus 13:11-17 The sanctification of the first-born. This command has its basis in the fact that on the night when God executed his tremendous judgment against Egypt, the first-born of Israel was spared. Because this great mercy had been shown to Israel, the first-born of man and beast were ever afterwards to be reckoned as specially belonging to Jehovah. The first-born of the generation then living was his by direct purchase; all later first-borns were to be his by grateful dedication. It was required, in addition, that the first-born of man, as well as of unclean beasts, should be "redeemed." This may have been designed to teach that the lives of these later first-borns were as truly forfeited by sin as were those of the original first-born, on the night of the exodus; and that the nearer the relation in which the individual stands to God, the more pressing becomes the need for atonement. I. IS BY . This is well illustrated by the law for the redemption of unclean animals (Exodus 13:13; cf. Numbers 18:15). The firstling of an ass, being unclean, could not be offered on the altar. It was, therefore, to be redeemed by the substitution of a lamb. If not thus redeemed, its neck was to be broken. This teaches the further lesson—unredeemed life must die. It was on the same principle that the lamb was substituted for the first-born on the night of the exodus. This law does not specify the mariner of the redemption of the first-born of male children, but it was probably originally by a lamb also. The redemption was subsequently effected by a money-payment of five shekels (Numbers 18:16). This gave prominence to the idea of a ransom, already implied in the use of the word "redeem." The principle of the redemption was still the substitution of life for life, the money-payment pointing back to the lamb or other victim of which it was the price. Jesus has fulfilled the type under both its aspects. He has redeemed us by the substitution of his holy life for our sinful ones (Hebrews 9:26-28). His life has been given as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:6). II. LIFE BELONGS TO GOD (Exodus 13:1, Exodus 13:12, Exodus 13:15). As all later generations of Israel were represented in that first one, so all later first-borns were represented in those of the night of the exodus. By redeeming them from death, God purchased the firstborn of Israel in a peculiar manner to himself. What held true of the first-born, held true, in-a wider sense, of the nation as a whole, and holds true now of all believers. They are God’s, because God has redeemed them. We must not seem to lessen the natural claim which God has upon our service. All souls are God’s; and no moral being has a right to use his powers otherwise than for the glory of him who gave them. But in a special manner Jehovah claims redeemed life for himself. "I have redeemed thee, thou art mine" (Isaiah 43:1). "Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s" (1 Corinthians 6:20). III. THE ANIMAL SHARES IN MAN’S RUIN AND . First-born of man and beast.—J.O. Exodus 13:3-11 Remember this day. The exhortation in these verses may very well be applied to Christians. They are to remember the fact add the might of their redemption. They are to commemorate it by observance of appointed ordinances. They are to beware of forgetting it in days of prosperity. They are to show their remembrance of it by a holy walk, and by due instruction of their children. I. THE FACT AND THE MIGHT OF YOUR . 1. The fact of it (Exodus 13:3-8). How Jesus has brought you up "out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay" (Psalms 40:1); has redeemed you from the law’s curse, from Satan’s tyranny, from a condition of wrath, and from spiritual death; has introduced you into the liberty of God’s children, and started you on your journey to an everlasting and glorious inheritance. Redemption from the thraldom of Pharaoh sinks into insignificance as compared with this "so great salvation." If Israel was summoned to remember the day on which they came out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, much more is it the duty of Christians to remember what great things God has done for them. 2. The might of it. "By strength of hand the Lord brought you out of this place" (Exodus 13:3, Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:14). They were to remember this as enhancing their sense of the greatness of their redemption, and as affording a pledge that God was able to accomplish all else that he had promised (Exodus 13:5). The might expended in the Christian redemption is not less, but greater, than in the exodus from Egypt. It does not detract from its greatness that it is chiefly moral strength—power exerted in overcoming evil, in producing moral effects in the minds and consciences of men, and in making them new creatures in Christ Jesus. Redemption has both its objective and its subjective sides, and in both is displayed the power of God. God’s might is seen in the upholding of Christ; in the victories which, while on earth, he was enabled to gain over the powers of evil; in the gigantic triumph of the Cross; and in the spiritual effects produced since, through eighteen centuries, by the preaching of his Gospel; in the regeneration of souls, in the strength given to his servants to do spiritual work, in the victory whereby they overcome the world. II. BEWARE OF YOUR IN THE DAYS OF YOUR , Exodus 13:15. Prosperity has a subtle influence in leading away the heart from God. When men have eaten, and are full (Deuteronomy 8:12-18), they are very apt to grow haughty and self-sufficient. This danger is one to be jealously watched against. III. SHOW THAT YOU YOUR BY DOING THE THINGS THAT GOD . 1. By observing his ordinances. The special ordinance here alluded to is the feast of unleavened bread—a sequel to the passover (Exodus 13:3-10). Christians are to observe the Lord’s Supper. 2. By a holy life. The observance of the outward ordinance would be valueless if that which it spiritually represented was lost sight of, viz; the need of a walk in "newness of life." We are to "keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians 5:7). To this end has Christ redeemed us, that we may walk in holiness (Romans 6:4-7; Ephesians 5:25-28; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18). 3. By instruction of children. God lays stress on this (Exodus 13:8-14; cf. Deuteronomy 6:6-9; Deuteronomy 11:18-22). It is his chief way of perpetuating a holy seed. The responsibility of instruction rests primarily on the parent. No task should be more delightful to him, or should be discharged more faithfully. If the parent is willing, many opportunities will present themselves. A child’s curiosity is ever active. The ordinances of the Church will furnish starting-points for conversation. We have in these verses, and elsewhere in the book, specimens of the instruction that is to be given.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 13:1, Exodus 13:2 The consecration of the first-born. I. THE MEANING OF THE TYPE. 1. Man’s first-born the type of the first-born of God, in his authority and priestly function among his brethren, and as the object of the father’s love and trust. 2. In Egypt’s and Israel’s first:born we find the two-fold type of Christ and his people. Egypt’s die, Israel’s are saved. The death of Egypt’s first-born bursts the bends of Israel, the death of God’s first-born, the bonds of his people. II. GOD’S DEMAND. 1. His claim upon the saved life: "It is mine." (1) His right to our service. He has bought us with a great price. (2) His delight in us. We are a treasure and a joy to him. Because he loved us he gave Christ to die for us. 2. The life which Christ has redeemed is to be set apart for God (Romans 12:1). (1) With full purpose of heart. (2) Under the power of Christ’s love: "the love of Christ con-straineth us." (3) With unceasing prayer for the Spirit’s indwelling. How to declare God’s salvation. I. BY THE OF HIS MERCIES. 1. "Remember this day in which ye came out from Egypt." (1) The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of remembrance: "Do this in remembrance of me." (2) The remembrance of deliverance extends over the Christian’s whole life: "unleavened bread is eaten." 2. The celebration of the Passover awoke inquiry among those who had not witnessed God’s deeds (Exodus 13:8).—True gratitude, heartfelt thanksgiving, will make the reality of God’s love to be felt by those who have not known him. (1) The place and use of the Lord’s Supper in the Christian Church. (2) The power of love in the Christian life. (3) Of true praise and worship in the congregation. To make God something to others, he must first be something to ourselves. II. BY THE DOING OF HIS WILL. The Israelites, in sacrificing or redeeming the first-born, woke again the question, "What is this?" (Exodus 13:14, Exodus 13:15). Our obedience to tile good and holy will of God, our consecration to his service will show the reality of his salvation and awaken in many hearts the question whence this consecration flows and the desire to share it. "Let your light so shine" (Matthew 5:16).—U. BY G.A. Remember. Utmost pains taken that the day should be honoured and remembered. (1) The month in which it occurred became the beginning of months. (2) A special ordinance as to the first-born pointed back continually to the event celebrated (Exodus 13:11-13). (3) The annual feast was specially devised to keep it in memory (Exodus 13:14, etc.). Why all this? I. REASON OF . It commemorated: 1. A great judgment. Nine plagues had passed; the members of each successive trial following one another at shorter intervals and with increasing severity. [Illustration, siege of town. Besiegers draw parallels closer and closer, each time sounding summons to surrender. Every summons disregarded; at length word given for the assault.] God laying siege to Egypt, now preparing for the assault (cf. generally Amos 4:1-13.). "Therefore, prepare to meet thy God" (Exodus 11:4). "I will go out;" the representatives stand aside that the arm of Jehovah may be recognised. Fourteenth of month; midnight. God accompanied by the angel of vengeance. Picture result—palace, dungeon, stables, fields, temples, streets. The judgment was upon Egypt and her gods. 2. A great deliverance. (1) From death. God the judge is impartial. If Egypt has sinned, so also Israel. Three plagues shared by both, both now threatened by self-same danger. Israel, however, trusting God, may escape by obedience. Lamb chosen four days earlier. Slain that afternoon at sundown. Light of full moon shows blood streaks on lintels and doorposts of houses in Goshen; inside, people prepared for departure, feeding on lamb. Midnight: Is it imagination that rush and quiver of unseen wings? The shadow of the wings of God shelter each blood-stained door, whilst the angel of vengeance passes over, sparing those whom God protects. (2) From slavery. Wailing throughout Egypt. Midnight message, "Go, get ye gone." At once families gather to standards of their tribes. Soon one great army, harnessed and equipped, laden with spoils of Egypt, the Israelites march forth from the land of their captivity. The time fulfilled to the day (Exodus 12:41), when their hour is come their God is ready. 3. A great exhibition of Divine power. Not a mere judgment or a mere deliverance, but judgment by a personal judge, deliverance by a personal deliverer. (1) The Egyptians needed to learn who Jehovah was. The Israelites had not done much to make him respected; rather had brought his name into disrepute as the patron of a slavish multitude. Must cause his own name to be hallowed (cf. Ezekiel 36:20-23). (2) Israel needed to learn that Jehovah was the deliverer—a God faithful to his promises, yet who could not endure sin. Moses and Aaron his instruments, but the victory due only to his right hand and his holy arm. II. USE OF THE . By communicating the judgment and the deliverance, it was calculated to keep men mindful of the judge and the deliverer, and to prompt respect for his law (Exodus 13:9). Commemorations are an aid to memory, reminding of past events, and recalling associations connected with them. Mere observance as an end in itself, bondage (cf. Galatians 4:9, Galatians 4:10); as a means to an end, helpful and necessary. The Pharisee makes a virtue of observance; the right thing is to draw virtue from it. See what this observance taught:— 1. God is long-suffering, but the day of vengeance comes at length. The help to memory, as to what he had done, was a help to conviction as to what he might do. 2. God will not clear the guilty, yet his mercy doth endure for ever. Even with the help, how often were these truths forgotten; would any have remembered them without it? Apply. Life, which forms the memory of the future, grows out of memory of the past. A good memory is a help to good living. What helps do you use to prompt memory? The marked bill, the birthday text-book, the diary—all these helpful; above all, the day, the anniversary, if we use it rightly. Commemorations are but sign-posts pointing to that which is commemorated; use them as such, follow out their indications. So, remembering past mercies, faith will be strengthened and hope sustained.—G. THE OF THE JOURNEY.—The direct road from Tanis to Palestine—a road much frequented under the nineteenth dynasty—lay along the coast of the Mediterranean, and conducted to Philistia. If we look at the map, and observe the position of Tanis (now San) on the old Tanitic branch of the Nile, now nearly dried up, we shall see that the route which would naturally suggest itself to any one wishing to proceed to the Holy Land from Tanis would be one running almost due east, from Tanis to Pelusium, and from Pelusium, south of Lake Serbonis, to Rhinocolura; and thence, following the course of the coast to Gaza, Ascalon, and Ashdod, the chief towns of the Philistine country. It is true that a marsh region intervenes between Tanis and Pelusium which might seem to bar the route; but the Egyptian remains show that, in the times of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, this obstacle was surmounted by means of an embankment which was carried across it, and that a direct road thus connected the two cities. Moses, at this point of his narrative, being about to trace the onward march of the Israelites from Succoth to Etham, in the direction of the Red Sea, anticipated, it would seem, an objection on the part of his reader, who would naturally ask, Why was not the direct route eastward taken and Canaan entered on the south-west after some half-dozen marches? In Exodus 13:17, Exodus 13:18, he gives the reply— 1. God led them, they did not determine their own route; and 2. God would not lead them by the direct route, because it would have conducted them to the Philistine country, and the Philistines were strong, and would have resisted the invasion by force of arms. Hence it was that the southern or south-eastern route was taken in preference to the northern one—and that the second stage in the journey was from Succoth to Etham (Exodus 13:20). Exodus 13:17 Although that was near. Rather "because it was near" (ὅτιἐγγὺςἧν, LXX.)—i.e.; "God did not, because it was near, lead them this way, but a longer one." Lest peradveature the people repeat when they see war. The Philistines were a powerful and warlike race half a century after this, in the time of Joshua, and were masters of the five important cities of Gaze, Ascalon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron, which seem to have formed a confederacy (Joshua 13:3). It would appear that their strength was already considerable, and that the Israelites, though perhaps more numerous, were incapable of coping with them, being wholly unaccustomed to war, The Israelites were therefore not allowed to take this route, which would have brought upon them at once a severe trial, and might have led to their voluntary return into Egypt. Exodus 13:18 God led the people about. Or "led the people a circuit," i.e; made them take a circuitous route to Canaan, the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea—i.e; by the southern wilderness, or what is now called "the wilderness of Sinai." Kalisch shows the wisdom of this course—how it gave time for the nation to be "gradually accustomed to fatigues and hardships by a long and tiresome march in the desert"—to learn obedience to their chief—and finally to be "trained to military discipline and martial, virtue by occasional expeditions against the weaker tribes of the desert." He errs, however, in ascribing the wisdom of the course taken to Moses, since Moses expressly declares that the conception was not his, but God’s. And the children of Israel went up harnessed. The word here translated "harnessed," is generally thought to mean either "with their loins girded" (Onkelos, Kimchi, Kalisch) or "in military order" (Gesenius, Lee, Knobel). Ewald, who inclines to the latter of these two senses, suggests that, strictly, it means "in five divisions"—viz; van, centre, two wings, and rearguard. The word is, apparently, a derivative from khamesh, "five." Exodus 13:19 Moses took the bones of Joseph—i.e; his body, which had been embalmed, and deposited in a mummy case (Genesis 50:26), most probably at Tanis, which was the capital of the Shepherd kings, no less than of Menephthah. He had straitly sworn the children of Israel. See Genesis 50:25. Joseph, firmly believing in the promise of God to give Canaan to the descendants of Abraham had made them swear to take his body with them when they left Egypt. The desire to be laid in their native earth was common to most of the nations of antiquity, and, in the case of the Israelites, was intensified by Canaan being the "laud of promise." Jacob had had the same feeling as Joseph, and had been buried by Joseph in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 50:13). Exodus 13:20 And they took their journey from Succoth and encamped in Etham. On the probable position of Etham, see the "Introduction" to this book. The word probably means "House of Turn," and implies the existence at the place of a temple of the Sun-God, who was commonly worshipped as Tuna or Atum. The name, therefore, is nearly equivalent to Pithom (Exodus 1:11), which means "City of Turn;" but it is not likely that Moses designated the same place by two distinct appellations. The site of Etham, moreover, does not agree with that of the Patumos of Herodotus (2.158), which is generally allowed to be Pithom. Exodus 13:18-21 It is the method of the Divine action to accomplish ends by circuitous means. God "led the Israelites about." Instead of conducting them straight from Tanis to Canaan in the course of six or seven days, he carried them down nearly to the furthest point of the Sinaitic peninsula, at least two hundred miles out of the direct line of route. He afterwards made them occupy in desert wanderings the space of forty years, and brought them into Canaan on the side furthest from Egypt—that which fronted the east. So it is— I. IN GOD’S NATURAL . To make a planet suitable for the habitation of man, he does not create one fit for him straight off. He prepares an extended mass of matter which gradually condenses, throws off an atmosphere, settles into land and sea, undergoes for many thousands of years a series of aqueous and igneous changes, deposits strata, elevates them into mountains, works out river courses, raises and submerges continents; and only after a number of millennia does he, by this long and tedious process, effect the end aimed at from the first, the construction of a habitation suitable for such a being as man. Again, he will have man live on bread; but he does not make bread. He makes a germ capable of developing into a plant, of throwing out roots and leaves, deriving sustenance from air and earth and showers, increasing gradually for several months, and finally throwing up the tall spike, which after growing, and swelling, and ripening, bears ultimately the golden grain that is suited to be man’s food. II. IN GOD’S . If God has a work for a man to do, if for this a certain character is required, God again pursues no compendious method. The man is born in a certain sphere, given certain powers, and then it is left for the circumstances of life to work out in him, under Divine superintendence, the character required. Moses is trained for eighty years in order to qualify him for his position as deliverer of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt; and is only rendered fit to accomplish the task by what befals him in that long period. All the saints of God, raised up to do any great work, have had some such long training. Even Christ did not enter on his ministry at once, but remained in obscurity for thirty years, before asserting his mission. III. EVEN IN GOD’S . Christ would assuage the pains of hunger of the five thousand. He does not simply, as he might have done, remove them by a word. He obtains such food as there is at hand: he blesses and breaks; he causes the multitude to sit down; he distributes the food among the apostles, and bids them distribute to the multitude. If the Red Sea is to be parted, an east wind is made to blow for some hours; if a blind man is to be cured, clay is taken, and mixed with spittle, and put upon the blind man’s eyes, and by a circuitous method his cure is effected. All this seems strange to us because we are so impatient. Our life here endures so short a space, and we so little realise the fact of the life to come, that we are always in a hurry to obtain results, and are annoyed at having to wait for them. But an Eternal Being can afford to be patient. "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The question with God is never as to the quickest, but always as to the best method. Haste is proverbially unsafe. "Most haste, worst speed," says theadage. It would bring much improvement into human life, if there were less of bustle and hurry in it—if men were not in so much haste to be rich—if they did not expect to reap the harvest so soon as they have sown the seed—if they would allow time for plans to take effect, for improvements to be brought to perfection, for institutions to take root and grow. It is a Christian duty to carry with us on the path of life the bones of our dead. Joseph had sworn the Israelites to carry his bones with them out of Egypt at their departure; and they were thus in a special way bound to do it. But, apart from any such oath, or any positive wish expressed, it would have been well for them to have taken him with them. We are intimately bound up with the men of the generation before our own, and cannot too carefully carry along with us their memory. Men may be considered to carry their dead with them on their course through life— I. WHEN THEY BEAR IN MIND AND HAVE RESPECT TO THEIR FATHERS IN THE FAITH, THOSE NEAR TO THEM IN TIME. It is almost impossible to measure adequately the amount of our debt to those who have immediately preceded us in life—who have set us an example of a consistent Christian course—and shown us its possibility. What living Christian man does not feel that to some other Christian man, older than himself, still alive or else passed away, he is indebted for the impetus which changed his path in life, turned him from the dumb idols which he was following, and led him to the worship of the living God? What gratitude is not due in each such case! Such memories are to be cherished, clung to—not relinquished, because he to whom we owe so much is dead. Being dead, such an one "still speaketh;" and it is well that our hearts should still hear his voice, and be thankful for it. II. WHEN THEY CHERISH THE MEMORY OF THE FRIENDS AND WHOM THEY HAVE LOST. It is too common a practice, with men especially, to shut out the memory of the deceased. Bereavement is so terrible a thing, so poignant a grief, that to spare themselves men mostly make a sort of resolve that they will not think upon their dead. And it is quite possible, after a while, so to turn from the thought as to make it both transient and rare. But the better course—the true Christian course—is to retain our dead in our thoughts. The recollection can do us nothing but good. It is sobering, chastening, yet elevating. It is apt to wean us from the world; to soften us; to draw us into communion with the unseen; to help our higher nature in its struggle with the lower. III. WHEN THEY BEAR IN THE WORST SINS THAT THEY HAVE . The most terrible death to which we poor human creatures are subject is that "body of death," which we bear about with us in our flesh, and under which we "groan, being burthened"—viz, sin. There are persons who succeed in putting away the memory of their past sins, and who are as gay and light-hearted as if there were nothing against them in God’s book. But it is a wiser course to bear about with us always this "death" also, and not seek to hush it up or put it out of sight. The thought of our past sins is well calculated to make us humble, penitent, forgiving; to save us from presumption, and make us throw ourselves absolutely for justification on the merits and atoning blood of Christ. BY J. ORR Exodus 13:17-21 The way of the wilderness by the Red Sea. The direct road to Canaan lay through the land of the Philistines. God, however, did not lead the people by this way, but round by the Red Sea. "For God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt" (Exodus 13:17). Another reason was that he designed to make his covenant with them, and give them laws, in the solitude of the "mountain of God" (Exodus 3:12). I. FROM EGYPT, THE PEOPLE ARE NOT TO LINGER ON ITS BORDERS. What snatches of repose are granted, are only meant as a preparation for resumption of the journey on the morrow. Their destination was Canaan. To this they must press forward. A rest of eleven months (at Sinai) will be granted afterwards, meanwhile, on the borders of Egypt, they must pause no longer than is absolutely necessary. At the beginning of the Christian life, delays, pauses, lookings back, are peculiarly dangerous. Egypt is too near. Return to it is too convenient. The pursuer will gain too easy an advantage. There must be no pausing till we are fairly out of the enemy’s territory. Succoth to Etham, Etham to Pi-hahiroth (Exodus 14:2). II. IT RESTS WITH GOD TO THE WAY BY WHICH HIS PEOPLE SHALL BE LED. "When Pharaoh had let the people go, God led them not," etc. (Exodus 13:17). 1. It was the privilege of the Israelites that they had God as their guide. His pillar of cloud and fire went before them (Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22). What wiser or safer guide could any one desire? 2. God’s guidance was authoritative. Not only were the Israelites not left to pick out the way for themselves, but whither God directed, thither they were bound to go. They were not permitted to take any route they pleased. They were God’s people, and must walk by his law. 3. God’s guidance was frequently mysterious. They would often be perplexed to understand the reasons of it. A reason seems to have been given here, but otherwise the route chosen must have seemed a very strange one. The believer is often thus led by a way he knows not (Isaiah 42:16). III. GOD FOR HIS PEOPLE’S GOOD IN THE WAYS BY WHICH HE LEADS THEM. "For God said, peradventure," etc. (Exodus 13:17). Consider here, 1. God’s procedure. (1) He turned the Israelites aside from the road which naturally they would have followed. The way of the land of the Philistines was no doubt the road by which they expected to be led. It was the customary road. It lay straight before them. It was the shortest and most direct. How often does God thus turn us aside in Providence from what might seem to be the natural, as, without a thought to the contrary, it may have been the anticipated course of our lives? The road that lies straight before us is not the one in which we are permitted to walk. Even in Christian work, by what zigzag ways are we sometimes conducted to our ends! (2) He led the Israelites by a long detour into the wilderness. If the end was to escape the Philistines, God did not allow the Israelites to suppose that he intended to pamper and indulge them. The wilderness was a worse place to travel in than "the way of the land of the Philistines." They would have to encounter many trials. A heavy strain would be put upon their faith. Though exempted from war at the beginning, they had to fight enemies on the way, and ultimately were marched up to the borders of Canaan, to undertake, at another point, the work of invasion. In like manner, the Christian curriculum is not an easy one. Whoever enters upon the Christian journey, expecting to find it all sunshine and roses, is doomed to sorrowful disappointment. The road, under God’s guidance, soon takes a turn, which leads into the wilderness of trial. 2. The reasons of God’s procedure. (1) The direct way was at that time an impassable one. The Israelites, just escaped from Egypt, were not in a condition to force their way through the strongly defended territory of the Philistines. The difficulty, it is true, lay in them—in their want of faith, courage, and power of obedience, not in God, whose help was all-sufficient. But practically, the direct road was closed against them. So, in God’s merciful guidance of his people, the path is sometimes bent aside, because no other is for the time practicable. Obstacles to their progress, insurmountable by them at that stage of their knowledge and experience, block up the road which seems more direct, and to be allowed to advance in it would be no kindness. (2) The direct road was fraught with danger for themselves. Their strength and faith were not equal to the opposition they would encounter. It would have proved too much for them. They must be allowed time to gather experience, to throw off the habits of their servitude, to be brought under discipline for war, to acquire steadiness and courage in facing an enemy. Led up against the Philistines in their present undisciplined condition, they would have fled at the first onset, and would have clamoured, even more vehemently than they did in the desert (Exodus 14:12), to be conducted back to Egypt. And does not this in large measure explain the mysterious turnings and windings in our own lives? God, who knows our frame, understands perfectly what degree of severity in temptation we are able to endure, and he mercifully orders our course, so that we may not be tempted above that we are able (1 Corinthians 10:13). We pray, "Lead us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13), and this is one way in which the prayer is answered. Another way is by preventing or restraining the temptation. But where, as in the present case, it is a temptation which, so to speak, belongs essentially to the situation—which we must encounter, if that path is to be travelled at all, then is there no way of avoiding it but by being led in a different road. Especially in the beginning of a Christian course may we expect these sudden turnings of our path. We are not then in a condition to encounter very powerful enemies, to endure very fierce temptations, and by taking us a little way about God shields us from them. (3) There was a discipline to be gained in the circuitous route by which they were led. God’s design, in sparing his people the battle with the Philistines, was not, as we have seen, to indulge and spoil them. The place whither he conducted them was the wilderness, and there he purposed to subject them to a severe moral training. The end of this training was simply to bring them up to the standard which as yet they had not reached, to develop in them the qualities in which they were as yet deficient, to impart to them, in short, that hardihood and strength of character and will which would enable them to cope with Philistines, or any other foes. The end God has in view in our own trials is precisely the same. IV. OUR WISDOM, UNDER ALL THE OF OUR LIVES, IS TO RESIGN TO GOD’S LEADING, IT TO BE ALWAYS THE BEST FOR US. We cannot err in resigning ourselves to the guidance of one omniscient, wise, loving, and supremely good.—J.O. Joseph’s bones. A premise, and most of all a promise to the dead, is to be regarded as sacred. Amidst the haste of their departure the Israelites did not forget to take with them the bones of Joseph. They probably carried away also the bones of the other patriarchs (Acts 7:16). In this touching incident, see— I. FAITH’S . Joseph had said, "God will surely visit you" (Genesis 50:25). He had died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off (Hebrews 11:13-22). At the time of Joseph’s death the tokens were scant that Israel would grow to be so great a people, and would be led forth, many thousands strong, to go to Canaan. Joseph’s faith rested on God’s naked word. God had said that this time would come, and it did. We are never wrong in depending on the Divine promise. Those who trust it, however the world may ridicule them as devout enthusiasts, will prove to be right in the long run. Events will verify their confidence. Apply, e.g; to the ultimate triumph of Christianity. II. FAITH’S CHOICE GIVEN EFFECT TO. He had strictly sworn the children of Israel, saying, "Ye shall surely carry up my bones away hence with you." Notwithstanding the splendour of his position in Egypt, Joseph’s heart was still with his own people. To his clear moral vision, the godless character of the Egyptian civilisation was sufficiently apparent. The Hebrews were as yet but a handful of shepherds; but he discerned in them a spiritual greatness which was wanting to Egypt, and he had faith in the magnificent future which God’s Word pledged to them. So he was not ashamed to call the humble settlers in Goshen his brethren, and to declare that he preferred a grave with them to the proudest mausoleum that Egypt could erect for him. He left a charge that when they departed, they were to take his bones with them, and lay them in Canaan, as subsequently they did (Joshua 24:22). He thus anticipated Moses in choosing the better part, and in preferring union with God’s people to all the treasures and renown of the land of his adoption. We act in the same spirit when we set the things which are "unseen and eternal’ before those which are "seen and temporal," and count it our highest honour to be enrolled among "God’s children." III. A HINT OF THE . Whence this care of Joseph for the bestowal of his bones? What matters it—it may be asked—where the dust is laid, if only the spirit is secure? In one way it matters very little, though affection naturally inspires the wish to sleep beside one’s kindred. There may have been more than this. The care of the body in Egypt was, as we now know, connected with a hope of its revival. And there are good grounds for believing that the same hope had to do with this command of Joseph, and with the loving care shown by the patriarchs generally in the bestowal of their dead.. The believer’s body is a sacred deposit. Destined to share with the soul in the glory yet to be revealed, there is a fitness in treating it with reverence, and in laying it in a place consecrated to the Christian dead.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 13:17-22 Israel’s journey the emblem of the Christian’s pilgrimage. I. GOD’S TENDER CARE FOR HIS PEOPLE. 1. Trials and temptations are proportioned to their ability to-bear them. "He led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines." The conflict with these was not too much for his strength, but it was too much for Israel’s faith. They would have made shipwreck at the very outset. He will not suffer us to be tempted beyond that we are able to bear. 2. It "was near;" but the shortest way to our possession may not be the surest. God’s love is more fully displayed in leading us seemingly away from what we desire than it would be in at once leading us to it. 3. His purpose in delay. God leads us by the way of the wilderness where, by the knowledge of ourselves and of him we may be prepared for the earthly and the heavenly portion he designs to give us. II. THEY BORE WITH THEM A PROOF OF GOD’S (Exodus 13:19). 1. The time might have been when the hope expressed by those unburied bones seemed vanity and folly, but not now. These relics touched a million hearts, and reminded them how gloriously God had redeemed his word. 2. We carry with us mementoes which fill us with strong assurance for the future. The very light we now possess tells how God fulfils his promises. Human hearts believed God of old when he said that the Sun of Righteousness would arise, and human lips declared the hope. The past fulfilments of prophecy lay broad foundations for our trust that every word will in like manner be redeemed. III. THEY HAD GOD HIMSELF FOR GUIDE. 1. We have the indwelling of the Spirit and of Christ. We cannot mistake the way if we follow him who goes before us. 2. The light of his presence is brighter in the night of trial. When all else is veiled from sight, the light of that gracious presence beams out in fullest splendour. 3. There must be the following by day to have the consolation of the glory by night. Are we following in the footsteps of Jesus? Is he Saviour as well as sacrifice to us?—U. THE PILLAR OF THE CLOUD AND OF FIRE. Having stated, in Exodus 13:17, that "God led the Israelites," and determined their route for them, the writer here proceeds to explain how this leading was accomplished. With extreme simplicity and directness he states, that the conduct was effected by means of an appearance, which in the daytime was like a column or pillar of smoke ascending from earth to heaven, and in the night was like a pillar of fire. He considers the presence of God to have been in the pillar, which moved in front of the host, and showed them the way that they were to go. When it halted, they halted when it advanced, they advanced. Their journeys being made as much in the night-time as in the day, on account of the intense heat, the pillar took in the night the appearance of a column of fire, so as to be equally visible as by day. All attempts to give a rational explanation of the phenomenon are misplaced, since the writer, from whom alone we derive our information on the subject, clearly regarded it as miraculous; and both here and elsewhere (Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20, Exodus 14:24; Exodus 33:9; Numbers 12:5; Numbers 14:11) speaks of it as a form under which God was pleased to show himself. There is little doubt that fire and smoke signals were already used by commanders of armies for much the same purpose as that which God now accomplished in this way. The Egyptian documents of the period contain indications of the usage; and it is found among the Arabians, the Greeks, and the Persians. (See especially Q. Curt. Vit. Alex. 5.2; "Perticam, quae undique conspici posset, supra praetorium statuit, ex qua signum eminebat pariter omnibus conspicuum: observabatur ignis noctu, fiunus interdin.") The miracle was thus, in a certain sense, founded upon an existing custom, with the difference that God here gave the signals miraculously, which were wont to be given in a natural way by the human leaders of armies. He thus constituted himself the general of the host. Exodus 13:21 The Lord went before them. From Succoth at any rate; perhaps even on the journey from Rameses to Succoth. In a pillar of cloud. The pillar was seen—the presence of Jehovah, though unseen, was believed to be in it, and to move it. To go by day and night. Or, "so that they might march both by day and by night." Night marches are generally preferred by Orientals on account of the great heat of the days. The night-marches of the Israelites are again mentioned in Numbers 9:21. Exodus 13:22 He took not away. The last distinct mention of the cloud is in Numbers 16:42, after the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. There is perhaps a later allusion to it in Numbers 20:6. In Nehemiah it is said that "the pillar of the cloud departed not from them," so long as they were in the wilderness (Nehemiah 9:19); and the same is implied, though not formally stated, in Numbers 9:15-23. There is no mention of the pillar of the cloud as still with the Israelites in the Book of Joshua. Probably it was last seen on the journey from Beth-jesimoth to Abel-Shittim in the rich Jordan valley (Numbers 33:49). Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22 God’s guidance of his people. The Israelites had quitted Egypt, had broken off from their old life, were about to plunge into that wild waste of sand and rock which separates Africa from Asia by an almost impassable barrier. If they took the northern line of march, they would come upon the sandy desert. Before them would stretch "endless sands yielding nothing but small stunted shrubs—broad plains—newly reared hills—valleys dug out by the last week’s storm; the hills, and the valleys, and the plains, all sand, sand, sand, still sand, and only sand, and sand, and sand again." If they turned southward, they would find themselves in a labyrinth of twisted wadys, amid huge mountains, and in a region consisting chiefly of bare granite and sandstone rocks—"the Alps unclothed." In either case they would sorely need God’s guidance; and God’s guidance was vouchsafed to them. So it is with Christians. I. HAVE THE OF GOD’S SPIRIT THROUGH ALL THE AND DESERT PLAINS OF LIFE. The Lord leads them. God himself, God the Holy Ghost, co-equal Person with the Father and the Son in the Triune Godhead, is their guide and director, "a light to their feet and a lantern to their paths." Most necessary to them such direction. Just escaped from Egypt, just freed from the bondage of sin, how would they wander and go astray, unless his right hand were stretched out to help and guide! On the weary waste, the dry, bare, monotonous plain of an eventless life, where no sign showed the way, where hope would fail and the heart grow faint, what could they do but for him? In the labyrinth of conflicting duties and uncertain devious paths, how could they determine on their course but for him? Alike in both he leads, directs, guides. He "will not leave them nor forsake them." II. THE IS BOTH BY NIGHT AND DAY. "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" was the promise given us by our Lord. There is no part of life from which he withdraws himself—not the darkest night of earthly misery and disappointment—not the brightest day of worldly success and glory. And in both alike he is needed—perhaps most needed in the day. Then men think they can walk by themselves, choose their own course, direct their own paths. Then consequently they are most apt to go wrong, and "wander out of the way in the wilderness." But he is ever at hand to restrain, correct, recover them. By internal or external cheeks, by feeling and conscience on the one hand, by his word, his ordinances, his ministers on the other, he interposes to save men from themselves, to keep them in the right way, or lead them back into the right way if they have departed from it. Darkness does not hide us from him—darkness does not separate us from him—yea, "the darkness is no darkness with him—the night and the day with him are both alike.’ III. THE IS VARIED TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE SOUL. Now by cloud and darkness, an overshadowing of the soul by his felt but unseen presence; now by the flashing in of intolerable light into the secret recesses of the heart and conscience, does the Holy Spirit of God direct and rule our lives. None can limit him as to the means which he shall employ. Now he discomfits our foes, directing his keen gaze upon them "through the pillar of fire and of the cloud" (Exodus 14:24); now he simply separates between our foes and us by interposing an insurmountable barrier (Exodus 14:19); at one time he shines into our hearts with a mild, gentle, and steady radiance; at another, he gives us rest, as under the shadow of a cloudy canopy. At all times he chooses the means most fit to accomplish his ends, shrinking from none that are potent to effect his gracious purposes. Clouds and darkness would seem to be the things most opposite to the ineffable brightness of his most glorious nature; but even clouds and darkness are pressed into his service, and made his ministers, when they can be ministers of good. IV. THE UNTIL THEY REACH THE LAND, "The pillar of the cloud departed not" from the Israelites "by day, neither the pillar of fire by night," during the whole time of their long and weary journeying, until they reached Canaan. God’s gifts are "without repentance." They are given for the whole period during which we need them. As the Israelites required guidance until they trod the soil of the Jordan vale, and Canaan’s hills lay plainly in sight, so do Christians need the Spirit’s gentle leading, until the whole wilderness of this life is past, and the true Canaan reached. And what they need, they have. The Spirit’s aid is with them to the end. BY J. ORR The fiery-cloudy pillar. The visible pillar is no longer beheld, but God’s fiery-cloudy presence still attends the Church in her wanderings, and confers upon her benefits analogous to those enjoyed by the ancient people. God’s presence, as manifested in the pillar of cloud and fire, was— I. HOLY.— 1. God is holy. Holiness is the principle which guards the distinction between the Creator and the creature. It eternally excludes everything evil and impure from the Divine nature (Martensen). It is the "zeal of the Lord of Hosts" for his own honour, and for the maintenance of the interests of truth, purity, and righteousness. The fire in the cloud was a symbol of it. 2. It is as the Holy One that God dwells in his Church. "The Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee" (Isaiah 12:6). Holiness, accordingly, becomes those who would serve him (Psalms 93:5). 3. The privilege is great, but perilous. (1) Sin leads to the withdrawal of God’s presence. When Israel sinned in the matter of the golden calf, God withdrew beyond the precincts of the camp. The cloudy pillar removed to a distance (Exodus 33:7-10). (2) Rebellion provokes God to anger. On more than one occasion fire came out from the midst of the pillar and destroyed the rebels (Le Exodus 10:2; Numbers 16:22; Numbers 17:10). "Our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). Holiness turned against sin is wrath. God tempers the vision of his holiness, which otherwise would be unendurable to man, by shrouding it in the cloud. II. . "A pillar of fire to give them light." God’s presence in his Church is illuminating. 1. Whence the light shines. The light shines in the Word, in Divine providence, and in the teaching of the Spirit which illuminates both. 2. What the light does. It shows us spiritual truth. It reveals duty. It guides (see below). It cheers in the night of affliction. 3. Light with attendant mystery. The light is in the cloud. At best, we know but "in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Even revealed truth has its side of mystery, HI. . The allusion in Isaiah 4:6 would suggest that the cloud spread itself over the camp in the daytime, and so formed a canopy or shadow from the heat. God’s presence is a grateful shelter to his people. They feel the need of it when temptations fiercely assail, or when tribulation and persecution ariseth because of the Word. "In the time of trouble shall he hide me in his pavilion; in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me" (Psalms 27:5). IV. GUIDING. The pillar went before the camp of Israel "to lead them the way" (cf. Deuteronomy 1:33). The cloud pointed the way in the daytime, the fire by night. The Church and the individual believer are similarly guided. He who seeks to know the will of God will not fail of direction. Providence opens the road. The light that streams from the Word shows the path of duty. "Thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way: walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand and to the left" (Isaiah 30:21). V. . The pillar adapted itself to the circumstances of the people. In the daytime, when the sky was light, it took the form of cloud; in the night season, it shone as bright fire. Now it moved in front as a guiding beacon; again, it was spread as a grateful awning over the camp; at another time, it went behind, intercepting the enemy (Exodus 14:19). Thus does God vary the aspects of his presence and the modes of his help with unfailing adaptation to the special needs of his people. He is the All-sufficient. VI. HOSTILE TO THE ENEMY.—He intercepts their pursuit; he hides his people from their fury; he makes their way dark to them; he frowns upon them, and discomfits them (Exodus 14:19-26).—J.O. BY H.T. Exodus 13:17-22 Fire and cloud. "And the Lord went before them," etc. (Exodus 13:21). Israel might have been in Canaan within ten days. Reason why not is given Exodus 13:17. This however, not a reason for the forty years wandering: but only for the circuitous route by the desert of Sinai. The line of Israel’s march for the first two days is soon given. They start from Rameses, capital of Goshen, a store city, recently built by the Hebrews, the king there possibly. The first stage was Succoth ("tents") perhaps a caravan station or military camp—a journey of about fifteen miles. Another fifteen miles to Etham on the edge of the desert. There roads, canals, now all to be left behind; just there and then appeared the FIRE AND CLOUD. I. ITS NATURE. Point out the three leading theories, especially as the two earlier mentioned lead up to the third and the true. The phenomenon was: 1. Common natural fire. Seen as fire by night, as smoke by day. Perhaps the sacrificial fire of Israel preserved from primitive times. An ordinary caravan fire. Or such as was borne at the head of the Persian armies. 2. The same, but glorified by association with a religious idea; viz; that God was in reality the Guide of his people, and that that was well represented by the fire at the head of the hosts. 3. Altogether supernatural. God saw the need of Israel at that moment, and met it in his own superb manner. [For full discussion of Ritualistic explanations, see Kurtz, vol. 2:344-348, Eng. ed.] The phenomenon was a trinity in unity. It was one, not two, not one kind of pillar by night and another by day. It consisted of cloud, of fire (electric?) in the cloud, and of Jehovah in both (Exodus 13:21; Exodus 14:24) The last doubtless a manifestation of the "Angel-God" of the Old Testament. II. FORMS AND . 1. Forms. (1) Usually a pillar (Exodus 13:21). (2) A wall, see Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20. Must have been a wall in this case, of perhaps more than a mile in length. A wall of cloud to Egypt, hiding the moon, the sea, and the advanced movements of the armies of Israel When the cloud lifted, Israel was gone. On the other side, a mile or more of, as it were, electric fire, adding to the moon-illumination by which Israel passed through the sea. (3) A roof or an awning. See Numbers 10:34; Psalms 105:39; 1 Corinthians 10:1, 1 Corinthians 10:2; and the very beautiful passage, Isaiah 4:5, Isaiah 4:6. 2. Movements. (1) Usually stationary—on the tabernacle—on the mercy-seat—sometimes filling the tabernacle, so that none could enter to minister. (2) Lifting, when Israel advanced. (3) Descending, when Israel was to rest. III. . Israel could not have seen the fire-cloud for forty years without catching much of the meaning; but we more. The fire-cloud teaches that the Lord Jesus is: 1. Ever in and with the Church. The glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud. 2. In two-fold glory; in the fire of holiness; in the cloud of mercy that tempers the blaze. He so appears to the individual soul—to the family—to the Church—to the nation—to the wider world. Note the special outbreakings from the cloud at certain sinful crises in Israel’s history. 3. The leader of our pilgrimage. See C. Wesley’s hymn, in Wesley’s Collection, 326. Yet some scope, then as now, seems to have been left for the play of intelligence (Numbers 10:31). 4. Captain in our holy war. On Egyptian monuments generals are represented as flames, streaming in darkness, at the head of armies. See the hymn beginning: "Forward be our watchword." "Burns the fiery pillar At our army’s head; Who shall dream of shrinking, By our Captain led?" 5. Our wall of defence. 6. Our canopy for comfort. 7. Whose interpositions are ever marked by wondrous timeliness. It was on the "edge of the wilderness" that the fire-cloud first appeared; and after the desert journey, seems to have disappeared, save as it may have been represented by the Shechinah above the mercy seat, which assured unwonted splendour at the dedication of the first temple.—R. THE OF THE JOURNEY CHANGED. Hitherto the march of the Israelites had been to the south-east. Another day’s journey in this direction would have taken them beyond the limits of Egypt, into the desert region east of the Bitter Lakes, which was dry, treeless, and waterless. In this tract there would have been but scant nourishment for their flocks and herds, and absolutely no water for themselves, unless it had been obtained by miracle. God therefore changed the direction of their route from south-east to due south, and made them take a course by which they placed the Bitter Lakes on their left hand, and so remained within the limits of Egypt, in a district fairly well watered, but shut off from the wilderness by the Bitter Lakes and the northern prolongation of the Gulf of Suez, with which they were connected. This route suited the immediate convenience of the host; and, having no suspicion of any hostile movement on the part of the Egyptians, they—not unnaturally—made no objection to it. It had, however, the disadvantage, in case of a hostile movement, of shutting them in between their assailants on the one hand, and the sea upon the other; and this circumstance seems to have led Pharaoh to make his pursuit. Exodus 14:2 Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn. Kalisch translates "return"—i.e; "retrace their steps," and supposes that Etham lay far south of Pihahiroth, on the west coast of the Gulf of Suez. But the Hebrew word means either "turn back" or "turn aside," and is translated here ἀποστρέψαντες and not ἀναστρέψαντες by the LXX. Dr. Brugsch supposes that the turn made was to the north, and the "sea" reached the Mediterranean; but all other writers, regarding the sea spoken of as the Red Sea (compare Exodus 13:18), believe the divergence from the previous route to have been towards the south, and place Pihahiroth, Migdol, and Baal-Zephon in this quarter. Pihahiroth. The exact position is nnknown. Neither the Egyptian remains nor the writings of the Greeks or Romans present us with any similar geographic name. If Semitic, the word should mean "the entrance to the caves," but it is quite possible that it may be Egyptian. Migdol. There was undoubtedly a famous Migdol, or Maktal, on the eastern frontier of Egypt, which was a strong fortified post, and which is often mentioned. Hecataeus called it Magdolos. In the Itinerary of Antonine it is said to be twelve Roman miles from Pelusium. But this is too northern a position for the Migdol of the present passage; which must represent a "tower" or "fortified post" not very remote from the modern Suez. Over against Baal-Zephon. The accumulation of names, otherwise unknown to the sacred writers, is a strong indication of the familiarity possessed by the author of Exodus with the geography of the country. No late writer could have ventured on such local details. A name resembling "Baal-Zephon" is said to occur in the Egyptian monuments. Dr. Brugsch reads it as "Baal-Zapuna." He regards it as the designation of a Phoenician god, and compares "Baal-Zebub." Others have compared the "Zephon" with the Graeco-Egyptian form "Typhon," and have supposed "Baal-Zephon" to be equivalent to "Baal-Set" or "Baal. Sutech"—a personification of the principle of evil. Exodus 14:3 They are entangled in the land. Or "they are confused," "perplexed"—i.e. "they have lost their way." Pharaoh could not conceive that they would have taken the route to the west of the Bitter Lakes, which conducted to no tolerable territory, unless they were hopelessly at sea with respect to the geography of the country. In this "perplexity" of theirs he thought he saw his own opportunity. The wilderness hath shut them in. Pharaoh is thinking of his own "wilderness," the desert country between the Nile valley and the Red Sea. This desert, he says, "blocks their way, and shuts them in "—they cannot escape if he follows in their steps, for they will have the sea on one hand, the desert on the other, and in their front, while he himself presses upon their rear. Exodus 14:4 I will be honoured. See the comment on Exodus 9:16. That the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. Compare above, Exodus 7:1-25.§ Exodus 14:1 4 God’s trials of His faithful ones. All hitherto had gone well with the departing Israelites. The Egyptians indeed had "thrust them out"—had hurried their departure—had felt insecure till they were beyond the borders. But they had freely given of their treasures to speed the parting guests, and had in every way facilitated their setting forth. The multitude, vast as it was, had in no respect suffered as yet; it had proceeded in good military order (Exodus 13:18), had found abundant pasture for its flocks and herds, and was now on the very verge of the desert which alone separated it from Canaan. Egypt was behind them; freedom and safety were in front; no foe forbade their entrance into the vast expanse which met their gaze as they looked eastward, stretching away to the distant horizon’ of hot haze, behind which lay the Promised Land. The question, how they were to support themselves in the desert had not perhaps occurred to them as yet. They had come out provisioned with bread for certain number of days, and probably with many sacks of grain laden upon their asses. If the spring rains had been heavy, as is likely to have been the case, since in Egypt there had been both rain and hail (Exodus 9:23-33), the desert itself would have been covered at this season with a thin coat of verdure and "thickly jewelled with bright and. fragrant flowers". The hearts of many were, no doubt, bounding at the thought of quite quitting Egypt at last, and entering on the absolute freedom of the illimitable desert. But at this point God interposed. "Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn, and encamp before Pihahiroth" Egypt is not yet to be quitted; they are still to skirt it—to remain among Egyptian cities—to turn away from Palestine—to interpose a sea between themselves and Asia—to pursue a route which leads into one of the most unproductive portions of the whole African continent. Sore must the trial have been to those who had knowledge of the localities—dark and inscrutable must have seemed the ways of Providence. What was the Almighty intending? How could Canaan ever be reached if they turned their backs on it? Whither was God taking them? Even apart from any pursuit by Pharaoh, the situation must have been perplexing in the extreme, and must have severely exercised the more thoughtful. What then must not the universal feeling have been, when it appeared that the monarch, informed of their movements, had started in pursuit? What but that they were God-forsaken or, worse, led by God himself into a trap from which there was no escape? Readily intelligible is the bitterness which showed itself in their address to Moses—"Because there were no graves in Egypt hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us?" And so God’s people—his faithful and elect children—at all times and under all circumstances, are subject to severe trials. These come upon them either— I. FOR THEIR MORAL . "The trial of our faith worketh patience," and God wills that "patience should have her perfect work," that his saints may be "perfect and entire, wanting nothing" (James 1:3, James 1:4). "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Difficulties, dangers, temptations, perplexities, disappointments, constitute a moral discipline which is to most men absolutely needful for the due training and elevation of their moral characters. By such trials the dross is purged away from them—the pure metal remains. Their love of God and trust in God are tested, and by being tested strengthened. "Tribulation worketh patience; and patience experience; and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed." The man who is perfect in each good word and work has in almost every case passed through a furnace of affliction to attain his perfection. II. FOR THE GLORY OF GOD. God’s glory is often shown forth in the sight of men most conspicuously by the trials of his faithful ones. In Israel’s case this was brought about by miracle. But the rule holds good in the ordinary course of human affairs equally. What has so shown forth the glory of God in the past as the endurance of trials, insults, torments, death, by his martyrs? What even now so impresses men with the reality of religion, as suffering on account of the truth? Afflictions, crosses, disappointments, patiently borne, not only strengthen our own spirits, but are a witness for God in a world that for the most part disregards him, and. to a considerable extent "get him honour." III. FROM THE OF THE CASE, BECAUSE GOD’S WAYS ARE NOT AS OUR WAYS. If the children of Israel could have foreseen that God would divide the Red Sea for them and lead them through it, the route southwards to the point of crossing would have been seen to be the fittest and best, securing as it did the continuance of water and of forage, and avoiding one of the worst parts of the wilderness. But it was impossible for them to surmise this; and hence their perplexity, alarm, and anger against Moses. In our ordinary trials it often happens that our inability to understand how we are being dealt with lies at the root of our sufferings. The disappointment which most vexes us may be a necessary preliminary to the success of which we have no thought. The "thorn in the flesh" may bring us to a higher moral condition than we should have reached without it. "God’s ways are in the deep, and his paths in the great waters, and his footsteps are not known." He deals with us as he sees to be best, and we cannot see that so it is best. He has surprises in reserve for us, sometimes as little looked for as the division of the Red Sea by the Israelites. Hence, if in cases of this kind we would suffer less, we must trust God more; we must give ourselves wholly up to him, place ourselves in his hands, accept whatever he sends as assuredly, whether we can see it or not, what is fittest for us. BY J. ORR Exodus 14:1-5 The command to encamp by the sea. These verses introduce the narrative of what the Lord "did in the Red Sea" (Numbers 21:14), when his people "passed through … as by dry land; which the Egyptians, assaying to do, were drowned" (Hebrews 11:29). This crossing of the Red Sea was no after-thought. God had it in view when he turned aside the path of the children of Israel from the direct route, and ordered them to encamp before Pi-hahiroth, near the northern end of the gulf. His design in this event was to give a new and signal display of his Jehovah attributes, in the destruction of Pharaoh’s host (Exodus 14:4), and in working a great salvation for his Church. By the events of the Red Sea, he would be shown to be at once a God of mercy and judgment (Isaiah 30:18); Supreme Ruler in heaven and in earth (Psalms 135:6); disposing events, great and small, according to his good pleasure, and for the glory of his name; making even the wrath of man instrumental to the accomplishment of his purposes (Psalms 76:10). Consider— I. THE TURN IN THE ROUTE. The command was to turn to the south, and encamp between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-Zephon (Exodus 14:2). This route was— 1. Not necessarily an arbitrary one. We need not suppose that God brought the Israelites into this perplexity—shutting them up between the sea and the mountains, simply for the purpose of showing how easily he could again extricate them. The choice of routes was not great. (1) The way of the Philistines was blocked (Exodus 13:17). (2) The way by the north of the Red Sea—between it and the Bitter Lakes—probably did not then exist. The Red Sea seems at that time to have extended much further north than it does at present. (3) To go round by the upper end of the Lakes would have been to take the host far out of its way, besides exposing it to the risk of collision with outlying tribes. (4) The remaining alternative was to march southwards, and ford the Red Sea. The route was, nevertheless— 2. A mysterious and perplexing one. Pharaoh at once pronounced it a strategic blunder (Exodus 14:3). Supposing the intention to be to cross the Red Sea, no one could hazard a conjecture as to how this was to be accomplished. Ordinary fords were out of the question for so vast a multitude. Hemmed in by the mountains, with an impassable stretch of water in front, and no way of escape from an enemy bearing down upon them from behind, the Egyptian king mighty, well judge their, situation to be a hopeless, one. Yet how strangely like the straits of life into which God’s people are sometimes led by following faithfully the guiding pillar of their duty; or into which, irrespective of their choice, God’s providence sometimes brings them! Observe, further, 3. No hint was given of how the difficulty was to be solved. This is God’s way. Thus does he test his people’s faith, and form them to habits of obedience. He does not show them everything at once. Light is given for present duty, but for nothing beyond. Fain would we know, when difficulties crowd upon us, how our path is to be opened; but this God does not reveal. He would have us leave the future to him, and think only of the duty of the moment. Time enough, when the first command has been obeyed, to say what is to be done next. "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7). II. GOD’S ENDS IN LEADING THEM BY THIS ROUTE. God had ends. He was not guiding the children of Israel blindly. His knowledge, his purpose, no less than his presence, go before his saints, as guiding pillars, to prepare places for them. God had a definite purpose, not only in leading the people by this route, but in planting them down at this particular spot—between Migdol and the sea. His ends embraced— 1. The humiliation of Pharaoh. That unhappy monarch was still hard in heart. He was torn with vain regrets at having let the people go. He had a disposition to pursue them. God would permit him to gratify that disposition. He would so arrange his providence as even to seem to invite him to do it. He would lure him into the snare he had prepared for him, and so would complete the judgment which the iniquity of Pharaoh and of his servants had moved him to visit upon Egypt. This was God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 14:4). Note (1) If God is not honoured by men, he will be honoured upon them (Scott). (2) Retributive providence frequently acts by snaring men through the evil of their own hearts. Situations are prepared for them in which they fall a prey to the evil principles or dispositions which, in spite of warnings and of their own better knowledge, they have persisted in cherishing. They wish for something, and the opportunity is presented to them of gratifying their wish. They harbour an evil disposition (say lust, or dishonesty), when suddenly they find themselves in a situation in which, like a wild beast leaping from its covert, their evil nature springs out upon them and devours them. It was in this way that God spread his net for Pharaoh, and brought upon him "swift destruction." 2. The education of Israel. The extremity of peril through which Israel was permitted to pass—coupled with the sudden and marvellous deliverance which so unexpectedly turned their "shadow of death into the morning" (Amos 5:8), filling their mouth with laughter and their tongue with singing (Psalms 126:1)—while their pursuers were overwhelmed in the Red Sea, was fitted to leave a profound and lasting impression on their minds. It taught them (1) That all creatures and agencies are at God’s disposal, and that his resources for the help of his Church, and for the discomfiture of his enemies, are absolutely unlimited. As said of Christ, "even the winds and the sea obey him" (Matthew 8:27). (2) That the Lord knoweth, not only "how to deliver the godly out of temptations," but also how "to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished" (2 Peter 2:9). It was thus (3) A rebuke to distrust, and a Powerful encouragement to faith. 3. The complete separation of Israel as a people to himself. Paul says—"all our fathers Were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Corinthians 10:2). Connect this with the spiritual significance of baptism. Baptism, especially as administered by immersion, figures dying to sin, and rising again to righteousness (Romans 6:4). It is thus the analogue of the passage through the Red Sea, which was a symbolic death and resurrection of the hosts of Israel. By saving the people from the waves which engulfed their enemies, Jehovah had, as it were, purchased the nation a second time for himself, giving them "life from the, dead." The baptism of the sea was thus a sort of "outward and visible sign" of the final termination of the connection with Egypt. Its waters were thereafter "a silver streak" between the Israelites and the land of their former bondage, telling of a pursuer from whom their had been delivered, and of a new life on which they had entered.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 14:1-12 Israel stricken with terror by reason of a deliverance not yet completed. It is plain that the Israelites, going out of Egypt. in such circumstances as they did, must have gone out in a state of great exhilaration, almost beside themselves with joy at such a complete reversal of all their past experiences at the hands of Pharaoh. Moreover we are assured in Exodus 14:8 that they went out with a high hand. The power of God for the deliverance of Israel was manifested in great fulness. What he had done in the past, and especially in the recent past, if only well considered and kept in the mind, was sufficient to inspire trust, banish fear, and show the wisdom of most diligent obedience to every direction that he gave. Nevertheless in Exodus 14:10 we find this humiliating statement, "they were sore afraid"—sore afraid, so soon after deliverance, and such a deliverance! Whence could their danger have come, and what could have made them so quickly to forget their God? These are the matters we have now to consider. I. WHAT THERE WAS TO EXPLAIN THE LOCAL WHICH THEIR FEAR. They were in an awkward and dangerous position from an ordinary point of view. That position cannot be more forciby indicated than in the words of Pharaoh himself. "They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in." They were going into a cul-de-sac. Before them lay the sea; on either hand, as we imagine, rose high ground; it only needed that Pharaoh should come in at the rear and close them up altogether, then they would be compelled to surrender. How then had they come into this position? It was not through any ignorance or carelessness on the part of their leader. Any general leading an army into such a trap would have been deservedly put to death for gross incompetency. It was God who had brought them exactly here, and if the word "trap" is to be mentioned, it was a trap with regard to Pharaoh and not with regard to Israel. The God who had led the Israelites out with a high hand, led them on with the pillar of cloud, and led them into the very position which, if they themselves had been consulted, was the last they would have chosen. It was not the only way God could have taken them, but it was the way in which, most effectually, speedily, and impressively, he could deliver them from Pharaoh. For God, of course, well knew that the deliverance of his people was not accomplished, simply because they had got out of Egypt. The exodus had been a miracle in many ways, and not least in this, that it had. compelled Pharaoh and his servants to act in contradiction to all the most dominating elements of their character. Just as afterwards in dealing with the waters of the Red Sea, God made the force of the wind to overcome the force of gravity; so he had already by another east wind, in the shape of the death of the first-born, completely set aside for a night all the most settled habits of Egypt. These habits had stood up on the right hand and on the left, and made a broad and open way for Israel to go out of the land. But presently, immediately and according to the natural order, these habits resumed their former sway. What else was to be expected? It mattered not in what direction Israel took their flight. Pharaoh and his hosts, smarting with injured pride, panting for vengeance and recovery of lost treasure, would be after them. There was a void in Egypt because of the death of the first-born, but after all the mothers would feel that void the most. There was another void by reason of the loss of all these slaves, these useful labourers, these accumulators of Egyptian wealth, and this void, we may be sure, was more operative in the vexation it produced than the loss of the first-born. It is a humiliating truth, but men, as a rule, can more easily bear the loss of kindred, even one so dear as the first-born, than the loss of fortune. A failure in business is more discomposing and fretting than a dozen bereavements, considered simply as bereavements; and thus it is certain that Pharaoh and his generals were very speedily in council as to the best way of securing the fugitives. While so engaged, the news comes to them of the direction in which the Israelites had gone. This news was the very thing to decide Pharaoh and make his preparations large and overwhelming, especially when God came to harden his heart to a greater pitch of stubbornness than it yet had reached. Either recapture or destruction seemed now certain. Therefore, seeing Pharaoh was now bound by the very force of the passions raging in his heart and the hearts of his people to follow Israel, it was well as soon as possible, to remove all danger to Israel consequent on this line of action. No good purpose was to be served either towards Israel or towards Pharaoh himself, by allowing him for any length of time, to harass their rear. A catastrophe of the Red Sea magnitude had to come, and the sooner it now came, the better. Israel had dangers enough in front and within; from Amalekites, Amorites, Canaanites, and all the rest of their opponents; from their own character, their own depravity, blindness of heart, sensuality, and idolatrous disposition. God does not allow all possible dangers to come upon us at once. Do not let us be so occupied, with the dangers that are present and pressing as to forget those which he has utterly swept out of the way, overwhelmed in a Red Sea, whence they will emerge against us no more for ever. II. WHAT THERE WAS TO EXCUSE AND EXPLAIN THE FEAR WHICH ISRAEL . In itself this fear was indefensible. There was no ground for it in the nature of things. God had done nothing to produce fear; everything indeed, if only it could be rightly seen, to produce the contrary; everything to call forth the utmost reverence and obedience from every right-minded Israelite. He was now, even while the Israelites were entangled in the land, Jehovah as much as ever, the great I Am, leading Israel by a way which, though they knew it not, was the best way. But we must also look at things from Israel’s point of view; we must really remember what God really remembers, that men are dust, and that even when they have the greatest reasons for confidence, those reasons get hidden up, or even presented in such forbidding aspects as to make them powerful in producing unbelief. Our great adversary, who can make evil appear good also makes good appear evil. Look then at what there was in the state of things, to excuse the Israelites in being sore afraid. 1. The magnitude of Pharaoh’s preparations. In spite of all the crippling effects of the plague, he was able to muster a great array. Doubtless he had a big standing army, for chariots are not got ready at a moment’s notice. We may infer that he was a man who always had on hand some scheme of ambition and aggrandisement, and because the Israelites had long dwelt in his land, they knew all about the skill, valour and crushing force of the charioteers. Whatever strength there might be in the natural resources of Egypt they knew it well. When the unknown Caanan had to be faced, they gave Moses no rest, till spies were despatched to report on the land; but they needed no report of Egypt. The military strength of Pharaoh was only too deeply impressed on every mind. 2. There was the exasperation of a great loss. The people not only knew the strength with which Pharaoh came, but the spirit in which he came. He had lost 600,000 men, with their flocks and herds, and all the choice spoils of Egypt, in the way of gold, silver and raiment. Then there was a further loss of population in the mixed multitude. There was everything to exasperate the despot, and not one thing to soothe his pride or lessen his calamities. If only he had failed in trying to get hold of a new possession, it would not have been so hard. But he had failed in keeping the old; he had gone through ten plagues, and yet lost his treasures after all. We may fear that only too many among the Israelites, had just that spirit of greed and grasping in their own hearts which would enable them to appreciate the spirit of Pharaoh’s pursuit. 3. There was the degrading effect of the long oppression in which the Israelites had been kept. The spirit of the slave comes out in the way they talk. These are not imaginary words put in their lips; the very "touch of nature" is in them. These are the language and conduct that reveal a real experience. The present generation, and one knows not how many generations before, had been born in servitude. They had not only been in servitude, but they had felt and acknowledged the bitter misery of it. And now the servitude was ended in due course. Freedom was a necessity, a blessing, and a glory to Israel; but they could not be made fit for it all at once. Jehovah could show signs and wonders in many ways; he could by one blow slay the first-born of Egypt and let the oppressed go free; but it required an altogether different power and method to infuse into the liberated the spirit and courage of freemen.—Y. BY J. Exodus 14:1-9 Trial and Judgment. I. GOD LEADS INTO TRIAL BUT ASSURES Or VICTORY. 1. The command to turn and. shut themselves in between the wilderness and the sea. God leads us where troubles will assail us. Jesus was driven of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (1) It proves us, and reveals needs which otherwise we might not have suspected. Our weaknesses are manifested. (2) It reveals God. Through experiences of help his glory brightens for us. 2. The circumstances of God’s people are taken advantage of by their foes. Pharaoh imagined his time had now come. Earthly foes may strike at such a time; Satan surely will 3. The result will be God’s triumph over the foe, not the foe’s over us. II. THE WICKED CANNOT BE SAVED BY . 1. Terrors are soon forgotten. Repression of evil is not conversion. So soon as the repressive force ceases, evil reasserts its sway. 2. Justice done through fear only is regretted, not rejoiced in, by the doer. "Why have we done this," etc.? "As the dog returneth to his vomit." 3. Past lessons are forgotten. Pharaoh might have asked what armies could do against the God of Israel; yet he assembles his forces, never dreaming that they are only marshalled for destruction. Those who have known only the discipline of terror have not found salvation. They have only heard a cry to flee and seek salvation. To linger upon the way is to allow evil to overtake them and lead them again into captivity.—U. THE PURSUIT OF ISRAEL BY THE . A short respite from suffering was sufficient to enable Pharaoh to recover from his extreme alarm. No further deaths had followed on the destruction of the firstborn; and he might think no further danger was to be apprehended. The worst of Moses’ threats had been accomplished- perhaps Jehovah had no more arrows in his quiver. At any rate, as he realised to himself what it would be to lose altogether the services of so vast a body of slaves, many of them highly skilled in different arts, he more and more regretted the permission which he had given. Under these circumstances intelligence was brought him of the change which the Israelites had made in their route, and the dangerous position into which they had Brought themselves. Upon this he resolved to start in pursuit, with such troops as he could hastily muster. As his chariots were six hundred, we may presume that his footmen were at least 100,000, all trained and disciplined soldiers, accustomed to warfare. The timid horde of escaped slaves, unused to war, though it might be five or six times as numerous as his host, was not likely to resist it. Pharaoh no doubt expected an unconditional surrender on the part of the Israelites, as soon as they saw his forces. Exodus 14:5 It was told the King of Egypt that the people fled. Pharaoh, when he let the Israelites go, must have felt tolerably certain that they would not voluntarily return. Formally, however, he had only consented to their going a three days’ journey into the wilderness (Exodus 12:31). When, being at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness, they did not enter it, but marched southward to Pi-hahiroth, the Egyptians might naturally report that instead of sacrificing, they were flying—hasting forwards—placing as much distance as they could between themselves and the Egyptian headquarters. But this report alone would scarcely have moved Pharaoh to action. It was in the accompanying circumstances, in the particular line of route, that he thought to find his opportunity. The people "were entangled" (Exodus 14:3). They might be taken at a disadvantage, and might be reduced to choosing between starvation and a. return to Egypt. The heart of Pharaoh, and of his servants, was turned against the people. The reaction of feeling was not confined to Pharaoh. His subjects participated in it. The loss of such a large body of labourers would be generally felt as a severe blow to the prosperity of the nation. It would affect all classes. The poor labourers might be benefited; but the employers of labour are the influential classes, and they would be injured. So "Pharaoh’s servants" were of one mind with their master, and they "turned against" the Israelites. Why have we done this? In the retrospect, the afflictions which they had suffered did not seem so very great. They at any rate had survived them, and were not perhaps even seriously impoverished. Royal favour will find a way of making up any losses which court minions have suffered, out of the general taxation of the country. But in prospect, the loss of 600,000 (more or less skilled) labourers appeared a terrible thing. The official class was quite ready to make a strenuous effort to avert the loss. Exodus 14:6 He made ready his chariot. The Egyptian monarchs, from the time of the eighteenth dynasty, always went out to war in a chariot. The chariots were, like the Greek and the Assyrian, open behind, and consisted of a semicircular standing-beard of wood, from which rose in a graceful curve the antyx or rim to the height of about two feet and a half above the standing-beard. The chariot had two wheels and a pole, and was drawn by two horses. It ordinarily contained two men only, the warrior and the charioteer. Exodus 14:7 Six hundred chosen chariots. Diodorus Siculus assigns to one Egyptian king a force of 27,000 chariots (1. 54, § 4), which however is probably beyond the truth. But the 1200 assigned to Shishak (2 Chronicles 12:3) may well be regarded as historical; and the great kings of the nineteenth dynasty would possess at least an equal number. The "six hundred chosen chariots" set in motion on this occasion probably constituted a division of the royal body-guard (Herod. 2.168). The remaining force would be collected from the neighbouring cities of Northern Egypt, as Memphis, Heliopolis, Bubastis, Pithom, and Pelusium. Captains over every one of them. Rather, "Captains over the whole of them." So the LXX. the Vulgate and SyriActs version. Some, however, understand "warriors in each of them ’ (Gesenius, Bodiger, Kalisch). Exodus 14:8 The Children of Israel went out with a high hand—i.e; boldly and confidently, not as fugitives, but as men in the exercise of their just fights—perhaps with a certain amount of ostentation. Exodus 14:9 All the horses and chariots of Pharaoh Rather, "all the chariot horses." There is no "and" in the original. His horsemen. Rather "his riders," or "mounted men "—i.e; those who rode in the chariots. That the Egyptians had a powerful cavalry at a later date appears from 2 Chronicles 12:3; but the Hebrew text of Exodus, in remarkable accordance with the native monuments of the time, represents the army of this Pharaoh as composed of two descriptions of troops only—a chariot and an infantry force.. Overtook them. It is uncertain how long the Israelites remained encamped at Pi-hahiroth. They would wait so long as the pillar of the cloud did not move (Numbers 9:18-20). It must have taken Pharaoh a day to hear of their march from Etham, at least another day to collect his troops, and three or four days to effect the march from Tanis to Pi-hahiroth. The Jewish tradition that the Red Sea was crossed on the night of the 21st of Nisan (Abib) is therefore, conceivably, a true one. The good resolutions of the worldly are short-lived. By a long series of judgments, culminating in the destruction of all the first-born both of man and beast throughout his whole territory, Pharaoh had been brought down from his original hardness and pride, had acknowledged God’s hand, and allowed the Israelites to take their departure. He had even besought them to ask that God would bestow upon him his blessing (Exodus 12:32). But a short time sufficed to change all his good resolutions. The more he reflected on it, the more grievous did it seem to him to lose the services of above half a million of industrious labourers. The further they became removed, the less terrible did God’s judgments appear. He had lost one son; but probably he had many others; and time, as it passed, brought consolation. He had quailed before Moses; but now, in Moses’ absence, he felt himself a king again, and could not bear to think that he had been made to yield. His state of mind was one ripe for revolt and reaction, when intelligence reached him which brought matters to a crisis. The report that he received seemed to show complete geographical ignorance on the part of the Hebrews, together with "a cessation of the special providence and guidance which their God had hitherto manifested in their favour" (Kalisch). Upon this his "heart was turned," he cast his former good resolutions to the winds, and made up his mind either to detain the Israelites or to destroy them (Exodus 15:9). In all this Pharaoh’s conduct is but an example of the general law, that "the good resolutions of the worldly are short-lived." They arc so, because:— I. THEY ARE NOT ON ANY WISH TO DO RIGHT, BUT ON VIEWS OF PRESENT . The immediate effect of the tenth plague was an impression, common no doubt to Pharaoh with the other Egyptians, such as found vent in the words, "We be all dead men" (Exodus 12:33). They were intensely alarmed for their own safety. This and this alone produced the resolution to let Israel go. It was better to lose the services of even six hundred thousand labourers than to lose their own lives. Expediency was their rule and guide. But expediency changes—or at any rate men’s views of it change. Were their lives really in danger? Had they not been over-hasty in assuming this? Or, if there had been danger, was it not now over? Might it not be really expedient to arrest the march of the Israelites, to detain them, and once more have them for slaves? II. THEY ARE THE EFFECT OF IMPULSE RATHER THAN OF . Resolutions made upon principle can scarcely change, for they are grounded upon that which is the most fixed and settled thing in human nature. But resolutions based upon impulse are necessarily uncertain and unstable, for there is nothing so variable as impulse. All men have from time to time both good and bad impulses. Impulse exhausts itself from its very vehemence, and can never be counted on as a permanent force. It is here to-day, and gone to-morrow. No reliance can be placed upon it. III. THEY ARE MADE MERELY BY A MAN TO HIMSELF, NOT MADE TO GOD. When the worldly man says, "I am resolved what to do," he means no more than this: "Under present circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that I will act in this or that way." He does not mean to bind himself, or, if he does, he soon finds that he cannot bind himself. There must be two parties to an obligation or engagement. If we wish our resolutions to be binding, and so lasting, we must make them solemnly, with prayer, in the sight of God, and to God. It is neglecting this which causes so many good resolutions to be broken, so many vows violated, so many pledges taken fruitlessly. Let men be sure, before they make a solemn resolution or a vow, that it is a right one to make, and then let them make the engagement, not to themselves only, or to their erring fellow-mortals, but to the Almighty. BY J. ORR Exodus 14:5-10 The pursuit "It was told the King of Egypt that the people fled," etc. Consider:— I. THE MOTIVES OF THE PURSUIT. The motives were various. 1. Pharaoh had already repented of having let the people go (Exodus 14:5). Their departure was a sore humiliation to him. Wounded pride was aggravated by the sense of material loss. "As serfs and bondagers, the Israelites were invaluable, and to let them go was to annihilate the half of Egypt’s industry" (Hamilton). Pharaoh and his servants, accordingly, were ready to adopt any plan which promised them revenge. 2. Pharaoh found an excuse for pursuit, in the allegation that the Israelites had "fled." Fugitives, in the ordinary sense of the expression, the Israelites were not. Pharaoh having to the last refused to let them go to hold the required feast in the wilderness, God had taken the matter into his own hands, and had given them their freedom. The only sense in which they were "fleeing" was, that, fearing treachery, they were making all the haste they could to get beyond Pharaoh’s reach. They had left Egypt, unfettered by any stipulation to return. Return, indeed, after what had happened, was out of the question. When Pharaoh and his people thrust the Hebrews out from their midst (Exodus 11:8; Exodus 12:31-34), they neither desired nor expected to see their faces more. But now that the king had changed his mind, and wished them back again, it suited him to represent their withdrawal into the solitary regions by the Red Sea as a "flight"—a breach of good faith. God had forced him to relax his grasp, and while his hand was open, the nation had escaped, like a bird escaped from the snare of the fowler. As reasonably might the fowler complain that, the bird, thus escaped, does not voluntarily return to its old quarters. 3. The determining, motive of the pursuit was the news that Israel was "entangled in the land." This decided Pharaoh. Almost would it seem to him as if, by permitting the escaped people to make this huge blunder in their movements, their Deity designed to give them back to his hand, As Saul said of David—"God hath delivered him into mine hand, for he is shut up, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars" (1 Samuel 23:7). II. ITS . Probably a pursuit of escaped slaves was never organised with greater chances of success. 1. The expedition was popular. "The heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people" (Exodus 14:5). Court sentiment is not always a reliable index to the feelings of the commonalty; but it is probable that the movement to pursue Israel commanded a wide measure of popular support. The griefs and humiliations they had sustained would fill the Egyptians with hatred of the Israelitish name, and would make them willing co-partners in any scheme to inflict injury on the fugitives. They also, by this time, would be beginning to realise how great a loss, financially and industrially, they had sustained, by the withdrawal of so vast a body of labourers. 2. The whole available military force of Egypt was called into requisition. "All the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army" (Exodus 14:9). Pharaoh, at the head of this glorious cavalcade, amidst this sheen of weapons, must have felt himself a greater man, and would wonder anew how he could have been so befooled as to let his slaves depart. And little, truly, to all human appearance, would Israel, unpractised in the use of arms, be able to accomplish against this disciplined and splendidly-equipped host. Pharaoh doubtless thought he had the people this time securely in his grasp. It was no longer the unarmed Pharaoh of the palace that Moses had to deal with; but Pharaoh, at the head of the thousands of Egypt, with chariots, and horses, and men of war; and who was that God that would be able to deliver him out of his hand? Alas for Pharaoh, and his "pomp and circumstance of war!" It was soon to be seen what short work God can make on the earth of the proudest of his assailants, showing strength with his arm, and scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts (Luke 1:51; cf. Isaiah 31:3). 3. The situation of the Israelites seemed to make them an easy prey. They were "entangled in the land" (Exodus 14:3). This was the mainstay of Pharaoh’s hopes. Israel could do nothing to resist him. Penned up like sheep for the slaughter, they could neither fight nor flee. Success was certain. III. ITS LESSON. It will readily be felt that in this pursuit of Israel by Pharaoh, we have an image—from the typical character of the history, an intended image—of a not uncommon experience of the Christian life. 1. We are liable to be pursued by the evil from which we thought we had escaped. Whoever thinks to find it otherwise will live to be disappointed. Conversion—even though one has been led into Christian liberty with "an high hand" (Exodus 14:8)—is not the end of spiritual conflicts. We do not escape from the power of evil without many an attempt being made on the part of the enemies of the soul to reassert their dominion ever us. We have a Pharaoh in the evil of our own hearts, who, after we have left his service, will not fail to pursue us. Another such Pharaoh we have in the world—old companions, etc. A third is the evil One himself, who lets no soul slip from his grasp, without many an attempt to recover it. This goes on to some extent throughout the whole life. Pharaoh’s pursuit may be viewed as gathering up all these separate pursuits into a single picture. 2. This experience is usually most acute and perilous shortly after conversion. Naturally, after the first breaking of the soul with sin, there comes, at a little distance, a time of recoil and reaction. Passions formerly indulged, surge back upon the heart with something of the old fury. We thought we had got rid of them; but they return, pursuing us with a vehemence which reminds us of Pharaoh’s chariots and horses, and fills us with dismay. Old habits, we thought we had broken with them for ever; but they are back again, struggling for the mastery. The world tries all its arts to regain its former hold. Temptations come in floods. This is the time which tests the reality of conversion, and practically decides whether God is to have us, or Satan. It is the old experience of Israel, entangled in the land, and pursued by Pharaoh: if we gain the victory, we shall probably see our enemies no more, or only in greatly weakened, in semi-ghostlike forms. 3. The destruction of Pharaoh’s host is the pledge of similar victories to the Church and to the individual in like crises of their history. It involves the promise that what God did for Israel here, he will do for us also, if we rely upon his help, every time we are spiritually tempted. Beyond this, it pledges and foreshadows the ultimate and complete defeat of all the enemies of the Church, and of the individual soul—even to that "last enemy that shall be destroyed," which is death (1 Corinthians 15:26). The victory, like the pursuit, is gathered up typically into a single picture, though in actual spiritual history it is spread over lifetimes and ages. It must, however, be sorrowfully admitted that in individual cases, type and reality too often fall asunder. Who has not to mourn partial victories gained over him by the pursuing Pharaohs of the soul—victories ofttimes almost amounting to the dragging of us back to bondage? And what extensive victories have frequently been gained by evil over sections of the Church—victories which seem the very antithesis of this glorious Red Sea deliverance? These, however, are but ebbings in a tide, which on the whole is on the flow, and they do not touch the lesson of this incident. The pledge given in Pharaoh’s destruction, God will not fail to fulfil to those who seek his aid; and as to the final victory, that is secure, beyond all power of man to prevent it.—J.O. Jehovah hardening Pharaoh’s heart. I. NOTICE THE WITH WHICH THIS FACT IS STATED. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is mentioned, not in one place only, but in many. If it were mentioned in one place only, it might be in some doubtful way, such as would excuse us for passing it over without much examination. But being mentioned so many times, we dare not leave it on one side as something, to lie in necessary obscurity, meanwhile consoling ourselves that the obscurity is unimportant. The statement meets us in the very midst of the way of Jehovah’s judgments on Pharaoh, and we must meet it in return with a resolution to understand it as far as believers in Jehovah may be able to do. Notice, then, exactly, how often the statement is repeated. Jehovah says to Moses, or ever he leaves Midian, "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that he shall not let the people go" (Exodus 4:21). Again, just as Jehovah’s dealings with Pharaoh were beginning, he says: "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 7:3). After the rod was changed to a serpent his heart was still hardened (Exodus 7:13). Nor was there yet any change after the waters were turned to blood (Exodus 7:22). He yielded a little when the frogs came, but as soon as they vanished and there was respite, he hardened his heart once more (Exodus 8:15). When the magicians confessed the finger of God in the gnats, his heart remained the same (Exodus 8:19). The flies were taken away, and "he hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go" (Exodus 8:32). In Exodus 9:12 we have an express statement that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh. After the visitation of the hail there seems to have been a complete surrender; but as soon as it ceases the hardening returns (Exodus 9:35); and so the references continue down to the end (Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:20, Exodus 10:27; Exodus 11:10; Exodus 14:4, Exodus 14:8, Exodus 14:17). Making these references, we are led to notice also the variety of expressions used. Sometimes it is simply said that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, sometimes that Pharaoh hardened it, sometimes that God hardened it; and once or twice the expression rises to the emphasis of the first person, and Jehovah himself says "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart." II. NOTICE THE TO MAKE DEVOUT AND INQUIRY INTO THIS MATTER.—There is no way to escape from the feeling that Jehovah did actually harden Pharaoh’s heart. We must treat the hardening of his heart as a great fact just as Moses did the burning bush; not doubting at all that it did happen, but rather asking how and why it happened. We must turn aside and see this great sign, why Jehovah exercised such a fearful power over Pharaoh that the end of it was the destruction of his host in the waters of the Red Sea. It is a commonplace of speech to say that the expression here is one of the most difficult in all the Scriptures. It is also a commonplace of action to shake the head with what is meant for pious submission to an impenetrable mystery. But what if this be only an indolent and most censurable avoidance of earnest thought on the ways of God towards men? No one will pretend that the mystery of this expression is penetrable to all its depths; but so far as it is penetrable we are bound to explore. How are we really to know that a thing is unfathomable, until we make an attempt to fathom it? A devout Israelite, although excluded from the Holy of Holies, did not make that a reason for neglecting the temple altogether. Our duty then is to inquire what this hardening of the heart may be, in what sense it is reconcilable with the goodness and righteousness of God. One reason why this statement is put so prominently forward in one of the most prominent narratives of Scripture, and therefore one of the most prominent in all history, may be this, that we should be kept from wrong conclusions on man’s agency as a responsible being; conclusions dishonouring to God and perilous to ourselves. Is it not a great deal gained if only this narrative sets people thinking, so as to deliver them from the snares of fatalism? III. Whatever View we take of this statement must evidently be IN THE LIGHT OF ALL WE ARE TO KNOW THE OF JEHOVAH. In considering all difficult statements as to the Divine dealings, we must start with certain postulates as to the Divine character. Before we can say that God does a thing we must know that the thing done is not out Of harmony with the rest of his ascertained doings. There may be plenty of evidence as to the thing done, when there is very little evidence as to the doer. That the streams of Egypt were actually turned to blood was a thing that could be certified by the senses of every one who inspected those streams. But that God wrought this strange work could only be made sure by asking, first, what evidence there was of God’s presence, and next, what consistency there was with his acknowledged dealings. It is only too plain that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, that he became ever more settled in his resolution to keep hold of Israel as long as he could. But when we are told that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then we must at once bring to mind all that we have heard of God in the Scriptures. We must take back into our inspection of those distant times all we know of his character whom Jesus revealed; for the loving Father of our Saviour is the same with the great Jehovah. The same holy personality is at work in the God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life, as in the God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart. We must not tolerate any conception of the hardening which contradicts the Divine character. Any view of this expression which does not harmonise with the revelation of God in the New Testament is therefore condemned. There is certainly no word in the Old Testament that more needs to be looked at in the light of the New than this. We must then dismiss from our minds any sort of notion that in hardening Pharaoh’s heart, God dulled his moral sensibilities and made him proud, indifferent to pity and justice and the fulfilment of promises. God cannot put even the germs of these feelings into any human heart; much less can he increase them to such portentous magnitude as they attained in Pharaoh. We must start with the conviction and keep to it, that what God does is right, and that it is right not because he does it, but that he does it because it is right. It is not open for us first to fix our own interpretation of what may be meant by hardening the heart, and then call it an outrage on moral sense to say that God should do this. What if we have blundered in our interpretation? IV. A right view of this statement must evidently also be taken IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THAT WE KNOW BY AN APPEAL TO HUMAN . As no word God has ever spoken can contradict the facts of external nature, so neither can it contradict the facts of man’s consciousness within. That which is true, independently of the teaching of Scripture, does not become less true, nor does it become false when Scripture begins to speak. Man is a free agent; he acts as one; he resents being treated otherwise by his fellow men. He is degraded and impoverished just in proportion as he sinks to a mere machine. His own decision is required every day, and he finds that wise decisions lead to profit, and foolish ones to loss. The law treats him as a free agent. Nay, more; what can be clearer than that God treated Pharaoh as a free agent? The plain statement that God hardened his heart is not more frequent than the equally plain statement that God demanded from him the liberation of Israel. If the one word is to be taken as simple verity, so is the other. If when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, he really did something in his nature; then also when he asked Pharaoh to liberate Israel, he asked something which he was at liberty to grant or refuse. Moses does not mock us with a mere trick of rhetoric in saying that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart; neither did God mock Pharaoh with a useless appeal when he said, "Let my People go." Pharaoh knew well in his heart that it only needed his resolution and the whole of Israel could march forth at very short notice. He himself would have been amazed to hear that God had hardened his heart. True as it was, he would have denied it most strenuously and indignantly; and he would have denied it with justice, if it had been taken to mean the destruction of his own free agency. V. We may now Perhaps consider the ground sufficiently cleared for a positive conjecture as to what is meant by God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. It means, we take it, THAT HE WORKED A CHANGE IN ONE OF PHARAOH’S NATURAL . There are certain things in every human being we do not hold that being responsible for, e.g; sex, features, temperament, acuteness and activity in senses and intellect. Some persons have good vision, others poor, others are altogether blind. In a similar way, some are naturally of a tenacious, determined will. Whatever they have set their mind upon, they hold to, with bull-dog grip. Others again are easily swayed about. Now clearly just as there are natural differences in sight, or hearing, or intellect, so there must be natural differences in this will-faculty. A man may have it very strong; he may be one who if he sets high and worthy aims before him, will be called resolute, inflexible, tenacious, indomitable, loyal to conscience; whereas if his aims be low, selfish and entirely without ground in reason, he will be called obstinate, stubborn, self-willed in the fullest sense of that word; and is it not plain that God may take this power of volition, this will-energy, and do with it, as we know that Jesus in many of his miracles did with defective or absent faculties? To the blind, Jesus gave vision, and he who could thus call a non-existent faculty into existence, evidently could increase a faculty actually existing to any degree such as man might be able to possess. And was it not something of this kind that God did in hardening Pharaoh’s heart? The term has come to have a dreadful meaning to us in connexion with Pharaoh, simply because of Pharaoh’s career. But the very miracle which God wrought in Pharaoh’s heart would have had good results, if only Pharaoh had been a different sort of man. Suppose the instance of a blind man who gets sight from Jesus. He goes into life again with a recovered faculty: and that life, with respect to its opportunities, is vastly larger than it was before. How will he use these opportunities? He may use them selfishly, and Christ’s own blessing will thus become a curse; or he may use them as Christ would have him use them, to become his efficient and grateful servant. There is a moral certainty that some who had faith enough in Jesus to have impaired natural faculties put right were yet destitute of that faith which went on to spiritual salvation and spiritual service. It was one thing to believe in Christ for a temporal gain, quite another to believe in him for a spiritual one; and the one faith while meant to lead on to the other, would not always have that effect. It is but a fond imagination to suppose that it would. So Pharaoh, if he had been a humane, compassionate and righteous man, a king with a true king’s feelings for his own people, would, through the very process of hardening his heart, have become a more efficient ruler. This is the way God helps men who are struggling with temptation, struggling towards truth and light, towards conquest over appetite, violent temper, evil habits. God does for them and in them exactly what he did in Pharaoh. What he did in Pharaoh happened to hasten him in the way where he was already disposed to go. If Pharaoh had been a blind man as well as a bad one, no one would have had any perplexity as to God’s dealings in restoring his sight and giving it the greatest perfection sight can attain. If Pharaoh had used that restored vision for bad, cruel purposes, he would have been blamed, and not Jehovah, and exactly the same remark applies if we change the name of the faculty. God strengthens the faculty of will, but Pharaoh is responsible for a right use of the strengthened faculty as much as he was for the use of the weaker faculty before. God dealt with a part of his nature where he had no power to resist any more than a blind man would have power to resist, if God were to restore vision to him. It was not against the hardening that Pharaoh struggled, but against the delivering. The hardening worked in a way he was not conscious of, but the delivering was by an appeal to him, and that appeal he was by no means disposed to entertain. It was not an awakened conscience that compelled him to his successive yieldings; these were but as the partial taming of a wild beast. Paul said, "When I would do good, evil is present with me;" but Pharaoh was steadily disposed to do evil. His cry would rather have been, "When I think to get my own way, one of those terrible plagues comes in to relax my resolutions and confuse my plans." VI. A certain amount of weight must also be allowed for PHARAOH’S TYPICAL AND . We must distinguish between what he was typically and what he was personally. Far be it from us to diminish his guilt or attempt to whitewash his memory. Doubtless he was a bad man, and a very bad man; but for typical purposes it was needful to represent him as not having one redeeming feature. His name is not linked even with one virtue amid a thousand crimes. He had to be set before the whole world and all ages as the enemy of God’s people. He is the type of a permanent adversary far greater than himself. And just as the people of God, typically considered, appeared very much better than they actually were, so Pharaoh, typically considered, is described so as to appear worse. (e.g. in Numbers 23:21, it is said, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel.") We do no, Show all God’s dealings with Pharaoh. They are hidden beneath the waters of the Red Sea, and it is no duty of ours to pass judgment on the defeated and baffled opponent. God calls us to the more practical business of going on with the livings struggling people.—Y. Exodus 14:10-14 THE TERROR OF ISRAEL AND THE COURAGE OF MOSES. It has been argued that the Israelites, if they were so numerous as stated (Exodus 12:37), must have been wretched cowards, if they were afraid to risk an engagement with such an army as that hastily levied one which Pharaoh had brought with him. But the difference between an army of trained soldiers, thoroughly equipped for war, with helmets, shields, breastplates, swords and spears, and an undisciplined multitude, unarmed for the most part, and wholly unaccustomed to warfare, is such, that the latter, whatever its numbers, may be excused if it does not feel able to cope with the former, and declines an engagement. Numbers, without military training and discipline, are of no avail—nay, are even a disadvantage, since the men impede one another. It is not necessary to suppose that the Israelites were debased in character by their long servitude to account for their panic on seeing the army of Pharaoh. They had good grounds for their fear. Humanly speaking, resistance would simply have led to their indiscriminate massacre. The alarm of the Hebrews, and even the reproaches with which they assail Moses, are thus quite natural under the circumstances. What is surprising is, the noble courage and confidence of Moses. Moses, though only vaguely informed, that God would "be honoured upon Pharaoh and all his host" (verse 4), is perfectly certain that all will go well—how the result will be achieved, he knows not; but he is sure that Israel will be delivered and Egypt discomfited; his people have no reason to fear—they have but to "stand still and see the salvation of God" (verse 13); "the Lord will fight for them;" they will have simply to "hold their peace" (verse 14). Exodus 14:10 They were sore afraid. Before the Israelites are taxed with cowardice, let it be considered— 1. That they were unarmed. Egypt was so settled a government that civilians generally went unarmed; and slaves, like the Hebrews, would scarcely have been allowed to possess any arms, if the case had been otherwise. 2. They had no military training. Whatever had been done to teach them order and arrangement in connection with their proposed journey, we may be sure there had been no drill or training in the use of arms, since this would have been regarded by the Egyptians as open rebellion. 3. They were quite unaccustomed to warfare. The Pharaohs main-rained large garrisons of Egyptian and mercenary troops in the frontier provinces, to resist the invasions to which they were liable. The Hebrews may have had occasionally to defend themselves against a hasty raid: but in real war they had stood aloof, and left the fighting to the regular Egyptian army. The children of Israel cried out unto the Lord. The appeal to Jehovah showed that, with all their weaknesses and imperfections, the Israelites were yet true at heart. They knew where alone help was to be obtained, and made their appeal accordingly. No cry is more sure of an answer than the despairing one—"Lord, save us; we perish." Exodus 14:11 And they said to Moses. It was not unnatural that, while flying to God as their only refuge, they should be angry with Moses. Moses, they would argue, ought to have known better than to have brought them into a situation of such peril. He, the leader, should have known the geography of the country—he, the courtier, should have known the temper of the court. It is always a satisfaction to men to vent their anger upon some one when they are in a difficulty. No graves in Egypt. Egypt, with a necropolis outside every city, was "a land of tombs;" surely they might have found graves there, instead of being led out to such a distance simply to die. Exodus 14:12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee? The reference was probably to that time of depression, after their burdens had been increased, and before the series of miracles began, when the Israelites had addressed reproaches to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 5:21), and refused to listen to words of encouragement (Exodus 6:9). It was not true that they had uniformly held the same language, and desired Moses and Aaron to cease their efforts. It had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die. The spirit to prefer death to slavery, where they are the only alternatives, is not a common one; and we must not be surprised that a people which had grown up in servitude and had no traditions of national independence did not rise to the heroic height attained under other circumstances by Greeks, by Switzers. and by Poles. It would have been most extraordinary had they done so. Exodus 14:13 And Moses said … fear ye not. Moses knew that the pursuit of Israel by the host of the Egyptians was a part of the counsel of God, and was to tend in some way or other to the promotion of God’s honour and glory (Exodus 14:4). He had sufficient faith to believe in a deliverance the nature of which it is not likely that he could anyway conjecture. Whether hail would fall from heaven and destroy them (Joshua 10:11); or the earth gape and swallow them up (Numbers 16:32); or the angel of death smite them all in the night (2 Kings 19:35); or any other strange form of destruction come upon them, he did not know; but he concluded from what had been revealed to him, that God was about to vindicate his own honour without the aid of man. Hence his words—Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord—which assigned to the Israelites a mere passive attitude of expectation. For the Egyptians, etc. The order of the words in the original favours the marginal rendering, which is to be adopted with one slight change. Translate—"For, as ye have seen the Egyptians to-day, ye shall see them again no more for ever," i.e; ye shall see them no more alive, vigorous and menacing, but still and lifeless upon the Red Sea shore (Exodus 14:30). There is no reference to any other Egyptians than those with Pharaoh in the camp, nor to any later relations between Egypt and the chosen people. Exodus 14:14 Ye shall hold your peace—i.e; "do nothing, remain at rest." Divine trial a touchstone to distinguish faith from unfaithfulness. The Israelites had almost as much ground as Moses to believe in God, and trust his providential care of them. They had seen the whole series of miracles which Moses had wrought. They had found themselves exempt from visitations which fell with the utmost severity on their near neighbours. They had heard from Moses God’s positive promise to bring them into Canaan (Exodus 13:5, Exodus 13:11). Yet at the first appearance of danger they lost all heart, all hope. They turned upon Moses with reproaches, taxed him with having brought them out of Egypt against their will, and expressed a readiness to return, and resume their old service. Moses, on the other hand, remained firm—did not blench—though, like the people, he felt the need of crying to God for aid (Exodus 14:15), yet he did so in a different spirit from them—he with faith, they, in panic terror, without it; he, sure that God would somehow grant salvation, they expecting nothing less than almost immediate death. Thus the same trial which shows forth one man’s faith and trust and confidence in God, reveals other men’s want of faith. While things went smoothly, there was no apparent difference—an unprejudiced observer might have thought the people just as trustful as their leader—but it was not so; and God willed that the difference should be made apparent. God will have faith distinguished from unfaithfulness, and each recognised as what it really is. I. FOR THE HONOUR OF HAS TRUE AND , which he wills to have set forth in the eyes of men, out of the tender love he bears towards his people. Though they be at the best "unprofitable servants," he deigns to recognise merit in their service, and wishes them to be honoured and held in respect by others, assigning them this as a part of their reward. II. FOR THE WARNING OF THE ONES, who, unless a severe trial came, might remain self-deceived, imagining themselves to have true faith, though wholly lacking it. III. FOR THE MERE RIGHT’S SAKE. Because he is a God of justice and of truth, abhorrent of pretence, semblance, make-believe; and always on the side of sincerity and openness. "There is nothing secret," he tells us, "that shall not be made manifest, nor hid that shall not be known" (Luke 8:17). And this revelation of the true character of men and actions, which his truthfulness makes an ultimate necessity, his providence works for here. His trials are touchstones, potent to detect shams, and to prove the faithfulness of the faithful BY J. ORR Exodus 14:10-23 The deliverance. Consider on this section:— I. THE OF THE . 1. Their position. "Encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal Zephon" (Exodus 14:9). The first view of the sea would probably be attractive to them. Its breeze, after the tedious travel of the desert, would be deliciously refreshing. They would look with a child’s wonder and delight on the novel spectacle it presented. They would crowd to the beach to watch its dancing, white-tipped waves, and curiously to listen to its soft, lapping ripple on the shore. Yet this sea, which is to-day their joy and plaything, will have become by the morrow their terror and despair—their impregnable prison barrier. The experience is not uncommon. How often does it happen that the very things which at first we are disposed to hail with delight, to welcome and rejoice in, prove afterwards our greatest causes of sorrow! The engagements we enter into, the friendships we form, the bargains we make, the society we are introduced to, etc. 2. The approach of the enemy. "The children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold the Egyptians marched after them" (Exodus 14:10). The mountains are around, the sea is in front, and now—terrible situation!—the Egyptians are pursuing, and close at hand. On they come, in whirling chariots, in ranks upon ranks of footmen; the long lines are seen defiling in the distance, and Israel knows that in an hour or two more the avalanche will be upon them, sweeping all before it, burying them in destruction. 3. They were entirely unprepared. They had been resting and unbending, not preparing for battle. The attack took them by surprise. There was no possibility under the circumstances of presenting an effectual resistance to the enemy. But, indeed, had the circumstances been ever so favourable, these hordes of slaves, accustomed so long to crouch before the rod of the taskmaster, would scarcely have attempted it. How critical, how perilous, therefore, the entire situation! A picture this of those straits of life formerly referred to, in which having done our utmost, we can do no more, and no alternative remains but prayer, and quiet waiting upon God. II. THEIR PANIC AND DESPAIR (Exodus 14:10-13). The appearance of the Egyptians naturally threw the Israelites into a state of the most acute terror. Remark: 1. Great allowance must be made for them. We do not read that, on this occasion, God dealt severely with them for the wild, ungrateful words they uttered. He made allowance. (1) Their situation was really very serious. Placed in like circumstances, we would perhaps not have shown much more faith than they did. (2) They were unused to the life of freedom. It takes time to teach those who have always been slaves to appreciate the blessings of the opposite condition. They carry their slave habits with them into the state of freedom. The Israelites had not as yet had much comfort in their emancipation. Their painful marches had probably been harder work than even the brick-making of Egypt. They could not as yet feel that it was better to be free, though enduring hardships in their freedom, than to be more comfortably situated and be slaves; Do we blame them? Then reflect how even Christians sometimes murmur and rebel at the self-denials, the sacrifices, the inconveniences, the persecutions, which their Christian freedom entails upon them. You complain, perhaps, that you have a harder time of it now, than even when you served the flesh. It may be true. But do not forget that the difference between your condition now and then, is all the difference between slavery and bondage, between salvation and a state of wrath. 2. Israel’s behaviour was nevertheless very unworthy. (1) It was faithless. They did not wait to ask or see what God, who had already done so much for them, was about to do now, but at once concluded that he would leave them to perish. It is, indeed, said that they "cried unto the Lord" (Exodus 14:10), but then, in the next breath, we read of them reproaching his servant and delegate (Exodus 14:11). They are faithless prayers that come from faithless hearts. (2) It was ungrateful. How willing they had been to be led out of Egypt! yet now, at the first approach of danger, they turn on their leader, and taunt him for having given them their liberty. Was Moses to blame for the pursuit of Pharaoh? Or did he deserve to be thus requited for the noble stand he had taken on their behalf? Public servants have often much to endure from the fickle humour of the crowd. (3) it was cowardly. It showed a servile and ignoble spirit even to breathe so base a regret as that they had not been suffered to continue in Egypt. 3. The contrast of their conduct with that of Moses. The bearing of Moses at this crisis was sublime in its calmness and trust. He does not return "railing for railing." No angry word escapes his lips in reply to the reproaches of the people. They murmur; he betakes himself to prayer (Exodus 14:15). They look to the visible chariots; he to the invisible power which is mightier than all. They seem bereft of reason, fearing immediate death; he is calm, undaunted, self-collected, and gives them the best of counsel. Ponder his words—"Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you today" (Exodus 14:13). (1) The situation was one in which God alone could bring salvation. They could do nothing for themselves. The salvation must be God’s from first to last. (2) God would bring them this salvation. The fact that he had brought them into this strait was of itself a pledge that be would find them a way out of it. The believer, who finds himself in situations of difficulty, may cherish the same confidence. (3) Their duty was to stand still, and see this salvation. So long as means of help are put within our reach, it is our duty to use them. When no such means exist, or when all available means have been exhausted, and still the shadow overhangs us, what remains but to wait patiently on the help of the Most High? "Stand still"—in trust, in prayer, in expectancy, in readiness to advance the instant the word is given. "Stand still"—as opposed to weak murmurings, to passionate regrets, to foolish rebellion against circumstances you cannot alter,—so shall you "see the salvation of the Lord." If nothing else will do, God will cleave a way for you through the waves, or better still, will enable you, like Peter, to walk on them (Matthew 14:29). III. GOD’S COMMAND TO MOSES (Exodus 14:15-19). 1. The command came in answer to prayer. "Wherefore criest thou unto me" (Exodus 14:15). The words contain no reproach, but imply that prayer needed on the instant to be exchanged for action. 2. Moses was to speak to the people that they go forward. See below. 3. He was to stretch his rod over the sea, and divide the waters (Exodus 14:16). The confidence of Moses, that God would show a way of salvation, was thus justified by the result. The light was not given as early as the people might have wished, but it was given in time. God also announces to Moses his purpose of destroying the Egyptians (Exodus 14:17, Exodus 14:18). IV. THE ADVANCE THROUGH THE SEA. On this notice— 1. The change in the position of the pillar of cloud and fire (Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20). Moving to the rear, it stood between the Israelites and their pursuers, turning a bright side to the former, and a dark side to the latter. (See below.) By this seasonable change in its position, it (1) Illuminated the passage for the Israelites. The light would stream on in front. (2) Made the way dark and perilous for the pursuers. (3) Hid the pursuers from the pursued, and vice versa. This, besides being an additional defence to the Israelites, saved them from the terror which the sight of their pursuers would naturally awaken. It is related of a party of the Waldenses, that escaping by night from their cruel persecutors, their path lay through the rugged and perilous defiles of the Alps. At length the day broke, and under the light of the rising sun, they turned to survey the track along which they had trod. By a unanimous and irresistible impulse, they fell on their knees to thank God for their marvellous preservation. "Here, they had walked on the very verge of a tremendous precipice where a false step would have dashed them to atoms; there, they had skirted the banks of a mountain lake, whose black waters seem to indicate unfathomable depths," etc. But the dangers amidst which they had moved had been veiled by the impenetrable darkness. There are some things which it is better for us not to see. Learn (1) That God adapts his manifestations of himself to his people’s needs. (2) That God’s presence with his Church is an effectual bulwark against attack. He can hide his people from their pursuers. He can darken the path of the latter; can confound their wisdom, divide their counsels, perplex them in their courses, and obstruct their progress by providential obstacles. (3) Spiritually, in times of temptation and trial, we may rely on being illuminated by God’s truth, defended by God’s power, and ultimately conducted to a place of safety. 2. The division of the waters (Exodus 14:21). (1) It was accomplished by natural agencies, supernaturally directed. "The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night." The recognition of natural agency in no wise detracts from the supernatural character of the transaction; nay, seeing that direct miracles are no longer to be looked for by the Church, it is even more helpful to faith to find that natural means were employed in this instance, than if the result had been wholly miraculous. It heightens our conceptions of what God can accomplish by means of the agencies of nature. Instance the defeat of the Spanish Armada (2) It was unexpected and surprising. In considering the ways by which God might conceivably save them, the Israelites probably never dreamt of his opening a path through the sea. So, in those straits of life to which reference has been made, help usually arrives from unexpected quarters, in a way we had not thought of. "God’s way is in the sea, and his path in the deep waters, and his footsteps are not known" (Psalms 77:19). (3) It afforded the passage that was required. The march through the sea, certainly, would not be without its difficulties. The violent gale, the thunderings and lightnings (Psalms 77:18), the darkness, the boom of the distant waters, the lurid light of the fiery cloud, the uneven passage, the panic and confusion, the strangeness and fearfulness of the entire situation, would make it an experience never to be forgotten. But if the road was difficult, it was practicable. They could pass by it. God promises to make a way for us. He does not promise that the way wilt always be an easy one. 3. The safe transit (Exodus 14:22). The children of Israel got safely across. They were preserved in the very midst of the hostile element. Nay, the sea, which they had so much dreaded, became on either side a protecting wall to them. The same superintending Providence which secured, in the shipwreck of Paul, that "so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land" (Acts 27:44), doubtless brought about a like happy result in the case of the Israelites. Their deliverance became, in after days, the type of any great deliverance wrought by God for his saints. See the figure wrought out in Psalms 18:4-20.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Cruel words out of cowardly hearts. There was much, as we have seen, to excuse the terror of Israel; but there is one thing not so easy to excuse, and that is the sarcastic, unjust spirit in which these terrified Israelites treat their visible leader. Formerly (Exodus 5:21) they had turned on him with bitter reproaches; but their conduct then was the effect of ignorance and hasty expectations, and their language, however strong, was simply the language of reproach. But now to reproach they add sarcasm; they speak so as to set Moses in a ridiculous as well as a painful position. We may suppose that when the question was asked, "Whatever can we have been brought here for?" some of the wits of Israel would reply, "There is no room in Egypt to bury us, and so we are brought to be buried here." Then this sharp speech, quickly flying from lip to lip, as clever things usually do, would in no long time become the well-nigh universal thought. We have then here to consider the evils of sarcastic speech. That such speech may do good sometimes, and sometimes be necessary, need not be denied. But inasmuch as the temptation is almost entirely the other way, we may dismiss as needless the work of considering what benefits there may be in sarcastic speech. The ills of sarcasm have so far outweighed the good, that we had better set ourselves earnestly to consider them. Is it not to be presumed that fewer such sayings would fall from our lips, if only we habitually considered all the ill effects that may flow from such a way of speaking? I. THE PAIN BY SPEECH. There may be a great deal of pain inflicted where no sense of pain is expressed. Moses does not here take any notice of this bitter, clever, far-echoing word about the graves; but thereby, he only gives another illustration of his characteristic natural meekness. He may have felt, and felt deeply, even though he did not speak. If, indeed, he reckoned nothing of these words, we should hardly think so well of him. To be what is called thick-skinned is not good, if it is meant thereby that one has no perception of the insolent, inconsiderate language of others. Lack of sensibility to pain means a corresponding lack of sensibility to pleasure. We can no more avoid feeling pain when a harsh word is spoken, than when we receive a cut or a blow. No doubt it is pleasant to say sharp, clever things; but the pleasure is a momentary one, an entirely selfish one; it will not bear thinking about; and it may inflict a durable pain. Sharp words may be like barbed arrows that not all the lapse of years can work out of the memory. Assuredly we must not shrink from inflicting pain, if duty, affection, and prudence point that way; but we had need to be very sure of the indications. To inflict bodily pain for our own pleasure is admittedly an unchristian thing; and yet what a monstrous inconsistency is revealed in the fact that persons who would not tread on a worm, are constantly found inflicting the intensest pain by the words they speak. Knock a man down, and you might do him less harm than by the few words that pass so lightly, easily, and pleasantly between your lips. Less harm is done by the fist than by the tongue. II. THE DONE BY IT. Sarcastic speeches never can be true speeches. If they were true, it would be no justification of them, but in the very nature of things they cannot be true. They must have about them, more or less, elements of the false and exaggerated. If a thing is to be sharp at all, there is an irresistible temptation to make it as sharp and striking as possible; and truth cannot but suffer in the process. Epigrams are always to be distrusted. How clearly the injustice of sharp sayings comes out in the illustration before us! The speech about these graves was a witty, clever one, but how unjust! As it happened, Moses was under no responsibility whatever for bringing the Israelites to this particular place. lie had not been left to use his own judgment and discretion, but was as much under the guidance of the cloudy pillar as all the rest. Hence from this illustration we receive a slight warning that we may not only be inflicting pain, Which is much, but injustice, which is a great deal more. You who would not steal the least fragment of a man’s property, be equally careful to speak no word which may do hurt to his reputation. Speak that you may inflict no pain; speak also that you may do no injustice. III. THE PERIL TO THE SPEAKER HIMSELF. Cleverness is a perilous, and not unfrequently a fatal gift. To be sharper than our neighbours may prove in the end a dangerous thing for our own interests. Some who are admired, courted, widely spoken about, for their powers of mimicry, find in the end that it might have been far more for their comfort and permanent well-being, if they had been of only commonplace abilities. To be admired is a poor satisfaction, mere dust and ashes, if it has to stand instead of being loved. Make fun of other people, seize without mercy on their weaknesses, their follies and their natural defects, and the chances are that you will find yourself exposed, in turn, to like treatment. Those who attack with sharp speeches are just the men who deserve—if they always got their deserts, and it were expedient to retaliate—equally sharp speeches in return. What about these Israelites here? Did they not by talking in this fashion show clearly what a mean, miserable company they were? They hurt themselves far more than they hurt Moses. There is hardly one who takes pride in what he calls his plain speaking, but might be pilloried himself, and greeted with sarcastic speeches as severe as any he had uttered, and probably more charged with truth. And the worst of all is, that in the end those habituated to evil-speaking may find themselves forsaken in their own great need. We need friends, and, if we would have them, we must show ourselves friendly. If we go through the world constantly replenishing our sarcastic quiver with arrows, and stretching the bow on every slight provocation, then we must expect people to give us a wide berth; and when at last we come to be stricken ourselves, it will be no matter of just complaint if we are left well-nigh alone. IV. HOW MUCH GOOD IS AND BY THIS WAY OF . We may flatter ourselves that there is good to be gained in making folly ridiculous, and so there may be; but it can only be when the speaker is one of great wisdom, goodness, and habitual elevation of life. Certainly we find in the Scriptures the language of solemn irony from God himself; but his words are above our criticism, and we are not at liberty to speak as he speaks. We are all upon the same level of sin, ignorance, and partial views, and must speak as remembering this level. To affect authority and superior station will be ruinous to all good effects from any remonstrance of ours. Whatever truth is revealed to us, and put upon our consciences to speak, must be spoken in love, in humility, and in the very best season we can find. If it is really our desire to win others to better, wiser and manlier courses, we had better not begin with sharp speeches. True it may be that the world is mostly made up of fools, and perhaps there is no occasion when we do more to prove our own place in the large company than when, in our contempt and impatience, we call other people fools. We are not then behaving as fishers of men. We are not then becoming all things to all men in order to save some. Many a Christian has had to sorrow for his imperfect control over the gift of intellectual quickness. Before his conversion, he used his gift of wit, repartee, and ludicrous conception with careless freedom and delight, not staying to consider whom he hurt, whom he hindered. Then when such a one submits at last to the true lord of the intellect, he finds it hard, in this matter in particular, to bring his thoughts into captivity to the obedience of Christ. V. GOD’S PEOPLE MUST PREPARE TO BE AND SPOKEN OF. Only let each one of us consider his own temptation to say hard things, and then we shall cease to wonder that hard things are said of us. We cannot expect to receive from others, but as we give to them. Anyway we must be ready for hard things, ready in particular for hard speeches. Where Christ went, his people must go; and he went in a path where he was called a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. If he was sneered at on the very Cross, it is babyish on our part to complain because the world sneers at us in the comparatively easy paths we have to tread. Our strength, our joy, and our serenity must not depend on the world’s opinion. Moses was getting a hint even thus early that he must not expect consideration from his brethren, with respect to his feelings and difficulties. The joys of Moses were to be got from quite another direction, even from the assiduous tenderness of Jehovah himself. VI. A HABIT OF PITIFUL TOWARDS THE MEN OF SPEECH. Remember that they are not happy men. How can a man be happy whose eye is for ever lighting on the blots and loathsome ulcers of human nature; who seems to have a morbid acuteness of vision with respect to them, but to become purblind when noble and Divinely-produced elements of character appear? Such a man is to be pitied with Christ’s own gentle pity. Do not meet his sarcasm with sarcasm, but here emphatically return good for evil. Force him to see that there is a great deal more in the world, if only he will look for it, than duplicity, selfishness, and stupidity. Show him how to discern, even in the jostling and wrangling crowd, men who have in them the mind which was in Christ.—Y. BY H.T. The passage of the Red Sea. "Fear ye not, stand still (firm), and see the salvation of God" (Exodus 14:13). Mark, by way of introduction, the critical character of this event, the greatest in Old Testament history. Lay solid foundations for sermonic treatment by describing first the scene, expounding the history, and then evolving the truths in the history. I. THE SCENE. In the Gospels, the spiritual significance is almost independent of topography. Only two or three scenes (e.g; Jacob’s well: the ridge whence Jesus saw from Olivet the city and wept over it), can be absolutely and certainly identified. But here sermon and story are inextricably blended with sea and shore. Note! twice change of direction: (1) not by way of Philistia: (2) not by caravan road, round by the mouth of the western arm of the Red Sea; but brought into a position of extreme danger, with the sea roaring between Israel and the freedom of the desert. The writer of this section of the commentary believes, that Israel encamped on what is now known as the plain of Suez, the sea reaching then much further north than now. Any detailed map will show—that there Israel would have the sea on the east, hills to north and south, an open valley to the west, along which the Egyptian forces would charge. Deepen the impression, that these two millions of people, some indeed armed, but not yet organised, with women, children, and the aged, were in a position utterly hopeless. It was a situation of despair—but that which is impossible with man is possible with God. II. THE HISTORY. One of the objects should be to vivify and make very real to the hearers, the histories of the Old Testament, which sometimes seem so very far away from modern thought and life. With this intent, bring out clearly, by aid of exposition elsewhere, points like these:—probably seven days elapsed between the Passover and the song on the eastern shore of the sea, occupied thus:— 1. By Israel. On the 15th, to Succeth, fifteen miles; on the 16th, to Etham, fifteen miles; on the 17th, to the dangerous position by the sea; on the 18th, 19th, and 20th, encamped there, completing arrangements for the pilgrimage to Sinai and Palestine. 2. By Egypt. Every movement watched by the government; night of 15th, report from Succoth; of the 16th, from Etham; morning of the 17th, courier could carry in a few hours, over the thirty miles, intelligence that Israel had taken the wrong (?) road. Sudden determination of the king. Had three days to overtake. Called together six hundred picked chariots, other chariots, infantry, and led in person. On the afternoon of the 20th, the pickets of Israel saw far away the force coming over the sand ridges. Horror of the two millions. The splendid cities of tombs in Egypt rose to the memory. But here soon a sort of gigantic anticipation of Isandula. A cry against Moses, and unto Jehovah. The moral attitude of Moses mixed—cheer for the people—a fainting heart before God. His silent prayer. "The upward glancing of an eye." The word of assurance. "Forward." The movement of what must have been, in this instance, wall of cloud and fire, to give soft electric light to Israel and over the sea, to be darkness to Egypt, and to cover the greatest military movement in all history. The short time demanded perfect order. Then came the ploughshare of the east winch In the confusion and darkness, Egypt eagerly followed. The look out of the cloud, shot with thunderbolt—a lock which meant ruin. Sea rolls back from the rear of Egypt. Chariot clashes against chariot. Wheels lost. On the night of the 14th Israel became a nation. On the morning of the 21st the nation was free. III. TRUTHS. 1. Neither first nor even second openings in life are always into the way God intends us to take. A common error to suppose that any opening is "providential." Not via Philistia: nor the caravan road to Sinai. God’s object to develop moral thoughtfulness, and the scrutiny of apparent leading. E.g; Will this course imperil my principle, lead into temptation, and ruin my soul? 2. Seemingly hopeless entanglement may have great issues. Moral firmness developed: dependence upon God. Salvation complete, and anthem of victory. 3. The temper for crisis is that of calm confidence. No panic! Had there been panic, Israel had been food for Egyptian sabres! "Stand firm!" (see Hebrews) Apply this to state of religion; things social, political, at home and abroad; to affairs personal. 4. Confidence should express itself in prayer. Note the difference: the cry of Israel, and the evidently silent appeal of Moses. 5. Action must follow prayer. "Wherefore criest," etc; an intimation that prayer was already answered; and now Moses to the front, and every man to his post. 6. When God leads into danger, He will certainly see us safely through it. If wantonly and wilfully we go into danger, we may (through mercy) be delivered; if on Divine leading, we shall. E.g; going into some scene of vice, out of curiosity, or worse motive; on the other hand, at the request of a distant friend, to save a soul. Difference between presumption and courage. 7. Salvations of God are ever timely and complete. 8. After God’s great salvation comes, the dumbness of amazement, and after the dumbness, song. "Jehovah shall fight for you, and ye shall be dumb." (Hebrews 14:31; 15:1; Revelation 15:2-4.)—R. GOD’S ANSWER TO MOSES’ PRAYER. To the faithful prayer of Moses, albeit pitched perhaps in too low a key, God made gracious answer. A "cry" had been unnecessary, since his word was already pledged to bring his people safe to Canaan, and to get himself honour upon Pharaoh in connection with the pursuit (Exodus 14:4). But, as the appeal has been made, he responds with a plain statement of what has now to be done:— 1. The Israelites are to make themselves ready for a forward movement (Exodus 14:15); 2. Moses is to stretch oat his rod over the Red Sea, and it will be divided; 3. The Israelites are then to make the passage on dry ground; 4. The Egyptians are to follow, and then honour is to be gotten upon them; and they are to know by the result that God is indeed Jehovah. Exodus 14:15, Exodus 14:16 Wherefore criest thou to me? It is evident that Moses, while boldly encouraging the people, himself needed the support and consolation of prayer. The SyriActs translator shows us that he divined the fact aright, when he without authority intruded the words, "Moses then cried to Jehovah." The form of the Divine reply to his prayer seems to indicate a certain amount of reproach, as if Moses himself had become unduly anxious. Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward. The Israelites were not to rest in their encampment, but to form in line of march, and descend to the very shore of the sea, and there hold themselves in readiness. Moses was to lift up his rod—the rod with which his other miracles had been wrought—and stretch out his hand over the sea, and then the drying up was to begin. Thus was most of the night passed. Exodus 14:17 I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians. Here, and here only, are the hearts of the Egyptians generally said to have been "hardened." Whatever meaning we attach to the expression, there will be no more difficulty in applying it to them than to Pharaoh. They had made themselves partakers in the monarch’s guilt by mustering in hot haste when he summoned them, and had allowed themselves to revel in the anticipation of plunder and carnage (Exodus 15:9). Under such circumstances, the general laws which govern human nature would be quite sufficient to make their hearts grow hard. They shall follow them. Upon this act—rash, if the phenomenon had been a mere natural one—presumptuous and infatuated if the drying up were regarded as miraculous—depended altogether the destruction of the Egyptians. They had only to have "stood still" and allowed the escape, which a week previously they had done their best to encourage, in order to have remained safe and unhurt. It was their stupidity and blood-thirstiness which alone brought them into any danger. Upon his horsemen. Rather "his chariotmen." See the comment on Exodus 14:9. Exodus 14:18 The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord. All Egypt would learn the destruction of the host, and the circumstances under which it occurred, whose miraculous nature could not be concealed. And the consequence would be a wide recognition of the superior might of Jehovah, the God of Israel, over that of any of the Egyptian deities. More than this the Egyptians were not likely to admit under any circumstances. Exodus 14:15-18 The reward of faith. God rewarded the faith and trust of Moses by a revelation of the manner of that deliverance which he so confidently expected. Hitherto the manner had been involved in mystery; and it is scarcely likely that any one had even conjectured it as a possible thing. There was no precedent for such an interference with the laws of nature; and the thought could scarcely occur to the imagination of any one. But, to reward his faithful servant, to quiet his anxiety, and give definiteness to his expectations of deliverance, God now plainly revealed the mode in which he would save his people. God is ever "a rewarder of them that diligently seek him," and especially rewards faith. The faith of Abraham, which made him trust God’s promise to create of him a great nation, when as yet he had no child, obtained for him the gift of Canaan and the covenant of circumcision. The faith of Noah, who believed God’s threat of a deluge, which all the rest of the world scorned, saved him and his family from perishing by water. The faith of Enoch, by which he "walked with God" though he could not see him—caused God to "take him." Faith brings us, to a certainty,— 1. The present blessing of an assured trust which nothing can imperil; 2. Quietness and confidence—the feeling that we may "stand still and see the salvation of God;" 3. Freedom from panic fears and unworthy apprehensions; 4. Cheerfulness and hopefulness—a conviction that God will give us what is best for us. Faith may also, by God’s mercy, obtain for us further gifts in the future—blessings not naturally arising out of it, but added to it as rewards by God, and signs of his approval. The faith of Moses was ultimately rewarded, 1. By success in the great object of his life—the liberation of his people and their safe-conduct through all the perils of the wilderness to the verge of Canaan; 2. By God’s approval of him as "Moses, the servant of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 34:5); and 3. By the vision of Canaan from Pisgah. BY J. ORR Exodus 14:15 Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward! I. FORWARD!—GOD’S TO HIS CHURCH. The law of Christian life is advance. God never brings his Church or people into positions from which retreat is necessary, or in which advance is impossible. We may bring ourselves into false positions of this kind, but God never leads us into them. In proportion as we surrender ourselves to his guidance, we may depend on being conducted always "forward." There is no instance in the whole history of the Old or New Testament Church in which, while God’s guidance was followed, retreat had to be made. Forward! (1) In Christian attainments. (2) In holy living. (3) In labours for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. (4) In missionary enterprise. (5) In doing good to our fellow-men. II. FORWARD!—IN WITH VAIN , AND WITH . These do no good, but much harm. They betray an unbelieving spirit. ]f God brings us into situations of trial, the fact that it is he who brings us into them is of itself a pledge that with the trial, he will make also a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). When the foe bears hard upon us, we should, instead of losing heart, rather feel that the time has come for getting everything in readiness for advance—the "great door and effectual" must be on the very point of opening. III. FORWARD!—BY THE WAY WHICH GOD MAKES FOR US. At the same moment that he is saying—"Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward," he is doubtless commissioning some Moses to stretch out his rod over the sea, to open up the way for us. God never says "Forward," without at the same time opening the way. IV. FORWARD!—WITH GOOD HEART, STRONG HOPE, AND FIRM OF BEING ON THE JOURNEY. Going forward at God’s word, the Israelites were assured of God’s protection. They were certain of reaching the further shore in safety. No fear of the waves rushing back, and burying them. Pharaoh pursued, but he was not permitted to capture them, and was himself overthrown. We may confront any perils, if duty calls, and God goes with us. Cf. Luther at Worms.—J.O. BY J. Obedience necessary to salvation. I. THE DUTY OF THOSE WHO ARE LEADERS AMONG THEIR IN TIMES OF TRIAL. 1. There is a time for action as well as prayer: "Wherefore criest thou unto me?" (1) The time of the leader must not be spent in prayer only—there are arrangements to make and needs to meet. In times of difficulty God asks for obedience. A path of love, of forgiveness of injuries, of some service, lies right before us as our duty in that hour. True faith will walk in it. This too is an appeal to our Father as well as prayer. (2) Unbelief may hide itself behind a form of devotion. 2. To speak to them that they go forward. 3. To do what God bids them in opening up their brethren’s way. "Lift thou up thy rod." The lifting up of the rod seemed a vain thing, but it clove a path for Israel through the heart of the sea. Our service for our brethren in the day of their trouble may cleave a way for them. A people’s progress may be hindered by a leader’s indolence and selfishness. II. GOD’S WORKING ON HIS PEOPLE’S BEHALF (Exodus 14:17, Exodus 14:18). 1. His mercy was veiled, but he was working still. The very pursuit of the foe was from him. 2. Egypt had still to receive one crowning lesson regarding Jehovah’s might and unfailing guardianship of his people. When foes pursue, when sins rise up to recover their former sway, it is that God may destroy the one and judge the other.—U. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 14:13-31 God completes the deliverance of the Israelites from Pharaoh and removes their terror. I. NOTE THE WAY IN WHICH MOSES MEETS THE OF THE . They had addressed to him sarcastic, flippant, and in every way unworthy speeches. They were not so filled with fear, not so occupied with the troubles of their own hearts, but that they could find a malignant delight in striving to make him ridiculous. This mingling of feelings on their part, fear mingled with hate, makes the single-heartedness of his reply all the more manifest and beautiful. The time is not one for him to stand on his own dignity, or bandy sharp language with mean men, even were his character such as to incline him that way. There is but a step from the sublime to the ridiculous; in one sense he makes that step, and by his noble, impressive exhortation, he at once sweeps the ridiculous out of the path of the sublime. The subject of the grave surely is never a seemly one for jesting; and the jesting was unseemliest of all at this present hour. One almost sees these little, pert jokers retreating into the background before the great believer. They would not trouble him again for a while. It was not Israel that had come out of Egypt seeking for graves, but Pharaoh and his host. These murmurers did indeed find graves in the wilderness by and by; but it was for a subsequent transgression. It is part of the peculiar pathos of human life that no one can tell where he must die and be buried. So much then with respect to the meek and comely attitude—true attitude of a prophet of God—which Moses here assumed. He rises clear above the little men of the crowd, for God has taken him out, in particular, with a high hand, and now what shall the matter of his answer be? He does not turn towards God doubtfully. (Contrast his conduct here with his conduct in Exodus 5:22-23.) The peril is to the natural eye overwhelming, but it is not peril to him, for God has filled him with the spirit of faith. He himself, unfearing, can tell the people not to fear. He himself, calmly expectant that some great deliverance is on the way, can recommend, his face not belying his tongue, the same calm expectancy to the people. Let them stand still and wait, instead of rushing hither and thither, weakening themselves still more by their disorder. Moses, exactly comprehending that the position is one in which man can do nothing, and God must do everything, presses this view on his brethren. What is his personal dignity, his amour-propre, compared with the glorious view to be opened out to them? Here is a lesson then, when people speak to us out of little envies and personal grudges. Reply by directing them to great soul-filling truths. Lead, if you can, mean, grovelling souls to the mountain top. Give them the chance of seeing the wide inheritance of the saints; and if they cannot take it in, then the loss, and the responsibility of the loss, is theirs. II. NOTE THE WHICH GOD GIVES TO MOSES, Exodus 14:15-18. These instructions, astounding as they must have seemed at the time, were, nevertheless, eminently practical. Those who bear the name of practical among men are those who keep well within what is reckoned possible by the ordinary judgment. Men of the Columbus type, such as great discoverers and great inventors, have to bear for long enough the name of being mere visionaries, day-dreamers, wasters of life. But God’s practicality is to set his servants at once to things reckoned impossible. His directions are very simple: "Go forward." He waits till the people are indeed shut up on every hand, and then he says, "Go forward." They were to continue in the same direction, and that led onward to the sea. This was the appointed path to the mountain where they were to serve God. Yes; and if the path had been through the rocky steeps which enclosed them, God could have dissolved those steeps away. Or if it had been through Pharaoh’s host, he could have smitten that host utterly, as he afterwards did Sennacherib’s. Notice that in this command there is another proving of faith. First, with regard to Moses. For it will be observed that there is nothing to show that Moses knew anything of what would happen in the Red Sea, until God now made it known. Probably during the whole course of the plagues, the precise nature of each plague was revealed to Moses only just as it was approaching. And so here, in this new imprisonment, he was quietly waiting for light to come from God, well knowing that sufficient would be done to deliver Israel—that God had led his people into this entanglement, not without a perfectly definite purpose, and that the end of all would be the destruction of the Egyptians. But he knew not any more than the least child in Israel, until just beforehand, how all this was to be brought about. There was also a great proving of the faith of the people. God has a command for them, and it is one requiring great faith. Notice how appropriately it comes on, as the climax of past treatment. We have seen the Israelites sharing at first in the suffering of the Egyptian plagues. After a while, the district in which they reside is exempted from the plagues. Then when the first-born are smitten, the Israelites, by their obedience to Jehovah’s instructions, escape the blow. And now at last their escape is to be completed by again obeying Jehovah’s instructions, and equally in the obedience of a pure faith. But mark the most important advance and development of faith, which is here illustrated. Two quite different states of mind are brought out by slaying the passover lamb in faith, and by going towards and through the Red Sea in faith. To slay the passover lamb is to do a thing for which no reason is given but the command of God. But it is a thing which plainly can be done. It involves no peril; there is no appearance of impossibility about it; the only temptation is to think it useless, a superfluous reasonless form. On the other hand, it is perfectly plain that passage through the Red Sea will provide escape. The question is, can such a passage be gained, and therein the temptation lies—In slaying the passover lamb, the Israelites had to humble their intellects before Divine wisdom; in advancing to the Red Sea, they had to show the utmost confidence in Divine power. We must steadily believe that all God commands is useful and necessary; we must also steadily believe that all which is fit for him to do, he most assuredly can do. It is a matter deserving consideration that Jehovah should have given such a command, seeing the state of unbelief and carnality in which the Israelites evidently were. They had not spoken like men ready for such an awful miracle. But we can see certain things which made obedience easier. For one thing, God had shut them up to it. If they had been taken down to the Red Sea, with no Pharaoh behind, with no enclosing mountains on either hand, they might have rebelled. But circumstances lent a strong compulsive aid. We know not what we can do, what triumphs of faith we can achieve till God shuts us up to them. Then there was something also in the sight of the rod. God commanded Moses to exhibit something which had already been associated with wonderful deeds. Thus we see God making plain to Israel the way out of their peril, and so far all is definite. But this being told, the definite immediately shades away into the indefinite. The indefinite mark, but not therefore the uncertain. All is manifest and straightforward with regard to the Israelites; they are to be safe. But what about Pharaoh and his army? We remember Peter’s question to Jesus concerning John (John 21:21). "Lord, what shall this man do?" So Moses might have questioned Jehovah—"Lord, what is to happen to Pharaoh?’ Something on this matter Jehovah does say, just enough to preserve confidence, attention and expectation; but for the details Moses and Israel must wait a little longer. Meanwhile an inspiring hint is given of great judgment, great humiliation, and for Jehovah himself, great glory. Here the information stops; and here we again notice the eminent practicality of God’s instructions. For the day’s need and for our own need God gives us the amplest guidance; but what is to happen to our enemies, and exactly how they are to be removed he keeps within his own knowledge, as within his own power. The proper answer to all impious and curious pryings on our part is that which Jesus gave to Peter—"What is that to thee? follow thou me." III. NOTE THE OF JEHOVAH IN ISRAEL AND THE . 1. The altered position of the cloudy pillar. The angel of God removed and went behind. By the angel of God is possibly meant the pillar itself. Just as the burning bush is described as a messenger of God (Exodus 3:2), so here there seems an indicating of the cloudy pillar as another messenger. Just at this moment it was not wanted for purposes of guidance. Indeed it would not have proved sufficient for these purposes. Jehovah had found it needful himself to intervene and signify by unmistakable words, the way in which he would have the people go. The cloudy pillar was enough for guidance only as long as the Israelites were in open and ordinary paths. But where it could not be used for guidance, it could be used for defence. God’s messengers can easily change their use. The cloud, by changing its place, hindered Egypt, and thereby helped Israel. Nor did it help Israel in this way alone; the boon was a positive as much as a negative one. Surely this was a marvellous cloud, for it had in it darkness as well as light. Thus it served a double purpose. Hiding Israel from the Egyptian eyes, it proved the best of fortifications. But at the same time it shone upon the Israelites and gave them the benefits of day with the immunities of night. They could put everything in perfect order for the march, so as to take it the moment the way through the sea was ready. Imagine that miraculous light shining down on that miraculous path, even from end to end; just like a light shining down a street; and as it were pointing Israel onward, even though it stood behind them. Thus we are made to think of all the double aspect of the work of Jesus, how at the same time he confounds his enemies and guides and cheers his friends. Consider this especially in connection with his resurrection. On the one hand he abolished death; on the other he brought life and immortality to light. 2. The obedience of Moses and the Israelites to the Divine command. As we have noticed, all this had been well prepared for beforehand. Moses had been led up to it, and so had Israel; and therefore when the moment came, there was no hesitation. After what has been already said there is no need to dwell on this actual obedience. It is enough to note in passing, that God having duly arranged all conspiring causes, the effect followed as a matter of course. But now we come to the point of main interest in the closing section of this chapter, namely, 3. The conduct, treatment, and ultimate fate of the Egyptians. There is first, their infatuated advance. They go down in the path which Jehovah had made for Israel as if it was to remain a path for them. The Egyptians were too full of their purpose, too full of the spirit of vengeance and greed to notice their danger, even though it was a danger of the most obvious kind. They might have gone into certain positions where a miracle would have been required to put them in danger; but here the miracle is already wrought, and these enemies of Jehovah and Jehovah’s people advance, as if the piled-up waters were thus to remain, their shape settled for ages to come, just like the shape of the solid hills around. The only thing to explain their conduct is the momentum that had been produced in their own breasts. It was with them just as it is with the runner when he has gained a certain speed. Suppose in his headlong career he comes to a chasm, stop he cannot. Either he must clear the chasm or fall into it. The next point to be noticed is God’s treatment of them in their advance. The whole progress of affairs is exactly arranged so as to produce the deliverance of Israel and the destruction of Pharaoh. The very nearness of Pharaoh and his army to the Israelites, instead of proving ruin to them, only more effectually proves ruin to him. Some of the more timid among the Israelites might be tempted to say, "Oh! that the waters would return, immediately the last Israelite is ashore; let the great barrier be set between us and Pharaoh as soon as possible." But such a course would only have secured a present safety at the expense of a future one. Jehovah has a far better way of working than any which human panic can suggest. He lets the Egyptians go on until the whole army is in the midst of the sea, and then he who has truly proved himself a man of war opens the last decisive battle by making the chariots useless. Nay, not only were they useless; they seem to have become a hindrance and a terror. Jehovah neither hastens nor lingers; he smites at the right time, and therefore he smites effectually; and now we are called to listen to a resolution made too late. "Let us flee from the face of Israel." If only they had been wise in time, they would not have had to flee at all. What were they doing in the midst of the Red Sea? Nay more, what were they doing out of their own country? They had trifled and trifled with danger after danger, and now they had trifled beyond escape. It is no time to talk of flight when the door of the trap has fallen. The waters are on the point of returning; the ordinary course of nature is about to assert itself. Why should that course be interrupted one moment longer, simply to preserve a host of proud and dangerous men. The great lesson from Pharaoh’s fall is to be wise in time. Flee from the wrath to come ] there is a possibility of that; but when the wrath has come, who then shall flee? (Revelation 6:16-17). IV. NOTE THE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ON THE MINDS OF THE . Verse 31. More desirable words surely could not be spoken of any people than that they fear Jehovah and believe in him and his servants. The fear and the faith, however, must be of the right sort, arising out of a right state of the heart, and cleaving to God through all the vicissitudes of circumstance. Such unfortunately was not the fear and faith of these Israelites. We must have heart knowledge of God’s character, and come to understand how necessary it is to pass through a shaking of the things that can be shaken in order that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Then we shall fear as we ought to fear, and believe as we ought to believe. Y. THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA. The Egyptians had arrived in the near neighbourhood of the Israelite camp, at the close of a long day’s march, towards evening. Having ascertained that the fugitives were still, as they had expected them to be, shut in between the sea and the wilderness, they were content, and made no immediate attack, but encamped over against them. Hereupon, "the pillar of the cloud," which was at the time in front of the Israelite camp—probably near the point where God intended the passage of the sea to be effected "removed" from this position, and placed itself directly behind the Israelite encampment, between them and the Egyptians. This movement alone was calculated to alarm the latter, and prevent them from stirring till near daybreak; but, the better to secure their inaction, the pillar was made to overshadow them with a deep and preternatural darkness, so that it became almost impossible for them to advance. Meanwhile, on the side which was turned towards the Israelites, the pillar presented the appearance of a bright flame, lighting up the whole encampment, and rendering it as easy to make ready for the march as it would have been by day. Thus, the beasts were collected and laden the columns marshalled and prepared to proceed in a certain fixed order—and everything made ready for starting so soon as the bed of the sea should be sufficiently dry. Moses, about nightfall, descending to the water’s edge, stretched forth his rod over the waves, and, an east wind at once springing up—accompanied perhaps by a strong ebb of the tide—the waters of the gulf were parted in the vicinity of the modern Suez, and a dry space left between the Bitter Lakes, which were then a prolongation of the Gulf, and the present sea-bed. The space may have been one of considerable width. The Israelites entering upon it, perhaps about midnight, accomplished the distance, which may not have exceeded a mile, with all their belongings, in the course of five or six hours, the pillar of the cloud withdrawing itself, as the last Israelites entered the sea-bed, and retiring after them like a rearguard. Thus protected, they made the transit in safety, and morning saw them encamped upon the shores of Asia. Exodus 14:19 The angel of God. The Divine Presence, which manifested itself in the pillar of the cloud, is called indifferently "the Lord" (Exodus 13:21; Exodus 14:24), and "the Angel of God"—just as the appearance to Moses in the burning bush is termed both "God" and "the angel of the Lord" (Exodus 3:2). Which went before—i.e.; "which ordinarily, and (so to speak) habitually preceded the camp" (Exodus 13:21; Psalms 78:14). And stood behind them. Took up a fixed station for the night, or the greater portion of it. Exodus 14:20 It was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these. Though there is nothing in the Hebrew correspondent to the expressions "to them," "to these," yet the meaning seems to have been rightly apprehended By our translators. (See the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, the SyriActs version, and among moderns, Knobel, Maurer, Rosenmuller, and Kalisch.) Exodus 14:21 Moses stretched out his hand. As commanded by God (Exodus 14:16). Compare the somewhat similar action of Elijah and Elisha, when they divided the Jordan (2 Kings 2:8, 2 Kings 2:14). The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind. The LXX. translate "a strong south wind" (ἐνἀνέμῳνότῳβιαίῳ); but the Hebrew kadim is certainly "east" rather than "south." It is not, however, "east" in the sense of due east, but would include all the range of the compass between N.E. and S.E. If we suppose the Bitter Lakes to have been joined to the Red Sea by a narrow and shallow channel, the action of a south-east wind, by driving the water of the Lakes northward, may have easily produced the effect described in the text. A simultaneous ebb of the lower gulf would have further facilitated the passage. The waters were divided. Water remained in the upper extremity of the Gulf, now the site of the Bitter Lakes, and also, of course, below Suez. The portion of the sea dried up lay probably between the present southern extremity of the Bitter Lakes and Suez. By the gradual elevation and desiccation of the region, it has passed into permanent dry land. Exodus 14:22 The waters were a wall—i.e; a protection, a defence. Pharaoh could not attack them on either flank, on account of the two bodies of water between which their march lay. He could only come at them by following after them. The metaphor has been by some understood literally, especially on account of the expression in Exodus 15:8—"The floods stood upright as an heap;" and again that in Psalms 78:13—"He made the waters to stand as an heap." But those phrases, occurring in poems, must be taken as poetical; and can scarcely have any weight in determining the meaning of "wall" here. We must ask ourselves—is there not an economy and a restraint in the exertion by God even of miraculous power?—is more used than is needed for the occasion?—and would not all that was needed at this time have been effected by such a division of the sea as we have supposed, without the fluid being converted into a solid, or having otherwise the laws of its being entirely altered. Kalisch’s statement, that the word "wall" here is "not intended to convey the idea of protection, but only of hardness and solidity," seems to us the very reverse of the truth. Protection is at any rate the main idea, and any other is secondary and subordinate. Exodus 14:19-22 God protects his own, but in strange ways. The passage of the Red Sea was the crowning miracle by which God effected the deliverance of his people from the bondage of Egypt; and all its circumstances were strange and worthy of notice. I. THE OF THE LORD, WHICH HAD BEEN WONT TO LEAD THEM, REMOVED AND WENT BEHIND THEM. They had to enter the dark and slimy bed from which the sea had retired without the cheering sight of the Divine presence before their eyes beckoning them on. So there are occasions of trial in the life of every man, when God ,seems to withdraw his presence, to remove himself, to "go behind us," so that we cannot see him. Sometimes he withdraws himself in grief or in anger; but more often he does it in mercy. The temporary obscuration will advantage the soul under the circumstances. There is perhaps some secular work to be done which requires all its attention, like this passage, where every step had to be taken with care. Short separations are said to intensify affection; and the sense of the Divine presence is more valued after a withdrawal, like the sun’s light after an eclipse. II. THE PILLAR OF THE CLOUD, WHICH HAD BEEN WONT TO BE ALL SMOKE, OR ALL FIRE, WAS NOW BOTH AT ONCE. "It came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these." The eye sees that which it has within itself the power of seeing. To the godly the presence of God is a joy and a delight, a brightness and a radiance. To the ungodly it is an awful and alarming thing, a cloud which mars their enjoyment. When Jesus was on earth, there were those among the inhabitants of Palestine who "besought him to depart out of their coasts" (Matthew 8:34). The ungodly fear to look upon God. He is to them dark, mysterious, terrible. The sense of his presence paralyses them—they cannot stir till it is removed. But to the godly, it is "light in the darkness"—it illuminates mind and soul and spirit—it cheers and brightens the path of life—it irradiates even the obscurest gulf that we have to traverse. Let us bear in mind that when the Divine presence is removed from before our eyes, it is still in no case far from us. If at any time we do not see God, he at all times sees us. We have only to make an effort, and we can in a short time recover our perception of his presence. III. BY MEANS OF A STRONG EAST WIND THE WATERS WERE DIVIDED, UPON MOSES OUT HIS HAND OVER THE SEA. We may note here, 1. The weakness of the instrument. The rod of Moses, stretched over the sea, or towards the sea, from some vantage-point on the shore—how small a thing was this! How incapable in itself of producing any important effect! Yet in the providence of God, it was made a link in the chain of causation by which was brought about one of the greatest events in the whole course of mundane history. Must we not conclude from this, that, when God appoints means, however weak and trivial they may be in themselves, they become at once by his appointment, matters of the highest consequence? Again we may note, 2. The employment of a natural agency, insufficient in itself to accomplish the end, yet having a natural tendency towards its accomplishment. God, the author of nature, uses nature as a help towards accomplishing his ends, even when the help is but small. Our Lord fed the 5000 and the 4000, by means of loaves and fishes already existing, though the material which they furnished could but have gone a short way. He anointed the blind man’s eyes with spittle and clay, and bade him "go, wash in the pool of Siloam," using means which were to some extent reputed salutary, but which of themselves could never have restored sight. So with the east wind. We must not suppose that it divided the sea by its own natural force. God used it, as he used the spittle and the clay, and made it accomplish his purpose, not by its own force but by his own power. And so generally with the forces which seem to remove obstacles from the path of God’s people in this life—they are potent through his agency, because he sets them to work, and works through them. IV. THE SEA, ON WHICH PHARAOH COUNTED FOB THEIR , BECAME FIRST THEIR DEFENCE AND THEN THEIR AVENGER. "The waters were a wall unto them." But for the two bodies of water, on their right and on their left, Pharaoh’s force might have outflanked the host of Israel, and fallen upon it on three sides, or even possibly have surrounded it. God can at any time turn dangers into safeguards. When persecutors threaten the Church, he can turn their swords against each other, and allow the Church to pass on its way in peace. When temptations assault the soul, he can give the soul such strength, that it conquers them and they become aids to its progress. And with equal ease can he make the peril which menaces his faithful ones fall, not upon them, but upon their adversaries. The furnace heated to consume the "three children" destroyed none but those bitter persecutors who had arrested them and cast them into the fire (Daniel 3:22). The lions of Darius the Mede devoured, not Daniel, but "those men that had accused Daniel" (Daniel 6:24). The Jews, who had sought to destroy the infant Church by prejudicing the Romans against Christ (John 19:12) and his apostles (Acts 24:1-9), were themselves within forty years of Christ’s death, conquered and almost exterminated by these same Romans. The ungodly are ever "falling into their own nets together," while the godly man for whom the nets are set "escapes them." BY J. ORR Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20 Light to the friend, darkness to the foe. We are told that as the Israelites were about to cross the Red Sea, the fiery-cloudy pillar changed its position, and came between them and the Egyptians. It was the self-same pillar, but it wore a very different aspect to friends and foes respectively. "It was," we read, "a cloud of darkness to them (the Egyptians), but it gave light to these (the camp of Israel)." We should notice that the same double aspect belongs to all God’s manifestations of himself, in Law and Gospel, in matter and spirit, in the world, and in the Church. I. GOD’S have this double aspect. Not one of his attributes but has a bright side turned to the believer, and a dark side to the wicked. This is true even of such attributes as holiness and justice, from which the believer, as a sinner, might seem to have most to fear. "Faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). So God’s omnipotence, which is hostile to the transgressor, is pledged to defend, bless, and save the saint (1 Peter 1:5; Jude 1 Peter 1:24). God’s eternity, in like manner, is given to the believer for a dwelling-place (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalms 90:1), but how terrible an aspect it has to the evil-doer! The dark side of love is wrath. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31). But on the other hand, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). II. GOD’S LAWS have this double aspect. 1. Physical laws. The constitution of nature is favourable to virtue, hostile to vice (See Butler’s Analogy). 2. Moral law, for this, while awarding life to the obedient, is a ministry of condemnation to the sinner. 3. Mental and spiritual laws. Take e.g. the law of habit. "The law of habit, which applies alike to all our physical, mental, and moral actions, must be regarded in its design as a truly benevolent one. But the law of habit, when the soul yields to sin, works death to the sinner:—like the pillar of cloud which made day to Israel, and was darkness to the Egyptians, so the law, which is bright to the well-doer, sheds night upon the path of the sinner, until he is plunged into the sea of death" (Theodore D. Woolsey). III. GOD’S WORD has this double aspect. To the prayerful, believing, docile mind, it is a source of unfailing light. It is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path (Psalms 119:105). But to the proud, the unbelieving, and the presumptuous, it is only darkness. These can see nothing in it but difficulties, incredibilities, contradictions, moral monstrosities. It is full of stumbling-blocks. The more they read it, the more are they blinded by it. They read only to discover some new fault or error. IV. GOD’S VERY GOSPEL has this double aspect. "The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18-24). It repels the one class, and attracts the other. To the one, it is a savour of life; to the other, a savour of death (2 Corinthians 2:16).—J.O. BY J. Exodus 14:19-31 The goodness and severity of God. I. WHAT GOD IS TO HIS OWN IN THE DAY OF TROUBLE. 1. He comes between them and their foes. God’s presence is between us and our enemies, and they can do no more against us than his love permits. 2. He is light to them in the time of peril. 3. The waters are divided before them However much our way may seem hedged in, God’s arm will open up a path for us. 4. The way was not only a path of escape, but one of perfect safety; the waters were a wall to them upon the right hand and the left. II. WHAT GOD IS TO HIS PEOPLE’S FOES. 1. Their path is wrapped in darkness. They cannot lay hold of the weakest of those who but a moment before seemed wholly in their power. They are perplexed and baffled. 2. Daring to follow they are filled with horror by the revelation that their contest is with the mighty God: they are face to face not with the servant, but the master. 3. Their progress is arrested (25). 4. They in vain attempt to flee. Men may flee to God; they cannot flee from God. 5. They are overwhelmed with destruction. III. THE RESULT OF THE (31). 1. The people are filled with holy awe. "They feared Jehovah. God’s judgments deepen in his people’s hearts the sense of his terribleness and majesty." 2. It strengthened their faith; they believed the Lord. 3. It produced a spirit of obedience: they "believed has servant Moses." They were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The outcome of fear and trust must be full obedience to him who leads us into the promised rest—the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.—U. BY G.A. We walk by faith, not by sight. The great mistake of most people is, that they trust too much to their own eyes. They will not take into consideration anything that lies beyond the field of sensible experiences. Now God and his eternity, though manifested in this field, are practically outside it; the spiritual eyesight is more reliable than the physical, because that which it sees is safer to rely upon. Natural sight shows us obstacles, spiritual sight shows us how they may be surmounted. Try to walk by the one and you must stand still; try to walk by the other and nothing can long keep you standing. Notice here:— I. FAITH’S SECRET, The story illustrates this; it shows us:— 1. What the Israelites saw. Their position looked bad enough. Behind were the hosts of Pharaoh; before, the sea. They were shut in. Trusting only to their eyes they could hardly do other than despair (Exodus 14:10-13). Better to have been "let alone" in Egypt, than thus delivered, to be destroyed in the wilderness. A clear head, if the heart be faint, is not much help to any man. 2. What Moses saw. He was in the same position as the people whom he led, yet he could see more than they did. He looked not merely before and behind, he looked also up to God. Faith enabled him to ignore sight, and inspired him to encourage his sight-fascinated followers. Soon the word came which justified his faith, obstacles were nothing, let them wait the word of command and then "go forward." Often difficulties seem to surround us—no way of escape anywhere visible. Even so faith can sight the way, for faith can sight God who sees it. Stand still, wait his word; refuse to allow that for those who trust him any difficulties can be insurmountable. Faith would not be of much good were there no obstacles to test it. Faith is not of much good if it cannot learn to ignore obstacles. II. FAITH’S SUCCESS. The path of faith not merely leads out of danger, it turns dangers into safeguards and transforms them into a protection for those who tread it. When the word came "Go forward," the waters no longer "shut in" the Israelites; instead:— 1. They protected them during their passage. The Egyptians could but follow, they could not circumvent. "The waters were a wall unto them" on either side; no wall could have been more impregnable. 2. They secured them against the fury of their pursuers. Israel once across, the waters returned, overwhelming the armies of the enemy. So too faith, facing the flood, found that waters which drowned the world upheld the ark and floated it in safety. So too faith, facing the waters of death, finds that though they overwhelm the unready they float the faithful into a safe harbour. So too with all difficulties, faced in faith, they are our best helpers. "The hand of the diligent’ not only "maketh rich," it cleaves a way for him through the sea of difficulty, and leaves his pursuers, sloth, ignorance, all the deadly sins, overwhelmed and swallowed up behind him. III. FAITH’S . HOW comes faith to do all this? It is not faith that does it, but the God in whom faith trusts. Nothing is impossible to faith, because nothing is impossible to God. The Egyptians are sure of their prey; the Israelites are sure of destruction; because, whilst reckoning with what sight sees, they fail to reckon with the unseen God. Moses is sure of safety because he is sure of God, and knows that he is more than a match for all the seeming tyranny of circumstances. Application. How many people are shut in, faithless and discouraged before some sea of difficulty! "I cannot do this," "I cannot do that," and yet no progress is possible until I not merely can but do. "O ye of little faith, wherefore will ye doubt!" "I cannot;" no, but God can; and what he bids you do that he will strengthen you to do. Don’t stand facing the difficulties, but face the God who is above them and beyond them. "Stand still and wait" until the word comes, but when the word does come, "Go forward" (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 12:10).—G. THE OF THE . As the rearguard of the Israelite host having entered the tract from which the waters had retired, proceeded along it, and left the western end of the isthmus vacant, the pillar of the cloud seems to have followed it up and withdrawn with it. The Egyptians immediately advanced. Notwithstanding the preternatural darkness, they had become aware, perhaps by means of their ears, of the movement that was taking place, and with early dawn they were under arms and pressing on the line of the Israelite retreat. They found the channel still dry, and hastily entering it with their chariot force, they hurried forward in pursuit. The first check which they received was wholly supernatural. "The Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians" (Exodus 14:24). Details here are wanting; but less cannot be meant, than that some strange phenomena connected with the retiring "pillar" caused a panic and threw the ranks of the army into confusion. Then followed natural impediments. The Lord "took off," or "clogged" their chariot Wheels, and made them go heavily—i.e; the chariot wheels, not by miracle, but by the operation of God’s natural laws, sank into the soft sand over which the Israelites had passed easily, having no wheeled vehicles, and the chariots were consequently dragged forward slowly and with difficulty. The double hindrance, from the confusion and the stoppage of the chariots, so discouraged the Egyptians, that after a time they resolved on beating a retreat (Exodus 14:25). They had set out on their return, when Moses, at God’s instance, stretched forth his hand once mere over the sea, and the waters on both sides began at once to return. The Egyptians saw their danger, and "fled against" the advancing tide, racing against it, as it were, and seeking to reach the shore. But in vain. The waves came on rapidly, and (in the language of Exo 14:28) there was not a man of all those who had entered the dry bed of the sea that was not overwhelmed and drowned in the waters. We should he wrong to press this language to the extreme letter. In graphic narrative the sacred writers uniformly employ universal expressions, where they mean to give the general fact or general result. The true meaning is, that the pursuit altogether failed. Not an Egyptian made his way alive across the strait. All that the Israelites ever saw afterwards of the army that they had so much dreaded (Exodus 14:10) was a ghastly mass of corpses thrown up by the tide on the Asiatic shore (Exodus 14:30). Exodus 14:23 All Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. Here, as elsewhere, the word translated "horsemen" probably means the men who rode in the chariots. Observe that the Pharaoh himself is not said to have gone in. Menephthah was apt to avoid placing himself in a position of danger. Nor is any of the infantry said to have entered the bed of the sea. Exodus 14:24 In the morning watch. The "morning watch" of the Hebrews at this period of their history lasted from 2 a.m. to sunrise. Sunrise in Egypt, early in April, would take place about a quarter to six. The Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians. The description in Psalms 77:17, Psalms 77:18, is generally regarded as belonging to this point in the narrative of the Exodus, and may be considered as the traditional exposition of it. "The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound; thine arrows also went abroad; the voice of thy thunder was in the heavens; the lightning lightened the world; the earth trembled and shook." As Josephus says "Showers of rain came down from the sky, and dreadful thunders and lightning, with flashes of fire; thunderbolts also were darted upon them; nor was there anything, wont to be sent by God upon men as indications of his wrath, which did not happen upon this occasion" (Ant. Jud. 2.16, § 3). And troubled the host. Or "disturbed the host," i.e.," threw it into confusion.(συνετάραξε, LXX.). Exodus 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels. The Sept. has "clogged the axles of their chariots;" but this is from a reading not at present found in the Hebrew MSS. Most modern commentators, however, prefer the reading, which gives a good sense; whereas the existing text is unintelligible. As Kalisch observes, "if the wheels of the chariots had been broken off, the chariots would not have moved at all." That they drove them heavily. The marginal rendering, "and made them go heavily," is preferable. The wheels no doubt sank into the sand up to the axles, and were with difficulty extricated, again to sink a few yards further on. Progress was thus greatly retarded. So that the Egyptians said, "Let us flee." Literally, "And Egypt said, ’I will flee.’" The Lord fighteth for them. Compare the promise of Moses (Exodus 14:14). The Egyptians were convinced, by the various obstacles which they encountered, that Jehovah was lending his people active aid, and miraculously obstructing their advance. If this were so, it was of no use to persevere, and accordingly they began their retreat. Exodus 14:26, Exodus 14:27 And the Lord said. God here interposed a new difficulty. Moses was instructed to stretch out his rod once more, and undo his former work. At the appointed sign, the east wind ceased to blow, and the waters of the Bitter Lakes, no longer driven to the north-west by its force, flowed back with something of a reflux, while at the same time, the tide having turned, the Red Sea waves came rushing on at unwonted speed. In vain the Egyptians fled. They were met by the advancing floods, which poured in on either side, overwhelming and covering up all those who had entered on the dangerous path. Exodus 14:28 The chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh. Rather "The chariots, and the chariot men of all the host of Pharaoh." So Knobel correctly. Kalisch thinks—"We are not permitted to suppose that only the Egyptian chariots pursued the Israelites into the sea, while the infantry remained behind, so that the former alone were devoured by the waves." But even he admits that "both in this and in the following chapter, and in most other parts generally, the destruction of the chariots (chariot force?) and its warriors is chiefly alluded to, so that this particular stress would perhaps justify that conclusion." What is clear is, that no force but the chariot force is said to have entered the bed of the sea in pursuit of Israel. There remained not so much as one of them. On the proper understanding of this statement, see the introductory paragraph to the chapter. Exodus 14:29 Walked. Rather, "had walked." The waters were a wall. Rather, "had been a wall." For the meaning of the expression, see note on Exodus 14:22. Exodus 14:30 Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. Josephus says (Ant. Jud. Exodus 2:16, § 6), that, after the passage of the sea by the Israelites, a west wind set in, which (assisted by the current) drove the bodies of the drowned Egyptians to the eastern side of the gulf, where many of them were cast up upon the shore. In this way Moses, according to him, obtained weapons and armour for a considerable number of Israelites. Exodus 14:31 And Israel saw that great work. The "work" was, at the least, (1) the (almost) entire destruction of that arm of the service—the chariot force-on which the Egyptian kings mainly relied for success in all their wars; and (2) the defeat and disgrace of the Egyptian king himself, in an expedition for which he was alone responsible, involving permanent discredit to his military capacity, and naturally tending to shake his authority over his subjects. It secured the Israelites from further persecution, mainly by the reminiscences which it left behind, but partly also by removing them to a distance from the natural course of Egyptian warlike or commercial movement. Though Egypt had mining establishments in the Sinaitic peninsula, at Wady-Magharah and Sarabit-el-Khadim, yet as these were avoided by the Israelites on their way to Sinai, and never afterwards approached, there naturally was no collision between them and the Pharaonic garrisons at those sites. Still more remote were they during their wanderings from the Egyptian military route, which proceeded along the coast from Pelusium to Gaza, and then ran northwards through the Shephelah. Thus the Passage of the Red Sea brought one phase in the life of the people to an end, and was the commencement of another. It separated them from Egypt until the time came when their king would hold communication with its monarch on equal terms (1 Kings 3:1). It secured their independence, and raised them at once into a nation. It further caused them to exchange the artificial life of a bureaucratical and convention-loving community for the open space and untrammelled freedom of the desert. It thus rejuvenated and reinvigorated the race, and enabled them to enter on that career of conquest which culminated in the Kingdom—may we not say the Empire?—of David. some writers have supposed that the blow to the Egyptian power was greater than here represented. They believe the entire warrior caste or class to have taken part in the expedition, and to have been destroyed in the Red Sea Thus they describe the calamity as "the total annihilation of the whole military force of the Egyptians" (Kalisch). They also believe the Pharaoh to have perished with his host. To the present writer it seems that the former opinion is contrary both to the text of Scripture, and to the after course of Egyptian history, for it is agreed on all hands that Egypt continued nearly as powerful as before, while the latter he regards as at least exceedingly doubtful. Psalms 86:15, is quoted as asserting it; but it appears to him (1) that "overthrow" is not necessarily "death;" and (2) that "Pharaoh and his host" may be put for "Pharaoh’s host" by hendiadys. The absence of any prophecy that God would take the Pharaoh’s life, and the entire silence of Moses on the subject in Psalms 14:1-7. and 15. seems to be scarcely explicable on any other theory than that he escaped, not having accompanied his chariot force in its rash pursuit of the Israelites. Exodus 14:23-30 God’s dealings with the wicked and impenitent. If the passage of Israel through the Red Sea shows conspicuously God’s protection of his people in the time of trouble, the overthrow of the Egyptians indicates, at least as conspicuously, his execution of wrath upon the wicked. I. First of all, IT IS HOW HIS EYE UPON THEIR HEARTS, LOOKING INTO THEM THROUGH THE CLOUD AND WHEREIN THEY ARE , THEM. Bad men cannot bear God’s eye upon their hearts. It sees through all veils, penetrates all disguises, detects all subterfuges. The bad man is a riddle, even to himself, and would feign continue an enigma, impenetrable, mysterious. But the searching eye of God turned full upon him, so illuminates every dark corner and unexplored cranny of his nature, that all becomes only too patent and clear. "All things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." Under that steadfast gaze the mystery melts away, like a summer fog, and the bad man sees himself revealed, without disguise as a very ordinary and commonplace offender. II. IT IS WORTHY OF THAT HE OFTEN CLOGS THEIR CHARIOT WHEELS, AND MAKES THEM TO GO HEAVILY. The enterprises which the wicked undertake are continually interfered with. God will not let them have the success which their framers anticipate, and which for their cleverness and ingenuity they may be said to deserve. He "clogs the wheels" of their various designs, and makes them drag heavily. One miscarriage follows another. This enterprise will not advance at all; that, by dint of great exertion, moves but slowly. It is as though the chariot wheels sank into quicksands. It is not often that they wake up to the conviction that "the Lord fighteth against the Egyptians;" though this may happen sometimes. Then perhaps they repent them of their vain attempt, and would feign retreat from it. But it is TOO LATE. III. IT IS MOST HOW AT LAST GOD’S COME IN WITH AN FLOOD, WHICH THERE IS NO . "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Upon the ungodly God at the last rains down "snares, fire and brimstone, storm and tempest—this is their portion to drink." "Sudden destruction comes upon them unawares." Now it is in financial ruin, now in utter failure of health, now in complete prostration of the spirit, and an intolerable sense of remorse and despair that the judgment descends—blow follows blow, failure succeeds to failure, all the old refuges and supports prove unavailing—angry floods pour in on every side—there is no reaching the shore—all is tossing surf, slippery rock, and entangling sea-weed—not a hand is stretched out to save. So they go down to the pit—the devouring waves swallow them up—the water-floods go up over their heads—they disappear, and their place knows them no more. The wages of sin is death; and the end of sin is death. The ultimate end of impenitent sin is eternal death. Let men, while there is time, turn away from sin, give up their wicked enterprises, retrace their steps—taking warning from the awful Red Sea calamity, and the terrible destruction there wrought. BY J. ORR Exodus 14:23-31 The overthrow of the Egyptians. "The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea," etc. On this observe:— I. THE OF THE (Exodus 14:23). We do not speak of the lessons they had already received as to the folly of contending with Jehovah. The plagues were past. The memory of them had been cast behind their backs. What we do wonder at is, that when the Egyptians reached the shore, and saw there what they did see, they were not deterred from proceeding further. What did they see? 1. They saw the sea divided. They could hardly mistake this for a merely natural phenomenon. The place where the Israelites crossed may have been, under special conditions, and to a limited extent, fordable. But it is safe to say that the division now effected was one the like of which had never been heard of before, and such as, occurring at this particular juncture, ought to have convinced the Egyptians that it was a result of God’s special Providence, and intended for the protection of the Israelites. Special interpositions, on behalf of the Church, ought to arrest the attention of her enemies. 2. They saw the cloud that went with Israel move to the rear, obviously with the design of intercepting their pursuit (Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20). This, with the ominous darkness which enveloped them, was a second circumstance which ought to have warned them that Jehovah was fighting for his people. 3. There was the danger, which could not but present itself to them, of being overwhelmed by the returning sea. In whatever way the division of the waters was conceived Of, whether as a natural phenomenon, or as a fact of supernatural origin, it was plainly a perilous experiment to attempt the pursuit. Viewing it as the result of an ebb-tide, aided by a strong east wind, there was the risk of being caught by the returning tide; or if the wind abated, or changed its direction, of being immediately submerged. In the other case there was the danger, almost the certainty, of the supernatural power which restrained the waters permitting them to flow back on the pursuers. What infatuation, then, possessed the Egyptians, prompting them to enter the sea? (1) A false sense of honour. Having engaged in the pursuit, it would be deemed a point of honour not to desist from it, so long as the faintest chance of success remained. They had gone too far to retreat now at the water’s edge. (2) Rage. Fury and disappointment would possess them, as, in the very hour of their fancied triumph, they saw their prey thus elude them. Was Pharaoh and his mighty host to be thus mocked and set at nought—thus suddenly reined up and baffled? What would Egypt think of her warriors, if, setting out on such an expedition, they returned humiliated and empty-handed? At all hazards Israel must be pursued. (3) There was the chance of getting through. The distance was short; the way lay open; if Israel had got across, so might the Egyptians. On this chance, in the spirit of the gambler, they would stake everything. What havoc have these same motives—a false sense of honour (cf. Matthew 14:9), a spirit of uncalculating rage, the headstrong gambling disposition,—played in the history of the world! Together, or apart, they account for much of its infatuation. See specially in this conduct of Pharaoh, a picture of the infatuation to which the enemies of Christ’s Church have so frequently been given over, and which will linger among them till the end. Compare e.g. the Apocalyptic gathering of the antichristian powers, to do battle with the Lamb (Revelation 16:14-17; Revelation 19:11-21). II. THE WHICH THEY FROM GOD. 1. In "the morning watch," and when the Egyptians were in "the midst of the sea," God looked forth upon them from the pillar of cloud (Exodus 14:23). The expression is a pregnant one. The look was a "fire-look"—some fire-appearance of a startling kind which issued from the cloud, and shed terror over the pursuers. It was accompanied with thunderings and lightnings (Psalms 77:18, Psalms 77:19). God’s looks are potent. When God "looked" on Israel (Exodus 2:25), it meant that he was about to bring salvation to them. When he "locked" on the Egyptians, it was the prelude to their destruction. Through that pillar glares forth an eye which sends a separate dismay into each Egyptian heast and all is felt to be lost. We find two imitations of this in modern poetry—one by Coleridge, in his ’Ode on the Departing Year,’ where he prays God to— "Open his eye of fire from some uncertain cloud," and another (by Southey) in the ’Curse of Kehama,’ where, after the ’Man Almighty,’ holding his Amreeta Cup, had exclaimed— "Now, Seeva, look to thine abode!" it is added, when the cup is drunk— "Then Seeva open’d on the accursed one His eye of anger—upon him alone The wrath beam fell He shudders, but too late." (Gilfillan.) 2. God troubled their hosts (Exodus 14:24, Exodus 14:25). There is meant by this some supernatural exertion of power. It was not due to natural causes alone that the chariot wheels were "taken off," and that they drave heavily. It was God who, by his heavy hand upon them, was thus obstructing their progress. The invisible powers were fighting against the Egyptians, as "the stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judges 5:20). Those are sure to drive heavily, who drive in the face of God’s inhibition, and under his ban. 3. God brought the sea back upon them (Exodus 14:26). Swiftly, fatally, at the stretching forth of Moses’ rod, the sea returned in its strength, and utterly overwhelmed them. And such, in its main outline, is the reception which Jehovah must give to all his enemies. His wrath already rests upon them. His fiery look will one day scare them. Even now they are troubled and impeded by it, and by the resistance which he opposes to their plans. Finally, he will overwhelm them in the sea of his wrath. He will visit them with "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Hence— III. THEIR (Exodus 14:27, Exodus 14:28). They perished suddenly, miserably, and all together. Type of the overthrow of God’s enemies in the end (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 16:16, Revelation 16:17; Revelation 19:17-21; Revelation 20:9). The blow was a crushing one to Egypt, It filled up the measure of her punishment for the evil she had done to Israel. After the death of the first-born, there could remain nothing to Pharaoh and his servants, in the event of their still hardening themselves, but "a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation" (Hebrews 10:27). Does some one say, what a waste of human life—how unlike a God of mercy! Rather, surely, how striking a testimony to the reality of retribution—how sure a token of the righteous doom which in the end will infallibly overtake every obdurate transgressor! God will not permit sinners always to defy him. His wrath and power are resistless. The "ungodly and sinner" must expect to feel the weight of them (1 Peter 17, 18). IV. RESULT (Exodus 14:30, Exodus 14:31). 1. Israel was saved. 2. The Egyptian dead were found strewn upon the shore. This— (1) A memorial of God’s vengeance. (2) An awful satire on so-called human greatness. (3) A pledge of security to Israel. 3. The people were filled with gratitude and fear. They "believed the Lord." The wonder is that after so marvellous a deliverance they could ever again doubt him.—J.O. THE SONG OF MOSES. Full of gratitude, joy, and happiness—burning with a desire to vent in devotional utterance of the most fitting kind, his intense and almost ecstatic feelings, Moses, who to his other extraordinary powers, added the sublime gift of poesy, composed, shortly after the passage, a hymn of praise, and sang it with a chorus of the people as a thanksgiving to the Almighty. The hymn itself is generally allowed to be one of transcendent beauty. Deriving probably the general outline of its form and character of its rhythm from the Egyptian poetry of the time, with which Moses had been familiar from his youth, it embodies ideas purely Hebrew, and remarkable for grandeur, simplicity, and depth. Naturally, as being the first outburst of the poetical genius of the nation, and also connected with the very commencement of the national life, it exerted the most important formative influence upon the later Hebrew poetic style, furnishing a pattern to the later lyric poets, from which they but rarely deviated. The "parallelism of the members," which from the middle of the Last century has been acknowledged to be the only real rhythmical law of Hebrew poetry, with its three forms of "synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic (or verbal) parallelism" is here found almost us distinctly marked as in any of the later compositions. At the same time, a greater lyrical freedom is observable than was afterwards practised. The song divides itself primarily into two parts:—the first (Exodus 15:1-12) retrospective, celebrating the recent deliverance; the second (Exodus 15:13-18) prospective, describing the effects that would flow from the deliverance in future time. The verbs indeed of the second part are at first grammatical preterites; but (as Kalisch observes) they are "according to the sense, futures"—their past form denoting only that the prophet sees the events revealed to him as though they were already accomplished. Hence, after a time, he slides into the future (Exodus 15:16). The second part is continuous, and has no marked break: the first sub-divides into three unequal portions, each commencing with an address to Jehovah, and each terminating with a statement of the great fact, that the Egyptians were swallowed up. These three portions are: 1. Exodus 15:2-5, "The Lord is my strength," to "They sank into the bottom as a stone." 2. Exodus 15:6-10," Thy right hand, O Lord," to "They sank like lead in the mighty waters." 3. Exodus 15:11-12, "Who is like unto Thee, O Lord," to "The earth swallowed them." The first verse stands separate from the whole, as an introduction, and at the same time as the refrain. Moses and a chorus of men commenced their chant with it, and probably proceeded to the end of Exo 15:5, when Miriam, with the Hebrew women, interposed with a repetition of the refrain (see Exodus 15:21). The chant of the males was resumed and carried to the close of Exo 15:10, when again the refrain came in. It was further repeated after Exodus 15:12; and once moral at the close of the whole "song." Similar refrains, or burdens, are found in Egyptian melodies Part I. Exodus 15:1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel. It is in accordance with the general modesty of Moses, that he says nothing of the composition of the "song." No serious doubt of his authorship has ever been entertained; but the general belief rests on the improbability of there having been among the Israelites a second literary genius of the highest order, without any mention being made of him. The joint-singing by Moses and "the children of Israel" implies the previous training of a choir, and would seem to show that the Israelites remained for some days encamped at the point which they had occupied on quitting the bed of the sea. He hath triumphed gloriously. Literally. He is gloriously glorious." (ἐνδόξωςδεδόξασται, LXX.) The horse and his rider. Rather, "The horse and his driver." Chariots, not cavalry, are in the mind of the writer. Exodus 15:2 The Lord is my strength and song. Literally, "My strength and song is Jah." The name Jah had not previously been used. It is commonly regarded as an abbreviated form of Jehovah, and was the form generally used in the termination of names, as Abijah, Ahaziah, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Mount Moriah, etc. It takes the place of "Jehovah" here, probably on account of the rhythm. He is become my salvation. Literally, "He has been to me for salvation," i.e; "He has delivered me out of the hand of Pharaoh and his host, and so saved me from destruction." I will prepare him a habitation. This translation seems to have come originally from the Targum of Onkelos, who paraphrases the single word of the text by the phrase "I will build him a sanctuary." The meaning is a possible one: but most modern commentators prefer to connect the verb used with a root meaning "beautiful," and translate "I will glorify him." (So Gesenius. Rosenmuller, Knobel, Kalisch, Cook. The LXX have δοξάσω. The Vulgate has glorificabo. The Syrian and Coptic versions agree, as do also the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem.) The God of my father. See the comment on Exodus 3:6. Exodus 15:3 A man of war. A strong anthropomorphism, but one that could scarcely be misunderstood—"a man of war," meaning commonly "a warrior," or "one mighty in battle" (Psalms 24:8). God’s might had just been proved, in that he alone had discomfited and destroyed the most potent armed force in the whole world. The Lord is his name. Jehovah—the alone-existing One "truly describes him," before whom all other existence fades and falls into nothingness. On the full meaning of the name, see the comment on Exodus 3:14. Exodus 15:4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host. The "host" of this passage is not the "army" of Exodus 14:9, though in the original the same word is used, but the whole multitude of those who rode in the chariots, and were drowned in the sea. Hath he cast. Or "hurled." The verb commonly expresses the hurling of a javelin or the shooting of an arrow. His chosen captains. Compare Exodus 14:7. Are drowned. Literally, "were submerged." The word describes the act of drowning, not the state of lying drowned in the depths of the sea. Exodus 15:5 The depths have covered them. Rather "covered them." Into the bottom. Literally, "into the abyss." Like a stone. The warriors who fought in chariots commonly wore coats of mail, composed of bronze plates sewn on to a linen base, and overlapping one another. The coats covered the arms to the elbow, and descended nearly to the knee. They must have been exceedingly heavy: and the warrior who wore one must have sunk at once, without a struggle, like a stone or a lump of lead (Exodus 15:10). Exodus 15:6-18 Between Exodus 15:5 and Exodus 15:6, Miriam’s chorus was probably interposed "Sing ye unto the Lord," etc. Then began the second strophe or stanza of the ode. It is, in the main, expansive and exegetical of the preceding stanza, going into greater detail, and drawing a contrast between the antecedent pride and arrogance of the Egyptians and their subsequent miserable fall. Exodus 15:6 Thy right hand, O Lord. Another anthropomorphism, here used for the first time. Compare Exodus 15:12; Deuteronomy 33:2; and the Psalms, passim. Is become glorious Or "is glorious. Kalisch rightly regards verses 6 and 7 as containing "a general description of God’s omnipotence and justice," and notes that the poet only returns to the subject of the Egyptians in verse 8. So also Knobel. Hath dashed in pieces. Rather, "Will dash in pieces," or "dashes in pieces"—a general statement. Exodus 15:7 Thou hast overthrown, etc. Here again the verbs are future. Translate—"thou wilt overthrow," or "thou overthrowest them that rise up against thee; thou (wilt send) sendest forth thy wrath, which consumes them as stubble." The metaphor in the last clause was one known to the Egyptians. Exodus 15:8 With the blast of thy nostril the waters were gathered together. Poetically, Moses describes the east wind which God set in motion as "the blast" or "breath of his nostrils." By means of it, he says, the waters were "gathered together," or "piled up;" then, growing bolder in his imagery, he represents the floods as "standing in a heap" on either side, and the depths as "congealed. No doubt, if these terms are meant to be taken literally, the miracle must have been one in which "the sea" (as Kalisch says) "giving up its nature, formed with its waves a firm wall, and instead of streaming like a fluid, congealed into a hard substance." But the question is, are we justified in taking literally the strong expressions of a highly wrought poetical description? Exodus 15:9 The enemy said. This verse is important as giving the animus of the pursuit, showing what was in the thoughts of the soldiers who flocked to Pharaoh’s standard at his call—a point which had not been previously touched. It is remarkable as a departure from the general stately order of Hebrew poesy, and for what has been called its "abrupt, gasping" style. The broken speech imitates the utterance of one at once eager and out of breath. I will divide the spoil. The Israelites, it must be remembered, had gone out of Egypt laden with ornaments of silver and of gold, and accompanied by flocks and herds of great value. Pharaoh’s soldiers regarded this wealth as legitimate plunder, and intended to appropriate it. My lust. Literally, "my soul." Rage and hate were the passions to be satiated, rather than lust. My hand shall destroy them. So the Vulgate, Onkelos, Rosenmuller, Knobel, Kalisch, and others. The LXX. have κυριεύσει, "acquire the lordship over them" But the drawn sword points to death rather than recapture. Exodus 15:10 Thou didst blow with thy wind. Here we have another fact not mentioned in the direct narrative, but entirely harmonising with it. The immediate cause of the return of the waters, as of their retirement, was a wind. This wind must have come from a new quarter, or its effects would not have been to bring the water back. We may reasonasbly suppose a wind to have arisen contrary to the former one, blowing from the north-west or the north, which would have driven the water of the Bitter LaMes southward, and thus produced the effect spoken of. The effect may, or may not, have been increased by the flow of the tide in the Red Sea They sank as lead. See the comment on Exodus 15:5. Exodus 15:11, Exodus 15:12 Contain the third stanza of the first division of the ode. It is short compared to the other two, containing merely a fresh ascription of praise to God, cast in anew form; and a repetition of the great fact which the poem commemorates—the Egyptian overthrow. We conceive that Miriam’s chorus (Exodus 15:21) was again interposed between Exodus 15:10 and Exodus 15:11. Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? It was one great object of the whole series of miraculous visitations whereof Egypt had been the scene, that the true God, Jehovah, should be exalted far above all the gods of the heathen. (See Exodus 7:5; Exodus 14:4, Exodus 14:18.) Moses therefore makes this one of his topics of praise; and at the same time notes three points in which God has no rival— 1. Holiness; 2. Awfulness; and 3. Miraculous power. Compare Psalms 86:8; "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like thy works." Fearful in praises—i.e; "to be viewed with awe even when we praise Him." Exodus 15:12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand. Thou hadst only to stretch out an arm, and at once thy enemies perished. The earth swallowed them up—i.e; the sea, which is a part of the earth. Part II. Exodus 15:13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth. Or "leadest forth." See the Introduction to the chapter. Which thou hast redeemed. See the comment on Exodus 6:6. Then hast guided. Or "thou guidest." Thy holy habitation. By "God’s holy habitation" some understand Mount Sinai, others Canaan, others Mount Moriah, or even tile temple there to be built ultimately. That Sinai is not intended seems clear from Exodus 6:14, Exodus 6:15, where the nations mentioned are such as were untouched by the occupation of that mountain. Canaan might sufficiently answer the requirements of the present verse, but scarcely comes up to those of Exo 6:17. Altogether, it is clear that Moses knew there would be a place in the land of Canaan where God would "put his name" (Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11,Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 14:23,Deuteronomy 14:24; Deuteronomy 16:6, Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 26:2; etc.); and it would seem to be not unlikely that he may have known where the place would be by special revelation. Exodus 15:14 The people shall hear.—Rather, "the peoples"—i.e; the tribes, or nations, of these parts—Philistines, Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites, etc.—will hear of the wonders done in Egypt, especially of the crowning wonder of all—Israel’s passage through the Red Sea and Egypt’s destruction in it—and will in consequence tremble with fear when the Israelites approach them, and offer them no effectual opposition. Palestine. This is a Greek form. The Hebrew is Phelasheth, which would perhaps be best translated "Philistia." (Compare Psalms 60:8; Psalms 87:4; Psalms 108:9.) The Philistine country was a strip of territory extending along the coast of the Mediterranean from a little below Gaze on the south, nearly to Mount Carmel on the north. It is curious that the philistines are not mentioned under that name on any of the early Egyptian monuments. They may perhaps be the Purusaia of the time of Rameses III; whom some however identify with the Pelasgi. Exodus 15:15 The Dukes of Edom. Compare Genesis 36:15. By the time that the Israelitesapproached the borders of Edom, the dukes had given place to kings (Numbers 20:14), and everything like abject fear of Israel had passed sway. The Edomites "came out against Moses with much people and with a strong hand," and refused to allow the Israelites passage through their borders (Numbers 20:20, Numbers 20:21). The mighty men of Moab. The alarm of the Moabites was indicated by Balak’s efforts to induce Balaam to curse the Israelites (Numbers 22-24.). By their "mighty men" some understood men of unusual strength and stature (Cook); but the expression, which is very frequent both in the prophetical and the historical books, seems to be a mere periphrasis for "warriors." All the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. This prophecy received a remarkable accomplishment when "it came to pass that all the kings of the Cannanites heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, and their heart melted, neither was their spirit in them any more" (Joshua 5:1). Exodus 15:16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them. Compare Deuteronomy 2:25; Deuteronomy 11:25. The Edomites of Mount Seir and the Moabites gave Israel a free passage through their borders (Deuteronomy 2:4-8, Deuteronomy 2:18, Deuteronomy 2:29), being afraid to oppose them. Till thy people pass over, O Lord. Some see in this an anticipation of the crossing of Jordan; but perhaps Moses meant no more than the crossing of the Canaanite frontier, in some place or other, which must take place if the urea was to be occupied. The event made the expression used peculiarly appropriate. When thou hast purchased. By bringing his people out of Egypt, their ownership had passed to him from the Egyptians, just as if he had bought them. (See Exodus 6:6, Exodus 6:7; Exodus 19:5.) Exodus 15:17 Thou shalt bring them in—i.e; give them possession of the laud. And plant them—i.e; fix them firmly in it—enable them to take root there. The mountain of thine inheritance. The land of Canaan, which is almost wholly mountainous, and which God had given as an inheritance to his people (Genesis 15:7; Hebrews 11:8). The sanctuary. See the comment on Exodus 15:13. Which thy hands have established. Moses sees in idea the sanctuary already set up, and God dwelling in it; and emphasises his conviction by using the past tense. Exodus 15:18 In terms most simple yet most grand, often imitated (Psalms 10:16; Psalms 29:10; Psalms 146:10, etc.), but never surpassed, the poet gives the final result of all God’s providential and temporary arrangements, to wit, the eternal establishment of his most glorious kingdom. And here reaching the final consummation of all things (1 Corinthians 15:28), he will not weaken the impression made by adding another word, but ends his ode. Exodus 15:19-21 Sequel to the Song. The "sequel" treats of two quite separate masters. 1. It asserts, in verse 19, the historic groundwork of the song, reiterating in a condensed form the three principal facts of the presage—already recorded in ch. 14.— (a) Israel’s safe transit across the sea-bed; (b) the pursuit attempted by the Egyptian chariot-force; end (c) the return of the waters upon the pursuers by God’s providential action. 2. It relates, in verses 20 and 21, the part taken by Miriam in the recitation of the ode, which has been noticed in the "introduction" to the chapter. Exodus 15:19 The horse of Pharaoh, with his chariots, and with his horsemen. Rather, "with his chariots, and with his chariot men." Compare Exodus 14:23. The Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them. See Exodus 14:26, Exodus 14:27; and Exodus 15:10. The waters did not merely return to their natural place when the east wind ceased to blow, but were "brought back" by miraculous power, and with abnormal rapidity. Exodus 15:20 Miriam, the prophetess. Miriam is regarded by the prophet Micah 6:4, as having had a share in the deliverance of Israel, and claims the prophetic gift in Numbers 12:2. Her claim appears to be allowed both in the present passage, and in Numbers 12:6-8. where the degree of her inspiration is placed below that of Moses. She is the first woman whom the Bible honours with the title of "prophetess." Prophetesses were common in Egypt at a much earlier date; and thus, that a woman should have the gift would have seemed no strange thing to the Hebrews. For examples of other prophetesses, see Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Isaiah 8:3; Luke 2:36. The sister of Aaron. Compare Numbers 26:59. Miriam is generally regarded as the sister of Moses mentioned in Exodus 2:4-8, whose name is not there given. If so, she was considerably older than either Moses or Aaron. Took a timbrel By "a timbrel" our translators meant what is now called "a tambourine." Such instruments were common in Egypt, and in the representations are generally played by women. The separation of the men and women into distinct bands was an Egyptian custom; as likewise was the execution of dances by performers who accompanied their steps with music. Exodus 15:21 Miriam answered them. Miriam, with her chorus of women, answered the chorus of men, responding at the termination of each stanza or separate part of the ode with the refrain, "Sing ye to the Lord," etc. (See the "Introduction" to this chapter.) While responding, the female chorus both danced and struck their tambourines. This use of dancing in a religious ceremonial, so contrary to Western ideas of decorum, is quite consonant with Oriental practice, both ancient and modern. Other examples of it in Scripture are David’s dancing before the ark (2 Samuel 6:16), the dancing of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34), and that of the virgins of Shiloh (Judges 21:21). It is also mentioned with approval in the Psalms (Psalms 149:3; el. 4). Dancing was practised as a religious ceremony in Egypt, in Phrygia, in Thrace, by the Phoenicians, by the Syrians, by the Romans, and others. In the nature of things there is clearly nothing unfitting or indecorous in a dedication to religion of what has been called "the poetry of gesture." But human infirmity has connected such terrible abuses with the practice that the purer religions have either discarded it or else denied it admission into their ceremonial. It still however lingers in Mohammedanism among those who are called "dancing dervishes," whose extraordinary performances are regarded as acts of devotion. Exodus 15:1-18 The song of Moses a pattern thanksgiving. There is nothing in the whole range of sacred or profane literature more fresh, more vigorous, more teeming with devotional thought than this wonderful poem. In rhythm it is grand and sonorous, in construction skilful and varied, in the quality of the thoughts lofty, in the mode of expression at once simple and sublime. Partly historic, partly prophetic, it describes the past with marvellous power, and gives with a few touches a glorious picture of the future. Throughout it breathes the warmest love of God, the deepest thankfulness to him, the strongest regard for his honour. We may well take it for our model when we have to thank God:— I. FOR A ; and observe (1) its matter; (2) its manner; (3) its form. (1) Its matter comprises (a) distinct and repeated enunciation of the deliverance itself, with expatiation on its circumstances; (b) anticipation of further advantages to flow from the deliverance in the future; (c) transition from the particular mercy to the consideration of God’s power, greatness and goodness in the abstract; and (d) glorification of God on all three accounts. (2) Its manner comprises, among other points, (a) beginning and ending with praise; (b) intermixture of the praise with the grounds of praise; (c) persistence and repetition, but with the introduction of new touches. (3) Its form is (a) poetic; (b) discontinuous, or broken into stanzas; (c) irregular. Our thanksgivings for great national or even great personal deliverances may well, if our powers suffice, take a poetic shape. Poetry is more expressive than prose, more heart-stirring, more enthusiastic. It is also better remembered, and it is less diffuse. II. FOR FROM THE EGYPT OF SIN. Each man’s deliverance will have its own peculiar features, which he will do well to note and make special subjects of thankfulness, not sparing repetition, that he may present the matter to himself in various lights, and see all God’s goodness in respect of it. Each deliverance will also lead naturally to prospective thoughts, extending beyond the wilderness of this life to the Canaan which is our inheritance. Each will profitably lead us to go beyond ourselves, and dwell for a while on the general attributes of God, whence proceed the mercies that we individually experience; and we shall do well to praise God on all these accounts. Manner and form are of less importance than matter, and admit of more variety without sensible loss; but even here "the song" furnishes a pattern on which it would be hard to improve. The grounds for preferring poetry to prose for such an outpouring of the heart as a thanksgiving have been already stated. The propriety of beginning and ending with praise is unquestionable. Repetition has a value as deepening impressions, and affording opportunity for remedying accidental coldness or inattention. In private devotion the actual repetition of the very same words has an occasional place, as we see by our Lord’s example in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:44); but in a composition, phrases should be varied. Moses’s song may well guide us as to the extent and character of such variation (e.g; Exodus 15:5, Exodus 15:10, and Exodus 15:12). Exodus 15:20, Exodus 15:21 The aid which devout women can reader to the Church. There are religions which exclude women from consideration altogether, express a doubt whether they have souls, and assign them no special Church work. But Judaism did not make this mistake, it utilised the services of women— I. AS . Miriam was a prophetess. So was Deborah, whose song is one of the most beautiful compositions in the Bible (Judges 5:2-31). So was Huldah, who delivered God’s message to Hezekiah (2 Kings 22:14-20). So was Anna (Luke 2:36), whom the tradition makes the virgin’s mother. God did not disdain to hold spiritual converse with women and enlighten them supernaturally; nor did the Israelites omit to take cognizance of the fact and give such persons their due honour. II. AS . Deborah "judged Israel" (Judges 4:4), and it was she, rather than Barak, who delivered the Israelites from Jabin (Judges 4:8, Judges 4:14). Esther saved her people from the malice of Haman. Judith is said to have delivered them from Holofernes. Sex was no disqualification for high place among the Jews, any more titan among their neighbours, the Arabs. The queens of Judah obtain constant mention in Kings and Chronicles. III. AS IN . In the instance of Miriam we see how an important part of the thanksgiving service which Moses celebrated on the passage of the Red Sea was assigned to females. Apparently, on this occasion, half the chanting, and the whole of the instrumental music, was placed in their hands, Miriam acted as Choragus, or conductor, of the female chorus. Music is one of woman’s commonest gifts; and, though not eminent as composers, as renderers of the music of others, they have a fame exceeding that of men. They can do much for the glory of God in contributing to, and even sometimes superintending, the musical services of the sanctuary. In the Christian Church, there has been, equally from the first, a recognition of the services that may be rendered to religion by women. The apostles, after the ascension of our Lord, "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus" (Acts 1:14). Phoebe, who conveyed to Rome St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, was "a deaconess of the church that was at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1); and an Order of deaconesses was generally recognised in the primitive Church, and believed to have been instituted by the apostles (Apost. Const. Romans 6:17). In all periods some church work, in many very important church work, has been assigned to women, with great advantage both to themselves and to the community. Though St. Paul forbade their speaking in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:35), and they thus cannot be ministers, subordinate employments of various kinds, suited to the nature of women, are everywhere open to them. The work of Sisters of Charity in various parts of tile world is above all praise. That of district visitors, teachers in Sunday schools, Scripture readers, etc; though less attracting the praise of men, is most valuable. Devout women, working under their ministers, can be the instruments of incalculable good, and so as much for the promotion of true religion as if they were men. BY J. ORR Exodus 15:1-19 Moses’ Song. The sublimity of this noble ode is universally admitted. It brings Moses before us in the new character of "poet." Moses does not seem to have devoted himself largely to this species of composition; but the three specimens of his work which remain to us—this ode, his "Song" and "Blessing" in Deuteronomy, and Psalms 90:1-17.—show him to have possessed a poetical genius of the very highest order; to have been as great as poet, as we know him to have been as warrior, leader, statesman, legislator, historian, patriot, and saint. The grandest features of poetry belong to the thrilling piece before us. It is the magnificent outburst of the feeling of uncontrollable triumph, awakened by the sight of the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, and by the sense of deliverance and safety thence resulting. The language quakes and thunders in keeping with the grandeur of the theme. The presentation of the ideas is in the highest degree picturesque. The strokes of imagery are masterpieces—the whole scene of defeat and disaster being repeatedly revealed, as by lurid lightning-flashes, in single sentences, and even single words. The movement is rapid, rhythmical, inspiring. The art displayed in the minutiae of literary construction is very great, while in all, and through all, pervading, as its energising soul, every syllable and stanza of the composition, is the spirit of adoring awe and wonder, blending with gratitude, which ascribes all the greatness, and honour, and renown, of the victory to Jehovah. We have to touch at present, however, less on the literary beauties than on the religious teaching of the ode; and the nature of this, after what has been said on Psalms 14:1-7; admits of being briefly indicated. I. THE TRIUMPH (Psalms 14:1, Psalms 14:2). This celebration of the deliverance at the Red Sea was— 1. Natural. Adoring and exultant feeling naturally passes into song. It seeks expression. It tends to become rhythmical. It unites itself with music. Like mountain torrents, tearing down to the plain, and cutting their channels as they flow, pent-up emotion of this kind will not be denied utterance, and if suitable channels of rhythmical expression are not provided for it, will cut out channels for itself. 2. Appropriate. It was right that, having experienced this great deliverance, the children of Israel should give utterance, in strains of praise, to the feelings of wonder, gratitude, and adoration with which it inspired them. It was due to God, and it would be beneficial in its reactive effects upon themselves. The duty of praise for benefits received is one to which no religious mind can be indifferent. If God has gifted us with the faculty of song, it is right that the first use we make of it should be to extol his goodness. See the Psalms (Psalms 92:1; Psalms 98:1; Psalms 105:1, Psalms 105:2; Psalms 111:1; etc.). 3. Elevating. The faculty of song is not merely one of the faculties of our nature. It is connected with that which is deepest in us. When the Psalmist bids his faculty of song awake, he speaks of it as his "glory."—"Awake up, my glory" (Psalms 57:8; cf. Psalms 16:9; Psalms 30:12). It is Carlyle who says—"All deep things are musical." Song, in its higher reaches, unites all the faculties of the soul in consentaneous exercise—heart, intellect, conscience, the religious nature, imagination, the artistic and tuneful sentiments, the social feelings. It arouses, elevates, fructifies, enkindles. It awakens the spirit to the sense of its own infinitude; fills it with scorn of what is base; attunes and harmonises it to what is noble. We do well, therefore, to cultivate the faculty of song; to exercise it in public and in private worship; to make it the daily vehicle of the expression of our religious feelings. "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns," etc. (Ephesians 5:19). See that the melody is from the heart, yet with the understanding also (1 Corinthians 14:15). II. THE TRIUMPH (verses 3-13). The quick, abrupt, vivid language of the ode brings the whole scene of Pharaoh’s pursuit and destruction before us, almost as if it were transacting in our sight. The hot, breathless, intensely eager pursuit is depicted in verse 9, but it is chiefly the destruction that is dwelt on, and dwelt on in such terms, with the use of such similes, and in such relations of contrast to the proud monarch’s insolence and boasting, as limns it with photographic distinctness on the mental vision. The design in the description being to exalt and glorify God’s power in the overthrow, the points chiefly exhibited are these— 1. The ease of this destruction. It is done in an instant, and without effort. In striking contrast with Pharaoh’s paraphernalia of war, with his savage exertions in pursuit, and with his elaborate drawing out of his purposes in verse 9—"I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil," etc.—God simply blows with his wind, and the enemy is annihilated. "Thou didst blow with thy wind; the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters" (verse 10). A movement of his hand, a blast of his nostrils, a solitary waft from the heat of his anger, suffices to destroy them. 2. The swiftness of it. This, which was a most impressive feature of the overthrow, is brought out in various images. "The depths have covered them; they sank to the bottom as a stone, they sank as lead in the mighty waters" (verses 5-10). 3. The fatality of it. The destruction was complete. There was no recovery from it. Horse and chariot and charioteer; the chosen captains; the whole array of Pharaoh’s military strength—all went down in one swift, fell swoop, to the sea-bottom. "Thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy" (verse 6). Pondering these images, we cannot but be impressed by the folly, the insanity, as well as the futility, of all attempts at contending with the Almighty. III. THE OF GOD AS IN THE TRIUMPH. These, naturally, are made conspicuous in the ode. It was Jehovah, not Israel, who had achieved the triumph; and to Jehovah, accordingly, was all the praise due. Further, the design in the transaction had been precisely this: to display the character of God as Jehovah, and give a new demonstration of his possession of the attributes denoted by the name Jah (verses 2, 3). The attributes of Jehovah specially extolled are— 1. Power. "Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power" (verse 6). The greatness of this power is seen by its being measured against the military might of Pharaoh, which thereby becomes a foil to it: another measure being found in the might and fury of the elements which it controls—winds, mighty waters, etc. Its resistlessness is seen in the suddenness and decisiveness of the overthrow. 2. Supremacy (verses 11-18). This attribute, which is of the very essence of the Jehovah conception, was signally illustrated in the Red Sea catastrophe (Psalms 135:6). Not only was God therein revealed as absolute Ruler in the domain of nature, but it was shown how Pharaoh himself, pursuing his own end, was yet bent to be an instrument in accomplishing God’s; how, when he thought he was freest, and most certain of victory, God had the hook in his jaws, and was leading all his host straight into the grave prepared for him; how, accordingly, God is Supreme Ruler in the moral as well as in the natural world, in the region of human wills as well as in that of natural causation. 3. Holiness. The holiness of God, burning like fire among stubble, and utterly consuming the hosts of the enemy, is justly celebrated in these verses (verse 7). God was revealed as "glorious in holiness" (verse 13); and because he was so, Israel was filled with awe in his presence (verse 13), and his habitation is spoken of as an "holy habitation" (verse 13), a sanctuary (verse 17). 4. Mercy. This is the other side of the transaction of the Red Sea—the side of deliverance, as the former was of judgment, and mention is made of it in verses 2, 13. Here, then, is a wonderful constellation of Divine attributes—exhibited, too, not in word, but in suitable action, in deeds which gave them embodiment, and impressive manifestation. They are the same attributes which have been at work all down history, operating for the good of the Church, and for the overthrow of evil. IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE TRIUMPH (verses 13-18). It is viewed— 1. As inspiring fear in the surrounding nations, in Edom, in Moab, among the Philistines, and other inhabitants of Canaan. Every powerful manifestation of God’s attributes is fitted to awaken terror among his enemies, and actually does so. Results similar to those here described will follow the great predicted judgments on the last representatives of Anti-christianism (Revelation 11:13). The nations who heard of Israel’s deliverance would have reason to fear, for their position exposed them to risk of attack, and Canaan was actually the destination of the tribes. This may suggest to us that if Israel had gone up to conquer these tribes, at the time when God wished them, they would not have found the conquest so hard as their fears represented. The Philistines and Canaanites were "melted" with terror: they were paralysed by their fears, and "still as a stone" (verses 15, 16). Yet, through the unbelief and cowardice of the attacking force, this great opportunity was missed. 2. As a pledge that God would complete the work he had begun, and would ultimately "plant them in the mountain of his inheritance" (verses 13-17). In several of the expressions, the tenses are past, as though the thing prophesied were already as good as done. This also is an apostle’s mode of arguing—God who has done the greater, will not now fail to do the less, and perfect the work he has begun (Romans 5:9, Romans 5:10; Romans 8:32; Philippians 1:6). Mark in this ode the designation of Israel as a redeemed, a purchased people (verse 13)—the Red Sea deliverance being viewed as a second purchasing of Israel by God to himself.—J.O. Exodus 15:1-20, Exodus 15:21 The song of Moses and of the Lamb. We cannot fail to connect in our thoughts the circumstances of this magnificent triumph-celebration with that other scene, described in the Apocalypse, where they who have "gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name, stand on—i.e; on the margin of—the sea of glass, having the harps of God," and "sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb" (Revelation 15:2). We do not enter into any elaborate explication of the Apocalyptic symbols. The beast and his followers obviously represent the Antichristian foes of the Church—the worldly secular powers that resist, oppose, and persecute the true servants of Christ. God’s judgment on these hostile world-powers, already summarily depicted in Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20, is to be afterwards more fully described under the imagery of the seven last plagues. This vision of the multitudes on the sea of glass is anticipative, and represents the celebration by the Church of her own deliverance, and of the completion of judgment upon her enemies. The "sea of glass" has obvious reference to the Red Sea, made to roll back, and stand up like a sea of crystal (Exodus 14:8), yet illuminated and filled with lurid radiance, by the fiery glow of the pillar which shone on Israel. The "sea" is the symbol (in this instance) of deliverance achieved, of victory won, of enemies judged and overwhelmed—the fire in the crystal pointing to the burning wrath which consumed them. But what we have immediately to do with is the fact that the saved multitudes sing the "song of Moses, and of the Lamb." This plainly does not mean that they sing two songs; nor yet that the song which they sing is the song recorded here; for the terms of what they sing are subsequently given (Revelation 15:3, Revelation 15:4). The meaning is that the Church, having experienced a deliverance similar to that experienced by Israel at the Red Sea, but as much greater than that old deliverance, as Christ is greater than Moses, and his salvtion greater than the salvation from Egypt,—the old song is re-cast, and its terms re-adapted, to express both victories at once, the lower and the higher. The old is taken up into the new and is celebrated along with it. No victory of God for his Church will ever pass out of remembrance. Each will be the theme of grateful celebration to all eternity. But type must merge in antitype, and be celebrated with it in a single strain. The song of the redeemed over the defeat of the Antichristian powers at the end—over the defeat of all their enemies—is the true counterpart of this song of Moses, and the one (the latter) remains for ever the background of the other (the former), and is blended with it in the united celebration. Glancing at the two songs, this in Exodus, and that in the Revelation, we note— 1. That the scope of both is the same—the defeat of hostile, pursuing, persecuting powers. And as the defeat of Pharaoh was the natural sequel to the exodus, and confirmed to Israel that redemption then achieved, so will the defeat of Christ’s enemies in the end appear as the appropriate sequel to his work upon the Cross, and will complete the deliverance of his Church from those that trouble her (2 Thessalonians 1:6). 2. That the attributes of God extolled in both are the same. This of necessity, for the work being similar, so must be the attributes revealed in it—holiness, power, unchallengeable supremacy, justice and truth, which here include mercy. "Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty," etc. (Revelation 15:3). The effects produced on the nations by this display of God’s attributes are also similar—"who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name … for all nations shall come and worship before thee." A higher result this, however, than in the case of the type. 3. The singers in both cases are the same—those viz. who have experienced the deliverance which they celebrate. Would we join them? We, too, must be in Christ, and partakers with those who, in the strength which he gives, are overcoming the world (1 John 4:4).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The song of triumph-God exalted in the lips of the people. This song we may take as being in some measure the result and expression of the state of feeling mentioned in Exodus 14:31. People who feared Jehovah and believed in him were very likely, in such a rush of feeling, to sing as did the Israelites here: at the same time we must be careful not to rest content with attributing this song merely to natural causes. There is no need to deny the presence of genius; if only we bear in mind at the same time, that it is genius elevated and sanctified by the inspiration which Jehovah alone can give. Who else than God himself can lead into a true acquaintance with him? and if they who thus know him would speak of him and sing of him, it must he with such an arrangement of thoughts and choice of expressions as he alone can supply. The history of hymnology makes it very evident that genius is not enough for distinction in this sacred service. Poems full of genius, and almost faultless in form, are yet worthless for praise. For in this as other matters God has taken the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty, lie puts the holy and eternal fire on lips that the world despises. They who have made the praises of the Church have not been the writers of epics; they are not found among the poets-laureate; and so here we must look for the power of God as much in the construction of this song, as in the production of the events it celebrates. We are called on to observe him who somehow makes men to utter even more than they know. It may be needful at the proper time to consider this as a contribution to Hebrew poetry; it is better still ever to remember it as a contribution to the worthy praise of God, that praise which while it celebrates him, instructs and ennobles the man who renders it. The question of authorship here, bear in mind, is not to be settled right off by saying that Moses composed it. He and the people sang it, but who composed it is quite another question. And that this point is left undetermined only throws us back more on the thought of God as the great agent in bringing this song into existence. As to the topics treated of in the song, the very fact that there have been so many different ways of dividing it, makes one more disposed to consider it in its unity, without any attempt to divide it into sections at all. Thus then let us notice in succession the dominant truths and convictions which run through the song. The first point is the exaltation of God amongst his people. This is the word with which the song begins. "I will sing unto Jehovah, for he is highly exalted." I. NOTICE THE FACT THAT THERE IS OF GOD. God, in ruling the composition of this song, takes care of this most important point. It was the very point that needed to be brought out in all its prominence, so that no man should be exalted instead of God. Men exalt one another. They are constituted so as to admire that which is great and powerful, and when they are not men of faith, able to comprehend the greatness of the invisible God, their admiration must needs expend itself on the visible man. All temptation of this kind is here kept out of the way. The feeling that Jehovah is exalted runs all through the song. Everything is ascribed to him. Moses himself makes no claim, expects no praise. The people do not gather round him and hail him as deliverer. The tone of the praise is thus in perfect harmony with the deed that has been done. God becomes practically everything and man nothing. For what had Israel done here? They had indeed walked down to the Red Sea, through it, and on to the other side, but no one who regards the proprieties of language would speak of this as contributing to their salvation. We do not praise a man for availing himself of the conditions of safety. Thus we have a type of the way in which God is exalted and glorified in spiritual salvation. When we consider what has to be done in saving a man from his sins; and when we consider also the manifestations, so abundant, so transcendent, of God’s power in doing so, then how plainly incongruous it is to begin praising man for that simple act of faith by which he avails himself of God’s goodness in Christ. The more we consider, the more we shall feel that whatever praise man may deserve is better left to God to express. By all means let us have brotherly appreciation for brotherly kindness; brotherly gratitude encouraging brotherly love. But God only can praise rightly. Though nothing is said of Moses in this song, God took ample care of the fame and reward of his faithful servant. We had better keep to that which God requires from us, namely, praise to himself. As he requires it, so we inky be sure he will fit us to render it. II. THE OF JEHOVAH IS AN TO . He is supreme over physical force in one of its most imposing forms. "The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea." Perhaps those who have had to meet a charge of cavalry in the battle-field can best appreciate this expression. Jehovah is a man of war, and he goes out with strange weapons against great kings and their chosen captains; weapons which they cannot understand and cannot meet. He does not meet sword with sword, and chariot with chariot; the elements of nature are at his instant and entire command. In his hand the mightiest are as nothing. What is the excellency of Pharaoh, even though he be king of Egypt, before the greatness of the excellency of Jehovah? The answer is that as stubble before the fire, so is opposing man before Almighty God. "What a wind that must be, that strong east wind which raises waters, even from the deep, and keeps them when they are raised!" So we imagine man speaking in his inevitable submission to the powers of nature when they are roused. But when God has to speak of the east wind, it is as of something which comes as easily as a blast from the nostrils. True, this expression is chiefly used to indicate his wrath; but it also indicates the ease—if ease be a fitting word to use of Jehovah—with which his work is done. In Exodus 14:9, man is represented as resolving and rushing forth in the utmost confidence; anticipating the end from the beginning; certain of his resources and certain of the result, and then as he advances in all his pride and ostentation, God meets him in equal simplicity and sublimity. "Thou didst blow with thy breath, the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters." One breath from God, and the mightiest fabric goes down like a house of cards! Man accumulates his resources, he strains with prodigious efforts, he gathers his forces without mercy and without scruple; and then when all is in array, God calmly lifts his right hand, and the earth swallows the preparation and the pride of years. III. THERE IS THE OF GOD ABOVE ALL OTHER DEITIES BY MEN. "Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods?" This, of course, is also an illustration of Jehovah’s exaltation to supremacy. Moses and the Israelites had not attained the feeling that all other deities than Jehovah were but empty and delusive names. That discovery was reserved in the wisdom of God for later and prepared generations. The feeling that the gods of the nations were real beings with terrible power, was very potent in the breasts of the Israelites, as was evidenced by their frequent and facile lapses into idolatry. Therefore this uplifting of Jehovah above the gods was most appropriate praise to put into the lips of Israel at this time. The gods of Egypt represented the strength of Egypt; the gods of Philistia the strength of Philistia; the gods of every country the strength of every country where they were worshipped. When the strength of a land was broken, it was like writing Ichabod on the statue of its presiding deity. IV. THIS WAS AN IN WHICH TO THE FUTURE. God, shown supreme in the midst of his people and over their enemies, will maintain and manifest that supremacy in all the time to come. The calamities of Egypt travelling, as it had done, in the path of ten humiliations, and now utterly overthrown, are to be made known in Philistia, in Edom, in Moab, and all through Canaan. Here we flint some explanation of the apprehension with which the progress of Israel was afterwards viewed, as by the Edomites and Balak. The Israelites came to be looked on to some extent as a peculiar foe. The utter destruction of a whole army in the Red Sea was not an event which could be kept in a corner. God had now done something for Israel which enemies might notice as a measure and an index of what would yet be done. Then from the mention of these typical enemies. Philistia, Moab, etc; we are led to consider the abiding enemies of God’s abiding people, those invisible ones who are fully known only to God himself. They have some sense that what has been done by Jesus against them is the measure of what will yet be done. Just as the Philistines felt the sound of Pharaoh’s destruction echoing against their fastnesses, and even in the very echo, shaking them, so we may be sure the principalities and powers of evil felt the greatness of what had been achieved when Christ was raised from the dead. That great act of Jehovah has been far more appreciated in the invisible world, among the powers of evil, than it is among us. They cannot but feel what the end will be. What forgetting fools the Israelites were in after ages, to act in contradiction to this exultant song of praise, trembling and fleeing before the nations that were round about.—Y. The song of triumph. The sense of Israel’s obligation to Jehovah fully expressed. God, we have noticed, is lifted up in this song. We now proceed to observe how he is lifted up in the midst of his people, whom he encompasses with his protection, whom he cheers and illuminates with his favour. His destruction is not mere destruction; his supremacy is not only over his enemies, but also as the guide, the comforter, and the portion of his own. Hence we discover almost immediately on breaking into the song, how Israel is found expressing complete dependence on Jehovah. I. THERE IS THE OF . God has come to Israel in its suffering, need, and helplessness. Israel is weak, and God gives the strength it needs. Israel is sad-hearted, and God enables it to burst forth in songs of gladness. Israel is in peril, and God has interposed with effectual and abiding salvation. He has not only supplied some needs, but all needs wherein Israel was able to receive his aid. More needs would have been supplied, if more had been felt; more causes of gratitude given, if more could have been brought into operation. God is now felt to be a guide (Exodus 15:13), and the land that was thought to fasten the people in, now takes its right place in the memory of the devout as an evident part of the highway of God’s holy ones. What expressions of indebtedness could be more complete? It was impossible to exaggerate the debt, and God took care that the words of the song should not fall short in acknowledging it. Thus let it ever be our aim to thank God for his goodness to us, in such words as he supplies, and fill his forms full with the devotion of meditative and observant hearts. II. THIS IS A ONE. The word "I" stands out prominently. The song was not only for a delivered nation, but for a nation in whose deliverance every individual was blessed. It was emphatically a song for every Israelite. God had done all this for Israel, not that he might have a nation for his own to be looked at in the mass, averaged over the whole, the good along with the bad; it was to be a nation made up of holy, obedient, and grateful individuals. Even already, God is indicating that his true people must be bound to him by personal attachment and service. Pharaoh had said in his haste and thoughtlessness, "I and my people are wicked" (Exodus 9:27). Here Jehovah gives something for each one of his own people to say; and if each of them labours to say it with a feeling corresponding to the words, then indeed there will come an outburst from the nation such as could not in any other way be produced. III. THIS BEING , IS ALSO AN AS TO THE SOURCE OF ABILITY. "The Lord is my strength." The strength of a believer just amounts to that which God puts into him according to his need and according to his faith. Bring to God as many vessels as you will, and if it be wise to fill them, then God can fill them all. Learn that the natural strength of man, even at its best, is inadequate for some purposes and uncertain for any. It breaks down, often without warning and without recovery. Therefore it is a great matter for me to feel that "the Lord is my strength." He himself comes in, not to supplement human efforts, nor to fill up human defects, but rather to make his presence felt with men in the choosing of right purposes, and the carrying of them out to a full and satisfying attainment. The Israelite had been nothing in himself; nothing as against the tyranny of Pharaoh in Egypt; nothing as against the pursuing chariots by the Red Sea. And now all at once he is able to sing as if he were a portion and a factor of Omnipotence. IV. THIS BEING IS ALSO AN AS TO THE SOURCE OF . "The Lord is my song." From him comes real and abiding gladness, such gladness as becomes man at his best estate. The world has its great singers, and what it reckons imperishable songs. Each nation has its own patriotic effusions, and excited and often half-drunken crowds will roar themselves hoarse over national anthems. There are love songs, drinking songs, war songs, and all that great number besides which elude classification. It would be foolish indeed of the Christian, in his haste, to despise these productions, for many of them are very beautiful, and they have an unquestionable and not astonishing hold on the general heart. But after all, we must escape into higher and holier associations, and dwell in them, if we would have gladness, such as will satisfy. The Lord must be our song. He, in his attributes, his actions, and the history of his dealings with the children of men, must be the topic of our praise. The great thing to make each of us glad must be that our minds are kept in perfect peace because they are stayed upon him. All other gladness, sweet as it may be in the beginning, will prove bitter, perhaps very bitter, in the end. Nor was Jehovah any less the song of every true Israelite here, because he was shown acting in such a stern, uncompromising way. The people had to praise God for an actual, present, and overwhelming mercy; and if they had to sing of destruction, that was a necessity not to be escaped. True, there is no word of pity all the way through this song for the destroyed host of Pharaoh, simply because it was not the place for such an expression. The thing to be here expressed and dwelt upon is praise to Jehovah, because of the greatness and completeness of the Divine action. And what an impressive contrast there is between the conduct of these Israelites when delivered and the conduct in the hour of victory, which only too many pages of history record, indeed, such conduct is not absent from the pages of the Old Testament itself. It was, of course, impossible, that any scene of butchery, pillage, and violation, could be presented to us here; but there is not even any tone of savage, revengeful ,exultation over the destroyed. Israel stands by the mighty waters, looks on the corpses of the Egyptians, and sends up this volume of undiluted, unqualified praise to Jehovah. Let us, for the moment, forget the personal unworthiness of the singers, their past unbelief, their future lapses into idolatry, rebellion, and self will. The words of praise here were the right words to speak; and at the time, we may be sure, many of them felt them. The words were true, the feeling real; the fault was that the singers did not continue to live so as to not the feeling more deeply in their breasts. V. THIS BEING , IS ALSO AN AS TO THE SOURCE OF SAFETY. "He has become my salvation." There is thus an experience to dwell on that peculiarly inspires grateful acknowledgment. We are grateful to those who provide for us, who instruct us, who supply us with comforts and pleasures; but there is a peculiar tie to him who saves us in any hour of peril. God himself cannot but look with peculiar interest to those whom he has delivered; and the delivered should look with peculiar devotion to him. If it is much to create men and to provide for them in their natural existence, it is more still to save them from death and to give them eternal life in Christ; and thus God must look in a special way on those who believe and are being saved. And so also, if it is much to be created and much to be provided for, it is even more to be saved; to have the sure feeling that beyond this changing, corruptible scene, there is the house of God, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. There are untold millions who owe existence and all their power of enjoyment to God, yet not one syllable of real thankfulness has ever passed their lips. But as to those who are saved, if they be truly in process of salvation, thankfulness is part of their life. Of this be perfectly sure, no salvation is going on if thankfulness for it be not in the heart and some sort of praise on the lip and in the life. VI. In view of all that has thus been considered, it will be seen as a fitting consequence that JEHOVAH SHOULD BE SET FORTH AS WORTHY OF AND HONOR. "He is my God and I will glorify him, my father’s God and I will exalt him." My father’s God. Here is the response, more or less appreciative, to all declarations in which Jehovah speaks of himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. True praise of God takes in the great historic past, yes, and also the past which is not historic; a past none the less real, none the less contributory to the present, even though there be no record of it such as we can read. Jehovah was deliverer to Israel that day by the Red Sea, because of what he had been to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob centuries before. What God is to each of us to-day, is possible because of what he was to our fathers long ago. Explore then and discover how present blessings are rooted in the past. This will not only be an interesting study, but will increase gratitude, and fix it more surely in the regions of the understanding.—Y. Jehovah among the gods. As long as these deities—the deities, say, of Egypt, Philistia, Edom, Moab, Canaan—were simply to be compared among themselves, there might be room for rivalries among them; there might be reasons for asserting superiority because of a more splendid worship and a larger host of worshippers. But, when Jehovah steps in upon the scene, all discussions as to the comparative excellences of other deities cease to have interest. The most renowned of them becomes of no more account than the most obscure. Even the temple of the great goddess Diana is then despised, and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. At Ephesus, under the very shadow of the far famous building, Paul persuades and turns away much people, saying that they be no gods which are made with hands. Whether stars be of the first magnitude or not ceases to be a question of interest when the sun rises; for then they all vanish alike. "Who is like unto thee, Jehovah, among the gods?" Nor is this question left as a mere vague vociferation. It is pursued into instructive detail, and illustrated by the mention of three particular features of pre-eminence. These words are spoken with the signs of Jehovah’s glory right before the eyes of those who speak. Not mere symbolic signs, such as the burning bush, the rod changed to a serpent, and the leprous hand; but signs that were also great benefits and judgments. Fresh from the miraculous passage, and with the destruction of Pharaoh’s host scarcely faded from their eyes, these singers of praise very fitly ask, Who is like to Jehovah, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises doing wonders? I. IN . Some word is needed to indicate the distinction between deity and all lesser existence, and that word we find in "holiness." Hence holiness and even some sort of glory in their holiness might be attributed to all the gods. All places and symbols associated with them would be approached with scrupulous veneration and only too often with abject terror. But who had such holiness as Jehovah possessed? We may take the question as running—"Whose glory in holiness is like unto thine?" Then, standing in our position as Christians, with the light we thus enjoy, and considering all the conceptions of Deity which our present knowledge of the world, in all lands and through past ages, supplies, we can put this question with a richness of meaning which was not possible to Moses or to his brother Israelites. Consider the deities of the Grecian and Roman mythology—for with that we are perhaps best acquainted—or any deities the wide world over, either among barbarous peoples or civilised; and then consider the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, the God who revealed himself more fully and in due time by his Son. Look how the worship of an idolater drags him down. Think of the unutterable prostitution and sensualities connected with certain idolatries. Think of those miserable parents in whom idolatry had so destroyed natural affection that they could cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Moloch. Many are rigorous, fanatical and even furious in their religion, who yet show by their lives that they care nothing for great duties; their religion, alas! seems to make them worse instead of better. How great, then, is the privilege of him who has indeed come to perceive that Jehovah is glorious in holiness! He is light, and in him is no darkness at all. lie is love—such love as is set forth in John 3:16. His wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness of men. The very nation that he chose, sanctified and cherished, he made to be "scattered and peeled," because it would not do righteousness according to his will. What a cheering and inspiring thing to turn from the inspection of our own hearts with its dismal results, and from our observation of the seething selfishness of the world, to think of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ! For Christ moves before us in the beauty of holiness, a great, attractive, rebuking reality; and we know that as is the Son, so is the Father; as is the visible and Incarnate One, so is the invisible and purely spiritual Jehovah above. It is through the Son we know the Father; and it is everything to feel that he is not a mere imagination. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE JOURNEY FROM THE RED SEA TO ELIM. After a stay, which cannot be exactly measured, but which was probably one of some days, near the point of the Eastern coast of the Gulf of Suez, at which they had emerged from the sea-bed, the Israelites, under the guidance of the pillar of the cloud, resumed their journey, and were conducted southwards, or south-eastwards, through the arid tract, called indifferently "the wilderness of Shut" (Exodus 15:22), and "the wilderness of Etham" (Numbers 33:8), to a place called Marah. It is generally supposed that the first halt must have been at Ayun Musa, or "the springs of Moses." This is "the only green spot near the passage over the Red Sea" (Cook). It possesses at present seventeen wells, and is an oasis of grass and tamarisk in the midst of a sandy desert. When Wellsted visited it in 1836, there were abundant palm-trees. It does not lie on the shore, but at the distance of about a mile and a half from the beach, with which it was at one time connected by an aqueduct, built for the convenience of the ships, which here took in their water. The water is regarded as good and wholesome, though dark-coloured and somewhat brackish. From Ayun Musa the Israelites pursued their way in a direction a little east of south through a barren plain where sand-storms are frequent—part of the wilderness of Shur—for three days without finding water. Here their flocks and herds must have suffered greatly, and many of the animals probably died on the journey. On the last of the three days water was found at a spot called thenceforth "Marah," "bitterness," because the liquid was undrinkable. After the miracle related in Exodus 15:25, and an encampment by the side of the sweetened spring (Numbers 33:8), they proceeded onward without much change of direction to Elim, where was abundance of good water and a grove of seventy palm-trees. Here "they encamped by the waters," and were allowed a rest, which probably exceeded a fortnight (See the comment on Exodus 16:1.) Exodus 15:22 So Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea. There is no such connection between this verse and the preceding narrative as the word "so" expresses. Translate "And Moses brought." The wilderness of Shur, called also that of Etham (Numbers 33:1-56.8) appears to have extended from Lake Serbonis on the north, across the isthmus, to the Red Sea, and along its eastern shores as far as the Wady Ghurundel. It is almost wholly waterless; and towards the south, such wells as exist yield a water that is bitter in the extreme. Three days. The distance from Ayun Musa to Ain Howarah, the supposed representative of Marah, is not more than about 36 miles; but the day’s march of so large a multitude through the desert may not have averaged more than twelve miles. And found no water. No doubt the Israelites carried with them upon the backs of their asses water in skins, sufficient for their earn wants during such an interval; but they can scarcely have carried enough for their cattle. These must have suffered greatly. Exodus 15:23 And when they came to Marah. It is not clear whether the place already bore the name on the arrival of the Israelites, or only received it from them. Marah would mean "bitter" in Arabic no less than in Hebrew. The identification of Marah with the present Ain Howarah, in which most modem writers acquiesce, is uncertain from the fact that there are several bitter springs in the vicinity—one of them even bitterer than Howarah. We may, however, feel confident that the bitter waters of which the Israelites "would not drink" were in this neighbourhood, a little north of the Wady Ghurundel. Exodus 15:24 And the people murmured against Moses. As they had already done on the western shores of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:11, Exodus 14:12), and as they were about to do so often before their wanderings were over. (See below, Exodus 16:2; Exodus 17:3; Numbers 14:2; Numbers 16:41; Deuteronomy 1:27, etc.) "Murmuring" was the common mode in which they vented their spleen, when anything went ill with them; and as Moses had persuaded them to quit Egypt, the murmuring was chiefly against him. The men who serve a nation best are during their lifetime least appreciated. What shall we drink? Few disappointments are harder to bear than that of the man, who after long hours of thirst thinks that he has obtained wherewith to quench his intolerable longing, and on raising the cup to his lips, finds the draught so nauseous that he cannot swallow it. Very unpalatable water is swallowed when the thirst is great. But there is a limit beyond which nature will not go. There "may be water, water everywhere, yet not a drop to drink." Exodus 15:25, Exodus 15:26 The Lord shewed him a tree.—Several trees or plants belonging to different parts of the world, are said to possess the quality of rendering bitter water sweet and agreeable; as the nellimaram of Coromandel, the sassafras of Florida, the yerva Caniani of Peru, and the perru nelli (Phylanthus emblica) of India. But none of them is found in the Sinaitic. peninsula. Burckhardt suggested that the berries of the ghurkud (Peganum retusum), a low thorny shrub which grows abundantly round the Ain Howarah, may have been used by Moses to sweeten the drink; but there are three objections to this. 1. Moses is not said to have used the berries, but the entire plant; 2. The berries would not have been procurable in April, since they do not ripen till June; and 3. They would not have produced any such effect on the water as Burckhardt imagined. In fact there is no tree or shrub now growing in the Sinaitic peninsula, which would have any sensible effect on such water as that of Ain Howarah; and the Bedouins of the neighbourhood know of no means by which it can be made drinkable. Many of the Fathers believed that the "tree" had no natural effect, and was commanded to be thrown in merely to symbolise the purifying power of the Cross of Christ. But to moderns such a view appears to savour of mysticism. It is perhaps most probable that there was some tree or shrub in the vicinity of the bitter fountain in Moses’ time which had a natural purifying and sweetening power, but that it has now become extinct. If this be the case, the miracle consisted in God’s pointing out the tree to Moses, who had no previous knowledge of it. The waters were made sweet. Compare the miracle of Elisha (2 Kings 2:19-22). There he made for them a statute and an ordinance. See the next verse. God, it appears, after healing the water, and satisfying the physical thirst of his people, gave them an ordinance, which he connected by a promise with the miracle. If they would henceforth render strict obedience to all his commandments, then he would "heal" them as he had healed the water, would keep them free at once from physical and from moral evil, from the diseases of Egypt, and the diseases of their own hearts. And there he proved them. From the moment of their quitting Egypt to that of their entering Canaan, God was ever "proving" his people—trying them, that is—exercising their faith, and patience and obedience and power of self-denial, in order to fit them for the position which they were to occupy in Canaan. He had proved them at the Red Sea, when he let them be shut in between the water and the host of the Egyptians—he proved them now at Marah by a bitter disappointment—he proved them again at Meribah (Exodus 17:1-7); at Sinai (Exodus 20:20); at Taberah (Numbers 11:1-3); at Kibroth-hattaavah (Numbers 11:34); at Kadesh (Numbers 13:26-33), and elsewhere. For forty years he led them through the wilderness" to prove them, to know what was in their heart" (Deuteronomy 8:1-20.), to fit them for their glorious and conquering career in the land of promise All these diseases. See Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:27. Kalisch correctly observes that, though the Egyptians had the character in antiquity of being among the healthiest and most robust of nations (Herod. 2.77), yet a certain small number of diseases have always raged among them with extreme severity He understands the present passage of the plagues, which, however, are certainly nowhere else called "diseases." There is no reason why the word should not be taken literally, as all take it in the passages of Deuteronomy above cited. Exodus 15:27 They came to Elim. Elim was undoubtedly some spot in the comparatively fertile tract which lies south of the "wilderness of Shur," intervening between it and the "wilderness of Sin"—now E1 Murkha. This tract contains the three fertile wadys of Ghurundel, Useit, and Tayibeh, each of which is regarded by some writers as the true Elim. It has many springs of water, abundant tamarisks, and a certain number of palm-trees. On the whole, Ghurundel seems to be accepted by the majority of well-informed writers as having the best claim to be considered the Elhn of this passage Twelve wells. Rather "springs." The "twelve springs" have not been identified; but the Arabs are apt to conceal the sources of their water supplies. A large stream flows down the Wady Ghurundel in the winter-time (ibid.), which later becomes a small brook, and dries up altogether in the autumn. The pasture is good at most seasons, sometimes rich and luxuriant; there are abundant tamarisks, a considerable number of acacias, and. some palms. Three score and ten palm trees. The palm-trees of this part of Arabia are "not like those of Egypt or of pictures, but either dwarf—that is, truntdess—or else with savage hairy trunks, and branches all dishevelled". There are a considerable number in the Wady Ghurundel, and others in the Wady Tayibeh. They encamped there. It has been observed that the vast numbers of the host would more than fill the Wady Ghurundel, and that while the main body encamped there, others, with their cattle, probably occupied the adjacent wadys—Useit, Ethal, and even Tayibeh or Shuweikah—which all offer good pasturage Exodus 15:23-27 The trials and vicissitudes of life. Israel in the wilderness is a type of our pilgrimage through life. I. . The long weary sameness of days each exactly resembling the last (Exodus 15:22)—the desert all around us—and no water! No refreshing draughts from that living spring, which becomes in them that drink it "a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14). Israel was afflicted by want of earthly water for three days. Many poor pilgrims through the wilderness of life are debarred the spiritual draughts of which Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman for twenty, thirty, forty years] Debarred, it may be, by no fault of their own, born in heathenism, bred up in heathenism, uneducated in what it most concerns a man to know. How sad their condition! How thankful those should be who may draw of the water of life freely (a) from the written word; (b) from the Living and Eternal Word who has said—"if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink!" II. . Hopes long cherished seem about, at last, to be satisfied. The long sought for treasure—of whatever kind it may be—is announced as found. Now we are about to enjoy ourselves, to take our fill of the delight long denied us. Alas! the dainty morsel as we taste it proves to be— "As Dead Sea fruit, which, fair to view, Yet turns to ashes on the lips." The delicious draught, as we expected it to be, is "Marah," "bitterness." Most of life is to most men made up of such disappointments. Men crave happiness, and expect it here, and seek it through some earthly, some temporal means—wealth, or power, or fame, or a peaceful domestic life, or social success, or literary eminence—and no sooner do they obtain their desire, and hold it in their grasp, than they find its savour gone—its taste so bitter that they do not care to drink. Then, how often do they turn to vent the anguish of their heart on some quite innocent person, who, they say, has led them wrong! Their disappointment should take them with humbled spirits to God. It actually takes them with furious words to the presence of some man, whom it is a relief to them to load with abuse and obloquy. They imitate the Israelites, not Moses—they murmur, instead of crying to the Almighty. III. RELIEF. God can turn bitter to sweet. Often, out of the bitter agony of disappointment God makes gladness to arise. Sometimes, as in the miracle of Marah, he reverses the disappointment itself, turning defeat into victory, giving us the gratification of the desire which had been baulked of fruition. But more often he relieves by compensating. He gives something unexpected instead of the expected joy which he has withheld, lie makes a temporal evil work for our spiritual good. He takes away the sting from worldly loss, by pouring into our hearts the spirit of contentment. lie causes ill-success to wean us from the world and fix our thoughts on him. IV. A TIME OF . Marah led to Elim. If there are times of severe trial in life, there are also "times of refreshing from the Lord" (Acts 3:19)—times of enjoyment—even times of mirth (Ecclesiastes 3:4; Psalms 126:2). But lately toiling wearily through an arid wilderness, only to reach waters of bitterness, on a sudden the Israelites found themselves amid groves of palms, stretched themselves at length on the soft herbage under the shadow of tall trees, and listened to the breeze sighing through the acacias, or to the murmur of the babbling rill which flowed from the "twelve springs" adown the dale. ’Encamped there by the waters" (Exodus 15:27) they were allowed to rest for a while, secure from foes, screened from the heat, their eyes charmed by the verdure, their ears soothed by gentle sounds, their every sense lapped in soft enjoyment by the charms of a scene which, after the wilderness, must have appeared "altogether lovely." And so it is in our lives. God does give us, even here in this world, seasons of repose, of satisfaction, of calm content. It were ingratitude in us not to accept with thankfulness such occasions when they arise, lie knows what is best for us; and if he appoints us an Elim, we were churlish to withdraw ourselves from it. The Church has its festivals. Christ attended more than one banquet. "Times of refreshing" are to be received joyously, gratefully, as "coming from the Lord," and designed by him to support, strengthen, comfort us. They are, as it were, glimpses into the future life. BY J. ORR Exodus 15:22-27 Marah and Ellim. "So Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea, anti they went out into the wilderness of Shur," etc. The main topics here are— I. THE SWEET BY THE BITTER. Singing these songs of triumph, and praising God with timbrel and dance, on the further shores of the Red Sea, the Israelites may have felt as if nothing remained to them but to sing and dance the rest of their way to Canaan. They would regard their trials as practically at an end. It would be with regret that they broke up their pleasant encampment at the Red Sea at all. Their thought would be, "It is good for us to be here, let us make here tabernacles" (cf. Matthew 17:4). But this was not to be permitted. The old call comes—"Speak to the children of Israel that they go forward" (Exodus 14:15), and the halcyon days of their first great exuberant joy are over. Their celebration of triumph is soon to be followed by sharp experience of privation. 1. The Israelites were conducted by the wilderness of Shur. There they went three days without water. God might, as afterwards at Rephidim (Exodus 17:6), have given them water; but it was his will that they should taste the painfulness of the way. This is not an uncommon experience. Every life has its arid, waterless stretches, which may be compared to this "wilderness of Shur" "There are moments when the poet, the orator, the thinker, possessed, inspired with lofty and burning thoughts, needs nothing added to the riches of his existence; finds life glorious and sublime. But these are but moments, even in the life of genius; and after them, and around them, stretches the weary waste of uninspired, inglorious, untimeful days and years" (Dr. J. Service). It is the same in the life of religion. Seasons of spiritual enjoyment are frequently followed by sharp experience of trial. We are led by the wilderness of Shur. Spiritual comforts fail us, and our soul, like Israel’s at a later period, is "much discouraged because of the way" (Numbers 21:4). We are brought into "a dry and thirsty land, where no water is" (Psalms 63:1). A certain sovereignty is to be recognised in the dispensation of Divine comforts. God leaves us to taste the sharpness of privation, that we may be led to cry after him (Psalms 119:81, Psalms 119:82). 2. They came to Marah, where the waters were bitter. This was a keen and poignant disappointment to them—"sorrow upon sorrow." As usual, it drove the people to murmuring, and Moses to prayer. Bear gently with their infirmity. Do them the justice of remembering that there is no record of their murmuring during the three past days of their great privation in the wilderness. It was this disappointment at the well of Marah which fairly broke them down. Would many of us have borne the trial better? It is easy to sing when the heart is full of a great fresh joy. But let trial succeed trial, and disappointment follow on disappointment, and how soon do the accents of praise die away, to be replaced by moaning and complaint! The "Song of Moses," which was so natural on the banks of the Red Sea, would have had a strange sound coming from these dust-parched throats, and fainting, discouraged hearts. The note of triumph is not easily sustained when the body is sinking with fatigue, and when the wells to which we had looked for refreshment are discovered to be bitter. Take Marah as an emblem (1) Of life’s disappointments. Our life-journey is studded with disappointments. Hard to bear in any case, these are doubly bitter to us, when they come on the back of other trials, and cheat us of an expected solace. When friends, e.g; turn their backs on us in time of need, or come with cold comfort when we expected ready help, or give chiding instead of sympathy; when trusted projects fail, or fond anticipations are not realised; most of all, when God himself seems to desert us, and grants no answer to our prayers; the waters given us to drink are bitter indeed. (2) Of life’s bitter experiences generally. "Call me not Naomi," said the mother-in-law of Ruth, "call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me" (Rth 1:20). The only wells that never become bitter are the "wells of salvation" (Isaiah 12:3)—the waters of Divine consolations (cf. John 4:14). The waters of our creature-comforts admit of being very easily embittered. Relationships, friendships, possessions, business, social position—sweet to-day, any or all of these may be made bitter to us to-morrow. The life of Israel was made "bitter" by bondage (Exodus 1:14). God dealt "bitterly" with Naomi in taking husband and sons from her, and reducing her to poverty (Rth 1:21). Hannah was "in bitterness of soul" because she had no child, and "her adversary provoked her sore, for to make her fret" (1 Samuel 1:6-10). Job was embittered by his afflictions (Job 7:11; Job 9:18; Job 10:1). The tears of the Psalmist were his meat day and night, while they continually said unto him, where is thy God? (Psalms 42:3). Mordecai cried, when the decree went forth against his nation, "with a loud and bitter cry" (Esther 4:1). Bitter waters there are, too, in our own hearts, and in society, engendered by sin—by the presence of envy, jealousy, strife, hatred, malignity, and revengefulness. No scarcity, then, of Marah experiences, no want of wells that stand in need of the healing tree being cast in to sweeten them. 3. God’s ends in permitting Israel to suffer these severe privations. We do not ask why God led the Israelites by this particular way, since probably there was no other way open by which they could have been led. But we may very well ask why, leading them by this way, God, who had it in his power to supply their wants, permitted them to suffer these extreme hardships? (1) We may glean one hint in reply from Paul’s experience in 2 Corinthians 12:1-21; "Lest," he says, "I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelation, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). (2) A second hint is to be drawn from verse 25—"There he proved them" Cf. Deuteronomy 8:2—"To humble thee, and prove thee to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no." We do not know what unbelief, what rebellion, what impatience there is in our hearts, till trial comes to draw it out. II. THE BITTER CHANGED INTO THE SWEET. Moses, we read, "cried unto the Lord, and he showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet" (verse 25). Observe, 1. The agency employed. The tree had probably some peculiar properties which tended in the direction of the result which was produced, though, of itself, it was incompetent to produce it. The supernatural does not, as a rule, contravene the natural, but works along the existing lines, utilising the natural so far as it goes. 2. The spiritual meaning. That God intended the healing of these bitter waters to be a "sign" to Israel—a proof of his ability and willingness to heal them of all their natural and spiritual diseases, is abundantly plain from verses 25, 26. The lesson God would have them learn from the incident was—"I am Jehovah that healeth thee." His Jehovah character guaranteed that what he had shown himself to be in this one instance, he would be always, viz; a Healer. As Jehovah, God is the Being of exhaustless resource. As Jehovah, he is the Being eternally identical with himself—self-consistent in all his ways of acting; so that from any one of his actions, if the principle of it can but be clearly apprehended, we are safe in inferring what he always will do. God sweetens, or heals, the bitter waters of life— (1) By altering the outward conditions—e.g; by removing sickness, sending aid in poverty, taking away the cause of bitterness, whatever that may be. He healed Naomi’s bitterness by the happy marriage of Ruth (Rth 4:14, Rth 4:15); Hannah’s by giving her a son (1 Samuel 1:20); Job’s by restoring his health and prosperity (Job 47:10), etc. The tree here is whatever agency God employs to accomplish his purpose. (2) And this is the diviner art, by infusing sweetness into the trial itself. He makes that which is bitter sweet to us, by adding himself to it. This Divine change in our experiences is accomplished by means of a very simple but potent secret—as simple as the casting of the tree into the waters, as potent in its efficacy. Would we know it? It is simply this—denying our own natural will, and taking God’s instead. "Not my will but thine be done" (Luke 22:42). This it is which will make even the bitterest of trials sweet. Call it, if you will, the taking up of the cross; it is, at all events, the spirit of the cross which is the sweetening, heavenly element in all affliction—the tree that heals. It is invaluable to bear this in mind, that be our trial, our grief, what it may, half its pain has departed the moment we can bring ourselves to embrace God’s will in it. Heavenly consolations will sweeten what remains. Mediaeval mystics, like Tauler, dwelt much on this thought, and it is the true and all-important element in their teaching. With God at hand to bless, "Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness;" or as another "sweet singer" expresses it— "Just to let thy rather do What he will. Just to know that he is true, And be still. Just to let him take the care, Sorely pressing, Finding all we let him bear Changed to blessing. This is all! and yet the way, Marked by him who loves thee best! Secret of a happy day, Secret of his promised rest." FRANCES RIDLEY . (3) By removing the cause of all evil and bitterness—sin itself. It is as the God of Redemption that Jehovah reveals himself pre-eminently as the Healer. His Gospel goes to the root of the matter, and strikes at the malum originale of the bitterness in us, and around us. From this point of view, it is not fanciful to trace an analogy—we need not allege a direct typical relation—between this tree cast in to sweeten the bitter waters, and the Cross of the Redeemer. God through Christ; Christ through what he has accomplished by this Cross; the Cross, by being made the object of faith, and again, by being set up in men’s hearts, effects this sweetening of the waters. We have but to compare ancient with modern civilization, to see how much the Cross of Christ, cast into the bitter waters of society, has already done to sweeten them. Trusted in for salvation, it renews the heart in its inmost springs, and so heals the bitter waters there; while, as the power of God unto salvation, it will ultimately heal the world of all its woes, abolishing even death, from which already it extracts the sting and bitterness. III. THE RIGHT OF MARAH (verse 26). We should accept them, 1. As a motive to obedience. If God has healed us that is a new reason for loving, trusting, and obeying him (Psalms 116:1-19.). Accordingly, consequent on this healing of the bitter waters, God made "a statute and an ordinance" for Israel, taking them bound to serve him, and promising them new blessings, if they should prove obedient, This "statute and ordinance" is the comprehensive germ of the subsequent covenant (Exodus 24:3-9). 2. As a pledge. The sweetening of the waters, as already seen, was a revelation of Jehovah in his character as Healer. It pledged to Israel that he would, if only they obeyed his statutes, exempt them from such plagues as he had brought upon the Egyptians, and, by implication, that he would heal them of whatever diseases were already upon them. He would be a God of health to them. The healthy condition of body is one which not only throws off existing disease, but which fortifies the body against attacks of disease from without. Natural healing, as we see in the New Testament, and especially in the miracles of Christ, is a symbol of spiritual healing, and also a pledge of it. In the gospels, "to be saved," and "to be made whole," are represented by the same Greek word. We may state the relation thus:— (1) Natural healing is the symbol of spiritual healing. (2) Spiritual healing, in turn, is a pledge of the ultimate removal of all natural evils (Revelation 21:4). (3) Each separate experience of healing is a pledge of the whole. It is a fresh testimony to the truth that God is a healer (cf. Psalms 103:1-4). Every recovery from sickness is thus, in a way, the preaching of a gospel. It pledges a complete and perfect healing—entire deliverance from natural and spiritual evils—if only we will believe, obey, and use God’s method. IV. ELIM (verse 27). 1. An illustration of the chequered experiences of life. The alternation of gladness and sorrow; of smiles and tears; followed again by new comforts and seasons of joy. 2. There are Elim spots—places of cool shade, of abundant waters, of rest and refreshment provided for us all along our way through life. In the times of hottest persecution, there were intervals of respite. The Covenanters used to speak of these as "the blinks." 3. These Elim-spots should not lead us to forget that we are still in the wilderness. The prevailing aspect of life, especially to one in earnest, is figured by the wilderness, rather than by Elim. Our state here is one of trial, of discipline, of probation—no passing snatches of enjoyment should cause us to forget this.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The want of water and the want of faith-Marah and Elim. It will be noticed at once how the interest of this passage is gathered round that great natural necessity, water. It is a necessity to man in so many ways. He needs it for drinking, for cleansing, for cooking, and for helping to renew the face of the earth. We may note also that Israel was soon to discover the necessity of water in ceremonial duties. A great deal of water had to be used in the tabernacle service. (Exodus 29:4; Exodus 30:18-21; Le Exodus 6:27, Exodus 6:28; chaps, 13-17.) Hence it is no wonder that the very first thing Jehovah does after delivering the Israelites finally from Pharaoh, is to bring them face to face with this great want of water. We see them passing in a short time through a great variety of experiences with regard to it. First, they go three days in the wilderness and find no water; next they come to the waters of Marah and find them undrinkable; then these waters are suddenly made sweet; and lastly, they journey on to the abundant supplies, and therefore inviting neighbourhood of Elim. I. THE THE WANT OF WATER, There is here a curious contrast between the fate of the Egyptians and the want of the Israelites. Water proved the ruin of Pharaoh and his host, while the want of water led Israel rapidly into murmuring and unbelief. Thus we have another illustration of how temporal things—even the very necessities of life from a natural point of view—are only blessings as God makes them so. He can turn them very rapidly and easily into curses. We call to mind the grotesque words of Laertes over his drowned sister:—"Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia." So the Egyptians had too much of water, and the Israelites could not get any at all. God was immediately beginning to teach and test his own people according to the explanation of Moses in Exodus 15:25, Exodus 15:26. They were to learn faith in Jehovah for support as well as deliverance; and the first lesson was to be taught by a three days’ deprivation of water. If they had had the believing spirit in them this was an opportunity to say, "Assuredly such an awful deliverance has not been wrought that we may straightway perish of thirst." Notice also how the reality of the wilderness life is at once brought before us by these three days of waterless wandering. So short a time had they been out of Egypt, and so little distance had they got away; and yet they are as it were in the very worst of wilderness experiences. Thus even the moment they became effectually clear of the external bondage of Egypt, the truth was impressed upon them that they were without a home. There was no swift exchange from one storehouse of temporal comforts to another. For remember, Egypt with all its misery was a sort of home; there the Israelites had been born and trained; there they had got into a bondage of habits and traditions which was not to he removed in a day. And now Jehovah would have them understand that to be free and able to serve him meant that they must endure with these privileges the privations of the wilderness. We cannot have everything good all at once. If we would be clear of the bondage of this world’s carnal ways, we must be ready for certain consequent and immediate privations. We cannot get away from Egypt and yet take with us the pleasant waters of Egypt. Unless our springs be in God, and heaven begun in the heart, the needful change of external associations may bring little but pain. External circumstances, and to some extent external companionships, may remain the same; the new home feeling must be produced by the change within. II. WHEN THE FIND WATER IT IS BITTER. Imagine, when they see the water after three days privation, how they run to it. But taste does not confirm sight. The water is not drinkable. Possibly this was a just complaint; although it may rather be suspected that the water, even if bitter, was not so bitter but that it could have been drunk by thirsty people. The Israelites, however, were thinking of the sweet waters of Egypt. A little longer privation and they might have found sweetness even in bitter waters. Still one cannot but consider how it is there should be this difference between the bitter waters and the sweet, between Marah and Elim. And then we are at once reminded that bitterness is no essential part of water, but comes from foreign and separable matters. So the comforts and resources flowing from God get mixed on the way with human and embittering elements, and these elements are so strong and disturbing that we utterly forget the sweet Divine part because of the discomforts of the bitter human one. We are ready to cast all away as if the nauseous could not be expelled. When Jesus told his disciples certain things which required a changed mind, and the creation of spiritual perceptivity in order to lay them to heart, they called these things hard sayings; not considering that hardness might be made easiness. In our early experiences of religion there is sure to be something of the bitter. The exhortation, "Taste and see that the Lord is good," is a serious and experimental one, yet many on their tasting find bitterness. The water of life has flowed through nauseating channels. Moses had his Marah: he got a taste of it even here, and he had full draughts afterwards. (Exodus 32:19; Numbers 11:10-15; Numbers 12:1; Numbers 14:5; Numbers 16:3.) David also had his Marah. (Psalms 42:3; Psalms 80:5; Psalms 102:9.) One can see a good deal of Marah even in the letters of the Christian Paul to his brethren in Corinth and Galatia. He had expected great things from the gifts of the Spirit, and correspondingly bitter would be his disappointment. We must have our Marah water to drink. Water may fail altogether for a while, and then when it does come it may seem worse than none at all. III. GOD QUICKLY MAKES THE WATER . Note the request of the people. They do not stop to consider even for a moment whether this water, bitter as it is, may be made palatable. They turn from the whole thing in disgust and despair. "What shall we drink?" If Moses had straightway replied, "Ye shall drink of Marah," they would have counted him a mocker; yet his reply would have been correct. In the very things from which we turn as obviously useless, we may be destined to find an ample and satisfying supply. Moses himself knew not at the moment what they were to drink, but he takes the wise course and cries to Jehovah. More and more does his now habitual faith come out in contrast with the unbelief of the people. With regard to the casting in of the tree, it may have been that the tree had in itself some salutary effect; but the probability rather is that Moses was asked for another pure act of faith. This is more in harmony with the miraculous progression observed hitherto. When we remember the multitude that had to be supplied from these waters, there is something ludicrously inadequate in the supposition that the branches gathered to themselves the saline incrustations. The casting in of the tree was rather a symbolic channel for the sweetening than the actual cause of it. IV. GOD SEIZES THE TO SHOW ISRAEL WHEREIN THEIR SAFETY LIES. "He proved them" (verse 25). He points out, as it were, that they have been subjected to a test and have failed. At Marah they are shown forth as inattentive to past experiences, forgetful as to how God had remembered them and delivered them. Being now free from the bondage of Egypt, they must no longer blame outward constraints, but look earnestly on inward defects, for these are about to prove their greatest hindrance and danger. Yet this was not a time to speak sternly, even though unbelief had put forth its baleful front; they were but at the beginning of the journey, and gentle admonition was more proper than stern reproach. Therefore he counsels them— 1. To listen steadily to his voice; 2. To make his will, as expressing most clearly that which is right, the rule of their conduct; 3. To carry out all his commandments and statutes, some of the most important of which had already been laid before them in connection with their departure from Egypt. Let them attend to all this, and they will be free from Egypt’s calamities. Notice the negative aspect of this promise. God promises exemption from suffering rather than attainment of good. It was well thus to make Israel give a backward look, not only towards the Red Sea, but across it, and into Egypt, where so many troubles had come on their recent oppressors. It would almost seem as if already the hearts of many were filling with the expectation of carnal comforts. They were thinking, eagerly and greedily, of what they were to get. But God speaks out very plainly. He demands obedience; and the most he has to say is that if obedience is given, there will be exemption from suffering. The positive element is left out, and doubtless there is wisdom in the omission. That element will come in due time. Yet of course it is there even now, for the devout and discerning, who can penetrate below the surface. The keeping of Jehovah’s commandments is, infallibly, the attaining of the highest and purest blessedness. V. AFTER MARAH HAS DONE ITS WORK, THE COME TO ELIM. The pillar of cloud doubtless led them to Marah purposely before Elim, and to Elim purposely after Marah. Thus the people got a rest before coming to another trial of their faith and submissiveness; God did not take them straight from the difficulty with regard to the water to the next difficulty with regard to the bread. It is easy to understand that there were many attractions at Elim which would make them wish to linger there; but at Elim they could not stay. It had water in abundance; but water, great blessing as it is, is not enough. Pleasant it was to rest for awhile at these wells and seventy palm-trees; but before them lay a still better land where they would have, not only brooks of water and fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills, but also wheat and barley and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates; and all the rest of the good things mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:7-9. The great lesson of Elim is that we must not make a resting-place, however attractive, into a home.—Y. BY G. A. I will hear what God, the Lord, will say. There is no reason why a powerful sermon should not be preached from a seemingly strange text. All depends on how the text is treated. God himself is the greatest of all preachers. See what sort of a sermon he preached from a text which most would have thought unpromising. I. THE TEXT (Exodus 15:22-25). 1. What it was. Israel three days without water; at length "a large mound, a whitish petrifaction," from which flowed a fountain. Eagerness followed by disgust. The water bitter, loathsome, undrinkable. "Marah." The people murmured against their leader. A bitter fountain and an embittered murmuring people. Such the text. 2. How treated. The text was improved by applying to it the context. Many other texts might be best improved in like manner. "The Lord showed him a tree," etc. (Exodus 15:25). Clearly somewhere close at hand. The bitter waters made sweet. Discontent changed to satisfaction. II. THE SERMON (Exodus 15:25, Exodus 15:26). Israelites too much like the bitter water. When God looked to refresh himself by their confidence and gratitude, he was met by murmuring and distrust. They, too, must learn not to fix attention wholly on disagreeables, hut to take the bitter out of them by considering the never-absent context. God himself is the context to every incident which could befall them, but they must apply his help by obedience and simple trust. Obey him and no bitter, in the heart or out of it, but his presence would sweeten. "I am the Lord that healeth thee," even as I have healed the waters. Notice:— 1. The sermon does not dwell upon the text, though it springs out of it quite naturally. Exceedingly plain and simple, so that a child can understand it. 2. The text (the ordinance) illustrates the sermon (the statute). Yet the illustration is not forced; not even strongly emphasized; just allowed to speak for itself. Some preachers make so much of an illustration, that that which it illustrates is forgotten. [You may drive a brass-headed nail so "home," that while it is fixed nothing will hang upon it.] III. A RETREAT FOR (Exodus 15:27). Some excellent sermons are forgotten directly in the hurry and bustle that succeeds them. To gain by sermons we must recollect them; and to recollect them we must have time and place for recollectedness. This God gave to the Israelites at Elim; yet, even so, they failed to profit by it. Had they used their time for meditation better, much after trouble, caused by forgetfulness, would have been saved. Application. "A sermon for preachers!" Yes, but a sermon for people also. If God’s sermons can be so soon forgotten, even when he gives time for pondering them, how much sooner those we preach! Everything does not rest with the preacher. If the people will not take pains to remember—to ponder, meditate, inwardly digest—the best of preachers, even God himself, may preach home to them, and the result be nil.—G. BY J. Trial and Blessing. I. THE CLOUD AND OF THE PILGRIM LIFE. The weariness of the wilderness journey, the disappointment of Marah, and the comforts of Elim, all lie along the appointed way. II. A HEAVY TRIAL BADLY BORNE. The wilderness thirst had been endured without a murmur; but when in addition they were mocked by the bitter springs of Marah their spirit broke. 1. The end of a prayerless faith is soon reached. If we have not learned to cast burdens upon God and to wait upon him, but expect him to fill our life with ease and pleasure, we shall soon be offended. 2. A spirit with such a faith speedily turns away from God and breaks into complaint against man. III. FAITH’S TRIUMPH IN (25). 1. Moses "cried unto the Lord." The need of the time was rightly read. It was a call to prayer. In times of difficulty and reproach our first recourse should be to God. 2. In answer to believing prayer the bitter waters are sweetened, and the soul finds God in the gift as without the previous disappointment he could not be manifested. IV. GOD’S TIME. 1. In the full experience of his mercy. We must know God’s love in Christ before his covenant of service and blessing can be made with us. 2. In the midst of self-knowledge and repentance. At the sweetened waters the faithless ones knew themselves and were ashamed. 3. The nature of the covenant. If they cleave to and serve him, there may be affliction, but there shall be no judgment. 4. How God will be known in Israel. "I am the Lord that healeth thee." Note:—When God’s goodness has rebuked our unbelief, he means us to listen to the assurance of his love and to renew our vows.—U. BY H. T. Exodus 15:22-26 The well of bitterness. "For I am Jehovah that healeth thee" (Exodus 15:26). A new chapter of history now opens, that of the wandering; it comprises the following passages. 1. Two months to Sinai. 2. Eleven months at Sinai. 3. Thirty-eight years of virtual settling down in the wilderness of Paran. 4. March upon Canaan in the last year. Introductory to this sermon give description of the journey from the sea to Marah, keeping prominent these points, the first camp probably at "The Wells of Moses," the road thence varying from ten to twenty miles wide, the sea on the right, the wall-looking line of mountain on the left for nearly all the way—this the wilderness of "Shur," i.e; of "the wall." There may indeed have been a city called "Shur," but the wall of mountain may have given name both to city and desert. (On the line of the Roman wall in Northumberland is a village "Wall.") The route here quite unmistakable. More than forty miles. No water. The modern caravan road marked by bleached camel bones. Numbers 33:8, gives the impression of a forced march. At length Marah, to-day a solitary spring of bitter water with stunted palm-tree beside it. Here too is the place to point out, that Israel’s wanderings are not so much allegorical, but tautegorical. The phenomena of spiritual life and those of Israel’s desert history are net so much two sets of things—one pictorial the other real, but one and the same. This truth lies at the base of all successful practical homiletic treatment. I. MAN MAY NOT LIVE IN THE PAST. "And Moses brought [forced away] Israel from the Red Sea." Note:— 1. Henceforth Moses is supreme leader. Aaron and Miriam sink to subordinate places. Besides these, the entourage of Moses consists of Hut, Miriam’s husband; Jethro for guide; and Joshua, a sort of body servant. All over the desert are names witnessing to this hour to the sole supremacy of Moses. 2. Divine Guidance did not impair his individuality. Inspiration and the "Cloud and Fire" did not so lead as to leave no room for the exercise of judgment or the spontaneity of consecrated genius. Lesson:—God does not crush individuality, but develops it into fulness and power. 3. Moses brought Israel quickly from proximity to Egypt, and even from the scene of victory. [See Hebrews verb, to cause the camp to remove.] The last cadences of the song, the last sound of dancing had hardly died away; Miriam’s timbrel was scarcely out of her hand, before "Forward!" Out of this, two lessons. Leave behind:— 1. The memory of Egypt; of old sins, of old sorrows. 2. The memory of victory. As in common life, so in spiritual, e.g; the schoolboy. (John Singleton Copley, a painter’s son, had for motto "Ultra pergere," and became Lord Lyndhurst.) Graduate at University. Young tradesman. So with things spiritual, each victory the point of a new departure, even with the aged. "Christian progress by oblivion of the past." Philippians 3:13, Philippians 3:14. II. FIRST STAGES IN NEW OF LIFE’S HISTORY ARE TEDIOUS. Look here at:— 1. The experience of Israel. They had left behind many sights, they, even though slaves, would greatly miss; the Nile and its green line of fertility; cities in all their splendour; life in all its rich variety. Now, the hardship and silence of the desert, only trumpet-broken at morn and eve. And this first stage was terrible. Nothing so bad as this further on—further on oases, wells, filmy streams, tamarisk, palm, mountain shadows, and even cultivated regions. Excitement perhaps of the first day, the experience novel, the sea in view; but on the second and third, plodding, fainting, and disgust. 2. The present reality. So is it with all new chapters in life; the first steps are tedious, e.g; child going to school; boy to college; first steps in business; so with every serious break-up and change in life’s pilgrimage. The first steps are arduous. And so too is spiritual life—to break with sin, to stand ridicule, to keep advancing in spite of comparative ignorance, etc. 3. The temptation. Many fail to stand it. Young men yield and go back to the fleshpots of Egypt—loneliness with duty and God does not suit them. If we can march from the sea to Marah, all may be well. 4. The encouragement. To say nothing of truths like these, that the way was right, the guidance sufficient, the land of Promise was before them; there was a nearer benediction. "The far horizon in front was bounded, not by a line of level sand, but by sharp mountain summits, tossing their peaks into the sky in wild disorder, and suggesting irresistibly the thought of torrents and glens, the shadow of great rocks, and groves of palms." The view was of the range of Sinai, and there Israel was to have nearly a year of high communion with God. III. WAITS US ON OUR WAY. The high-wrought expectation of the people: and lo! the spring is bitter. So with life. So much is this the case, that men of genius have described life as one long illusion. Things are never what they seemed. Neither school nor college, courtship nor marriage, home nor church, business nor pleasure. So much the worse for those who have ideality large. IV. INTO COMES HEALING. All through nature, it is probable, that every poison has its antidote, every evil its corrective, every disappointment its compensation. "Dr. Johnston, in his ’Chemistry of Common Things,’ explains at length how the bark of a certain tree has power to precipitate the mineral particles, which embitter the waters, and to make them sweet and clear." Did God "show" this secret thing to Moses? Let every man examine his own life, and he will find by the side of every disappointment a compensating mercy; and more, that out of every such has come a lesson to sweeten life. It is as when (to take the most striking illustration of all) the Saviour came down into human nature, turned to bitterness by sin, and made the bitter sweet. V. LIFE IS ONE LONG . This is a truth illustrated by the journey to, and by the incidents at Marah. There God laid down a Fixed Principle [חֹק], and one that was absolutely Righteous. [מִשְׁפָט]. 1. Israel was to hear (i.e. believe) and do. 2. And then Jehovah would be to Israel, what the "wood" had been to the water, their Healer.—R. Elim. "And they came to Elim, where were twelve wells of water," etc. (Exodus 15:27). Describe locality, and point out the great change from Marah, and the miserable preceding three days in the desert. And then note the following suggestions as to the pilgrim path of a human soul. I. OUR LIES THROUGH EVER-VARIED SCENERY. The changes here are so great that they cannot fail to suggest the corresponding truth, e.g; fear on the west of the Red Sea, deliverance, triumph, three days’ march, disappointment and healing at Marah, Elim. II. THE SCENERY WILL INCLUDE "ELIMS." In dark days we believe no bright will dawn, and vice versa]. So the sorrowful must be reminded of Elims to come. Many oases for Israel; so to-day even in Sahara. Our Elims.— 1. Lift the mind to their Giver. 2. Are earnests of the Better Land. III. "ELIMS" ARE THE OF TRUTH. Imagine all the beauty of Elim, and ask, what made it? It was the water that made the Paradise. Now, note the place of water in the economy of nature; as a constituent of the human body, in vegetation; as the chief element in all food, medicine, drink; as the universal solvent and purifier; as an agent in all dyes, gorgeous and homely; as "the eye" in every landscape, etc. It is no wonder then that water in Scripture is so often the emblem of truth, for which the soul thirsts, which is given as "water of life" from the throne of God and the Lamb. Doctrine "distils as the dew." God "pours clean water upon us that we may be clean." Note the analogy between truth and water implied in Matthew 28:19.. And is it not new discovery of truth at crises in our lives, that make our "Elims"? Not at all anything external to the soul; but internal uncoverings of the goodness, grace and glory of our Heavenly Father, etc; etc. [Develop and illustrate.] Will it be considered fanciful to add, that:— IV. OUR "ELIMS" HAVE AN IMPRESS. "Twelve wells," as many as tribes of Israel. "Seventy palms," for the tent of each elder a palm. There is any way a speciality in our Father’s mercies, which marks them as for us, and reveals to us his personal love. V. THE "ELIMS" OF OUR ARE NOT FAR FROM OUR "MARAHS." Only some eight or ten miles is that journey of Israel. Then:— 1. At Marah let us hope for Elim. 2. From Marah push on for Elim. Never good to lie down and nurse sorrows and disappointments. Push "forward" along the pilgrim path of duty. 3. Marah prepares for the delight of Elim. VI. "ELIM" IS ONLY FOR . "They encamped there by the waters;" did not dwell, or build a city there. VII. THE SCENERY LEADS TO CANAAN. All the succeeding transformations of life are intended to prepare for the heavenly stability and rest.—R. THE FIRST FOR FOOD. From Elim, or the fertile tract extending from Wady Ghurnndel to Wady Tayibeh, the Israelites, after a time, removed, and ca-camped (as we learn from Numbers 33:10) by the Red Sea, probably along the narrow coast tract extending from the mouth of Tayibeh to the entrance upon the broad plain of El Markha. Hence they entered upon "the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai"—a tract identified by some with the coast plain, El Markha, by others with the inland undulating region known at the present day as the Debbet-er-Ramleh It is difficult to decide between these two views. In favour of El Markha are: 1. The fact that the Egyptian settlements in the Sinaitic peninsula would thus be avoided, as they seem to have been, since no contest with Egyptians is recorded; 2. The descent of the quails, who, wearied with a long flight over the Red Sea, would naturally settle as soon as they reached the shore; 3. The greater openness and facility of the El Markha and Wady Feiran route, which is admitted by all; and 4. The suitability of the latter to the particulars of the narrative in Exodus 18:1-27. In favour of the route by the Debbet-er-Ramleh are, 1. The fact that it is better watered at present than the other; 2. Its being somewhat less removed from the direct line between Wady Ghurundel and Sinai than El Markha; and 3. A certain correspondency of sound or meaning between some of the present geographical names along this route and those of the Mosaic narrative. In "the wilderness of Sin" the Israelites for the first time found themselves in want of sufficient nourishment. They hall consumed the grain which they had brought with them out of Egypt; and though no doubt they had still considerable flocks and herds, yet they were unaccustomed to a mere milk and flesh diet, having in Egypt lived principally upon bread (Exodus 18:3), fish (Numbers 11:5), and vegetables (ibid.). They therefore "murmured," and accused Moses and Aaron of an intention to starve them. It is quite possible that many of the poorer sorts having brought with them no cattle, or lost their cattle by the way, and not being helped by their brethren, were in actual danger of starvation. Hence God was not angry, but "heard their murmurings" (Exodus 18:9) patiently, and relieved them. Exodus 16:1 They journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation came. It has been noted (Cook) that the form of expression seems to imply that the Israelites proceeded in detachments from Elim, and were first assembled as a complete host when they reached the wilderness of Sin." This accords well with their numbers and with the character of the localities. They could only assemble all together when they reached some considerable plain. Between Elim and Sinai. This expression must be regarded as vague to some extent. On the direct line, as the crow flies, there is no "wilderness" (midbar) between Wady Ghurundel and Sinai. All is mountain and valley. All that the writer means is that "the wilderness of Sin" lay upon the ordinary, or at any rate an ordinary route between Elim and the great mountain. This is equally true of El Markha and the Debbet-er-Ramleh. On the fifteenth day of the second month—i.e; on the 15th of Zif, exactly one month after their departure from Egypt. As only seven camping places are mentioned (Numbers 33:5-11), and one journey of three days through a wilderness (Exodus 15:22), it is evident that there must either have been long stays in several places, or that they must have often encamped in places which had no name. Viewed as an itinerary, the record is manifestly incomplete. Exodus 16:2 The whole congregation … murmured, It has been observed above, that only the poorer sort could have been as yet in any peril of actual starvation; but it may well have been that the rest, once launched into the wilderness, and becoming practically acquainted with its unproductiveness, foresaw that ultimately starvation must come upon them too, when all the cattle were eaten up, or had died through insufficient nourishment Nothing is more clear than that, without the miracle of the manna, it would have been impossible for a population of two millions to have supported themselves for forty years, or even for two years, in such a region as the Sinaitic peninsula, even though it had been in ancient times three or four times as productive as at present. The cattle brought out of Egypt must have rapidly diminished (Exodus 17:3); and though the Israelites had brought with them also great wealth in the precious metals, yet it must have been some time before they could establish commercial relations with the neighbouring nations so as to obtain such supplies as they needed. Thus we can well understand that at the expiration of a month the people generally should have recognized that their situation was one of great danger, and should have vented their discontent upon their leaders. Exodus 16:3 Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt—i.e; "Would that God had smitten us with a painless death, as he did the first-born of the Egyptians! Then we should have avoided the painful and lingering death from starvation which we now see before us." The cry puts on the garb of piety, and names the name of Jehovah, but indicates a want of faith in him, his power, and his promises (Exodus 4:8, Exodus 4:17; Exodus 6:8; Exodus 12:25; Exodus 13:5, Exodus 13:11), which was sinful, and, after the miracles that they had seen, barely excusable. When we sat by the flesh-pots of Egypt. Compare Numbers 11:5. Both passages make it clear that, whatever the sufferings of the Israelites in Egypt from the cruelty of the taskmasters and the hard tasks set them, at any rate their sustenance was well cared for—they had abundance of agreeable food. Did eat bread. It has been said that "bread" here means "food in general" (Kalisch); and no doubt the word has sometimes that sense. But it was probably actual bread, rather than anything else, for which the Israelites were longing. See the Introduction to the chapter. Exodus 16:1-3 The unreasonableness of discontent. The people of Israel experience now the second trial that has come upon them since the passage of the Red Sea. First, they had nothing which they could drink (Exodus 15:24); now they are afraid that they will soon have nothing to eat. They have consumed their dough (Exodus 12:39), their grain, their flour; many of them have consumed, or lost, their beasts. The land around them produces little or nothing that is edible; no settled inhabitants show themselves from whom they may purchase food. If there are Egyptian store-houses in the district, they are shut against the enemies of Egypt. So the Israelites, one and all, begin to despair and murmur. How irrational their conduct! The unreasonableness of discontent is shown— I. IN GOD’S POWER OF , WHEN WE HAVE SEEN OF IT. The Israelites had been brought out of Egypt "by a mighty hand"—delivered through means of a series of wonderful miracles. They had escaped the pursuit of Pharaoh by having a path made for them through the waters of the Red Sea. They had witnessed the destruction of Pharaoh’s choicest warriors by the return of the waves on either side. They had very recently thought themselves on the point of perishing with thirst; and then by the simplest possible means God had made the bitter water sweet and agreeable. Now, they had found themselves fallen into a new difficulty. They had no bread, and foresaw a time when all their food would be exhausted. They were not really, if the rich imparted of their superfluous cattle to the poor, in any immediate danger. Yet, instead of bearing the trial, and doing the best they could under the circumstances, they began to murmur and wish themselves dead. They did not reflect upon the past; they did not use it as a standard by which to estimate the future. They acted exactly as they might naturally have done, had they had no previous evidence of God’s power to deliver. And so it is to this day in human life frequently. We do not witness miracles, but we witness signal deliverances of various kinds—an enemy defeated at the moment that he seemed about to carry all before him—the independence of a nation saved when it appeared to be lost-drought succeeded by copious rains—overmuch rain followed by a glorious month for harvest. Yet, each time that a calamity threatens, we despond; we forget all the past; we distrust God’s mercy; we murmur; we wish, or say we wish, that we had died before the trial came. II. IN ALL THE OF OUR PRESENT , WITHOUT ITS , WITH ALL THE , AND NONE OF THE , OF SOME ONE. The Israelites, fearing starvation, thought of nothing but the delight of sitting by the flesh-pots of Egypt, and eating bread to the full. They omitted to reflect on their severe toils day after day, on the misery of feeling they were slaves, on the murder of their children by one tyrant, and the requirement of impossible tasks by another, on the rudeness to which they were daily exposed, and the blows which were hourly showered on them. They omitted equally to consider what they had gained by quitting Egypt—the consciousness of freedom, the full liberty of worshipping God after their conscience, the constant society of their families, the bracing air of the Desert, the perpetual evidence of God’s presence and providential care in the sight of the pillar of the cloud and of fire, which accompanied them. And men still act much the same. Oh! for the delights of boyhood, they exclaim, forgetting all its drawbacks. Oh! for the time when I occupied that position, which I unwisely gave up (because I hated it). The present situation is always the worst conceivable—its ills are magnified, its good points overlooked, thought nothing of Again, how unreasonable! The allegorical tale which tells of a pilgrim who wished to change his cross, and after trying a hundred others, found that the original one alone fitted him, is applicable to such cases, and should teach us a lesson of content. III. IN ITS VENTING ITSELF TOO OFTEN ON THE WRONG PERSON. Moses and Aaron were not to blame for the situation in which the Israelites found themselves. They had done nothing but obey God from first to last. God had commanded the exodus—God had led the way—God had forbidden the short route along the shore to the country of the Philistines, and had brought them into the "wilderness of the Red Sea," and that desolate part of it called "the wilderness of Sin." Moses and Aaron were but his mouthpieces. Yet the Israelites murmured against them. Truly did Moses respond—"What are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD." And so are all murmurings. Men are but God’s instruments; and, in whatsoever difficulty we find ourselves, it is God who has placed us there. Murmuring against men is altogether foolish and vain. We should take our grief straight to God; we should address him, not with murmuring, but with prayer. We should entreat him to remove our burthen, or to give us strength to bear it, We should place all in his hands. BY J. ORR Exodus 16:1-4 Murmurings. In the "Wilderness of Sin," between Elim and Sinai, on the 15th day of the second month after the departing of Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 16:1). One short month, but how much can be forgotten even in so brief a space of time! (cf. Exodus 32:1). Egypt now lay at a little distance. The supplies of the Israelites were failing them. God lets the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil run out (1 Kings 17:12), before interposing with his help. Thus he tries what manner of spirit we are of. Our extremity is his opportunity. Consider here— I. THE PEOPLE’S (Exodus 16:2). These are brought into strong relief in the course of the narrative. "The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured’’ (Exodus 16:2). "He heareth your murmurings against the Lord, and what are we that ye murmur against us?" (Exodus 16:7). "The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him, and what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord" (Exodus 16:8). "He hath heard your murmurings" (Exodus 16:9). "I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel" (Exodus 16:12). 1. They murmured, and did not pray. They seem to have left that to Moses (cf. Exodus 14:15). Remembering what Jehovah had already done for them—the proofs he had already given them of his goodness and faithfulness—we might have thought that prayer would have been their first resource. But they do not avail themselves of it. They do not even raise the empty cries of Exo 14:10. It is a wholly unsubmissive and distrustful spirit which wreaks its unreasonableness on Moses and Aaron in the words, "Ye have brought us forth into the wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (Exodus 14:3). We who blame them, however, have only to observe our own hearts to see how often we are in the same condemnation. (See Hamilton’s "Moses," Lect. 14.—"Murmurs.") It is ever easier, in times of difficulty, to murmur than to pray. Yet how much better for ourselves, as well as more dutiful to God, could we learn the lesson of coming with every trouble to the throne of grace. "But with my God I leave my cause; From Him I seek relief; To Him in confidence of prayer Unbosom all my grief" Had Israel prayed more, relief might have come sooner. 2. Their behaviour affords some interesting illustrations of what the murmuring spirit is. Distinguish this spirit from states of mind which bear a superficial resemblance to it. (1) From the cry of natural distress. When distress comes upon us, we cannot but acutely feel the pain of our situation, and with this is connected the tendency to lament and bewail it. The dictates of the highest piety, indeed, would lead us to imitate David in studying to be still before God. "I was dumb, I opened not my mouth because thou didst it" (Psalms 39:9). Yet listen to this same David’s lamentations over Absalom (2 Samuel 18:19). There are few in whom the spirit of resignation is so perfectly formed—in whom religious motives so uniformly and entirely predominate—that a wail of grief never escapes their lips. It would, however, be cruel to describe these purely natural expressions of feeling as "murmurings," though it is to be admitted that an element of murmuring frequently mingles with them. (2) From the expostulations of good men with God, caused by the perplexity and mystery of his dealings with them. Such expostulations, e.g; as those of Moses in Exodus 5:22, Exodus 5:23; or of Job, in several of his speeches (Job 7:11-21; Job 10:1-22, etc.); or of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:10; Jeremiah 20:7). As Augustine says of Moses, "These are not words of contumacy or indignation, but of inquiry and prayer." 3. Even from the desperate speeches of good men, temporarily carried beyond bounds by their sorrow. Job enters this plea for himself—"Do ye imagine to reprove words, and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind" (Job 6:26); and we feel at once the justice of it. This was not murmuring. These wild speeches—though not blameless—were but a degree removed from raving. What elements, then, do enter into the murmuring spirit—how is it to be described? (1) At the basis of it there lies distrust and unsubmissiveness. There is distrust of God’s goodness and power, and want of submission to his will in the situation in which he has placed us. The opposite spirit is exemplified in Christ, in his first temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-4; cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). (2) Connected with this, there is forgetfulness of, and ingratitude for, benefits formerly received. This is very conspicuous in the case of these Israelites (verse 3). (3) The characteristic feature of this spirit is the entertaining of injurious thoughts of God—the attempt to put God in the wrong by fastening on him the imputation of dealing harshly and injuriously with us. The murmuring spirit keeps the eye bent on self, and on self’s fancied wrongs, and labours hard to make out a case of ill treatment. Its tone is complaining. It would arraign the Eternal at its puny bar, and convict him of injustice. It is narrow, self-pitying, egoistic. (4) It expresses itself in accusations and reproaches. The mental point of view already indicated prepares the way for these, and leads to them being passed off as righteous charges. God is charged foolishly (Job 1:22). (5) It is prone to exaggeration. The Israelites can hardly have been as well off in Egypt as they here pretend, though their words (verse 3) show that their rations in bondage must have been fairly liberal. But the wish to make their present situation look as dark as possible, leads them to magnify the advantages of their former one. They did not think so much of it when they had it. (6) Murmuring against God may not venture to express itself directly, and yet may do so indirectly. The murmuring of the Israelites was of this veiled character. They masked their rebellion against God, and their impeaching of his goodness, by directing their accusations against his servants. It was God against whom they murmured (verse 7, 8), but they slightly veiled the fact by not mentioning God, but by speaking only of Moses and Aaron. We should remember this, in our contendings with Providence. The persons on whom our murmuring spirit wreaks itself may be secondary agents—the voluntary or involuntary causes of our misfortunes—or even persons in no way directly concerned with our trouble—but be they who they may, if the spirit be bitter and rebellious, it is God, not they, whom we are contending against (cf. Genesis 50:19, Genesis 50:20; 2 Samuel 17:10). II. GOD’S OF THESE (verse 4). It is a most astonishing fact that on this occasion there is not, on God’s part, a single severe word of reproof of the people’s murmurings, far less any punishment of them for it. It could not at this time be said—"Some of them also murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer" (1 Corinthians 10:10). The appearance of the glory in the cloud warned and abashed, but did not injure them (verse 10). The reason was not that God did not hear their murmuring, nor yet that he mistook its import, as directed ostensibly, not against him, but against Moses and Aaron. The Searcher of Hearts knows well when our murmurings are against Him (verses 7, 8). But, 1. He pitied them. They were really in great need. He looked to their need, more than to their murmurings. In his great compassion, knowing their dire distress, he treated their murmurings almost as if they were prayers—gave them what they should have asked. The Father in this way anticipated the Son (Matthew 15:32). 2. He was forbearing with them in the beginning of their way. God was not weakly indulgent. At a later time, when the people had been longer under training, they were severely punished for similar offences (cf. Numbers 21:5); but in the preliminary stages of this wilderness education, God made large and merciful allowances for them. Neither here, nor at the Red Sea, nor later, at Rephidim, when they openly "tempted" him (Job 17:1-8), do we read of God so much as chiding them for their wayward doings: he bore with them, like a father bearing with his children. He knew how ignorant they were; how much infirmity there was about them; how novel and trying were the situations in which he was placing them; and he mercifully gave them time to improve by his teaching. Surely a God who acts in this way is not to be called "an hard master." Instead of sternly punishing their murmurings, he took their need as a starting-point, and sought to educate them out of the murmuring disposition. 3. He purposed to prove them. He would fully supply their wants, and so give them an opportunity of showing whether their murmuring was a result of mere infirmity—or was connected with a deeply ingrained spirit of disobedience. When perversity began to show itself, he did not spare reproof (verse 28).—J.O. THE PROMISE OF BREAD FROM HEAVEN. When men who are in real distress make complaint, even though the tone of their complaint be not such as it ought to be, God in his mercy is wont to have compassion upon them, to "hear their mummurings," etc; and grant them some relief. But the relief is seldom of the kind which they expect, or pray for. The Israelites wished for actual bread, made of wheaten or barley flour. God gave them, not such bread, but a substitute for it. And first, before giving it, be promised that it should be given. Thus expectation was aroused; faith was exercised; the supernatural character of the relief was indicated; the power and the goodness of God, were, both of them, shown forth. And with the promise was given a law. They were on each occasion to gather no more than would suffice for the day. Thus they would continually "live by faith," taking no thought for the morrow, but trusting all to God. Exodus 16:4 Bread from heaven. Compare Psalms 78:24; Nehemiah 9:15; John 6:31-51. The expression is of course not to be trader-stood literally. The substance was not actual bread, neither was it locally transferred from the distant region called "heaven" to the soil of the Sinaitic peninsula. But it was called "bread," because it was intended to serve instead of bread, as the main support of life during the sojourn of Israel in the wilderness; and it was said to be "from heaven," first, as descending on ’the ground out of the circumambient air; and secondly, as miraculously sent by him, whose seat is in heaven. The people shall gather a certain rate every day. Rather "a day’s supply every day," such a quantity as shall seem to each man reasonably sufficient for himself and his family. That I may prove them. As in Paradise God coupled with his free gift of "every tree of the garden" the positive precept, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat,"—that he might prove our first parents, whether they would obey him or not—so now he "proved" the obedience of the Israelites by a definite, positive command—they were not to gather on ordinary days more than was sufficient for the day. All life is intended as a probation. Exodus 16:5 On the sixth day. That a period of seven days was known to the Hebrews as a week appears from the story of Jacob and Laban (Genesis 29:27). But there is no distinct evidence that the year was as yet divided into weeks, much less that the several days of the week were as yet distinguished as the first, second, third day, etc. "The sixth day," here probably means (as Kalisch says), "the sixth day after’ the first supply of the manna. They shall prepare. The preparation would be, first, by measurement (Exodus 16:18), and then by pounding and grinding (Numbers 11:8). It shall be double. Some commentators suppose that in these words is implied an order that on the sixth day they should set themselves to gather a double quantity. But the natural meaning of the words is, that, having gathered the usual quantity, they should find, when they measured it, that, by miracle, the supply sufficient for one day was multiplied, so as to suffice for two. (So Kalisch, Knobel, Kurtz, and others.) This view is in harmony with Exodus 16:18, which tells of a miraculous expansion and diminution of the manna after it had been gathered, and with Exodus 16:22, which shows us "the rulers" surmised by the miracle of the sixth day. Exodus 16:6 At even, then ye shall know. See Exodus 16:12 and Exodus 16:13. The first evidence which the Israelites would have, that God had heard ’and considered their complaints, would be the descent of the quails at even of the day on which Moses and Aaron addressed them. That the Lord hath brought you out—i.e; "that it is not we who, to gratify our own personal ambition, have induced you to quit Egypt under our guidance; but that all which we have done has been to act as God’s instruments, and to carry out his designs." Exodus 16:7 ― And in the morning then ye shall see the glory of the Lord. This has been supposed to refer to the manifestation of God’s presence recorded in Exodus 16:10; but the balance of the two clauses in Exodus 16:6 and Exodus 16:7 implies two similar manifestations, and their arrangement shows the priority of the evening one. Now the manifestation of Exo 16:10 preceded the coming of the quails. The manifestation which followed it, which was similar, and in the morning, was the fall of the manna. For that he heareth your murmurings. The connection of this clause with the preceding furnishes an additional argument in favour of the exposition that "the glory of God," spoken of in this verse is the manna. Against the Lord. Professedly and directly against us, but indirectly and really against God, whose instruments we have been in the whole matter of the exodus. What are we?—i.e; "What power have we of our own? We have no hereditary rank, no fixed definite position. We are simply the leaders whom you have chosen to follow, because you believed us to have a commission from God. Apart from this, we are nobodies. But, if our commission is conceded, we are to you in the place of God; and to murmur against us is to murmur against Jehovah." Exodus 16:8 When the lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat. Moses must have received a distinct intimation of the coming arrival of the quails, trough he has not recorded it, his desire of brevity causing him to retrench all that is not absolutely necessary for the right understanding of the narrative. It is, comparatively, seldom that he records both the Divine message and his delivery of it. In general, he places upon record either the message only, or its delivery only. Bread to the full. Compare above, Exodus 16:4; and infra, Exodus 16:12 and Exodus 16:18. The Lord heareth your murmurings. The latter part of this verse is, in the main, a repetition of Exo 16:7; but it emphasises the statements of that verse, and prepares the way for what follows. Exodus 16:4-8 The mercy of God in hearing and helping even an ungrateful and discontented people. God is very merciful to those who are in covenant with him, whom he has chosen for his own, and made "the sheep of his pasture." Very often, and very far may they go astray, turn from the right way, rebel against him, refuse to hearken to his voice, murmur, misuse his ministers and slander them, yet not alienate him wholly. Indefectible grace must not indeed be claimed by any man as his own portion; for none can know that he possesses it; yet the way of God, on the whole, appears to be to reclaim his wandering sheep; recall them to a sense of what is their duty; and restore them to the fold whence they have strayed. All that can be done with this object he does for the Church now, as for the congregation of the children of Israel in the wilderness. I. HE PARDONS THEIR . Distrust, discontent, ingratitude, even when openly expressed in speech, he forgives in his mercy, not seven times only, but "seventy times seven." How many murmur at their lot; complain of their worldly condition, or their lack of spiritual gifts, or their unhappy position under ministers of whom they do not approve; or the coldness and unsympathetic temper of their friends, or the want of any due appreciation by others of their merits! It is, comparatively speaking, rarely that we meet with a contented person. Yet God is so merciful, that he bears with the murmurers—yea, even "hears their murmurings," and devises means for their relief. II. HE GIVES THEM BREAD FROM HEAVEN. "Every good gift and every perfect gift" is from him, and "cometh down from the Father of Lights." The material sustenance of daily life is one form of "bread from heaven," wherewith he daily provides the millions who look to him. His holy word is another form, a heavenly gift, the sustenance of many souls. But, as he tells us, he himself is "the true bread from heaven" (John 6:32-51). In and through the Eucharist, he gives us himself to be our spiritual food and sustenance, the bread of life, the true manna, meat indeed. If we worthily receive the blessed sacrament of his body and blood, then we "spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us"—"our sinful bodies are made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood." Thus, he gives us, in the highest, most perfect, and most spiritual way, that which is the great need of our souls, "bread from heaven." III. HE GIVES THEM LAWS TO PROVE THEM. With blessing duty goes ever hand in hand. To every gift God attaches some law of direction for its use. The gift of the manna had its own laws—its law of gathering, and its law of reserving or not reserving. The holy Eucharist has also its one great law—a law fixing the mental attitude—"Do this in remembrance of me." To make it a mere supper, as the Corinthians did (1 Corinthians 11:20-34), albeit a love-feast, symbolical of Christian fellowship and unity, is to break this law. The Eucharist is "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ"—for the calling to mind his sufferings for our sins, his atonement fur our guilt, his deliverance of us from Satan, death, and hell, by his one oblation of himself once offered upon the Cross. it is by this remembrance that our penitence is made acute, our gratitude called forth, our hearts enabled to "lift themselves up," our spirits stirred to love, and joy, and thankfulness; and obedience to this law on our part is a necessary condition to our receiving the benefits of the Eucharist. Thus we too, when "bread from heaven" is rained upon us, have a law given to us to prove us, whether we will walk in God’s law or not. BY J. ORR Exodus 16:4-16 The gift of Manna. Quails also were given, on this occasion in mercy, and on a later occasion in wrath (Numbers 11:31-34); but it was the manna which was the principal gift, both as providing Israel with a continuous supply of food, and as having a permanent significance in the history of God’s dealings with his Church (Exodus 16:32-35). I. THE MANNA (Exodus 16:4-9). 1. God would rain bread from heaven for them (Exodus 16:4). He would spread a table for them, even in the wilderness, a thing they had deemed impossible (Psalms 78:19). He would give them to eat of "the corn of heaven" (Psalms 68:24). He would thus display himself as Jehovah,—the God of exhaustless resources,—able and willing to supply all their need (cf. Philippians 4:19). He would remove from himself the reproach wherewith they had reproached him, that he had brought them into the wilderness, "to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (Exodus 16:3). He would testify of his loving care for them (cf. Deuteronomy 1:31). 2. The supply would be continuous—"Every day" (Exodus 16:4). The regularity of the supply would be a daily proof of God’s faithfulness—another of the Jehovah attributes. We have a similar proof of the Divine faithfulness in the constancy of the laws of nature on which our own supplies of food depend; in particular, in the regular succession of seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, which God has promised to maintain (Genesis 8:22; cf. Psalms 119:89-92). 3. The gift of quails and manna would be a manifestation of his glory as Jehovah (Exodus 16:6, Exodus 16:7; also Exodus 16:12—"and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God"). His Jehovah character would be revealed in it. Note, in addition to what is said above, the following illustrations of this. (1) The gift of manna was an act of free origination. Compare with Christ’s multiplication of the loaves, brought in John 6:1-71. into close association with this miracle. (2) So far as natural materials were utilised in the production of the manna (dew, etc.), it was shown how absolutely plastic nature was in the hands of its Creator. (3) The gift of quails was a further testimony to God’s supreme rule in nature. (4) It was a special feature in this transaction that God was seen in it acting solely from himself—finding the law and reason of what he did in himself alone. He interposes with a simple "I will" (John 6:4). It was neither the people’s merits nor the people’s prayers, which moved him to give the manna. Merits they had none; prayers they did not offer. But God, who brought them out of Egypt, and had bound himself by covenant with their fathers, found a reason in himself for helping them, when he could find none in them (cf. Deuteronomy 9:4, Deuteronomy 9:5). He showed them this kindness for his own name’s sake (cf. Psalms 106:8); because he was Jehovah, who changed not (Malachi 3:6). 4. The gift of manna would prove a trial of obedience (John 6:4). God bound himself to send the manna day by day, and this would be a test of his faithfulness. But rules would be prescribed to the people for gathering the manna, and this would be a test of their obedience. God’s design in giving the manna was thus not merely to supply the people’s natural wants. He would also train them to dependence. He would test their characters. He would endeavour to form them to habits of obedience. A like educative and disciplinary purpose is to be recognised as bound up with all God’s leading of us. Gifts are at the same time trusts. They impose duties upon us, and lay us under responsibilities. There are rules to be observed in the use of them which test our inner dispositions. There is a law of temperance in the use of food. There is a law of modesty in dress. There are the laws relating to the acquisition and expenditure of money—honesty in acquisition,, economy in use, liberality in giving (cf. Deuteronomy 15:7-12), devotion of the first fruits of income to God. There is the supreme law, which includes all others—"Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). There is no action, no occupation, however seemingly trivial, which has not important relations to the formation of character. "The daily round, the common task," etc. II. THE (John 6:9-13). Moses summoned the people to draw near before the Lord. Then, as they came together, and looked toward the wilderness, lo! "the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud." It is a suggestive circumstance that it is Aaron, who by command of Moses, collects the congregation (John 6:10). Moses, according to his wont, had probably withdrawn to pray (cf. Exodus 14:15). In this, as in other instances, Moses might be taken as an example of secrecy in prayer. His prayers are never paraded. They are even studiously kept in the background—a proof surely of the Mosaic authorship of the book. When they come to light, it is often incidentally (Exodus 14:15). On one notable occasion an intercessory prayer of his was not made known till near the end of his life (Deuteronomy 9:25). We know of his prayers mostly by their results. This appearance of the glory of God to Israel may be viewed:— 1. As a rebuke of the people’s murmurings. Unlike the "look" from the pillar of fire with which the Lord discomfited the Egyptians (Exodus 14:24), it was a look with as much mercy as anger in it. Yet it conveyed reproof. It may be compared with the theophany which terminated the dispute between Job and his friends, and caused the patriarch to abhor himself, and to repent in dust and ashes (Job 38:1; Job 42:6); or to the look of sorrow and reproof which the Lord cast on Peter, which caused him to go out, and weep bitterly (Matthew 26:75). How abashed, humbled, and full of fear, those murmurers would now be, as with mouths stopped (Romans 3:19), they beheld that terrible glory forming itself in the cloud, and looking down full upon them! 2. As a fitting introduction to the miracle that was to follow. It gave impressiveness to the announcement—showed indubitably the source of the miraculous supply—roused the minds of the people to a high pitch of expectation—prepared them for something grand and exceptional in the Divine procedure. It thus checked their murmurings, convinced them of their sin in distrusting God, warned them of the danger of further rebellion, and brought them back to their obedience. God’s words—"I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel"—at the same time reminded them that he was fully aware of all their "hard speeches" which they had spoken against him. 3. As an anticipation of the revelation of Sinai. These chapters are full of anticipations. In Exodus 15:25, Exodus 15:26, we have "statute and an ordinance," anticipatory of the later Sinaitic covenant; in this chapter, we have an anticipation of Sinai glory and also of the sabbath law (Exodus 15:23); in Exodus 18:16, we have an anticipation of the civil code of Sinai; for Moses makes the people "know the statutes of God, and his laws." III. THE MANNA GIVEN (Exodus 18:13-16). Quails came in the evening, and next morning the manna fell with the dew. We observe concerning it— 1. That it came in a not unfamiliar form. The "angel’s food" (Psalms 78:25), wore the dress, and had the taste of the ordinary manna of the desert. We miss in the miracles of the Bible the grotesque and bizarre features which mark the supernatural stories of other books. They testify to the existence, as well as respect the laws, of an established natural order. The plagues of Egypt, e.g; were thoroughly true to the natural phenomena of that country, and made the largest possible use of existing agencies. The crossing of the Red Sea was accomplished by the supernatural employment of natural conditions and agencies. There is in all these miracles the constant observance of the two laws: (1) Of economy—utilising the natural so far as it will go; and (2) of congruity—keeping as closely as possible to the type of the natural, even when originating supernatural phenomena. 2. That it was a direct production of the power of God. It was in the truest sense bread from heaven, and is thus a type of Christ, the Bread of Life (see below). Yet the power exerted in the creation of the manna—and it is important to remember this—is but the same power, only more visibly put forth, which operates still in nature, giving us our yearly supplies of the good things of the earth. The annual harvest is only not a miracle, because it comes regularly, season after season, and because numerous secondary agencies are employed in its production. You plough, that is, break up the ground to receive the seed; but whence came the seed? From last year’s gift. You sow it in the fields, cover it up again and leave it—to whose care? To God’s. It is he who now takes the matter into his own hands, and in what remains you can but wait upon his will. It rests with him to send his rains or to withhold them; to order the sunshine and heat; to bless or blast your harvest. What man does is but to put matters in train for God’s working—God himself does the rest; in the swelling and germination of the seed, in all the stages of its growth, in the formation of the blade, in the modelling of the ear, in the filling of it with the rich ripe grain, his power is absolutely, and all throughout, the only power at work. And how great the gift is when it comes! It is literally God opening his hand and putting into ours the food necessary for our sustenance. But for that gift, year by year renewed, man and beast would utterly perish. It is calculated that a year’s pro duce in Great Britain alone amounts in money value to over £160,000,000. The corn crop alone was valued in 1880 at £90,000,000. It is as if God had made a direct gift of that sum of money to our nation in the year named, only it was given in a better than money form—in food. How little we think of it! Men are proud and self-sufficient, and speak sometimes as if they would almost disdain to accept or acknowledge a favour even from the Almighty. While yet, in truth, they are, like others, the veriest pensioners on his bounty, sustained by his power, seeing by his light, warmed by his sun, and fed year by year by the crumbs that fall from his table. Were God for a single year to break the staff of bread over the whole earth, where would either it or they be? 3. That it was given day by day, and with regularity. Thus the manna taught a daily lesson of dependence on God, and so played an important part in the spiritual education of Israel. Yet familiarity must have done much then, as it does still, to deaden the impression of God’s hand in the daily gift. Because the manna came to them, not by fits and starts, but regularly; because there was a "law" in its coming—they would get to look on it as quite a common occurrence, no more to be wondered at than the rising and setting of the sun, or any other sequence in nature. "Laws of nature" tend, in precisely the same way, to blind us to the agency of God working behind and in them, as well as to hide from us his agency in the origination of the sequences that now flow so uniformly. We have spoken of God’s agency in the production of the harvest. But there is good ground for speaking of our cereal crops as in yet another sense—"bread from heaven." These cereal plants, it is affirmed, are never found in a wild state; cannot by any known process be developed from plants in a wild state; and if once allowed to degenerate, can never again be reclaimed for human food. Not inaptly, therefore, have they been represented as even now a kind of standing miracle—a proof of direct creative interposition for the good of man. (See "The Cerealia: a Standing Miracle," by Professor Harvey, in "Good Words," vol. 2.) Yet how entirely is this retied from us by the fact that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4). 4. That it was a food entirely suitable to the circumstances of the Israelites. It was light, nutritious, palatable; comprised variety by admitting of being prepared in different ways (baked, seethed, Exodus 18:23; cf. Numbers 11:8); was abundant in quantity, readily distinguishable by the eye, and being of a granulated nature, and strewn thickly throughout all the camp, could be collected with a very moderate expenditure of labour. It was thus, like so much in our own surroundings, and in the provision which God makes for our wants, a constant witness to the care, goodness, wisdom, and forethought of the great Giver.—J.O. THE PROMISE . Moses had made a double promise to the Israelites in God’s name. "The Lord shall give you," he had said," in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full" (Exodus 16:8). And now the time for the fulfilment of the double promise approached. First, however, before they received the blessings, he required them to present themselves before the Lord. As they had rebelled in murmuring, an act of homage was proper; and as they had called in question the conduct of Moses and Aaron. some token that God approved the action of these his faithful servants, and would support them, was needed. Hence the appearance of the Lord to the congregation in the cloud (Exodus 16:10). After this, when evening approached, the quails fell. A vast flight of this migratory bird, which often arrives in Arabia Petraea from the sea (Diod. Sic. 1:60), fell to the earth about the Hebrew camp, and, being quite exhausted, lay on the ground in a state which allowed of their being taken by the hand. The Israelites had thus abundant "flesh to eat" (Exodus 16:8), for God "sent them meat enough" (Psalms 78:26). The next morning, the remainder of the promise was fulfilled. When they awoke, they found that the vegetation about the camp was covered with a sort of dew, resembling hoar-frost, which was capable of easy detachment from the leaves, and which proved to be an edible substance. While they were in doubt about the phenomenon, Moses informed them that this was the "bread from heaven" which they had been promised (Exodus 16:15). At the same time he instructed them as to the quantity which they should gather, which he fixed at an omer for each member of their family (Exodus 16:16). In attempting to carry out these instructions, mistakes were not unnaturally made; some exceeded the set quantity, others fell short of it. But the result was found to be the same. Whatever the quantity gathered, when it was brought home and measured, the amount was by miracle made to be exactly an omer for each (Exodus 16:18). Afterwards, Moses gave another order. The whole of the manna was to be consumed (ordinarily) on the day on which it was gathered. When some wilfully disobeyed this command, the reserved manna was found on the next day to have become bad—it had bred worms, and gave out an offensive odour. This circumstance put a stop to the malpractice. Exodus 16:12 At even. Literally, "between the two evenings." For the meaning of the phrase, see the comment on Exodus 12:6. Ye shall eat flesh. The quails, as appears by the subsequent narrative, were supplied, not regularly, but only on rare occasions; in fact (so far as appears), only here in the wilderness of Sin, and at Kibroth-hattaavah in the wilderness of Paran (Numbers 11:31-34). They were not a necessary, but an indulgence. Ye shall know that I am the Lord. The miracle of the manna, and the timely appearance of the quails at the hour announced, will sufficiently show that it is God himself who has you under his charge and watches over you. Exodus 16:13 The quails came up. The word here translated, "quails" has been supposed to designate the flying-fish (Trigla Israelitarum of Ehrenberg), or a species of locust (Ludolf). But Psalms 78:28, makes it clear that "feathered fowls" are intended; and moderns generally, are agreed that the rendering "quails" is right. It has the authority of the Septuagint, of Josephus, and of the Vulgate. Diodorus says that "the inhabitants of Arabia Petraea prepared long nets, spread them near the coast for many stadia, and thus caught a great number of quails which are in the habit of coming in from the sea" (2:60). The quail regularly migrates from Syria and Arabia in the autumn, and winters in the interior of Africa, whence it returns northwards in immense masses in the spring. Kalisch thinks that the particular species of quail intended is the kata of the Arabs (Tetrao Alchata of Linnaeus); but the common quail (Tetrao coturnix) is preferred by most commentators. When these birds approach the coast after a long flight over the Red Sea, they are often so exhausted that they rather fall to the ground than settle, and are then easily taken by the hand or killed with sticks. Their flesh is regarded by the natives as a delicacy. Covered the camp—i.e; covered all the ground between the tents in which the Israelites lived in the wilderness. The dew lay. Literally, "there was a layer of dew"—something, i.e; lay on the ground outside the camp which looked like dew, and was in part dew, but not wholly so. Exodus 16:14 When the dew that lay was gone up. The moisture which lay upon the herbage soon evaporated, drawn up by the sun; and then the miracle revealed itself. There remained upon each leaf and each blade of grass a delicate small substance, compared here to hoar frost, and elsewhere (Numbers 11:7) to "coriander seed," which was easily detached and collected in bags or baskets. The thing was altogether a novelty to the Israelites, though analogous in some degree to natural processes still occurring in the country. These processes are of two kinds. At certain times of the year there is a deposit of a glutinous substance from the air upon leaves and even upon stones, which may be scraped off, and which resembles thick honey. There is also an exudation from various trees and shrubs, especially the tamarisk, which is moderately hard, and is found both on the growing plant and on the fallen leaves beneath it, in the shape of small, round, white or greyish grains. It is this last which is the manna of commerce. The Biblical manna cannot be identified with either of these two substances. In some points it resembled the one, in other points the other; in some, it differed from both. It came out of the air like the "air-honey," and did not exude from shrubs; but it was hard, like the manna of commerce, and could be "ground in mills" and "beaten in mortars," which the "air-honey" cannot. It was not a medicament, like the one, nor a condiment, like the other, but a substance suited to be a substitute for bread, and to become the main sustenance of the Israelitish people. It was produced in quantities far exceeding anything that is recorded of either manna proper, or air honey. It accompanied the Israelites wherever they went during the space of forty years, whereas the natural substances, which in certain points resemble it, are confined to certain districts, and to certain seasons of the year. During the whole space of forty years it fell regularly during six consecutive days, and then ceased on the seventh. It "bred worms" if kept till the morrow on all days of the week except one; on that one—the Sabbath—it bred no worms, but was sweet and good. Thus, it must be regarded as a peculiar substance, miraculously created for a special purpose, but similar in certain respects to certain known substances which are still produced in the Sinaitic region. Exodus 16:15 They said one to another, this is manna. Rather, "this is a gift." To suppose that they recognised the substance as one known to them in Egypt under the name of menu or mennu, is to make this clause contradict the next. To translate "what is this?" gives good sense, but is against grammar, since the Hebrew for "what" is not man but mah. The Septuagint translators (who render τίἐστιτοῦτο) were probably deceived by their familiarity with the Chaldee, in which man corresponds to "what." Not knowing what to call the substance, the Israelites said one to another, "it is a gift"—meaning a gift from heaven, God’s gift (compare Exodus 16:8); and afterwards, in consequence of this, the word man (properly "gift") became the accepted name of the thing. Exodus 16:16 An omer for every man. According to Kalisch, the omer is about two quarts (English): but this estimate is probably in excess. Josephus makes the measure one equal to six cotyles, which would be about a quart and a half, or three pints. In his tents. Rather, "in his tent." Exodus 16:17 The children of Israel did so The Israelites set themselves to obey Moses, and gathered what they supposed to be about an omer; but, as a matter of course, some of them exceeded the amount, while others fell short of it. There was no wilful disobedience thus far. Exodus 16:18 When they did mete it with an omer. On returning to their tents, with the manna which they had collected, the Israelites proceeded to measure it with their own, or a neighbour’s, omer measure, when the wonderful result appeared, that, whatever the quantity actually gathered by any one, the result of the measurement showed, exactly as many omers as there were persons in the family. Thus, he that had gathered much found that he had nothing over, and he that had gathered little found that he had no lack. Exodus 16:19 Let no man leave of it till the morning. Moses, divinely instructed, warned the people that they were not to lay up in store any of their manna to be eaten the next day. God would have them trust their future wants to him, and "take no thought for the morrow." Some of them, however, were disobedient, with the result stated in the next verse. Exodus 16:20 It bred worms. This was a supernatural, not a natural result. It served as a sort of punishment of the disobedient, and effectually checked the practice of laying up in store. Exodus 16:21 When the sun waxed hot it melted. The manna had to be gathered early. What had not been collected before the sun grew hot, melted away and disappeared from sight. In this respect the miraculous manna resembled both the manna of commerce and the "air-honey." Exodus 16:9-21 God and Nature. I. GOD IS THE MASTER OF NATURE, NOT NATURE’S SERVANT. A school of modern thought places nature above God, or at ,any rate on a par with God. It is an absolute impossibility, we are told, that a law of nature should be broken or suspended. Miracles are incredible. But all this, it must be borne in mind, is mere assertion, and assertion without a tittle of proof. All that we can know is, that we ourselves have never witnessed a miracle. We may further believe, that none of our contemporaries have witnessed any. But that miracles have never taken place, we cannot know. There is abundant testimony in the records of humanity that they have. To say that they are impossible, is to assume that we know the exact relation of God to nature, and that that relation is such as to preclude any infraction or suspension of a natural law. This would only be the case, 1. If nature were entirely independent of God; or, 2. If God had bound himself never under any circumstances to interfere with the course of nature. But neither of these positions is true. So far from nature being independent of God, nature wholly proceeds from God, is his creation, and momentarily depends on him both for its existence and its laws. Its laws are simply the laws which he imposes on it; the rules which he sees fit under ordinary circumstances to lay down and maintain. And he has nowhere bound himself to maintain all his laws perpetually without change. He will not, we may be sure, capriciously or without grave cause, change or suspend a law, because he is himself immutable, and "without shadow of turning." But, like a wise monarch, or a wise master of a household, he will make exceptions under exceptional circumstances. And thus it was at this time. Israel was brought out of Egypt—was promised Canaan—but required a prolonged course of training to be rendered fit for its promised inheritance. Geographically, Canaan could only be reached through the wilderness; and so the wilderness was the necessary scene of Israel’s education. How then was the nation to be supported during the interval? Naturally the wilderness produced only a scanty subsistence for a few thousand nomads. How was it to support two millions of souls? There was no way but by miracle. Here then was a "dignus vindice nodus,"—a fitting occasion for the exertion of supernatural power—and God gave by miracle the supply of which his people had need. II. GOD, EVEN WHEN EFFECTS THAT ARE BEYOND NATURE, WORKS TO A LARGE EXTENT THROUGH NATURE. The Israelites needed, or at any rate craved for flesh. God did not create for them new animals, as he might have done (Genesis 1:25), or even give them meat by any strange and unknown phenomenon. He brought a timely flight of quails—a migratory bird, in the habit of visiting Arabia at the time of year—and made them alight exactly where the camp was fixed, in too exhausted a condition to fly further—a phenomenon not at all unusual at the particular season and in the particular country. The Israelites needed bread, or some substitute for it. God gave them manna—not a wholly new and unknown substance, but a modification of known substance. He made previously existing nature his basis, altering and adding qualities, greatly augmenting the quantity, but not exerting more supernatural power than was necessary, or departing further from the established course of nature than the occasion required. The same "economy" is seen in the sweetening of the waters of Marah by the wood of a particular tree (Exodus 15:21), etc. The method of God’s supernatural working is to supplement, not contradict, nature. Exodus 16:14-18 Bread from heaven. Our Lord tells us that the manna was a type of him, and that he was the "true bread from heaven" (John 6:32). We may profitably consider, in what respects the type held good. I. IT WAS THE OF THE BODY, AS CHRIST IS OF THE SOUL. The manna constituted almost the sole nourishment of the Israelites from this time forth until they entered Canaan (Joshua 5:12). So Christ is the food of the soul during its entire pilgrimage through the wilderness of this world, until it reaches the true Canaan, heaven. The Israelites were in danger of perishing for lack of food—they murmured—and God gave them the manna. The world was perishing for lack of spiritual nourishment—it made a continual dumb complaint—and God heard, and gave his own Son from heaven. Christ came into the world, not only to teach it, and redeem it, but to be its "spiritual food and sustenance." He feeds us with the bread of life. He gives us his own self for nourishment. Nothing else can truly sustain and support the soul—not creeds, not sacraments, not even his own Word without him. II. IT WAS GIVEN FREELY FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, AS CHRIST IS GIVEN’ TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WHOLE WORLD. The manna fell all around the camp of Israel, close to them, so that they had but to stretch out the hand and take it. None could lack sufficient sustenance except by his own fault. If he refused to gather, be might starve; hut not otherwise. So Christ gave himself for all men, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." His was "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world." Even they who know him not may be saved by him, "if they will do the works of the law written in their hearts," or, in other words, act up to the light that has been vouchsafed them. Thus, his salvation is free, and open to all. In Christian lands it is close to all, made palpable to all, shown them openly, daily pressed upon them. He who starves here in England can scarcely starve save by his own fault—because he will not stretch out his hand to gather of the bread of life, will not take it when it is offered to him, rejects it, despises it, "loathes" it. III. IT WAS WHITE, AND SWEET TO THE TASTE, AS CHRIST IS PURE AND , AND SWEET TO THE SOUL. A master mind of these modern times has made his hero, a well-disposed heathen, see in Christ, even before he could bring himself to believe in him, "the WHITE Christ." "Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," he presents himself to all who will read his life, and contemplate his character, as pure, stainless, innocent. The Lamb is his fitting emblem. Driven snow is not purer or more speckless. "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee" (So Exodus 4:7). And he is sweet also. "Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb; honey and milk are under thy tongue" (So Exodus 4:11). "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey unto my mouth!" (Psalms 119:103). His words, his life, his promises, his influence, his presence, are all sweet, especially the last. Let those who know him not, once "taste and see how gracious the Lord is," and they will desire no other nourishment. IV. IT IN THE NIGHT. So Christ comes to us, not "with observation"—not in the wind, or in the fire, or in the earthquake, but in silence and in quietude, when other voices are hushed within us and about us, when we sit and watch, in patience possessing our souls. His doctrine drops as the rain, and his peace distils as the dew. It comes down "like the rain into a fleece of wool, even as the drops that water the earth." In the whirl of passion, in the giddy excitement of pleasure, in the active bustle of business, there is no room for Christ, no fit place for his presence. Christ comes to the soul when it is calm and tranquil, when it waits for him, and believing in his promise that he will come, is at rest. V. IT TO BE EARLY, AND IF NOT MELTED AWAY. "Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth." Unless we will seek Christ early, we have no warrant to expect that he will condescend to be found of us. If we slight him, if we dally with the world, if we put off seeking him till a "more convenient season," we may find, when we wake up from our foolish negligence, that he has withdrawn himself, has (as it were) melted away. If an Israelite put off his gathering of the manna until the sun was hot, he obtained nothing—the manna no longer lay ready to his hand. So with the Christian who is slothful, self-indulgent, careless—when, after long neglect, he at length seeks spiritual food, he may find it too late, the opportunity may be irrevocably gone. Exodus 16:19, Exodus 16:20 God’s curse upon ill-gotten gains. In order to try the Israelites, whether they would be obedient to him or no (Exodus 16:4), God gave them, by the mouth of Moses, a positive law—"Let no man leave of the manna till the morning." By some the law was disobeyed. Disregarding the Divine command—perhaps distrusting the Divine promise (Exodus 16:4), to give them food day by day, a certain number of the Israelites, kept some of the manna till the morning. They wished to have a store laid up, on which they might subsist, should the daily supply fail. But God would not be disobeyed with impunity. His curse was on the ill-gotten gain—it bred worms and stank, becoming a source of annoyance both to themselves and their neighbours. So, God’s curse is ever on ill-gotten gains—e.g.:— I. WHEN MEN SET THEIR HEARTS ON ALL THEY CAN. Some provision for the future is required of us. "Go to the ant, thou sluggard," says the wise man, "consider her ways, and be wise." "He that doth not provide for them of his own household," St. Paul declares, "is worse than an infidel." Prudence is a Christian, no less than a heathen virtue. But to hoard everything, to give nothing away, to make the accumulation of wealth our main object, is to fly in the face of a hundred plain precepts, and necessarily brings God’s curse upon us. The wealth rots—the concerns wherein it is invested fail—it disappears and is brought to nought—and all our careful saving advantages us nothing. God vindicates his own honour; and disperses or destroys the hoard accumulated contrary to his will. II. WHEN, TO AUGMENT THEIR HOARDS, MEN BREAK A DIVINE COMMAND. There are some who, in their haste to be rich, disregard the Divine injunction to keep holy one day in seven, and pursue their secular calling without any intermission. Conveyancers draw out their deeds, barristers study their briefs, business men balance their books, authors ply their pens, as busily on the Sunday as on week days. What blessing can be expected on the gains thus made? Is it not likely that they will breed corruption? Still more wholly under a curse are gains made by unlawful trades or dishonest practices—by the false weight or the scant measure, or the adulterated article—or again by usurious lending, by gaming, by brothel-keeping. III. WHEN THE MOTIVE FOR THE IS OF GOD’S . God bids us not to be anxious for the morrow, what we shall eat, or what we shall drink, or what we shall put on (Matthew 6:31)—and promises that, if we will "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, all these things shall be added unto us" (ib. 33). He caused holy David to declare—"I have been young and now am old, yet saw I never the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread." If men hoard in distrust of these gracious words, not believing that God will make them good, and thinking to assure the future of wife or child, or both, by their own accumulations, they provoke God to bring their accumulations to nothing. Riches, however invested, can make themselves wings and disappear, if God’s blessing does not rest on their possessor. BY H. T. Exodus 16:1-36 The manna of the body-A homily on providence. "They said one to another, what is this? (marg.) for they wist not what it was" (Exodus 16:15). Introduction:—Trace the journey from Elim to the sea (Numbers 33:10); and thence to the wilderness of Sin; and give a thoroughly good exegetical exposition of the facts of the manna story. It would be well also to show the supernatural character of the manna; and, at the same time, that the manna supernatural was not unlike (and yet unlike also) the manna natural of the desert of to-day; that God, in a word, did not give the food of either Greenland or Australia in the Arabian wilderness. The spiritual lessons of the miracle move on two levels, one higher than the other. There is a body, and a soul: food for the one, and for the other. There are then in the manna story truths concerning Divine providence, and also touching Divine grace. Hence two homilies on the manna. This on the manna of providence. I. BODILY NEED IS AN APPEAL TO GOD. Before Israel articulately prayed, its need cried: so now with twelve hundred millions of men. No man "gets his own living," but God gives it. Imagine one famine round the world, and every living thing would become dumb and dead. The world’s need is one majestic monotone of prayer. II. THE ANSWER IS FULL AND FREE. No stint in that desert—no stint now. A picture of the fulness with which God ever gives bread. There has never been such an event as universal famine. Psalms 104:21-28. III. THERE IS MYSTERY IN THE ANSWER. Note the question of the text, and the wonder of the people, which was never relieved through all the forty years. So with bread to-day. A great mystery! A common thing to common minds; and perhaps to uncommon minds, that would like, as scientists, to bow all mystery out of the universe. But as there was mystery in the manna, so is there in every grain of corn. No scientist could produce one, were he to try for fifty years. Why? Because the secret of life is a secret of God; and the creation of organization lies in his own power alone. IV. THE BLAME OF WANT IS NOT WITH GOD. The question arises: if God hears the moaning of the world’s need, and gives answer, why is there so much want? Murmuring against Moses and Aaron, Israel murmured against the Lord; so we, grumbling against secondary causes, may be arraigning the First Cause. But the blame lies not there. Political economy might give answer to the question:—Why want? But behind its answers lie deeper causes—all summed up in the one word sin—not only the folly and sin (improvidence, drunkenness, etc. etc.) of the individual, but of all the ages, that is to say, self-centredness (the root principle of sin), forming and solidifying customs and institutions, which have for their effect the oppression and privation of millions. The instances are numberless. V. But if all the heritage of sin were to disappear, MAN MUST WORK. Israel must gather manna. Here enforce, not only the dignity of work, but the Christian duty thereof. The idle, whether in high life or low, are the dangerous classes. If exempted from toil for bread, all the more obligation to labour for the good of man to the glory of God. VI. YET—THERE MUST BE SABBATH. VII. A HINT AGAINST MERE . Distinguish between extravagance, a duo providence, and hoarding after a miserly fashion. The via media here, as elsewhere, the right ethical path. VIII. The manna story gives us THE TRUE THEORY OF LIFE. See the view of Moses as to the purpose of the manna, in the light of experience, after the lapse of forty years, in Deuteronomy 8:3. (comp. Matthew 4:4). Man is to live, not for that which is lowest in him, but for that which is highest. Life is to be UPON GOD; 1.—For leading. 2:—For support. This was the object of the giving of the manna.—R. Manna for the soul; a homily on grace. "I am the living bread … he shall live for ever." John 6:51. Having given the manna story, discussed the miracle, and given the lessons bearing on our providential path, we now go up to the higher level, and listen to the truths taught in relation to the kingdom of God’s grace. These gather round the central truth—that the Lord Jesus Christ is the nutriment of the soul. For that truth we have his own supreme authority. [See the full discourse from his own lips on the manna, in John 6:1-71. Avoid small typologies—small every way—e.g; that the roundness of the manna stands for Christ’s eternity; its whiteness for his purity; its sweetness for the preciousness of Christ. When men would estimate the majesty of a mountain they play not with the pebbles at its feet. I. THE OBJECT OF GOD IN THE GIFT OF THE MANNA. Why Christ? Long before Israel cried, the Father saw the coming distress; and resolved to give the manna to meet it. So with Christ. Christ was given for atonement, and to bring from under the cloud of condemnation; but also for other reasons beyond, to give life and strength to the moral and spiritual man. There is a rich provision in the world for the body and for the mind [describe]; but there is something higher in man—the spiritual—not only a ψυχή, but a πνεῦμα—for which provision must be made. II. THE FAMINE OF THE SOUL WITHOUT CHRIST. Very difficult to imagine a world without bread; more to suppose a world without Christ. His name, his history, his death, his reign, his presence, power, and love are implied, and involved always, everywhere, in all the phenomena of life. But endeavour to imagine Christ annihilated—no name of Christ to entwine in the lullaby at the cradle, and so on through every stage and circumstance of life, till the dying moment—no Christ for the guilty, sinning, sorrowing, tempted, etc. etc. What a famine of the soul! III. THE SUPPLY OF THE SOUL WITH CHRIST. Having seen what the world would be without Christ, see positively what Christ is to the world. The understanding cannot live without objective truth (mere opinion will not suffice); Christ is that truth: nor the heart without a supreme object of love; Christ that object: nor the conscience without authority behind its moral imperative; Christ is that authority: nor the will without a living inward abiding power; and Christ is that power. In very real and intelligible sense, Christ is the manna, bread, nutriment, sustenance, vitality, and power of the believing soul. IV. THE FULNESS OF THE SUPPLY. All we need certainly in bread, probably in the manna, assuredly in Christ. V. ITS . Men may confuse themselves, and imagine they "get" their own bread. But manna was manifestly the free gift of heaven. So Christ. This the one truth, which it is so difficult for men to receive. See 1 John 5:11, 1 John 5:12; Romans 6:23. VI. ITS MYSTERY. The name of the desert provision was "Man-Hu?"—"What is it?" Men did not solve the mystery ere they ate. Why should men wait to solve the mystery of Christ’s person, office, etc. etc; ere they eat "the living bread"? VII. ITS . Both the manna and Christ at every man’s tent-door. VIII. ITS . Vain that manna for the two millions, if no man went out to gather; so vain the all-sufficiency of Christ, if no man "comes," "believes," appropriates. John 6:35, John 6:37, John 6:40, John 6:47, John 6:57. IX. ITS EVERY-DAYNESS. NO man can live upon a past experience of the sufficiency of Christ. X. ITS ORDER. Full and free as the supply of manna was, its appropriation and use were under Divine direction, were according to a certain order. So are there now channels, means, ordinances of grace, which no man can safely neglect. XI. THE AIM IN MAN’S . Not self-indulgence; not merely his own growth. No man an end unto himself. The final end of food is strength, work, good for others. The danger of middle-class evangelicalism is that of making personal salvation the ultimate aim of God’s grace. We are saved, that we may save. The end of bread is labour. XII. The subject carries our thoughts on to THE HIDDEN MANNA. Revelation 2:17. Ñ Christ will be the soul’s nutriment in heaven. "Hidden," for there will be in heaven as yet undiscovered glories of Christ the Lord. For the final lesson see John 6:27.—R. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 16:1-15 The provision of the manna. This chapter contains an account of the first provision of miraculous bread for Israel in the wilderness. We are told very fully the circumstances in which it was given and the regulations for obtaining and using it. This provision of bread comes very appropriately after the visits to Marah and Elim. The waters had been made sure, and were soon to be made sure again (Exodus 17:1-16.); and now the bread is given (Isaiah 33:16). Before God takes the people to Sinai, he does everything to show that they may confidently depend on him for necessities, however vainly they look for superfluities. Consider— I. THE STATE OF MIND AMONG THE WHICH THIS GIFT. It is important to notice that such an ample, gracious and miraculous gift as Jehovah hero bestowed was bestowed on the unthankful and the evil. With many reasons for faith, they were unbelieving; instead of being patient and submissive, considerate towards their leader, and thankful for liberty, they broke out into selfish and unjust complaints. Things were going far otherwise than as they wanted them to go. They have now been a month or more out of Egypt and it is wilderness, wilderness, wilderness still! They have got water, but what is water without bread; and what is bread, unless it be the bread along with the flesh of Egypt? And, letting their minds dwell on these lost delicacies, their discontent breaks out in the most expressive way. Discontent is assuredly at a high pitch in a man’s mind, when he begins to talk of death as a thing to be desired. It shows that he has got so reckless and peevish as not to care what he says, what others may think, or who may be hurt by his random talk. The low ideal of life on the part of Israel is here revealed. God has delivered a whole nation, and this is their idea of why he has delivered them. They think a life, from which the flesh pots and the fulness of bread are absent, is not worth living; and such is indeed a very excusable conception of life, if hunger and thirst after righteousness have not become vigorous desires within us. If one is to become a freeman simply to die, then it seems as if one might just as well live a little longer as a slave. Note further how the people try to throw the responsibility of their present position on Moses. It was a consequence of their carnal-mindedness that they could not think of the Jehovah who was behind and above the visible leader. They are where they are because Moses has brought them. Thus they utter an unconscious but weighty and significant testimony to the fact, that they had not come there of their own accord or wandered there in an aimless fashion. But for the mighty power that held them fast together, they might have straggled back to Egypt with its comforts and delights. Strange that with such a rebellious spirit, there should yet be such a measure of outward obedience. Evidently they had invisible constraints all around them, so that they could not help but follow the cloud. II. THE MANNER IN WHICH GOD TREATS THIS STATE OF MIND. As he dealt in supplying the water so he deals in supplying the bread. There was a real and pressing want, and though the people made it the occasion for foolish talk, it was also to be the occasion for immediate Divine supply. God does not let the existence of the unthankful and evil fail, for presently, at Sinai, they will have the chance of learning such things as may lead them into a thankful, trustful and noble spirit; and so he hastens to meet Moses with the cheering promise—cheering in the substance of it, and cheering none the less in the expression—"I will rain bread from heaven." 1. They shall have bread. He does not yet tell Moses what shape the bread will take; but the people shall have something to sustain them, and that something in sufficient quantity. 2. The bread shall be rained from heaven. We do not read that Moses repeated this expression to the Israelites; but it must have been very cheering to himself. The words "rain" and "heaven" were enough to put fresh courage into the man. Then we find too that when the promise came to be fulfilled, these words were not taken in a figurative way. The manna came with the dew, and when the dew disappeared there the manna lay, waiting to be gathered. Hence for the supply of bread the people were to look heavenward; and doubtless Moses himself did so look. In whatsoever part of the wilderness they might be, however sterile and unpromising the earth was below, the same heavens stretched out above them, distilling from their treasuries the daily manna. The contrast is thus very striking between the varying earth and the unchanging, exhaustless heaven; and as to the rain, we may be very sure that when God says, "I will rain," he means a copious and adequate shower. But even in this immediate promise of copious giving Jehovah combines demands with gifts. If there is great grace, there are great expectations. He gives and at the same time he asks. He points out to Moses the manner in which the food was to be gathered. Though given copiously, it was not therefore given carelessly; nor was it to be used carelessly. It was given on certain principles and with certain restrictions, so as to be not only the means of staying hunger but of disciplining Israel at the same time. In eating bread, they were to learn habitual faith and habitual and exact obedience. God is ever showing men how he can make one thing to serve more purposes than one. III. THE OF MOSES AND AARON WITH THE PEOPLE (Exodus 16:6-10). Though it is not expressly said that he spoke thus by Jehovah’s instructions, yet these remonstrances evidently accorded with his will. For the people to complain as they (lid was not only an unjust thing to Moses; it was also a perilous thing for themselves. They could not thus vent their spleen on the visible Moses without despising the invisible God. Their insult to their brother man on earth was as nothing compared with their insult to Jehovah on high. And, indeed, we cannot too much consider that all murmuring, when it is brought to its ultimate ground and effects, is a reproach against God. For it is either a complaint because we cannot get our own way, or it is an impeachment of God’s way as not being a loving and a wise one. What a different scene life would become, how much more equable, serene and joyous, if we could only take the invisible as well as the visible into all our thoughts. The people felt the lack of bread, the loss of Egypt, the hardships of a life unfamiliar and unprepared for; and Moses could sympathise with all these feelings; although of course, after forty years of shepherd life in Midian, the hardships his brethren complained of were as nothing to him. But at the same time, Moses felt very keenly what many of his brethren did not feel at all, the mysterious presence of God. More and more distinctly would the words now be rising to his mind, "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain" (Exodus 3:12); for the cloud was taking the multitude nearer and nearer to Sinai. It is very significant of the feeling in Moses’ mind that he dwells on this charge of murmuring, returning to the word again and again. He wanted these people who so felt the pangs of hunger to be equally sensitive to the perils of impiety. Jehovah had heard their reckless speeches as well as Moses; and now, in recognition, he was about to make manifest his glorious presence. The connection of the cloud with himself was to be proved by the appearing of his glory in it. What the people found fault with was that they had been guided wrong: and now the nature of the guidance stands out, distinct, impressive, and full of warning. He who found fault with Moses really found fault with Jehovah. Remember the words of Jesus: "He that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16.) If we presumptuously neglect the apostleship of any one, we have to do with the Being who made him an apostle. Wherefore we should show all diligence to keep murmuring off our lips; and the only effectual way is to keep it out of our hearts by filling them with a continual sense of the presence of God. Instead of murmuring, let there be honest shame because of the selfishness that runs riot in our hearts. God can do everything to make our lives joyous, and banish causes of complaint for ever, if only we will take right and sufficient views of his purposes toward us and his claims upon us. IV. THE ACTUAL GIVING. Here again we notice the tender and gentle dealings of God. The necessary and permanent supply of bread is preceded by a special and occasional supply of quails. By this gift he, as it were, runs towards Israel to soothe their murmurings. The flesh of Egypt was the thing they missed the most, and it comes first, in the evening; whereas the manna did not come till the next morning. By this supply of the quails God showed an attentiveness to the feelings of the people which should have had the best effect on their minds. They murmured against Moses, forgot Jehovah, and yet Jehovah gave them in reply a delightful feast of quails. So to speak, he was heaping coals of fire on their heads: and we should take special note of this Divine conduct, just in this particular place. It is very natural that as we consider Israel in the wilderness, we should think of God’s severity rather than any other feature of his character. The whole tenor of the New Testament—the contrast between the law and the gospel—makes this view inevitable. But as we read the whole of this chapter, and ponder it carefully, how shall we do other than confess "Verily, Jehovah is love"? It is love that leads to Sinai. And assuredly there is not less of love in the thunders, lightnings and terrors of Sinai than in the gift of the quails. The expression is different—that is all. The quails were but a slight, passing thing, bestowed upon Israel much as a toy is bestowed on a child. There is love in the gift of a toy; but there is love also in the discipline and chastisement which soon may follow from the same hand. So there was love in the quails; but there was equal love, stretching out to far deeper results, in the demonstrations of Sinai and the commandments which accompanied them.—Y. BY G. A. Exodus 16:11-12 He nurtured them in the wilderness. Continual mention of murmurings; yet all such murmurings do not meet the same treatment (cf. Numbers 11:31-33). Much alike to outward seeming, but not so in the sight of God. (illustration—the ruddy hue of health; the hot flush of passion; the hectic of consumption. All much alike in appearance, yet how different to those who know what they betoken!) Comparing the history of one murmuring with that of another, we can see by God’s treatment of each how different must have been the states from which they resulted. Here it is the impatience of ill-instructed children; later on, it has become hostility and rebellion. Consider in this case:— I. THE . Cf. Exodus 16:3. The monotony of the wilderness had had time to tell upon the people; so different from the varied routine of Egypt. Slavery, too, had become, from long use, almost a second nature with many; they had chafed under it, yet, in some sort, they had relied upon its restraint as a support. After the first novelty has passed, unaccustomed freedom is felt to be a weariness. (Illustration: The cripple rejoices to be quit of his supporting irons and crutches, but without them, at first, he soon tires.) Present privation, contrasted with past sufficiency, intensified the misgivings which were sure to come when the new life was fairly entered upon. Freedom wedded to starvation seemed to be but a poor exchange for tyranny. "The people murmured." It was the murmuring of the half-weaned child, the yet weak though enfranchised cripple; it expressed itself in strong language; but the language was stronger than the offence. Under the circumstances murmming was so natural that it did not call for severe censure; it was rather a symptom of imperfect health, suggesting the need of strengthening medicine. II. THE . God knew what was the matter; His action shows His knowledge. No rebuke, only a promise, which is to be, and is, fulfilled immediately. A table spread in the wilderness; the love of freedom revived and strengthened, nurtured by the longed-for food. What should be the effect of such treatment? It stays murmuring, of course; but, further, it should strengthen against further murmuring. On the other hand, whilst it may, as it ought to do, lead to reliance upon the provider, it may also lead to reliance upon the food provided. Practical lessons.— 1. God treats us all according to our real character and position "How unjust," says one, "that that man should have so much easier a time than I. That my comparatively slight offence should be punished so much more heavily than his, which is far more heinous!" Nay! By What standard do you measure the relative enormity of the offences? God’s standard is character and experience; the child’s open defiance is less heinous than the man’s half-veiled impatience. 2. God’s treatment should inspire confidence in Himself. All God’s gifts are index fingers saying, "Look off from us to God." Our tendency is to rest upon them and credit them as the causes of the satisfaction they occasion. The same medicine may not be appropriate next time, but the same doctor may be trusted. If we forget the doctor and think only of the medicine, we shall be as irritable and dissatisfied as ever; only by confidence in the Physician himself can we hope to go on "from strength to strength."—G. BY J. ORR Christ the bread from heaven. The manna, which is described in Exodus 16:4 as "bread from heaven," was typical of Christ, who is "the true bread from heaven"—"the bread of God which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world" (John 6:31-34). The connection in John 6:1-71. is with the Jews’ demand for a sign. The interrogators reminded Christ of how their fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it was written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat! (Psalms 105:40). The design of Jesus in his reply was, first, to wean their hearts away from merely carnal expectations in connection with his appearing, and, secondly, to lead them to see in the gift of manna, as well as in the miracle he had just performed—the feeding of the multitudes—some-thing more than the mere supplying of bodily necessities;—to see in them "signs" (John 6:26—"Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs," etc. Rev. Ver.) i.e. types, allegories, suggestive earthly symbols, of spiritual realities—of what he was in himself, of the work he came to do, of the relations in which he stood to perishing men. The manna is thus figured as "spiritual meat" (1 Corinthians 10:3), a type of Christ as the living bread for the souls of men. Consider in illustration of this analogy— I. THE NEED WHICH EXISTED FOR THIS . The Israelites were in the desert, where nature, if left to itself, would inevitably perish. Their supplies of food were exhausted. The whole multitude would have died of hunger, had not Divine mercy interposed for their relief. The manna which God gave them literally stood between them and death. In this circumstance we see one feature imaged in which Christ clearly appears as the bread of life. When he uses: this language of himself he means to tell us, that just as these Israelites under Moses absolutely hung for any hope of life they had on that food which was miraculously supplied to them; so does the world hang—hang absolutely—for its life, its salvation, its eternal well-being on him. It needs eternal life. Its heart craves for it. It is perishing for want of it. But if it is ever to get it, Christ says, it must get it through him, through receiving him, through appropriating what he is, and what he has done for it as Saviour. II. THE OF THE . There could be no question as to the supernatural character of the supply in the case of the manna. The Israelites needed to be saved, and God saved them by a miracle. There was, as it were, a distinct opening of heaven for their benefit. The hand that fed them came from the unseen. In like manner, Christ lays emphasis on the fact that he—the bread of life for men—is "bread from heaven." The salvation that embodies itself in him is no salvation of man’s devising, nor one which, even had the thought of it entered his mind, man could ever from his own resources have achieved. If the world is to be saved at all, if it is to be delivered from its woes, if it is to have eternal life, Saviour and salvation must come from heaven. Our hope, as of old, is in God, and in God only. It is not for us to provide, but only thankfully to receive, and earnestly to appropriate the salvation. God gives us the bread from heaven; gives it freely; gives it as bread which no efforts of our own, however laborious, could have enabled us to procure; gives it, that is, as a Divine, supernatural bread, the boon of sovereign grace. III. THE AMPLE OF THE . The manna was given in abundance. There was neither lack nor stint. The table that was spread in the wilderness was one of royal bounty; as in the later miracle of the loaves, "they did all eat, and were filled" (Matthew 14:20). There was, as in the father’s house in the parable, "Enough and to spare" (Luke 15:17), overflowing provision. How significant a fact when the heart is putting to itself the question, Will Christ’s death avail for me? He calls himself "the true bread which cometh down from heaven;" and it cannot be but that this feature in the type will be reflected in the antitype. There is provision in Christ for all. He gives his flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51). He is come that men "might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). No stint, no lack, no scarcity in the salvation of Christ. IV. THE NOW, AS THEN, NEEDS TO BE . It was nothing to the Israelites that the manna, sparkling like pearls in the morning sunshine, lay all around them; they must gather, they must eat, they must make the "bread from heaven" food for their own life. So with Christ and his salvation. He calls himself "bread," to bring out strongly, not only what he is in himself in relation to human wants, but what men must do with him, if they would partake in the life he comes to give. He must be received, "eaten," inwardly appropriated, fed upon, made part, so to speak, of our very selves; only thus will the new life be begotten in us. This "eating" of Christ is parallel with the "believing" of other verses (John 6:29, John 6:40, John 6:47). Some, remembering this, may be disposed to say, it is only believing. But the use of such a metaphor should rather teach us how real, and inward, and appropriating a principle, this believing on Jesus is. It is clearly no slight, transitory act of mind or heart which is denoted by it, but a most spiritual, most inward, most vital and personal energy of appropriation; a process of reception, digestion, and transformation into spiritual substance, and new powers of spiritual life, of what we have in the Saviour. How great Christ must be, who thus declares himself to be the bread of life for the whole world—the support and food (consciously or unconsciously) of all the spiritual life there is in it! No wonder that the work of works which God requires of us is that we believe on him whom he has sent (John 6:29). V. WHAT THERE IS IN CHRIST WHICH HIM THE WORLD’S BREAD OF LIFE. We set aside as unsupported the analogies which some have sought between the roundness, sweetness, whiteness, etc; of the manna, and qualities in the person and work of the Redeemer. It is, however, clear that if Christ is the antitype of the manna, and the true bread which cometh down from heaven, it must be in virtue of certain qualities in him which admit of being specified. And what these are, it is not difficult to show. He is the bread of life to men— 1. As incarnate God. In the humanity of Jesus Christ, the Divine is brought near to us, and made apprehensible, and provision is also made for the communication of the Divine life in its fullest, richest form to our souls. In him dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the medium of the communication of that Divine fulness to us (1 John 1:1-10:16). In him, the Divine life is embodied in a holy, perfect humanity; and in that form—a form which brings it within our reach, which makes apprehension and assimilation possible—it is presented to us to be partaken of. 2. As an atoning Saviour. Did Christ not bear this character of Atoner, he would not be truly bread of life to the guilty. Our guilt, our sin, our whole moral condition, stands between us and God, an insuperable barrier to the peace and fellowship for which we crave. But Christ has taken away that barrier. He has made a sacrifice of himself for sin (John 6:51). To appropriate what I have in Christ, is, accordingly, to appropriate to myself the certainty of forgiveness through his death, the assurance of peace with God, the knowledge of reconciliation. And to have done this is already to have begun to live. It is to feel the awakening within me of new-born powers of love, and trust, and service; to feel the dread and despair that before possessed me vanishing like a dark nightmare from my spirit, to be replaced by the joy of pardon, and the sense of the Divine favour. It is to realise the accomplishment of that spiritual change which the Scriptures describe as a "passing from death unto life" (John 5:24). "Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). 3. As a life-giving Spirit. Jesus is what he is to man, in virtue of his possession of the holy, life-giving Spirit—the personal Holy Ghost—by whom he dwells in the hearts of his people, and through whom he communicates to them all the fulness of his own life. This operation of the Spirit is already implied in what we have said of the results of faith in him. He is the effectual agent in converting, quickening, enlightening, sanctifying, comforting, strengthening, beautifying, and spiritually edifying the souls of such as attain to salvation. The influences of this Spirit in the soul are but another name for eternal life. And Christ is the giver of this Spirit. It is from him the Spirit comes. His work on earth has opened the way for the free communication of the Spirit’s influences. He dwells by this Spirit in each of his members, nourishing, strengthening, and purifying them, To nourish ourselves upon Christ is to take more of this Spirit into our hearts and lives. Thus is Christ the bread of life.—J.O. Exodus 16:16-22 The law of the manna. God had said (Exodus 16:4) that rules would be given in connection with the manna by which the people would be proved, whether they would walk in his law, or no. One rule is given in Exodus 16:5, and the rest are given here. Consider— I. THE LAW AS TO (Exodus 16:10-18). "According to his eating," in this passage, means, according to the quantity allowed to each person for consumption. This was fixed at an omer a head (Exodus 16:16). The simplest way of explaining what follows is to suppose that each individual, when he went out to gather, aimed, as nearly as possible, at bringing in his exact omer; but, necessarily, on measuring what had been gathered, it would be found that some had brought in a little more, some a little less, than the exact quantity; excess was then to go to balance defect, and the result would be that, on the whole, each person would receive his omer. It may be supposed, also, that owing to differences of age, strength, agility, etc; there would be great room left for one helping another, some gathering more, to eke out the deficiencies of the less active. If the work were conscientiously done, the result, even on natural principles, would be pretty much what is here indicated. The law of averages would lead, over a large number of eases, to a mean result, midway between excess and defect, i.e; to the net omer. But a special superintendence of providence—such, e.g; as that which secures in births, amidst all the inequalities of families, a right proportion of the sexes in society as a whole—is evidently pointed to as securing the result. We cannot suppose, however, that an intentionally indolent or unconscientious person was permitted to participate in this equal dividend, or to reap, in the way indicated, the benefit of the labours of others. The law here must have been, as with St. Paul," if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). There is nothing said as to the share to be allotted to juveniles: these may be supposed to have received some recognised proportion of an omer. The lessons of all this and its importance as a part of the spiritual education of Israel, are very obvious. It taught— 1. That what is of Divine gift is meant for common benefit. The individual is entitled to his share in it; but he is not entitled selfishly to enrich himself, while others are in need. He gets that he may give. There was to be a heavenly communism practised in respect of the manna, in the same way as a common property is recognised in light and air, and the other free gifts of nature. This applies to intellectual and spiritual wealth. We are not to rest till all have shared in it according to their God-given capacity. 2. That in the Church of Christ it is the duty of the stronger to help the weaker, and of the richer to help the poorer. This is the lesson drawn from the passage by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:12-16. It is presumed in his teaching, first, that there is the "willing mind," in which case a gift "is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not" (2 Corinthians 8:12). Each gatherer of the manna was honestly to do his part, and put what he could into the common stock. The end is not, secondly, that other men be eased, and the Corinthians burdened (2 Corinthians 8:13). But, each doing what he can, the design is, thirdly, that the abundance of one may be a supply, for the deficiency of another, that so there may he equality (2 Corinthians 8:14). This is a principle of wide application in Church finance, and also in the aiding of the poor. Strong congregations should not be slow to aid weak ones, that the work of the latter may go on more smoothly, and their ministers may at least be able to subsist comfortably. The Scottish Free Church has given a praiseworthy illustration of this principle in her noble "Sustentation Fund." 3. That where a helpful spirit is shown by each towards all, there will be found no lack of what is needful for any. God will see that all are provided for. The tendency of the rule is to encourage a friendly, helpful, unselfish spirit generally, and in all relations. The gatherer of manna was forbidden to act selfishly. A Nemesis would attend an attempt on the part of any to appropriate more than his proper share. II. THE LAW AS TO TIME. 1. The manna was to be gathered in early morning. The people had to be up betimes, and had to bestir themselves diligently, that their manna might be collected before "the sun waxed hot" (2 Corinthians 8:21). If not collected then, the substance melted away, and could not be had at all. A lesson, surely, in the first instance, of diligence in business; and secondly, of the advantage of improving morning hours. The most successful gatherer of manna, whether in the material, intellectual, or spiritual fields, is he who is up and at his work early. Albert Barnes tells us that all his commentaries were due to this habit of rising early in the morning, the whole of them having been written before nine o’clock in the day, and without encroaching on his proper ministerial duties. 2. On six days of the week only (2 Corinthians 8:5). God teaches here the lesson of putting forward our work on week days, that we may be able to enjoy a Sabbath free from distraction. He puts honour on the ordinance of the Sabbath itself, by requiring that no work be done upon it. III. THE LAW AS TO USE (2 Corinthians 8:19). None of the manna was to be left till the morning. We have here again a double lesson. 1. A lesson against hoarding. God gave to each person his quantity of manna; and the individual had no right to more. What excess he had in his gathering ought to have gone to supplement some other person’s deficiency. But greed led slime of the Israelites to disobey. It would save them trouble to lay by what they did not need, and use it again next day. They might make profit out of it by barter. All such attempts God defeated by ordaining that the manna thus hoarded should breed worms, and grow corrupt. A significant emblem of the suicidal effects of hoarding generally. Hoarded treasure is never an ultimate benefit to its possessor. It corrupts alike in his heart and his bands. It breeds worms of care to him, and speedily becomes a nuisance (cf. Matthew 6:19, Matthew 6:20). 2. A lesson against distrust. Another motive for laying up the manna would be to provide for the morrow in case of any failure in the supply. But this was in direct contradiction to God’s end in giving the people their manna day by day, viz; to foster trust, and keep alive their sense of dependence on him. Christ warns us against the spirit of distrust, and of anxiety for the morrow, and teaches us to pray for "daily bread" (Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:31). We should not even desire to be independent of God. IV. THE FAILURE OF THE PEOPLE TO OBSERVE THESE LAWS, They failed at each point. They tried to hoard (2 Corinthians 8:20). They went out to gather on the Sabbath (Verse 27). This showed both disobedience and unbelief, for it had been distinctly said of the seventh day, "in it there shall be none" (verse 26). What a lesson!— 1. Of the sottish insensibility of human nature to God’s great acts of goodness. God had miraculously supplied their wants, yet so little sensible were they of his goodness—so little did it influence them—that they declined to obey even the few simple rules he had laid down for the reception and use of his benefits. 2. Of its ineradicable contumacy and self-will (cf. Deuteronomy 9:1-29.; and Psalms 78:1-72, and Psalms 106:1-48.).—J.O. BY J. Exodus 16:13-31 Divine provision for daily need. I. THE LORD’S . 1. Their varied need was met. Flesh as well as bread was given. God gives us richly all things to enjoy. 2. They came in the order and at the time God said they would come. The evening brought the quails—the morning the manna. Nothing failed of all that he had promised. 3. They were given in abundance. The quails "covered the camp;" of the manna they "had no lack." There is princely bounty with God for all who trust in him. He gives richly, even where he has made no covenant: he fills "men’s hearts with food and gladness." How much more then will he bless those whom he has pledged himself to sustain! II. THE SPIRIT OF THOSE WHO ARE THUS FED FROM GOD’S TABLE. 1. They wait on him. The supply he sends is only for the day, and he is trusted for the days that are to follow. They do not refuse to pass on further upon the wilderness path, because they do not see at the beginning all the needed provision for the way. 2. They obey God’s call to toil. (1) They "gathered" of it every man according to his eating." (2) They did not miss the opportunity God gave them. "When the sun waxed hot it melted;" and they therefore gathered it "in the morning." Be "not slothful in business." III. ISRAEL’S . 1. In attempting to save themselves from the toil which God commanded, they kept the manna for next day’s use in defiance of the command to preserve none of it till the morning (Exodus 16:27). 2. In refusing to rest on the Sabbath. The contradiction and wilfulness of unbelief: it hoards to be able to abstain from toil, and refuses to obey God’s command to rest. 3. Public indifference to the existence of sin. These things were done by a few only; but they called forth no public condemnation or holy fear of God’s anger. The Christian community which does not mourn the sin abounding in its midst has itself no living trust in God.—U. THE OF THE SIXTH DAY. When the Israelites, having collected what seemed to them the usual quantity of manna on the sixth day, brought it home and measured it, they found the yield to be, not an omer a head for each member of the family, but two omers. The result was a surprise and a difficulty. They could not consume more than an omer a-piece. What was to be done with the remainder? Was it to be destroyed, or kept? If kept, would it not "breed worms"? To resolve their doubts, the elders brought the matter before Moses, who replied—"This is that which the Lord hath said." It is to be supposed that, in his original announcement to the elders of God’s purposes as to the manna, Moses had informed them that the quantity would be double on the sixth day (Exodus 16:5); but his statement had not made any deep impression at the time, and now they had forgotten it. So he recalls it to their recollection. "This is no strange thing—nothing that should have surprised you—it is only what God said would happen. And the reason of it is, that to-morrow, the seventh day is, by God’s ordinance, the rest of the Holy Sabbath,"—or rather "a rest of a holy Sabbath to the Lord." Whether or no the Sabbath was a primeval institution, given to our first parents in Paradise (Genesis 2:3), may be doubted: at any rate, it had not been maintained as an institution by the Hebrews during their sojourn in Egypt; and this was, practically, to them, the first promulgation of it. Hence, in the original, it is not called "the sabbath," as if already known, but "a sabbath,"—i.e; a rest—until Exodus 16:29. Exodus 16:22 This is that which the Lord hath said. Rather, "said," i.e; declared to me when he announced the manna. See Exodus 16:5. It has been supposed that Moses had not communicated the declaration to the elders; but this seems unlikely. The rest of the holy sabbath. If this translation were correct, the previous institution of the sabbath, and the knowledge of its obligation by the Hebrews, would follow; but the absence of the article is a strong indication that the whole idea was new, at any rate to those whom Moses was addressing. Bake that which ye will bake, etc. "Do," i.e; "as you have done on other days—bake some and seethe some—but also reserve a portion to be your food and sustenance to-morrow." Exodus 16:24 They laid it up. The great bulk of the Israelites obeyed Moses, and laid by a portion (half?) of the manna gathered on the sixth day. On the morning of the seventh, this was found to be perfectly good, and not to have "bred worms" in the night. Either this was a miracle, or the corruption previously noticed (Exodus 16:20) was miraculous. Exodus 16:25, Exodus 16:26 And Moses said. The Sabbath being come, Moses explained fully the reason for the order which he had given, and generalized it. God required the Sabbath to be "a day of holy rest"—no manna would fall on it, and therefore none could be gathered—the produce of the sixth day’s gathering would be found to suffice both for the sixth day and the seventh. Exodus 16:27 There went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather. There will always be some persons in a nation, or in a Church, who will refuse to believe God’s ministers, and even God himself. They persuade themselves that they "know better"—it will not be as announced—it will be as they wish it to be. More especially is this so where the idea of continuance comes in—where some interruption of the ordinary course of things is announced, which they deem unlikely or impossible. Compare Genesis 19:14. Exodus 16:28 How long refuse ye to keep my commandments! Though Moses is addressed, it is the people who are blamed. Hence the plural verb, "refuse ye." Already there had been one act of disobedience in connection with the manna (see Exodus 16:20)—now there was another—when would such sinful folly come to an end? When would the people learn that they could gain nothing by disobedience? It was "long" indeed before they were taught the lesson. Exodus 16:29 See, for that, etc. Rather, "See, that." Consider that God has given you the Sabbath, or the holy rest: and therefore it is that he gives you on the sixth day the food for two days—that the rest may not be interfered with. abide ye every man in his place. One Jewish sect, the Masbothei, took this command absolutely literally, and held that in whatsoever position a man was at the commencement of the Sabbath day, he was bound to retain it to the close. But generally it was held that the "place" intended was the camp, which the Israelites were forbidden to quit; and hence was derived the idea of the "sabbath day’s journey," which was reckoned at six stadia—the supposed distance of the furthest bounds of the camp from its centre. Exodus 16:30 So the people rested. Having found by experience that nothing was to be gained by seeking manna on the sabbath, and received the severe rebuke of Exo 16:28, the people henceforth obeyed the new commandment, and "rested on the sabbath day." Of the nature of the "rest" intended more will be said in the comment on Exodus 20:8-11. Exodus 16:23-30 The institution of the Sabbath. That, in some sense, the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise seems to follow from Genesis 2:3. It was at any rate then set apart by Divine counsel and decree. And it is quite possible that a revelation of its sanctity was made to Adam. The week of seven days may, however, have arisen simply out of the lunar month, the four weeks corresponding to the moon’s four phases. In any case, as the early Egyptians had no such institution as a weekly sabbath, and certainly would not have tolerated abstinence from work on the part of their Hebrew slaves one day in seven, we must suppose that the sabbatical rest, if ever known to the Hebrews, had fallen into desuetude during their Egyptian sojourn. God now formally either instituted or re-instituted it. He seized the occasion of giving the manna, to mark in the strongest way, and impress upon the people, the strict observance of a sabbatical rest, which forty years’ experience would engrain into the habits of the nation. The chief practical points of interest connected with Sabbath observance in the present condition of the Christian world are— 1. The relation of the Christian Sunday to the Jewish Sabbath; 2. The authority upon which the change of day has been made; and 3. The proper mode of keeping the Lord’s day at the present time. A few words will be said on each of these points. I. THE OF THE SUNDAY TO THE JEWISH SABBATH. Both the Christian Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath have for their basis the expediency of assigning to the worship and contemplation of God some definite and regularly recurring portions of human life, instead of leaving individuals free to choose their own times and seasons. Temperal concerns so much occupy men, that, if there were no definite rule, they would be apt to push religious observance into the odd corners of human life, if not even to oust it altogether. This evil is prevented, or at any rate checked, by the appointment of a recurrent day, which is also almost a necessity for the practice of common worship. In both the Christian and the Jewish religion the same proportion of time is fixed upon, the appointment being that of one day out of seven, or one-seventh part of life, which certainly cannot be said to be an undue requirement. Thus far then the two institutions resemble one the other; but in the primary characteristics of the observance there is a remarkable contrast. The Jewish Sabbath was emphatically a day of holy rest—the Christian Sunday is a day of holy activity. The keynote of our Lord’s teaching on the subject is to be found in the words—"It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." The Jews thought they "hallowed the Sabbath" by mere inaction—some, as we have seen, would not move all day from the place and attitude in which their waking moments found them. Christ taught that there was no virtue in idleness. "My Father worketh hitherto" (on the Sabbath), he said, "and I work." On the Sabbath day he did his miracles, he taught the people, he walked through the cornfields, he journeyed to Emmaus. And the Christian Church has, in the main, continued true to her Founder’s teaching. The Christian Sunday has been, and is, a day of holy joy and holy activity. Ministers are of necessity more active on it than on any other. Lay people have felt it to be the special day for imitating their Lord in "going about and doing good"—in teaching the ignorant, visiting the poor and the afflicted—reading to them, praying with them, ministering to their necessities. Cessation from worldly business has come to be the rule on the Lord’s day, not from any superstitious regard for mere rest, but in order that the active duties peculiarly belonging to the day shall not be neglected. II. Although exception may be taken to the expression—used in a tract attributed to Athanasius—that "our Lord changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord’s day," yet, practically speaking, it cannot be denied that such a change has been made; the Christian Sunday has taken the place of the Jewish Sabbath, and occupies in the Christian system the position which the Sabbath occupied in the Jewish. By what authority, then, has the change been made? How are Christians justified in keeping holy the first day instead of the seventh? Not, certainly, by any direct command of our Lord, for none such is recorded. Not even by any formal decision of the Apostolic college, for the question was untouched at the only council which they are known to have held (Acts 15:6-29). But, as it would seem, by consentient apostolic practice. The apostles appear, both by Scripture and by the records of primitive Christian antiquity, to have practically made the change—i.e; they sanctioned the discontinuance of seventh-day observance (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9, Galatians 4:10), and they introduced first-day observance in its stead (John 20:19, John 20:26; Acts 2:1, Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). They regarded the Jewish sabbath as abrogated with the rest of the ceremonial law; and they established by their own authority, and doubtless by the direction of the Holy Ghost, the keeping holy of the "Lord’s Day," by meetings for Holy Communion, worship, and instruction on that, the first day of the week, instead. III. With respect to the proper mode of keeping the Lord’s Day at the present time, there would seem to be different degrees of obligation as to different parts of the customary observance. Attendance at Holy Communion, and by analogy at other services, has distinct apostolic sanction (Acts 20:7; Hebrews 10:25), and is obligatory in the highest sense. Cessation from worldly business is a matter of ecclesiastical arrangement, in which individual Christians should follow the regulations or traditions of their own ecclesiastical community. Mere inaction should not be regarded as in any sense a "keeping" of the day—the time abstracted from worldly affairs should be given to prayer, reading of the Scriptures, and works of mercy. Gentle and healthful exercise should not be interrupted, being needful to make the body a useful instrument of the soul. Relaxations, not required by adults or by those who are rich, should be allowed to children and to the poor, every care being taken that Sunday be not made to them a day of gloom, restraint, and discomfort. Sunday was intended to be the Christian’s weekly festival, a day of cheerfulness and holy joy, a foretaste of the joys of Heaven. "The Sundays of man’s life, Threaded together on Time’s siring, Make bracelets for the wife Of the Eternal King. On Sunday, heaven’s gate stands open Blessings are plentiful and ripe— More plentiful than hope." BY J. ORR Exodus 16:22-30 The Manna and the Sabbath. I. THE FACT OF MANNA BEING GIVEN ON SIX DAYS, AND NOT ON THE SEVENTH IS A PROOF OF THE OF THE SABBATH, It would certainly seem from this passage that the Israelites had not up to this time been very good Sabbath keepers; that if they knew of any special distinction attaching to the seventh day, they had no very strict ideas as to its observance; that its sanctity was but little recognised by them. It could scarcely have been otherwise with a people just escaped from a long and degrading bondage. It does not follow, however. that this was the first institution of the Sabbath. There is every reason for believing the contrary. That God had the Sabbath in view in the arrangements made, and the laws laid down, about the manna, every one admits. The only question which arises is, whether these arrangements were modelled on the basis of a division of time already existing, or whether this was absolutely the first indication to mankind of a weekly day of rest. 1. Presumptively—this latter alternative seems improbable. It is incredible that so important an institution as the Sabbath should be introduced in this casual, unannounced way—should be taken for granted in certain outward arrangements relating to a different matter, and then, when curiosity has been excited by these arrangements, should be first made known by the side-door of an explanation of the novel injunctions. Such a case of the existence of an important institution being assumed before the law which gives it existence has been either promulgated or heard of, is without precedent or parallel in history. It seems plain that whether Israel knew of the existing Sabbath or not, God did, and framed his arrangements in view of it. The inference is that the religious observance of the seventh day had been sanctioned by old tradition, but had fallen largely into desuetude. 2. On Biblical grounds—it seems certain that the Sabbath is of older date than the sojourn in the wilderness. We need not review all the evidence which points in the direction of a primeval institution of the Sabbath. It is sufficient to instance the primary text upon the subject (Genesis 2:1-4), which speaks with a voice as plain as could well be wished to those who are willing to hear. 3. Historically—it has been recently proved that the Sabbath was known in ancient Assyria and Babylonia, long before the days of Moses. into Orientalist will any longer question, in face of the evidence furnished by the recently deciphered cuneiform tablets, that a Sabbath was observed in Assyria in the days of Sardanapalus, and for ages previously. But the ancient Arcadian records, which go as far back as 2000 b.c; and many of which have been deciphered by the aid of competent Assyrian translators, show that a Sabbath was observed in the very earliest time. The very name "Sabattu," with the meaning "a day of rest for the heart," has been found in the old Arcadian tongue. Special points in these researches will need confirmation, but on the whole, the early and wide-spread observance of the Sabbath must be held as established. In the light of Oriental discovery, it will soon be regarded as an anachronism to speak of prolepsis in connection with Genesis 2:1-4; or to urge the view that the Sabbath is a purely Judaic institution, and originated with Moses. II. THE RULE FOR A DOUBLE SUPPLY OF MANNA ON THE SIXTH DAY, AND LAYING BY FOR THE SEVENTH, TAUGHT THE LESSON OF A PROPER RESPECT FOR THE SABBATH. It taught— 1. That the Sabbath was to be kept free from unnecessary work. 2. That in order to leave the Sabbath clear, as a day of rest, work was to be forwarded on week days. 3. That God has a respect for his own ordinance. III. BY THIS DOUBLE SUPPLY ON THE SIXTH DAY, AND ITS ON THE SEVENTH, GOD TAUGHT THAT HIS RESTS UPON THE SABBATH, AND THAT HIS PEOPLE WILL BE NO LOSERS BY KEEPING IT. IV. GOD’S CARE THUS EARLY TO RE- THE OF THE SABBATH IN ISRAEL, SHOWS THE OF THE AS BEARING ON HEALTH, MORALS, AND . It must be reckoned a noteworthy circumstance that, in arranging the affairs of Israel, with a view to the recovery of his people from the low and demoralised condition, physically, morally, and spiritually, into which they had fallen, and with a view to their elevation to a state of prosperous national existence, God’s first step, even before the law was given from Sinai, was to put on a proper foundation, the observance of the Sabbath. V. GOD’S AT THE BREACH OF THIS LAW BY THE PEOPLE WHO WENT OUT TO GATHER ON THE SABBATH, SHOWS HIS ZEAL FOR THE HONOUR OF THE (verses 27-29). The thing chiefly condemned, no doubt, was the spirit of disobedience, which showed itself in more ways than one (cf. Genesis 2:20). But is it not plainly reckoned a special aggravation of the offence of these would-be gatherers, that they so defiantly set at nought God’s ordinance of a day of rest? Does God show a like zeal for the observance of any purely ceremonial precept?—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 16:16-36 The manna-regulations for type gathering and using of it. I. THE OF IT IS FOR. The responsibilities and opportunities of the family relation, which had been touched upon in the institution of the Passover, are here touched upon again. Each head of a household had to see that the daily supply was gathered for his family. Thus God shows that he is not only attentive for that great nation which now, as a whole, is so clearly dependent on his providing, so visibly cut off from secondary grounds of confidence, but also has his eye on the under-providers. What he is to all the children of men, he expects earthly parents to be in their measure and opportunity. Earthly parents, even though evil, are yet able to give some good gifts; and God will hold them responsible thus to give what they can. The peculiar anti transcendent gifts of grace they are not able to bestow; but seeing God has constituted them the channels of certain blessings, woe be to them if they block up the channels, or in any way diminish the flow of blessings through them. II. A SUPPLY IS FOR. Some gathered more and some less; but the gathering amounted to the same thing in the end. There was neither defect nor superfluity. We may take it that those who gathered more did it in a spirit of unbelief and worldly wisdom, a spirit of anxious questioning with regard to the morrow. They wanted to make sure, lest the morrow’s manna did not come. God disappointed their plans, and doubtless soon altered their conduct, by reducing the quantity gathered to the stipulated omer. Thus unbelief’s labour was lost. And those who gathered less did so through straitened opportunity. It may be they had less time; it may be they were feeble or aged. But we are sure that, whatever the cause of their deficiency, they must have been those who did their best; and God honoured their honest endeavours by making up the deficiency. If they had been careless, it is pretty certain they would have had to go starving. God has ever taken care of the principle that, if a man will not work, neither shall he eat. All that is required is, that we should do our best according to our opportunities; but so much, at least, assuredly is required. Remember the teaching of the parable (Matthew 20:1-16). The lord of the vineyard gave the same amount to those coming in at the eleventh hour as to those who began early in the morning. He considered pressing need to be as important a thing as actual exertion. But at the same time he had his eye on what had really been done. Those who entered at the eleventh hour had to do their best even though it was but for a short time. Thus the lord of the vineyard respected need on the one hand and disposition and embraced opportunities on the other. And so with the manna in the wilderness: every Israelite had to do his best, with a believing mind and an industrious hand. Then God took care that he should have enough; and "enough is as good as a feast." III. GOD MADE PLAIN THAT IT WAS TO BE A DAILY SUPPLY. He did this, first of all, by diminishing the quantity gathered to the stipulated omer. Then, when the omer was secured, he made the daily character of the supply still more evident by commanding that none should be left till morning. This was but carrying the former provision—that of gathering an omer full—out to its logical conclusion. Nor must we take this to mean, of necessity, that all the manna was to be eaten up. "Leave it not till the morning" can only mean "leave it not as food." There could hardly have been an obligation on the Israelites to eat more than nature demanded or appetite desired. Let no fond, economising parent quote this regulation to a child by way of enforcing the request to eat up its food. How much harm is done by forcing children to empty the plate, lest anything be wasted! Surely it is more waste to cram a recalcitrant stomach than to throw undemanded food away, if that be the only alternative. Evidently what God meant here is, that Israel should not keep its manna for to-morrow’s supply. There is more likelihood of imperilling the spirit of faith than the habit of economy. Note, too, that the efficacy of this regulation was soon exemplified when the people broke it. Indeed, it is curious to notice how, all through the passage, the regulations and the exemplification of them are mixed up. They were regulations which came into operation at once; for there was a present need, and the people learnt to meet it by paying at first the penalties of disobedience or imperfect obedience. They could put away the manna; but they could not therefore preserve it. Putting it away was only turning it into one of the treasures which moth and rust corrupt. Even if we could imagine that it had been possible to seal the manna hermetically, and keep it from the germs of corruption in the air, the result would have been the same. Whatever the precautions adopted, it would have bred worms and stunk by morning. God. is ever turning our boasted prudence into ridiculous folly; faith and obedience are the only real prudence. IV. Not only was it a daily supply, but A MORNING SUPPLY. An early morning supply, for when the sun waxed hot the manna was melted. They were to go out and gather the manna the first thing, and then, whatever else might be lacking that day, the great temporal necessity of food was provided for. God demanded of his people that they should be trustful and satisfied In the reception of a daily supply; but that supply was brought at the very beginning of the day. It was not at their option to gather it at any time of the day they chose. The supply was at the beginning of the day, because day is the time for eating as night is for sleeping. Then, with minds free from anxiety and bodies duly supported, they could each one set about his appointed business. V. IN HIS METHOD OF SUPPLY GOD MADE SPECIAL FOR THE SABBATH. On the sixth day of the week, a double portion was provided, and was to be gathered in correspondence with the provision. Certainly it must be admitted that the regulation here gives no means of judging how far the Sabbath was a recognised institution in Israel, if indeed it was an institution at all. This is a matter on which we are not able to affirm; nor are we able to deny. To whatever extent there may have been a weekly Sabbath among the patriarchs, it could not have been kept up through the hardships of Egypt! Anyway, this remarkable increase of an extra omer on the sixth day—when the reason of it was explained—was the very thing to prepare the people for the exact commandment which so soon followed. Jehovah had thus more ways than one of impressing upon them the sanctity and peculiarity of the Sabbath. In Egypt they had doubtless been required to toil every day, knowing little rest, save the inevitable rest of sleep, and it would be hard to break them away from this expectation of daily drudgery. Early association and training are wanted to make one day different from others; and we may conclude that it was only the generation growing up in the wilderness and becoming habituated to the Sabbath rest that really took to it in a natural and easy way. But this regulation of the manna must have been a great help even to the elder generation. As each sixth day came round they were reminded that God himself was remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and therefore they should do the same. And as we think of this special provision for the weekly interval of rest, continued through forty years, we may well ask ourselves what feelings God entertains as he looks down on the world and sees the incessant, driving, suicidal toil in which many men engage, on the plea that it is necessary. They say they have no choice. Toil all day, and when evening comes utter exhaustion! and thus life is wasted in the struggle to maintain it. When we consider such struggling in the light of this sixth day’s double provision, a strong suspicion rises in our minds that this plea of necessity is a delusion. Is it not probable that if men would only throw off, boldly and trustfully, many of what are reckoned social necessities, they would have a healthier piety and a happier life? At present, with only too many, when they are asked for a little more attention to the things of God and a little more interest in them, the plea comes in reply, easily urged and not easily met, that there is no time. See then what God did for his own people. He made time for them, and jealously hedged it about; a time for needed rest, holy rest and holy service. When they went out food-seeking on the morning of his day, he manifestly cursed their disobedience and unbelief. May we not be perfectly sure that if in a spirit of faith, we give all the time and effort that are necessary to cultivate personal religion and diffuse gospel truth, God will see to it that we get the manna? and if we have the manna, we need nothing more. Whatever else be left unsought and unenjoyed, seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Seek these, for they bring in their train everything a Christian can lawfully enjoy.—Y. BY J. Exodus 16:19-36 The law of the manna. I. THERE MUST BE EFFORT FOR NEED. 1. The manna lay around their tents, but it had to be gathered. To feed on Christ each must lay hold of him for his own soul by meditation and prayer and trust. 2. If we do not "taste and see that the Lord is gracious," his nearness to us will only deepen our condemnation. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? II. CHRIST MUST BE LAID HOLD OF DAILY DURING THE WEEK’S TOIL, 1. The sabbath has its provision without labour. This law is sometimes inverted—sabbath day’s toil, six days’ negligence—but in this way Christ will be fed upon neither in labour nor in rest. They who come from daily walking with Christ, find the sabbath feast spread for them. 2. The life of labour in striving to lay hold of and feed upon him, is followed by the rest that remaineth and the feast which his own hand will spread. III. GRACE WILL NOT CONSORT WITH . The manna stored up to save from toiling, when God commands to toil, was unfit for use. We cannot live on the memories of past experiences of Christ’s graciousness. He must be daily sought for. IV. CHRIST THE SOUL’S FOOD DURING THE ENTIRE EARTHLY (Exodus 16:35). During the whole forty years Israel fed upon the manna. We must feed daily upon Christ till we reach the inheritance. They who will be sustained in their journey must determine to know nothing save Christ and him crucified.—U. THE OF THE MANNA, ITS , AND ITS IN THE .—In bringing the subject of the manna to a conclusion, the writer adds a few words. 1. On its appearance; 2. On its deposition by divine command in the Ark of the Covenant; and 3. On its continuance during the forty years of the wanderings. It is evident that Exodus 16:32-34 cannot have been written until after the sojourn in Sinai, and the command to make a tabernacle (Exodus 26:1-37.): as also that Exodus 16:35 cannot have been written till the arrival of the Israelites at the verge of the land of Canaan. But there is nothing in the passage that militates against the Mosaic authorship of the whole. Exodus 16:31 The house of Israel. This expression is unusual, and is not admitted by the Septuagint, the Syriac, or the Arabic versions, which all have "the children of Israel." Several Hebrew MSS. have bent, "sons," instead of beyth "house." Manna. Literally, as in the Septuagint, man—the word used when they first beheld the substance (Exodus 16:15), and probably meaning "a gift.:’ The elongated form manna, first appears in the Sept. rendering of Num 11:6, Numbers 11:7. It was like coriander seed. This is "a small round grain of a whitish or yellowish grey." The comparison is made again in Numbers 11:7, where it is added that the colour was that of bdellium—either the gum so called, or possibly the pearl. The taste of it was like wafers made with honey. Such wafers or cakes were constantly used as offerings by the Egyptians, Greeks, and other nations. They were ordinarily compounded of meal, oil, and honey. Hence we can reconcile with the present passage the statement in Numbers 11:8, that "the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil." Exodus 16:32 And Moses said. Not at the moment, but some time subsequently. See the introductory paragraph. Fill an omer. In the original it is "the omer," and so the LXX.; but the reason for the introduction of the article is obscure. For your generations—i.e; "for your descendants." Exodus 16:33 Take a pot. The word here translated "pot" does not occur elsewhere in Scripture, and is believed to be of Egyptian origin Gesenius translates it "basket;" but the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:4 follows the LXX. in representing the word used by στάμνος, which certainly means "a jar" or "pot." Lay it up before the Lord. The "pot of manna" was laid up before the Lord with the "tables of the covenant,’’ and "Aaron’s rod that budded" as symbolical that God’s mercy was as eternal and essential, and as much to be remembered as his justice, and perhaps also as especially symbolising the "true bread of life." Exodus 16:34, Aaron laid it up before the testimony. "The testimony" is not the Ark of the Covenant, which is never so called, but the Covenant itself, or the two tables of stone engraved by the finger of God, which are termed "the testimony" in Exodus 25:16-21; Exodus 40:20; etc. The pot of manna was laid up inside the ark (Hebrews 9:4) in front of the two tables. Exodus 16:35 The children of Israel did eat manna forty years. Kalisch observes that the actual time was not forty full years, but about one month short of that period, since the manna began after the fifteenth day of the second month of the first year (Exodus 16:1) and terminated just after Passover of the forty-first year (Joshua 5:10-12). It may be added that Mesas cannot have written the present passage later than about the eleventh month of the fortieth year (Deuteronomy 1:3; Deuteronomy 34:10; Joshua 4:19); when the manna had continued thirty-nine years and nine months. Until they came to a land inhabited. Kalisch translates "the land of their habitation," or "which they were to inhabit," remarking that they had reached inhabited countries, e.g; those of Sihon and Og, much earlier. But the words will not bear this rendering. What the writer intends to note is, that the manna continued all the time they were in the wilderness, until they reached inhabited territory, and then further (in the next clause), that it lasted after that, until they came to the borders of Canaan. He does not say that it even then left off. He writes exactly as Moses might be expected to have written towards the close of his life. A later writer would, as Canon Cook observes, have been more specific. Exodus 16:36 An omer. The "omer" must be distinguished from the "homer" of later times. It was an Egyptian measure, as also was the" ephah." It is not improbable that the verse is an addition by a later writer, as Joshua, or Ezra. Exodus 16:32-34 Memorials of mercies. It is indicative of the weakness and imperfection of human nature, that memorials of mercies should be needed. But frail humanity cannot do without them; and God in his goodness, knowing this, sanctions them. As he had the rod of Aaron, which budded (Numbers 17:10), and the pot of manna, made permanent portions of the furniture of the tabernacle for memorials, so he had memorial days established, Sabbath, and Passover, and Pentecost, and memorial seasons, as the feasts of unleavened bread and tabernacles, that the children of Israel might keep his mercies in perpetual remembrance. We Christians have no such material memorials as the tables of stone, the rod, and the manna; for the "True Cross" is historically untrustworthy, and the "Holy Coat" could not have been a Jewish garment. We have, however, memorials of mercies.— I. IN OUR HOLY DAYS. Our Sunday is a perpetual memorial and reminder of the great mercy of Christ’s Resurrection, the earnest, and efficient cause, of our own. Christmas-day, Good Friday, Ascension-day, are memorials of the same kind; not so universally acknowledged, but useful memorials, where they are established and observed. Christianity commands that no man shall judge another in respect of such observances; but it would be an ill day for Christendom, if they were universally given up. Thousands find them great helps to devotion, great stimulants to gratitude and love. II. IN OUR HOLY EMBLEMS. The Cross, the Lamb, the Eagle, the Crown of Thorns, the Vine, the Rose, the Lily of the Valley, wherever we behold them, are memorials of divine mercies, never sufficiently remembered, most useful in recalling to our minds the acts, events, persons, wherewith they are scripturally connected. Some minds are so constituted as not to require such reminders. But to the mass of men they are of inexpressible value, waking up (as they do) twenty times a day holy thoughts that might otherwise have slumbered, and stirring the heart to devotions that might otherwise have been unthought of. III. IN OUR HOLY . What the entire tabernacle was to the Israelites in the wilderness, what the temple, so long as it stood, was to the Israelite nation, such to Christians are their cathedrals, abbeys, churches, chapels, oratories, perpetual reminders of holy things, memorials pointing heavenwards, and bringing to mind all that God has done for us. That they are also intended for practical use as places where we may worship in common, and be taught in common, does not prevent their being at the same time memorials. It is as memorials that they lift themselves up so high, ascending in tier over tier of useless pinnacle, and high-pitched roof, and spire-crowned tower. They aim at catching our attention, forcing us to look at them, and making us think of God’s mercies. BY J. ORR The pot of manna. Aaron was ordered to take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for future generations. The pot of manna is alluded to in Hebrews, where it is described as "golden," and as laid up in the ark (Hebrews 9:4). It may be questioned how so corruptible a substance admitted of preservation. But it is not so plain that the manna had in itself any tendency to corrupt, so that the miracle is perhaps to be looked for, not in the keeping fresh of the portion laid up in the ark, but in the smiting with corruption of any portions sinfully hoarded by the Israelites (verse 20). We are taught— I. THAT THE GREATER MERCIES OF GOD OUGHT TO BE BY US. It is fitting, even in the Church, to appoint memorials of them. II. THAT THE LESSONS OF THE MANNA OUGHT TO BE KEPT IN . Among these note the following:— 1. "Man doth not live by bread alone," etc. (cf. Deuteronomy 8:4; Matthew 4:4). 2. The lesson of dependence on God for supply of daily wants (Matthew 6:2). 3. Typical lessons. The manna reminds us of Christ, our Bread of Life, in heaven. "Your life is hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3). The "hidden manna" in Revelation 2:17, would seem to indicate the spiritual nourishment in communion with God and Christ which will maintain soul and body for ever in the possession of an incorruptible life—life undecaying, self-renewing, everlasting. III. THE UNION OF LAW AND GRACE IN GOD’S WITH HIS CHURCH. The pot of manna was laid up (after the ark was made) "before the testimony, to be kept" (verse 34). The law is the stern background, but near it is the golden pot, filled with the manna which told of God’s goodness and grace to a people whom mere law would have condemned. God can be thus gracious to his Church, not because his law has been set aside, but because it has been magnified and made honourable by Christ, whose blood pleads at the mercy-seat for the transgressor.—J.O. THE SECOND FOR WATER. When the Israelites had come to Rephidim which was probably in the Wady Feiran, near its junction with the Wady Esh-Sheikh, complaint arose, not, as at Marah (Exodus 15:23), that there was no drinkable water, but that there was no water at all. Water had been expected, and consequently no supply had been brought; but none was found. Violent murmurs arose, and the people were ready to stone their leader (Exodus 17:4), who had, they considered, brought them into the difficulty. As usual, Moses took his grief to God, and laid it before him, with the result that God gave miraculous relief. Moses was bidden to take his rod, and go with the elders to a particular rock known as "the rock in Horeb" (Exodus 17:6), and there strike the rock, and water would flow forth. This he did, and a copious stream welled out, which furnished abundant drink to the whole multitude. In remembrance of the murmuring, he called the place Massah (trial) and Meribah (quarrel). Exodus 17:1 From the wilderness of Sin. See the comment on Exodus 16:1. The sandy coast tract (El Murka) was probably quitted in lat. 28° 42’ nearly, and the Wady Feiran entered on at its south-western extremity. Two stations, Dophkah and Alush, lay between the Sin wilderness and Rephidim, as we learn from Numbers 33:12, Numbers 33:13. It is impossible to locate these places with exactness. After their journeys. The three stages—from Sin to Dophkah, from Dophkah to Alush, and from Alush to Rephidim—seem to be alluded to. According to the commandment of the Lord. Literally, "at the mouth of Jehovah," i.e. as God ordered them. The command was signified by the movement of the "pillar of the cloud." And pitched in Rephidim. The word Rephidim signifies "resting places," and "is the natural name for the paradise of the Bedouins in the palm-grove where the church and palace of the bishops of Paran formerly stood ". There was no water. The Wady Feiran is watered ordinarily by a copious stream; but at times the brook is dry. Exodus 17:2 The people did chide. I.e. "quarrelled," made open murmurs and complaint—as before frequently (Exodus 14:11, Exodus 14:12; Exodus 15:24; Exodus 16:2, Exodus 16:3). Give us water. As Moses had already given them flesh (the quails) and bread (the manna), so it perhaps seemed to the people easy that he should give them such a common thing as water. Stanley notices that the wadys suggest the idea of water, and make its absence the more intolerable—they are "exactly like rivers," with "torrent bed, and banks, and clefts in the rock for tributary streams, and at times even rushes and shrubs fringing their course"—signs of "water, water everywhere, yet not a drop to drink." Wherefore do ye tempt the Lord? To "tempt the Lord" is to try his patience by want of faith, to arouse his anger, to provoke him to punish us. It was the special sin of the Israelites during the whole period of their sojourn in the wilderness. They "tempted and provoked the most high God" (Psalms 78:56); "provoked him to anger with their inventions" (Psalms 106:29), "murmured in their tents" (Psalms 106:25), "provoked him at the sea" (Psalms 106:7), "tempted him in the desert" (Psalms 106:14). God’s long-suffering, notwithstanding all, is simply amazing! Exodus 17:3 The people thirsted there for water. There is probably no physical affliction comparable to intense thirst. His thirst was the only agony which drew from the Son of Man an acknowledgment of physical suffering, in the words "I thirst." Descriptions of thirst in open boats at sea are among the most painful of the records of afflicted humanity. Thirst in the desert can scarcely be less horrible. The people murmured and said When the worst comes on men, if they are alone, they bear it silently; but if they can find a scapegoat, they murmur. To lay the blame of the situation on another is a huge satisfaction to the ordinary human mind, which shrinks from responsibility, and would fain shift the burthen on some one else. To kill us. Compare Exodus 14:11, Exodus 16:3. The circumstances of their life in the wilderness were such, that, until accustomed to them, the people thought that, at each step, they must perish. It may be freely admitted, that without continual miraculous aid this would have been the natural denouement. And our cattle. It is interesting to see that the "cattle" still survived, and were regarded as of great importance. How far they served as a secondary head of subsistance to the people during the 40 years, is a point not yet sufficiently elaborated. Exodus 17:4 And Moses cried unto the Lord. It is one of the most prominent traits of the character of Moses, that, at the occurrence of a difficulty, he always carries it straight to God. (See Exodus 15:25; Exodus 24:15; Exodus 32:30; Exodus 33:8; Numbers 11:2,Numbers 11:11; Numbers 12:11; Numbers 14:13-19, etc.) They be almost ready to stone me. This is the first which we hear of stoning as a punishment. It is naturally one of the easiest modes of wreaking popular vengeance on an obnoxious individual, and was known to the Greeks as early as the time of the Persian war (Herod. 9.5), to the Macedonians (Q. Curt. Vit. Alex. 6.11, 38), and others. There is, however, no trace of it among the Egyptians. Exodus 17:5 Go on before the people. "Leave the people," i.e; "where they are, in Rephidim, and go on in front of them, with some of the elders as witnesses, that the miracle may be sufficiently attested." On the other occasion, when water was brought forth out of the rock (Numbers 20:8-11), it was done in the presence of the people. Perhaps now there was a real danger of their stoning Moses, had he not quitted them. Thy rod with which thou smotest the river. See above, Exodus 7:20. Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there. A visible Divine appearance seems to be intended, which would guide Moses to the exact place where he should strike. The rock in Horeb must have been a remarkable object, already known to Moses during the time that he dwelt in the Sinai-Horeb region; but its exact locality cannot be pointed out. It cannot, however, have been very far distant from Rephidim. (See Exodus 17:8.) Exodus 17:7 He called the name of the place Massah. Massah is from the root nasah, "to try," or "tempt," and means "trial" or "temptation." Meribah is from rub, "to chide, quarrel," and means "contention, chiding, strife." Moses gave the same name to the place near Kadesh, where water was once more brought out of the rock, near the end of the wanderings. (See Numbers 20:13; Deuteronomy 32:51; Psalms 106:32.) Exodus 17:1-7 Water out of the rock. "They did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). When man is at his last gasp, perishing for lack of what he sorely needs, then God lavishes his mercies. All previous trials were as nothing compared with that which befel Israel at Rephidim. Lips parched, throats dry, bodies fevered with heat, hearts expectant and buoyed up with hope till the close of the day, then suddenly despairing—they lay on the arid soil around the ill-named "resting-places," maddened, furious, desperate. Without water, they must perish in the course of a few hours—they, "and their children" (Exodus 17:3)—the little tender innocents, a while ago so gay and sprightly and joyous, now drooping, listless, voiceless. What wonder that some hearts were stirred with fury against Moses, that some hands clutched stones, and were ready to launch them at their leader’s head? Men in such straits are often not masters of themselves, and scarcely answerable for the thoughts they think or the acts they do. But the greater the need, the richer the manifestation of God’s mercy. At God’s word, Moses strikes the rock; and the outcome is an abundant copious stream—aye, "rivers of living water!" All were free to drink at once—men, women, little children, cattle, asses—all could take without stint, satiate themselves, drink of the water of life freely. And the water "followed them." From Rephidim, in the second year, to Kadesh, in the thirty-eighth year of the wanderings, there is no more complaint of want of water at any time, no need apparently of any new and distinct miracle. And we too have WATER OUT OF THE ROCK, which is— 1. Miraculous; 2. Abounding; 3. Life-giving. 1. Miraculous. For our Rock is Christ himself—not the type, not the shadow, but the reality. Christ himself, the true and only-begotten Son of God, makes himself to us a perpetual, abiding, exhaustless source of a constant living stream, from which we may drink continually. "If any man thirst," he says, "let him come unto ME and drink" (John 7:37); and again—"Ho, every man that thirsteth, ,come ye to the waters" (Isaiah 55:1). He "opens rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys"—he "makes the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water" (Isaiah 41:18). As from his riven side, upon the Cross, blood and water flowed down in a mingled stream, so ever does he give us by a standing miracle his atoning blood to expiate our guilt, and his pure spiritual influences to cleanse our hearts and purify our souls. And the supply is— 2. Abounding. The water that he gives, is in each man "a well of water, springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14). It is given without let or stint—freely to "every one that thirsteth." This is his promise—"I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy offspring" (Isaiah 44:8). Men have but to thirst for the living stream, to desire it, long for it, and he pours it forth. As in heaven, "a pure water of life, clear as crystal, proceeds out of the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Revelation 22:2), so even here there is a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, abundant, copious, never-failing—of which all may drink freely. And the draught is— 3. Life-giving. However weak we are, however drooping, however near to death, once let us drink of the precious water that he gives, and we are saved. Death is foiled, the destroyer forced to release his prey, life springs up again within the heart; every nerve is invigorated; every fibre of our frame recovers its tone. True "water of life" is that stream which wells forth from the riven side of the Lamb. Christ is "our Life;" and in him, and through him we have life. The water that he gives us is "living water"—for it is in truth the Spirit of him who is "the true God and the eternal life" (1 John 5:20)—who "hath life in himself." Lord, evermore give us this "life!" BY J. ORR The water from the rock. The Israelites pursued their journey to the mount of God. It was— 1. By stages—"after their journeys." It is well to discipline the mind to look at life as a succession of stages. "Most people can bear one day’s evil; the thing that breaks one down is the trying to bear on one day the evil of two days, twenty days, a hundred days." 2. According to God’s commandment—following still the guiding cloud. 3. It brought them in due course to Rephidim, the scene of a new trial, and of a new theocratic mercy. I. THE . Its horrors can be better imagined than described. 1. The want of water. "There was no water for the people to drink" (Exodus 17:1). Even where water was comparatively abundant, it would be a task of no small difficulty to supply the wants of so immense a multitude. Now they are conducted into a region where water absolutely fails them. The last drop in their water-skins is exhausted. There is a famine of the needful element. Scouts bring in the intelligence that the place is one of utter drought, without streams, wells, rivulets, oozing rocks, or any other means of renewing the supplies. Consternation sits on every face. Dismay is in every heart. 2. The consequent thirst. "And the people thirsted there for water" (Exodus 17:3). The pangs of unallayed thirst constitute an intolerable torture. Hunger is attended by gnawings and tearings in one organ of the body—that concerned in the reception of food. But thirst possesses the whole being. It mounts to the brain. It burns and rages like fever in the blood. Draining the body of its juices, it causes every nerve to throb with acute suffering. "Heart and flesh" cry out for the boon of water. It has been remarked that "I thirst" was the only expression of bodily suffering wrung from our Lord upon the cross. 3. The spiritual analogue. God brought the people into a situation in which they not only experienced acute thirst, but were made to feel that in their sore strait, nature could do nothing for them. If left to the resources of nature, they must inevitably perish. They cried for water, but it was not to be had. The depth said, It is not in me. The thirsty sand said, It is not in me. The sky that was as brass above them said, It is not in me. The dry, dead rocks around said, It is not in us. From no quarter could they extract so much as a drop of the precious liquid. The analogue to this is the condition of the spirit which has become awakened to the emptiness and unsatisfyingness of the world around it, of the finite generally; which feels the need of a higher life than the world can give it. In the renewed nature, it becomes definitively the thirst for God, for the living God, for his love, his favour, for knowledge of him, for participation in his life (Psalms 42:1, Psalms 42:2; Psalms 63:1-3). Under conviction of sin, it is specially the thirst for pardon and holiness (Psalms 51:1-19.; Psalms 119:41, Psalms 119:81,Psalms 119:123, Psalms 119:166, ] 74). By bestowing on the Israelites supernatural water to quench their thirst, God declared at the same time his ability and willingness to supply these higher wants of the soul; nay, held out in type the promise of this gift. This is not a far-fetched application of the incident. The word spoken to the Israelites at Marah, "I am Jehovah that healeth thee" (Exodus 15:26), gave them a key to the interpretation of this whole series of miraculous facts. We cannot say to what extent they used it; but the key was there. Just as at Marah, the healing of the waters was a symbol of the truth that Jehovah would be their healer in every sphere of their existence; as the gift of manna was the type and pledge of the gift of "that meat which endureth unto everlasting life" (John 6:27); so, in the case before us, was the water from the rock, this supernatural water, an emblem and token of a supply in God for the satisfaction of spiritual thirst, and a pledge to his people that this supply would actually be made available for their wants. II. THE CHIDING (Exodus 17:1-5). The behaviour of the people (making all allowance for their sore necessity) showed how little they had profited by past experiences of God’s kindness. 1. They chided with Moses. This is, they blamed, rebuked, reproved, reproached him for having brought them into this unhappy situation. How unreasonable was this, to chide with Moses, when they knew that in every step by which he had led them, Moses had only done God’s bidding. It was God’s arrangements they were quarrelling with, not the arrangements of Moses. But it is usually in this indirect way that murmuring against God, and rebellion against his will are carried on. Because of this chiding of the people, the place was called Meribah (Exodus 17:7). 2. They asked Moses for the impossible. They said, "Give us water to drink" (Exodus 17:2). Here was further unreasonableness. They knew very well that Moses could not give them water. There was none to give. Probably they meant that he should supply their wants by miracle. If so, the spirit of their demand was wholly unbecoming. (1) They addresed themselves to Moses, not to God. They ought to have addressed themselves to God, but they did not. (2) They did not in a becoming manner ask for the water, but violently demanded it. (3) The demand was made in a spirit of unbelief. This is evident from Exodus 17:7—"they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?" They did not believe that water could be provided for them. 3. They taunted Moses with design to kill them. This was a further disclosure of their unbelief. Twice, on previous occasions, they had made the same complaint, ostensibly against Moses, but really against God (Exodus 14:11; Exodus 16:3), and twice had God shown them how unfounded were their ungenerous suspicions, lie had saved them from the Egyptians. He had supplied them with bread. Could they not now trust him to supply them with water? Perhaps, as a writer has remarked, had the combination of circumstances been exactly the same as before, their hearts would not have failed them. "But when are combinations of circumstances exactly the same? and when the new combination arises, the old faith is apt to fail". This, however, was part of the design, to reveal the Israelites to themselves, and show them the strength of this "evil heart of unbelief" within them, which was ever prompting them anew to depart from the living God (Hebrews 3:12). We have equal need to beware of its operations in ourselves. 4. They were like to stone Moses. Moses speaks, in Exodus 17:5, as one driven to his wits’ end by the unreasonableness and violence of the mob. He did, however, the right thing—betook himself in his strait to God. There is perhaps no prayer, which in the discharge of public duties, servants of God are more frequently tempted to offer, or do offer with greater heartiness than this, that they "may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). III. THE (Exodus 17:5, Exodus 17:6). God, as before, grants a supply for the people’s wants. By bringing streams out of the rock for them, and causing waters to run down like rivers (Psalms 78:15, Psalms 78:16; Isaiah 48:21), he showed how wanton and ungrateful had been their suspicions of him, and how foolishly they had limited his power. Notice— 1. God’s loving-kindness in this gift. This was very marked, when we remember how soon the people had forgotten previous mighty works. (1) The water was given without chiding and rebuke. Save, indeed, as it was itself the most pointed of all rebukes of the unbelief of the murmurers. They had chided with Moses; but God, in return, does not chide with them. He is merciful to their unrighteousness, and seeks to overcome it by showering on them his undeserved benefits. He does not return them evil for evil, but seeks to overcome their evil with his good. It is the same loving-kindness which we see in the Gospel. God seeks to conquer us by love. (2) The gift was plentiful. All scripture allusions to the miracle confirm this idea (Psalms 78:20; Psalms 105:41; Isaiah 48:21). The tradition was, that the waters continued to flow, and followed the Israelites wherever they went. The Rabbins had a fable that the rock itself, in some way, accompanied the people in their journeys. In a figure, or parabolically even this was true, for the real rock was God himself, whose presence and agency in the miracle is denoted by the words, "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb" (Exodus 17:6). It was probably in the parabolic sense that the Rabbins used the expression. 2. The manner of the gift. This is to be carefully noted. (1) Elders were to be taken as witnesses of the transaction (Exodus 17:5). This denoted that in what he did, God was looking beyond the immediate supply of the people’s bodily wants. The design was, of course, to secure for posterity a properly authenticated account of the miracle. The importance attached to evidence in this whole series of transactions is very marked (cf. Exodus 4:1-10; Exodus 7:9). A similar importance is attached to evidence in the law (Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 17:7; Deuteronomy 19:15-21). This suggests to us how far we are, in believing scripture, from relying on "cunningly-devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16). God took pains that his mighty works should not lack contemporary authentication. Christ, in like manner, took security for the transmission to posterity of a faithful account of his words and works, by appointing twelve apostles (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:21, Acts 1:22). What additional confidence all this inspires in the historic ground-work of our religion! The direction for the appointment of formal witnesses had no doubt in view the character of the miracle as a pledge and type of spiritual blessings. As myths, these miracles might still suggest to us certain spiritual ideas; but their value would be gone as Divine acts, positively pledging the Divine fulness for the supply of "all the need" of the children of faith. (2) Moses was to work the miracle by means of the rod (Exodus 17:5). The rod appears here as the symbol of the authority with which Moses was invested, and also as the vehicle of the Divine power. The personal character of Moses sinks in this miracle as nearly out of sight as possible. God stands before him on the rock, and is all in all in the cleaving of it, and giving of the water. God is everything, Moses nothing. (3) The rock was to be smitten (Exodus 17:6). The distinction made between this miracle and that at Kadesh in the 40th year (Numbers 20:7-12), where the rock was only to be spoken to, shows conclusively that the act of smiting was meant to be significant. The smiting was, first, a cleaving of the way for the passage of the waters, which otherwise would not have flowed, as contrasted, in the later miracle, with a renewal of what was practically the same supply. God would plainly have the people recognise a continuity in the supply of water at different-stages of the journey, the outward rock merging in the spiritual and invisible one from which the supply really came, and which was with them at all times and places (cf. l Corinthians Exodus 10:4). But this is not the whole. The singular fact remains that the rock was to be smitten, and smitten with the rod wherewith "thou smotest the river." In other words, the way was to be opened for the waters by an act of violence, the smiting here, as in the case of the river, almost necessarily suggesting judgment. If there were indeed in this any typical allusion to the actual mode in which living waters were to be given to the world, viz. by the smiting of the rock Christ, it must have remained an enigma till later prophecies, and ultimately the event itself, threw light upon it. There is, however, nothing extravagant in believing that this form was given of design to the transaction, that, when the truth was known, believing minds, reverting to this smitten rock, might find in it all the more apt and suggestive an emblem of the great facts of their redemption. 3. Its spiritual teaching. The rock points to Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). The waters which flowed from it, accordingly, are to be taken, not simply as streams of literal refreshment for the Israelites, but spiritually, typically, symbolically—may we not almost say sacramentally?—as representative of spiritual blessings. So, in the above-cited passage, the apostle calls the water "spiritual drink," even as the manna was "spiritual meat" (1 Corinthians 10:3, 1 Corinthians 10:4). See below. We may extend the figure, and think of Christ, in turn, smiting with his cross the hard rock of the human heart, and causing living waters to flow forth from it (cf. John 7:38). While this obvious lesson is taught in addition, that in providing and ministering spiritual refreshment to his people, God can, and will, break through the greatest outward hindrances and impediments (cf. Isaiah 35:6). IV. GOD. "They tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?" (Exodus 17:7). The peculiarity of this sin of Rephidim deserves to be carefully noted. Rephidim, it is true, is not the only instance of it; but it is the outstanding and typical one, and, as such, is frequently alluded to in Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 6:16; Psalms 95:8, Psalms 95:9; Hebrews 3:8, Hebrews 3:9). The allusion in Psalms 78:18, Psalms 78:19—"They tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?" is to the incident in Numbers 11:1-35. Comparing the different scripture references to this sin of "tempting," it will be found that both in the Old and New Testaments, it is invariably connected with the idea of proposing tests to God, of putting him in some way to the proof, of prescribing to him conditions of action, compliance or non-compliance with which is to settle the question of his continued right to our trust and obedience. It is the spirit which challenges God, and is even peremptory in its demand that he shall do as it requires, if, forsooth, he is not to fall in its esteem. It is, as in the gospels (Matthew 16:1, etc.), the sign-seeking spirit, which, not satisfied with the ordinary evidences, demands exceptional ones, and lays down conditions on which belief in the revealed word is to be made to depend. Cf. Renan’s demand for "a commission, composed of physiologists, physicists, chemists, and persons accustomed to historical criticism," to sit in judgment on the miracles ("Life of Jesus," Introduction). It is, in short, the spirit which requires from God proofs of his faithfulness and love other than those which he has been pleased to give us, and which even presumes to dictate to him what these proofs shall be. It is, therefore, a spirit which carries distrust on the face of it, and is, besides, daringly presumptuous and irreverent. This furnishes the key to Christ’s second temptation in the wilderness. It was a temptation to put his father’s care and faithfulness to the test by casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:5-8). And he repelled it by quoting the passage in Deuteronomy which alludes to this sin of Massah, "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 6:16). It is forgotten by those who are guilty of this sin, that God brings us into situations of trial, not that we may test him, but that he may test us. Professor Tyndall’s proposal of a prayer-test may be cited as a not irrelevant illustration of the type of transgression referred to.—J.O. That rock was Christ. In the statement of Paul—"They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4)—we have a clear assertion of the typical character of this transaction at Rephidim. We may either suppose the term "Rock" in the first clause to be used by metonymy for the water which flowed from the rock, or we may understand the allusion to be to hint of whom the rock was but a symbol, and who did accompany the Israelites in their wanderings, abundantly supplying their wants. The latter view, which conserves the grain of truth in the Rabbinical traditions above referred to, to which the apostle seems to make allusion, is most in keeping with the further statement, "that Rock was Christ." An interesting comparison is with the words of Christ himself, when, on "the rest day, that great day of the feast," he "stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink" (John 7:37). The libation of water from the pool of Siloam, which was a ceremony connected with the feast of tabernacles, and which most commentators take to be the subject of Christ’s allusion in these memorable words, was commemorative of this miraculous supply of water in the desert. Dr. Godet goes further, and takes this passage in Exodus to be itself the "scripture" (John 7:38), and the bringing of the water from the rock the evert, which Jesus had in view when he gave his invitation. "Why," he says, "should not Jesus, instead of stopping at the emblem, go back to the Divine fact which this rite commemorated … He had in Exodus 2:1-25. (of John’s Gospel) represented himself as the true temple, in Exodus 3:1-22. as the true brazen serpent, in Exodus 6:1-30. as the bread of heaven; in Exodus 7:1-25. he is the true rock: in Exodus 8:1-32. he will be the true light-giving cloud, and so on till Exodus 19:1-25; when he will at length realise the type of the Paschal Lamb" (Godet on John 7:37). The points to be noted here are these:— I. HUMAN NATURE IS IN A OF THIRST. Its state is figured by that of the Israelites in the desert. It thirsts for a satisfaction which the world cannot give it. Give man all of the world he asks for, and still his soul is deeply athirst. His increasing cry is, who will show us any good? (Psalms 4:6). Learning does not satisify this thirst (Ecclesiastes, Goethe’s "Faust"). Pleasures do not satisfy it (Byron’s "Childe Harold"). Colonel Gardiner told Dr. Doddridge how, on one occasion, when his companions were congratulating him on his distinguished felicity, a dog happening to conic into the room, he could not help groaning inwardly, and saying to himself, "Oh, that I were that dog." Riches do not satisfy it. It is, however, when spiritual awakening comes, and the sinner is brought to realise his true condition as alienated from the life of God, that his thirst enters on the phase which makes satisfaction of it possible. It is now spiritual thirst—thirst for pardon, for holiness, for salvation. Note, in passing, how this deep-seated thirst of man testifies to his spiritual dignity. If man is merely a natural being—the highest of the animals—why does not nature satisfy him? Why are all. things thus full of labour—the eye not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing (Ecclesiastes 1:8)? The mere animal is easily satisfied, and returns into its rest. How different with man! His bodily comforts may be every one attended to; his senses filled with grateful pleasures; his imagination fed with the most gorgeous images, of beauty; his intellect stored with the facts and laws of every department of finite science, but all does not slake the thirst of his spirit. His soul still cries, "Give, give; I want not this, nor this; give me living water, of which, if a man drink he will never thirst again." II. CHRIST IS THE OF THIS THIRST. He says—"If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink" (John 7:37). He understands better than any one else the nature, causes, and intensity of our thirst, yet he promises to gratify it. And who that puts his word to the test is ever sent disappointed away? His salvation is found by every one that tries it, to have really this property of quenching spiritual thirst. He meets the special thirst of the sinful soul, by satisfying its desires for pardon and holiness. He meets the more fundamental thirst of our nature—the thirst for blessed life—by admitting us to fellowship with himself, the perfect embodiment of truth, purity, and goodness; by giving us a true end in our existence; by furnishing the soul, in the living God (1) with a spiritual object, congruous to its own nature; (2) with an adequate object, capable of filling and occupying all its powers; (3) with a living object, in communion with whom it specially attains to the blessedness of life eternal: finally, by imparting to us, in fullest measure, the influences of the Spirit, source of all light, joy, strength, and powers of holy obedience. III. CHRIST THIS THIRST IN VIRTUE OF HIS HAVING BEEN SMITTEN. It was only as a rock "smitten’ that Jesus could yield waters of salvation to mankind. Atonement must be made for sins. The Christ must be smitten for the transgressions of the world. He came to save. He must appear as the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Jesus was thus smitten in the garden and on Calvary. John notes how from his wounded side there came forth the water and the blood (John 19:34, John 19:35). "Rock of Ages," etc. IV. THE WATERS OF CHRIST’S ARE FREE AND . 1. Free. "Ho, every one that thirsteth" etc. (Isaiah 55:1), "Whosoever will" Revelation 22:17). 2. Plentiful. "Preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).—J.O. BY H. T. Christ our Spring. "They drank of that spiritual rock," etc. (1 Corinthians 10:4). Introduction may deal with the following important items, as all leading up to the theme of the homily—the journey from Sin to Rephidim (Numbers 33:12-14), the incidents connected with furnishing water out of the rock—the fact that the water may have followed Israel for at least a few stations—and on that fact (not on the [Rabbinical legend) found the New Testament application of the Apostle Paul—which justifies us in speaking here of Christ as The Eternal Spring of Refreshment to all believers. Expound the connection of 1 Corinthians 10:4; thus:—By passing under the cloud and through the sea "our fathers" were baptised unto Moses, committed to him as to a leader they being, his disciples Thereupon two necessities—bread and water—both in a spiritual sense found in Christ. Even in the desert the water came not so much from the rock, as from the Lord of the rock: i.e. Christ. I. THE, SOUL, NEEDS —i.e; not only food for strength, but spiritual influences for refreshment. Show from Christian experience how many and powerful are the causes of depression, weariness, and fainting. II. OUT OF THE ROCK—CHRIST— SPRINGS. Refreshment does come from time to time to the faint. But the cause is Christ, the living and the ever near. As to the way in which the ministration comes, it does not concern us much to point out; enough to know the fact. Still there are many channels of this grace, e.g; a gleam of morning sunshine, the song of a bird, the pleasant letter of a friend, etc. etc. Channels of the grace, mark! But what is the water itself? See John 7:37, John 7:38, John 7:39. "This spake he of the Spirit," etc. The water is the consolation of the Spirit; and the rock (from whom proceeds the Spirit) is Christ. III. THE SPRINGS IN PLACES. As out of the very desolations of Rephidim came the water; so out of our very sorrows come our deepest consolations. IV. THE ROCK—CHRIST—EVER FOLLOWS US. Here give the fable of the Rabbis; and show that in it there was a deeper truth than the Rabbis knew. Paul saw it. The refreshments of the Spirit are not like angels’ visits; for the Dispenser of the grace is never far away. V. WE ARE THAT WE MAY REFRESH. See John 7:38. "Out of his belly," etc.—R. BY D. YOUNG The giving of water in Rephidim. I. OBSERVE HOW THE PEOPLE CAME TO . There is a distinct intimation that it was according to the commandment of Jehovah. He it was who led them where there was no water to drink, and equally he must have given them the intimation to pitch their tents. And we who read the narrative are not at all discomposed on learning that there was no water in this place of encampment. We remember how God has already shown that his ways are not as men’s ways, by taking his people where they were entangled in the land, and the wilderness shut them in (Exodus 14:3). And we are sure that as he then showed what men count folly to be the highest wisdom, so it would prove again. Water is a necessity, and when Jehovah takes his people where there is no water to drink, it must be under the compulsion of a still higher necessity. If water had been one of the chief things to consider, the people would never have gone to Rephidim at all. But at present the great matter for consideration was Sinai, the mountain where the people were to serve God. Everything else was in subordination to the sojourn at Sinai. God could bring Rephidim to Sinai, and he did so when he caused Moses to smite the rock; but it was not possible to bring Sinai to Rephidim. II. OBSERVE THEIR FIRST REQUEST, AND THE ANSWER OF MOSES. "Give us water that we may drink." The mere words, of course, tell us nothing as to the spirit of the request. In certain circumstances such a request would be innocent and natural enough. Jesus began his conversation with the woman at the well by asking her for a drink of water. The request here, however, was evidently expressed in a complaining, chiding tone; and we can only understand it as we come to study the rejoinder of Moses. That. rejoinder shows how he is becoming more and more alarmed at the perils into which the unbelief of the people is taking them. They are still looking towards Moses; they cannot be got to understand that he is as much dependent on the cloudy pillar as are the rest of them. Him who had been given to help and encourage their faith, they treat in such a way that he becomes a stumbling-block. Hence he tries his best to move away their thoughts from himself to Jehovah, with whose long-suffering he warns them that they are making very presumptuous and perilous experiments. They are on dangerous ground, and none the less dangerous because they tread it with such profane unconcern. There had now been several trials of the Divine long-suffering in the short time since they had left Egypt (Exodus 14:11, Exodus 15:24, Exodus 16:3, Exodus 16:20, Exodus 16:27); and through all these God had moved gently, providing and protecting, even in the midst of their unbelief. But this gentleness of dealing could not go on for ever; and Moses felt it was quite time to warn them, so that none in Israel might delude themselves with the notion that whatever they said and however they complained Jehovah would not smite them. III. IN DUE COURSE, THERE IS A SECOND APPEAL TO MOSES. Their first request seems to have come immediately on encamping. They look round with an instinctive feeling for the water supply; and, missing it, they ask for it. Then they wait awhile; and, of course, the longer they wait the more thirst begins to assert itself. Their children cry; and all the cattle signify, in an equally impressive way, their want of water. (Remember what a terrible calamity the want of water is in eastern countries.) No wonder then that increasing thirst drove the Israelites to the bitter complainings of Exo 17:3. It was not without a profound reason in the plans of God that waterless Rephidim lay so near Sinai. He will make his people to know the utter privations that belong to Rephidim as well as the bitterness of Marah and the abundance of Elim. Thus they passed in a very remarkable way, and in a very short time, through three great representative experiences with regard to the resources of nature. They found those resources existent but impaired at Marah; well-nigh perfect at Elim; and at Rephidim altogether absent. Then, to add further to the significance of Rephidim, God made the people to wait there till their want of water became little short of agony. Not that he delights in inflicting pain; but pain is often needful to teach great lessons, he seems to have made them wait longer at Rephidim where there was no water, than at Marah where the water was only bitter. Hence the exasperation, defiance, almost despair which find utterance in their second cry. For all they can see, they are on the point of death; they, their children and their cattle. And yet this very reference—excusable as it might be in their half-maddened state—suggested at once its own confutation. God had worked by special interventions to bring those very children and cattle out of Egypt intact. Those first-born especially, for whom the lamb had been slain and the blood sprinkled, was it likely they would perish from a thing so entirely within Divine control as lack of water? The truth seems to be that one more great discovery had. to be made by Israel before they came to Sinai. They had known Jehovah appearing to them in bondage and more and more manifesting his power; giving them at last an exceeding abundant deliverance from bondage and overwhelming their great enemy in all his strength. These were all completed experiences. There remained one thing more, namely that they should be made to feel their dependence on Jehovah for bread and water. That dependence must be taught in the most practical way, before he proceeded formally to ask as he did at Sinai, for the unreserved regard and obedience of his people. IV. THIS BECAME THE MEANS OF DRAWING MOSES HIMSELF NEARER TO GOD. We feel that he was coming into peril from the exasperated people. They were, indeed, past all argument and expostulation—suffering themselves, and made more frantic still by the cries of their children and the threatened damage to their property. So here again we see how Moses’ own path was the path of faith. Jehovah has ever some fresh revelation of power to deepen the impression already made on the mind of his servant with regard to his omnipotence. Moses must be brought to feel by all sorts of illustrations that God can do everything which is not by its very nature impossible and which does not contradict his own character. V. OBSERVE THE METHOD OF SUPPLY. 1. God has the elders called out from among the people. Thus, for his own purposes, he still further extends the period of waiting. Possibly it was through these very elders, chosen and responsible men among the people, that the complaints and threats had come. The Israelites, even in their unbelief and worldliness, did not degenerate into a rabble. They had their leaders, whom they chose, recognised from the human point of view, as well as that leader whom God had sent, and whom they so often had despised and rejected. The time had come to make these elders feel their responsibility. Many who made light of Moses looked to them; and according to the way they spoke and acted, they would do much either to produce faith throughout the people, or, on the other hand, to produce unbelief. 2. God brings the rod once more into requisition, and as he does, makes a special connection of it with one accomplished work in particular. With that rod Moses had been the means of smiting the river and turning it to blood; the import of the reference evidently being that water everywhere is under the Divine control. By this time there must surely have been great virtue in the sight of the rod to call forth faith and expectation. Hitherto it had been used to destroy—it delivered, indeed, at the same time that it destroyed but now it is called to a work of unmixed beneficence. All that had been done so far was right and necessary; but it is well that there should now be one work of the rod which, in blessing Israel, does not inflict harm on a single human being. 3. The source whence the water comes. From a rock. The smiting, of course, was simply a symbolic action, just as the smiting of the water was. It was not as if some blow had been struck, suddenly opening up a hidden reservoir. What God did here by smiting he commanded, at a later date, to be done by speaking. (Numbers 20:8.) The water came, and was to be understood as coming, from a most unlikely place. Did we know more of the details, more as to the kind of rock that was smitten and the way in which the water gushed forth, we might be even more deeply impressed with the miracle. It may not be going too far to say that no amount of excavating or tunnelling would have got water from that rock. He who turned the water to blood made water to flow from an arid rock in some altogether mysterious way. Doubtless many of the Israelites were beginning to think that it was with a rocky God they had to deal; a hard, unsympathising Deity; that, in short, they had exchanged a human Pharaoh for a Divine one. And so God shows them that even the rock holds unexpected, abundant, and exactly appropriate blessings. The rock at Meribah was a good symbol of Jehovah for the time. He had already presented to the people much that was in aspect stern and unyielding; and he would have to do this still more in the future. And yet in the midst of all necessary hardness, he took care to refresh his people with gracious comforts and promises. He who demands that everything shall be done in righteousness, truth, and profound reverence for his will, is by no means one of those tyrants who seek to reap where they have not sown. Rather does he take his people into circumstances seemingly the most unfavourable, seeking there to teach them how, if they only sow a spirit of faith, obedience, and expectation, they shall reap a sufficient and steady supply for all their daily wants. VI. OBSERVE THE NAME THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE PLACE. Massah and Meribah. These words did not so much mark the power and providence of God as the unbelieving, self-regarding spirit of the people. This they constantly needed to be reminded of. It might well happen that some of the more sanguine would say, "We shall never be unbelievers again; we shall go with confidence into any place whatever, whither the Lord may lead us." And so these warning names are fixed for them to look back upon. The unbelief of the people was not to be lost in the glory of the Divine action, as if it were a thing of no consequence. We cannot dispense with any recollection of the past, however disagreeable it may be, which keeps before us our own deficiencies, and impresses upon us the need of constant humility.—Y. BY G. A. They tempted God in the desert. Illustration. Child cries; parent sends for doctor; pleasant medicine is prescribed. Later the child cries again; cry is apparently addressed to parent, but real aim is to see if the doctor will give more pleasant medicine. Chiding with the parent is a cover for experimenting upon the doctor. Here—previous murmuring against Moses had resulted (Exodus 16:2-5) in food from God. The people would see whether like conduct might not lead to a like result; they chode with Moses, but, in reality, they were tempting—trying experiments upon—God. Notice:— I. THE CHIDING (Exodus 17:2). An outward manifestation of displeasure against the visible leader. Why should Moses have brought them, thirsting, to this barren and inhospitable spot? The fact that their journeys were "according to the commandment of Jehovah" (Exodus 17:1) is altogether forgotten or ignored. Not a rare offence: the people, displeased, blame the minister, quite forgetting that he has a master other than themselves. Churches are called Eben-ezers and the like; they might often as truly be called Meribahs. The question which must be put in such cases is one not easy to answer: "Why strive ye with me?" The answer is involved in that other question which few grumblers care to face—"Why do ye tempt Jehovah?" Chiding can only be passed on with the motive which inspires it to its true object; he who tries to answer it otherwise does but stand in God’s light, doing that which Joash declined to do for Baal (Judges 6:31), and which, with yet more reason, God’s servants had best abstain from in his cause. II. THE . The inner motive for the outward manifestation was to see whether God was really among them, and would indicate his presence by supporting his servant. He had given quails and bread, would he now shield Moses by supplying the demand for water? Observe— 1. The favourable side of the offence. The people remembered that God had helped, whence they inferred that he might help again. Memory fed hope. So far it was well. Memory, however, was but half instructed, The remembered gift was more thought of than the giver. Hope was not faith; it could not prompt the prayer of faith. God was not regarded as he should have been, and consequently men could not state their needs with confidence, "nothing doubting." 2. The unfavourable side of the offense. Jehovah, they thought, was the friend, if of any one, of Moses. They regarded him as a being apart, quite as likely to be their enemy as the enemy of the Egyptians. Perhaps, however, if they put his friend in difficulties, to help his friend he might appease them. Is not the same thought latent still in like cases? "If the minister is a good man, God will help him, and we shall be the gainers. If not, we shall get quit of him, and possibly his successor may remedy his defects." A kind of witches’ ordeal from which the accusers hope to profit any way. Trouble should strengthen trust, and when it does, trust will be rewarded. Beware, however, lest imperfect trust take the form of temptation. God will justify his own elect, but experiments made on him are apt to recoil on the experimenters. III. THE RESULT (Exodus 17:5, Exodus 17:6). The people spoke at God instead of to him. Moses, instead of being the channel for their prayers, was the rock whence might echo their complaints. God, in answer, draws himself yet further off from the complainers. They get their water; but they lose that which they might have had as well, the sense of the presence of their God. The experiment was successful, physical thirst was slaked; it was also a disastrous failure: instead of gaining a strong assurance that God was indeed among them, they gained rather a confirmation of their suspicion that he was not among them, but at a distance. Conclusion.—Beware how you tempt God. Whether is it better to endure discomfort and have a nearer sense of his presence, or to escape discomfort and endure his absence? Thirst endured trustfully must have brought the Israelites such a realisation of the Divine presence as would have quenched, what was worse than thirst, the irrepressible desire to murmur. Temporary satisfaction then, as ever, thus obtained, led on to yet deeper doubt.—G. BY J. Trial and failure. I. THE PURPOSE OF TRIALS. Israel, tried before at Marah, is now led from the comforts of Elim to the thirsty land of Rephidim. They might have learned something of their own heart and of God’s unfailing goodness, and now they are led hither that he may prove whether they will serve him or no. Trial comes that the teachings of truth may be changed into the convictions of trust. II. ISRAEL’S CRIME. 1. It was not unbelief, but impious presumption. They demand water, believing that it can be produced. They regard themselves as having a right to the choicest of God’s blessings. This presumptuous claim lies in the heart of all unbelief. 2. Their accusation of Moses and of God (Exodus 17:3). They have belief but no prayer, no trust, only strife and bitterness. (1) Their base ingratitude. All past mercies are blotted out because of a little present suffering. (2) Their blindness. They might have asked themselves whether there was cause for this rebuke. (3) Their stubbornness. They refused to bow themselves in prayer, or even to ask Moses to intercede for them. (4) Their readiness to entertain the grossest suggestions of doubt. III. GOD’S LONG-. 1. Their murmuring is met with help. He might have proved himself to be among them by his judgments; but he gives them water from the flinty rock. Not till mercy has done her utmost is judgment let loose against his people. 2. He labours to establish their faith in himself. The elders are taken as witnesses, and the reek is smitten with the rod of God. (Second sketch.) I. A PICTURE OF THE SEEKERS AFTER MORAL WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THE PATHWAY OF FAITH. 1. Their unquenched thirst. 2. Their despair. It had been better for them, they say, that the desire to go forth had never been awakened; that the quest after a better country had never been entered upon. 3. Their cry, "Is the Lord among us or not?" Does God take thought of us? Is there a God? How often has youthful earnestness come to rest at last in the blankest unbelief! II. A PICTURE OF CHRIST, THE ANSWER TO THE SEEKER’S NEED. 1. The living rock, the changeless one, the sure foundation. 2. How he is made to us the fountain of living waters: he is smitten by the rod of God on behalf of the sinful. 3. The water "followed them." Christ’s consolations the one perennial stream for refreshment and strength. 4. How he may be found: by following the guidance of those who testify of him.—U. THE WAR WITH AMALEK. The Amalekites seem to have been descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:12). They separated themselves off from the other Edomites at an early date, and became the predominant tribe in the more northern parts of the Sinaitic peninsula, claiming and exercising a sovereignty over the whole of the desert country between the borders of Palestine and Egypt. We do not find the name Amalek in the Egyptian records; but the people are probably represented by the Mentu, with whom so many of the early Egyptian kings contended. The Pharaohs dispossessed them of the north-western portion of the mountain region; but they probably claimed the suzerainty of the central hills and valleys, which the Egyptians never occupied; and on these they no doubt set a high value as affording water and pasture for their flocks during the height of summer. When the Israelites pressed forward into these parts, the Amale-kites, in spite of the fact that they were a kindred race, determined on giving them battle. They began by "insidiously attacking the rear of the Hebrew army, when it was exhausted and weary" (Deuteronomy 25:18). Having cut off many stragglers, they attacked the main body at Rephidim, in the Wady-Feiran, and fought the long battle which the text describes (Exodus 17:10-13). The result was the complete discomfiture of the assailants, who thenceforth avoided all contact with Israel until attacked in their turn at the southern frontier of Canaan, when, in conjunction with the Canaanites, they were victorious (Numbers 14:45). A bitter and long continued enmity followed. Amalek, "the first of the nations" to attack Israel (Exodus 24:1-18:20), was pursued with unrelenting hostility (Deuteronomy 25:17-19), defeated repeatedly by Saul and David (1 Samuel 14:48; 1 Samuel 15:7; 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:17; 2 Samuel 8:12); the last remnant of the nation being finally destroyed by the Simeonites in the reign of king Hezekiah, as related by the author of Chronicles (1 Chronicles 4:41-43). Exodus 17:8 Then came Amalek. The bulk of the Amalekites would have been passing the spring in the lower plains, where herbage is abundant after the early rains, while later in the year it dries up. They would hear of the threatened occupation of their precious summer pastures by the vast host of the Hebrews, and would seek to prevent it by blocking the way. Hence they are said to have "come"—i.e; to have marched into a position where they were not previously, though it was one situated within their country. We must remember that they were nomads. And fought with Israel For the nature of the fighting on the first day, see Deuteronomy 25:18; by which it appears that the original attack was made on the rear of the long column, and was successful. The Amalekites "smote the hindmost" of the Israelites, "even all that were feeble behind them, when they were faint and weary." Exodus 17:9 And Moses said to Joshua. On hearing what had happened, Moses summoned to his presence an Ephraimite in the prime of life—about 45 years old—and devolved on him the military command. The man’s name at the time was Hoshea or Oshea (Numbers 13:8). lie was the son of a certain Nun (ibid.) or Non (1 Chronicles 7:27), and the tenth in descent from Ephraim, the son of Joseph (1 Chronicles 7:23-27). Some forty years later Moses changed his name from Hoshea to Jehoshua. which became contracted into Joshua. The occurrence of this form in the present passage may be accounted for. 1. By Moses having written (or reviewed) Exodus late in his life; or 2. By a later authorised reviser (Ezra?) having altered the text. Choose out for us men—i.e. "Select from the congregation such a number of fit men as appear to thee sufficient, and with them fight Amalek." To-morrow. It was probably evening, when Moses heard of the attack on his rear, and there was consequently no possibility of retrieving the disaster till the next day. lie could but make his arrangements for retrieving it. I will stand on the top of the hill. It is implied that there was a conspicuous hill (gibeah), not a rock (tsur) in the near vicinity of Rephidim, whence Moses could see the fight, and be seen by those engaged in it. Dean Stanley finds all the conditions answered by an eminence on the south side of the Wady Feiran. Others suggest the Jebel Tahuneh north of the same wady. With the rod of God in my hand. Moses meant to indicate by this, that he looked for victory to God alone, and did not trust in an "arm of flesh," while, nevertheless, he sent his soldiers to the combat. Exodus 17:10 Hur. Hur has not been mentioned hitherto. According to one Jewish tradition, he was the son, according to another, the husband of Miriam. Scripture only tells us of him, that he was descended from Judah, through Caleb the son of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:18-20), and that his grandson, Bezaleel, was the artificer of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:2). He is again associated with Aaron in Exodus 24:14. Exodus 17:11 When Moses held up his hand,… Israel prevailed. The elevation of Moses’ hand, with the rod held in it, was an appeal to God for aid, and must be supposed to have been accompanied by fervent prayer to God, that he would help his people and give them victory over their enemies. So long as the hand was upraised, the Israelites prevailed; not because they saw it, and took it as directing them to continue the fight (Kalisch), but because God gave them strength, and vigour and courage, while Moses interceded, and left them to themselves when the intercession ceased, It may be said, that Moses might have continued to pray, though his hands were weary; but only those who have tried, know how difficult a thing it is to pray with any intensity for a continuance. Probably Moses’ spiritual and physical powers collapsed together; and when he dropped his hand through physical fatigue, he rested also from his mental effort. To impress upon Israel the importance of intercessory prayer, God made success and failure alternate with its continuance and discontinuance, thus teaching his people a lesson of inestimable value. Exodus 17:12 But Moses’ hands were heavy. Moses, no doubt, held the rod alternately with one hand and the other, until both were so tired that he could hold them up no longer. It is this natural weariness which is expressed by the words—"his hands were heavy." When Aaron and Hut perceived this, they brought a stone for him to sit on, and then, standing one on either side of him, alternately supported his hands until the sun set and the battle was over. To reward the faith and perseverance of the three, God gave Israel in the end a complete victory. Exodus 17:13 Amalek and his people—i.e. "the Amalekites proper, and the tribes subject to them, who fought on their side." Exodus 17:14 Write this … in a book. The original has, "Write this in the book." It is clear that a book already existed, in which Moses entered events of interest, and that now he was divinely commanded to record in it the great victory over Amalek, and the threat uttered against them. The record was to be for a memorial— 1. that the victory itself might be held in remembrance through all future ages, as a very signal instance of God’s mercy; and 2. that when the fulfilment of the threat came (1 Chronicles 4:43), God might have his due honour, and his name be glorified. Rehearse it in the ears of Joshua. "Hand down," i.e; to thy successor, Joshua, the tradition of perpetual hostility with Amalek, and the memory of the promise now made, that the whole nation shall be utterly blotted out from under heaven. (Compare Deuteronomy 25:19.) The special sin of Amalek was, 1. That he attacked God’s people, not fearing God (Deuteronomy 25:18); 2. That he had no compassion on his own kindred: and 3. That he fell on them when they were already suffering affliction, and were "feeble, and faint and weary" (ib,) Exodus 17:15 Moses built an altar. An altar naturally implies a sacrifice, and Moses may well have thought that the signal victory obtained required to be acknowledged, and as it were requited, by offerings. In giving his altar a name, he followed the example of Jacob, who called an altar which he built, El-Elohe-Israel (Genesis 33:20). Moses’ name for his altar, Jehovah-nisi, meant "the Lord is my banner," and was intended to mark his ascription of the entire honour of the victory to Jehovah but had probably no reference to the particular mode in which the victory was gained. Exodus 17:16 Because the Lord hath sworn. Rather, as in the margin, "Because the hand of Amalek was against the throne of the Lord"—"because," i.e; "in attacking Israel, Amalek had as it were lifted up his hand against God on his throne," therefore should there be war against Amalek from generation to generation. Exodus 17:8-13 The uselessness of fighting against God. Amalek was "the first of the nations" in audacity, in venturesomeness, perhaps in military qualities, but scarcely in prudence or longsightedness. Amalek must precipitate its quarrel with Israel, must "come to Rephidim" and offer battle, instead of letting Israel go. on its own way unmolested, and shunning a contest. They might have known that they were about to fight against God, and that to do so is useless. None can contend with him successfully. It is curious that sinners do not see this. Some of them seem to hope to escape the notice of God; others appear to doubt his power; a few seem to disbelieve in his existence. The uselessness of contending against him would be generally recognised, if men would bear in mind, as most sure— I. THAT THERE IS A GOD, OF THE NAME, THE MAKER AND RULER OF THE . The disbelief in a Personal God underlies much of the resistance which men offer to his will on earth. They admit an impersonal something external to themselves, which they call "Nature," and speak of as having immutable "laws." These they profess to respect. But the law of righteousness, decreed by a God who is a Person, and written by him in the hearts of his human creatures, is not among these "laws of nature," they think, since in many people it is not found to exist. Neither to this law, nor to the God who made it, do they profess any allegiance. They claim the liberty to do that which is right in their own eyes. But, as surely as they are confounded, if they set themselves in opposition to a law of physical nature—walk on the sea, or handle fire, or seek to fly without wings—so surely does a Nemesis attend their efforts, if they transgress a moral law, be it the law of chastity, or of truth, or of general kindliness, or of special regard for God’s day, God’s house, God’s ministers, God’s people. The Amalekites attacked the last, and were overthrown. Final discomfiture will assuredly overtake all who attack anything that is God’s or in any way set themselves in opposition to his will. II. THAT GOD IS REALLY . It often pleases God to allow for a time the contradiction of sinners against himself, and even to let the ungodly enjoy a long term of worldly prosperity. Some of the worst men have prospered during their whole lives, and have died at the height of earthly greatness, self-satisfied, so far as men could see, happy. Men have questioned whether God, if really onmipotent, could have allowed this, and have doubted his ability to carry on a real moral government of the entire universe. But omnipotence is included in the very idea of God; and it is quite inconceivable that any of his creatures should be really able to thwart or resist him further than he himself permits. Their very existence depends on him, and unless he sustained them in being, they would perish at each moment. He temporarily allows the opposition of other wills to his, not through any defect of power, but for his own wise purposes. Some time or other he will vindicate himself, and show forth his Almighty power, to the utter confusion of his enemies. III. THAT GOD IS ALSO . The Psalmist tells us (Psalms 73:11) of those who said—"Tush, how should God perceive? Is there knowledge in the Most High?" and, again, "God hath forgotten; he hideth away his face, and he will never see it" (Psalms 10:11). These are bold utterances, such as men scarcely make nowadays; but still there are many who in their inmost heart seem to cherish the Epicurean notion, "Deos securum agere oevum," that the Divinity does not care for what men do, or that, at any rate, words or thoughts are beyond his cognisance. He, however, himself declares the contrary. "For every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account." "Thou knowest the very secrets of the heart." "All things are open and revealed unto him with whom we have to do." We cannot resist him secretly or without his knowledge. He knows all our words, and all our thoughts, as well as all our acts, "long before." We cannot take him by surprise and gain an advantage over him. There is not a word in our mouth, or a thought in our heart, but he "knows it altogether"—has always known it, and has provided accordingly. If we were "wise," if we were even moderately prudent, we should give up the idea of resisting God. Instead of "raging" and "imagining vain things"—instead of "taking counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed"—instead of seeking to "break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us" (Psalms 2:1-3), we should submit ourselves—we should be content to "serve the Lord with fear and rejoice unto Him with reverence"—we should "kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and so we perish from the right way, if his wrath be kindled, yea, but a little"—we should "take his yoke upon us, and learn of him"—satisfied that in no other way can we prosper, in no other way can we obtain rest, or peace, or happiness. Exodus 17:9-13 Diversities of gifts, but the same spirit. OF GIFTS. The needs of life are various, and the gifts which God imparts to his saints are correspondingly diversified. In Moses, at the age of eighty (Exodus 7:7), the qualities required for the successful conduct of military matters were not present. It may be doubted whether he would at any period of his life have been a good general But his age, his temperament, and his training made him emphatically a man of prayer. Joshua, on the other hand, in the full vigour of middle life, active, energetic, bold, intrepid, indefatigable, was a born soldier, and a man well suited for military command. To Moses belongs the credit of having recognised the needs of the occasion, and the "diversity of gifts" in himself and his "minister." He took the duties, for which he felt himself fit, upon himself; he delegated those, for which he knew that he was unfit, to the individual who, among the thousands of Israel, appeared to him, and. no doubt was, the most perfectly fitted for them. In a minor way, it may be noticed that Aaron and Hur, unsuited for either military command or the leading part in sustained intercessory prayer, had yet gifts which enabled them to play a useful secondary part in support of Moses, and were selected by him for their fitness. The recognition of OF GIFTS is required— 1. For the best utilisation of all the powers possessed by God’s people at any given time. Unless diversity be recognised, all aspirants naturally seek the same posts. All are rivals. Jealousies, sure to arise, are intensified. Discontents multiply. Rulers find the difficulty of government augmented. Again, special talents are wasted. The man most suited to one post occupies another. The gifts which he needs he often does not possess; those which he possesses he cannot exercise. 2. For the satisfaction of individuals. It is a sore grief to feel unfit for the work which we have to do; but it is a still sorer grief to be conscious of powers which have no field of exercise, while we see others in possession of the field without the powers. Individuals perhaps ought to be content if they can -perform satisfactorily the work that is set them. But minds of superior capacity are not, and never will be, thus satisfied. They want a congenial sphere, an occupation which would put their powers to the proof, a task which they would feel that they, and they alone, could perform properly. Hence, it is of great importance, for the contentation of those under their charge, that such as have the rule over men should both recognise the fact of "diversity of gifts," and seek to obtain a full knowledge of the special gifts of those to whose services they have to give employment. 3. For the general advance of God’s kingdom. It is only by utilising to the utmost all the gifts possessed by members of the Church at any given time, that the Church can be brought into the highest possible state of efficiency. "Diversities of gifts" are a fact (1 Corinthians 12:4). "To one is given the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge; to another, faith; to another, the gifts of healing; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues" (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). Unless this be recognised, unless each gifted one is put to his proper use, there is a waste of power—an absolute loss to the Church—a stoppage of possibilities which might have occurred, had things been better ordered. THE SAME SPIRIT. Different as are the duties of life, various as are the calls made upon the individuals who compose the Christian community—now for courage, now for counsel, now for governmental capacity, now for military skill, anon for earnest and prolonged prayer—there is, after all, but one spirit in which all have to act, as there is also but One Spirit from whom the power to act aright in all cases comes. The merchant in his trade, the soldier on the battle field, the minister in his parish, the man of learning in his study, all may and all ought to act in one and the same spirit, diligently, manfully, earnestly, striving to do their duty, under their various circumstances, in singleness of heart, as unto the Lord and not unto man. The true Christian temper is one and the same, whatever a man’s occupation may be; and it is not very difficult to recognise in a Havelock or a Lawrence the identical tone and temper which we have admired in a Channing and a Wesley, a Pascal and a Fenelon. From One Spirit flow all the graces that adorn the Christian character; and the unity of the source is traceable in the graces themselves, which, amid all their diversity, have an element of likeness. Exodus 17:14 16 God’s mercies need memorial, and obtain it in several ways. Deliverance from Amalek was a great and noticeable mercy. It was. 1. , as the people had just been murmuring against God, and threatening to stone his prophet (Exodus 17:3-4). 2. TIMELY. Defeat, or even an indecisive success, would have brought upon the Israelites a host of enemies, under whose combined or continuous attacks they must have succumbed. The complete discomfiture of the powerful Amalek struck terror into the hearts of the neighbouring peoples, and induced them to leave Israel for nearly forty years unmolested. 3. . Amalek was warlike, accustomed to contend with the great nation of the Egyptians; Israel had had all warlike aspirations checked and kept down by above 400 years of servitude and peace. Amalek was no doubt well armed; Israel can have possessed few weapons. Amalek knew the country, could seize the passes, and select a fitting moment for attack; to all Israel, except Moses and Aaron (Exodus 4:27), the country was strange, the passes unknown, and perhaps the very idea of their being attacked unforeseen and unexpected. The attack actually came close upon the great suffering from thirst, when Israel was "feeble" and "faint and weary" (Deuteronomy 25:18). So signal a mercy deserved special remembrance. Men soon forget the favours they receive at God’s hands. That this favour might not be forgotten, God required two things: 1. That a record of it should be inserted in his book. There is no other memorial comparable with this, whether we consider the honour of it, since to obtain record there, an event must be indeed an important one; or the enduringness, since God’s book will continue to the world’s end; or the celebrity, since it is read by all nations. And God’s special command for the insertion, stamps the event with an extra mark of dignity, 2. That it should be handed on traditionally to Joshua, and through him to others. Tradition is one of the modes by which God maintains the knowledge of his truth in the world, and is at no time wholly superseded by the written Word, since there are at all times persons in the world too young or too illiterate to have direct access to the Word, who must receive their religious instruction orally from teachers. Tradition alone would be a very unsafe guide; but tradition, checked by a book, is of no little value in enlarging the sphere of religious knowledge, and amplifying and rendering more intelligible the written record. To the two modes of securing continued remembrance of the defeat of Amalek required by God, Moses added a third—the erection of a material monument, to which he gave a commemorative name. Many victories have been thus commemorated, as those of Marathon, Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc.; but no erector of such a memorial has ever given to his work so noble and heart-stirring a name as Moses gave. "The Lord is my banner"—under no other standard will I serve or fight—no other leader will I acknowledge no other lord shall have dominion over me. "The Lord is my banner"—under this banner I engaged Amalek—he, and he alone, gave me the victory—through him, and him alone, do I look to discomfit my other enemies. Be the enemies material or spiritual, external or internal, to him only do I trust to sustain me against them. None other name is there under heaven, through whom salvation is to be obtained, the adversary baffled, Amalek put to confusion. BY H. T. Exodus 17:8-16 Christ our Banner. "Jehovah-Nissi." Exodus 17:15. Historical introduction: The Amalekites—their territory—reasons why they barred Israel’s way. 1. Fear. 2. Religious animosity—incidents of the engagement—the two memorials, book and altar—judgment pronounced on Amalek, and why—the slow execution through the centuries, ending in the final blotting out of the nation. "The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." Show further that the rod of Hoses was in reality the banner of Israel; the pole of a banner without drapery, affording a rallying-point for Israel’s armies, a memorial of past achievement, a force therefore, a guide, an appeal to heaven, an earnest of victory. By that banner Israel conquered. But again, as with the water and the rock we ascended to the First Cause of all refreshments, so here we ascend beyond the rod-banner to the Real Cause and Giver of all victory, i.e; to Jehovah, i.e; to Christ. I. ALL IN THE MUST FIGHT.—In the moral wilderness there are only two great hosts Amalek and Israel, pilgrims going to the heavenly country, and children of the desert that withstand their way. 1. Amalek cannot let Israel alone—if of the world we must fight—for there seems a certain constraint that will not permit us to leave the truth, Christ and God, without antagonism. 2. Israel will fight—dutifully—and inspired thereto. II. PILGRIM MAY BE TAKEN AT A . See Deuteronomy 25:18. The attack of Amalek was— 1. Sudden. 2. On an undefended rear. 3. On the faint. 4. On the demoralised by sin. Trace the analogies in moral conflict. III. OUR BANNER FOR ALL . Jehovah-Nissi—Christ our banner. See Isaiah 11:10-12; Romans 8:37; Revelation 12:11; Constantine’s "In hoc signo." The banner Christ:— 1. Rallies to decision. Christ lifted up in the realms of thought, domestic life, business, social life, political life, men must take sides; must answer the question, What think ye of Christ? A Christ-side to every moral question. Reason why Christian men not always on the same side in reference to particular questions (e.g; abstinence) may be, because in actual conflict issues get confused. But wilful trimming not permissible. Nothing like the conduct of the Frenchman, who at the outbreak of the revolution wore both cockade and tricolour, one under one coat lappel, the other under the other. Rather should we be like Hedley Vicars, who, the morning after the great decision for God, unfurled his banner by laying an open Bible on his table for all his comrades to see. 2. Is a memorial of victories achieved. It was so with the rod of Moses (go over instances). So is it with regimental ensigns, inscribed oft with glorious names, e.g. Salamanca, Vittoria, etc. Picture the shot-rent, tattered banners, hung under vaulted roof, for a memorial. So Christ—he shines before us in the light of ten thousand victories—on "his head many crowns." Recall the history of t he Church, public and more private, its confessors and martyrs. 3. Is a force therefore (Revelation 12:11). The moral power for a regiment in the possession of its colours; its demoralisation when lost. Christ seen in the host. Illustration: Castor and Pollux at the battle of Lake Regillus. 4. Is direction in the fray. No man in a battle can see it, understand it. Leadership necessary by trumpet, by signal, by aide-de-camp, by banner. So was it here. Moses directed the battle by the standard in his hand. So Christ to every soldier-saint. We may not fight for our own hand, nor according to our own whims; but take direction from him. 5. Is appeal for heavenly help. That banner-pole of Moses was not only for encouragement and lead to Israel, but also was an appeal to God for that aid which ensures victory. So, wherever Christ is, the intercessor is. O. Is earnest of victory. Christ is a force that cannot fail (Romans 8:37).—R. BY J. ORR Amalek. Various circumstances are to be noted in connection with this attack of Amalek on Israel. 1. It was unprovoked. "Then came Amalek" (Exodus 17:8). 2. It was unfriendly. The Amalekites were descended from a grandson of Esau, and so were related to the Israelites (Genesis 36:12). 3. It was bitterly hostile. This fierce and warlike tribe attacked Israel in the rear, and with great cruelty smote those who had fallen behind, whether from natural infirmity or from weariness and faintness in the march (Deuteronomy 25:18). This was a peculiarly malignant and vindictive act, and as perpetrated upon the people with whose well-being God had specially identified himself, was never to be forgotten. It was in truth one of those wrongs which burn themselves into the memory of a nation, and never can be forgotten. A special Nemesis waits on acts of flagrant inhumanity. 4. It was not without knowledge of the mighty works which God had wrought for Israel. We may be certain of that from what was said in Exodus 15:1-27. of the effects produced on the surrounding peoples by the deliverance of the Red Sea. The Amalekites knew that the children of Israel were the people of Jehovah. They knew what great things Jehovah had done for his nation. They probably shared in the fear which these wonders of Jehovah had inspired. Their hostility to Israel, indeed, may partly have sprung from this cause. The opportunity seemed given them of making a successful raid upon a people whom they both dreaded and despised, and they hastened to avail themselves of it. Knowing that the Israelites were inexperienced in war, and being themselves numerous and powerful, they may have counted on an easy victory, especially as the people were fatigued with marching and. encumbered with baggage, with women and children, and with the aged and infirm. It was a time well chosen for delivering an attack, and for inflicting a mortal injury on the advancing host. 5. It was the first attack of its kind. And this circumstance gives it a very special significance. It makes it typical. In the issue of the conflict with Amalek is to be seen the result of the whole conflict, prolonged down the ages, between the friends and the enemies of God, between the Church of living believers and the world that hates and seeks to destroy it, waging against it an incessant warfare. Consider— I. THE BATTLE. 1. HOW fought. Observe (1) Fighting was in this case called for. It was not a case, like that at the Red Sea, where the Israelites could do nothing to help themselves. The command, accordingly, is not, "Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord" (Exodus 14:13), but, "Go out, fight with Amalek" (Exodus 15:9). When means of help are put within our reach, God expects us to use them. He would have us exercise our own powers, still, however, in the spirit of due dependence upon him. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you," etc. (Philippians 2:12, Philippians 2:13). (2) The conflict was entered upon with a full appreciation of the gravity of the crisis. The leaders did not commit the error of despising their enemy. They knew how ill-prepared they were for entering upon a contest of the kind. There was no disguising the fact that the men of Israel were raw, undisciplined, wanting in courage, and prone to panic, while those of Amalek were men of the desert, bold, warlike, fierce, able to hold their own with the stoutest foe. This was the first battle of the former; it was but an episode in the life of continual warfare of the latter. Judged by appearances, the chances of war were, therefore, greatly against the Israelites, and it was felt that the most strenuous efforts, aided by earnest intercessions, would be needed to gain a victory. The Church, in like manner, will do well not to take too poor an estimate of her spiritual enemies. They are not to be made light of. They are not to be fought with sham weapons, or in the indolent, half-in-earnest spirit, with which so many are content to attempt the conquest. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood," etc. (Ephesians 6:12). The Church need not count on cheap victories. (3) The dispositions for the fight were made with skill and judgment. The men sent into the battle were picked men, and over them was appointed a brave general—Joshua (verse 9). This is the first appearance of Joshua in the history, but he must have been already known to Israel as a man possessed of the strategical and other qualifications needful in a military commander. Another lesson as to the use of means, and as to the adaptation of means to ends in God’s service. The battle was God’s, but it was to be fought through human instrumentalities. The strongest, bravest, most valorous men in the camp were, accordingly, selected for the service. No measure was omitted which was likely to ensure success. It is the old law of the economy of miracles. What man can do for himself, God will not work miracles to do for him. Doubtless, but for Moses’ intercession on the hill, the battle would still have been lost; on the other hand, had the military arrangements been less perfect, even Moses’ prayers might not have turned the tide of conflict so decisively in favour of the Israelites. Cf. Cromwell’s advice to his men—"Trust in Providence, and keep your powder dry." Note, further, how the same God who gave the Israelites a Moses, gave them also a Joshua, when a man of Joshua’s gifts was specially required. Cf. with the promise as to Christ, Isaiah 55:4. It is for our own benefit that God thus summons our gifts into exercise, and furnishes occasions for their trial and development. 2. How won. First, as seen above, by dint of hard fighting, but second, and more specially, by Moses’ intercessions. This portion of the narrative (Isaiah 55:10-12) is full of richest instruction. Observe— (1) Moses took with him Aaron and Hur, and ascended to the hill summit, to watch the battle, and to pray (Isaiah 55:10). Advanced in years, he could not personally take part in the melee; but he could pray for those who were in it. His prayer was as essential to success as their fighting. It was fighting of its own kind (cf. Colossians 4:12). Real prayer is hard, exhausting work. Even had Moses been physically capable of taking part in the conflict, he was better employed where he was, in this work of earnest intercession. Gifts differ. Joshua’s right place was on the field; that of Moses, on the hill. Many can pray who are debarred from fighting, e.g; invalids—Moses sitting on the stone (verse 12), they, perhaps, lying on their couches—and it is well for them to realise the value of their work, how much they can still do, how useful they are. Note, also, it was in view of the battle that this intercession of Moses was carried on. Prayer needs to be fed by knowledge, by watchful interest in events as they shape themselves around us, by study of the special needs of circumstances of the time. Of what essential service would it be in the warfare of the Church were praying men and women to act more on this principle—seeking, as far as possible, to keep themselves informed of the progress and vicissitudes of the Lord’s work at home and abroad, and endeavouring to order their prayers with constant reference to the fluctuations in the battle! Moses praying on the hill may remind us of Christ in heaven, interceding for his Church militant on earth. (2) Moses interceded, while holding up in his hands the rod of God (verses 9, 11). The rod was the symbol of God’s power as pledged for the defence of Israel. Faith holds up the rod in laying hold on God’s word and promise, and pleading the same before him. (3) Moses had able coadjutors. Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands when they grew heavy through fatigue (verse 12). It is a happy circumstance when those who bear the principal burden of responsibility in spiritual work can rely on being aided by the sympathy and co-operation of others, "like-minded" (Philippians 2:20), with themselves in their desire to see God’s kingdom making progress. God’s people hold up the hands of ministers by praying for them (1 Thessalonians 5:25). (4) The intercession of Moses had a decisive influence upon the tide of battle. When Moses held up his hands, Israel prevailed; when he let down his hands, Amalek prevailed (verse 11). His hands being steadily supported till the going down of the sun, Amalek was completely discomfited (verse 13). The letting down of Moses’ hands may have been accompanied by a corresponding flagging in the earnestness of his supplications; or it may have been that the outward act, as indicative of the need of sustained and persevering entreaty of God, was itself made essential to the victory. In either case, we have a testimony to the power of prayer. Would that the Church were more alive to this secret of gaining victories by earnest supplication! The influence of prayer cannot be overrated. It decides battles. It sways the tides of history. It opens and shuts the windows of heaven (James 5:17, James 5:18). It puts to the rout spiritual enemies. Paul made use of this mighty power (Romans 1:9, Romans 1:10; Philippians 1:4, Philippians 1:9, etc.). But even Paul did not pray so much as Christ. 3. Connection with previous miracle. Is it fanciful to trace in the boldness, valour, and spiritual confidence of the Israelites in this battle, some relation to the wonderful deliverance they have just experienced? It was "at Rephidim," the scene of the miraculous supply of water, that the attack of Amalek took place (verse 8). This water, in the first place, refreshed the Israelites physically, and so enabled them to fight; but we may believe that it had also a powerful, if temporary, effect upon their minds. It would banish doubt, restore trust, inspire enthusiasm. They drank of the brook by the way, and now lifted up the head (Psalms 110:7). Thus does God time his mercies to our trials, and make the one a preparation for the other. II. THE RECORD IN THE BOOK (verse 14). This command to insert in "the book" an account of the battle with Amalek was connected: 1. With God’s design to give his Church a Bible. A "book" is presupposed, in which, apparently, a journal was kept of the transactions of the march. Such a contemporary record was plainly necessary, if exact accounts of these mighty acts of God in the desert were to be preserved. In no other way could the knowledge of them have been handed down to posterity without distortion, mutilation and adulteration. And God was not giving these mighty revelations of himself, to waste them on the air of the wilderness, or to leave them to the risk of being mixed up with legendary matter of man’s adding. This part of Israel’s history was being shaped and guided with a view to the instruction of the Church to the end of time (1 Corinthians 10:6, 1 Corinthians 10:11); and it was requisite that a proper account should be kept of its memorable events. Hence the existence of "the book," out of the contents of which, we may believe, these narratives in the book of Exodus are principally compiled. 2. With a special significance attaching to this particular event. Amalek’s attack on Israel was, as already observed, the first of its kind. "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" (Keil). This explains the severe sentence pronounced upon the tribe, as also the weighty significance attached to this first defeat. It takes many types to set forth completely the many-sided enmity of the world to God and to his Church. Pharaoh was one type, Amalek is another. Pharaoh was more especially the type of the enmity of the world against the church, viewed as having escaped from its power. Amalek, as Edom afterwards, is peculiarly the type of vindictive hostility to the kingdom of God as such—of implacable hate. Between Amalek (spiritually) and the church, therefore, there can never be aught but warfare. "Because his hand is against the throne of the Lord" (marg.), therefore "the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" (verse 16). In this first defeat we have the type of all. III. JEHOVAH-NISSI. Moses reared an altar in commemoration of the victory, and inscribed upon it the name—"Jehovah-Nissi"—"Jehovah, my banner’ (verse 15). This name inscribed upon the altar is at the same time a name of God. It extracts and generalises the principle involved in the victory over Amalek, as a former name, "Jehovah-jireh" (Genesis 22:14) extracted and generalised the principle involved in the interposition on Moriah; and as the words, "I am Jehovah that healeth them" (Exodus 15:26), extracted and generalised the principle involved in the miracle at Marah. The truth taught by the name is precious and consolatory. Jehovah is the Church’s banner. His invisible presence goes with her in her conflicts. His help is certain. With him on her side, she is assured of victory. His name is her sure and all-sufficient trust. Learn 1. God’s deeds reveal His name. The revelation of the Bible is a fact-revelation. 2. It is the Church’s duty gratefully to remember the interpositions of God on her behalf. 3. It is her duty to seek to apprehend the principle of God’s dealings with her, and to treasure up the knowledge for further use.—J.O. Exodus 17:15,Exodus 17:16 Jehovah-Nissi. The use of this name by the Church bespeaks— 1. Her militant condition. "The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’’ 2. The side on which she fights—"My banner." 3. The name round which she rallies—"Jehovah." "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 6:5). 4. The confidence by which she is inspired. The inscription on a banner frequently sets forth the ground of confidence. "God and my right." 5. The certainty she has of victory.—J.O. BY G. A. Thou hast given a banner unto them that fear thee. 1. THE ATTACK BY AMALEK. It was cowardly, malicious, merciless (cf. Deuteronomy 25:17; 1 Samuel 15:2); not open, straightforward enmity; cutting off the feeble and the stragglers; a vulture-like hostility; a type and sample of diabolical hatred. Notice the parallel between Israel’s position with regard to Amalek and our position with regard to Satan and his emissaries. 1. Israel was. passing through the wilderness. So God’s people are passing through this world (Hebrews 11:14). The country through which the route lies is not claimed by those who use it. 2. Amalek considered the wilderness as their own. So Satan claims to be the prince of this world. In either case the authority is usurped. 3. Amalek took Israel at a disadvantage. No cause of enmity assigned, only apparently the right assumed for the stronger to prey upon the weaker. Satan, too, always endeavours to take us at a disadvantage. He did not attack Christ until "he was an hungered;" he attacks us, also, when we are weakest. II. THE DEFENCE AND .— 1. A chosen captain. Joshua—"Jehovah is hell)." Perhaps name changed from Hoshea at this time; shows, at any rate, whence the leader derived his ability to lead. Our captain, "manifested to destroy the works of the devil." Had it not been for Satan’s enmity, how should we have known the power of Christ? 2. Selected soldiers. Not all the people, but chosen from the people. All share the danger, but the defence may best be undertaken by a few, though, no doubt, these few are supported and encouraged by the general sympathy. In the war with Satan the brunt of the battle must fall on the selected soldiers—Christ chose apostles, and in every age the majority has been protected by representative champions. Satan must make more headway than he does, were it not that the weaker and more ignorant are sheltered from direct attack behind the bulwarks raised by the stronger and the wiser. 3. An uplifted banner. Usually the colours go before the army; here the banner—God’s rod—is upheld upon the mountain— (1) in full sight of all; (2) in a position of comparative security. Notice— 1. This banner was a sign of God’s helpful presence. 2. It was in full view of the fighters, and the fortune of the battle varied according as it was raised or lowered. Two things were necessary to ensure victory (1) that the banner should be held up; (2) that the fighters should keep looking at it. In the fight with Satan the same principle applies. God’s law, God’s righteous purpose, must be upheld by the Prophet, supported on one hand by the priest, on the other by the noble; but, further, the fighters must keep it well in view, nothing less than the assurance of its fixedness can nerve them so as to ensure victory. III. THE . 1. A book. This victory a pledge of Amalek’s final exter- ruination. 2. An altar. "Jehovah our Banner," sign of a continuous war to be ended only with the fulfilment of God’s purpose. In the fight with Satan our Lord’s victory in the wilderness and on the cross, a pledge of final victory for all. 1. It is written in a book. Who has not read of it? 2. It is commemorated by a memorial, which all may see. "This do as a memorial of me." So long as there is evil in the world, so long there must be war. God’s soldiers must fight from generation to generation until the final victory be achieved. What is the secret of their strength? The banner uplifted upon the mountain. The rod of God. "It is written." The prophet uprears it. Priest and noble, in so far as they fulfil their office, unite to support the prophet. The fighters h,ok up to the banner, and, encouraged by its steadfast maintenance, fight on till victory be secured.—G. BY D. YOUNG The discomfiture of Amalek in Rephidim. I. AMALEK’S OF THE OF ISRAEL. Amalek attacked Israel in Rephidim. Rephidim stands very well as the type of all places and positions where human resources appear utterly wanting. It was a place where no water could be found, and where of course there must also have been little growth. Everything therefore would lead Amalek to say, "We shall easily conquer these people, being but an undisciplined, unmanageable crowd." How should outsiders understand anything of the way in which the Lord had led Israel? To Israel itself, the way had been one which it -knew not; and to Amalek, able to judge only by first appearances it would seem the way of folly, rashness, and certain ruin. The Amalekites could very well see that there was no ordinary source of supplies open, and extraordinary sources were beyond their ken, beyond their powers of imagination. We shall do well to consider, before we oppose anything, what its resources are; apparent weakness may not only hide real strength, but may be almost the condition of it. We shall do well also to consider whether under erroneous notions of self-preservation, we may not often be found fighting against God. These Amalekites went out to war against Israel upon motives of self-interest. It seemed to them if they did not destroy Israel, Israel would destroy them. Yet if they had only inquired, if they had only asked the question how this great company had managed to get so far, they might have been spared all anxiety and the great destruction which came upon them. The wisest plan would have been to leave Israel alone and wait; then it would have been seen that Israel was not going to stop in that district. II. THE WAY IN WHICH ISRAEL MEETS AMALEK.— 1. The spirit and conduct of Moses are to be considered. Hitherto in his difficulties he has cried to the Lord, not of course despairingly, but feeling deeply his need of Divine direction. Here however he is ready for action at once. No mention is made of recourse to God, from which we assume that the line of action was at once apparent to Moses. The promptitude of his action is indeed remarkable; and yet it is clear from the result that there was nothing presumptuous in it. Everything evidently accorded with the will and purpose of God. This was an occasion when Israel could do something, and they were bound to make the attempt. Moses was a man who appreciated the principle that God helps those who help themselves. When the people were entangled in the land by the lied Sea they could do nothing; when they came into the wilderness with its scarcity of food and drink, they could do nothing; they had simply to wait on God’s provisions. But here where fighting men appear against them, and there is space and time for resistance, Moses rightly takes means to bring the strength of his people into operation. 2. The spirit and conduct of the people are also to be considered. Their faith, promptitude and composure are also very remarkable, more remarkable even than the like conduct on the part of Moses. Those who had been so long, and only so lately, unbelieving and unmanageable, all at once manifest a surprising readiness to meet the foe. Considering the way in which they had recently behaved, it is a marvellous thing that all was not thrown into panic and confusion, immediately on the appearance of Amalek. To what then can this composure and readiness be attributed? Evidently it was the effect—a temporary effect certainly, yet not insufficient for its purpose—of the gift of the manna and of the water in a dry and thirsty land. God took care that all troubles should not come on them at once. They were strong with a strength Amalek knew nothing of; and it was in the fresh consciousness of that strength that they made ready for the battle. We imagine that on this occasion, Joshua found abundance of volunteers, and that those who went out against Amalek were the very pick and pride of Israel’s warriors. III. THE WAY IN WHICH GOD HIMSELF TO BE THE OF VICTORY. Moses knows right well that after all preparations, the victory must come from Jehovah. He sets the discriminating Joshua to lead a chosen and competent army against Amalek, as if everything depended upon them, and yet at the same time he remembers that God must be glorified in the very best of human preparations. God will have us to honour him by our very best, and yet our very best must be considered as no more than the humble channel of his power. We must not suppose, because it pleases God in his wisdom, to put the excellency of his treasure into earthen vessels, that we are at liberty to offer him anything which first comes to hand. And then Moses, having done his best in the choice of means, takes his conspicuous position on the hill, to cheer his fighting friends with the sight of the lifted rod. Through the lifting of that rod the energies of victory were to flow into the bodies of Israel’s warriors. To Amalek the sight of Moses told nothing. They knew nothing of the significance of the rod, and may rather have wondered why he should stand so long in this position of constraint. But Israel, we cannot doubt, quickly discerned the significance of their leader’s attitude and the close connection between the lifted hand and the progress towards victory. The lesson for us is the oft taught one, that while God would have us to labour strenuously and bear the heat and burden of the day in all the inevitable conflicts of life, we must do it with the remembrance that victory really comes from him. We are only strong, as Paul felt he was, by the strength which Christ puts into us.—Y. BY J. Victory through faith. I. IN THE WARFARE OF FAITH, PRAYER AND EFFORT MUST BE JOINED . 1. Arrangements are carefully made for both. (1) Men are picked out for a battle, and Joshua descends with them into the valley. (2) Moses, with Aaron and Hur, climbs to the hill-top with the rod of God in his hand. 2. Joshua discomfited Amalek with the edge of the sword; but the battle was for or against Israel, as Moses’ hands were lifted up in strong supplication or hung down in weariness. (1) To pray without using means is to mock God. (2) To use means without prayer is to depise God. II. AIDS TO PRAYER. 1. The remembrance of past deliverances and services. Moses takes the rod of God in his hand. 2. The union of many hearts: he sat on the hill-top in sight of Israel. 3. Friendly help in weakness. Aaron and Hur hold up the wearied hands. III. IN THE VICTORY OF THE , A YET FURTHER TRIUMPH IS . The promise is recorded in the book that that against which they war shall be swept from under heaven. IV. THE OF THE IN THE HOUR OF TRIUMPH. The monument of victory is an altar and its name Jehovah-Nissi.—U. JETHRO’S VISIT TO MOSES. JETHRO’S VISIT TO MOSES. It has been noticed, in the comment on Exodus 4:1-31; that shortly after the circumcision of Eliezer, Moses’ second son, he sent back his wife, Zipporah, to her own kinsfolk, the Midianites, together with her two sons, Eliezer and Gershom. Reuel, Zipporah’s father, was then dead (Exodus and had been succeeded in his priesthood and headship of the tribe by Jethro, probably his son, and therefore the brother-in-law, and not the father-in-law, of Moses. (The Hebrew word used, as already observed, has both meanings.) Jethro gave protection to his sister and her children until he heard of the passage of the Red Sea, when he set forth to meet and congratulate his kinsman, and to convey back to him his wife and his sons. The meeting took place "at the mount of God" (verse 5), or in the near vicinity of Sinai, probably in some part of the plain Er-Rahah, which extends for five miles, or more, to the north-west of the Sinaitic mountain-group. Exodus 18:1 Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law. Rather, "Jethro, priest of Midian, Moses’ brother-in-law." See the comment on Exodus 3:1; and note that the Seventy use the ambiguous word γαμβρός, while the Vulgate has cognatus. And that. Rather "in that." The clause is exegetical of the preceding one. Exodus 18:2 After he had sent her back. Literally "after her dismissal." It is curious that the fact of the dismissal had not been previously mentioned, yet is here assumed as known. Some commentators (as Knobel) find, in what is said of Zipporah, the trace of two distinct writers who give two contradictory narratives; but the difficulties and obscurities of the history are sufficiently intelligible, if we hear in mind— 1. That Moses was addressing immediately those who knew the facts; and 2. That he was studious of brevity. Exodus 18:3 And her two sons. That Zipporah had borne Moses at least two sons before his return to Egypt from Midian, had appeared from Exodus 4:20. The name of the one, Gershom, and the ground of it, had been declared in Exodus 2:22. The repetition here may be accounted for by the present chapter having been originally a distinct and separate composition, written on a distinct roll, and subsequently incorporated by Moses into his great work. Exodus 18:4 Eliezer. Eliezer had not been previously mentioned by name; but he was probably the son circumcised by Zipporah, as related in Exodus 4:25. We learn from 1 Chronicles 23:15-17, that he grew to manhood, and had an only son, Rehabiah, whose descendants were in the time of Solomon very numerous. For the God of my father, said he, was my help. Eliezer means literally, "My God (is my) help." It would seem that Zipporah, when she circumcised her infant son, omitted to name him; but Moses, before dismissing her, supplied the omission, calling him Eliezer, because God had been his help against the Pharaoh who had sought his life (Exodus 2:15), and of whose death he had recently had intelligence (Exodus 4:19). Thus the names of the two sons expressed respectively, the despondency natural to an exile, and the exultant gratitude of one who had just learned that by God’s goodness, the term of his banishment was over. Exodus 18:5 The wilderness. This term, which has the article, seems to be here used in that wide sense with which we are familiar from Exodus 3:18; Exodus 4:27; Exodus 5:3; Exodus 7:16; etc. It is not" the wilderness of Sin," or "the wilderness of Sinai," that is intended, but generally the tract between Egypt and Palestine. Jethro, having entered this tract from Midian, had no difficulty in discovering from the inhabitants that Moses was encamped at the mount of God,—i.e; Sinai, and there sought and found him. There is no trace of any previous "engagement" to meet at a particular spot. Exodus 18:6 And he said. It is suspected that the true reading here is, "and they said,"—i.e; some one said—"to Moses, behold thy father-in-law" (or "brother-in-law"), "Jethro, is come unto thee." So the LXX; and many moderns, as Kennicott, Geddes, Boothroyd, Canon Cook, and others. But the explanation, that Jethro, on arriving in the vicinity of Moses, sent a messenger to him, who spoke in his name (Rosenmuller, Patrick, Pool, Kalisch, Keil, etc.) is at any rate plausible, and removes all necessity of altering the text. Exodus 18:7 Moses went out to meet his father-in-law. Oriental ideas of politeness require such a movement in case of an honoured or even of a welcome visitor (see Genesis 18:2; Genesis 19:1; Genesis 32:6; Genesis 33:1; Luke 15:20; etc.). It was evidently the intention of Moses to receive Jethro with all possible marks of honour and respect. He not only went out to meet him, but did obeisance to him, as to a superior. They asked each other of their welfare. Rather "exchanged salutations;" addressed each other mutually with the customary phrase "Peace he unto you." Came into the tent—i.e; went together into the tent of Moses, which had been already glanced at in the word "encamped" (Exodus 18:5). Exodus 18:8 Moses told his father-in-law. Jethro had heard in Midian the general outline of what had happened (Exodus 18:1). Moses now gave him a full and complete narrative (misphar) of the transactions. Compare Genesis 24:66; Joshua 2:23; where the same verb is used. All the travail. Literally, "the weariness." Compare Malachi 1:13, where the same word is used. The Lord delivered them. The Septuagint adds "from the hand of Pharaoh and from the hand of the Egyptians. Exodus 18:10 Blessed be the Lord. Compare Genesis 14:20; Genesis 24:27. The heathen blessed God no loss than the Israelites; but Jethro’s blessing the Lord (i.e. Jehovah) is unusual As, however, Moses had attributed his own deliverance, and that of Israel, entirely to Jehovah (Genesis 24:8), Jethro, accepting the facts to be as stated, blessed the Lord. Who hath delivered you. Kalisch takes the plural pronoun to refer to Moses and Aaron; but Aaron seems not to nave been present, since he afterwards "came" (Genesis 24:12). It is better to regard Jethro as addressing all those who were in the tent with Moses. From them he goes on in the last clause to "the people." And out of the hand of Pharaoh.—i.e; especially out of the hand of Pharaoh, who had especially sought their destruction (Exodus 14:6, Exodus 14:8, etc.). Exodus 18:11 Now know I that the Lord is greater than all gods. It would seem that Jethro, like the generality of the heathen, believed in a plurality of gods, and had hitherto regarded the God of the Israelites as merely one among many equals. Now, he renounces this creed, and emphatically declares his belief that Jehovah is above all other gods, greater, higher, more powerful. Compare the confessions of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:26, Daniel 3:27) and Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:26). For in the thing wherein they dealt wickedly he was above them. There is no "he was above them" in the original, nor is the clause a distinct sentence from the preceding one. It is merely a prolongation of that clause, without any new verb; and should be translated, "Even in the very matter that they (the Egyptians) dealt proudly against them "(the Israelites). The superiority of Jehovah to other gods was shown forth even in the very matter of the proud dealing of the Egyptians, which was brought to shame and triumphed over by the might of Jehovah. The allusion is especially to the passage of the Red Sea. Exodus 18:12 Jethro took a burnt offering. Or "brought a burnt offering;" as the same verb is rendered in Exodus 25:2. It is not distinctly related that he offered the victim; but as no other offerer is mentioned, and as he was a priest (Exodus 3:1; Exodus 18:1), we may assume that he did so. Moses, Aaron, and the elders, partook of the sacrificial meal, regarding the whole rite as one legitimately performed by a duly qualified person, and so as one in which they could properly participate. Jethro, like Melchisedek (Genesis 14:18), was recognised as a priest of the true God, though it would seem that the Midianites generally were, a generation later, idolaters (Numbers 25:18; Numbers 31:16). To eat bread … before God. This expression designates the feast upon a sacrifice, which was the universal custom of ancient nations, whether Egyptians, Assyrians, Phenicians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. Except in the case of the "whole burnt offering" (ὁλοκαύτωμα), parts only of the animals were burnt, the greater portion of the meat being consumed, with bread, at a meal, by the offerer and his friends and relatives Exodus 18:1-12 The blessedness of family reunions, when rightly ordered. The family is God’s ordinance, and among the most sacred and blessed of his ordinances. All fatherhood is based upon his (Ephesians 3:15); and human family ties reproduce those of the celestial region. Upon earth partings must and will occur, the family bond being thereby not broken, but strained and impaired. Sometimes necessity breaks up the household. Wife and children may not go whither the husband and father is ordered to proceed, as in the naval and military services. Sometimes prudential considerations assert themselves, and the children must quit the domestic hearth to get their own living, or even the wife and husband must seek separate employments with the same object. Occasionally, the husband, having to go on a difficult or dangerous mission, where wife and children would be encumbrances, has to part from them temporarily, and to provide for their support and sustenance during his absence. This last was the case of Moses. In returning to Egypt, and coming forward as the champion of his nation, he confronted great dangers. The presence of wife and children would have hampered him, and, therefore, he resolved to return alone. Zipporah and his infant sons were left with her nearest male relative. But now the time had come for re-union. We may note as blissful elements in the re-union— I. THAT IT WAS , NO DEATHS HAVING SINCE THE PARTING. The bitterness of parting is especially in the uncertainty whether we shall ever see again in this life the individuals from whom we part. Death comes suddenly, and without warning; infants are especially subject to his attack; and when Moses, having recently parted from Jethro (Exodus 4:8), sent back his wife and two young sons to be under his charge, he must have felt that it was exceedingly doubtful whether there would ever again be a meeting of the five near relations. But God brought it to pass. Jethro, with a promptitude which indicates a warm heart, no sooner heard of his kinsman’s safe arrival in the region of the "wilderness," than he put himself to the trouble of a long journey, partly to congratulate him, but mainly to restore to him the wife and children, whom he had received as a sacred trust. He could not be content unless he himself delivered them safe into the hands of Moses, and thus "gave a good account of his stewardship." And he was fortunate in being able to deliver them all safe and sound, and apparently in good health. No insidious disease had nipped the life of either child in the bud; no unlucky accident had removed either from the land of the living. Moses was able to greet, at one and the same moment, his wife, his two sons, and his brother-in-law. Doubtless, he felt that God had been specially good and gracious to him in restoring to him all his treasures. II. THAT IT WAS BY AND GOOD FEELING, AND FREE FROM ANY ON EITHER SIDE. Jethro sent a message to announce his arrival, which was a courteous act, not strictly necessary. He relieved at once any anxiety which Moses might naturally feel, by letting him know that he had brought with him his wife and both his sons. That they had been able to make the long journey implied that they were well. Moses, on his part, responded by going out to meet his brother-in-law, thus requiting courtesy with courtesy; when he met him, he "did obeisance," not standing upon his own present dignity; having done obeisance, he rose and "kissed him," thus showing tender affection. Greetings by word of mouth followed, and then friendly conversation. The great leader had much to relate, and gave a full account, both of his perils and hair-breadth escapes, and of his divinely-wrought deliverances. Hereat Jethro "rejoiced." No word of reproach or blame seems to have been uttered on either side. No discord marred the perfect harmony. Over the still tenderer meeting of the husband and father with his wife and children, the sacred historian, with a wise reticence, draws the veil. There are scenes which are at once too private and too sacred for description; and this was one of them. III. THAT IT WAS CROWNED BY AN ACT OF AND OF THE OF GOD. The sense that God has been good to us should lead in all cases to an act of acknowledgment. Jethro was not content with mere words of joy and gratitude—not even with a solemn ascription of praise and blessing to Jehovah (Exodus 18:10). He must shew his feelings by an act; so, in accordance with the ritual of the time, he "took a burnt-offering and sacrifices." Christians should similarly signalise their own re-unions, and other important events in their lives, by joining together in the highest act of Christian worship-the Holy Communion. Joint participation in the "bread of life" and "cup of the Lord" brings home to us the sense of family oneness, as nothing else has the power to do. Prayers uttered side by side bind men’s hearts together in indissoluble union; participation in the same precious gifts gives the sense of unity in him who is the source of unity to all who are his. Aaron and the elders do well to join; their presence does not mar the family concord; it does but enlarge the family circle, and add new links to the chain that binds Heaven to earth. Some day the whole Church will be one family, of which all the members will worship God perpetually in the Father’s house. The nearest approach to happiness on earth is that anticipation of the final bliss which Holy Communion furnishes. BY J. ORR Exodus 18:1-13 The visit of Jethro. When Jethro "heard of all that God had done for Moses,"—a hint that the news of the great events of the past few weeks had spread far and wide through the Sinaitic peninsula,—and when he learned that the Israelites were encamped at the Mount of God, within reachable distance of the Midianitish settlement (cf. Exodus 3:1), he at once resolved on paying his former friend, who had so suddenly blazed into an unexpected greatness, a personal visit. He came, accordingly, accompanied by Moses’ wife and two sons. I. JETHRO’S COMING (Exodus 18:1-7). This visit of Jethro to Moses may be considered with reference to the following particulars. He came— 1. Cordially recognising the honour which God had put on Moses (Exodus 18:1). Moses had stood to Jethro for years in a relation of dependence. He had kept the priest’s flocks (Exodus 3:1). Yet Jethro was not offended or made envious by this sudden greatness which had fallen to the lot of his old associate. The proverb was for once falsified that "a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house" (Matthew 13:5-7), for Jethro heartily acknowledged and rejoiced in all that the Lord had done for Moses and for Israel. It might have been otherwise. He might, like the Nazarenes in their slighting of Christ, have asked—"Was not this my shepherd? Is not his wife called Zipporah? and his sons, Gershom and Eliezer, are they not with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" But a far different spirit possessed him. In this, Jethro showed his freedom from a very common littleness of nature. 2. As an act of personal friendship. A large part of the joy of life springs from friendship. We see friendship at its best in the case of those who are thrown much into each other’s society, and who cherish for each other, under the conditions which most of all reveal and test character, a cordial respect and esteem. "Friendship," says Cicero, "is nothing else than a perfect concurrence on all subjects Divine and human, accompanied by a feeling of kindness and attachment, and I am not sure that any better boon than this, with the exception of wisdom, could be conferred on man by the immortal Gods." The bond of attachment thus created between good men makes association a pleasure, and, of necessity, causes pain at parting. While separation lasts, longings do not cease to be felt for a renewal of the prized intercourse, and when, after years of severance, an opening for such renewal of intercourse is presented, the opportunity is eagerly and joyfully embraced. Such friendship may be presumed, to have existed between Jethro and Moses. The two had lived in close intimacy for the space of forty years. According to the text, Moses was Jethro’s son-in-law; according to the more probable view, his brother-in-law. Jethro, with his stores of practical wisdom, his desert courtesy, and his evidently sincere piety, was a man whom Moses would early learn to respect, and with whom he would find it pleasant and profitable to associate; and the Midi-anitish priest, in turn, would never weary of the companionship of Moses, whose learning was so ripe, whose spirit was so excellent, whose early life had been spent under such different conditions from his own, and who had consequently so much to tell, which he (Jethro) would delight to hear. This intercourse had been suddenly broken up by Moses’ determination to return to Egypt (Exodus 4:18); but an opportunity now presented itself of renewing it, and of this Jethro gladly availed himself. 3. Desirous of hearing more perfectly of the wonderful works of God. This, as is apparent from the sequel (Exodus 18:8), was another motive of Jethro’s visit. He had come to be more fully and exactly instructed in the wonders which God had wrought "for Moses, and for Israel, his people" (Exodus 18:1). Something of these "mighty acts" he had heard from current report, but what he had heard only whetted his appetite to hear more. It is the mark of the good man that he earnestly desires to grow in the knowledge of God and of his ways. 4. With the intention of restoring to Moses his wife and two sons (Exodus 18:2-6). In taking this earliest opportunity of bringing Zipporah and her two sons to Moses, Jethro acted rightly. A wife’s proper place is with her husband. Sons, again, in view of the special responsibility resting on the father in connection with their proper up-bringing, should be as much as possible under direct paternal influence. The kingdom of God, doubtless, is to be more to us than father, or mother, or wife, or child; and should its interests imperatively demand separation, this must be submitted to (Matthew 8:21, Matthew 8:22): but relationships are not thereby dissolved, and the active discharge of the duties connected with them should be resumed at the earliest opportunity. For the sake of Moses himself, reunion was desirable. He was not a man who spurned the joys of domestic existence, but, like Peter, led about a wife (cf. Numbers 12:1; 1 Corinthians 9:5). It would contribute to his happiness to have his family beside him. Attention is anew called to the significant names of his sons (Exodus 18:3, Exodus 18:4). These noteworthy names would be perpetual reminders to Moses of the lessons of his stay in Midian. The one spoke of human weakness, the other of Divine aid. If the one embalmed the memory of his heart-loneliness in a strange land, the other told of how God had been his help even there. The one recalled trials, the other mercies. While in both was embodied a memorial of the heart-discipline, of the solitary communion with God, of the lonely days and nights of prayer, watching, and spiritual meditation, which had helped so largely during the forty years of that weary but precious exile, to make him the man he was. II. JETHRO AND MOSES (Exodus 18:7-13). The visit here described is a model of brotherly and religious intercourse. Christians would do well to study and imitate it. Observe— 1. The courtesy of their greeting (Exodus 18:7). The two men stood on a very different moral and intellectual level, but, in their exchanges of civility, Jethro is treated as the superior, and is received by Moses with every outward demonstration of respect. As on Jethro’s side there is no trace of mortification or jealousy at finding Moses, once the keeper of his sheep, in so exalted a position, so, on the side of Moses now Israel’s deliverer and leader, there is an utter absence of pride and hauteur, and a painstaking desire to put Jethro—a plain wilderness priest—as fully as possible at his ease. Everything is real. The greetings of the friends are unaffectedly cordial—their behaviour towards each other studiously polite. Lesson—the duty of courtesy. Courtesy is an essential part of what has been defined as the outward grace of life. "By the grace of life is meant all that embellishes, softens, and brightens our present existence. It is that which is to human life what the shape and bloom and odour are to the plant. The flower is not simply useful. It is pleasing. There is grace about it … . The grace of life has its simplest manifestation in our external behaviour—in our manners. There is a joy to observed and observer in graceful motion and pleasant phrase Politeness is the science and art of the outward grace of life. It enunciates that strange code of salutations and farewells—those buffers which soften approach, and with a last gentle touch make parting easy. Under the fiction of giving information as to the weather, one spirit expresses to its fellow respect and continued friendship. That spirit, in turn, under the form of confirming the afore said meteorological intelligence, reciprocates the kindly feeling. In such queer fashion is human kindliness flashed from heart to heart." (Rev. David Burns.) 2. Their affectionate interest in each other’s welfare. "They asked each other of their welfare" (Exodus 18:7). Burdened as he was, almost beyond endurance, with "the cumbrance, and burden, and strife" (Deuteronomy 10:12) of the congregation, Moses could unbend to show his kindly interest in what was taking place in the quiet tents at Midian. This is a point of greatness. The greatest man is not he who occupies so serene an elevation of spirit, or whose mind is so engrossed with the duties of an exalted station, that he cannot stoop to share in, and, as occasion offers, to testify his sympathy with, the joys and sorrows of humbler people. No deficiency of this kind is seen in Moses—or in Jesus. It is well to cultivate the habit of putting ourselves in the place of others, however remote in station from ourselves, and of trying to feel a kindly interest in all that concerns them. This will prevent us from becoming self-absorbed and egoistic. Their lives, we should remember, are of as much importance to thegn as ours are to us, and the interest we show in them will be proportionately valued. A minister once wrote in his note-book: "Don’t pretend an interest in the members of your congregation, but try to feel it." "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love" (Romans 12:10). 3. The theme of their converse. "Moses told his father-in-law (brother-in-law) all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh, etc. (Exodus 18:8). As under a former head we had a model meeting, so here we have a model conversation. Jethro and Moses conversed on the affairs of God’s kingdom. No greater subject could have occupied their thoughts. It is the subject of deepest and most central interest in history—the grandest in its essential nature, the widest in its relations, the most momentous in its issues. All other movements in time are side issues as compared with this one. In considering it man passes out of sight, and the only question is, What hath God wrought! (Numbers 23:23). We renew this conversation of Jethro and Moses every time we "speak of the glory of (God’s) kingdom and talk of (his) power" (Psalms 145:11). Cf. the conversation of Christian with Prudence, Piety, and Charity in the House Beautiful:—"Now the table was furnished with fat things, and wine that was well refined; and all their talk at the table was about the Lord of the Hill; as, namely, about what he had done, and wherefore he did what he did," etc. (Pilgrim’s Progress.) Converse in heaven will turn on the same themes. Note— (1) It is profit able for Christians to exchange experiences as to the manner of the Lord’s dealings with them. Few but can tell something of "the travail that has come upon them by the way, and how the Lord delivered them." (2) It is a mark of grace to feel an interest in what relates to God’s work, and to the progress of his kingdom at home and abroad. This will show itself in a desire to read, hear, and converse on such subjects, and in the interest discovered, and zeal shown, in the general work of the Church, in special spiritual movements, in the success of missions, in spiritual operations in our own town and neighbourhood. (3) Some are called to more active service in God’s work than others. There are those that fight the battle, and there are those who tarry at home and divide the spoil (Psalms 68:12). And those who have been personally engaged in God’s work—especially those who have returned from the high places of the field (missionaries, etc.)—have always much to tell which it is of interest to hear, and which will enkindle our hearts with new ardour in the cause of the Gospel. We should seek the society of such, and take the opportunity of hearing them when they are to be heard, that we may be instructed and profited. What a thrilling history, e.g; is that of Christian missions, but what an additional interest it gives to its narrations when we hear the story from the lips of the men who have actually fought the battles! (4) Christian workers cannot converse together on the plans, methods, difficulties, conflicts, and successes of their work without being mutually helped and edified. 4. Jethro’s joy in the relation (Exodus 18:9-11). We are reminded of Barnabas, who, "when he came" to Antioch, "and had seen the grace of God, was glad For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith" (Acts 11:23). The history which Moses gave to Jethro— (1) Filled Jethro with joy; (2) Strengthened his faith in God—"Now i know that the Lord is greater than all gods" (Exodus 18:11); (3) Incited him to praise—"And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord," etc. (Exodus 18:10). It will be observed how distinctly in Exodus 18:11 Jethro seizes the point in the contest between Jehovah and Pharaoh, and draws the proper inference from it. God had chosen as a field for the display of his perfections a case in which all the pride and power of man were arrayed against him in a determined effort to resist, oppose, and make void his will, and he had demonstrated his supremacy by completely annihilating that opposition, and overwhelming the Egyptians, who embodied it, in the Red Sea. The army of Egypt was in some sense the country’s pride and boast, so that (though the translation in Exodus 18:11 is apparently incorrect) it was literally true that "in the thing wherein they dealt proudly" Jehovah was "above them." God exalts himself by discomfiting his enemies in what they deem their points of special strength. "Poor perfection which one sees an end of! yet such are all those things in this world which pass for perfections. David, in his time, had seen Goliath, the strongest, overcome; Asahel, the swiftest, overtaken; Ahithophel, the wisest, befooled; Absalom, the fairest, deformed" (M. Henry on Psalms 119:96). "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" (1 Corinthians 1:19). 5. The sacrificial feast (Exodus 18:16). We have here— (1) Friendship cemented by an act of worship; (2) Religious converse culminating in devotion; (3) A feast sanctified by the enjoyment of the Divine presence—"before God;" (4) A foreshadowing of the union of Jews and Gentiles in the fellowship of the church; (5) An instance of catholicity in worship. Moses did not scruple to join in sacrifice or to sit down at the same festival board with the Midianitish Jethro. The lesson is thus enunciated by Peter: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34, Acts 10:35).—J.O. BY H. T. Exodus 18:1-5 The claims of home. "And Jethro, Moses’ kinsnian (not father-in-law) came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God" (Exodus 18:5). I. MAY JUSTIFY THE OF HOME UPON OTHERS (Exodus 18:2). For example—and the history of Moses will illustrate each point—we may be justified by— 1. The nature of external duty. We may be providentially called away from home; or the discharge of public responsibilities nay for the time be incompatible with our usual attention to the interests of the domestic circle, e.g; Moses going to Egypt (Exodus 4:1-31. compare with Exodus 18:2). 2. The probability of danger. 3. Defective sympathy. It is clear that Zipporah was not in sympathy with the religious object of Moses, nor yet with his specific mission, indeed, however, to be on our guard against making this a reason for withdrawal permanently from home responsibility. Want of perfect compatibility in domestic life makes marriage to be an occasion for self-discipline, and is thus converted into a means of grace. (Ephesians 5:25-27.) II. EVER JUSTIFY THE . There are a few cases, perhaps, in which this responsibility may be devolved: e.g; the case of the missionary who must, fur various reasons, send home from his station his children to be educated; and not seldom the wife with them. Other cases there are, no doubt. But generally the father may not devolve this obligation. It is one— 1. Of necessity. No one else can meet the responsibility as the natural head of the family—this is true in all cases—even in that of the missionary named above—for the children suffer. 2. Of duty:— (1) To ourselves. We owe it to our own convictions of truth, as to thought, life, and work, to perpetuate them. (2) To dependents. Whether wife, children, or servants. [On this point some valuable suggestions in Dr. Taylor’s "Moses the Lawgiver," pp. 173-176. (3) To our generation; and (4) to the Great Father in heaven. III. IF TEMPTED TO THIS GOD WILL BRING HOME TO US OUR DUTY. Probably by some providence, may be painful or otherwise. At such a time, on such an occasion (Moses face to face with Sinai and the giving of the law) in such a place, Jethro re-introduced to Moses wife and children. Even such duties as his could not exempt him from domestic responsibility.—R. BY J. The Consolations of those who suffer loss for the Kingdom of God. I. THE REUNION OF THE . To Moses, who had to leave behind him wife and children because God’s errand would brook no delay, these are now restored. 1. There is no loss to those who suffer for the kingdom of God’s sake. 2. God fills the cup of his servants with consolations. God’s care had been exercised not only over him in Egypt, but also over wife and children in Midian. II. THE THEME OF THOSE WHO FEAR GOD. God’s marvellous works (Exodus 18:8, Exodus 18:9). It was not the subject of public discourse or formal greeting, but of private converse within "the tent." This is a mark of the true servant of God; to him God and his goodness are the most real and wondrous of all things. III. THE RESULT OF THE . 1. Jethro’s confession of Jehovah. 2. His sacrifice to him. The stranger makes a feast before Israel’s God for the princes of Israel. Those whom we bring to God make a feast, in their faith and love, for our soul before the Lord.—U. Exodus 18:6-12 Friendship in its loftiest form. "They asked each other of their welfare." Exodus 18:7. The visit of Jethro comes between the agony of Rephidim and the solemnities of "Sinai," like the insertion of a sweet pastoral poem between two tragedies. Something may be learnt from it as to what should characterise friendship in its highest form, that is, between two devout souls, as consecrated and elevated by religion. I. . Moses and Jethro met as in the earlier years; no assumption with Moses, no sycophancy with Jethro. II. . Exodus 18:7. The nearer our relations to each other, the more indispensable this grace. III. MUTUAL . Exodus 18:7. IV. OF . Exodus 18:8-11. Happy time, when the deeper experiences (religious) can be exchanged to mutual advantage. V. IN WORSHIP. Exodus 18:12. It is clear that Jethro and Moses were one as to Monotheism, in their common possession of the great Divine traditions of the race. Jethro spiritually was in the descent of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Melchisedek. For him but one God, the God of heaven and earth, and therefore the God of Israel. Contrast with Amalek! Hence the sacrifice and the sacrificial feast. VI. IN GIVING COUNCIL. Exodus 18:14, Exodus 18:17-23. Great courage required. VII. IN IT. This the moral attitude of Moses. VIII. AN IN ALL TO THE DIVINE FRIEND. Exodus 18:23. "And God commanded thee so." IX. AS TO GREAT OBJECT. Jethro knew the destiny of Israel, and was concerned for the realisation. X. PARTING AT LIFE’S PATHS. Exodus 18:27. Apply this to moral and intellectual cross-roads; and to that which is so difficult—agreeing to differ—and that with mutual respect and affection. All in view and hope of the Perfect and immortal amity that is beyond the sky.—R. BY D. YOUNG Jethro’s visit-Moses in his domestic relations. In this visit of Jethro three persons are brought prominently before us—Moses, Jethro, his father-in-law, and Zipperah, his wife. Let us consider the details of the visit in their bearing on all these three Persons. I. ON MOSES. Moses is usually seen either in the presence of God or in the presence of the people; but here we get a peep at his private and domestic life, and nothing is revealed but what adds dignity and beauty to his character. A servant of God must have the same character, in all circumstances. It is not every public man that could afford to have his private life laid open; and only too often an earnest plea for pity has to be based on the remembrance of how frail and infirm a thing human nature is. But in the instance of Moses neither veil nor plea are needed. This meeting with Jethro has to take place, and there was no reason to evade it; it had also to be mentioned, and there was no reason to conceal it. Moses had done nothing in his past residence in Midian to make him ashamed or afraid of returning to it. He had been a faithful shepherd to Jethro; a loving husband to Zipporah; an equally loving father to Gershom and Eliezer. It was Zipporah who had forsaken him, and not he Zipporah. He returned as a prophet into what, in a certain sense, was his own country, and, if not exactly honoured neither could he be dishonoured. Again we behold Moses showing, in the most practical way, his respect for the family relation and the ties of kinship generally. The importance of the family relation we have seen already brought out in the institution of the Passover and the provision of the manna. Here Moses puts emphasis on the relation by his own example. He showed himself one who regarded domestic obligations as of the first importance Zipporah has failed him once, and that in circumstances of great perplexity; but he does not make this a plea for getting rid of her. He knows his duties towards her, and by undertaking them in a manful and conscientious way, he may bring her to a full recognition of her duty towards him. A truly great nation, having a strong and beneficial society, is only possible by an aggregation of households where household claims are respected by all. And evidently he who must lead the way in acknowledging the claim is he who stands at the head. So Moses did here. Lastly, Moses makes clear by his reception of Jethro and Zipporah that he was the same kind of man as in the old shepherd days. Altered circumstances with all their temptations had not made alterations for the worse in character. How many there are who while lifted in one way are lowered in another! They become bigger men; but, alas! not better. Everything that reminds them of former and humbler scenes is as wormwood to the taste. To all such Moses, by his conduct here, teaches a most powerful lesson. His strength among the thousands of Israel was not that of a human ruler who was to be girt about with all the paraphernalia of government, in order to overawe the populace. Moses can step out of his tent, as if he were one of the humblest of Israel, not only in character, but also in position. He can go out and welcome his kindred, show to Jethro the outward signs of filial respect, talk to them all in the old familiar way, and do it without the slightest fear that his authority as leader is in any way affected. And this conduct would be all the more beautiful if, as we may easily imagine, Zipporah came back to him rather lifted up because of her husband’s new position, and disposed with feminine vanity to make the most of it for her own satisfaction. II. ON JETHRO. This chapter, full as it is of Jethro, is another forcible illustration as to how much revelation of character the Scripture record can put into a small space. Jethro, hitherto known only as the near connection of Moses, stands before us here as a noble, pious, and truly affectionate and considerate man. Much, indeed, he has had to try and perplex him. Moses, who had made his first acquaintance with him under prepossessing circumstances, who had become his brother-in-law and faithful shepherd, all at once comes to him, without any previous notice, and asks his permission to return to Egypt. Moses, we know, had been sternly shut up to this course by Jehovah, and to Jethro it must have seemed entirely inexplicable. He had to part with his near relations; and a great void must thus have been left in his heart. Then presently Zipporah returns, with her sons, in a very sore and rebellious frame of mind. All Jethro can yet see is that this departure of Moses has brought nothing but domestic discord. And yet it is impossible for him to say that Moses has not done right. He can only wait for the unfoldings of time, listening meanwhile with what patience he can muster to reproaches from neighbours and daughter and perhaps grandsons, with respect to the unaccountable vagaries of Moses. And at last relief comes, and not only relief, but abundant justification. The information is such as to make Moses stand out in the esteem of his father-in-law more highly than ever. All suspense as to Zipporah’s duty is removed; she must rejoin her husband. It was Moses and not Jethro who was responsible for her; and, besides, Moses and Zipporah had a joint responsibility for their offspring. Jethro is commonly set before us, in contrast to Amalek, as the illustration of heathenism, looking favourably and amicably upon Israel. But even more let us look upon him as the great illustration of those noble souls who strive to unite what sin divides. Jesus in his teaching had occasion to lay emphasis on the dividing effect of discipleship to himself. He intimated that the acceptance of himself would only too often rupture, or at least strain, natural ties. But this of course was not presented as a thing to cause satisfaction, it was only another sad evidence of how sin turns to evil what God meant for good. And yet here we see the other side, reunion as well as separation. The liberation of Israel, glorious in its total result, and lifting Moses to high eminence in respect of personal character, has vet involved at the same time the wreck of his domestic peace. Whatever the comforts of wife and children in this world may be, he has lost them. But now these comforts are coming again, and coming in the most satisfactory of all ways, by the voluntary entrance of his old friend Jethro on the scene. Blessed are the peacemakers; and surely of all peacemaking, that is not the least fruitful of good which reunites and reconstitutes a separated family. Moses acting with a single eye to what is right has to part from his wife, and let her go back to her own family. Jethro acting in the same spirit, brings the wife to her husband again. Often we may have to become agents and helpers in division; but if we only go on, union and harmony will return. What Zipporah’s future was we know not; but Jethro had done his utmost to put matters right. III. ON Her name occurs but little, and her appearance hitherto has not been such as to make us think she would prove a helpful companion to Moses (Exodus 4:25, Exodus 4:26). Still we must not judge too hastily from silence. It is not for Zipporah’s sake she happens to be mentioned here. It is sufficient to learn, by the way, that an opportunity for repentance and for devotion to him who had such a burden to bear, was now given her.—Y. BY G. A. Ye are come unto Mount Zion. The way in which we view facts depends a great deal on the eyes through which we look at them. Here, as regards Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, we may look on them through the eyes of Jethro, or of Zipporah, or of the children; for a change let us use the children’s eyes, and enquire how they transmit the facts to us. Sketch previous history of the children, their stay in Midian, and journey to the camp. Notice:— I. WHAT THE SAW AND HEARD. As they came they would notice, first, the mountains, then the camp in the plain, then, perhaps, people moving about and cloudy pillar suspended over all. At last, one man comes to meet them; their father is the leader of the host. 1. A new flock. In the old days Gershom must often have looked out for his coming home; then (cf. Exodus 3:1) he had sheep to care for, now his flock is of another kind (Psalms 77:20). No longer Jethro’s shepherd, but the shepherd of Jehovah. Not really changed his profession—still the same kind of work—only, having served his apprenticeship with Jethro, he has been called to a higher grade of service. 2. A memorable spot. How had he come to change his service? The very place would remind them of the answer. There is the rough hill-side—there, perhaps, the very bush where the angel appeared. The whole scene a fulfilment of God’s promise and a pledge of his faithfulness (cf. Exodus 3:12). 3. New-found relatives. A new uncle and aunt, never seen before—could tell them about the old life in Egypt, their father’s birth and escape—the cruel slavery of their kindred—all the past would seem more real now that they were confronted by these witnesses to its reality. Comparing the past with the present, a suggestive commentary on Eliezer’s name; Moses had good reason for saying, "my God is a help." II. WITH . (Cf. Hebrews 12:22-24.) We, too, like the sons of Moses, have been brought into new relations with our Father. As we approach him, what may we see and hear? 1. We find him in a holy place. Not a camp of wanderers in the wilderness, but a holy city, one which hath foundations, the settled home of its redeemed inhabitants. Pleasant for Gershom and his brother to find their father, but they still had to look on to the day when they should find their home; for us homo is our Father’s house in the holy city upon the holy mountain. 2. He introduces us to holy fellowships. As Moses’ children found new relatives, so do we: "an innumerable company, the general assembly of the angels, and the Church of the first-born, and the spirits of the justified." We may picture the interest with which Gershom and Eliezer must have viewed the camp and listened to the story of deliverance; but the company to which they had come was very different to that to which we have come; the deliverance of which they heard was but a first step to freedom. They, no doubt, learnt to sing, perhaps from Miriam, the song of Moses; from those with whom we have communion we may learn the song of the Lamb. Conclusion. After all, the children, amid all the new sights, would rejoice most at meeting their father—at seeing him, and remaining with him. As Jethro led them towards the mount, their father was, doubtless, the subject of their talk; all else derived its interest only from its relation to him. Just so, too, with us. Heaven is our Father’s house; it is our Father’s presence that makes it home to us. As our Lord leads us thitherward, it is still of the Father whom he speaks. Those whom the Father has given into his care he will bring to their’ journey’s end in safety.—G. JETHRO’S ADVICE TO MOSES, AND ITS . The office of ruler in ancient times, whether exercised by a king, a prince, or a mere chieftain, was always understood to include within it the office of judge. In the Greek ideal of the origin of kingly government (Herod. 1.96), the able discharge of judicial functions marks the individual out for sovereignty. The successors of Moses, like the chief rulers of Carthage, bore the title of "Judges" (shophetim, suffetes). Moses, it appears, had from the time when he was accepted as leader by the people (Exodus 4:29-31), regarded himself as bound to hear and decide all the causes and complaints which arose among the entire Israelite people. He had net delegated his authority to any one. This can scarcely have been because the idea had not occurred to him, for the Egyptian kings ordinarily decided causes by judges nominated ad hoc. Perhaps he had distrusted the ability of his countrymen—so recently slaves—to discharge such delicate functions. At any rate, he had reserved the duty wholly to himself (verse 18). This course appeared to Jethro unwise. No man could, he thought, in the case of so great a nation, singly discharge such an office with satisfaction to himself and others. Moses would "wear himself away" with the fatigue; and he would exhaust the patience of the people through inability to keep pace with the number of cases that necessarily arose. Jethro therefore recommended the appointment of subordinate judges, and the reservation by Moses of nothing but the right to decide such cases as these judges should, on account of their difficulty, refer to him (verse 22) On reflection, Moses accepted this course as the best open to him under the circumstances, and established a multiplicity of judges, under a system which will be discussed in the comment on verse 25. Exodus 18:13 On the morrow. The day after Jethro’s arrival. Moses sat to judge the people. Moses, i.e; took his seat in an accustomed place, probably at the door of his tent, and. was understood to be ready to hear and decide causes. The people stood by Moses. A crowd of complainants soon collected, and kept Moses employed incessantly from the morning, when he had taken his seat, until the evening, i.e; until nightfall. It is conjectured that many complaints may have arisen out of the division of the spoil of the Amalekites. Exodus 18:14 Why sittest thou thyself alone etc. A perverse ingenuity has discovered that the emphatic words in this passage are "sittest" and "stand," Jethro having blamed Moses for humiliating the people by requiring them to stand up while he himself sat! But the context makes it abundantly clear that what Jethro really blames, is Moses sitting alone and judging the whole people single-handed. Exodus 18:15 And Moses said … Because the people come unto me, to inquire of God. To inquire of God is certainly not a mere "juridical phrase," meaning to consult a judge (Kalisch), nor, on the other hand, is it necessarily "to consult God through an oracle." It cannot, however, mean less than to seek a decision from some one regarded as entitled to speak for God; and it is certainly assigned by Moses as the reason why he judged all the causes himself, and did not devolve the duty upon others. They could not be supposed to know the mind of God as he knew it. Jethro, however, points out, that it is one thing to lay down principles, and another to apply them. Moses might reserve the legislative function—the inculcation of principles—to himself, and so still, "be for the people to Godward" (Exodus 18:19); but he might find "able men" among the congregation, quite capable of applying the principles, and delegate to them the judicial function (Exodus 18:21, Exodus 18:22). Exodus 18:16 I judge … and I do make them know the statutes of God. As the Israelites were, up to this time, without any code of written laws, Moses took the opportunity furnished by such cases as came before him, to lay down principles of law, and enjoin them upon the people; thus making them to know the statutes of God and his eternal unwritten laws. Such a practice would not have been necessary after the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; and its existence at the time of Jethro’s visit helps to fix that visit as occurring before the giving of the law. Exodus 18:18 The thing … is not good—i.e; not expedient, and so not the right thing to do. It is a man’s duty to have regard to his health, and not unnecessarily overtask his strength. Thou wilt surely wear away. Literally, "Wasting thou wilt waste away," Thy strength, i.e; will not long hold out, if thou continuest this practice. Both thou, and this people. The people’s strength and patience will also fail, if, owing to the number of the complaints, they have—some of them—to wait all day at the tribunal before they can obtain a decision. Exodus 18:19 I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee. Rather—"And may God be with thee!" May God incline thine heart to accept my counsel and act upon it. Be thou for the people to God-ward, etc. "Continue," i.e; as at present, to be the intermediary between God and the people—still be the whole and sole source of legislative power (Exodus 18:20), and still be the fount and origin of judicial authority; but commit the actual decision of the lighter causes to others chosen by thyself for the office (Exodus 18:21, Exodus 18:22). The separation of the legislative and judicial functions was well known in Egypt, where the kings alone made new laws, but causes were ordinarily determined by a body of judges. Bring the causes unto God. In difficult cases, Moses actually laid the cause before God, and obtained directions from God as to the manner in which he was to decide it. See Numbers 27:5-11. Exodus 18:20 Thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws. Or, "statutes and laws," as in Exodus 18:16. It is not quite clear how these differ. Some regard "statutes" as connected with religion, and laws as regulations with respect to civil and social matters. Others explain the first as "specific" and the second as "general enactments." The way wherein they must walk. The general line of conduct which all are bound to pursue. The work that they must do. The special task which each has to perform individually. Exodus 18:21 Able men. Literally, "men of might"—i.e; of capacity or ability—men competent for the office of judge; who are further defined to be, such as possess the three qualities of piety, veracity, and strict honesty, or incorruptness. Jethro’s conception of the true judicial character leaves little to be desired. If among every ten Israelites there was one such person, the moral condition of the nation cannot have been so much depressed by the Egyptian servitude as is sometimes represented. Place such over them to be rulers of thousands, etc. A decimal organisation naturally presents itself to men’s minds as the simplest in a simple state of society, and was probably already in use among the Arab tribes with whom Jethro was familiar. The graduated series—rulers of tens, of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands, implies a power of three-fold appeal, from the "ruler of ten" to the "ruler of fifty"—from him to the "ruler of a hundred"—and from him to the "ruler of a thousand." Whether there was an appeal from the last-named to Moses, is doubtful. Probably there was not; Moses deciding those cases only which the "rulers of thousands" reserved for him as being specially difficult or important. Exodus 18:22 Let them judge the people at all seasons. Instead of occasional court-days, on which Moses sat from morning to evening hearing causes, judgments were to be given continually by the rulers of tens, fifties, etc; the accumulation of untried causes being thus avoided, and punishment following promptly on the committal of an offence. The elaborately minute organisation was only suited for the period of the wanderings, and was of a semi-military character, such as might have suited an army on the march When the Israelites became settled dwellers in Palestine, such a multiplicity of judges was unnecessary, and was discontinued. So shall it be easier. Literally, "So make it easier." Compare Exodus 18:18. Exodus 18:23 And God command thee so. Jethro does not suppose that Moses will take his advice without further consultation. He assumes that the matter will be laid by Moses before God, and God’s will learnt concerning it. The entire narrative supposes that there was some established means by which the Israelite leader could refer a matter to Jehovah and obtain a decision upon it. This can scarcely have been as yet the Urim and Thummim. Probably Moses held frequent communication with Jehovah by means of waking visions. Thou shalt be able to endure—i.e; "the work will not be too much for thee—thou wilt be able to bear it." This people shall also go to their place in peace. The "place" intended would seem to be Palestine. Keil supposes that the word "peace" is to be taken literally, and concludes from it that breaches of the peace had previously been frequent, the people having "often taken the law into their own hands on account of the delay in the judicial decision;" but this is to extract from the words more than they naturally signify. "In peace" means "cheerfully, contentedly." If the changes which he recommends are carried out, Jethro thinks that the people will make the rest of the journey to Canaan quietly and contentedly, without complaint or dissatisfaction. Exodus 18:24 So Moses hearkened. Moses took the advice tendered him, not immediately, but after the law had been given at Sinai, and the journeying was about to be resumed. See Deuteronomy 1:9-15. Exodus 18:25 Moses chose able men. It appears from Deuteronomy 1:13, that instead of selecting the men himself, which would have been an invidious task, Moses directed their nomination by the people, and only reserved to himself the investing them wit h their authority. Heads over the people. From the time of their appointment, the "rulers" were not merely judges, but "heads" of their respective companies, with authority over them on the march, and command in the battle-field (Numbers 31:14). Thus the organisation was at once civil and military. Exodus 18:26 At all seasons. See the comment on Exodus 18:22. The hard causes they brought unto Moses. It must have been left to the discretion of the judges to determine whether a cause was hard or easy, a great or a little matter. Probably only those causes which seemed "hard" to the "rulers of thousands" were brought before Moses for decision. Exodus 18:14-23 The unwisdom of a monopoly of power. The principle of the division of labour, which is essential to progress in the arts, was well known in Egypt, and was applied there, not to the arts only, but also to government and administration. Moses, who had resided forty years at the court of a Pharaoh (Acts 7:23), must have been thoroughly acquainted with the fact that, in a well-ordered community, judicial functions were separated kern legislative and administrative, and entrusted to a large number of persons, not monopolised by a single individual. But it had appeared to him that the condition of his own people was exceptional. Just released from the cruel bondage of a hard and pitiless slavery, without education, without habits of command or self-control, without any knowledge of the principles of law or experience in the practice of courts, they seemed to him unfit for the exercise of the judicial office—especially as he understood it. For his view was, that each particular decision should be made an occasion of educating the people in the principles of law and justice (Exodus 18:16), and upon these it was his habit to descant in connection with each judgment that he delivered. As he felt that he alone among all the Israelites was equal to this task, he had undertaken to discharge singly the office of judge in a community consisting of above two millions of persons. Jethro, on visiting him, was struck with the unwisdom of such an attempt, and honestly gave expression to his feelings. Jethro saw— I. THAT TO THE IN SO LARGE A WAS UNWISE, AS AN UNDUE STRAIN UPON THE MENTAL AND POWERS OF THE . SO numerous were the causes brought before him that Moses had to sit "from morning to evening"—probably from early dawn until the dusk of the evening twilight—hearing them. At eighty years of age, or more (Exodus 7:7), his physical strength was not equal to this exertion. Our physical powers have to be considered. No one is justified in overtaxing them unnecessarily. The body needs change of attitude and employment, air, gentle exercise, freedom from restraint, confinement, tension. No one could habitually sit at any one task for twelve hours continuously without its telling on his bodily frame and injuring his constitution. Again, the mental strain must have been injurious to him, and if not actually impairing his faculties, must have interfered with their due exercise and rendered him unfit to perform the delicate duties of a judge late in the day. Had necessity been laid upon him, had God appointed him to be the sole judge of the people, or had there actually been no one else among the Israelites competent to the performance of any part of the work, he would have been right in acting as he did, for health is not the first consideration; but this was not so. God had not spoken upon the point; and there was an abundance of men in the congregation, quite competent to perform raider judicial functions, as Jethro clearly perceived, and as he himself also saw when it was pointed out to him. Thus he was exhausting himself unnecessarily, a proceeding which cannot be justified. II. THAT IT WAS ALSO UNWISE, AS UNDULY TAXING THE OF THE PEOPLE. One man could not keep pace with the number of constantly arising causes, which must have tended to accumulate, whence would arise a delay of justice. It was inconvenient enough to have to wait from the morning until the evening before obtaining a hearing; but probably the ease was not uncommon of a cause being put off to the next court-day, which, if the people were on the march, might be several days distant. The convenience of suitors is an important consideration in the administration of justice, which should be prompt as well as sure, to content men’s natural sense of what is fitting. III. THAT, FURTHER, IT TENDED TO CRAMP THE BY THE PEOPLE OF POWERS WHICH THEY , AND THE OF WHICH WOULD HAVE THEM. There were in Israel and will always be in every community, "able men," well fitted to take part in the decision of causes. Such men will commonly be very numerous; and if they have no part in the administration of justice, a large section of the community will at once be dissatisfied with the slight passed upon them, and debarred from an employment which would have tended to their moral education and elevation. The jury system of modern states is a recognition of the fact, that judicial capacity is widely spread, and that society ought to provide a field for its exercise. It is important to utilise the powers possessed by all members of the community, both for their own contentation and for the general welfare of the community itself. The world is over-full of despots and monopolists, persons who desire to grasp as much power as possible, and are unwilling to share their office with others. We may acquit Moses of such selfishness; but we cannot acquit all those who follow in his footsteps. It would be well if persons in positions of authority nowadays sought generally to associate others in their work—to call out latent talent, exercise it, and so educate its possessors. The necessary qualifications of such as are to exercise the office of judges. Few positions in life are more important than that of the judge. Not only are the lives and liberties of individual citizens at his disposal, but the very existence of the State depends on him, since unless justice is in the main administered states fly to pieces. It has been said that the whole elaborate machinery of the British Constitution has been designed and arranged with the ultimate object of putting twelve honest men together into a jury box. Where the functions to be discharged are so important, it is of the utmost moment that qualifications should be laid down in theory, and strictly adhered to in practice. Jethro saw that judges ought to be— I. MEN OF ABILITY. Ordinary, common-place powers are not enough. "Non ex quovis ligno Mercurius fit." Something above the average is necessary. Jethro thought one man in ten among the Israelites might possess sufficient intelligence and discrimination to judge the lowest class of causes, those of the least account. This was a somewhat sanguine estimate. In modern communities, which boast of their general enlightenment, considerably less than one-tenth of the citizens have their names inscribed upon the jury lists. The standard of intelligence however varies in different ages and countries, so that no hard-and-fast line can be laid down on the subject. All that can be insisted upon is this—the judge should be a person recognised to possess ability for his office, i.e; sagacity and practical discernment. If he has not these gifts, it is no use his possessing others, as learning, scholarship, artistic or scientific attainments. He will not be respected; no confidence will be felt in him; his decisions will carry no weight, and will injure rather than benefit the community. 2. MEN OF PIETY. "Provide out of all the people such as fear God," said Jethro. It is greatly to be feared that this qualification is in modern times but slightly regarded. How seldom do we hear it asked of any newly-appointed judge—Is he a religious man? And yet unless God is feared, there can be no security that justice will be done even by the judge of the greatest possible intelligence. If a man be not God-fearing, he may allow prejudice, passion, even caprice to sway his judgments, he may gradually become like the "unjust judge," who "feared not God neither regarded man." Or, again, he may have to pronounce judgment in matters concerning religion, for such will often come before courts, and then what weight can he expect his decisions to have? It is a wise and venerable custom which makes it incumbent on our "judges of assize" to preface the opening of their commission in each assize town by attendance at Divine service and hearing of God’s word preached by a minister of the Gospel. It would be still better if those who nominate judges would follow Jethro’s counsel, and take care in each instance to select for the office "such as fear God"—i.e; sincerely religious persons. The reality of religion is preferable to the show of it; and the only security for righteous judgments is that the judge be himself a righteous man. 3. MEN OF TRUTH. There can be no real piety without truthfulness, so that this qualification is, in fact, included in the last. But there is a semblance of piety which is not over-scrupulous with regard to truth, or "pious frauds" would not have passed into a bye-word. Truth, the love of it, the honest desire to search it out, and make it manifest, is so essential a quality in a judge, that it deserves separate mention, and can never be dispensed with, whatever other qualifications a man may have. Let there be any suspicion of a man’s truthfulness, and then, whatever reputation for piety may attach to him, he is not fitted to be a judge, and ought not to be selected for the judge’s office. 4. MEN OF PROBITY, who would scorn to take a bribe. The "corrupt judge" is the opprobrium of debased nations, the disgrace of his calling, the destroyer of the state to which he belongs. In many ancient kingdoms corruption, when detected in a judge, was punished by instant execution. Where it has been regarded as venial and punished inadequately, as at Rome, society has rapidly deteriorated and a revolution has shortly supervened. We may congratulate ourselves that judges in our own country are not only incorrupt, but beyond suspicion, so far above taking a bribe that no one would dare to offer them one. In the East, on the contrary, according to the universal testimony of travellers, it is scarcely possible to find the office of judge exercised by any one who is not notoriously open to corrupt influence, who does not expect, and is not anxious to receive, bribes. Among the Jews, judicial corruption is first noticed among the sons of Samuel, who "turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment’’ (1 Samuel 8:3). In the decline of the nation, the evil grew and increased, and is frequently denounced by the prophets (Isaiah 1:23: Jeremiah 5:28; Ezekiel 22:27; Micah 3:11; Micah 7:3, etc.). BY J. ORR Exodus 18:13-27 The appointment of judges. During the few days that Jethro was with Moses, he did the latter an essential service, and initiated nothing short of a revolution in the manner of conducting judicial business. Besides its immediate lessons (noted below), this incident of the appointment of judges is valuable as illustrating— 1. The scope left in the arrangements of Israel for the independent action of the human mind. Various examples of this occur in the history—e.g; the retention of Hobab as a guide in the wanderings (Numbers 10:31), and the suggestion of the spies (Deuteronomy 1:22). 2. The truth that in God’s ways of dealing with Israel, existing capabilities were utilised to the utmost. We have seen this in regard to the miracles, ,rod again in the conflict with Amalek; it is now to be noted in the formation of a polity. The same principle probably applies to what is said in Exodus 18:16 of Moses making the people to "know the statutes of God and his laws." That Moses, in giving forth these statutes, acted under supernatural direction, and frequently by express instruction of God, is not to be denied; but it is equally certain that existing usages, embodying principles of right, were taken advantage of as far as they went. We cannot err in supposing that it is this same case-made law which, in its completed form, and under special Divine sanction, is embodied in the code of chs. 21-23. But neither in substance nor in form is this code, so various in its details, a direct Divine product. It grew up under Moses’ hand in these decisions in the wilderness. Traditional materials were freely incorporated into it. 3. The assistance which a man of moderate gifts is often capable of rendering to another, greatly his superior. Jethro’s was certainly a mind of no ordinary capacity; but we do this excellent man no injustice in speaking of his gifts as moderate in comparison with the splendid abilities of Moses. Yet his natural shrewdness and plain common-sense enabled him to detect a blunder in Moses’ system of administration of which the lawgiver himself was apparently oblivious, and furnished him, moreover, with the suggestion of a remedy. The greatest minds are in this way often dependent on the humblest, and are, by the dependence, taught humility and respect for the gifts of others. There is no one who is not his neighbour’s superior in some matter—none from whom his neighbour may not learn something. The college-bred man may learn from the rustic or mechanic, the merchant from his clerk, the statesman from the humblest official in his department, the doctor of divinity from the country minister, studious men generally, from those engaged in practical callings. Let no man, therefore, despise another. Jethro could teach Moses; and the plainest man, drawing on the stores with which experience has furnished him, need not despair of being of like service to those above him. It is for our own good. that God binds us together in these relations of dependence, and we should be thankful that he does so. "The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need. of thee: nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need of thee," etc. (l Corinthians 12- Exodus 14:31). Observe— I. MOSES’ ERROR (Exodus 23:13). He took upon himself the whole burden of the congregation. He sat from morning till evening to hear their causes. We naturally wonder that the suggestion of appointing judges was left to come from Jethro—that so obvious an expedient for getting rid of the difficulty did not occur to Moses himself. It is astonishing, however, how wise a man may be in great things, and yet miss some little bit of sense which is right before his vision, and which is picked up at once by another and possibly a more ordinary mind. It is of Sir IsaActs Newton the story is told, that being troubled by the visits of a cat and kitten, he fell on the expedient of making two holes in his study door to admit of their entrance and exit—a large hole for the cat, and a small hole for the kitten! Moses’ error, we may be sure, did not arise from that which is a snare to so many in responsible positions—an exaggerated idea of his own importance. He would not fancy that everything must be managed by himself, because no one else was able to do it so well. But:— 1. The burden which now pressed upon him had probably grown from small beginnings. It is proverbially easier to set a system in operation, than to get rid of it again, when it presses and becomes inconvenient. 2. Moses probably accepted the position of judge and arbiter, as inseparable from the peculiar relation in which he stood to the people. They naturally looked to him, God’s delegate, and in some sense their spiritual father, as the proper person to hear their causes, and settle their disputes. He felt the burden, but submitted to it as inevitable. 3. It was a further difficulty in the situation that no code of laws had as yet been formed; he was making the law as well as deciding cases. This may have seemed a bar in the way of the appointment of deputies. 4. The method by which the reform could be accomplished was not obvious. Jethro’s scheme exactly met the case; but it had not as yet been suggested. Even had it occurred to Moses, he might have shrunk from entertaining it. There is always a hesitancy felt in entering on reforms which necessitate a large recasting of the frame-work of society, which involve new and untried arrangements. Difficulties might have been anticipated in finding the requisite number of men, in imparting to them the requisite amount of instruction, in making the scheme popular among the people, etc. It is useful to observe that when the scheme was actually set on foot, these difficulties did not prove to be insuperable. Nor, when Jethro made his proposal, do the difficulties seem to have been much thought of. Moses saw the wisdom of the plan, and readily adopted it. We are often thus kept back from useful undertakings by the ghosts of our own fears. II. JETHRO’S (Exodus 23:14-19). If Moses did not see the mistake he was committing, Jethro did. To his clearer vision, the evils of the system in vogue were abundantly apparent, he saw:— 1. That Moses was taking upon himself a task to which his strength was quite unequal (Exodus 23:18). 2. That, notwithstanding his exertions, the work was not being done. 3. That the time and energy which Moses was expending in these labours could be bestowed to infinitely better purpose (Exodus 23:20). 4. Above all, that this expenditure of strength on subordinate tasks was unnecessary, seeing that there were men in the camp as capable as Moses himself of doing a large part of the work (Exodus 23:21). On these grounds he based his expostulation. The lessons taught are of great importance. (1) The neglect of division of labour in Christian work leads to serious evils. The work is not overtaken, the strength of those engaged in it is greatly overtaxed, while energy is bestowed on inferior tasks which might be applied to better purpose. (2) The adoption of division of labour in Christian work secures obvious advantages. It relieves the responsible heads, expedites business and promotes order, secures that the work is better done, and utilises a great variety of talent which would otherwise remain unemployed. These are important considerations, and the application of them to hard wrought clergymen, and to others in responsible positions, is sufficiently obvious. Not a little work is heaped by congregations on ministers which could he far better done by persons among themselves, and the doing of which by laymen would leave the minister free in mind and heart for the discharge of his higher and proper duties. III. THE OF THE OF JUDGES (Exodus 23:19-27). Jethro’s scheme had every merit which a scheme of the kind could have. It relieved Moses, provided for the overtaking of the work, and secured that, while being overtaken, the work would be done with greater efficiency. It was a bold, comprehensive measure, yet withal perfectly workable. It would also have an important effect in welding the nation together. It is to be noted concerning it:— 1. That it reserved to Moses various important duties (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 23:20). he was still to be the teacher of the people in the ordinances and laws of God, and had the duty of trying and of deciding upon causes of special difficulty. This would fully occupy his powers, while his relation to the people, as God’s vicegerent, would be better preserved by his retaining a position apart, and keeping himself from their petty strifes. 2. That special stress is laid upon the character of the men to be selected as judges (Exodus 23:21). Ability is not overlooked, but peculiar importance is attached to their being men that fear God, love truth, and hate covetousness. Happy the country which has such judges! Jethro’s insistance on these particulars shows him to have been a man of true piety, and one who had an eye to the true interests of the people, as well as to the good of Moses. 3. The scheme, before being adopted, was to be submitted for God’s approval (Exodus 23:23). This should be done with all our schemes. Jethro, having accomplished this useful bit of work, returned to his home in peace (Exodus 23:27).—J.O. BY H. T. Exodus 18:13-16 The Christian in Public Paths. "Moses sat to judge the people: and the people," etc. (Exodus 18:13). Explain with accuracy the work of Moses. On such a text might be based a homily on the functions, work and bearing of a civil magistrate or judge. But it is better to give the subject a wider application, and to treat it under Christian lights. I. THE OF A . Moses sat as a prophet, expounding the Divine will, as revealed to his exalted soul by the Spirit of God; and as a judge, deciding controversies. Indeed the two functions were blended; in giving legal decisions, he treated the suitors as intelligent and moral beings, assigning the principles on which they were based. These functions of Moses may suggest what should be those of a Christian in the public paths of life. 1. To expound the mind and will of God: i.e; his truth and his law. 2. To promote peace: i.e; in all the relations of life (Matthew 5:9). II. THE MANNER OF THEIR . 1. With patience. "From the morning unto the evening." 2. In the spirit of brotherhood. "The people stood by Moses." No airs of superiority. 3. With diligence. Moses went on with his work, though (1) He had distinguished visitors. Jethro might have been an excuse for a vacation or a short session. No! "on the morrow" he went on with duty, and worked as long as it was light. "Necessary business must always take the place of ceremonious attention. It is too great a compliment to our friends to prefer the enjoyment of their company before our duty to God." (2) He had come to great honour. Moses did not take his ease and throw the burdens upon others. "Noblesse oblige." It is the honour of angels to minister (Hebrews 1:14; Matthew 20:28). (3) He had received great provocation. (4) Advancing in years. To life’s last hour Moses worked for the public good.—R. Exodus 18:17-27 The Economy of Force. "The thing that thou doest is not good," etc. Exodus 18:17, Exodus 18:18. In the error of Moses, and the amendment suggested by Jethro, are to be discovered most valuable lessons. This day in the life of Moses was a microcosm of all his days. His whole life was service. So with all true life. But in such a life mistakes are possible. We inquire then what are the Divine conditions of a life of true ministry? I. . The elements were laid down by Jethro as qualifications of the new judges. Certain that Moses possessed them. So must all who aim at usefulness (Exodus 18:21). 1. Ability. Strange that ability comes first; but so it must be. Piety without ability can adorn only obscurity. Service and responsibility demand the man of power. Ability may be natural; but is also to be acquired. Hence duty of hard work, especially in morning of life. 2. Piety. Ability is the engine of the soul, the fear of God the helm. Richard Cobden was wont to say:—"You have no security for a man who has no religious principle." Said his colonel to Hedley Vicars, offering him in 1852 the adjutancy of his regiment:—"Vicars, you are the man I can best trust with responsibility.’’ 3. Truth. 4. Disinterestedness. II. ECONOMY, i.e; of force and of resource (Exodus 18:17, Exodus 18:18). Remark:— 1. That the most earnest are likely to neglect it. It is not the hack but the thoroughbred that needs to be held in. The energy of Moses led him into error. So earnestness kills itself with excess of work. 2. That there is necessity for economy. As with money, one must not spend 25s. a week, if one has only 20s.; so there is a limitation as to strength (of every kind), time, and opportunity. 3. That the economy is easy. The Christian worker should not attempt that which is above, beside, or beneath his power or vocation. Nor all that is on the level of his ability. 4. That the consequences will be abundant and rich. The result of division of labour in a factory; so with spiritual enterprise, the effects will be the enrichment of the Church, and the largest service for the world. III. . The more we withdraw effort from that which is not within our own province, the more must we accumulate and concentrate energy upon that which is.—R. BY J. Good counsel well taken. I. ZEAL MAY OUTRUN . 1. Moses’ strength was overtaxed, his spirit needlessly burdened. 2. There was delay for the people with its vexation and loss. The most self-sacrificing love will not of itself make our methods the best and wisest. II. WHAT IS NEEDFUL FOR THE GIVING OF ADVICE. 1. Affectionate interest and care. The people’s need and Moses’ burden both weigh upon Jethro’s spirit. 2. Wisdom. A better way is clearly conceived, all the requirements of the case are grasped and met. 3. Honest plainness. 4. Piety. He asked Moses to take his advice only so far as God will command him. III. WHAT IS NEEDFUL FOR BY GOOD COUNSEL. 1. Readiness to listen. There is on Moses’ part no proud resenting of a stranger’s interference. The voice was heard as if it rose up within his own bosom. 2. Obedience to conviction. He not only heard and assented, he went and did it.—U. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 18:13-26 Jethro’s advice. In considering this passage it is desirable to form some distinct opinion as to the time of Jethro’s visit to Moses. How comes this episode to be mentioned at all, and what is its point of attachment to the main course of the history? Evidently it would not have been inserted unless as explaining how these rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens, had first been appointed. The origin of this appointment is then seen to be traceable to Jethro’s prudent and sagacious suggestions. It has then to be further explained how Jethro happens to be in the camp at all. And so we have another illustration of how things which seem utterly disconnected from one another yet have a very real connection. See Zipporah on the way from Midian to Egypt rebelling against the ordinance of the Lord; and then look on all this orderly and careful provision for the administration of justice through the tribes of Israel. What connection should there be between these? Yet one leads to the other. As to the time of the visit, any exact determination is of course out of the question, but this much at least may be guessed that the visit was alter the giving of the law. What if it happened just about the time of Miriam’s jealousy against Moses, and was in some measure the cause of it? (Numbers 12:1-16.) Such a supposition too would better harmonise with the reference in Exodus 18:16, when Moses represents himself as explaining the statutes of God and his laws. May we not almost say that if this chapter were inserted somewhere in the earlier part of the book of Numbers, and from it we looked back on all the mass of legislation in Exodus and Leviticus, it would read with far greater force? I. WE HAVE GOD’S PEOPLE TO US AS IN OF DISPUTE AMONG . This appears as a certain consequence of that spirit of self-seeking so manifest and strong among them. The law from Sinai of course conflicted with many old and honoured traditions. That law had been given to secure in the first place a nation devoted to the service of God; and in the second place the mutual prosperity of all the members of that nation. If only every Israelite had obeyed these laws from the heart, and entered into the spirit of them, then the prosperity of all would have been ensured. But as a matter of fact most part of the Israelites wanted to conform to the laws just so far as suited their convenience and no further. Laws were to be interpreted very strictly when such interpretations were for their advantage, ant[ very loosely when the contrary. The disputes, misunderstandings, and lawsuits of society are a great reproach, and ought to be a great humiliation. Think of all the machinery which is in daily operation through such a land as England to secure, as far as may be, the doing of right between man and man. And yet this machinery, expensive and elaborate as it is, works in a very unsatisfactory way; indeed that which is meant to work justice very often works injustice, and certainly very seldom ensures the exact attainment of right. Hence, however pleased we are to look on Jethro’s suggestions here, and see them carried out with a measure of success, we feel that they must not he suffered to hide an end more desirable still. Law reformers cry out, and with ample cause, for the adoption of such means as will secure a cheap and speedy settlement of all disputes. But how much more would be gained if only there was a universal acceptance of the Gospel, with all its powers and principles! That Gospel puts into man a loving and unselfish heart and a spirit of brotherliness, which, if allowed fair play, would soon do away with litigation and all that leads to it. A world of Christians would be a simple-hearted, plain-living people, ever acting towards one another in truth, kindness, and goodwill. Cheap justice is good; but the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, are much better. II. WE SEE MOSES DOING HIS BEST, BY EFFORT, TO AND SATISFY THESE . We get the impression of a man whose hands are full with his judicial work. When his own dear kinsfolk come in such affecting and pressing circumstances, he can only spare for them a brief interval; and a large part of that interval seems to have been occupied with religious exercises. With the morning light Moses settles down to what he must have found a weary and discouraging work. Many a perjury, many an impudent claim, many a reckless slander, many a pitiful story of oppression and extortion he would have to listen to. It is the daily work of judges and magistrates to deal with the seamy side of human nature, but then this is their business; they look for it, they get used to it, above all they are paid for it. Perhaps they would say, most of them, that it is no affair of theirs to ask too curiously whence all this disputing comes and how it is to be cured. They are there to administer laws and not to make them. But Moses was more than a judge. He had not only to settle these disputes by the way, but also to guide the disputers towards Canaan. We are perfectly certain, too, that the great bulk of those against whom justice compelled him to decide would become his enemies. Yet he struggled on, accepting the responsibility, and trying to get the laws of God for Israel more and more accepted among the people. He indeed sets us, in this matter, a noble example. The pressure which was upon him will never rest upon us, for all men sought him; but we also have our limited opportunity, larger alas! than we seek to use, of advancing the things that make for peace. There is so much to promote discord, so much to excite partisan spirit; there are so many to tear every rent wider, instead of putting in the little stitch in time that saves nine, that we may well ask for grace, gentleness, fidelity, and impartiality, in order to put in our intervening word when such a word may be possible and acceptable. The more we think of all that there is in this world acting, often alas! consciously and deliberately, to spite, separate, and irritate, the more let us determine to form part of a reuniting and cementing force. III. NOTICE THE TIMELY AND COUNSEL OF JETHRO. Truly there is appearance here of something unaccountable in the dealings of God. Such a seemingly important matter as the judicial system of Israel owes its existence to the suggestion of an outsider. And yet it might have been thought that this was exactly one of the things which Jehovah would provide for by express enactments. When it is a matter of making the tabernacle, he is very particular as to measurements and materials, but when it is a matter of judging causes, he leaves it to be determined by the advice of an apparently casual visitant to the camp. There is nothing really strange in all this, if we remember that God only instructs us where we cannot make discoveries for ourselves. Revelation does not supersede, it rather assumes and requires the exercise of common sense and natural judgment. We find a somewhat parallel case to this in the New Testament when the deacons were appointed. Common sense told the apostles they were becoming burdened with work which did not properly belong to them, and only hindered them in the doing of work for which they were specially responsible; and so here the common sense of Jethro steps in to suggest to Moses a more excellent way. Why did not Moses think of it himself? The very fact that he did not shed a great deal of light on his character. His strength lay not in personal initiation, but in complete waiting and dependence on God. If God had commanded the institution of these rulers, he would very quickly have had the command in operation; but he never thought of proposing the plan himself. But when another proposes it, he can see at once that it is a wise, practicable, and necessary one. Moses is not to be blamed as wanting in sagacity in that he failed to see this remedy before. Great discoveries are simple enough when once they are made; and then everyone wonders they were not made long before. IV. OBSERVE THE DETAILS OF JETHRO’S ADVICE. Not only does he suggest the obtaining of help from somewhere, but taking in the whole situation at a glance, he can suggest exactly the best thing to be done. Probably as a priest in Midian he had seen a great many disputings and helped to some extent in the settlement of them. We cannot but feel as we read. through the details of the counsel, that whatever may be lacking in Jethro’s formal standing, he acquits himself as one who is really and opportunely the messenger of God. He speaks as a good and true man ought to speak both for the relief of his kinsman and for the abiding good of the whole people. He judges that in Israel itself there are resources enough to meet the emergency, if only properly searched out and arranged. Given 600,000 men, surely among them there will be a fair proportion who have the qualities required. Notice that Jethro aims at a high standard (verse 21); able men are wanted, and wherein does the ability consist? No doubt a certain acuteness and general power of mind was required, hut the chief elements of the ability lay in those qualities which Jethro went on to specify. An efficient judge between man and man must be also one who fears God. The fear of man that bringeth a snare must not be allowed to enter his mind. He must measure things by Divine standards, ever asking what God would wish his judgments to be. He must be a man of truth, sparing no effort and avoiding no danger; in order to get at it he must try to keep his mind clear from prejudices. If he has fallen into any error he will promptly confess it, feeling that the interests of truth are more important than a reputation for consistency. And he must be free from covetousness. No suspicion of a bribe will cling to his judgments, nor will he be infected with that worldliness of spirit which looks to the property of men a great deal more than to the interest and comfort of their persons. But now the half-incredulous question cannot be kept out of the mind, "where shall such judges be found?" At all events let them be sought for. We cannot find perfect men; but we know the direction in which to seek. Probably, in the course of a long life, Jethro has discovered that men are both better and worse than he thought at first; and he is perfectly certain that men can be found to do all that is indispensably requisite for the present need. Moses was wearing himself out with duties which many in Israel were quite competent to perform; but who of them all could do the work which had been rut specially into his hands?—Y. BY G. A. The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee. Men may make a channel for the stream, but they cannot make the stream. Water-power is a grand natural agency; but it is by means of human agency that it may be applied to the best advantage. So also in other matters; power comes from God; the way to use and economise power it is left for man to discover and to act upon. Consider here:— I. THE DIVINE POWER. "God shall be with thee," said Jethro. The history shows how God had been with him already, how he was with him all through his life. Especially we may notice— 1. His relation to Pharaoh. The shepherd facing the king. Whence his boldness? He had shrunk beforehand at the mere prospect; when the hour came Pharaoh quailed before him. It was not Moses, it was the power which manifested itself through Moses, that humbled Pharaoh. Moses was but the visible rod in the outstretched hand of the invisible Jehovah. 2. His relation to the people. Harder to face a fickle multitude than to face an obstinate and Powerful monarch. Here too the Divine Power was manifested; the glory of Jehovah was, as it were, reflected from the face of his servant. It was the radiancy of the reflected glory which again and again cowed the rebels to submission. As with Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-8), Zerubbabel (Zed. Jeremiah 4:6), St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 12:10), so also with Moses; human weakness the more evidently testified to Divine power. II. THE HUMAN COUNSEL. Notice:— 1. The need of it. Men are so weak that they are soon unhinged by a great trust reposed in them. Their attention is so fixed upon the one thing, that other things are seen out of perspective. Moses was so filled with the consciousness of a Divine power working through him, that he failed at first to realise the fact that he was unequal to the friction necessitated by such a power. He realised the effect of the power in prospect more accurately than he could do after it possessed him (cf. Jeremiah 4:1-31.). As the mediator between God and Israel, had it not been for Jethro’s counsel, he must soon have been worn out through forgetting the necessities of his own nature. Lives are still wasted and shortened through a like oversight. The man who feels that he is the channel of Divine power is, for the time, so God-intoxicated, that it does not occur to him to share his responsibilities. He must be both head and hands in everything, and the head in consequence soon grows heavy, and the hands hang down. Under the force of inspiration, common-sense is in abeyance; all the more need for wise counsel from those who occupy a neutral stand-point. 2. The wisdom of it. Jethro saw that the great thing was not that Moses should do all the work, but that all the work should be done. The power to do it, was no doubt lodged with Moses (cf. water-power lodged with keeper of sluice gates). The work, however, might be best done by a distribution of the power through selected agents. Moses need not to be head and hands; he might choose other hands, making them responsible to himself as head. Moses showed his wisdom by accepting the wise counsels of Jethro; many men would have shown their folly by setting them aside as the suggestions of ignorance. Concluding considerations. Inspiration is a grand thing; but it may be best utilised by common-sense. God’s power enables for action; but that power is best applied when the counsels of Jethro are attended to. All men have not the same gifts; and those who have what seem to be the higher gifts, are apt to set too small a value upon advice given by those less gifted. Even the gift of faith, however, needs the gift of wisdom to direct it. Moses was able to do more than he otherwise could have done because he was wise enough to hearken to the voice of Jethro, his father-in-law. ― G. OF JETHRO. The time of Jethro’s departure, and indeed of his entire visit, has been matter of controversy. Kurtz is of opinion that Jethro waited till the news of Israel’s victory over Amalek reached him, before setting out from his own country. Hence he concludes, that "a whole month or more may easily have intervened between the victory over Amalek and the arrival of Jethro," whose arrival in that case "would not even fall into the very earliest period of the sojourn at Sinai, but after the promulgation of the first Sinaitic law." Those who identify Hobab with Jethro find in Numbers 10:29-32 a proof that at any rate Jethro prolonged his visit until after the law was given, and did not "depart to his own land" before the removal of the people from the wilderness of Sinai to that of Paran, "in the 20th day of the second month of the second year" (ib, Numbers 10:11). The position, however, of Numbers 18:1-32; together with its contents—beth what it says and what it omits—are conclusive against this view. Jethro started on his journey when he heard "that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt" (Numbers 18:1), not when he heard that Israel had been victorious over Amalek. His conversation with Moses (Numbers 18:7-11) ranged over the entire series of deliverances from the night of the departure out of Egypt to the Amalekite defeat, but contained no allusion to the giving of the law. The occupation of Moses on the day after his arrival (Numbers 18:13) is suitable to the quiet period which followed the Amalekite defeat, but not to the exciting time of the Sinaitic manifestations. It may be added that the practice of inculcating general principles on occasion of his particular judgments, of which Moses speaks (Numbers 18:16), is suitable to the period anterior to the promulgation of the law, but not to that following it. The argument from Numbers 10:29-32 fails altogether, so soon as it is seen that Jethro and Hobab are distinct persons, probably brothers, sons of Reuel (or Raguel), and brothers- in-law of Moses. Exodus 18:27 Moses let his father-in-law depart. Literally, "dismissed him," "sent him away." This single expression is quite enough to prove that the Hobab, whom Moses made strenuous efforts to keep with him after Sinai was left, is not the Jethro whom he was quite content to let go. He went his way into his own land. He returned to Midian, probably crossing the Elanitic gulf, which divided Midian from the Sinaitic region. The exact time of the departure is uncertain; but it was probably before the main events related in Exodus 19:1-25. Jethro the model of a friendly adviser. A man’s friends often hesitate to offer advice, from the fear of its being ill received. Jethro showed himself superior to this weakness, and risked being rebuffed for officiousness, confident in his singleness of purpose and honest intentions. He had all the qualities of a good adviser. He was— 1. . There can be no doubt that he rightly forecast the results, if Moses had continued his unwise monopoly of the judicial office, or that he suggested a prudent course in place of that whereof he disapproved. His reservation of a certain judicial power to Moses (Exodus 18:20-22) was especially wise, since had he not done so, it is highly probable that his counsel would not have been followed;— 2. . Kindness and. warm feeling breathed in his warning words:—"Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people … for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone." He feels for Moses; he feels for the people; he has no thought for himself; he is solely anxious, and deeply anxious, to save others from unnecessary suffering;— 3. . He does not use periphrases, or beat about the bush, but goes straight to his point, making his purpose clearly intelligible, and indeed unmistakable—"The thing that thou doest is not good"—"provide out of the people able men." 4. WHOLLY . The advice which he tenders can do him no good. He asks no employment, no place for himself. He will not even participate in the general prosperity of Israel if good results follow the adoption of his counsel; for he is not about to cast in his lot with the Israelites. On the contrary, he is bent on withdrawing at once into his own country. Moses will not find him that keen annoyance, an ever-present friend, who because his advice has been taken once, regards himself as entitled to obtrude it whenever he pleases, and to feel aggrieved if it is not in every case followed. If advisers generally acted in the spirit of Jethro, there would be far less unwillingness than there is to ask advice, and far more gratitude felt towards those who volunteer it. BY D. YOUNG Jethro’s departure. I. JETHRO DEPARTS AFTER A MOST VISIT. That visit was made not perhaps without some anxiety and doubt as to the results, but still under the clear dictation of duty. Therefore, it would have been satisfactory even if less successful. Moses might, conceivably, have looked on Zipporah coldly and. received her reluctantly; but there would have remained to Jethro the priceless satisfaction that he had done the right thing. But Jethro, we have seen, had more even than the satisfaction of a good conscience; he had been successful, and successful beyond all that he could have anticipated when he set out. To a man of Jethro’s disposition, that would indeed be a joyous visit, which had proved so useful to Moses, to Zipporah, to their children, to Israel, and may we not add, towards the glorifying of Jethro himself? Keep ever in the path that is clearly right, and you have Jethro’s experience to encourage you in the expectation that it may also be the path of noble and joyous opportunities. II. JETHRO DEPARTS, AND MOSES IS MADE TO FEEL, MORE THAN EVER, THAT JEHOVAH REMAINS. Very helpful are human counsel and sympathy, and especially when they come from old friends. There are no friends like old friends, and Jethro was a very old friend t o Moses. But Jethro’s abilities and opportunities as adviser extended only a little way. Like Moses we may all have our Jethros whom we may love, cherish and venerate; for God distributes such men everywhere about the world to be, as it were, fellow-workers with trim in giving stability and illumination to the perplexed. But we cannot keep them; we may lose them at any moment; and while it is great wisdom to listen to them, it would be great folly to put them in the place of God. Though Jethro was very decided in the counsels he gave, he knew equally when to stop. We may look at him as coming in here to teach us that what we can expect from the most competent and loving of human friends is but a trifle compared with the great total of our needs. We are allowed to have but small expectations from the brother sinner, the brother mortal, the brother who is liable to ignorance and error, just as much as we are ourselves. When Jethro went away, Moses would feel himself all the more shut up to Jehovah. When the earthly is dumb, misleading, estranged, or dead, then the heavenly will speak in clear and loving accents to all who have ears to hear. III. Jethro departs into his own land, for HE HAD CLAIMS UPON HIM THERE. He was just the kind of man to make his presence, as long as he lived, a kind of necessity to his neighbours, he had come on a matter of urgency, not for his own pleasure or ease; and we may imagine he went back as soon as he conveniently could to finish such affairs at home as had been left unfinished. Note, however, that in going back to his own land, and away from Moses, he did not therefore retire from the service of God and the reach of God’s blessings. Jethro and Moses seemed to be going different ways; but they only differed in external circumstances. Moses does not seem even to have asked Jethro to stay with him; whereas we know that he pressed and urged Hobab. Perhaps he felt that he had no sufficient reason for asking Jethro, or that it would be of no use.—Y. ISRAEL AT SINAI,— FOR THE GIVING OF THE LAND. THE JOURNEY TO MOUNT SINAI. From Rephidim in the Wady Feiran, where they had discomfited Amalek (Exodus 17:8-13), the Israelites moved towards Sinai, probably by the two passes known as Wady Solar and Wady-esh-Sheikh, which gradually converge and meet at the entrance to the plain of Er-Rahah. This plain is generally allowed to be "the Desert of Sinai." It is "two miles long, and half-a-mile broad", nearly flat, and dotted with tamarisk bushes. The mountains which enclose it have for the most part sloping sides, and form a sort of natural amphitheatre. The plain abuts at its south-eastern extremity on abrupt cliffs of granite rock rising from it nearly perpendicularly, and known as the Ras Sufsafeh. "That such a plain should exist at all in front of such a cliff is," as Dean Stanley well remarks, "so remarkable a coincidence with the sacred narrative, as to furnish a strong internal argument, not merely of its identity with the scene, but of the scene itself having been described by an eye-witness". All the surroundings are such as exactly suit the narrative. "The awful and lengthened approach, as to some natural sanctuary, would have been the fittest preparation for the coming scene. The low line of alluvial mounds at the foot of the cliff exactly answers to the ’bounds’ which were to keep the people off front ’touching the mount.’ The plain itself is not broken and uneven and narrowly shut in, like almost all others in the range, but presents a long retiring sweep, against which the people could ’remove and stand afar off’ The cliff, rising like a huge altar, in front of the whole congregation, and visible against the sky in lonely grandeur from end to end of the whole plain, is the very image of the mount that might be touched, and from which the voice of God might be heard far and wide over the plain below, widened at that point to its utmost extent by the confluence of all the contiguous valleys. Here, beyond all other parts of the peninsula, is the adytum, withdrawn as if in the end ’of the world,’ from all the stir and confusion of earthly things". As an eminent engineer has observed—"No spot in the world can be pointed out which combines in a more remarkable manner the conditions of a commanding height and of a plain in every part of which the sights and sounds described in Exodus would reach an assembled multitude of more than two million souls." Here then, we may well say, in the words used by the most recent of scientific explorers, "was the scene of the giving of the law. From Ras Sufsafeh the law was proclaimed to the children of Israel, assembled in the plains of Er Rahah". Exodus 19:1 In the third month. The month Sivan, corresponding nearly with our June. When the children of Israel were gone forth. Rather, "after the children of Israel had gone forth," or "after the departure of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt." Compare Exodus 16:1, where the expression used is the same. The same day. Literally, "on that day"—which can only mean "on the day that the month began"—on the 1st of Sivan. The wilderness of Sinai. The plain Er-Rahah; as is now generally allowed, since the true character of the Wady Sebaiyeh has been shown by Dean Stanley and others. Exodus 19:2 They were departed from Rephidim. See the comment on Exodus 17:1, and compare Numbers 33:15. There Israel en-camped before the mountain. The bulk of the tents were no doubt pitched in the plain, Er-Rahah; but this may not have sufficed, and some may have been located in the Wady-ed-Deir, north-east of the Ras Sufsafeh, and others in the Seil-Leja to the west. The Ras Sufsafeh is visible from both these valleys. Exodus 19:1-2 Localities shaped to suit God’s moral purposes. It is scarcely possible to read the descriptions of the Sinaitic localities by modern travellers, who pointedly note their exact adaptation to the scenes transacted among them, without the feeling stealing upon us, that God, in the countless ages during which he was shaping and ordering the earth to be a fitting habitation for man was also arranging it in such sort as would best conduce to the exhibition upon it of those supernatural occurrences, which in his counsels were to constitute turning-points in the moral history of man. Take for instance Jerusalem: are we to suppose that the valleys were furrowed and the rocky platform upraised by the elements acting mechanically, as chance might direct, or not rather that God lovingly shaped, age after age, the mountain where he was about to set his name, and which was to be "the joy of the whole earth"? (Psalms 48:2.) Rome again, with its seven hills: was not this remarkable formation brought into existence to constitute the site for that capital which was to be, first and last, the pivot of the world’s secular history; for five hundred years the seat of an almost universal empire; for a thousand the western ecclesiastical centre; and having in the future possibilities which the wisest forecast can only dimly indicate, but which transcend those of any other existing city. And, if in these cases Providence contrived and shaped the geographic features with a view to the future history, must it not have been the same at Sinai? Must not that vast granite cluster have been upreared in the place it holds by a series of throes which shook all the regions of the east, in order that from it the law might be given in such a way as to impress men deeply? Must not the plain Er-Rahah have been washed by floods into its present level surface to furnish a convenient place from which the multitudinous host of Israel might at once see and hear? Must not the entire Sinaitic region have been so modelled, that here should be the adytum—here and here alone in the entire district, should be the natural "inmost sanctuary"—penetrale—"holy of holies"—the centre of attraction—the fit spot for supernatural events, on which the future of mankind was to hinge for fourteen centuries? To us it seems, that God did not so much select for his supernatural communications with man the fittest of existing localities, as design the localities themselves with a view to the communications, shaping them to suit his moral purposes. BY J. ORR Exodus 19:1, Exodus 19:2 Arrival and encampment at Sinai. We come now to the consideration of what, next to the exodus, is the greatest event in Israel’s history—the ratification at Sinai of the nation’s covenant with God, preceded by the giving of the law. We cannot attach too great importance to these Divine acts. The covenant at Sinai placed Israel in a totally unique relation to Jehovah. It conferred on that people an honour the like of which no nation on earth ever had, or ever has since, enjoyed. It gave rise to an economy, the express design of which was to prepare the way for Christ—to shut men up under a conviction of the hopelessness of attaining righteousness by the law, to the faith that should afterwards be revealed (Galatians 3:23). This covenant, as befitted the majesty of God, dealing with a sinful people, was to be ordained "in the hand of a mediator" (Galatians 3:19). Moses, accordingly, is seen in these verses entering on his mediatorial functions. Once, a second, and a third time, in the course of this single chapter, he is seen ascending the mount, to meet with God (Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:8, Exodus 19:20); and once, a second, and a third time, he is sent back from its awful recesses with a message to the people. Exodus 19:1, Exodus 19:2 relate the arrival at Sinai. I. THE NOTE OF TIME.—"In the third month," etc. (Exodus 19:1). That is, about six weeks—forty or fifty days—after leaving Egypt. This was close on the date of Pentecost, afterwards traditionally observed as the anniversary of the giving of the law. It was probably with allusion to this fact that, in the new economy, the day of Pentecost was chosen for the gift of the Spirit to the Church (Acts 2:1-47.). Thus was fulfilled the prophecy—"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah … I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:31-33). "Sinai, then, was the Pentecost of the old dispensation. And, conversely, Pentecost is the Sinai of the new." (Gibson.) II. THE PLACE OF .—"The wilderness of Sinai … before the mount" (Exodus 19:1, Exodus 19:2). A fitter theatre for the awful revelation about to be given could scarcely be imagined. The heart of the desert, it was— 1. A place of absolute solitude. The people were absolutely alone with God—withdrawn from everything which could distract their thoughts from him and from his message. Owen observes—"When God deals with men by the law, he will let them see nothing but himself and their own consciences … For the most part, when the law is preached to sinners, they have innumerable diversions and reliefs at hand to shield them from its terror and efficacy.… They have other things to do than to attend to the voice of the law; at least, it is not yet necessary that they should so do. But when God will bring them to the mount, as he will here or hereafter, all these pretexts will vanish and disappear" (on Hebrews 12:18). For the thorough awakening of conscience, we must get a man alone—must, in some way or other, sever him from his ordinary surroundings. 2. A place of great sublimity. Travellers dwell with awe on its bare, desolate grandeur—on "the lengthened approach" to the mount, "as to some natural sanctuary." The mind, amidst such grandeur, is irresistibly drawn upwards. It is brought into the condition most fit for the reception of thoughts of the everlasting and sublime. How suitable was such a place for the promulgation of that moral law which Kant said affected him with such indescribable awe every time he thought of it! Every circumstance was present which could lend body, vastness, volume, impressiveness, and reduplicated sublimity to the terrors of the revelation. The "sound of the trumpet and the voice of words" would reverberate with strange power amid those rocky heights, and along the echoing valleys. The sternness of the environment was itself a commentary on the law’s sanctities. 3. A place of barrenness. "It was a barren and fruitless desert, where there was little water or food, and, answerably thereunto, the law in a state of sin, would bring forth no fruit, nothing acceptable to God, nor useful to the souls of men." (Owen.) So entirely has the spirit of this scene—of this awful desert solitude—passed into the revelation connected with it, that the two can no longer be dissociated. Sinai, unconsciously to ourselves, acts upon us to this hour, in every contact of our minds with the truths of the law. III. THE DESIGN OF THE STAY. Israel abode at Sinai for eleven months. During this period the nation enjoyed a season of rest, received the law, ratified its covenant with God, constructed a sanctuary, and was otherwise equipped and organised. It was a time of repose, of retired communion with God, of receptivity. Such times are very needful in the spiritual life. 1. Needful for all. The Christian toiler needs seasons of rest (Mark 6:31). His truest rest will be found in communion with God and study of his will. By-and-by the call will come, summoning him to renewed activity—"Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount," etc. (Deuteronomy 1:6). 2. Specially needful in the stage of spiritual history immediately succeeding conversion. Young converts will do well to ponder the example of Paul, who, after God had revealed his Son in him, and before entering on his work as an apostle, "went into Arabia," perhaps revisiting this very spot (Galatians 1:17). They are all the better for some such season of solitary communion with God as is represented by Israel’s stay at Sinai. They need repose of mind. Like the Israelites, they have a covenant to ratify with God. Like the Israelites, they stand greatly in need of instruction. They need time for lengthened study of the Divine will. They need equipment and preparation for the trials they are afterwards to encounter. Their coming, it is true, is rather figured as a coming to Mount Sion, than as a coming to Mount Sinai (Hebrews 12:22); but none the less has Sinai important lessons which it will be for their interest not to overlook. The Christian who does not frequently in spirit visit Sinai will not readily understand his privileges at Sion. The following words of Dr. Candlish express important truth:—"Individually, by a separate process in each mind, a distinct spiritual change in every soul, God effects the rescue of his people. There cannot, therefore, be any general gathering together, in a literal sense, such as there was at Sinai. But practically, in a real though spiritual sense, every converted soul has to pass through an analogous spiritual crisis. It is a momentous crisis, as regards both the exodus and the pilgrimage; the escape he has made and the way he has to go. It is, in fact, the settlement, once for all, of the terms upon which he is henceforth to be with his God as his Sovereign Lord. It is his being confronted and brought face to face with God, in a new state and character, as redeemed by his grace, and ready for his work." ("Fatherhood of God.")—J.O. THE FIRST BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL. AS Moses, having reached the foot of Sinai, was proceeding to ascend the mountain, where he looked to have special revelations from God, God called to him out of the mountain, and required a positive engagement on the part of the people, before he would condescend to enter into further direct relations with them. If, through gratitude for what had been done for them in the deliverance from Egypt, and since, they would solemnly engage to obey God and keep the covenant that he should make with them (Exodus 19:5), then a fresh revelation should be made, and fresh engagements entered into; but not otherwise. Moses communicated the message to the people through the alders, and received the solemn promise, which he carried back to God. "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Exodus 19:3 Moses went up unto God. From the time of his call Moses had known that Israel was to serve God upon Sinai (Exodus 3:12), and had regarded either one special peak, or the whole range as "the mount of God"—a place dedicated and set apart to Jehovah. It was natural, therefore, that, so soon as he reached the near vicinity of the mount, he should ascend it. The Lord called to him out of the Mount. God often accepts the will for the deed, and spares his saints a needless toil. Here, as Moses was on his way, God anticipated him, and calling to him out of the mountain sent him back to the people with a message. The house of Jacob. This rare expression, familiar to no sacred writer but Isaiah, recalls the promises made to Jacob of a numerous seed, which should grow from a house to a nation (Genesis 28:14; Genesis 35:11). Exodus 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians. God prefaces his appeal to Israel with respect to the future, by reminding them of what he had done for them in the past. In the fewest possible words he recalls to their recollection the whole series of signs and wonders wrought in Egypt, from the turning of the water into blood to the destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea. These, he implies, ought to have taught them to trust him. I bare you on eagle’s wings (compare Deuteronomy 32:11), where the metaphor is expanded at considerable length The strength and might of God’s sustaining care, and its loving tenderness, are especially glanced at in the comparison. Brought you unto myself. "Brought you," i.e; "to Sinai, the mount of God, where it pleases me especially to reveal myself to you." Exodus 19:5 Now therefore. Instead of asking the simple question—"Will ye promise to obey me and keep my covenant.—God graciously entices the Israelites to their own advantage by a most loving promise. If they will agree to obey his voice, and accept and keep his covenant, then they shall be to him a peculiar treasure (segullah)—a precious possession to be esteemed highly and carefully guarded from all that might injure it. (Compare Psalms 135:4; and see also Isaiah 43:1-4.) and this preciousness they shall not share with others on equal terms, but enjoy exclusively—it shall be theirs above all people. No other nation on the earth shall hold the position which they shall hold, or be equally precious in God’s sight. All the earth is his: and so all nations are his in a certain sense. But this shall not interfere with the special Israelite prerogative they alone shall be his "peculiar people" (Deuteronomy 14:2). Exodus 19:6 Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests. Or "a royalty of priests"—at once a royal and a priestly race—all of you at once both priests and kings. (So the LXX. render, βασίλειονἱεράτευμα; the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem, "kings and priests;" that of Jonathan, "crowned kings and ministering priests.") They would be "kings," not only as "lords over death, the devil, hell, and all evil" (Luther), but also partly as having no earthly king set over them, but designed to live under a theocracy (1 Samuel 12:12), and partly as intended to exercise lordship over the heathen. Their unfaithfulness and disobedience soon forfeited both privileges. They would be "priests," as entitled—each one of them—to draw near to God directly in prayer and praise, though not in sacrifice, and also as intermediaries between God and the heathen world, to whom they were to be examples, instructors, prophets. And an holy nation. A nation unlike other nations—a nation consecrated to God’s service, outwardly marked as his by the symbol of circumcision, his (if they chose) inwardly by the purity and holiness whereto they could attain. These are the words. Much speaking was not needed. The question was a very simple one. Would they accept the covenant or no, upon the conditions offered? It was not likely that they would reject such gracious proposals. Exodus 19:7 And Moses came. Moses descended from the point of the mountain which he had reached, and summoned a meeting of the elders of the people. When they were come together, he reported to them totidem verbis the message which he had received from God. He is said to have laid the words "before their faces"—a Hebraism, meaning simply "before them." Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together. It would seem that the elders submitted to the whole congregation the question propounded by Moses; or at any rate submitted it to a popular meeting, fairly representing the congregation. No doubt the exact purport of the question was made known by the usual means beforehand, and the assembly was summoned to declare, by acclamation, its assent or dissent. The result was a unanimous shout of approval:—"All that the Lord hath spoken we will do"—i.e; "we will obey his voice indeed, and keep his covenant" (see Exodus 19:5). In this way they accepted the covenant beforehand, not knowing what its exact provisions would be, but assured in their hearts that all would be right, just, and good; and anxious to secure the promised blessings (Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6) for themselves and their posterity Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord—i.e; Moses was the mouthpiece both ways. He took the messages of God to the people, and carried back ("returned") their answer. Exodus 19:9 I came unto thee in a thick cloud. Literally, "in the thickness of a cloud." God must always veil himself when he speaks with man, for man could not bear "the brightness of his presence." If he takes a human form that form is a veil; if he appears in a burning bush, the very. fire is a shroud. On the present occasion it was the more needful that he should cover himself up, as he was about to draw near to the whole congregation, among whom were many-who were impure and impenitent. It was necessary, in order that all might be convinced of the Divine mission of Moses, for all to be so near as to hear him speak out of the cloud; but sinners cannot abide the near presence of God, unless he is carefully hidden away from them. Probably, the cloud out of which he now spoke was that which had accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt, and directed their march (Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22), though this is not distinctly stated. That the people may believe thee for ever. In "the people" are included their descendants; and they are to "believe Moses for ever, because the law is in some sense of eternal obligation on all men" (Matthew 5:18). And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord. It is not easy to assign a reason for the repetition of this clause from Exodus 19:8, in almost identical terms. There were no fresh "words of the people" to report. We can only say that such seemingly needless repetitions are in the manner of archaic writers, who seem to intend in this way to emphasise a fact. The acceptance of the covenant by the people beforehand, completed by Moses reporting it to God, is the necessary basis of all that follows—the required preliminary to the giving of any covenant at all. Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6 God’s promises to such as keep his covenant. Three things are here specially worthy of consideration:— 1. The nature of the promises; 2. The grounds on which they may be believed and trusted; and 3. The conditions attached to them. I. THE NATURE OF THE . God’s promises to Israel are threefold—they shall be kings; they shall be priests; they shall be his peculiar treasure.— (a) Kings. Most men are slaves—servants of Satan, servants of sin, slaves to their evil passions, slaves to opinion, abject slaves to those among their fellow-men on whom they depend for daily bread, or for favour and advancement. The glorious liberty of the children of God shakes off all these yokes. Man, awakened to his true relations with God, at once asserts himself, realises his dignity, feels that he need "call no man, master." He himself is supreme over himself; his conscience is his law, not the will of another. His life, his acts, his words, are under his own control. Within this sphere he is "king," directing and ruling his conduct according to his own views of what is right and fitting; and this kingship is mostly followed by another. Let a man once show himself a true, brave, upright, independent person, and he will soon have subjects enough. The weak place themselves under his protection, the timid under his guidance. He will have a clientele, which will continually grow so long as he remains on earth, and in Heaven he will be a "king" too. The" faithful and true servant" has "authority over ten cities." he "reigns with Christ for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:6; Revelation 22:5). (b) Priests. A priest is one who is consecrated to God, who has free and ready access to him without an intermediary at all times and seasons, and who acts as an intermediary between God and others. As circumcision consecrated the Israelite, so baptism consecrates the Christian. lie receives "an unction from the Holy One" (1 John 1:1-10:20), and is thenceforth a "priest to God," bound to his service, brought near to him, entitled to "go boldly to the throne of grace," to offer up his own prayers and intercessions, nay—even to "enter into the holiest" (Hebrews 10:19). He is further not only entitled, but bound to act as intermediary between God and those who do not know God; to teach them; convert them, if he can; intercede for them; under certain circumstances, to baptise them. (c) His peculiar treasure. The world despises God’s servants, sets little store by them, regards them as poor weak creatures, whom it may ill-use at its pleasure. But God holds each servant dear, sets a high value on him, regards him as precious. "They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels" (Malachi 3:17). Each saint is a jewel in the crown of the Lord Christ, and is estimated accordingly. A king would as soon lose one of his crown jewels as Christ one of those for whom he shed his precious blood. He has "bought them at a price;" they are his; and the value which he sets on them no man can know. They are to him "more precious than rubies." II. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE MAY BE AND TRUSTED. As we have found of men in the past, so we look to find of them in the future. God bade the Israelites look back, and consider what he had already done for them—whether in the past he had proved himself faithful and true—whether he had supported and sustained them, "borne them up on eagle’s wings," protected them, delivered them from dangers. If this were so, could they not trust him for the future? Would they not believe the promises which he now held out to them? Would they not regard them as certain of accomplishment? The Israelites appear to have believed; and shall not Christians do the like? Have not above three thousand years tested God’s faithfulness, since he thus spoke to Israel? In the whole long course of these millennia has he ever been proved unfaithful? Assuredly not. All that he promises, and more than all he promises, does he perform for the sons of men. Never does he disappoint them; never does he fail to make good his word. Each promise of God therefore may be trusted implicitly. "God is not a man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should repent." He is true, and therefore must will to do as he has said; he is omnipotent, and therefore must be able to do as he wills. III. THE ON WHICH THE ARE GIVEN. "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant." The precious promises of God to man are conditional upon (a) his general obedience; (b) his observance of a certain formal covenant. The obedience must be "an obedience indeed"—i.e; an obedience from the heart, sincere, loving, complete, so far as human frailty permits—not partial, not grudging, not outward only. The covenant must be kept in all its essentials. To the Jew, circumcision was necessary, after which he had to make offerings, to attend certain festivals year by year, to pay tithes, and to observe numerous minute regulations with regard to "cleanness" and "uncleanness." The Christian covenant has but two essential rites, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Even these are only "generally necessary to salvation." Still, if we look for covenanted mercies and claim them, we must take care to be within the covenant. We must inquire dispassionately, what the terms are upon which Christ receives us into covenant with him, and not take upon ourselves a dispensing power, absolving us from all such obligations. Christ rejected from the marriage-feast the man who had not on a wedding-garment. No one who neglects either of the two solemn and simple ordinances which alone Christ has ordained in his Church can be sure that he will not in the last day be rejected. BY J. ORR Exodus 19:3-10 The covenant proposed. A characteristic difference is to be observed between the covenant made at Sinai and that formerly established with Abraham. In both, there is a wonderful act of Divine condescension. In both, God as well as man comes under engagements, ratified by outward formalities. But there is a difference in the design. In Abraham’s case, the covenant was obviously intended as an aid to faith, an expedient for strengthening confidence in the Divine word. It is God who, in condescension to man’s weakness, binds himself to be faithful to his word. At Sinai, on the other hand, it is the people who bind themselves to be faithful to God. They take the oath of allegiance to their invisible king. They pledge themselves to be obedient. God, on his side, appears as the promiser. He will make this nation a peculiar treasure unto himself, a kingdom of priests, etc. The present passage deals with preliminaries. I. THE DIVINE (Exodus 19:3-7). A covenant, from its nature, is an act of freedom. Prior to the formation of this covenant, it was obviously necessary that Jehovah should approach the people, should state his terms to them, and should require them to declare whether they approved of these terms, and were willing to assent to them. This is what is here done. Observe:— 1. The initiative in the covenant was taken by Jehovah. This was inevitable. "The characteristic thing about such" covenants’ with God lies here, that the engagement must originate on the side of God himself, springing out of his free favour with a view to ratify some spontaneous promise on his part. Man can exact no terms from Heaven. No creature dare stipulate for conditions with his Creator. It is when the Most High, out of his own mere mercy, volunteers to bind himself by a promise for the future, and having done so, stoops still further to give a pledge for the execution of that promise, that what may fairly be deemed a ’covenant’ is established" (Dr. Dykes). 2. The people are reminded of past gracious dealings of God with them (Exodus 19:4). God reminds them, to begin with, of how he had taken them from Egypt, and had borne them on eagle’s wings, and had brought them to this desert place unto himself. "Eagle’s wings" signify that his help had been strong, sustaining, protecting. In Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wilderness, they had experienced this help, and had found it all sufficient. The resources of the infinite had been placed at their disposal. The special point, however, is, that all this which had been done for them was the fruit of free, unmerited favour; of a grace which imposed no conditions, and had as yet asked for no return. This was an important point to be reminded of on the eve of a revelation of law. These past actings of God testified that his relation to Israel was fundamentally a gracious one. Law might veil grace, but it could not cancel or annul it. Like primitive rock, underlying whatever strata might subsequently be reared upon it, this gracious relation must abide. With a relation of this kind to fall back upon, the Israelite need not despair, even when he felt that his law condemned him. It was a pledge to him that, not only amidst daily error and shortcoming, but even after grievous falls—falls like David’s—mercy would receive the man of contrite spirit (Psalms 51:1-19.). Thus far, we are quite in the element of the Gospel Salvation precedes obedience. Obedience follows, a result of the flee acceptance of the obligations which redemption imposes on us. 3. The condition of the fulfilment of promise is that the people obey God’s voice, and keep his covenant (Exodus 19:5). On no other terms could God consent to be their God, and on no other terms would he consent to have them for his people. Grace precedes law, grace accompanies law, grace passes beyond law; nevertheless, grace must conserve law (Romans 3:31). God can propose to man no terms of favour, which do not include the need for an obedient will. He does not do so under the Gospel any more than he did under the law (cf. Matthew 7:21; Romans 2:6, Romans 2:7; Romans 6:1-23.; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 1 John 2:4, etc.). "It is exclusively Christ’s righteousness which is of grace imputed to us. Yet this has to be appropriated in an upright heart" (Martensen). When God took Israel out of Egypt, it was implied and intended that the redeemed people should "obey his voice." The covenant but made explicit an implicit obligation. 4. The promises themselves are of the grandest possible description (Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6). (1) Israel would be to God "a peculiar treasure." Out of all the nations of the earth—for all the earth was his—Jehovah had chosen this one, to reveal himself to it, to give it laws and judgments, and to dwell in its midst as its king, benefactor, and defender (cf. Deuteronomy 4:33-37). What an honour was this! And yet how inferior to the spiritual privileges of believers in Christ, who enjoy a nearness to God, an interest in his love, a special place in his regard, of which, not the earth only, but the universe, affords no other example. (2) Israel would be to God "a kingdom of priests." There is implied in this, on the one hand, royalty, dignity, rule; on the other, special consecration to God’s service, the privilege of acceptable approach to him, and an intercessory and mediatorial function in relation to other nations. This promise also, has its higher counterpart in the privileges of Christians, who are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9). Grace in the soul is a kingly, a dignifying, an ennobling principle. It confers true royalty of character. And in the future form of his kingdom, God, we may be sure, has royal places for all his royal children (Luke 19:17, Luke 19:19; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 2:26; Revelation 3:21). And believers are a "priesthood." Not, indeed, in the old sense of having to offer atoning sacrifices, but priests in virtue of special consecration, of right of near approach to God, and of their calling "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5), and to intercede for the world (1 Timothy 2:1). (3) Israel would be to God "an holy nation." This is involved in their calling to be priests. God. being holy, those who are about him—who serve him—who worship him, or who stand in any near relation to him—must be holy also. "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16). This requirement of holiness is unchangeable. Believers have in them the principle of holiness, and are engaged in "perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Corinthians 7:1). Holiness is that essential qualification, "without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). 5. The promise contains a hint of the catholicity of God’s design in the calling of Israel. "For all the earth is mine" (Exodus 19:5). Israel was called with a view to the ultimate benefit of the world. It was but the "first-born" of many sons whom God would lead to glory. II. THE PEOPLE’S (Exodus 19:7-10). They willingly took upon themselves the obligations indicated in the words, "Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant;" etc. (Exodus 19:5). They said at once "all that the Lord hath spoken we will do." There is a certain nobleness in this reply—a temporary rising of these long-enslaved minds to something like the dignity of their high calling as sons of God. Yet— 1. It was a reply given without much knowledge of the law. They apprehended hut little of its breadth, and of the spirituality of its requirements, else they would not have engaged so readily to do all that it enjoined. One design in placing Israel under law was just that they might grow in this knowledge of the breadth of the commandment, and so might have developed in them the consciousness of sin (Romans 7:7-25). 2. It was a reply given without much knowledge of themselves. The people do not seem to have doubted their ability to keep God’s word. They thought, like many more, that they had but to try, in order to do. Accordingly, a second design in placing them under law was to convince them of their mistake—to discover to them their spiritual inability. There is no way of convincing men of their inability to keep the law of God like setting them to try (Romans 7:1-25.). 3. It was a reply given, as respects the mass of the people, without heart-conversion. It was the outcome of a burst of enthusiasm, of an excited state of feeling. There was not the true "heart" in them to do what God commanded (Deuteronomy 5:29). Hence their speedy apostasy (Exodus 32:1-35.) The test of true conversion is perseverance (Hebrews 3:14; 1 John 2:19). Moses, having received the reply of the people, returned it to God, who, on hearing it, declared his purpose of coming in a thick cloud, and of speaking with Moses in the audience of all the people (cf. Exodus 19:19). The design was "that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever" (Exodus 19:9).—J.O. My covenant. It may be proper at this stage to indicate briefly the nature of the constitution under which Israel was placed at Sinai, directing attention to some of the resemblances and contrasts between it and the new and better covenant which has since superseded it. The nature of the old covenant, though set in a very clear light in the writings of St. Paul, does not seem to be well understood. Sometimes it is too much assimilated to the New Testament covenant: sometimes it is viewed as totally diverse from it. The truth is, the covenant may be looked at from a number of very different points of view, and according as it is thus regarded, it will present itself under very different aspects. It was a covenant of law; yet under it Israel enjoyed many privileges which more properly belong to a state of grace. We should, e.g; greatly misconceive its nature, if, looking only to the tender, almost caressing words of this text, we did not also take into account the manifestations of terror amidst which the law was given from Sinai (Exodus 19:16-20), with such other facts as the planting of the stones on Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 27:1-9; Joshua 8:30-35), and the recital of the blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 27:11-26). But we should do the covenant equal injustice if we looked only to the latter class of facts, and did not observe the former. That Israel’s standing under the law was modified by grace is shown: 1. From the fact of grace preceding law; 2. From the employment of a mediator; 3. From the "blood of sprinkling" at the ratification of the covenant (Exodus 24:1-18.); 4. From the propitiatory arrangements subsequently introduced; 5. From the revealed scope and design of the economy; 6. From the actual facts of Israel’s history. Keeping in view this double aspect of the covenant of Sinai—that on its inner side it was one of grace, on its outer side one of law—we have to consider its relations to the covenant of the Gospel. I. THE ARE, IN CERTAIN OBVIOUS , . The contrasts in question arise from the particularistic character, the defective spirituality, and the paedagogic design, of the older covenant. That which has succeeded it is more inward and spiritual in its nature; is universal in its scope; and is made primarily with individuals. Special contrasts are these: 1. The older covenant is more preceptive in its character than the later one. "Tutors and governors" (Galatians 4:2). 2. It is more concerned with outward rites and ceremonies (Hebrews 9:10). 3. It relies more on penalty and reward as motives. 4. The blessings promised are largely temporal. In the new covenant, temporal promises hold a very subordinate place. They are overshadowed by spiritual ones. II. THERE ARE OF EVEN IN THE BETWEEN THE TWO . The covenants of the law and of the Gospel are alike— 1. In requiring that the people of God shall be "an holy people." But the holiness of Israel was made to consist largely in the observance of outward distinctions. It was largely ceremonial. The holiness of the new covenant is purely spiritual. 2. In requiring obedience as the condition of fulfilment of promise. But (1) under the law, life and blessing were attached to obedience in the way of legal reward. The rubric was: "Do this, and thou shalt live" (Romans 10:5). Under the Gospel, this element is wholly eliminated. The law having done its work in showing that "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in (God’s) sight" (Romans 3:20), the bestowal of reward is taken from this ground, and placed explicitly on that of grace. All we receive is for the sake of Christ—a fruit of his righteousness. (2) The law, while requiring obedience, did not raise the point of man’s ability to render that obedience. But power to render obedience is itself one of the blessings of the new covenant, which thus goes deeper, and includes vastly more than the older one. (3) In general, the Gospel, while agreeing with the law in aiming at forming a people unto righteousness, takes up the individual at a riper stage in his religious development. It assumes that the taw has done its work in him—has convinced him of sin, and of his inability to attain to life through legal efforts. It supposes him to he aware of his guilt and danger as a sinner. In this condition—broken and humbled by the action of the law upon his conscience—it meets him with the tidings of redemption, and of life and blessing (including spiritual renewal) coming to him on the ground of "the righteousness of faith" (cf. Acts 13:38, Acts 13:39); 3. The privileges of the older covenant foreshadowed those of the new (1 Peter 2:9). But the contrast is great here also. See above. III. THESE ALL DEPEND UPON A . The deepest contrast between the two covenants is to be sought for in the view which each takes of the direction in which the individual (formerly the nation) is to look for acceptance and happiness—for "life." 1. The law. The law appears in the covenant with Sinai in its original, unqualified severity, as, on the one hand, awarding life to the obedient, and on the other, denouncing penalties against the breakers of even the least of its commandments (Galatians 3:10-13). Doubtless, but for daily pardon of daily offences, the Israelite, under so strict a constitution, would have been totally unable to maintain his footing. These offences, however, appear as so many breaches of the covenant bond, which, in strictness, was the keeping of the whole law. A right apprehension of God’s design in placing Israel under this constitution will do away with any appearance of harshness in the arrangement, as if God were purposely mocking the weakness of the people by setting them to work out a problem—the attainment of righteousness—in that way incapable of solution. The moral task given to Israel among the nations was, indeed, to aim at the realisation of righteousness, of righteousness as prescribed by the law. But God’s design in this was not, certainly, to make the salvation of any Israelite depend on the fulfilment of impossible conditions, but, primarily, to conduct the seeker after righteousness by the path of honest moral endeavour, to a consciousness of his inability to keep the law, and so to awaken in him the feeling of the need of a better righteousness than the law could give him—to drive him back, in short, from law to faith, from a state of satisfaction with himself to a feeling of his need of redemption—of redemption at once from the guilt of past transgressions, and from the discord in his own nature. The law had thus an end beyond itself. It was a schoolmaster to lead to Christ. The later Jews totally misconceived its nature when they clung to it with unbending tenacity as the sole instrument of justification (Romans 10:1-4). 2. The Gospel. In this is revealed "the righteousness of faith"—the righteousness which is "unto all and upon all them that believe." This is the only righteousness which can make the sinner truly just before God" (Romans 3:21-27). But the law is not thereby made void. It remains, as before, the standard of duty—the norm of holy practice. The design of the Gospel is not to abolish it, but to establish it more firmly than ever (Romans 3:31). Faith includes the obedient will. The end of redemption is holiness. IV. THE , WHILE BOUND TO GOD BY A OF LAW, YET ENJOYED MANY OF THE STATE OF GRACE. The better part of the Israelites were perfectly aware that had God been strict to mark iniquities, they could not stand before him (Psalms 130:3); that their own law would have condemned them. But they knew, too, that there was forgiveness with God, that he might be feared (Exodus 19:4). Piously availing himself of the expiatory rites provided for the covering of his sin, the godly Jew had confidence towards God. Many in the nation grasped the truth that an obedient will is, in God’s sight, the matter of chief importance, and that, where this is found, much else will be forgiven—that he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him (Acts 10:35), notwithstanding the special imperfections which may mark his daily life. This was practically to rise from the standpoint of the law, to that of the righteousness of faith. It enabled those who had attained to it, though under the law, to cherish a delight in spiritual righteousness, and even to find joy in the law itself, as the outward expression of that righteousness. It was not, however, the complete joy of salvation. The law still hovered above the consciousness of the Israelite with its unfulfilled demand; and he had not the means of perfectly pacifying his conscience in relation to it. While in those in whom the law had wrought its work most effectually, there was a deep feeling of sin, a painful conscious-hess of frustration in efforts after the highest goodness, which day by day wrung from them such cries as that of St. Paul—"O wretched man," etc. (Romans 7:24). Here, again, the Gospel reveals itself as the termination of the law of Moses (Romans 10:4).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 19:3-6 God’s first message to the people at Sinai. The cloud going on before the people from Rephidim, brings them at last to what by pre-eminence is called the mount. The mount, not because it was higher, but because there the burning bush appeared, and there the people were to serve God. Moses goes up to the mount, probably to the very spot where a while ago he had seen the burning bush and received his great commission to Pharaoh. From this scene he had been travelling in a circle, and had now come whence he had started, but not as many travellers in a circle do, returning poor and profitless as they went. Here he is, treading once again the hallowed mountain side; the people whom he has brought are below; God, he knows, is near, for he has just had most gracious experience of him in Rephidim; and now he waits for further revelations and commands. A great deal Moses has to listen to in Sinai from Jehovah; and therefore it is very interesting to notice the words with which Jehovah begins. Consider— I. THE TERMS BY WHICH GOD HIS PEOPLE. "The house of Jacob"—"the children of Israel." Thus Jehovah was ever sending the thoughts of his people far back into the past, and making them feel its important and glorious connection with the present. The house of Jacob was the house of him who had known many changes of circumstances, many disappointments and trials. It was the house of one who, born in Canaan, spent some of the best of his time at a distance with Laban, and died at last in Egypt. If he, the great ancestor, had thus been a man of change, what wonder that trying changes came upon the posterity! Then they were also the children of Israel. This was the name Divinely given; and if Israel forgets its purport and the privilege involved, Jehovah himself assuredly did not. Significant names, that would otherwise get hidden in the past, God takes special care to preserve. II. THE WAY IN WHICH GOD HIS RECENT . To the Israelites all had been very confused, tedious, and trying, in spite of all the miraculous exemptions, escapes, and provisions they had enjoyed. They had not very well known what was being done with them. But now, in the compass of a sweeping verse, the whole course of affairs is presented as one rapid and decisive action. As a bird might snatch its offspring out of captivity and bear it far on high to some safe shelter, so Jehovah has done with Israel. He puts before them, as in a vision, these three things to be considered— 1. The liberation. 2. The consequent journey. 3. The destination. And these three things he describes in a peculiar way. 1. The liberation he indicates by this signification, "what I did unto the Egyptians." He wished the people here to ponder the extent and significance of his terrible dealings in Egypt. The Israelites had gazed on a succession of varied and penetrating calamities coming on the Egyptians. But Jehovah wishes the observers to mark that these things were of his doing. Jehovah’s actions are not to be buried in oblivion when once they are past, because they are terrible actions. It is just because they are the terrible acts of a holy and just God that they are to be remembered. There was in them nothing of a tyrant’s caprice; they were not wild gusts of power to be ashamed of in calmer moments. There had been due prediction and preparation; there was an orderly, gradual, impressive, instructive mounting to a climax: and if any of the people were inclined to forget the doer in the deeds, the liberator in the liberation, here is a warning that things must not be so thought on. God is ever devising to make us look at events in their connection and continuity. The plagues of Egypt were only the preliminary overturning to carry on the greater plan of God. Egypt had fast hold of Israel; wherefore Israel’s God smote Egypt so that he might free his own people and bring them to himself. 2. The journey Jehovah indicates by a peculiarly beautiful and inspiring figure. "I bare you on eagles’ wings." This was an appropriate figure for people dwelling in the wilderness. Moses had, doubtless, seen many eagles in his shepherd experiences; and the Israelites would become familiar with them during their wanderings. Thus the eagle’s ways would be known; and after this word of Jehovah Moses would study them more and more, and one result of such observation we find in Deuteronomy 32:11. When men exalt themselves as the eagle, and set their nests among the stars, God can bring them down; but when he puts on the eagle’s wings, it is to exalt himself into a place which shall be one of perfect safety for his people. One imagines the eaglet thus lying on the parent’s wing. It may wriggle about uneasily, wondering at the speed with which it is taken, the shaking it has to undergo and the unfamiliar scenes through which it is passing. But these struggles count for little; they are natural enough, but they do not hinder the eagle in its progress. Patiently, calmly, strongly, it rises towards its secure destination. These unfamiliar scenes are by-and-by to be the frequent path of the now struggling, bewildered eaglet; in due time its own wings will appear in them— Sailing with supreme dominion Through the azure deep of air Paul himself, dazed and shaken to the very depths of his being on his first dealings with Jesus, had known what it was to be borne on eagle’s wings, and he lived to render a little of the same sort of ministry to the perplexed and desponding Timothy. The Israelites had been struggling and unbelieving, as at the Red Sea, at Marah, at the time when the manna was given, and at Rephidim; but in spite of all these, the strong eagle wings of God had berne them onward. Our struggles are but a trifle, if only God has us really in charge. Let us think ever of the eagle wings rather than the ignorant offspring carried thereon. 3. The destination. "I brought you unto myself." Just as the eagle brings its young to a place where without distraction or fear of interruption it can attend to their nourishment and growth. How beautifully God thus turns away the thoughts of his people from the desolation of the visible scene! True it was a wilderness; emphasis is laid upon this in Deuteronomy 32:1, Deuteronomy 32:2; but if we are brought to God, this is more than all that may be barren and cheerless in mere circumstances. The place which men do not care about and where they would not come of their own accord, is the place where God reveals himself gloriously and graciously to his own. Israel will now do well to consider, not what carnal comforts they lack, but what dangers they have escaped, and what Divine possessions they are in the way to acquire. To be brought to God in the fullest sense of the word, and to lie comfortably under his protection and nurture, what a great matter! (Romans 8:38, Romans 8:39). III. So much, then, for what Jehovah has done in the past, and now he turns to the future, making A LARGE PROMISE ON THE OF STRICT . He had to bring the people to himself on eagle’s wings, because they themselves were helpless to achieve the deliverance and security they needed. And now the time has come for response from them. He has brought them to himself, that being with him they may become his, fully and acceptably. They are put into external conditions such as make it possible for them to obey; therefore Jehovah has a right, and does right, to ask them for obedience. He who speaks about Jacob and Israel, cannot but also speak of the ancient covenant, with respect to which the children of Israel must labour earnestly to fulfil their part. God has already made certain requirements from the people, such as the passover regulations and those concerning the manna. But now his requirements are to flow forth in a great continuing stream. He will go on asking, as if asking were never to be at an end; and therefore it is well to start with a solemn preparatory word. As to the promise itself, we notice that it is a promise to a nation—to a whole people. As we see in the next chapter, the conditions are to be achieved by individual obedience: God comes to the individual with his commandments, and says, "Thou." But the promise is for the nation. It is a promise, too, which seems worded for appreciation in the future rather than in the present, or if in the present, only by a few who had been prepared to understand it. Perhaps it may be most fittingly described as a promise to be the stimulus and stay of truly patriotic hearts. Wherever there is a man who glories in the race from which he sprang and the land where he was born, there is one who may be expected to understand the force of an appeal like this. No nation could really be more to God than another nation, unless it were a better one. Israel had been made free from Egypt that it might then rise into all the fulness of what a nation ought to be; and therefore God sets these great possibilities before the people. All the earth, he said, was his. Be had proved his complete control over one much esteemed tract of territory by the confusions and calamities he had brought into Pharaoh’s domains; and there was no nation among men that he could not treat in the same fashion. But, if only men will submit, he can make to himself a peculiar people, testifying to his power, not from among humiliations consequent on despising him, but from the heights of glory and blessedness to which he lifts those who obey him. He mingles in one glorious expression the thought of all those blessings which come from the union of true religion and right government. A kingdom of priests is one where harmony and right dealing will be found running through all relations, because each member is continually serving God with the great, loving, acceptable sacrifice of his own life. God is not really king in any society of men, unless each member of that society is fully a priest towards him.—Y. BY J. Exodus 19:1-6 The Lord and his people. I. WHO THE PEOPLE OF GOD ARE. 1. The children of the promise, "the house of Jacob," etc; the household of faith. 2. They who have experienced deliverance and known God’s love: "Ye have seen what I did," etc. The law the picture of the Gospel: those only can enter into the covenant of obedience who have known that God has chosen and blessed them. "We love him because he first loved us." II. WHAT THE LORD ASKS OF THEM. 1. True obedience: not a profession, but a life. 2. To keep his covenant: to understand his will, and make that will their law. The whole end of both taw and gospel is missed if the life is not laid hold of, if the man is not brought to wear again the image of him who created him. III. THE GLORY GOD WILL GIVE THEM IN THE EARTH. 1. They will be God’s best beloved—a peculiar treasure unto him "above all people." Note the true position of God’s people. It is not that God cares for them only. He cares for all: "all the earth is mine." They are the choicest of his earthly treasures. 2. They are to be "a kingdom of priests." They will minister to the nations in the things of God—leading them into his presence, teaching them his will. 3. They will be "a holy nation," a consecrated people. The Spirit’s anointing will rest upon them. 4. This threefold glory the portion of God’s people to-day: the knowledge that God has chosen us; our priestly service among our brethren; the unction from on high.—U. BY H. T. Exodus 19:1-15 Covenant before law. "Now, therefore, if ye will obey," etc.—Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6. This subject might well be introduced by:— 1. Showing how exactly the topography of Sinai (i.e; the plain of Er Rahah, Ras Sufsafeh, and Jebel Musa) agrees with the sacred history. [For material of description see "The Desert of the Exodus."] 2. How suitable mountains were to constitute the scenery of Divine manifestation. 3. An analysis of this section— (1) God and Moses; (2) Moses with the people; (3) God and Moses again; (4) Once more Moses with the people. In this preparation for the law, we shall see the Gospel. The Gospel antedated law (see Galatians 3:1-29.). Here we have several evangelical principles:— I. NO , NO LIVING . Here may be discussed and illustrated the whole question whether God’s grace precedes our obedient living unto him, or vice versa. II. NO FROM GOD, NO . The initiative is ever with God (Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:4). To illustrate:—Suppose the words had run this way: "Ye know what ye did in Egypt, how ye sought me, if haply ye might find me; how all the way through the desert ye have followed hard after me, if peradventure ye might see my face, and hear lay voice in this mountain." Not one word would have been true. God ever first seeks man, not nigh God. III. NO ACTION, NO . God’s appeal is ever strengthened by his deeds. In the case of Israel, there had been the paschal lamb, the passing over, the passage of the Red Sea, and the constitution of a Church. Thereafter covenant, and anon law! Show the analogies in Christian times—the atonement, pardon, adoption, inclusion in the Church, the establishment of covenantal relations, the coming under the Christian rule of life. IV. NO , NO RESULT (Exodus 19:5). "If," etc. 1. In all God’s dealing with us he has respect to our liberty. 2. The condition here is a believing obedience. The Hebrew word for "obey" seems to carry pregnantly within it all these meanings—hearing, listening, heeding, trusting, acting according to what we hear and believe. It might be welt to show that practically in Christian life the believing man is the obedient, and vice versa. 3. And keeping the covenant. Bring out the sentinel idea in the "keeping," and then show that we keep the covenant: (1) By complying with the conditions on our side. (2) By jealously guarding the conditions on God’s side against the tamperings of error. V. WITH , THE MOST BLESSED RESULTS. They who believe and keep the covenant become:— 1. The private and peculiar treasure of the King of kings. Amongst earthly potentates there is a distinction between the treasures which they hold in their public capacity and those which are their own private property. When a king abdicates, he leaves behind him the public treasure, but carries with him his own. In an analogous sense we become the priceless jewels of the King of kings, though "all the earth is his" (same Hebrew word in Malachi 3:17). 2. A kingly priesthood (Exodus 19:6). "A royalty of priests," i.e; every king a priest, and every priest a king. Here we have— (1) The royalty of religion. Religion the most powerful factor in life. Illustrate the monarchy of religion—e.g; St. Paul on board the ship. (2) The priesthood of religion. Priestcraft is vile; priesthood a benediction. The priest receives from God for man; offers for man to God, e.g; the priesthood Aaronic, that of the Lord Jesus, that of Israel for the nations, that of the Christian believer. 3. Separate. Negatively, from the world, but also positively unto God. "A holy nation."—R. THE OF THE PEOPLE AND OF THE FOR THE OF GOD UPON IT. The people having accepted God’s terms, the time had come for the revelation in all its fulness of the covenant which God designed to make with them. This, it was essential, they should perceive and know to come from God, and not to be the invention of Moses. God, therefore, was about to manifest himself. But ere he could do this with safety, it was requisite that certain preparations should be made. Before man can be fit to approach God, he needs to be sanctified. The essential sanctification is internal; but, as internal purity and holiness cannot be produced at a given moment, Moses was ordered to require its outward symbol, external bodily cleanliness, by ablution and the washing of clothes, as a preliminary to God’s descent upon the mountain (Exodus 19:10, Exodus 19:13). It would be generally understood that this external purity was symbolical only, and needed to be accompanied by internal cleanliness. Further, since even the purest of men is impure in God’s sight, and since there would be many in the congregation who had attempted no internal cleansing, it was necessary to provide that they should not draw too near, so as to intrude on the holy ground or on God’s presence. Moses was therefore required to have a fence erected round the mountain, between it and the people, and to proclaim the penalty of death against all who should pass it and touch the mount (Exodus 19:12, Exodus 19:13). In executing these orders, Moses gave an additional charge to the heads of families, that they should purify themselves by an act of abstinence which he specified (Exodus 19:15) Exodus 19:10 Go unto the people. Moses had withdrawn himself from the people to report their words to God (Exodus 19:8, Exodus 19:9). He was now commanded to return to them. Sanctify them. Or "purify them." Purification in Egypt was partly by washing, partly, by shaving the hair, either front the head only, or from the entire body (Herod. 2.37), partly perhaps by other rites. The Israelites seem ordinarily to have purified themselves by washing only. To-day and to-morrow. The fourth and fifth of Sivan, according to the Jewish tradition, the Decalogue having been given upon the sixth. The requirement of a two-days’ preparation marked the extreme sanctity of the occasion. Let them wash their clothes. Compare Le Exodus 15:5. Rich people could "change their garments" on a sacred occasion (Genesis 35:2); the poorer sort, having no change, could only wash them. Exodus 19:11 The Lord win come down. Jehovah is regarded as dwelling in the heaven above, not exclusively (Psalms 139:7-10), but especially and therefore, when he appears on earth, he "comes down" (Genesis 11:5-7; Genesis 18:21; Exodus 3:8; etc.). In the sight of all the people. That a visible manifestation of the Divine presence is intended appears, unmistakably, from Exodus 19:16 and Exodus 19:18. Exodus 19:12 Thou shalt set bounds. The erection of a fence or barrier, between the camp and the mountain—not necessarily all round the mountain—seems to be meant. This barrier may have run along the line of low alluvial mounds at the foot of the cliff of Ras Sufsafeh, mentioned by Dean Stanley, but cannot have been identical with them, since it was an artificial fence. That ye go not up into the mount. Curiosity might have tempted some to ascend the mount, if it had not been positively forbidden under the penalty of death; carelessness might have brought many into contact with it, since the cliff rises abruptly from the plain. Unless the fence had been made, cattle would, naturally, have grazed along its base. To impress the Israelites with a due sense of the awful majesty of God, and the sacredness of everything material that it brought into close relations with him, the mount itself was declared holy—none but Moses and Aaron might go up into it; none might touch it; even the stray beast that approached it must suffer death for its unwitting offence (Exodus 19:13). Whosoever toucheth the mount. The mountain may be "touched" from the plain—it rises so abruptly. Shall be surely put to death. A terrible punishment, and one which, to modern ideas, seems excessive. But it was only by terrible threats, and in some cases by terrible punishments (2 Samuel 6:7), that the Israelites could be taught reverence. A profound reverence lies at the root of all true religious feeling; and for the education of the world, it was requisite, in the early ages, to inculcate the necessity of this frame of mind in some very marked and striking way. Exodus 19:13 There shall not an hand touch it. Rather, "there shall not an hand touch him." The transgressor shall not be seized and apprehended, for that would involve the repetition of the offence by his arrester, who must overpass the "bounds" set by Moses, in order to make the arrest. Instead of seizing him, they were to kill him with stones or arrows from within the "bounds," and the same was to be done, if any stray beast approached the mountain. When the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. By translating the same Hebrew phrase differently here and in Exodus 19:12, the A. V. avoids the difficulty which most commentators see in this passage. According to the apparent construction, the people are first told that they may, on no account, ascend the mountain (Exodus 19:12), and then that they may do so, so soon as the trumpet sounds long (Exodus 19:13). But they do not ascend at that time (Exodus 19:19), nor are they allowed to do so—on the contrary, Moses is charged anew to prevent it (Exodus 19:21-25); nor indeed do the people ever ascend, but only Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy eiders (Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2). What, then, is the permission here given? When we scrutinise the passage closely, we observe that the pronoun "they" is in the Hebrew, emphatic, and, therefore, unlikely to refer to "the people" of Exodus 19:12. To whom then does it refer? Not, certainly, to "the Elders" of Exodus 19:7, which would be too remote an antecedent, but to those chosen persons who are in the writer’s mind, whom God was about to allow to ascend. Even these were not allowed to go up until summoned by the prolonged blast of the trumpet. Exodus 19:14 In obedience to the commands which he had received (Exodus 19:10), Moses returned to the camp at the foot of Sinai, and issued the order that the people were to purify themselves and wash their garments during that day and the next, and be ready for a great solemnity on the third day. He must also, at the same time, have given directions for the construction of the fence, which was to hedge in the people (Exodus 19:12), and which he speaks of as constructed in Exodus 19:23. Exodus 19:15 Come not at your wives. Compare 1 Samuel 21:4, 1 Samuel 21:5; 1 Corinthians 7:5. A similar obligation lay on the Egyptian priests (Porphyr. De Abstin. 4.7); and the idea which underlies it was widespread in the ancient world The subject is well treated, from a Christian point of view, by Pope Gregory the First, in his answers to S. Augustine’s questions (Bode, Hist. Eccl. 2.). Exodus 19:10-15 The awfulness of God’s presence, and the preparation needed ere we approach him. I. THE OF GOD’S . The presence of God is awful, even to those holy angels who are without spot or stain of sin, having done the holy will of their Maker from their creation. But to sinful man it is far more awful. No man "can see God’s face, and live" (Exodus 33:20). Jacob was mistaken when he said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" (Genesis 32:30). He had really wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4). When Moses requested to see the Almighty’s glory, he was told, "Thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen" (Exodus 33:23). "No man has seen God at any time," says St. John the Evangelist (John 1:18). But, even apart from sight, there is in the very sense of the presence of God an awful terribleness. "I am troubled at his presence," said Job; "when I consider, I am afraid of him" (Job 23:15). "Truly the Lord is in this place," said Jacob, "and I knew it not. How dreadful is this place!" (Genesis 28:16, Genesis 28:17). God is at all times everywhere; but he veils himself, he practically withdraws himself; and, though he is where we are, we do not see him, or perceive him (Job 23:8, Job 23:9). But, let him reveal his presence, and at once all tremble before it. "Mine eye seeth him," says Job again, "wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5, Job 42:6) "When I heard," says Habakkuk, "my belly trembled, my lips quivered at the voice; rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself" (Job 3:16). In part, no doubt, weakness trembles before strength, littleness before greatness, finiteness before infinity; but, mainly, it is sinfulness that quakes and shrinks before perfect holiness, corruption that shivers before incorruption, rottenness before absolute purity. II. THE NEEDED ERE WE HIM. Only the "pure in heart" can "see God." In all our approaches to him, we must seek first to be made fit for propinquity by separation from sin. Moses was bidden to "sanctify the people’ (verse 10), which he could only do outwardly. This true sanctification, the true purification, was heart-felt repentance, deep contrition, and the earnest resolve to forsake sin, and henceforth live righteously. This preparation each man had to make for himself. It was in vain that he should wash himself seven times, or seven times seven, in vain that he should purify his garments, and keep himself free from material pollutions of every sort and kind—something more was needed—he required to be purified in heart and soul. And so it is with Christians—with all men universally. God must be approached with humility—not in the spirit of the Pharisee; with reverence—head bowed down, and voice hushed to a low tone, and heart full of the fear of his holiness; with a pure mind—that is, with a mind averse from sin, and resolved henceforth to do righteously. The publican’s approach was better than the Pharisee’s. Let men "smite upon their breast," let them be deeply convinced of sin, and own themselves sinners; let them implore the blotting out of their sins, and the cleansing of their entire nature; let them heartily resolve to sin no more, but walk in newness of life, and there is no contact which they need dread, no nearness of approach from which they need shrink. We are not, indeed, to hope in this life for that vision of God, or for that degree of communion, which our souls desire. "Now we see through a glass darkly—now we know in part." The full vision of God, full access to him, complete communion, is reserved for the next world, where it will form our perfect bliss and consummation. BY J. ORR Exodus 19:10-25 The mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire (Hebrews 12:18). It is interesting to observe that, with the latter part of this chapter, we enter on an entirely new phase in the history of God’s revelation of himself to Israel. Terror enough there has been in the previous portions of the book—terror and "a mighty hand"—awful manifestations of God’s power and holiness; but towards Israel there has been displayed only benignity and fatherly affection. Their wants have been ungrudgingly supplied; even their murmurings, as we have seen, did not elicit from God more than a passing reproof. But now that Jehovah takes his awful seat on Sinai, and proceeds to give forth his law, he clothes himself, even towards Israel, with a majesty and terror which strike the people with dismay. The fact is obviously one of deep significance, requiring, as it will repay, our close attention. What, meanwhile, we have to note is, that God did not reveal himself in law and terror till he had given the people many practical evidences of his love for them, and so had won their confidence. Without this, the terrors of Sinai could scarcely have been borne by them. I. THE (Exodus 19:10-16). The revelation at Sinai was distinctively a revelation of the Divine holiness. From this fact, rightly apprehended, we may deduce the necessity for the preparations and precautions referred to in the text. The design of the lawgiving was to bring to light, and impress on men’s minds, that holiness and justice which are essential parts of God’s character, and which underlie all his dealings with them, even when most veiled by tenderness and grace. The time had come which God judged best for such a revelation being made. Made it had to be at some point or other in the history of the Divine dealings with men; and no time was so suitable for it as this of the constitution of the covenant with Israel. The instructions issued to the people accord with this design, and have as their end the impressing of their minds with a deep sense of the holiness of the Being into whose presence they are approaching, and of their own unholiness and unfitness to draw near to him. Holiness is— 1. Absolute moral purity and perfection. It is sanctity of character. It implies, whether in God or man, the steadfast bent of the will towards all that is good and true and just and pure. In God, it is an inflexible determination to uphold at all costs the interests of righteousness and truth. It is an intensity of nature, a fire of zeal or jealousy, directed to the maintenance of these interests. Hence the requirement that in preparation for their meeting with him at the mount, the people should "sanctify" themselves for two whole days (Exodus 19:10). The sanctification enjoined was mainly external—the washing of clothes, etc.; but this, in itself a symbol of the need of heart purity, was doubtless to be attended with mental and spiritual preparations. Holiness is to be studied by us in all our approaches to God. The unholy will not be spurned by God, if they come to him in penitence, relying on his grace in Christ; but his end in receiving them is that he may make them holy, and holiness is the condition of subsequent fellowship (Romans 6:1-23.; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 6:1-24:25-27; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Titus 2:11-15; Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 1:6, 1 John 1:7). 2. The principle which guards the Divine honour. Thus Martensen defines it—’’ Holiness is the principle that guards the eternal distinction between Creator and creature, between God and man, in the union effected between them: it preserves the Divine dignity and majesty from being infringed upon." Hence the command to Moses to set bounds to the mountain, that the people might be kept back (Exodus 19:12, Exodus 19:13). So stringently was this to be enforced, that if a man, or even a beast, should touch the mountain, the trespasser was to be put to death. The statement—"When the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount" (Exodus 19:13), is probably to be read in the light of Exo 19:17. The lesson taught is that of reverential awe of God. Even when we have the fullest confidence in approaching God as a Father, we ought not to allow ourselves to forget the infinite distance which still exists between him and us. Our service is to be "with reverence and godly fear" (Hebrews 12:28). II. GOD’S DESCENT ON SINAI (Exodus 19:16-19). God’s descent on Mount Sinai was in fire (Exodus 19:18), and with great terribleness. The scene, as described in these verses, is sufficiently awful. The adjuncts of the descent were— 1. A thick cloud upon the mount. 2. Thunders and lightnings. 3. The voice of a trumpet exceeding loud. 4. A fire "burning unto the midst of heaven" (Deuteronomy 4:11). 5. Smoke as of a furnace—the result of the action of the fire. 6. The mountain quaking. This awfulness and terror are the more remarkable when we remember— (1) That what we have here is not God the Judge, arraigning before him trembling and convicted sinners, to pronounce on them sentence of doom; but a God of grace, summoning to his presence a people whom he loves, and has redeemed, and has just declared to be to him a peculiar treasure, above all people. (2) That the design of this manifestation is to give to Israel a law which shall be the bond of a covenant between him and them, and by which it is intended that they shall order their lives. The facts to be explained are— (1) That the phenomena alluded to are all of an alarming nature, and (2) That most of them have a symbolical significance, which enhances the impression of terror. The fire, e.g; is the symbol of holiness. The thick cloud suggests mystery. It tells also of how God must veil his glory from man, if man is not to be consumed by it. The smoke speaks of wrath (Deuteronomy 29:20). To the question thus raised, Why all this awfulness and terror? the following answers may be made:— 1. Law is the revelation of God’s holiness. It is the expression of the demand of holiness. This is the one thing it has to do, to declare what are the requirements of holiness, and to enunciate these requirements in the form of commands to be obeyed. But in order that law may serve its ends, it must be given in its proper character as law with all the adjuncts of authority and majesty which rightfully belong to it, and without dilution or weakening of any kind. Time enough, after the law has been given, and the constitution is firmly settled on its bases, to say how grace is to deal with such as fall short of the standard of its requirements. And, as formerly remarked, a revelation of law, at some period or other in the history of God’s dealings with mankind, was plainly necessary— (1) That the full requirements of God’s holiness should be made known. Nothing was to be gained by the establishment of a constitution in which the requirements of holiness should be glozed over, veiled, treated as non-existent, kept out of view. Sooner or later they must be brought to light. The relations of God with men could never be placed upon a satisfactory footing, till the fullest recognition had been accorded to them. If the breach between heaven and earth is to be healed—healed thoroughly—it is not to be by ignoring the claims of holiness, but by recognising them to the utmost, and then "devising means" whereby, in consistency with these claims, God’s "banished" may still not be "expelled from him" (2 Samuel 14:14). The choice of this time for making the revelation was connected with God’s whole design in the calling of Israel. (2) That men might have the knowledge of sin. The law must be made known that men may understand the number and extent of their transgressions. The lawgiving at Sinai, therefore, marks a distinct stage in the progress of God’s revelations. The design was to give Israel just impressions of what the law really was—this law which they were binding themselves to keep—to force upon them the conviction of its great awfulness and sanctity. Fitly, therefore, was it promulgated with every circumstance which could arouse the torpid conscience, and give impressiveness and force to the revelation. 2. Most of those to whom the law was given, while outwardly the people of God, and about to take on them the obligations of a solemn covenant, were really unregenerate. This circumstance, which lay in the truth of their relation to God as distinguished from mere profession, was fitly signified by the manner in which the law was given. The law shows by its form that it was not made for a righteous man (1 Timothy 1:9). 3. For the sin which the law brought to light, no proper expiation was as yet provided. Typical atonements might indeed be offered; but not till the great propitiator came could the guilt be actually removed. God’s forgivenesses, under this first covenant, were not remission proper, but praetermission (Romans 3:25). Christ came "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament" (Hebrews 9:15), which, therefore, were standing over unexpiated. This fact, that the law had claims against the sinner, no proper means of discharging which as yet existed, had also its recognition in the manner in which the law was promulgated. 4. The law, in the peculiar way in which it entered into the Sinaitic covenant, was not a saving and blessing power, but, on the contrary, could only condemn. The law, as it entered into the covenant with Israel, could neither justify nor sanctify. It concluded all under sin, and left them there. It proved itself unequal even to the lower task of restraining outward corruptions. Its curb was ineffectual to keep sin in check. It could give commandments written on stone, but had no power to write them on the fleshly tables of the heart (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-18.). III. THE RENEWED WARNING (Exodus 19:19-25). God, probably by a voice audible to the whole congregation (cf. Exodus 19:6), called Moses to the top of the mount. No sooner, however, had he ascended than he was sent back again to renew the warning to the people to keep strictly within their bounds. The reason given was—"Lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish … lest the Lord break forth upon them" (Exodus 19:21, Exodus 19:22). The passage teaches, 1. That the heart is naturally disobedient. Even under these most solemn circumstances the Israelites could hardly be restrained. The very prohibition was a provocative to their self-will to transgress the boundary. To gratify this impulse they were disposed to risk the consequences. Had the danger not been very real, Moses would not have been sent back so promptly as he was. Cf. what Paul says on the law—"I had not known sin but by the law," etc. (Romans 7:7-14). 2. That temerity in Divine things exposes the trangressor to severe punishment. Cf. the men of Bethshemesh and the ark (1 Samuel 6:19), Uzzah, Uzziah, etc. 3. That it is hard even for good men to credit the extent of the rebelliousness of the human heart. Moses thought it extremely unlikely that the people would do what God told him they were just on the point of doing. He relied upon his "bounds," and on the strict charges he had given them to keep them back (Exodus 19:23). Alas! it was soon to be discovered that even stronger bounds than his would not restrain them. One design of the economy of law was to demonstrate the futility of every attempt to restrain wickedness by the system of mere "bounds." What is needed is not "bounds," but renewal. 4. God’s near presence is perilous to the sinner.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 19:9-25 The manifestation of God’s glory at Sinai. I. THE PURPOSE OF THIS . God made this purpose known beforehand; and it was that the people who saw and heard these dreadful phenomena might believe Moses for ever, might permanently acknowledge his authority as a messenger and representative of God. When Moses was at Sinai before and then entrusted with a Divine message to Israel, he urged it as one of his difficulties that Israel would not believe him. "They will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto thee" (Exodus 4:1). Now without appeal in any way from Moses, Jehovah provides a sublime demonstration of his presence, which he expressly mentions as being intended to establish the position of Moses. Testimony must always be chosen corresponding with the character and circumstances of those to whom it is presented. There is a time when it will do to change the rod into a serpent; and so there is a time when the same people before whom this was done must be confronted with all the terrors of Sinai. It was a great defect on the part of the people that they had no adequate sense—it may almost be said they had no sense at all—of the holiness of God. Upon the slightest interference with their self-indulgent desires, they broke out into reproach, almost into rebellion. Therefore, in the very midst of gracious and unfailing providences, they must be made to feel that it is a fearful thing as well as a happy thing to fall into the hands of the living God. He is ever loving and desires our good; but he is also supreme in holiness, and in all our thoughts he must be hallowed as one who, when the need appears, can make most terrible manifestations of his power. We must be alive to God’s presence in the terrible and destructive phenomena of the natural world as much as in those which are gentle, attractive, and pleasing. By the terrors of Sinai he intimated to his people, once for all, that he was a God not to be trifled with, but one who demanded careful and humble attention at all times when he expressed his will. II. THE FOR IT WHICH HAD TO BE MADE BY THE PEOPLE. The manifestation was not to come at once; the people had to wait for it; but waiting was not all. The waiting indeed was necessary that they might have sufficient opportunity to prepare. Even already it was being signified to them that in external things, and even in such a slight matter as the washing of the clothes, they were to be a holy people. All the defilements gathered by the way, all the dust of the conflict with Amalek had to be washed off; and short of water as they had lately been, God, we may be sure, provided an abundant supply before giving this command. He required his people through certain symbolic actions to enter into a special state of readiness for himself. Then when they were so far ready by what they did to themselves, they must take further special precautions not to enter on the holy ground. As God took from the dwellers of the earth the house of Jacob to be his holy nation, so he took these steeps of Sinai to be a holy place for himself. Evidently all these preparations being of the character they were, must have produced a state of mind full of expectation and suspense. God fixed the very day of this appearing. This is a thing he can do, sure that the reality will not fall short of the popular notion formed beforehand. But there is another great day of the Lord; and the precise point of this in time no man knoweth. It was in mercy that the date of the visitation on Sinai was made known to Israel; it is in equal mercy that the great day of the Lord yet remaining is veiled, as to its date, from us. Those who live as they ought to live, trusting in Christ and knowing the indwelling of the Spirit, are doing that which secures present profit and blessedness, makes meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, and at the same time adequate preparation for the trials of the last great day. There is no way of being ready for them except to live near to God in prayer and faith and faithfulness in little things. Believe in Christ, and show your faith by your works, and then you are ready whatever comes. III. THE ITSELF AND ITS EFFECTS. Precisely how the manifestation was to take place does not seem to have been indicated beforehand; and even as it stands described by all those terrible terms, thunder, lightning, the smoking and the quaking mount, we feel that the reality must far have transcended the power of human speech to describe. It was truly an unspeakable visitation. The word telling us most is that which says that before this visitation all the people trembled. Evidently it had an overwhelming effect upon them. It is made perfectly plain that when God cannot draw men by love, he can hold them fast by fear. If they will not go like invited children in his way, they are shaken nolentes volentes out of their own. Whatever else men may refuse to God, love, worship, service,—this at all events is ensured, that they shall be terrified before him. They have no choice. The earth cannot but quake when he sets to work the mighty hidden powers underneath. And so the most atheistic life must acknowledge by its disturbed emotions that there is a power it cannot resist. The boasted discipline and sovereignty of human reason count for nothing then. The earthquake without gets its due result from the quaking heart within. Man may set up his will against God’s will; but that only means that he refuses obedience; he cannot keep God from shaking him to the very foundations of his being. Though the people in a few months left Sinai, yet Sinai in a very important sense followed them. The fire that went out from the Lord and devoured Nadab and Abihu—the fire that burned at Taberah among the complaining people (Numbers 11:1)—the opening earth and the devouring fire at the time of the conspiracy of Korah (Numbers 16:1-50.)—what are all these but proofs of the God of Sinai travelling in all his terror and glory along with Israel and making sharp visitations in the hour of worldliness, unbelief, and negligence? Those trained in idolatry may well become sceptical and end in utter unbelief, for they never see anything in the way of subduing power save the power of knavish priests over superstitious devotees. There are great pretensions and professions, but never anything done corresponding with them. But here as Jehovah begins to specify his requirements, he first of all shows his power in the most impressive way. As an Israelite looked back on Sinai, whatever other feelings he might have, he could not deny the terrible reality that was there. And one very remarkable thing is, that through all this thunder and lightning, smoking and quaking, there was no actual destruction. If there had been such, it would certainly have been recorded. But so far from this being the case, there were special and very earnest directions in order to avert it (Exodus 19:12,Exodus 19:13, Exodus 19:21, Exodus 19:24.) So long as they kept outside the Divinely appointed barrier and observed the cleansing regulations, neither life nor property was lost. Sinai, with all its undescribed terrors, was not Vesuvius: the people beneath were not gathered in a doomed Herculaneum or Pompeii. The purpose of Jehovah was simply to manifest the reality, extent, and proximity of his destroying power. Men were made to feel what it could do, if they were so presumptuous or negligent as to come within its rightful exercise.—Y. BY J. Exodus 19:7-25 The revelation of Jehovah. I. WHAT IS ERE THE CAN BE . 1. The will must be surrendered to God, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8). 2. The filthiness of the past must be put away; "Sanctify them" (Exodus 19:10). There must be loathing of, and separation from, sin. 3. There must be a sense of the distance sin has put between the soul and God; "Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it" (Exodus 19:12, Exodus 19:13). II. HOW THE IS . 1. In the awful manifestation of his majesty (Exodus 19:16-19). The first step is the recognition of the livingness and greatness and holiness of God. Hitherto he has been to the soul a name only; now the Creator, the Holy One, against whom and in whose sight all sin has been wrought, the Righteous Judge from whom there is no escape, from whose face death itself affords no covering. 2. In the glorifying of a Mediator, to whom he speaks, and who shall declare him to us. This is reflected in the Christian’s experience— (1) Sinai, the knowledge of sin; (2) Calvary, peace through the blood of Jesus, acceptance in the Beloved.—U. THE OF GOD UPON SINAI. All was ready. The fence had been made (Exodus 19:23); the people had purified themselves—at least so far as externals went. The third day was come—there was a breathless hush of expectation. Then suddenly, in the morning, the presence manifested itself. "There were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud" (Exodus 19:16); "and Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace and the whole mount quaked greatly" (Exodus 19:18) Or, as the scene is elsewhere (Deuteronomy 4:11, Deuteronomy 4:12) described by Moses—"Ye came near and stood under the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." The phenomena were not a mere "storm of thunder and lightning, whereof Moses took advantage to persuade the people that they had heard God’s voice"—not "an earthquake with volcanic eruptions"—not even these two combined—but a real theophany, in which amid the phenomena of storm and tempest, and fire and smoke, and thick darkness, and hearings of the ground as by an earthquake shock, first the loud blast of a trumpet sounded long commanding attention, and then a clear penetrating voice, like that of a man, made itself heard in distinctly articulated words, audible to the whole multitude, and recognised by them as superhuman—as "the voice of God" (Deuteronomy 4:33). It is in vain to seek to minimise, and to rationalise the scene, and tone it down into something not supernatural. The only honest course is either to accept it as a plain record of plain (albeit miraculous) facts, or to reject it altogether as the fiction of a romancer. Exodus 19:16 There were thunders. Literally, "voices," as in Exodus 9:23; but there can be no doubt that "thunder" is meant. A thick cloud. Compare above, Exodus 9:9, and the comment ad loc. The voice of the trumpet. Literally, "a trumpet’s voice." The word used for "trumpet" is not the same as in Exodus 9:13; but the variation does not seem to have any importance. Exodus 19:17 Moses brought forth the people out of the camp. The camp itself must have been withdrawn to some little distance from the foot of the mount, so that a vacant space intervened between the first tents and the "fence" which Moses had caused to be erected almost close to the mount. Into this vacant space Moses now led "the people"—i.e; the chief of the people—so bringing them as near as they might come to God. Exodus 19:18 Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke. Literally, smoked, all of it. Kalisch suggests that "the dense clouds from which the thunders broke forth had the appearance of smoke." But the reason assigned—"because the Lord descended on it in fire," seems to imply real smoke; and. the same re-suits from the comparison of it to "the smoke of a furnace." The whole mount quaked greatly. Scarcely "through the vehemence of the thunder" (Kalisch), for thunder does not shake the earth, though it shakes the air—but rather by an actual earthquake. Compare Psalms 18:7; Matthew 27:51-54; Acts 4:31; Acts 16:26. Exodus 19:19 When the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder. This is a somewhat free translation; but it gives well the real meaning of the Hebrew. We may conclude that the trumpet’s blast was not continuous. It sounded when the manifestation began (Exodus 19:16). It sounded again, much louder and with a much more prolonged note, to herald the actual descent of God upon the mount. This time the sound was so piercing, so terrible, so intolerable, that Moses could no longer endure to keep silence, but burst out in speech. Were his words those recorded in Hebrews 12:21—"I exceedingly fear and quake"—words not found now in the Old Testament—or were they others which have been wholly lost to us? It is impossible to say. His speech, however, had the effect of bringing the awful preparations to a close—"Moses spake, and God. answered him by a voice, and the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai." Exodus 19:20 On the top of the mount. Not, probably, on the highest point of the Sinaitic group, the Jebel Musa, which is out of sight from the plain Er-Rahah, where the Israelites must have been assembled; but on the highest part of the face of Sinai fronting that plain, the Ras Sufsafeh, which would be to the Israelites at the base "the top of the mount." The Lord called Moses up. Perhaps with Aaron, who certainly accompanied him when he next ascended (Exodus 19:24), and who seems to be glanced at in the phrase used at the end of Exo 19:23 Exodus 19:16-20 God’s various modes of manifesting himself. It has been well said that "when God reveals himself it is in a manner suitable to the occasion." No revelation that he has made of himself has ever been so terrible in its material accompaniments as that at Sinai; and no occasion can ever be conceived of as more needing the employment of solemn, startling, and impressive circumstances. Here was a people gross of heart, delighting in flesh-pots, debased by slavery, careless of freedom, immoral, inclined to idolatry, which had to be elevated into God’s living witness among the nations, the depositary of his truth, the teacher of the rest of mankind for ages. Given the object of impressing such a nation permanently with the conviction that it had received a Divine revelation, and that very dreadful consequences would follow the neglect of it, and the need of the thunders and other terrors of Sinai becomes manifest. At other times and in other places God has pursued quite different methods. To Elijah he revealed himself in the "still small voice;" to Isaiah and St. John in visions; to the apostles generally in the solemn teaching of his Son; to St. Paul in ecstasies, wherein he heard unspeakable words. The contrast between the day of the giving of the law on Sinai and the day of Pentecost has often been noticed. "When God of old came down from Heaven, In power and wrath he came; Before his feet the clouds were riven, Half darkness and half flame." "But when he came the second time, He came in power and love: Softer than gale at morning prime, Hovered his holy Dove." The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and the coming of Jesus were, both of them, gentle and peaceful Epiphanies, suited to the time when God, having educated the world for four thousand years or more, was about to seek to win men to himself by the preaching of "good tidings"—of the gospel of love. The clouds and terrors of Sinai would here have been out of place—unsuitable anachronisms. In complete harmony with the two occasions were—at Bethlehem, the retired village, the humble stable, the angels singing of peace on earth, the lone shepherds watching their flocks at night—in Jerusalem the voiceless wind, "mighty" yet subdued, the lambent light playing round the heads of holy men, the unseen inward influence shed into their hearts at the same time, impalpable to sense, but with power to revolutionise the world. And as God reveals himself to his Church in manifold ways, each fitting the occasion, so does he reveal himself to individuals. Now he comes clothed in his terrors. He visits with calamity or with sickness, or with that awful dread which from time to time comes over the soul, that it is lost, hopelessly lost, alienated from God for ever. Anon, he shows himself in gentler guise—he whispers hope, he instils faith, he awakens love. In every case he studies the needs of the individual, and adapts his revelation of himself to them. Now he calls by his preachers, now he warns by the "still small voice" of conscience; now he wakes men out of sleep by a sudden danger or a sudden deliverance; anon, he startles them out of a self-complacency worse than sleep by withdrawing himself and allowing them to fall. It is for man to take advantage of every Divine manifestation, to listen when God speaks, to obey when he calls, to make the use of each occasion which it was intended to have, to "receive God’s revelations of himself in his own way." BY J. ORR Exodus 19:16-19 Sinai and Sion. In studying these verses we cannot but be reminded of the picture drawn by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the contrast in respect of Church state and privilege between believers of the Old and believers of the New Testament dispensations. "Ye are not come," he says, "unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest … But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," etc. (Hebrews 12:18-25). Briefly stated, what is set forth here is the contrast of legal with Gospel privilege. The writer is addressing Jews, who were in danger of apostatising from Christ. He seeks to dissuade them from going back to Judaism by showing them the vast superiority of the privileges which they enjoyed as Christians to those enjoyed under the law. We, who are Christians, and axe in no temptation to return to Judaism, approach the subject from a different side. But the verses are still of use as showing us, by contrast, the greatness of our privilege. We have, 1. the negative side of Christian privilege—what we are delivered from, "Ye are not come," etc.; 2. The positive side of Christian privilege—what we have come to, "Ye are come unto Mount Sion," etc. It will better suit our present purpose to view the contrast along different lines. I. THE IS THE . Sinai and Sion. 1. Sinai. Sinai, the mountain of law, stands as the proper representative of the old economy. The Israelites, as seen above, were under a peculiar constitution. Bound to God by a covenant of law, they yet enjoyed many of the benefits of a state of grace. Sinai, however, was the proper representation of their economy. Divest that economy of all that it derived from the new and better covenant which has since superseded it, and it would have been a Sinai economy pure and simple. The law said, Do this and thou shalt live; and if the Israelite did not do it, it could award no blessing to him, could only condemn. This was the formal constitution. As placed under law, the people, in their approaches to God, were constantly coming anew to the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire. 2. Sion. The first thing which strikes us here is— (1) That there was this contrast between Sinai and Sion within Israel itself. Sinai and Sion were, so to speak, the two poles round which the whole national and religious life of Israel revolved. As Sinai, the mountain of the law, represents their position under law, so the grace element in their economy comes to light in Mount Sion. As on Sinai, God descended in awful smoke and flame, so on Sion he dwelt in peace in the midst of Israel, giving forth his oracles, receiving his people’s worship, and dispensing mercy and favour from between the cherubim, above the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. God came down for a season only on Sinai; on Sion, he was said to dwell (Psalms 132:13, Psalms 132:14). He appeared in terror on Mount Sinai; but Sion displayed the milder glories of his character. Sion was the place of salvation (Psalms 14:7; Isaiah 46:13, etc.). In Sion God ruled; from it he sent forth strength and help; from it was to go forth the Gospel law (Psalms 20:2; Psalms 110:2; Isaiah 2:2, Isaiah 2:3). Yet Sion, under that economy, was only the type of something better. Grace at that time was only very imperfectly revealed; it was hidden under types and forms of law; it has now been made fully manifest, and the old covenant has been superseded by a better and enduring one. (2) Sinai and Sion as representing the contrast between the two dispensations. Sion has not ceased to exist, it has only, so to speak, gone up higher. Its special seat is now in heaven. There is the throne of God; there, the capital or head-quarters of that great spiritual commonwealth, here denominated "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," and elsewhere, "the Jerusalem that is above," "New Jerusalem," in plain terms, the Church or kingdom of God on earth and in heaven. This heavenly Sion alone perfectly realises rod fulfils the idea embodied in the earthly one. Do we ask why the Church or kingdom of God, as respects its state of privilege, is in this text figured as on a mountain—as a city set on Mount Sion? The answer is— 1. Because the special seat of God’s holy abode in the midst of his Church is now literally in heaven, i.e; spiritually removed from, and exalted above the earth. 2. Because the kingdom of God is spiritually the highest thing on earth—founded on the highest order of ideas, on those principles of righteousness and justice which dominate all others. 3. Because it is, in point of fact, the central, commanding, controlling power in history. 4. Because entrance into it, and growth in its spirit and power, involves a spiritual rise—is a true moral ascent. These facts evince the propriety of this figurative representation. II. THE IN THE . Each mountain, in the passage in Hebrews, is made the centre of a scene. We have, accordingly, two groups of attendant circumstances, the details of which are placed studiously in contrast. The series of manifestations at Sinai has already engaged our attention, and we need not dwell upon them further. In contrast to Sinai is placed the picture of the convocation at Mount Sion. The picture is ideal; but the features in it are severally real, and the whole are needed to set forth Christian privilege in its completeness. 1. The mount is represented as crowned by "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem"—the city denoting that great spiritual polity into which believers are admitted, and in which they have rights of citizenship, but which, like every other polity, has an existence of its own, irrespective of the individuals who at any time compose its membership. The civitas endures, though the elves come and go. The ideas suggested are order, beauty, symmetry. God has founded this city. God defends it. It has salvation for walls and bulwarks. The capital of this great "City of God" is heaven; but believers, even on earth, are enfranchised members of it, and, spiritually, have come to it (Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:20). 2. Crowding the mount, thronging its sides, and hovering above, behind, around, is "an innumerable company of angels." Cf. 2 Kings 6:17, where the servant of Elisha saw the mountain "full" of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha; or Daniel 7:10, where thousand thousands minister to the Ancient of Days, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him; or Revelation 5:11, where the number of the angels round about the throne was "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands." The truths figured are these two— (1) That the angelic hosts stand in a relation of ministry to the Church and kingdom of God (Hebrews 1:14); and (2) That they take a deep interest in its fortunes (Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12). Their bright forms, crowding the mount, add augustness, splendour, and beauty to the scene. 3. The mount is further occupied by "the general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven"—this designation including the whole body of Christian believers both those on earth and those in heaven; the Church catholic, spiritual, invisible. "The whole family in heaven and earth"—’’one Church, above, below." But why called "first-born"? "They are partakers with Christ in all the privileges of that right of primogeniture, which properly and essentially belongs to him alone." (Candlish.) The truth figured here is, that in Christ we are admitted to the "communion of saints." "I believe in the holy Catholic Church … I believe in the communion of saints." Yet how little, sometimes, does this great privilege mean to us! 4. Another part of the assembly on the mount is denoted by the words—"the spirits of just men made perfect." These are the holy and good of the former dispensation, now admitted to equality of privilege and blessedness with Christians (cf. Hebrews 11:40). 5. God himself sits enthroned in the midst—"Judge of all." The expression reminds us of the writer’s design, which is not consolatory, but admonitory. It is still the holy God with whom we have to do, the Judge (cf. Romans 2:6; 1 Peter 1:17) as well as Father; one who will punish disobedience to his voice now with even greater severity than he did of old (Hebrews 12:25, Hebrews 12:29). The God of Sinai and the God of Sion are after all the same God. What, then, makes the difference between Sinai and Sion? The answer is— 6. "Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and the blood of sprinkling." It is Christ’s presence in the scene which has changed all the surroundings. To all these things, if we are indeed in Christ, we come. How? (1) By coming to Jesus himself. To come to Jesus, as has been well said, is to come to all else that is here described. We may or may not realise our privileges; but they are there. We are members of the spiritual commonwealth, enjoy the ministry of angels, are part of the invisible Church, have rights of the first-born, etc. (2) In the realisation of spiritual privilege (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:12). (3) In the use of our rights. (4) We shall "come" more perfectly at death. Hence— III. THE IN . 1. In the character of the privilege. In Israel’s case, the privilege was of so awful a kind, that the sense of privilege was well-nigh swallowed up in the terror which the scene inspired. How different with believers! Their approach to this spiritual mount is solemnising indeed, yet joyful. They have boldness in drawing nigh by the blood of Christ. 2. In the degree of the privilege. The Israelites were not permitted to ascend, or even to come near the mount. Bounds were erected to keep them back. Did they so much as touch it, they would perish. How cliff, refit the privilege of Christians, who not only ascend this spiritual Mount Sion, but are enrolled as citizens in its heavenly city, and have boldness to enter the holiest of all in their approaches to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 10:19-23).—J.O. BY G. A. Prepare to meet thy God. God’s revelation of himself to man is gradual, as man can bear it. [Cf. the way in which a parent reveals himself to his child, Isaiah 28:11, with stammering lips and a feigned tongue.] Israel had learnt to know God as a deliverer; must learn to know him further as a lawgiver and ruler. I. THE SCENE. A long, broad valley. Rocks on each side widening out into a natural amphitheatre. Facing down the valley is a steep, precipitous mountain; grey, streaked with red. The whole scene, not unlike, on a huge scale, that presented by the avenues leading up to the Egyptian temples. It is a place where those accustomed to Egypt might expect to meet with God. "Now" probably the people may have thought, "we shall see for ourselves this mysterious Jehovah; he has brought us to his temple; he will introduce us to his shrine." II. THE AND HIS MESSAGE. Israel is encamped. Moses ascends the mountain (Isaiah 28:3). Again God meets with him and sends a message by him to the people. Notice:— 1. Reminder of what he has done for them already (Isaiah 28:4). 2. Obedience the condition of future favour (Isaiah 28:5). Fulfil the condition and the promise is secure. The earth itself is God’s temple; if Israel will obey and keep his covenant they shall be "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." 3. The answer given (Isaiah 28:8). No hesitation, no expression of doubt. The promised blessing so attractive that they are ready to promise anything, never doubting their ability to fulfil their promise. It is easy enough to say "I will"—the hard thing is to translate it into "I do." III. THE . The people shall be conscious of the presence of their God. Jehovah will publicly attest the authority of his servant, Notice:— 1. The preparation. God requires it. It is easy for familiarity to breed irreverence; and irreverence soon leads on to low views of the Divine character. Love is degraded into mere kindliness; an easy-going people believe in an easy-going God. See here:— (1) The people have to prepare themselves for the meeting (Isaiah 28:10). (2) The place has to be prepared. God reveals himself to prepared people in a prepared place. Why do so few have revelations nowadays? Some come to the prepared place, but they omit the personal preparation; others, even after personal preparation, lose much through neglecting the prepared place. We need to remember Ecclesiastes 5:1, and Hebrews 10:25. 2. The revelation. The third day comes (Hebrews 10:16). Storm, sound of trumpet, assembly of people without the camp, trembling, earthquake, intense suspense. "Now surely God will show himself. Can we endure the sight and live?" At length (Hebrews 10:19) "a voice"—cf. Deuteronomy 4:12; "no similitude, only a voice." For the present it is enough; reverence is the first lesson those whom God has delivered have to learn; "Hallowed be thy Name" is the first petition they are taught to offer. For effect (cf. Exodus 20:18-22) which also teaches the object of the revelation. "That his fear may be before your faces that ye sin not." Conclusion. We have learnt many more lessons about God than the Israelites could then learn. Have we not too often slurred over or half-forgotten that first lesson? "Let knowledge grow from more to more, But more of reverence in us dwell; That mind and soul, according well, May make our music as before, But vaster. We axe fools and slight; We mock thee when we do not fear; But help thy foolish ones to bear; Help thy vain worlds to bear thy light." —G. Only a voice. The people were expecting a revelation—a vision of the hitherto unseen Jehovah—it came, but not as they expected; no vision, only a voice (cf. Deuteronomy 4:12). The fact was the law was not a final, only a preparatory revelation; it is related to the Gospel as John Baptist was related to Christ. "A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord. Consider in this view:— I. THE OF THE LAW. 1. It was a voice—a Divine voice. In spite of the confusion not unmixed with disappointment, none doubted whence it came. It gave a Divine authority to the commandment even when given through a mediator. 2. It was adapted to the condition of those who heard it. A revelation must be fitted for those to whom it is addressed. (Illust. a highly-finished picture is of small value to the half-blind; they can better appreciate a rough sketch in coarse, bold outline.) The animal, or natural man, as exemplified in the character of Israel in the wilderness, could not have understood anything more spiritual; its religion is obedience. The natural man can only be reached by such sensual methods as his nature can respond to. Through them the spiritual nature, which is cradled in the natural, may be educated and fostered, prepared to receive in due course that higher revelation which befits it. II. THE OF THE LAW. 1. It was only a voice. As the spiritual nature grows (cf. infants attaining consciousness) it craves for something more than this. It needs not a voice only, but a presence. From the first we find Israel longing after a "similitude.’’ Even Moses (Exodus 33:18) beseeches that God will show him his glory. Later the cry grows ever more distinct through psalmists and prophets, itself a continuous preparation for the fulfilment ultimately reserved for it. 2. Evidence in the law itself (cf. second commandment). A fence to guard an empty shrine, but a shrine kept empty only in preparation for some coming inmate. A preparation for the Incarnation. The Pharisee comes to worship the fence; the idolater ignores it; both illustrate the weakness of the merely "vocal" revelation. III. WITH THE GOSPEL. Christ is "the Word made Flesh;" the express image of God. Not a voice only, but a person. The more perfect revelation indicates a fuller development in those to whom it is addressed, but we must remember that a fuller development implies also a greater responsibility. [The offence which we condone in the child, is unpardonable in the man. Mistakes made by the half-blind are no longer excusable when a man can see.] If Israel fell and was rejected, must not our far greater privileges be followed, if profaned, with deeper ruin? (Cf. Hebrews 12:25, Hebrews 12:26; 1 Corinthians 10:1-12.)—G. The further warning to the people and the priests. It is very remarkable that, after all the directions given (Exodus 19:10-13), and all the pains taken by Moses and the Israelites themselves (Exodus 19:14, Exodus 19:15, Exodus 19:23), God should still have thought it necessary to interpose with a fresh warning, and to send Moses back from the top of the mount to the bottom, in order to communicate the renewed warning to the people. We can only suppose that, in spite of the instructions previously given and the precautions taken, there were those among the people who were prepared to "break through" the fence, and invade the mount, and who would have done so, to their own destruction (Exodus 19:21), but for this second warning. The special mention of the "priests" (Exodus 19:22, Exodus 19:24) raises the suspicion, that this proud and rebellious spirit was particularly developed among them. Accustomed to the exercise of sacred functions, they may have been inclined to regard their own purity as equal to that of Moses and Aaron; and they may even have resented their exclusion from a sacred spot to which the two sons of Amram were admitted. Apparently, they had conceived that the injunction to go through the recognised ceremonies of purification (Exodus 19:10) did not apply to them, and had neglected to do so, on which account a special command had.to be issued, addressed to them only (Exodus 19:22). Exodus 19:21 Charge the people lest they break through—i.e; "lest they force a passage through the barrier made by Moses" in accordance with the command given in Exodus 19:12. And many of them perish. Irreverent gazing on holy things was forbidden by the law (Numbers 4:20), and on one occasion (1 Samuel 6:19) was actually punished with death. It did not, however, require a law to make it an offence, natural reason being quite sufficient to teach the duty of reverence. Exodus 19:22 Let the priests also. It has been objected, that no priests had been as yet appointed, and that we have here therefore an anachronism. But every nation in ancient times had priests, appointed on one principle or another: and the Levitical priesthood must be regarded as having superseded one previously existent, not as the first priesthood known to Israel. We have a second mention of priests, previous to the appointment of Aaron’s sons to the office (in Exodus 24:5), which confirms the present passage. Sanctify themselves. The verb used is identical with that which occurs in Exodus 19:10; and there is no reason to believe that any different sanctification was intended. The natural inference is that the priests had neglected to sanctify themselves. (See the introductory paragraph.) Lest the Lord break forth. Compare 2 Samuel 6:8, where we have an instance of such a "breaking forth" upon Uzzah. Exodus 19:23 The people cannot come up. Moses can only have meant, that the people could not approach the mount unwittingly, since the fence commanded (Exodus 19:12) was made. But to scale the fence, or break through it, was of course possible. (See Exodus 19:13.) Exodus 19:24 And the Lord said … Away, Get thee down. God wholly rejected the plea of Moses, that there was no need to give an additional warning. He knew best, and would not have issued the order to "go down and charge the people "(Exodus 19:21), unless there had been a need for it. In the abrupt words "Away, get thee down," we may see a rebuke, addressed to Moses, for his folly in thinking that he could change the purposes of God. Thou and Aaron with thee. This is the first express mention of Aaron as called to ascend with Moses. But it is quite possible that he may have accompanied his brother in either or both the previous ascents (Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:20. Compare Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:3; Exodus 12:21, Exodus 12:28; etc.) But let not the priests and the people break through. Both the priests and the people were to be again solemnly warned that it would be death to break through the fence. This warning seems to have been sufficient. Exodus 19:25 So Moses went down. After the sharp rebuke addressed to him in Exodus 19:24, Moses made no further resistance, but returned to the camp, delivered the warning to priests and people, and having so done re-ascended the mount with Aaron. Exodus 19:22-24 The priestly office does not dispense a man from personal purity, but obliges him the more to it. Holiness of office, of profession, of function is too often regarded as if it secured, by some occult power, the personal holiness of the individual, or even of the class, exercising it. The priest castes of Egypt, India, and other countries, assumed to stand on a completely different footing from the rest of the community in respect of nearness, and acceptability to God. And both under the Jewish and the Christian dispensation, there has been in different times and countries a vast amount of sacerdotal pretension, a wide-spread disposition to assume that official covers and includes personal holiness. But Holy Scripture abounds in warnings against any such assumption. "Let the priests sanctify themselves." Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were chosen among the first of the Levitical priests (Exodus 28:1); yet their priestly office did not prevent them from sinning grievously by offering "strange fire before the Lord," and perishing for their impiety (Numbers 10:1, Numbers 10:2). Eli’s sons were "sons of Belial" (1 Samuel 2:12), whose "sin was very great before the Lord" (1 Samuel 2:17). Even among the apostles there was a "son of perdition." Priests have to remember— I. THAT THE OFFICE DOES NOT SECURE THEM AGAINST BEING TEMPTED. Even Christ, our great High Priest—the only true priest that the world has ever seen, was "in all points tempted like as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). Eli’s sons were tempted by greed and fleshly lusts (1 Samuel 2:16, 1 Samuel 2:22); Nadab and Abihu by pride; Judas by covetousness. All men have the same nature, like passions, similar appetites. The priest, after all, is a man. Satan watches for him no less—or rather much more—than for others. It is a greater triumph for him to lead astray the shepherd than the sheep. And the relations of a priest towards his flock are of such a nature—so close, so private sometimes—as to lay him open to special temptations. II. THAT THE OFFICE DOES NOT SECURE THEM AGAINST TO . Jesus alone was "in all points tempted, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "ALL we the rest, although baptised and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things," yield to the temptations which surround us, transgress the Divine law. Nadab, Abihu, Eli’s sons, Judas, were not only tempted, but fell. The priests of Judah, towards the close of the independent kingdom, were among those who provoked God the most (Jeremiah 32:32; Zephaniah 3:4). Christian ministers, even at the present day, too often disgrace their profession, bring shame upon their church, and even upon religion itself, by acts of sin or sometimes by scandalous lives, no better than those of the sons of Eli. These terrible examples should be a warning to all of their danger, and should render the minister distrustful of himself, circumspect, vigilant, and above all prayerful. Only by God’s help can he hope to stand upright. III. THAT SIN IS WORSE IN THE PRIEST THAN IN OTHERS, AND WILL ENTAIL A SORER . Ministers of Christ pledge themselves by special vows, over and above their baptismal vows, to lead godly lives. They are bound to be examples to the flock. They have greater opportunities of grace than others. Their offences cause greater scandal than the offences of others, and do greater damage to the cause of religion. There is something shocking, even to the worldly man, in the immorality of one whose business in life is to minister in holy things. The impure minister is a hypocrite; and hypocrisy is hateful to God, and even in the sight of man contemptible. IV. THAT THE BINDS TO . Priests are they whose office it is to "come near the Lord" (Exodus 19:22)—to draw closer to him than others—to lead others on to him, by exhortation, by example, by intercessory prayer. Without holiness they are impotent to perform their work—they are of no service either to God or man—they do but help forward the work of the devil. Ministering in a holy place, in holy things, with holy words continually in their mouths, if they have not holiness in their hearts, their lives must be a perpetual contradiction, a continual profanity. Again, as already observed, they take special vows: they profess before God and the congregation to have an inward call; they spontaneously promise to live as examples to others; they enter on their position in life on these conditions: they bind themselves. Not to live holy lives is to fly in the face of these obligations—to break the promises made to man and the vows offered to God—to violate faith—to destroy, so far as lies in their power, the great bond of human society. And what must not the offence be to God which they commit, by continually drawing near to him with their lips, when their hearts are far from him? He is "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." "Without holiness no one shall see him." "Let the priests sanctify themselves." THE OF THE MORAL LAW. Every necessary preparation had now been made. The priests, as well as the people, had "sanctified themselves." A wholesome dread of "breaking" through the fence, and "touching" the mount, had spread itself among the people Moses had returned from the camp to the summit of the mount; and both he and the people were attent to hear the words of the "covenant," which had been announced to them (Exodus 19:5). Then, amid the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the smoke, and the earthquake throbs which shook the ground, a voice like that of a man, distinctly articulate, pronounced the words of that "moral law," which has been from that day to this the guide of life to thousands upon thousands, the only guide to some, a very valuable and helpful guide to all who have known of it. It is well said by Kalisch, that the delivery of the Decalogue on Sinai "formed a decisive epoch in the history of the human race," and was even perhaps "the greatest and most important event in haman history," up to the time of its occurrence. Considering the weakness, imperfection, and moral obliquity of man, it was to the last degree important that an authoritative code should be put forth, laying down with unmistakable clearness the chief heads of duty, and denouncing the chief classes of sins. It may be true that the educated moral sense of mankind in civilised communities is sufficient to teach them all, or nearly all, of what the Decalogue forbids and enjoins; but this is the effect produced upon the internal constitution of our nature by long centuries of moral training; and nothing like it existed in primitive times. Then the moral sense was much duller; men’s perceptions of right and wrong were confused, uncertain, and not unfrequently perverted and depraved. Even in Egypt, where a priest class, established as the spiritual guides of the nation for a thousand years or more, had elaborated a moral system of considerable merit, such a code as that of the Decalogue would have been a marked improvement upon anything that they had worked out for themselves. And the authoritative sanction by the "voice" and the "finger of God" was an enormous advantage, being imperatively needed to satisfy doubt, and silence that perverse casuistry which is always ready to question the off-hand decisions of the moral consciousness, and to invent a more refined system, wherein "bitter is put for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Altogether the Decalogue stands on a moral eminence, elevated above and beyond all other moral systems—Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, or Greek, unequalled for simplicity, for comprehensiveness, for solemnity. Its precepts were, according to the Jewish tradition, "the pillars of the law and its roots." They formed to the nation to which they were given "tons omnis, publici privatique juris." They constitute for all time a condensed summary of human duty which bears divinity upon its face, which is suited for every form of human society, and which, so long as the world endures, cannot become antiquated. The retention of the Decalogue as the best summary of the moral law by Christian communities is justified on these grounds, and itself furnishes emphatic testimony to the excellency of the compendium. Exodus 20:1 God spake all these words. It has been suggested that Moses derived the Decalogue from Egypt, by summarising the chief points of the Egyptian teaching as to the duty of man. But neither the second, nor the fourth, nor the tenth commandment came within the Egyptian ideas of moral duty; nor was any such compendious form as the Decalogue known in Egypt. Moreover, Egyptian morality was minute and complex, rather than grand and simple. Forty-two kinds of sin were denied by the departed soul before Osiris and his assessors. The noble utterances of Sinai are wholly unlike anything to be found in the entire range of Egyptian literature. Exodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God. The ten precepts were prefaced by this distinct announcement of who it was that uttered them. God would have the Israelites clearly understand, that he himself gave them the commandments. It is only possible to reconcile the declarations of the New Testament, that the law was given by the ministration of angels (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) with this and other plain statements, by regarding God the Son as the actual speaker. As sent by his father, he too was, in a certain sense, an angel (i.e; a messenger). Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. God does not appeal to his authority as creator, but to his mercy and kindness as protector and deliverer. He would be obeyed by his people from a sentiment of love, not by fear. Out of the house of bondage. Compare Exodus 13:3, Exodus 13:14; and for the ground of the expression, see Exodus 1:14; Exodus 6:9. Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have. The use of the second person singular is remarkable when a covenant was being made with the people (Exodus 19:5). The form indicated that each individual of the nation was addressed severally, and was required himself to obey the law, a mere general national obedience being insufficient. No one can fail to see how much the commands gain in force, through all time, by being thus addressed to the individual conscience. No other gods before me. "Before me" literally, "before my face," is a Hebrew idiom, and equivalent to "beside me," "in addition to me." The commandment requires the worship of one God alone, Jehovah—the God who had in so ninny ways manifested himself to the Israelites, and implies that there is, in point of fact, no other God. A belief in the unity of God is said to lie at the root of the esoteric Egyptian religion; but Moses can scarcely have derived his belief from this source, since the Egyptian notions on the subject were tinged with pantheism and materialism, from which the religion of Moses is entirely free. Outwardly the Egyptian religion, like that of the nations of Western Asia generally, was a gross polytheism; and it is against polytheistic notions that the first commandment raises a protest. Exodus 20:4 As the first commandment asserts the unity of God, and is a protest against polytheism, so the second asserts his spirituality, and is a protest against idolatry and materialism. Exodus 20:4 and Exodus 20:5 are to be taken together, the prohibition being intended, not to forbid the arts of sculpture and painting, or even to condemn the religious use of them, but to disallow the worship of God under material forms. When the later Jews condemned all representations of natural objects (Philo, De Orac. 29; Joseph. Ant. Jud. 8.7, § 5), they not only enslaved themselves to a literalism, which is alien from the spirit of both covenants, but departed from the practice of more primitive times—representations of such objects having had their place both in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:31-34; Exodus 28:33, Exodus 28:34) and in the first temple (1 Kings 6:18, 1 Kings 6:29, 1 Kings 6:32, etc.). Indeed, Moses himself, when he erected the "brazen serpent" (Numbers 21:9) made it clear that representations of natural objects were not disallowed by the law. To moderns in civilized countries it seems almost incredible that there should ever have been anywhere a real worship of images. But acquaintance with ancient history or even with the present condition of man in savage or backward countries, renders it apparent that there is a subtle fascination in such material forms, and that imperfectly developed minds will rest in them not as mere emblems of divinity, but as actually possessed of Divine powers The protest raised by the second commandment is still as necessary as ever, not only in the world, but in the very Christian Church itself, where there exists even at the present day a superstitious regard for images and pictures, which is not only irrational, but which absorbs the religious feelings that should have been directed to higher objects. Any graven image. Perhaps it would be better to translate "any image," for the term used (pesel) is applied, not only to "graven" but also to "molten images" (Isaiah 40:19; Isaiah 44:10; Jeremiah 10:14; etc.), since these last were in almost every instance finished by the graving tool. Or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above—i.e; "any likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air." Compare Deuteronomy 4:17. The water under the earth. See Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:7. The triple division here and elsewhere made, is intended to embrace the whole material universe. Much of the Egyptian religion consisted in the worship of animals and their images. Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them. Every outward sign of honour was shown to images in the ancient world. They were not regarded as emblems, but as actual embodiments of deity. There was a special rite in Greece (Theopoea) by means of which the gods were inducted into their statues, and made to take up their abodes in them. Seneca says of the Romans of his own day—"They pray to these images of the gods, implore them on bended knee, sit or stand long days before them, throw them money, and sacrifice beasts to them, so treating them with deep respect, though they despise the man who made them" (Ap. Lact. 2.2). I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God. God "will not give his glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 48:11), will not suffer a rival near his throne. He is not "jealous." as the Greeks thought (Herod. 7.10, § 5), of mere success, or greatness; but he is very jealous of his own honour, and will not have the respect and reverence, which is his due, bestowed on other beings or on inanimate objects. Compare with the present passage Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 5:9; Deuteronomy 6:15; Joshua 24:19; etc. Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. Exception has been taken to the plain meaning of this passage by a multitude of writers, who dread the reproach of the sceptic, that the God of the Old Testament is a God careless of justice and bent upon revenge. But neither does society, nor does civil justice itself, regard the visiting of parents’ sins upon their children as in all cases unjust. Society by its scorn punishes for their parents’ transgressions the illegitimate, the children of criminals, the children—especially the daughters—of adulteresses. Civil justice condemns to forfeiture of their titles and their estates, the innocent children of those executed for treason. God again manifestly does by the laws which obtain in his moral universe, entail on children many consequences of their parents’ ill-doing—as the diseases which arise from profligacy or intemperance, the poverty which is the result of idleness or extravagance, the ignorance and evil habits which are the fruit of a neglected education. It is this sort of visitation which is intended here. The children and grandchildren of idolaters would start in life under disadvantages. The vicious lives of their parents would have sown in them the seeds both of physical and moral evil. They would commonly be brought up in wrong courses, have their moral sense early perverted, and so suffer for their parents’ faults. It would be difficult for them to rise out of their unhappy condition. Still, "each would bear his own iniquity." Each would "be judged by that he had, not by that he bad not." An all-wise God would, in the final award, make allowance for the disadvantages of birth and inherited disposition, and would assign to each that position to which his own conduct—his struggles, efforts, endeavours after right—entitled him. To say that the threat "applies only to such children as follow the sins of their fathers" Kalisch) is to empty the passage of all force. It applies to all; but the visitation intended consists in temporal disadvantages, not in the final award of happiness or misery. Exodus 20:6 Shewing mercy unto thousands. Or, "to the thousandth generation." (Compare Deuteronomy 7:9.) In neither case are the numbers to be taken as exact and definite. The object of them is to contrast the long duration of the Divine love and favour towards the descendants of those who love him, with the comparatively short duration of his chastening wrath in the case of those who are his adversaries. And keep my commandments. Thus only is love shown. Compare John 14:15-21; 1 John 2:5; 2 John 1:6. Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. It is disputed whether this is a right rendering. Shav in Hebrew means both "vanity" and ,’falsehood;" so that the Third Commandment may forbid either "vain-swearing" or simply "false-swearing. It is in favor of the latter interpretation, that our Lord seems to contrast his own prohibition of unnecessary oaths with the ancient prohibition of false oaths in the words—"Ye have heard that it hath been said by" (or "to") "them of old time—Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shelf perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you—Swear not at all" (Matthew 5:33-34). It is also in favour of the command being levelled against false-swearing, that perjury should naturally, as a great sin, have a special prohibition directed against it in the Decalogue, while vain-swearing, as a little sin, would scarcely seem entitled to such notice. Perjury has always been felt to be one of the greatest both of moral and of social offences. It implies an absolute want of any reverence at all for God; and it destroys civil society by rendering the administration of justice impossible. There has been a general horror of it among all civilised nations. The Egyptians punished perjury with death. The Greeks thought that a divine Nemesis pursued the perjured man, and brought destruction both upon himself and upon his offspring (Herod. 6.86). The Romans regarded the perjurer as infamous, and the object of Divine vengeance in the other world (Cic. De Leg. 2.9). The threat contained in the words—"The Lord will not hold him guiltless"—may be taken as an argument on either side. If viewed as equivalent to "the Lord will punish severely" (Kalisch), it accords best with the view that perjury was intended; if taken literally, it would suit best a lesser sin, of which men ordinarily think little. Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day. The institution of the sabbath dates, at any rate, from the giving of the manna (Exodus 16:23). Its primeval institution, which has been thought to be implied in Genesis 2:3, is uncertain. The word "remember" here may be simply a reference to what passed in the "wilderness of Sin" as related in Exodus 16:22-30. On the sabbath itself, both Jewish and Christian, see the comment upon that chapter. Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour. This is not so much a command as a prohibition’’ Thou shaft not labor more than six (consecutive) clays." In them thou shelf do all thy necessary work, so as to have the Sabbath free for the worship and service of God. Exodus 20:10 The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God. Rather—"The seventh day shall be a sabbath to the Lord thy God;" i.e; the seventh day shall be a day of holy rest dedicated to religion. All unnecessary labour shall be suspended and put aside—the law of rest and ease, so far as bodily toil is concerned, which was the law of man’s existence before the fall, shall supersede for the time that law of heavy toil and continual unrest, which was laid on man as the penalty of his transgression (Genesis 3:17-19). Eden shall be, as it were, restored—man shall not "go out to his toil and his labour"—even the very beasts, pressed into man’s service since the fall, shall rest. In it thou shalt not do any work. On the exceptions to this rule, which even Judaism, with its extreme formality and literalism, saw to be necessary, see Matthew 12:5, Matthew 12:11. Still in many respects, a superstitious adherence to the precept was maintained by religious Jews, who would not even defend themselves on the sabbath, if attacked by an enemy (1 Mac. 2:32-38; 2 Mac. Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26; Matthew 6:11; Matthew 15:1). Experience, however, taught them that the law had not been intended to extend so far, and after a time they determined, not to seek battle, but to accept if, and do their best, on the sabbath day (1 Mac. 2:41). Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter. The rest is to extend to the whole family. Work is not to be merely devolved by the parents upon the children. Thy manservant, nor thy maid servant. It is to extend beyond the family proper, to the domestics of the household, who are to enjoy the respite from toil and to have the advantage of the religious refreshment, no less than their masters. Nor thy cattle. God’s care for cattle is a remarkable feature of the Old Testament dispensation. God, at the time of the flood, "remembered Noah and the cattle which were with him in the ark" (Genesis 8:1). Soon after, his covenant, not to drown the earth any more, was established "with the fowl, and with the cattle, and with every beast of the earth," no less than with man (Genesis 9:9-11). In the Psalms he de clares that "the cattle upon a thousand hills" are his (Psalms 50:10). In Jonah, we find that Nineveh was spared, in part because there was in it "much cattle" (Jonah 4:11). The precept, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" is characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation, and had no parallel in the written codes or in the actual customs of other ancient nations. Animal suffering was generally regarded as of small account in the ancient world; and the idea of protecting animals from ill usage was wholly unknown. On the contrary, as Dr. Dollinger well observes: "The law was specially careful about the welfare of animals; they were to be treated with compassion and kindness. Domestic animals were to be well fed, and to enjoy the rest of the sabbath. The Israelites were to help to lift up the ass which had fallen beneath its burden, and to bring back the beast that had gone astray (Exodus 23:5, Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 25:4)… The young was not to be taken from its mother before the seventh day … From these and similar ordinances—such, for instance, as about the least painful method of killing animals—it is plain that the law tried to subdue that coarse turn of mind and unfeeling cruelty, which are engendered by the maltreatment of animals." Nor the stranger that is within thy gates. The "strangers within the gates" of Israel are those foreigners who voluntarily sojourned with them in their camps or (afterwards) in their towns. A "mixed multitude" had gone up out of Egypt with them (Exodus 12:38), and accompanied them in their wilderness wanderings. The command that these too should rest, was at once a restriction upon their liberty, requiring them to conform to the habits of those among whom they dwelt, and an admission of them into participation in some portion of the privileges of Israel. The sacred rest of the sabbath prefigured the final peace and happiness of the blest in heaven; and they who were commanded to share in the first, were encouraged to hope that they might also participate in the second. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth. Two reasons are assigned for the sanctification of the seventh day in the Pentateuch:— 1. The fact that the work of creation took six days, and that on the seventh God rested; and 2. The further fact, that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and gave them a time of rest after a time of labour and toil (Deuteronomy 5:15). It is not expressly said that the deliverance took place on the Sabbath, but such is the Jewish tradition on the subject. The reason here assigned must be regarded as the main reason, man’s rest being purposely assimilated to God’s rest, in order to show the resemblance between man’s nature anti God’s (Genesis 1:27), and to point towards that eternal rest wherein man, united with God, will find his highest bliss and the true end of his being. "There remaineth a rest for the people of God." Exodus 20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother. The obligation of filial respect, love, and reverence is so instinctively’ felt by all, that the duty has naturally found a place in every moral code. In the maxims of Ptah-hotep, an Egyptian author who lived probably before Abraham, "the duty of filial piety is strictly inculcated". Confucius, in China, based his moral system wholly upon the principle of parental authority; and in Rome it may be regarded as the main foundation of the political edifice. In the Decalogue, the position of this duty, at the head of our duties towards our neighbour, marks its importance; which is further shown by this being "the first commandment with promise" (Ephesians 6:2). It is curious that the long life here specially attached to the observance of this obligation, was also believed to accompany it by the Egyptians. "The son," says Ptah-hotep, "who accepts the words of his father, will grow old in consequence of so doing;" and again—"The obedient son will be happy by reason of his obedience; he will grow old; he will come to favour." Modern commentators generally assume that the promise was not personal, but national—the nation’s days were to be "long upon the land," if the citizens generally were obedient children. But this explanation cannot apply to Ephesians 6:1-3. And if obedience to parents is to be rewarded with long life under the new covenant, there can be no reason why it should not have been so rewarded under the old. The objection that good sons are not always long-lived is futile. God governs the universe by general, not by universal laws. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. Here again is a moral precept included in all codes, and placed by all in a prominent position. Our first duty towards our neighbour is to respect his life. When Cain slew Abel, he could scarcely have known what he was doing; yet a terrible punishment was awarded him for his transgression (Genesis 4:11-14). After the flood, the solemn declaration was made, which thenceforward became a universal law among mankind—"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6). In the world that followed the flood, all races of men had the tradition that only blood could expiate blood. In the few places where there was an organised government, and a systematic administration of justice, the State acted on the principle, and punished the murderer capitally. Elsewhere, among tribes and races which had not vet coalesced into states, the law of blood-revenge obtained, and the inquisition for blood became a private affair. The next of kin was the recognised" avenger," upon whom it devolved to hunt out the murderer and punish him. Here the sin is simply and emphatically denounced, the brevity of the precept increasing its force. The Israelites are told that to take life is a crime. God forbids it. As usual, no exceptions are made. Exceptions appear later on (Numbers 35:22-25; Deuteronomy 4:42; etc.); but the first thing is to establish the principle. Human life is sacred. Man is not to shed the blood of his fellow-man. If he does, of his hand will the life taken surely be required. The casuistic question whether suicide is forbidden under this precept, probably did not occur to the legislator or to the Hebrews of his time. Neither the Hebrews, nor the Egyptians, among whom they had so long lived, were addicted to suicide; and it is a general rule that laws are not made excepting against tolerably well-known crimes. It has been argued that angry thoughts and insulting words were forbidden by it on the strength of our Lord’s comment in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22). But it seems to the present writer that in Matthew 5:21-47 our Lord is not so much explaining the Jewish law as amplifying it on his own authority—note the repetition of the phrase, "But I say unto you"—and making it mean to Christians what it had not meant to Jews. Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Our second duty towards our neighbour is to respect the bond on which the family is based, and that conjugal honour which to the true man is dearer than life. Marriage, according to the original institution, made the husband and wife "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24); and to break in upon this sacramental union was at once a crime and a profanity. Adulteresses and their paramours were in most ancient nations liable to be punished with death by the injured party; but the adultery of a married man with an unmarried woman was thought lightly of. The precept of the Decalogue binds both man and woman equally. Our Lord’s expansion of this commandment (Matthew 5:27-32) is parallel to his expansion of the preceding one (ib, 21-26). He shows that there are adulterous marriages in countries where the law gives a facility of divorce, and that without any overt act adultery may be committed in the heart. Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. By these words the right of property received formal acknowledgment, and a protest was made by anticipation against the maxim of modern socialists—"La propriete, c’est le vol." Instinctively man feels that some things become his, especially by toil expended on them, and that, by parity of reasoning, some things become his neighbour’s. Our third duty towards our neighbour is to respect his rights in these. Society, in every community that has hitherto existed, has recognised private pro-petty; and social order may be said to be built upon it. Government exists mainly for the security of men’s lives and properties; and anarchy would supervene if either could be with impunity attacked. Theft has always been punished in every state; and even the Spartan youth was not acquitted of blame unless he could plead that the State had stopped his supplies of food, and bid him forage for himself. Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. False witness is of two kinds, public and private. We may either seek to damage our neighbour by giving false evidence against him in a court of justice, or simply calumniate him to others in our social intercourse with them. The form of the expression here used points especially to false witness of the former kind, but does not exclude the latter, which is expressly forbidden in Exodus 23:1. The wrong done to a man by false evidence in a court may be a wrong of the very extremest kind—may be actual murder (1 Kings 21:13) More often, however, it results in an injury to his property or his character. As fatal to the administration of justice, false witness in courts has been severely visited by penalties in all well-regulated states. At Athens the false witness was liable to a heavy fine, and if thrice convicted lost all his civil rights. At Rome, by a law of the Twelve Tables, he was hurled headlong from the Tarpeian rock. In Egypt, false witness was punished by amputation of the nose and ears. Private calumny may sometimes involve as serious consequences to individuals as false witness in a court. It may ruin a man; it may madden him; it may drive him to suicide. But it does not disorganise the whole framework of society, like perjured evidence before a tribunal; and states generally are content to leave the injured party to the remedy of an action-at-law. The Mosaic legislation was probably the first wherein it was positively forbidden to circulate reports to the prejudice of another, and where consequently this was a criminal offence. Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet. Here the Mosaic law takes a step enormously in advance of any other ancient code. Most codes stopped short at the deed; a few went on to words; not one attempted to control thoughts. "Thou shalt not covet" teaches men that there is One who sees the heart; to whose eyes "all things are naked and open;" and who cares far less for the outward act than the inward thought or motive from which the act proceeds. "Thou shalt not covet: lays it down again that we are not mere slaves of our natural desires and passions, but have a controlling power implanted within us, by means of which we can keep down passion, check desire, resist impulse. Man is lord of himself, capable, by the exercise of his free-will, of moulding his feelings, weakening or intensifying his passions, shaping his character. God, who "requires truth in the inward parts," looks that we should in all cases go to the root of the matter, and not be content with restraining ourselves from evil acts and evil words, but eradicate the evil feeling from which the acts and words proceed. Thy neighbour’s house, etc. The "house" is mentioned first as being of primary necessity, and as in some sort containing all the rest. A man does not take a wife until he has a home to bring her to, or engage domestic servants, or buy slaves, except to form part of a household. The other objects mentioned are placed in the order in which they are usually valued. The multiplication of objects is by way of emphasis. Exodus 20:1-17 The ten commandments collectivety. The ten commandments form a summary of our main duties towards God, and towards man. They stand out from the rest of the Old Testament in a remarkable way. 1. They were uttered audibly by a voice which thousands heard—a voice which is called that of God himself (Deuteronomy 5:26) and which filled those who heard it with a terrible fear (Exodus 20:19). 2. They were the only direct utterance ever made by God to man under the Old Covenant. 3. They were not merely uttered by God but written by him, inscribed in some marvellous way by the finger of God on the two tables of testimony (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 4:13). 4. They have the additional testimony to their primary importance, that our Lord himself appealed to them as laying down that which men must do to inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:18, Matthew 19:19). We may observe of them collectively— I. THAT THEY ARE ALL-. They include our obligations to both God and man; they are both prohibitive and directive; they reach to the heart as well as to the outward life; they comprise both moral and positive precepts. According to the division adopted by the English Church, and by the reformed churches generally, the first four lay down our duty to our Maker, the last six our duty to our fellow men. Mostly they are prohibitive; but this is not the case with the fourth and fifth. The generality are concerned with acts, but words form the subject matter of the third; and both the tenth and the fifth deal with thoughts. As the moral is much more important than the positive, they are naturally in the main moral; but, to show that the Positive is an essential element in religion, they are also partly Positive-no moral ground being assignable for the consecration of one day in seven, rather than one in eight or six, much less for the definite selection of "the seventh day" as the one to be kept holy. II. THAT THEY ARE , BOTH IN MATTER AND . The Decalogue takes as its basis the fact that all our duties are owed either to God or man. It regards our duties to God as the more important, and therefore places them first. The duties consist: 1. In acknowledging his existence and unity, and in "having him" for our God and none other (first commandment); 2. In conceiving aright of his incorporeity and spirituality, and worshipping him as a Spirit, in spirit and in truth (second commandment); 3. In reverencing his holy Name, and avoiding the profane use of it (third commandment); and, 4. In setting apart for his worship some stated portion of our time, since otherwise we shall be sure to neglect it (fourth commandment). Our duties towards our fellow men are more complicated. First, there is a special relation in which we stand towards those who bring us into the world and support us during our early years, involving peculiar duties to them, analogous in part to those which we owe to God, and so rightly following upon the summary of our Divine duties (fifth commandment). Next, with respect to men in general, we owe it them to abstain from injuring them in deed, word, or thought. In deed we may injure their person, their honour, and their property, which we are consequently forbidden to do in the sixth, the seventh, and the eighth commandments. In word, we injure our neighbour especially by false witness, public or private, both of which are forbidden in the ninth commandment. We injure him in thought, finally, when we covet what is his; hence the tenth commandment. III. THAT THEY ARE THE FIRST GERMS OUT OF WHICH THE WHOLE OF THE MORAL LAW MAY BE . The Decalogue is a collection of elementary moral truths. Its predominantly negative form is indicative of this, since abstaining from evil is the first step on the road to virtue. Each command asserts a principle; and the principle is in every case capable of being worked out to a thousand remote consequences. The letter may be narrow; but the spirit of the commandment is in every case "exceeding broach" This will appear, more clearly, in the ensuing section, in which the ten commandments will be considered severally. The ten commandments severally. THE FIRST . To the Christian the First Commandment takes the form which our Lord gave it—"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all-thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment’ (Matthew 22:37, Matthew 22:38). Not merely abstract belief, not merely humble acknowledgment of one God is necessary, but heartfelt devotion to the One Object worthy of our devotion, the One Being in all the universe on whom we may rest and stay ourselves without fear of his failing us. He is the Lord our God—not an Epicurean deity, infinitely remote from man, who has created the world and left it to its own devices—not a Pantheistic essence spread through all nature, omnipresent, but intangible, impersonal, deaf to our cries, and indifferent to our "to us making for righteousness" in actions—not an inscrutable "something external to us making for righteousness," in the words of the religious Agnostic—but a Being very near us, "in whom we live; and move, and have our being," who is "about our path and about our bed, and spieth out all our ways," a Being whom we may know, and love, and trust, and feel to be with us, warning us, and cheering us, and consoling us, and pleading with us, and ready to receive us, and most willing to pardon us—a Being who is never absent from us, who continually sustains our life, upholds our faculties, gives us all we enjoy and our power to enjoy it, and who is therefore the natural object of our warmest, tenderest, truest, and most constant love. The first commandment should not be difficult to keep. We have only to open our eyes to the facts, and let them make their natural impression upon our minds, in order to love One who has done and still does so much for us. THE SECOND . On its prohibitive side, this Commandment forbids us to have unworthy thoughts of God, to liken him to all idol, or regard him as "even such an one as ourselves." Considered as directive, it requires us to form in our minds a just and true idea of the Divine nature, and especially of its spirituality, its lofty majesty, and its transcendent holiness. All materialistic ideas, and consequently all Pantheistic notions, are degrading to the dignity of God, who "is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions, not mixed with matter, but wholly separate from it, yet everywhere present after a supersensuous manner. Again, anthropomorphic notions of God are degrading to him; though it is scarcely possible to speak of him without anthropomorphic expressions. When we use such terms—as when we call God just, or merciful, or long-suffering—we should remember that those qualities in him are not identical with the human ones, but only analogous to them; and altogether we should be conscious of a deep mysteriousness lying behind all that we know of God, and rendering him a Being awful, inscrutable—whom we must not suppose that we can fathom or comprehend. THE THIRD Primarily, the Third Commandment forbids perjury or false swearing; secondarily, it forbids all unnecessary oaths, all needless mention of the holy name of God, and all irreverence towards anything which is God’s—his name, house, day, book, laws, ministers. Whatever in any sense belongs to God is sacred, and, if it has to be mentioned, should be mentioned reverently. The true main object of the Third Commandment is to inculcate reverence, to point out to us that the only proper frame of mind in which we can approach God is one of self-abasement and deeply reverential fear. "Keep thy foot, when thou goest to the house of God," says the Preacher, "and be more ready to hear than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few" (Ecclesiastes 5:1, Ecclesiastes 5:2). THE FOURTH . In the Fourth Commandment we have the basis for all that is external in religion. The dedication of one entire day out of seven to God, and the command to abstain on that day from the ordinary labours of life, led on naturally to the institution of sacred services, holy convocations, meetings for united worship and prayer. Man is an active being, and a social being. If the ordinary business of life is stopped, some other occupation must be found for him: he will not sit still from morning to night with folded hands wrapped in pious contemplation. The institution of the Sabbath stands in close relation to the appointment of a priesthood, the construction of a holy place, and the establishment of a ceremonial. On the Christian the Fourth Commandment is not binding in respect of the letter—he is not to remember the Seventh day to keep it holy, but the First; he is not tied to hallow it by an abstinence from all labour, but encouraged to devote it to the performance of good works; but in the spirit of it, the commandment is as binding as any. Men need, under Christianity as much as under Judaism, positive religious institutions, places of worship, hours of prayer, a liturgy, a ritual, ceremonies. The value of the Lord’s Day as a Christian institution is incalculable; it witnesses for religion to the world; it constitutes a distinct call on men to take into consideration the aim and intent of the day; and its rightful use is of inestimable benefit to all truly religious persons, deepening in them, as it does, the sense of religion, and giving them time and opportunity for the training of their spiritual nature, and the contemplation of heavenly things, which would otherwise to most men have been unattainable. It has been well called "a bridge thrown across life’s troubled waters, over which we may pass to reach the opposite shore—a link between earth and heaven—a type of the eternal day, when the freed spirit, if true to itself and to God, shall ,put on for ever the robe of immortal holiness and joy." THE FIFTH . The honour which this commandment exacts from us is irrespective of our parents’ personal merits or demerits. We are to honour them as being our parents. Difficulties may be raised easily enough in theory; but they are readily solvable in practice. Let us defer to our parents’ commands in all things lawful—let us do everything for them that we can—let us anticipate their wishes in things indifferent—let us take trouble on their behalf—let us be ever on the watch to spare them vexatious annoyance—let us study their comfort, ease, peace—and without any sacrifice of principle, even if they are bad parents, we may sufficiently show that we feel the obligation of the relationship, and are anxious to discharge the duties which it involves. Comparatively few men are, however, severely tried. We are not often much better than our parents; and it is seldom difficult to honour them. 1. For their age and experience. 2. For the benefits which they have conferred on us. 3. For the disinterested affection which they bear to us, and which they evince in their conduct. As a rule, parents have very much more love for their children than these have for them, and make sacrifices on their children’s behalf, which their children neither appreciate nor reciprocate. The honour which, according to this commandment, has to be shown to parents, must of course be extended, with certain modifications, to those who stand to us in loco parentis—to guardians, tutors, schoolmasters, and the like. It is not perhaps quite clear that the commandment extends also to those who are set over us in Church and State, though it is usual so to interpret it. There are certain relations of parents to their offspring which are altogether peculiar; and these are absolutely incommunicable. There are others, which are common to parents with rulers; but these, unless in very primitive communities, can scarcely be said to rest upon the domestic relation as their basis. The ordinary relation of the governed to their governors is rather one parallel to that of children to their parents, than one which grows out of it; and though either may be used to illustrate the other, we must view the two as separate and independent of each other. THE SIXTH . How wide is the scope of this commandment to Christians, our Lord has shown. Not only are murder and violence prohibited by it, but even provoking words, and angry thoughts (Matthew 5:21-26). The "root of bitterness" whence murder springs, is either some fierce passion, or some inordinate desire. To be secure from murderous impulses, we must be free from such emotions as these,—we must have tender and Joying feelings towards all our fellow-men. "Love is the fulfilling of the law;" and unless a man really "love the brethren," he has no security against being surprised into violence towards them, which may issue in death. Nor is there one species of murder only. The sixth commandment prohibits, not only violence to the body, but—what is of far greater consequence—injury to the soul. Men break it most flagrantly when they lead another into deadly sin, thereby—so far as in them lies—destroying his soul. The corrupter of innocence, the seducer, the persuader to evil, are "murderers" in a far worse sense than the cut-threat, the bandit, or the bravo. Death on the scaffold may expiate the crimes of these latter; eternal punishment alone would seem to be an adequate penalty for the guilt of the former. He that has eternally ruined a soul should surely be himself eternally unhappy. THE SEVENTH . Here again we have the inestimable advantage of our Lord’s comment on the commandment, to help us to understand what it ought to mean to us. Not only adultery, but fornication—not only fornication, but impurity of any and every kind—in act, in word, in thought—is forbidden to the Christian. He that looketh on a woman with the object of lusting after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). He that dallies with temptation, he that knowingly goes into the company of the impure, he that in his solitary chamber defiles himself, he that hears without rebuking them obscene words, transgresses against this law, and, unless he repents, cuts himself off from God. And observe—the law is one both for men and women. We are ready enough to speak with scorn of "fallen women,"—to regard them as ruined for ever, and treat their sin as the one unpardonable offence; but what of" fallen men"? Is not their sin as irreversible? Is it not the same sin? Is it not spoken of in Scripture in the same way? "Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). "Murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). And is it not as debasing, as deadening to the soul, as destructive of all true manliness, of all true chivalry, of all self-respect? Principiis obsta. Let the young keep that precious gift of purity which is theirs, and not be induced by the ridicule of unclean men to part with it. Once gone it can never return. Let them be pure, as Christ was pure. Blessed are the pure in heart! THE EIGHTH . Simple direct stealing, being severely punished by the law in most countries, is seldom practised, unless it be by children and slaves. But indirect stealing of various kinds is common. It should be clearly understood that the Christian precept forbids any act by which we fraudulently obtain the property of another. Adulteration, concealment of defects, misrepresentation of quality, employment of false weights or measures, are the acts of a thief, as much as pocket-picking or shop-lifting. Servants steal when they take "commission" from tradesmen unknown to their masters, or appropriate as "perquisites" what their masters have not expressly agreed to allow, or neglect to do the work which they undertook, or do it in a slovenly manner, or damage their master’s property by carelessness or diminish it by waste. Masters steal when they do not permit their servants the indulgences they promised, or allow their wages to fall into arrear, or force them to work overtime without proper remuneration, or deprive them of such "rest" as they had a reasonable right to expect upon the Sunday. Those steal who cheat the revenue by smuggling, or false returns to tax-collectors; or who cheat tradesmen by incurring debts which they can never pay, or who in view of coming bankruptcy pass over their property to a friend, with the understanding that it is to be restored to them, or who have recourse of any of the "tricks of trade," as they are called. All men are sure to steal in one way or another, who are not possessed by the spirit of honesty, who do not love justice and equity and fair, dealing, who do not make it the law of their life to be ever doing to others as they would that others should do unto them. THE NINTH . False witness in a court is but rarely given. We most of us pass our lives without having once to appear in a court, either as prosecutor, witness, or accused. The false witness against which the generality have especially to be on their guard, is that evil speaking which is continually taking place in society, whereby men’s characters are blackened, their motives misrepresented, their reputations eaten away. It is dull and tame to praise a man. We get a character for wit and shrewdness if we point out flaws in his conduct, show that he may have acted from a selfish motive, "just hint a fault and hesitate dislike." It is not even necessary in all cases to establish our character for shrewd insight that we should say anything. Silence when we hear a friend maligned, a shrug of the shoulders, a movement of the eyebrows, will do. Again, false witness may be given in writing as well as in speech. The reviewer who says of a book worse than he thinks of it, bears false witness. The writer for the Press who abuses in a leading article a public man whom he inwardly respects, bears false witness. The person who vents his spite against a servant by giving him a worse character than he deserves, bears false witness. We can only be secure against daily breaches of this commandment by joining the spirit of love with a deep-seated regard for truth, and aiming always at saying of others, when we have occasion to speak of them, the best that we can conscientiously say. THE TENTH . The tenth commandment is supplementary to the eighth. Rightly understood, the eighth implies it, covetousness being the root from which theft springs. The command seems added to the Decalogue in order to lay down the principle that the thoughts of the heart come under God’s law, and that we are as responsible for them as for our actions. Otherwise, it would not be needed, being implied in the eighth and in the seventh. Since, however, it was of the greatest importance for men to know and understand that God regards the heart, and "requires truth in the inward parts;" and since covetousness was the cause of the greater portion of the evil that is in the world, the precept, although already implied, was given expressly. Men were forbidden to covet the house, wife, slaves, cattle, property of their neighbour—in fact, "anything that is his." They were not forbidden to desire houses, or wives, or cattle, or property generally—which are all, within limits, objects of desire and things which men may rightfully wish for—but they were forbidden to desire for themselves such as were already appropriated by their fellows, and of which, therefore, they could not become possessed without their fellows suffering loss. A moderate desire for earthly goods is not forbidden to the Christian (Matthew 19:29; 1 Timothy 4:8); though his special covetousness should be for "the best gifts"—the virtues and graces which make up the perfect Christian character (1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1). BY J. ORR The moral law-Preliminary. The law given from Sinai is the moral law by pre-eminence. The principles which it embodies are of permanent obligation. It is a brief summary of the whole compass of our duty to God and man. It is a law of supreme excellence—"holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12). God’s own character is expressed in it; it bears witness to his unity, spirituality, holiness, sovereignty, mercy, and equity; truth and righteousness are visible in its every precept. Listening to its "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots," we cannot but recognise the same stern voice which speaks to us in our own breasts, addressing to us calls to duty, approving us in what is right, condemning us for what is wrong. These ten precepts, accordingly, are distinguished from the judicial and ceremonial statutes subsequently given— (1) As the moral is distinguished from the merely positive; (2) As the universally obligatory is distinguished from what is local and temporary; (3) As the fundamental is distinguished from the derivative and secondary. The judicial law, e.g; not only draws its spirit, and derives its highest authority, from the law of the ten commandments, but is in its own nature, simply an application of the maxims of this law to the problems of actual government. Its binding force was confined to Israel. The ceremonial law, again, with its meats and drinks, its sacrifices, etc. bore throughout the character of a positive institution, and had no independent moral worth. It stood to the moral law in a triple relation of subordination— (1) As inferior to it in its own nature. (2) As designed to aid the mind in rising to the apprehension of the holiness which the law enjoined. (3) As providing (typically) for the removal of guilt contracted by the breaking of the law. This distinctness of the "ten words" from the other parts of the law is evinced— I. IN THE MANNER OF THEIR . 1. They alone were spoken by the voice of God from Sinai. 2. They were uttered amidst circumstances of the greatest magnificence and terror. 3. They alone were written on tables of stone. 4. They were written by God’s own finger (Exodus 31:18). The rest of the law was communicated privately to Moses, and through him delivered to the people. II. IN THE NAMES GIVEN TO THEM, AND THE USE MADE OF THEM. 1. They are "the words of the Lord," as distinguished from the "judgments "or "rights" derived from them, and embraced with them in "the book of the covenant," as forming the statutory law of Israel (Exodus 24:3). 2. The tables on which they were written are—to the exclusion of the other parts of the law—called "the testimony" (Exodus 25:16), "the covenant" (Deuteronomy 4:13), "the words of the covenant" (Exodus 34:28), "the tables of testimony" (Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:15), "the tables of the covenant" (Deuteronomy 9:9-11). 3. The tables of stone, and they only, were placed in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:21). They were thus regarded as in a special sense the bond of the covenant. The deposition of the tables in the ark, underneath the mercy seat, throws light on the nature of the covenant with Israel. The law written on the tables is the substratum of the covenant—its obligatory document—the bond; yet over the law is the mercy-seat, sprinkled with blood of propitiation—a testimony that there is forgiveness with God, that he may be feared (Psalms 130:4), that God will deal mercifully with Israel under this covenant. It is obvious, from these considerations, how fallacious is the statement that the Old Testament makes no distinction between the moral, juristic, and ceremonial parts of the law, but regards all as of equal dignity.—J.O. Exodus 20:1-18 The moral law-General survey. View this law of the ten commandments as— I. . "God spake all these words, saying," etc. (Exodus 20:1). An authoritative revelation of moral law was necessary— 1. That man might be made distinctly aware of the compass of his obligations. The moral knowledge originally possessed by man had gradually been parted with. What remained was distorted and confused. He had little right knowledge of his duty to God, and very inadequate conceptions even of his duties to his fellow-men. This lost knowledge was recovered to him by positive revelation. Consider, in proof of the need of such a revelation, the ignorance of God which prevails still, men’s imperfect apprehensions of his holiness, their defective views of duty, etc. And this though the revelation has so long been given. 2. That a basis of certainty might be obtained for the inculcation of moral truth. This also was necessary. Man has ever shown himself ingenious in explaining away the obligations which the law imposes on him. He may deny that they exist. He may make light of holiness. He may take up utilitarian ground, and ride off on disputes as to the nature of conscience, the origin of moral ideas, the diversities of human opinion, etc. The law stops all such cavilling by interposing with its authoritative "Thus saith the Lord." See on this point a valuable paper on "Secularism," by R. H. Hutton, in "Expositor," January, 1881. 3. That the authority of conscience may be strengthened. Conscience testifies, in however dim and broken a way, to the existence of a law above us. It speaks with authority. "Had it might as it has right, it would rule the world." In order, however, that we may be made to feel that it is a living will, and no mere impersonal law, which thus imposes its commands upon us, there is a clear need for the voice within being reinforced by the voice without—for historical revelation. Sinai teaches us to recognise the authority which binds us in our consciences as God’s authority. 4. For economic purposes. See previous chapter. II. . "I am the Lord, thy God," etc. (Exodus 20:2). This preface to the law is of great importance. 1. It testified to the fact that God’s relation to Israel was fundamentally a gracious one. "The law was introduced with the words, ’I am the Lord thy God,’ and speaks with the majestic authority of the Eternal, dispensing blessings and cursings on the fulfilment and transgression of the law. But although this is given amidst the thunder and lightning of Sinai, whose roll seems to be heard constantly in its mighty imperatives—’Thou shalt not!’ or ’Thou shalt!’ yet still it points back to grace; for the God who speaks in the law is he who led the people out of Egypt, freed them from the yoke of bondage—the God who gave the promise to Abraham, and who has prepared a highest good, the Messianic kingdom, for his people" (Martensen). 2. It furnished a motive for obedience to the law. Mark the order—the same as in the Gospel; God first saves Israel, then gives them his law to keep. Because God had redeemed them from Egypt, and had given them, of his free mercy, this glorious privilege of being his people, therefore were they to keep his commandments. This was the return they were to make to him for the so great love wherewith he had loved them. Their relation to the law was not to be a servile one. Obedience was not to be a price paid for favour, but a return of grateful hearts for favours already received. From this motive of gratitude, and that they might retain the privileges he had given them, and inherit farther blessing, they were to walk in the prescribed way. If, notwithstanding, a pronouncedly legal element entered into that economy, a curse even being pronounced against those who failed to keep the whole law, while the good promised to obedience appears more as legal award than as a gift of grace—we know now the reason for the covenant being cast into this legal form, and can rejoice that in Christ our justification is placed on so much better a footing. Obedience, however, is still required of us as a condition of continuance in God’s favour, and of ultimate inheritance of blessing. 3. It furnished to the pious Israelite a pledge of merciful treatment when he transgressed or fell short of the requirements of his law. What, e.g; had David to fall back upon in the hour of his remorse for his great transgression (Psalms 51:1-19.), but just such a word as this, confirmed as it was by acts of God, which showed that it was a word always to be depended on. This one saying, prefacing the law, altered the whole complexion of Israel’s standing under law. It gave to the Israelite the assurance that he most needed, namely—that, notwithstanding the strictness of the commandment, God would yet accept him in his sincere endeavours after obedience, though these fell manifoldly short of the full requirement, i.e; virtually on the ground of faith—in connection, however, with propitiation. III. MORAL IN ITS . This has been adverted to above. Though imposed on man by Divine authority, moral law is no arbitrary creation of the Divine will. It is an emanation from the Divine nature. (Cf. Hooker—"Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world.") Herbert Spencer was never guilty of a greater misrepresentation than when he affirmed—"Religious creeds, established and dissenting, all embody the belief that right and wrong are right and wrong simply in virtue of Divine enactment". We may reply with Stahl—"The primary idea of goodness is the essential, not the creative, will of God. The Divine will, in its essence, is infinite love, mercy, patience, truth, faithfulness, rectitude, spirituality, and all that is included in the idea of holiness, which constitutes the inmost nature of God. The holiness of God, therefore, neither precedes his will (’sanctitas antceedens voluntatem’ of the schoolmen) nor follows it, but is his will itself. The good is not a law for the Divine will (so that God wills it because it is good); neither is it a creation of his will (so that it becomes good because he wills it); but it is the nature of God from everlasting to everlasting." The law, in a word, expresses immutable demands of holiness. What these are is determined in any given case by the abstract nature of holiness and by the constitution and circumstances of the being to whom the law is given. Man, e.g; is a free, immortal spirit; but he is at the same time an inhabitant of the earth, bound by natural conditions, and standing to his fellow-men in relations, some of which at least belong only to his present state of existence. Hence we find in the Decalogue precepts relating to the weekly Sabbath, to marriage, to the institution of private property, etc. These precepts are founded on our nature, and are universally obligatory. They show what duty immutably requires of us as possessing such a nature; but obviously their application will cease under different conditions of existence (Matthew 22:30). Only in its fundamental principles of love to God and to our fellow-beings, and in its spiritual demands for truth, purity, uprightness, reverence, and fidelity, is the law absolutely unchangeable. IV. IN ITS PARTS. Observe— 1. Its two divisions, turning, the one on the principle of love to God, the other, on the principle of love to man. 2. The relative position of the two divisions—duty to God standing first, and laying the needful foundation for the right discharge of our duties to mankind. True love to man has its fountain head in love to God. Neglect of the duties of piety will speedily be followed by the neglect of duty to our neighbour. The Scripture does not ignore the distinction between religion (duties done directly to God) and morality (duties arising from earthly relations), but it unites the two in the deeper idea that all duty is to be done to God, whose authority is supreme in the one sphere as in the other. 3. The scope of its precepts. These cover the entire range of human obligation. The precepts of the first table (including here the Fifth Commandment) require that God be honoured in his being, his worship, his name, his day, his human representatives. The precepts of the second table require that our neighbour be not injured in deed, in word, in thought; and in respect neither of his person, his wife, his property, nor his reputation. So complete and concise a summary of duty—religious and ethical—based on true ideas of the character of God, and taking holiness, not bare morality, as its standard, is without parallel in ancient legislation. V. IS ITS PURPORT. "The law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14). 1. The law to be studied in its principles. Taken in its bare letter, it might appear narrow. Here, however, as everywhere in Scripture, the letter is only the vehicle of the spirit. The whole law of Moses being founded on this part of it—being viewed simply as an expansion or amplification in different relations of the principles embodied in the ten words—it is plain, and common sense supports us in the view, that the principles are the main things, the true roots of obligation. Thus, the Third Commandment, in the letter of it, forbids false swearing, or generally, any vain use of the name of God. But underlying this, and obviously forming the ground of the command, is the principle that God’s name, i.e; everything whereby he manifests himself, is to be treated with deepest reverence. This principle, in its various applications, carries us far beyond the letter of the precept. Read in the same way, the Sixth Commandment forbids killing, but not less the murderous motive than the murderous act; while the principle involved, viz; reverence for, and care of, human life (cf. Genesis 9:6), branches out into a multiplicity of duties, of which the other parts of the law of Moses furnish numerous illustrations. The true key to the spiritual interpretation of the law is that given by Christ in the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-48.- 7.). 2. Summed up in love. "Love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). (1) It is the central requirement. "Them that love me" (verse 6). Implied in the first and all later precepts. Whatever in the way of outward service we render to God, or man, if love is withheld, the law is not fulfilled. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ OF THE PEOPLE, AND NEARER OF MOSES TO GOD. The effect produced upon the people by the accumulated terrors of Sinai—"the thunderings and the lightnings, the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking"—the cloud, and the voice out of the cloud—was an awful and terrible fear. They could not bear the manifestation of the near presence of God; and therefore "they removed and stood afar off." It seemed to them as if, on hearing the voice of God, speaking out of the thick darkness, they must die (Exodus 20:19). Moses, upon their expressing these feelings, comforted them with an assurance that God had shown his terrors, not for their injury, but to put his fear in their hearts (Exodus 20:20), and allowed them to retire to a distance from the mount, while he himself "drew near unto the thick darkness where God was" (Exodus 20:21). Exodus 20:18 The people saw the thunderings. The use of a specific verb for a generic one, with terms to all of which it is not, strictly speaking, applicable, is common to many writers, and is known to grammarians as zengma. "Saw" here means "perceived, witnessed." The mountain smoking. Compare Exodus 19:18. In Deuteronomy 5:23 it is said that "the mountain did burn with fire." When the people saw it, they removed. It appears, from Deuteronomy 5:23, that. before retiring, the people sent a deputation of heads of tribes and elders up to Moses in the mount, to convey to him their wishes, and suggest that he should be their intermediary with God. Moses laid their wishes before God, and was directed to give them his sanction, whereupon they withdrew to their tents (Deuteronomy 5:30). Exodus 20:19 And they said unto Moses. Their whole speech, as delivered in Deuteronomy, was as follows:—"Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day, that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now, therefore, why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go then near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and. we will hear it, and do it" (Deuteronomy 5:24-27). The speech is here abbreviated greatly; but its essential points are preserved—"Speak thou with us"—be thou our intermediary—"Let not God speak with us, lest we die.’" Exodus 20:20 And Moses said unto the people. Not immediately—Moses first held colloquy with God. God declared that the people had "spoken well" (Deuteronomy 5:28); and authorised Moses to allow of their withdrawal (Deuteronomy 5:30). Fear not. Here Exodus is more full in its details than Deuteronomy. Moses, finding the people in a state of extreme alarm, pacified them—assured them that there was no cause for immediate fear—God had not now come in vengeance—the object of the terrors of Sinai was to "prove" them—i.e; to test them, whether they were inclined to submit themselves to God, or not—and to impress upon their minds permanently an awful fear of God, that they might he kept back from sin by dread of his almighty power. The motive of fear is, no doubt, a low one; but where we can appeal to nothing else, we must appeal to it. Israel was still a child, only fit for childish discipline; and had to be directed by the harsh voice of fear, until it had learnt to he guided by the tender accents of love. Exodus 20:21 The people stood afar off. They retired from the base of Sinai to their tents, where they "stood," probably in their tent doors. And Moses drew near unto the thick darkness. As the people drew back, Moses drew near. The display which drove them off, attracted him. He did not even fear the "thick darkness"—a thing front which human nature commonly shrinks. Where God was, he would be. Exodus 20:18-21 The Divine presence at once attractive and repellent. When Christ was upon the earth, so winning was his graciousness that crowds flocked to him, and one man at least exclaimed, "Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest." But at the same time so terrible was the manifestation of his power, that there were those who "besought him that he would depart out of their coasts." God is love, and God is power, and wherever he is, be exhibits both qualities; but there are some who sea mainly the love, and there are others who see only the power. Hence the Divine presence at once attracts and repels, charms men and affrights them. The Israelites invited to draw near to God, and hold with him direct communication, after brief trial, decline the offer, and will have an intermediary. Moses, given the same invitation, and a witness of the same sights and sounds, not only stands his ground, but at the end draws more near. The reasons for the difference would seem to be these— 1. FEAR, WHERE IT IS , EXPELS LOVE. The devils, who have no love, "believe and tremble." Men, who have greatly sinned, and who therefore cannot help seeing in God mainly a "consuming fire," and "an avenger to execute wrath," lose sight of all his gentler attributes, cease to feel that he is their Father, no longer look upon him as "merciful and gracious," and consequently no longer have any feeling of love towards him. We cannot love one from whom we expect nothing but punishment. II. LOVE, WHERE IT IS STRONG, FEAR AND MASTERS IT. "The fear of the Lord endureth for ever"—no love of which a creature is capable can altogether cast it out. Tim very angels veil their faces before the Lord of Hosts, and feel themselves unworthy to gaze upon the Divine perfections. But where love increases, fear diminishes. Let love grow, and become strong, and glow within the heart like a flame of fire—by degrees fear changes its character, ceases to be a timorous dread, and becomes awe. Awe and love can very well co-exist; and love draws us towards God more than awe keeps us back. Love is glad to have no intermediary—rejoices that it may "go boldly to the throne of grace"—seeks to draw as near as possible to the beloved one—so constrains fear, that fear ceases to act any longer as a deterrent, is mastered, and held under restraint. "Moses drew near into the thick darkness where God was." The loving soul presses towards God—would "see him face to face"—and "know even as it also is known." BY J. ORR Exodus 20:18-22 The terrors of Sinai their design and their effects. I. THEIR DESIGN. 1. Not to slay the people. The people dreaded that if God spoke to them again, they would die (Exodus 20:19). But Moses said—No; this was not the design of the manifestation. "Fear not" (Exodus 20:20). The voice of the law in Scripture, though it is felt in the conscience to be a voice of death (Romans 7:9-11), is not intended to be really so. It is meant to lead to Christ. 2. To prove the people (Exodus 20:20). God gave this awful manifestation, that his fear might ever after be before their faces. They had heard with their own ears the proclamation of the law, and they had seen these terrors. If anything could awaken fear in them—a salutary fear—and keep them from apostasy, these things should. But, alas! terror is a very ineffective instrument of conversion. These Israelites soon forgot their terrors, and within forty days were dancing in mat[ glee round their golden calf (Exodus 32:1-35.). II. THEIR EFFECTS. 1. They inspired the keenest alarm. This is the invariable result in the sinful breast of any near approach of God. A fear akin to that of the Israelites has often been manifested— (1) In presence of unusual appearances of nature (comets, eclipses, etc.). (2) Under the powerful preaching of the realities of judgment. (3) In prospect of death. 2. They awakened the cry for a mediator (Exodus 20:19). However much, under ordinary circumstances, the unbeliever may scout the idea of being indebted to a mediator, it will be strange if there do not come times in his life when he feels that he needs one. Three principles in our nature give birth to this feeling— (1) The sense of weakness and finitude. (2) The sense of sin. (3) The feeling of need. The longing for fellowship with God gives rise to the desire for one to mediate that fellowship, to bring it about by making peace. 3. They impelled the self-convicted Israelites to flee from God’s presence (Exodus 20:18, Exodus 20:21). This is what will take place at the last judgment. How different with Moses, who had "boldness" to enter even into the thick darkness! The good man need not fear to be anywhere with God—J.O. THE BOOK OF THE , (Exodus 20:1-26. Exodus 20:22, to Exodus 22:1-31. Exodus 22:23). The Decalogue is followed by a series of laws, civil, social, and religious, which occupy the remainder of Exo 20:1-26. and the whole of the three following chapters (Exodus 21:1-36; Exodus 22:1-31. and 23.). It appears from Exodus 24:1-18. that these laws, received by Moses on Sinai, immediately after the delivery of the ten commandments, were at once committed to writing and collected into a book, which was known as "the Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 24:7), and was regarded as a specially sacred volume. The document, as it has come down to us, "cannot be regarded as a strictly systematic whole" (Canon Cook): yet still, it is not wholly unsystematic,but aims in some degree at an orderly arrangement. First and foremost are placed the laws which concern the worship of God, which are two in number:— 1. Against idols; 2. Concerning altars (Exodus 20:23-26). Then follow the laws respecting what our legal writers call "the rights of persons"—which occupy thirty-two verses of Exo 21:1-36. and fall under some twenty different heads, beginning with the rights of slaves, and terminating with the compensation to be made for injuries to the person caused by cattle. The third section is upon "the rights of property," and extends from Exodus 21:33, to Exodus 22:15, including some ten or twelve enactments. After this we can only say that the laws are mixed, some being concerned with Divine things (as Exodus 22:20, Exodus 22:29, Exodus 22:30; and Exodus 23:10-19): others with human, and these last being of various kinds, all, however, more or less "connected with the civil organization of the state" (Kalisch). In the fourth section the enactments seem to fall under about twenty-five heads. The result is that the "Book of the Covenant" contains, in little more than three chapters, about seventy distinct laws. Exodus 20:22 Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. The book opened with this reminder, which at once recalled its author and declared its authority. "I, who give these laws, am the same who spake the ten commandments amid the thunders of Sinai. Reverence the laws accordingly." Exodus 20:23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, etc. This is a repetition, in part, of the second commandment, and can only be accounted for by the prohibition being specially needed. The first idea of the Israelites, when they considered that Moses had deserted them, was to make a golden calf for a god. Exodus 20:24 An altar of earth. Among the nations of antiquity altars were indispensable to Divine worship, which everywhere included sacrifice. They were often provided on the spur of the occasion, and were then "constructed of earth, sods, or stones, collected upon the spot." The patriarchal altars bad probably been of this character, and it was now provided that the same usage should continue: at any rate, elaborate structures of hewn and highly ornamented stone should not be allowed, lest thus idolatry should creep in, the images engraved upon the altars becoming the objects of worship. Thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings. The mode in which these are introduced implies that sacrifice was already a long-standing practice. The patriarchal sacrifices are well known (Genesis 8:20; Genesis 12:7; Genesis 22:9; Genesis 35:1). Jethro had recently offered sacrifice in the camp of Israel (Exodus 18:12). If the Israelites had not sacrificed to God during the sojourn in Egypt, at any rate they had kept up the idea of sacrifice; and it was for the purpose of offering sacrifices that Moses had demanded permission to go with all his nation into the wilderness. I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. The promise is conditional on the observance of the command. If the altars are rightly constructed, and proper victims offered, then, in all places where he allows the erection of an altar, God will accept the sacrifices offered upon it and bless the worshippers. Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone—i.e; if, notwithstanding my preference expressed for an altar of earth, thou wilt insist on making me one of stone, as more permanent, and so more honourable, then I require that the stones shall be rough stones shaped by nature, not stones chiselled into shape by the art of man. For if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou hast polluted it. It is conjectured with reason that we have here an old traditional idea, which God thought fit under the existing circumstances to sanction. The real object was that altars should not be elaborately carved with objects that might superinduce idolatry. The widely prevalent notion, that nature is sacred, and that all man’s interference with nature is a defilement, was made use of economically, to produce the desired result. No tool being allowed to be used, no forms of living creatures could be engraved, and so no idolatry of them could grow up. Exodus 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar. Here the reason of decency, added in the text, is obvious; and the law would necessarily continue until sacerdotal vestments of a very different character from the clothes commonly worn by Orientals were introduced (Exodus 38:3 -43). After their introduction, the reason for the law, and with it the law itself, would drop The supposed "slope of earth" by which the priests are thought to have ascended to the "ledge" on the altar of burnt offerings, and the "inclined plane," said by Josephus to have given access to the great altar of Solomon, rest on no sufficient authority, and are probably pure fictions. As soon as an ascent was needed, owing to the height of the altar, it was probably an ascent by steps (See Ezekiel 43:17.) BY J. ORR Exodus 20:20-22 The law of the altar. I. THE OBJECT Or WORSHIP. The true God, not gods of silver, or gods of gold (Exodus 20:23). The God who had talked with them from heaven had appeared in no visible form. "Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:12). Let the sole object of our worship be the invisible, spiritual, infinite, yet revealed God. God’s revelations of himself lay the basis of right worship. God has spoken. How reverently should we hear! II. THE PLACE Or WORSHIP. "In all places where I record my name" (Exodus 20:24). God records his name by making a revelation of himself, as at Bethel, Peniel, etc. Whatever places he chose for the building of his altar, till the time came for the erection of a permanent sanctuary, there would he meet with them. Religion is now set free from places (John 4:23). Wherever two or three are met in Christ’s name, there will he be in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). III. THE ALTAR OF WORSHIP. To be built of unhewn stone—i.e; of natural materials (Exodus 20:25). It was the altar of propitiation. Man is viewed as one whose sins are yet unexpiated. His art, in that state, would have polluted the altar. Art came in afterwards (Exodus 25:1-40. etc.). Nothing of man’s own avails for propitiation. IV. THE OF WORSHIP. Animal sacrifices (Exodus 20:24). For purposes of atonement—as symbols of personal consecration (burnt offerings)—as pledges of peace and renewed fellowship (peace offerings). Not in the first, but in the other meanings of sacrifice, we are still summoned to bring them in our worship—"spiritual sacrifices" of self-surrender (Romans 12:1), of the broken spirit (Psalms 51:17), of praise and thanksgiving (1 Peter 1:5). V. THE MANNER WORSHIP (Exodus 20:26). Reverence and decency.—J.O. BY G. A. Exodus 20:22-26 I will go unto the altar of God. The directions given shadow forth the essentials of genuine worship. Amongst the heathen the idol is the central figure, the human symbol of the unseen God. The true God will admit no such symbol; it is a barrier against, not a step towards, the worship he desires. In true worship there must be utter self-suppression. "Obedience is better than sacrifice;" it is only through obedience that the sacrifice becomes acceptable. In this light consider— I. THE ALTAR. To be made of earth or unhewn stones. The simple unadorned material as provided by God himself. Anything beyond this, any touch of human handicraft, pollutes it. The principle which underlies this fact:—sacrifices offered in the appointed way are acceptable; if we try to better the appointed way—to put something of our own into the sacrifice as a ground for acceptance—we spoil all. Self-obtrusion, however well-intended, is pollution. The altar is the expression of God’s will: try to improve it, and it becomes instead an expression of the will of the would-be improver. "I give thee this, O God; it is not worth much, but I give it thee in this self-chosen manner, and surely that adds to its value." Not a bit: it deprives it of all value. The altar of self is not the altar of God; sacrifices offered upon it may perhaps soothe the worshipper, they cannot propitiate the Deity. The pillar, e.g; of a St. Simeon Stylites does not add to the value of his prayers; they have a better chance of reaching heaven from the contrite heart at the foot of the pillar. (Cf. Colossians 2:22, Colossians 2:23.) II. THE . If the offering be made with a pure motive, it must also be offered in a pure and reverent manner. The special direction, no doubt, aimed against the enthusiastic indecencies associated with idolatry. Still, it illustrates a principle: "All things," in the worship of God, should be done "decently and in order." God looks first at character, but he requires also that character be matched by conduct. The Corinthian Christians (1 Corinthians 11:1-34; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40.) infringed the principle, if not the precept. Many amongst modern worshippers infringe it also, e.g; by indecencies of dress, behavior, etc; in a place of worship or when engaged in prayer. Conclusion.—Two things required of us, humility and reverence; inward and outward self-suppression. Do we want a motive? "Mine altar" (Exodus 20:26). Remember who it is whom we worship. What place left for self when the heart is fixed on God?—G. THE BOOK OF THE .—Continued. I. Laws connected with the rights of persons (Exodus 21:1-32). The regulations of this section concern— 1. Slavery (Exodus 21:2-6); 2. Murder and other kinds of homicide (Exodus 21:12-15 and Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:21); 3. Man-stealing (Exodus 21:16); 4. Striking or cursing of parents (Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17); 5. Assaults and injuries to the person not resulting in death (Exodus 21:18, Exodus 21:19, and Exodus 21:22-27), both in the case of free men and of slaves; and 6. Injuries done by cattle both to free men and to slaves (Exodus 21:28-32). The chief bodily injury whereto women are liable is not mentioned. A later enactment (Deuteronomy 22:25-29) made it expiable by marriage, or else a capital offence. There are no other remarkable omissions. Exodus 21:1 These are the judgments. The term "judgment" applies most properly to the decisions of courts and the laws founded upon them. No doubt the laws contained in the "Book of the Covenant" were to a large extent old laws, which had been often acted on; but we should do wrong to suppose that there was nothing new in the legislation. The Hebrew mishphat is used with some vagueness. Exodus 21:2-11 Slavery. Exodus 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant. Slavery, it is clear, was an existing institution. The law of Moses did not make it, but found it, and by not forbidding, allowed it. The Divine legislator was content under the circumstances to introduce mitigations and alleviations into the slave condition. Hebrews commonly became slaves through poverty (Leviticus 25:35, 39), but sometimes through crime (Exodus 22:3). In the seventh he shall go out. Not in the Sabbatical year, but at the commencement of the seventh year after he became a slave. If the jubilee year happened to occur, he might be released sooner (Leviticus 25:40); but in any case his servitude must end when the sixth year of it was completed. This was an enormous boon, and had nothing, so far as is known, correspondent to it in the legislation of any other country. Nor was this all. When he went out free, his late master was bound to furnish him with provisions out of his flock, and out of his threshing floor, and out of his winepress (Deuteronomy 15:12-14), so that he might have something wherewith to begin the world afresh. The humane spirit of the legislation is strikingly marked in its very first enactment. Exodus 21:3 If he came in by himself, etc. The first clause of this verse is further explained in the next; the second secured to the wife who went into slavery with her husband a participation in his privilege of release at the end of the sixth year. Exodus 21:4 If his master have given him a wife. If the slave was unmarried when he went into servitude, or if his wife died, and his master then gave him a wife from among his female slaves, the master was not to lose his property in his female slave by reason of having permitted the marriage. When the man claimed his freedom at the end of the sixth year, he was to "go out" alone. Should children have been born, they were also to be the property of the master and to remain members of his household. No doubt these provisos, which cannot be regarded as unjust, had the effect of inducing many Hebrew slaves not to claim their release (Exodus 21:5, Exodus 21:6). Exodus 21:5, Exodus 21:6 I love my master, etc. Affection might grow up between the slave and the master, if he were well treated. The Hebrew form of slavery was altogether of a mild kind. Masters are admonished to treat their slaves "not as bond-servants, but as hired servants or sojourners," and again "not to rule over them with rigour" (Le Exodus 25:39, Exodus 25:40, 43). Even among the heathen, slaves often bore a true affection to their masters. Or, the slave might be so attached to his wife and children as to be unwilling to separate from them, and might prefer slavery with the solace of their society to freedom without it. For such cases the provision was made, which is contained in Exodus 21:6. On the slave declaring to his master his unwillingness to go free, the master might take him before the judges, or magistrates (literally "gods") as witnesses, and perhaps registrars of the man’ s declaration, and might then reconduct him to his house, and by a significant ceremony mark him as his slave "for ever." The ceremony consisted in boring through one of his ears with an awl, and driving the awl into the door or doorpost of the house, thereby attaching him physically to the dwelling of which he became thenceforth a permanent inmate. Almost all commentators assert that some such custom was common in the East in connection with slavery, and refer to Xen. Aaab. 3.1, § 31; Plant. Poenul. 5.2, 21; Juv. Sat. 1.104; Plutarch. Vit. Cic. § 26, etc. But these passages merely show that the Orientals generally—not slaves in particular—had their ears bored for the purpose of wearing earrings, and indicate no usage at all comparable to the Hebrew practice. The Hebrew custom—probably a very ancient one—seems to have had two objects— 1. The declaring by a significant act, that the man belonged to the house; and 2. The permanent marking of him as a slave, dis-entitled to the rights of freemen, he shall serve him for ever. Josephus (Ant. Jud. 4.8, § 20) and the Jewish commentators generally maintain that the law of the jubilee release overruled this enactment; but this must be regarded as very doubtful. Exodus 21:7 If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant. Among ancient nations the father’ s rights over his children were generally regarded as including the right to sell them for slaves. In civilised nations the right was seldom exercised; but what restrained men was rather a sentiment of pride than any doubt of such sales being proper. Many barbarous nations, like the Thracians (Herod. 5.6), made a regular practice of selling their daughters. Even at Athens there was a time when sales of children had been common (Plut. Vit. Solon. § 13). Existing custom, it is clear, sanctioned such sales among the Hebrews, and what the law now did was to step in and mitigate the evil consequences. (Compare the comment on Exodus 21:2.) These were greatest in the case of females. Usually they were bought to be made the concubines, or secondary wives of their masters. If this intention were carried out, then they were to be entitled to their status and maintenance as wives during their lifetime, even though their husband took another (legitimate) wife (Exodus 21:10). If the retention was not carried out, either the man was to marry her to one of his sons (Exodus 21:9), or he was to sell his rights over her altogether with his obligations to another Hebrew; or he was to send her back at once intact to her father’ s house, without making any claim on him to refund the purchase-money. These provisos may not have furnished a remedy against all the wrongs of a weak, and, no doubt, an oppressed class; but they were important mitigations of the existing usages, and protected the slave-concubine to a considerable extent. Exodus 21:8 If she please not her master. If he decline, i.e; to carry out the contract, and take her for his wife. Then let her be redeemed. Rather, "Then let him cause her to be redeemed." Let him, i.e; look out for some one who will buy her of him and take his obligation of marriage off his hands To sell her to a strange nation he shall not have power. Only, this purchaser must be a Hebrew, like himself, and not a foreigner, since her father consented to her becoming a slave only on the condition of her being wedded to a Hebrew. Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. By professing to take her as a secondary wife, and not carrying out the contract. Exodus 21:9 And if he hath betrothed her unto his son. A man might have bought the maiden for this object, or finding himself not pleased with her (Exodus 21:8), might have made his son take his place as her husband. In this case but one course was allowed—he must give her the status of a daughter thenceforth in his family. Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife—i.e; If he marry her himself, and then take another, even a legitimate, wife—her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish—she shall retain during her life all the privileges of a married woman—he shall not diminish aught from them. The word translated "duty of marriage" seems to mean "right of cohabitation." Exodus 21:11 If he do not these three unto her. Not the "three" points of the latter part of Exo 21:10; but one of the three courses laid down in Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:9, and Exodus 21:10. She shall go out free—i.e; she shall not be retained as a drudge, a mere maidservant, but shall return to her father at once, a free woman, capable of contracting another marriage; and without money—i.e; without the father being called upon to refund any portion of the stun for which he had sold her. Exodus 21:12-14 Homicide. Exodus 21:12 reiterates the Sixth Commandment, and adds to it a temporal penalty—"he shall surely be put to death." The substance of this law had already been given to Noah in the words, "Whoso sheddeth man’ s blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). Real murder, with deliberate intent, was under no circumstances to be pardoned. The murderer was even to be torn from the altar, if he took refuge there, and relentlessly punished (Exodus 21:14). See the case of Joab (1 Kings 2:28-34). But, if a man happened suddenly upon his enemy, without having sought the opportunity, and slew him (Exodus 21:13), then the case was one not of murder, but at most of manslaughter, or possibly of justifiable homicide. No legal penalty was assigned to such offences. They were left to the rude justice of established custom, which required "the avenger of blood" to visit them with due retribution. According to the general practice of the Eastern nations, he might either insist on life for life or take a money compensation. With this custom, deeply ingrained into the minds of the Oriental people, the law did not meddle. It was content to interpose between the avenger of blood and his victim the chance of reaching an asylum. Places were appointed, whither the shedder of blood might flee, and where he might be safe until his cause was tried before the men of his own city (Numbers 35:22-25), and afterwards, if the judgment were in his favour. Some particular part of the camp was probably made an asylum in the wilderness. Exodus 21:13 God deliver him into his hand. This does not seem to mean more than, "if he chance upon him without seeking him." God’ s providence does in fact bring about the meetings which men call accidental. I will appoint thee a place. When we first hear of the actual appointment, the number of the places was six—three on either side of Jordan. (See Joshua 20:7, Joshua 20:8; and compare Numbers 35:10-15, and Deuteronomy 19:2.) Thus there was always a city of refuge at a reasonable distance. Exodus 21:14 Presumptuously. Or "proudly," "arrogantly." Thou shalt take him from mine altar. See the comment on Exodus 21:12. Exodus 21:15-17 Other capital offences. The unsystematic character of the arrangement in this chapter is remarkably shown by this interruption of the consideration of different sorts of homicide, in order to introduce offences of quite a different character, and those not very closely allied to each other—e.g., 1. Striking a parent; 2. Kidnapping; 3. Cursing a parent. Exodus 21:15 He that smiteth his father, etc. To "smite" here is simply to "strike"—to offer the indignity of a blow—not to kill, which had already been made capital (Exodus 21:12), not in the case of parents only, but in every case. The severity of the law is very remarkable, and strongly emphasises the dignity and authority of parents. There is no parallel to it in any other known code, though of course the patria potestas of the Roman father gave him the power of punishing a son who had struck him, capitally. Exodus 21:16 He that stealeth a man. Kidnapping, or stealing men to make them slaves, was a very early and very wide-spread crime. Joseph’ s brothers must be regarded as having committed it (Genesis 37:28); and there are many traces of it in the remains of antiquity. Most kidnapping was of foreigners; and this was a practice of which the laws of states took no cognizance, though a certain disrepute may have attached to it. But the kidnapping of a fellow-country-man was generally punished with severity. At Athens it was a capital offence. At Rome it made a man infamous. We may gather from Deuteronomy 24:7, that the Mosaic law was especially levelled against this lena of the crime, though the words of the present passage are general, and forbid the crime altogether. Man-stealing, in the general sense, is now regarded as an offence by the chief civilised states of Europe and America, and is punished by confiscation of the stolen goods, and sometimes by imprisonment of the man-stealers. Exodus 21:17 He that curseth his father, etc. Blasphemy against God, and imprecations upon parents, were the only two sins of the tongue which the law expressly required to be punished with death (Le Exodus 24:16). In later times analogy was held to require that "cursing the ruler of the people" (Exodus 22:28) should be visited with the same penalty (2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:9, 1 Kings 2:46). The severity of the sentence indicates that in God’ s sight such sins are of the deepest dye. Exodus 21:18, Exodus 21:19 Severe assault. Assault was punishable by the law in two ways. Ordinarily, the rule was that of strict retaliation’ ’ Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:24, Exodus 21:25; compare Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21). But where the assault was severe, causing a man to take to his bed, and call in the physician’ s aid, something more was needed. The Rabbinical commentators tell us that in this case he was arrested, and sent to prison until it was ascertained whether the person hurt would die or no. If he died, the man was tried for murder; if he recovered, a fine was imposed. This was axed at such a sum as would at once compensate the injured man for his loss of time and defray the expense of his cure. A similar principle is adopted under our own law in many cases of civil action. Exodus 21:18 If men strive together. If there is a quarrel and a personal encounter. In our own law this would reduce this offence, if death ensued, to manslaughter. With a stone, or with his fist. The use of either would show absence of premeditation, and of any design to kill. A weapon would have to be prepared beforehand: a stone might be readily caught up. Exodus 21:19 If he rise again and walk upon his staff. If he recovered sufficiently to leave his bed, and get about with a stick to lean on, his hurt was not to be brought up against the injurer, though he died soon afterwards. Compensation was to be received, and the score regarded as wiped off. Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:21 Homicide of slaves. In most ancient states the slave was the absolute property of his master, and might be ill-used to any extent, even killed, without the law in any way interfering. It is said that the state of things was different in Egypt (Kalisch); but we have scarcely sufficient evidence on the point to be certain that the slave enjoyed there any real and efficient protection. At Athens, beyond a doubt, the law protected the life of the slave; and a very moderate amount of ill-treatment entitled a slave to bring an action. At Rome, on the contrary, "the master could treat the slave as he pleased, could sell him, punish him, and put him to death". And this was the ordinary state of the law, particularly in Oriental countries. The Mosaic legislation must be regarded as having greatly ameliorated the condition of the native slave population. Hebrew bondmen it placed nearly upon a par with hired servants (Le Exodus 25:40); foreign slaves, whether prisoners taken in war, or persons bought in the market, it protected to a very great extent. By the law given in Exodus 21:26, Exodus 21:27, it largely controlled the brutality of masters, who had to emancipate their slaves if they did them any serious injury. By the law laid down in Exodus 21:20, it gave their lives the same protection, or nearly the same, as the lives of freemen. "Smiting "was allowed as a discipline, without which slavery cannot exist; but such smiting as resulted in death was, as a general rule, punishable like any other homicide. The only exception was, if the slave did not die for some days (Exodus 21:21). In that case the master was considered not to have intended the slave’ s death, and to be sufficiently punished by the loss of his property. Exodus 21:20 If a man smite his servant, or his maid. "Maids" would commonly be chastised by their mistress, or by an upper servant acting under the mistress’ s authority. "A man" here means "any one." With a rod. The rods wherewith Egyptian slaves were chastised appear upon the monuments. They were long canes, like those used by our schoolmasters. Under his hand. Criminals in the East are said often to die under the bastinado; and even in our own country there have been cases of soldiers dying under the lash. A special delicacy of the nervous system will make a punishment of the kind fatal to some, which would have been easily borne by others. Exodus 21:21 If he continue a day or two—i.e; "If the slave does not die till a day or two afterwards." Compare the provision in Exodus 21:19, with respect to persons who were not slaves. No special callousness to the sufferings of slaves is implied. He is his money. The slave had been purchased for a stun of money, or was at any rate money’ s worth; and the master would suffer a pecuniary loss by his death. Exodus 21:22-25 Assault producing miscarriage. Retaliation. Women in all countries are apt to interfere in the quarrels of men, and run the risk of suffering injuries which proceed from accident rather than design, one such injury being of a peculiar character, to which there is nothing correspondent among the injuries which may be done to man. This is abortion, or miscarriage. The Mosaic legislation sought to protect pregnant women from suffering this injury by providing, first, that if death resulted the offender should suffer death (Exodus 21:23); and, secondly, that if there were no further ill-result than the miscarriage itself, still a fine should be paid, to be assessed by the husband of the injured woman with the consent of the judges (Exodus 21:22). The mention of "life for life," in Exodus 21:23, is followed by an enunciation of the general "law of retaliation," applied here (it would seem) to the special case in hand, but elsewhere (Leviticus 24:19, 20) extended so as to be a fundamental law, applicable to all cases of personal injury. Exodus 21:22 If men strive and hurt a woman. A chance hurt is clearly intended, not one done on purpose. So that her fruit depart from her. So that she be prematurely delivered of a dead child. And no mischief follow. "Mischief" here means "death," as in Genesis 42:4, Genesis 42:38; Genesis 45:1-28:29. He shall pay as the judges determine. He was not to be wholly at the mercy of the injured father. If he thought the sum demanded was excessive, there was to be an appeal to a tribunal. Exodus 21:23 Then thou shalt give life for life. "Life for life" seems an excessive penalty, where the injury was in a great measure accidental, and when there was certainly no design to take life. Probably the law was not now enacted for the first time, but was an old tribal institution, like the law of the "avenger of blood." There are many things in the Mosaic institutions which Moses tolerated, like "bills of divorce"—on account of "the hardness of their hearts." Exodus 21:23, Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics, that this was the rule of justice which Rhadamanthus was supposed to act on in the judgment after death (book 5, see. 3), and that it had the approval of the Pythagoreans. Solon admitted it to a certain extent into the laws of Athens, and at Rome it found its way. into the Twelve Tables. There is a prima facie appearance of exact equality in it, which would captivate rude minds and cause the principle to be widely adopted in a rude state of society. But in practice objections would soon be felt to it. There is no exact measure of the hardness of a blow, or the severity of a wound; and "wound for wound, stripe for stripe," would open a door for very unequal inflictions "Eye for eye" would be flagrantly unjust in the case of a one-eyed man. Moreover, it is against public policy to augment unnecessarily the number of mutilated and maimed citizens, whose power to serve the state is lessened by their mutilation. Consequently in every society retaliation has at an early date given way to pecuniary compensation; and this was the case even among the Hebrews, as Kalisch has shown satisfactorily. If the literal sense was insisted on in our Lord’ s day (Matthew 5:38), it was only by the Sadducees, who declined to give the law a spiritual interpretation. Exodus 21:26, Exodus 21:27 Assaults on Slaves. The general law of retaliation was not made to extend to slaves. For ordinary blows the slave was not thought entitled to compensation, any more than the child. They were natural incidents of his condition. In extremer cases, where he was permanently injured in an organ or a member, he was, however, considered to have ground of complaint and to deserve a recompense. But for him to revenge himself upon his master by inflicting the same on him was not to be thought of. It would have put the slave into a false position, have led to his prolonged ill-treatment, and have been an undue degradation of the master. Therefore, compulsory emancipation was made the penalty of all such aggravated assaults, even the slightest (Exodus 21:27). If a man smite the eye, etc. The "eye" seems to be selected as the most precious of our organs, the "tooth" as that the loss of which is of least consequence. The principle was that any permanent loss of any part of his frame entitled the slave to his liberty. A very considerable check must have been put on the brutality of masters by this enactment. Exodus 21:28-32 Injuries done by cattle to slaves and freemen. For the purpose of inculcating as strongly as possible the principle of the sanctity of human life, the legislator notices the case where mortal injury is done to a person by a domesticated animal. The ox is taken as the example, being the animal most likely to inflict such an injury. In accordance with the declaration already made to Noah (Genesis 9:6), it is laid down that the destructive beast must be killed. Further, to mark the abhorrence in which murder ought to be held, the provision is made, that none of the creature’ s flesh must be eaten. The question then arises, is the owner to suffer any punishment? This is answered in the way that natural equity points out—"If he had reason to know the savage temper of the animal, he is to he held responsible; if otherwise, he is to go free." In the former case, the Hebrew law assigned a higher degree of responsibility than accords with modern notions; but practically the result was not very different. The neglectful Hebrew owner was held to have been guilty of a capital offence, but was allowed to "redeem his life" by a fine. His modern counterpart would be held to have been guilty simply of laches or neglect of duty, and would be punished by fine or imprisonment Exodus 21:28 The ox shall be surely stoned. He shall suffer the same death that would have been the portion of a human murderer. His flesh shall not be eaten. The animal was regarded as accursed, and therefore, as a matter of course, no Hebrew might eat of it. According to the Rabbinical commentators, it was not even lawful to sell the carcase to Gentiles. The owner shall be quit—i.e; "shall be liable to no punishment." Exodus 21:29 If the ox were wont to push with his horns. If he were notoriously, and to his owner’ s knowledge, a dangerous animal, which required watching, and no watch was kept on him, then the owner became blame-able, and having by his neglect contributed to a homicide, was "guilty of death." Exodus 21:30 If there be a fine laid upon him. There can scarcely have been any circumstances under which the penalty of death would have been enforced. No neglect could bring the crime into the category of murder. It is assumed, therefore, that practically the penalty would be a fine, proportioned no doubt to the value of the life taken. Exodus 21:31 Whether he have gored a son or a daughter. If the sufferer were a child, the value of the life, and therefore the amount of the fine, would be less. Exodus 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant. Hitherto, the case of free persons only has been considered. But the accident might have happened to a slave. Where this was the case, the death of the ox was still made indispensable, and thus far the same sacredness was made to attach to the life of the slave and of the freeman. But, in lieu of a varying fine, the average price of a slave, thirty shekels of silver, was appointed to be paid in all cases, as a compensation to the master Exodus 21:2-11; Exodus 20:1-26, Exodus 21:1-36; Exodus 26:1-37, Exodus 27:1-21; Exodus 32:1-35 The slave laws. Slave laws belong to all communities, and not to some only, slavery being really a universal and not a partial institution. In the most civilised communities of modern Europe, there are two large classes of slaves—lunatics and criminals. The law openly condemns these last to penal servitude, which may be for life; and this "servitude," as Lord Chief Justice Coleridge has repeatedly pointed out, is simply a form of slavery. Ancient communities differed from modern— 1. In the extent to which slavery prevailed; 2. In the grounds upon which men were bound to it; and 3. In the treatment whereto those bound to it were subjected. I. EXTENT OF ANCIENT SLAVERY. The slaves in ancient states were almost always more numerous than the freemen. At Athens they amounted to more than four-fifths of the community. Every free person was a slave owner, and some owned hundreds of their fellow-creatures. Perpetual insecurity was felt in consequence of the danger of revolt; and this fear reacted on the treatment of slaves, since it was thought necessary to break their spirit by severities. The evil effects of the institution pervaded all classes of the community, fostering pride and selfishness in the masters, dissimulation, servility, and meanness in the slaves. II. GROUNDS ON WHICH ANCIENT SLAVERY RESTED. Ancient slavery did not necessarily imply any mental or moral fault in the slave. Some reached it through mental defect, as our lunatics; some through crime, as our convicts (see Exodus 22:3). But the great majority were either born in the condition, or became slaves through the fortune of war. Thus slavery was not commonly a deserved punishment, but an undeserved misfortune. Men found themselves, without any fault of their own, the goods and chattels of another, with no political and few social rights, bound to one who might be in all respects inferior to themselves, but who was their lord and master. A sense of injustice consequently rankled in the bosom of the slave, and made him in most cases dangerous. Slave revolts were of frequent occurrence. III. OF SLAVES IS ANCIENT STATES. Some considerable differences may be observed between the treatment of slaves in different communities; but there are certain features which seem to have been universal. 1. Slaves were for the most part the property of individuals, and depended largely on the caprice of individuals, who might be harsh or mild, brutally tyrannical, or foolishly indulgent. 2. Slave families might at any time be broken up, the different members being sold to different masters. 3. Slaves might everywhere be beaten, and unless in case of serious injury, there was no inquiry. 4. Very severe labour might be required of them; they might be confined in workshops, which were little better than prisons, made to toil in mines, or chained to the oar as galley slaves. 5. They might be badly lodged, badly clothed, and badly fed, without the law taking any notice. 6. In most places there was no redress for any injury that a slave might suffer short of death; and in some the law took no cognisance even of his murder. The Mosaic legislation, finding slavery established under these conditions, set itself to introduce ameliorations, without condemning the institution altogether. Compare St. Paul’ s conduct when he sent Onesimus back to Philemon (Philemon 1:12, Philemon 1:16). It divided slaves into two classes, Hebrew and foreign, changing the slavery of the former into a species of apprenticeship for six years, and guarding, not merely the life, but the members and organs of the latter. It acknowledged the family lie in the case of the slave, and laid down rules tending to check the separation of wives from husbands. It protected slave concubines from the caprice of a sated husband. It absolutely forbade the practice of kidnapping, whereby the slave-market was largely recruited in most countries, putting men-stealers on a par with murderers, and requiring that they should suffer death. We may gather from the Mosaic legislation on the subject— I. THAT THERE ARE UNDER WHICH SLAVERY SHOULD BE . Where a whole community is uncivilised, or half-civilised, where slavery is an old-established institution, engrained not only into the laws, but into the habits and manners of the people—where there are no prisons or means of building them, and where the alternative for slavery would he the massacre of prisoners taken in war, and of criminals, it may be well that even Christian legislators should for a time tolerate the institution. The Europeans who obtain political influence in Central Africa, and other similar regions are bound to bear this in mind; and while doing their utmost to put down man-stealing, should carefully consider in each case that comes before them, whether slavery can in the particular community be dispensed with or no. To tolerate it for a while is simply to act on the lines laid down by Moses and St. Paul. II. THAT IF UNDER ANY SLAVERY HAS TO BE , ALL OF IT SHOULD BE WITHOUT DELAY. The slave is entitled to be protected in life and limb, to he decently lodged, fed, and clothed, to have the enjoyment of the Sunday rest, to be undisturbed in his family relations, to have the honor of his wife and daughters respected, to have an appeal from his master if he regards himself as in any way wronged. The efforts of missionaries and other humane men in uncivilised communities, should be directed primarily to the introduction of such reforms as these into the systems which they find established there. III. THAT, WHERE SERVICE HAS SLAVERY, THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR IN THE OF SERVICE. It is not the masters of slaves only who are hard and tyrannical. In all service there is room for the exhibition on the part of the master, of indulgence on the one hand, or strictness and severity on the other. We at the present day may either oppress our servants, or deal kindly with them. True, they may leave us if we oppress them; but a good servant will not readily leave a respectable place, and a good deal of tyranny is often borne before warning is given. It is the duty of masters, not only to "give to their servants that which is just and equal" (Colossians 4:1), but to show them sympathy and kindness, to treat them with consideration, and avoid hurting their feelings. More warmth and friendliness than are at all usual in the present treatment of servants, seem to be required by the fact that they are our brethren in the Lord, joint-heirs of salvation with us, and perhaps to be preferred above us in another world. Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:21 Laws on homicide. Here again, in the time of Moses, a custom, regarded as of absolute obligation upon all, held possession of the ground; and nothing was practicable hut some modification of it. The next-of-kin was "avenger of blood," and was bound to pursue every homicide to the bitter end, whether it was intentional and premeditated (i.e; murder), or done hastily in a quarrel (i.e; manslaughter), or wholly unintentional (i.e; death by misadventure). Moses distinguished between deliberate murder, which the State was to punish capitally (Exodus 21:12-14) and any other sort of homicide, which was left to the avenger of blood. In mitigation of the blood-feud, he interposed the city of refuge, whereto the man who had slain another might flee and be safe until his cause was tried. And in the trial of such persons he introduced the distinction between manslaughter and death by misadventure, allowing the avenger of blood to put the offender to death in the former case, but not in the latter. (Numbers 35:16-25.) Mercy and truth thus went together in the legislation. I. TRUTH The primary truth is the sacredness of man’ s life. In rude times, where it is everywhere "a word and a blow," very severe laws were necessary, if human life was not to be continually sacrificed; and so manslaughter was placed on a par with murder, made a capital offence; the sudden angry blow which caused death, though death might not have been intended, was to receive as its due punishment death at the hands of the "avenger of blood." II. MERCY. The "avenger of blood" was not allowed to be judge in his own cause. Cases of unpremeditated homicide were to go before the judges, who were to decide whether the death was intentional or by mischance. Mercy was to be shown to the man who had blood on his hands through accident. He was to be safe within the walls of the "city of refuge." Cities of refuge were multiplied, that one might be always within easy reach. Legislation should always seek to combine mercy with justice. Draconian enactments defeat their own purpose, since over-severe laws are sure not to be carried out. The moral sense revolts against them. Thus, when in our own country forgery was a capital offence, juries could not be got to convict of forgery. Laws should be in accordance with the conscience of the community, or they will cease to command respect. Good men will infringe them; and even courts will be slow to enforce obedience when they are infringed. Wise legislators will ever aim at embodying in the law the judgments of the more advanced conscience, and making it thus an instrument’ for elevating the moral sentiments of the community. Injuries to parents. The command to honour father and mother (Exodus 20:12), which is enough for the conscience, and which, if obeyed, would render all further laws upon the subject unnecessary, is here reinforced by two important enactments, intended to restrain those who do not scruple to disobey mere moral laws. The penalty of death is affixed to two crimes: 1. Smiting a parent; 2. Cursing a parent. I. SMITING A PARENT. When it is considered that our parents represent God to us, that they are in a real sense authors of our being, that they protect and sustain us for years during which we could do nothing for ourselves, and that nature has implanted in our minds an instinctive reverence for them, the punishment of parent-strikers by death will not seem strange or excessive. A son must have become very hardened in guilt, very reckless, very heartless, very brutal, who can bring himself to lift a hand against a father, not to say a mother. There is as much moral guilt in a light blow dealt to one whom we are bound to love, honour, and protect from hurt, as in the utmost violence done to a stranger. However, according to the Talmud, it was not every light blow that was actually punished with death, but only a blow which caused a wound; and, of course, the punishment was only inflicted upon the complaint of the party aggrieved, who would be unlikely to take proceedings, unless the assault was of grave character. Probably the law had very seldom to be enforced. What it did was to invest parents with a sacred and awful character in their children’ s eyes, and to induce them to submit to chastisement without resistance. II. CURSING A PARENT. To curse a parent is almost as unnatural as to strike one. ALL cursing is unsuitable to such a being as man—so full of faults himself, so liable to misjudge the character and conduct of others; but to curse those to whom we owe our existence is simply horrible. The sin is akin to blasphemy, and is awarded the same punishment. At the present day, when the Mosaic law is no longer in force, and when on this point no echoes of the Mosaic legislation are to be traced in existing codes, it is specially incumbent on conscientious persons to observe the spirit of the Mosaic enactments, and (as it were) make a Christian use of them. (1) "Smite not a parent," said the law, "or die the death." "Grieve not a parent" is the Christian paraphrase. "Grieve him not by disobedience, by idleness, by extravagance, by misconduct of any kind. Do not discredit his bringing up by misbehaviour. Do not stab his. heart by ingratitude. Do not wither up his nature by unkindness." A child may easily, without lifting a finger, "bring down the grey hairs" of his father "with sorrow to the grave." He may "smite" him in half-a-dozen ways without touching him. Let Christian men beware of such "smiting" of their parents, and dread the "eternal death" which may follow in the place of Moses’ temporal death. (2) "Curse not a parent," said the law again. We do not now, unless we part with religion altogether, curse any one. But we too often break the spirit of this law, notwithstanding. We speak slightingly of our parents; we join in disrespectful comments on their manners or behaviour; we use language to them, face to face, which is wanting in reverence and unsuitable. If we would act in the spirit of the law, "curse not a parent," we must avoid all disrespectful words, all disrespectful thoughts towards them or concerning them; we must give them the honour due to parents; we must seriously consider their counsels, and as a general rule follow their advice. As temporal death was awarded to those who "cursed" parents by the Jewish law (Exodus 21:17), so eternal death will be the portion of such as are determinately "disobedient to parents" under the Christian dispensation. The crime of man-stealing. To steal the purse of a man is a trivial crime; to filch his good name is a serious one; but the worst robbery of all is to steal his person. Civilised, refined, polished, intellectual men, happy in the enjoyment of freedom, wealth, honour, domestic happiness, have gone to sleep in comfort, peace, and fancied security, to wake up in the grip of lawless man-stealers, who have bound them and carried them into a hopeless captivity, far from any relative or friend, to become familiar with every sort of ill-usage and indignity. Cilician and other pirates did this in the olden time; Norman sea-kings in the middle ages; Algerine corsairs so late as the last century. The blood boils when we think of the sufferings inflicted on thousands of our species by these fiends in human shape, without pity, without conscience, without remorse. Death was certainly a punishment not one whit too severe for this atrocious crime, by which the happiest of the human race might become suddenly one of the most wretched. In modern times, the conscience of mankind, enlightened by eighteen centuries of Christianity, has revolted against the enormity long committed with impunity on the negro races of Western Africa, and the slave-trade has been proclaimed a form of piracy. Yet the accursed traffic still continues in the centre and in the east of the "Dark Continent;" still quiet villagers are awakened in the dead of night by the news that the kidnapper is upon them; harmless, peaceable men, together with their wives and children, are carried off in hundreds by Arab and sometimes by so-called Christian traders, driven to the coast in gangs, shipped in crowded dhows, and sold to the best bidder in the marts of Arabia and Persia. It is a subject well worthy the consideration of Christian governments, whether a revival of the Mosaic enactment is not required, to stop a trade the profits of which are so enormous, that nothing short of death is likely to deter avaricious men from engaging in it. Exodus 21:23-25 The rule of retaliation. "To suffer that a man has done is strictest, straightest right," was a line which passed into a proverb in ancient Greece. The administration of justice is rendered very simple and easy by the adoption of the principle, which approves itself to simple minds, and might work well in a simple state of society. The law of "life for life" (Exodus 21:23) remains, and must always remain, the basis on which society justifies the execution of the murderer. If "eve for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24), were enforced, the criminal could not complain; but the State would suffer by the mutilation and consequent debilitation of its members. In the administration of "burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:25), there would be difficulties, it being almost impossible for the public executioner to inflict a burn, wound, or blow exactly similar to the burn, wound, or blow given by the criminal. These difficulties lead naturally to the substitution of "compensation" for "retaliation," which we find sanctioned in Exodus 21:19, Exodus 21:22, Exodus 21:30, and Exodus 21:32. If the damage caused by a wound, burn, blow, or even by the loss of a slave or wife, can be estimated, and the injurer be made to pay that amount to the injured party, then the original loss is in a certain sense retaliated, and the wrongdoer" suffers what he has done." In the administration of justice the rule of retaliation has thus still a place. Retaliation is made unlawful by Christianity (Matthew 5:38 42), not in the administration of justice, but in the private dealings of man with man. We must not ourselves give blow for blow, "wound for wound, burning for burning;" no, nor gibe for gibe, slight for slight, insult for insult. Firstly, because we are not fair judges in our own case, and should be almost sure to overestimate our own injury; and, secondly, because we should provoke a continuance of strife. We should not even be eager to prosecute those who have injured us, if there be a chance that by patience and forbearance we may bring them to a better mind. We should be content to "suffer wrong," if by so doing we may win souls to Christ. The Christian law is, "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you;" and the ground of the law is, that by so doing we may "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). BY J. ORR The judgments. The "rights" or "judgments" contained in this and the two following chapters show the manner in which the spirit and principles of the preceding moral legislation were intended to be applied to the regulation of the outward life of the Jewish state. (1) As respects their origin, not a few of these laws have obviously their root in old customs, while others may have been derived from the decisions of Moses in the wilderness (Exodus 18:16). The code, therefore, in its present shape, cannot be supposed to have been verbally dictated by Jehovah to Moses; yet God may have instructed Moses as to the particular laws which were to be embraced in it, and may have revealed his will on special points which were as yet undetermined. The "judgments" were, in any case, given to Israel under express Divine sanction (Exodus 21:1). (2) As respects their nature, the laws relate to the determination of legal rights, and to the ordering of the course of justice; in part, also, to the behaviour of the members of the community to each other in various out ward relations, and to fundamental religious ordinances. The spirit of the code is throughout that of the moral law; the principles embodied in it are those of the commandments. The point of view from which its statutes are to be regarded is, however, a different one from that which was occupied in considering the moral law as such. Moral law speaks with the voice of "the categorical imperative." It sets up the perfect ethical standard. What falls short of this is wrong, involves sin, and is condemned. It knows nothing of a morality which is merely relative. The practical legislator, on the other hand—much as he might wish to do so—cannot so mould external institutions as to make them all at once, and at every point, correspond with the requirements of ideal morality. He must, to a large extent, take things as they are—must start with existing conditions and usages, and try to make the best of them. Absolute morality, e.g; would refuse to recgonise such a state as that of war; yet, so long as wars exist—and to this hour they are of frequent occurrence—some code must be devised, representing such application of ethical maxims as is possible to military life, and to that extent stamping a moral character on the profession of the soldier. The cases of deviation from ideal morality in the laws of Moses are, however, remarkably few, relating chiefly to war, slavery, and marriage. In regard to these subjects, the legislation necessarily partakes of the backward character of the times. The statutes given are not the absolutely best, but the best which the people, at that stage of their moral and social development, could receive; that is, the relatively best—the best for them. This leads to a third point— (3) The incompleteness of the law. The statutes here given, so far as they partook of the imperfection of the time, were not intended to be final. Within the law itself, as will be readily perceived, there was large room for development; but even the letter of the law was not so fixed, but that, in course of time, large parts of it might, and did, become obsolete; new institutions, adapted to new needs, and introduced, by proper authority, taking the place of the old ones. Mr. Robertson Smith is therefore not fair in his representation of what he calls the "traditional view," when he affirms—"The Divine laws given beyond Jordan were to remain unmodified through all the long centuries of development in Canaan, an absolute and immutable code". On such a theory, if anyone held it, his criticism would be quite just—"I say, with all reverence, that this is impossible. God, no doubt, could have given by Moses’ mouth a law fit for the age of Solomon or Hezekiah, but such a law could not be fit for immediate application in the days of Moses and Joshua God can do all things, but he cannot contradict himself; and he who shaped the eventful development of Israel’ s history must have framed this law to correspond with it." The reply to this is, that the most conservative defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch do not deny the necessity for, and admissibility of, great developments of the principles of the law. It may suffice to quote Hengstenberg:" First, it is a gross error, though often repeated, that the Pentateuch embraces the whole civil law of the Israelites. In that portion of the Scriptures there is shown the greatest aversion from all untimely interference with the course of historical development. Only those points are determined which must be so, add in no other way, according to the fundamental maxims of the theocracy," etc..—J.O. Exodus 21:2-12 Hebrew bond-service. The laws relating to this subject are to be found, in addition to those in the present chapter, in Exodus 12:43-45; Exodus 22:3; Le Exodus 25:39 -55; Exodus 26:13; Deuteronomy 12:12, Deuteronomy 12:18; Deuteronomy 15:15-19; Deuteronomy 16:11, Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 21:10-15; Deuteronomy 23:15; Deuteronomy 24:7. An impartial examination of these laws will show how fallacious must be every argument attempted to be deduced from them in favour of modern slave-holding. The Mosaic law did not establish slavery—at most it accorded to it a very modified toleration. It accepted it as an existing usage, labouring to the utmost to reduce, and as far as that was practicable, to abolish, the cvils connected with it. It could not well do more, for slavery, under the then existing conditions of society, was in some form or other almost inevitable, and was often the only alternative to a worse evil. Yet the law in its entire spirit and fundamental doctrines was opposed to slavery. Its doctrines of the dignity of man as made in God’ s image, and of the descent of all mankind from one pair, contained in principle the recognition of every human right. As a member of the theocracy, redeemed by Jehovah for himself, every Israelite was free by constitutional right (see the emphatic annunciation of this principle in Leviticus 25:42, 55; Deuteronomy 26:13). If from temporary causes, the Hebrew lost the use of his freedom, the right to it was not thereby destroyed. It returned to him at the beginning of the seventh year. A law can hardly be regarded as favourable to slavery which makes man-stealing a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:18), and which enacts that a fugitive slave, taking refuge in Israel from his heathen master, is not to be delivered back to him, but is to be permitted to reside where he will in the land (Deuteronomy 23:15, Deuteronomy 23:16). Bondsmen (both Hebrew and non-Israelite) were incorporated as part of the nation, had legal rights, sat with the other members of the family at the board of the passover, took part in all religious festivals, and had secured to them the privilege of the Sabbath rest. The master was responsible for the treatment of his slave; and if he injured him, even to the extent of smiting out a tooth, the slave thereby regained his freedom (verses 26, 27). A female slave was to be treated with strictest honour (Deuteronomy 24:7-11), and with due consideration for her womanly feelings (Deuteronomy 21:10-15). Humanity and kindness are constantly inculcated. When the Hebrew bondsman went out in the seventh year he was to go forth loaded with presents (Deuteronomy 15:13-16). The legislation of Moses is thus seen to be studiously directed to the protection of the slave’ s interests and rights. If there is a seeming exception, it is the one precept in Deuteronomy 24:20, on which see below. The law as a whole must be admitted to be framed in the spirit of the greatest tenderness and consideration, recognising the servant’ s rights as a man, his privileges as a member of the theocracy, his feelings as a husband and father. As respects the Hebrew bondsman, indeed, his position did not greatly differ from that of one now who sells his labour to a particular person, or engages to work to him on definite terms for a stated period (Fairbairn). He could be reduced to servitude only by debt, or as the penalty for theft. In this latter case (Exodus 22:3), liberty was justly forfeited—is forfeited still in the case of those convicted of felony, and doomed to compulsory labours, or to transportation, or lengthened terms of imprisonment. The laws in the present section embrace three eases— 1. That of the Hebrew servant who is unmarried (Deuteronomy 24:2). He goes out at the beginning of the seventh year. 2. That of the Hebrew servant who is married. In this case, if the wife came in with her husband, she goes out with him in the year of release (Deuteronomy 24:3); but if his master has given him a wife—presumably a non-Israelite—he has not the privilege of taking her with him when he leaves. He may, however, elect to remain in his master’ s service, in which case his servitude becomes perpetual (Deuteronomy 24:5, Deuteronomy 24:6). The retention of the wife may appear oppressive, but it was, as Keil points out, "an equitable consequence of the possession of property of slaves at all." 3. The third case is that of a Hebrew daughter, sold by her father to be a maidservant, i.e; as the sequel shows, as a housekeeper and concubine (Deuteronomy 24:7-12). The master may betroth her to himself, or may give her to his son, but in either case the law strictly guards her honour and her rights. If her full rights are not accorded her, she is entitled to her freedom (Deuteronomy 24:11). Lessons. (1) Deuteronomy 24:2.—The natural right of mar. to his freedom. (2) Deuteronomy 24:5.—Recognition of the slave’ s personality. "In modern systems, the man is a mere chattel, but in the Mosaic system, the slave’ s manhood is declared. He is sovereign over himself, and is allowed the power of choice. The Southern slaveholder would not permit his slave to say, ’I will not’; but the Hebrew slave is permitted to say, ’I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free’" (Burrows). (3) Deuteronomy 24:5, Deuteronomy 24:6.—Love, the true reconciler between servitude and freedom. Paul the "slave" of Christ, yet the truest freeman. (4) Jehovah’ s care for the unfriended. This comes beautifully out in the law for the protection of the woman.—J.O. Exodus 21:12-18 Murder and related capital offences. It is characteristic of the law of Moses that its first care, in the practical ordering of the Hebrew theocracy, is for the rights of the slave. These are dealt with in the opening paragraphs. The next laws relate to murder, to man-stealing, and to smiting and cursing of parents. I. MURDER (Exodus 21:12-15). The same spirit of justice which attaches severe penalties to proved crimes, leads to the drawing of a sound line of distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. Only for actions of the former class is the individual held responsible. Homicide which is purely accidental is not treated as a crime (Exodus 21:13). Not only is the man who kills his neighbour inadvertently not punished with death, but the law interposes to protect him from the fury of such as might unjustly seek his life, by appointing for him a place of refuge. (Cf. Numbers 35:1-34.; Deuteronomy 19:1-21.) The deliberate murderer, on the other hand, was to be taken even from God’ s altar, and put to death (Exodus 21:14). Deliberate murder implies "malice aforethought"—"intent to kill"—but it was sufficient to expose a man to the penalty attaching to this crime, that he had been guilty of an act of violence, resulting in another’ s death (Exodus 21:12; cf. Exodus 21:19, Exodus 21:23). Note on this law— 1. The recognition of Divine Providence in the so-called accidents of life (Exodus 21:13). 2. The sacredness attached to the human person. The religious ground of the enactment is given in Genesis 9:6—"Whoso sheddeth man’ s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." "The true Shechinah is man" (Chrysostom). 3. The ethical character of the Hebrew religion. The altar is to afford no sanctuary to the murderer. The Bible knows nothing of a religion which is in divorce from morality. This law condemns by implication all connivance at, or sheltering of, immorality, under religious sanctions (Romish huckstering of pardons, etc.). II. MAN- (Genesis 9:16). The statute is perfectly general. There is no evidence that it applied only to Hebrews, though these are specially mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:7. The stealing and selling of a Hebrew was a direct offence against Jehovah. (Cf. Leviticus 25:42.) "For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondsmen." The passage is a direct condemnation of the modern slave trade. III. SMITING AND CURSING OF PARENTS (Deuteronomy 24:15-17). These offences also were to be punished with death. The fact that they are bracketed in the law with murder and manstealing, gives a peculiar impression of their enormity. As if the statute book had said, after laying down the law for murder—"And for the purposes of this law, the smiting or cursing of a father or a mother shall be regarded as equivalent to the taking of a life." And this view of the matter is, in a moral respect, hardly too strong. It would be difficult to say what crime a man is not capable of, who could deliberately smite or curse father or mother. As special reasons for the severity of the law, observe— 1. Hebrew society rested largely on a patriarchal basis, and the due maintenance of parental authority was a necessity of its existence. Just as it is found still that, whatever the form of social order, the spread of a spirit of insubordination to parents is the invariable prelude to a universal loosening of ties and obligations. 2. Parents are regarded as standing to their children in the relation of visible representatives of Jehovah (see fifth commandment). This, in the Hebrew theocracy, gave to the crime of cursing or smiting a parent the character of a treasonable act. It was an offence against the majesty of Jehovah, and as such, required to be promptly avenged. On the same ground it was forbidden to revile magistrates, or curse the ruler of the people (Exodus 22:28). The law is a standing testimony to the heinousness attaching in the sight of God to the sin of filial disobedience.—J.O. Exodus 21:18-36 Bodily injuries. The laws in this section may be thus classified:— I. BY MAN. 1. Strivers (Exodus 21:18, Exodus 21:19). The man who injured another in strife was required to pay for the loss of his time, and to cause him to be thoroughly healed. Had the man died, the case would have come under the law of Exo 21:12. As it was, blame attached to both parties, and the law waived the right to further satisfaction. Note— (1) One way of atoning for wrong is to seek in every way in our power to undo the mischief we have caused. This, alas! cannot always be accomplished. Not always is "thorough healing"—whether bodily, mental, or moral—possible. So far as it is possible we are bound to attempt it. (2) Justice obtains her highest satisfaction when the wrongdoer can be made to contribute to the undoing of his own wrong. This principle might be more acted on than it is. 2. Servants (Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:21; Exodus 26:1-37, Exodus 27:1-21). A master was not to be allowed to injure with impunity even a slave purchased with his "money." If the slave was wantonly murdered, the case would come under the law of murder. If he died under chastisement, the master was punished at discretion of the judges. If the slave was in any way maimed, he obtained his freedom. It has been remarked that this is the earliest certain trace of legislation for the protection of the slave. See below. 3. A woman with child (Exodus 21:22-26). The injury here is indirect. The woman is hurt in interfering in the strife between two men. Yet the law holds the man who has injured her responsible for his fault, and decrees that he shall pay heavy damages. If evil effects follow, he is to be punished under the jus talionis. II. BY BEASTS. The distinction formerly observed as made by the law between voluntary and involuntary actions (Exodus 21:13, Exodus 21:14) meets here with fresh illustrations. 1. If an ox gore a man or a woman, and the gored person dies, the ox is to be stoned—a testimony to the sacredness of human life (cf. Genesis 9:5), but the owner shall be quit (Exodus 21:28). 2. If, however, the owner had been previously warned of the dangerous habits of the animal, and had not kept it in, there devolved on him the entire responsibility of the fatal occurrence. (1) If the person gored was a free Israelite (male or female), the life of the owner of the ox was forfeited; but an opportunity was given him of redeeming it by payment of a ransom (Exodus 21:29-32). (2) If the person gored was a slave, the owner of the ox had to compensate the owner of the slave for the loss of his servant. The price fixed was thirty shekels of silver (Exodus 21:32). In either case the ox was to be stoned. III. TO BEASTS. The same principles of equity apply here. 1. If an ox or an ass fall into a pit which has been carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the pit is required to pay in full (Exodus 21:33, Exodus 21:34). 2. If one man’ s ox kill another’ s, the loss is to fall equally on both owners (Exodus 21:35). 3. If the owner of the ox was aware of its propensity to gore, and had not kept it in, he must, as before, bear the whole loss (Exodus 21:36). The equity of this series of precepts is not more conspicuous than their humanity. The important lesson taught by these enactments is, that we cannot evade responsibility for our actions. Our actions abide with us. They cleave to us. We cannot shake ourselves rid of them. We are responsible, not only for the actions themselves, but for the consequences which flow from them—for the influences they set in motion. And we are responsible, not only for direct, but for indirect consequences (Exodus 21:22). Involuntary acts are not imputed to us, but all voluntary ones are. We are responsible, as well for what we do not do (having the power to do it), as for what we actually perform. We are responsible for the effects of negligence and carelessness. These principles have wide application. They cover the whole range of conduct. They apply to the moral sphere as well as to the physical. They apply, not simply to definite acts, but to the entire influence exerted by our lives. What a responsibility is this! Only grace will enable us to bear its burden.—J.O. The servant dying under chastisement. This law has frequently been seized on as a blot on the Mosaic legislation—as inculcating the odious doctrine which lies at the root of modern slave-systems, viz. that the slave is a mere "chattel," and as such, has no personal rights—is entitled to no protection of life or limb. The interpretation put on this particular clause is the more unfair, that it must be admitted to be opposed to the spirit and enactments of the law as a whole, taking, as this does, so exceptionally humane a view of the slave’ s position (see above); and is, moreover, directly in the teeth of such clauses as those in the immediate context—"If a man smite the eye of a servant," etc. (Exodus 21:26, Exodus 21:27). The enactment will appear in its right light if we view it with regard to the following considerations:— 1. The law deals with slavery, not from the point of view of abstract right—from which point of view it could only be condemned—but as a recognised part of the then existing constitution of society. It takes its existence for granted. It deals with it as statesmen have constantly to deal with institutions and customs which they do not wholly approve of, but which they cannot summarily abolish without entailing on society worse evils than those from which escape is sought. But if the right to hold property in slaves—to however limited an extent—be granted, the corollaries of this possession must be granted also. A slave cannot be treated in the eye of the law quite as a free man. His position is relatively a degraded one. The owner of slaves has pecuniary and proprietary rights in his bondservants, which the law must take account of. The slave is the owner’ s "money." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ II. LAWS WITH RIGHTS OF (verses 33-36). From the consideration of injuries to the person, the legislator proceeds to treat of injuries to property, and, as he has been speaking of cattle under the one head, places cattle in the fore-front of the other. In this chapter two enactments only are made—one providing compensation in the case of a man’ s cattle being killed by falling into the pit, or well, of a neighbour (verses 33, 34); and the other making provision for the case of one man’ s cattle killing the cattle of another (verses 35, 36) Exodus 21:33 If a man shall open a pit. Rather, "If a man shall uncover a cistern." Cisterns, very necessary in Palestine, were usually closed by a flat-stone, or a number of planks. To obtain water from them, they had to be uncovered; but it was the duty of the man who uncovered them, to replace the covering when his wants were satisfied. Or dig a pit and not cover it. A man who was making a cistern might neglect to cover it while it was in course of construction, or even afterwards, if he thought his own cattle would take no hurt. But in the unfenced fields of Palestine it was always possible that a neighbour’ s cattle might go astray and suffer injury through such a piece of negligence. An ox, or an ass, falling into a cistern, would be unable to extricate itself, and might be drowned. Exodus 21:34 The owner of the pit shall make it good—i.e; "shall duly compensate the owner of the cattle for its loss." And the dead beast shall be his. Having paid the full price of the slain beast, the owner of the cistern was entitled to its carcase. Exodus 21:35, Exodus 21:36 If one man’ s ox hurt another’ s, etc. The hurt might be purely accidental, and imply no neglect. In that ease the two parties were to divide the value of the living, and also of the dead ox—i.e; they were to share between them the loss caused by the accident equally. If, however, there was neglect, if the aggressive animal was known to be of a vicious disposition, then the man who had suffered the loss was to receive the full value of the slain animal, but to lose his share of the carcase. This explanation, which the words of the text not only admit, but invite, seems better than the Rabbinical one, "that the dead ox should also be the property of the injured party." Exodus 21:33-36 The guilt of neglect. Sins of omission are thought lightly of by most men; but God holds us answerable for them, as much as for sins of commission. The Psalmist defines the wicked man as one who neglects to "set himself in any good way." The neglect of the Israelites to cover their wells, or keep their cattle from goring others was to be heavily punished. Neglect and carelessness are culpable— I. BECAUSE THEIR EFFECTS ARE AS RUINOUS AS THOSE OF MALICE AND EVIL INTENT. Carelessness and neglect of precautions may set a town on fire and burn hundreds in their beds. Or it may spread a loathsome and dangerous disease through a whole district. Or it may destroy the cattle of a whole county. Or it may allow moral evil to have free course, until an entire nation is sunk in corruption. Or, again, it may endanger our own lives, or destroy our souls. It is a question whether more evil does not actually result from carelessness than from deliberate intent. Youth is naturally careless. Desultory habits intensify carelessness. A deficient sense of the seriousness of life encourages and fosters it. Advanced civilisation, with its foppishness and superciliousness, developes its growth. The present age asks, "Is anything worth caring about?"—and is deaf to the Prophet’ s words, "Tremble and be troubled, ye careless ones" (Isaiah 32:11). II. BECAUSE GOD HAS IN US OF AND OF , WHICH WERE TO PREVENT OUR BEING AND . Man differs from the lower animals chiefly in the possession of reason; and it is an essential part of human reason to look to the future, to forecast results, and calculate the balance of ultimate advantage and disadvantage. We know instinctively that our happiness depends on our actions; and it is therefore wholly unreasonable to be careless about how we act. If we have faculties which we might use and refuse to use them, God will be righteous to punish us for despising his gifts. III. BECAUSE GOD HAS WARNED US AGAINST BEING , AND US TO AND . "I will send a fire among them that dwell carelessly," said the Lord by Ezekiel. "Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech; many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women," are God’ s words by Isaiah. "Go to the ant, thou sluggard," exclaims the wise man, "consider her ways and be wise." And again "Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established—keep thy heart with diligence—remove thy feet from evil." A careful cautious walk through the dangers and difficulties of life is everywhere enjoined upon us in the Scriptures; and we are plainly disobedient if we are careless. LAW OF .—Next to theft, and not much behind it, is the wanton damage of what belongs to another—as when a person injures his neighbour’s crops, either by turning beasts into his field, or by causing a conflagration in it. To turn beasts in was the more determinedly malicious act, and therefore the damage done was to be compensated by making over to the injured party a like quantity of produce out of the best that a man was possessed of; whereas simple restitution, was sufficient when fire had spread accidentally from a man’s own land to his neighbour’s. We may conclude that if the trespass of the cattle were accidental, simple restitution sufficed; and if the fire were kindled of set purpose, the heavier rate of penalty was exacted. Exodus 22:5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten.—Rather "to be eaten of," or "to be browsed upon." And shall feed.—Rather, "and it shall feed." Of the best, etc.—This means that, without reference to the quality of the crop damaged, the injurer should forfeit an equal amount of his own best produce. Exodus 22:6 If fire break out.—It is usual in the East (as in England) to burn the weeds on a farm at certain seasons of the year. When this is done, there is always a danger, in the dry parched-up Eastern lands, of the fire spreading, and carotid watch has to be kept. If this watch were neglected, a neighbour’s sheaves or standing corn might be seriously damaged or even destroyed. The law punished such carelessness, by requiring the man who had kindled the fire to make restitution. Exodus 22:5, Exodus 22:6 The law of love forbids all injury to a neighbour. There are many who would scorn to steal the property of a neighbour, who yet make light of injuring it in other ways, as by trespass, or by negligence. But if we love our neighbour we shall be anxious not to injure him in any way. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour." lie that allows his cattle to pasture in a neighbour’s field, or his hares and rabbits to spoil a neighbour’s crops, or his poultry to break bounds and damage a neighbour’s garden, cannot feel towards him as a Christian should feel. Love would hinder any injuries, nay, even any intrusive or obnoxious act. Love would also be a strong check upon neglect and carelessness. Men are careful enough not to damage their own property; did they really love them, they would be as careful not to damage the property of their neighbours. And what is true of property is true of other things also. We are bound— I. NOT TO INJURE OUR ’S , either by direct attacks upon it, or by carelessly suffering it to be maligned by others. II. NOT TO INJURE HIS PEACE. 1. By impertinent intrusion; 2. By spying and tale-bearing; 3. By scattering suspicions. III. NOT TO INJURE HIS . 1. By divulging without necessity what may hurt him; 2. By pushing our own interests at his expense; 3. By knowingly advising him ill; 4. By setting pitfalls that he may fall into them. If we offend in any of these respects, it is our duty, so far as possible, to "make restitution"— (1) By compensating to him any loss he may have sustained; (2) By disabusing those whose minds we may have poisoned; (3) By ample and humble apology. Too often this last will be all that is in our power; for "the tongue is a fire" (James 3:6), which scatters its brands far and wide, and creates conflagrations that it is impossible to extinguish. Let each and all seek to control that "unruly member" which "setteth on fire the course of nature," and is itself "set on fire of hell." LAW OF .—Deposition of property in the hands of a friend, to keep and guard, was a marked feature in the life of primitive societies, where investments were difficult, and bankers unknown. Persons about to travel, especially merchants, were wont to make such a disposition of the greater part of their movable property, which required some one to guard it in their absence. Refusals to return such deposits were rare; since ancient morality regarded such refusal as a crime of deep dye (Herod. 7.86). Sometimes, however, they took place; and at Athens there was a special form of action which might be brought in such cases called παρακαταθήκηςδίκη. The penalty, if a man were east in the suit, was simple restitution, which is less satisfactory than the Mosaic enactment—"He shall pay double" (Exodus 22:9). Exodus 22:7 Stuff.—Literally "vessels"—but the word is used in a very wide sense, of almost any inanimate movables. Exodus 22:8 If the thief be not found.—It is not clear what was to be done in this case. Kalisch supposes that it came under the law of the oath (Exodus 22:10), and that if the man entrusted with the deposit swore that he had not embezzled it, he was let go free. But as stolen cattle were to be compensated for to the owner (Exodus 22:12), it would seem to be more consistent that stolen money or chattels should also have been made good. Exodus 22:9 For all manner of trespass.—It has been supposed that this refers to "every case of theft;" but Kalisch is probably right in restricting it to cases where a person was accused of having embezzled property committed to his care. He was in that case to appear before the judges (Exodus 18:23), together with his accuser, and to clear himself if he could. When he failed to do so, and was "condemned," he was bound to restore double. Which another challenges to be his.—Rather, "which a man challenges to be the very thing" (that he deposited). The ease is supposed of the depositor being able to point out that the person to whom he entrusted the deposit has it still in his keeping. Exodus 22:10, Exodus 22:11 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass or an ox, etc.—The deposit of cattle is unheard of in classical antiquity; but it might well be the usage of a pastoral race (Genesis 47:3). The parallelism of the verse with Exodus 22:6 indicates that a deposit of the same kind is intended. If it die, or be hurt, or driven away.—The deposited beast might "die" naturally; or "he hurt" by a wild beast or a fall; or be "driven away "by thieves, without anyone seeing what had happened. In that case, if the man to whom the animal was entrusted would swear that he was no party to its disappearance, the owner had to put up with the loss. Exodus 22:12 If it be stolen.—If, however, the case was not an ambiguous one, but certainly known to he one of theft, restitution had to be made, since it was supposed that with proper care the theft might have been prevented. Exodus 22:13 If it be torn in pieces.—If again there was evidence that the creature had been killed by a wild beast, this evidence had to be produced, before the owner or the judges, for the trustee to be exonerated from blame. A similar proviso is found in the laws of the Gentoos. Exodus 22:7, Exodus 22:8 The sacred character of trusts. The main teaching of this third paragraph of Exo 22:1-31. is the sacred character of human trusts. Men are taught that they must carefully guard the property of others when committed to their charge, and religiously restore it upon demand to its rightful owner. No conversion of such property to the use of the trustee, under any circumstances whatever, is to be tolerated. The principle laid down with respect to ancient, will apply equally to modern, trusts:— I. If the thing entrusted be stolen, without the trustee being justly chargeable with having contributed to the theft by negligence, the loss must fall on the owner. II. If it be lost by. non-preventible accident, as when a lion carries off a lamb, or when a ship goes down at sea, the case is the same—the trustee is not liable. III. If, on the other hand, the trustee neglect to take sufficient care, and damage occurs, he is bound to make good the injury caused by his own laches. IV. If he actually embezzle the trust, simple restitution will not meet the full claims of justice. He ought to be made to refund, and to be punished besides. V. In doubtful cases the oath, or solemn assurance, of the trustee, that he has conveyed no part of the trust to his own use, ought to be accepted. Trusts are among the most important of the contracts and obligations, whereby human society is carried on. Strict honesty and much thought and care are requisite on the one hand, confidence, gratitude and tender consideration on the other. Trustees, it is to be remembered, do, for the most part, unpaid work. No one can be compelled to be a trustee. And. unless a generous confidence is put in them, and their good intentions are presumed, alike by the law and by those for whom they act, trusteeship will be declined by prudent men, and great inconveniences will follow. LAW OF .—The act of borrowing is connected with that of depositing, since in both cases, the property of one man is committed to the hands of another; only, in the one case, it is at the instance and for the benefit of the man into whose hands the property passes; in the other case, it is at the instance and for the benefit of the other party. This difference causes a difference of obligation. The borrower, having borrowed solely for his own advantage, must take all the risks, and in any case return the thing borrowed, or its value, unless the owner was still, in some sort, in charge of his own property. Things hired are not, however, to be regarded as borrowed. If harm come to them, the owner must suffer the loss. Exodus 22:14 And it be hurt or die.—The thing borrowed might be animate or inanimate; either might be "hurt;" the former might not only be hurt, but "die." Whatever the damage, and whatever the cause, unless in the single rare case of the owner being in charge, the law required the borrower to make good the loss to the owner. This law must have acted as a considerable check upon borrowing. Exodus 22:15 If the owner thereof be with it.—By "with it," we must understand, not merely present, but in charge of it, or at any rate so near it that he might have prevented the damage, had prevention been possible. If it be an hired thing.—If anything were paid for the use of the thing, then it was not borrowed, but hired; and the owner was considered to have counted in the risk of loss or damage in fixing the amount of the hire. He was entitled therefore to no compensation Our own law does not rule this absolutely, but takes into consideration the proportion of the sum paid for hire to the value of the thing hired, and the general tacit understanding. The duty of borrowers. The duty of borrowers is very simple. It is to take care that that which they borrow suffers as little hurt as possible while it remains in their possession, and to return it unhurt, or else make compensation to the lender. People will not often be found to question the propriety of these rules; but in action there are not very many who conform to them. It is a common thing to take but little care of what we have borrowed; to keep it an unconscionable time; to neglect returning it until the lender has asked for it repeatedly; to keep it without scruple, if he does not happen to ask for it. Curiously enough, there are particular things—e.g; umbrellas and books, which it is supposed not to be necessary to return, and which borrowers are in the habit of withholding. Many go further, and feel under no obligation to repay even money which they have borrowed. All such conduct is, however, culpable, since it is tainted with dishonesty. Borrowers should remember— I. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO IF THEY DO NOT RESTORE WHAT THEY HAVE . Self-respect should prevent them from a line of conduct which assimilates them to thieves, and is wanting in the boldness and straightforwardness that characterise ordinary thieves. II. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO THE LENDER, who has put them under a special obligation to him. III. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO MANKIND AT LARGE, since they do their best to deter men from ever lending, and so place difficulties in the way of borrowers. We all need to borrow at times. IV. THAT THEY FAIL IN THEIR DUTY TO GOD, who has declared in his word, that it is "the wicked" who "borroweth and payeth not again" (Psalms 37:21). BY J. ORR Exodus 22:1-16 Restitution. We have to mark again in this chapter with how even a hand the law of Moses holds the scales of justice. The cases ruled by the principle of restitution are the following:— I. THEFT (Exodus 22:1-5). The illustrations in the law relate to thefts of cattle. But the principles embodied apply to thefts generally (cf. Exodus 22:7). Note— 1. The law which punishes the theft, protects the thief’s life. It refuses, indeed, to be responsible for him in the event of his being smitten in the night-time, while engaged in the act of housebreaking (Exodus 22:2)—large rights of self-defence being in this case necessary for the protection of the community. The thief might be killed under a misapprehension of his purpose; or by a blow struck at random in the darkness, and under the influence of panic; or in justifiable self-defence, in a scuffle arising from the attempt to detain him. In other circumstances, the law will not allow the thief’s life to be taken (Exodus 22:3). All the ends of justice are served by his being compelled to make restitution. Blood is not to be spilt needlessly. The killing of a thief after sunrise is to be dealt with as murder. We infer from this that theft ought not to be made a capital offence. English law, at the beginning of this century, was, in this respect, far behind the law of Moses. 2. Theft is to be dealt with on the principle of restitution. (1) It calls for more than simple restitution. At most the restitution of the simple equivalent brings matters back to the position in which they were before the criminal act was committed. That position ought never to have been disturbed; and punishment is still due to the wrongdoer for having disturbed it. Hence the law that if the stolen animal is found in the thief’s hand alive, he shall restore double (Exodus 22:4); if he has gone the length of killing or selling it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep (Exodus 22:1). (2) Penalty is proportioned to offence. Both as respects the value of the things stolen, and as respects the lengths to which criminality has proceeded. 3. If direct restitution is impossible, the thief shall be compelled to make restitution by his labour—"He shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22:3). It would be an improvement in the administration of justice if this principle were more frequently acted on. The imprisoned thief might be made to work out an equivalent for his theft; and this, in addition to the hardships of his imprisonment, might be accepted as legal restitution. II. DAMAGE (Exodus 22:5, Exodus 22:6). The damage done, in the one case to a field or vineyard, by allowing a beast to stray into it, and feed upon the produce; in the other, by setting fire to thorn hedges, and injuring the corn-stacks, or standing corn, is supposed to be unintentional. Yet, as arising from preventible causes—from carelessness and neglect—the owner of the beast, or the person who kindled the fire, is held responsible. He must make good the damage from the best of his own possessions. We are held fully responsible for the consequences of neglect (cf. Hebrews 2:3). III. OF (Exodus 22:7-14). Cases of this kind involved judicial investigation. 1. If the charge of dishonest retention was made out, the fraudulent party was to restore double (Exodus 22:9). 2. If an ox, ass, sheep, or any beast, entrusted. to another to keep, died, was hurt, or was driven away, "no man seeing it," the person responsible for its safety could clear himself by an oath from the suspicion of having unlawfully "put his hand" to it (Exodus 22:11). In this case, he was not required to make good the loss. 3. If, however, the animal was stolen from his premises, under circumstances which implied a want of proper care, he was required to make restitution (Exodus 22:12). 4. If the animal was alleged to have been torn to pieces, the trustee was required to prove this by producing the mangled remains (Exodus 22:13). IV. Loss OF WHAT IS (Exodus 22:14, Exodus 22:15). 1. If the owner is not with his property, the borrower is bound to make good loss by injury or death. 2. If the owner is with it, the borrower is not held responsible. 3. If the article or beast be lent on hire, the hire is regarded as covering the risk.—J.O. LAWS (Exodus 22:16-31) Exodus 22:16, Exodus 22:17 Laws against seduction. It has been already observed that in the remainder of the Book of the Covenant there is a want of method, or logical sequence. Seduction, witchcraft, bestiality, worship of false gods, oppression, are sins as different from each other as can well be named, and seem to have no connecting link. Possibly, Moses simply follows the order in which God actually delivered the laws to him. Possibly, he wrote them down as they occurred to his memory. It is remarkable in his "law of seduction," that he makes the penalty fall with most weight on the man, who must either marry the damsel whom he has seduced, or provide her with a dowry, or, if she is a betrothed maiden, suffer with her the penalty of death (Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:24). Exodus 22:16 If a man entice. Rather "seduce." He shall surely endow her to be his wife. In the East a man commonly pays money, or money’s worth, to the parents in order to obtain a wife. The seducer was to comply with this custom, and make over to the damsel’s father the sum of fifty shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22:29), for his sanction of the marriage. If the father consented, he was compelled to marry the girl, and he was forbidden to repudiate her afterwards (ibid.). Exodus 22:17 If her father utterly refuse, etc. There might be such a disparity between the parties, or such an ineligibility of the man for a son-in-law, that the father might refuse to reestablish his daughter’s status by the alliance. In that case the offender was to pay such a sum as would form a handsome dowry for the injured female, and enable her to enter with proper dignity the house of whatever man might be selected for her husband. Exodus 22:18 Law against witchcraft. Witchcraft was professedly a league with powers in rebellion against God. How far it was delusion, how far imposture, how far a real conspiracy with the powers of evil, cannot now be known. Let the most rationalistic view be taken, and still there was in the practice an absolute renunciation of religion, and of the authority of Jehovah. Wizards (Leviticus 19:31) and witches were, therefore, under the Jewish theocracy, like idolaters and blasphemers, to be put to death. Exodus 22:19 Law against unnatural crime. The abomination here mentioned is said to have prevailed in Egypt, and even to have formed part of the Egyptian religion. Though regarded by the Greeks and Romans as disgusting and contemptible, it does not seem to have been made a crime by any of their legislators. It was, however, condemned by the Gentoo laws and by the laws of Menu (11.17). Exodus 22:20 Law against sacrificing to false gods. Sacrifice was the chief act of worship; and to sacrifice to a false god was to renounce the true God. Under a theocracy this was rebellion, and rightly punished with temporal death. In ordinary states it would be no civil offence, and would be left to the final judgment of the Almighty. Utterly destroyed. Literally, "devoted;" but with the meaning of "devoted to destruction." Exodus 22:21 Law against oppression of foreigners. It may be doubted whether such a law as this was ever made in any other country. Foreigners are generally looked upon as "fair game," whom the natives of a country may ridicule and annoy at their pleasure. Native politeness gives them an exceptional position in France; but elsewhere it is the general rule to "vex" them. The Mosaic legislation protested strongly against this practice (Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33), and even required the Israelites to "love the stranger who dwelt with them as themselves" (Leviticus 19:34). For ye were strangers. Compare Leviticus 19:34, and Deuteronomy 10:19. In Exodus 23:9 the addition is made—"For ye know the heart of a stranger"—ye know; i.e; the feelings which strangers have when they are vexed and oppressed—ye know this by your own sad experience, and should therefore have a tenderness for strangers. Exodus 22:22-24 Law against oppressing widows and orphans. With the stranger are naturally placed the widow and orphan; like him, weak and defenceless; like him, special objects of God’s care. The negative precept here given was followed up by numerous positive enactments in favour of the widow and the orphan, which much ameliorated their sad lot. (See Exodus 23:11; Le Exodus 19:9, Exodus 19:10; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 16:11, Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 24:19-21; Deuteronomy 26:12, Deuteronomy 26:13.) On the whole, these laws appear to have been fairly well observed by the Israelites; but there were times when, in spite of them, poor widows suffered much oppression. (See Psalms 94:6; Isaiah 1:23; Isaiah 10:2; Jeremiah 7:3-6; Jeremiah 22:3; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5; Matthew 23:14.) The prophets denounce this backsliding in the strongest terms. Exodus 22:22 Ye shall not afflict. The word translated "afflict" is of wide signification. including ill-usage of all kinds. "Oppress," and even "vex," are stronger terms. Exodus 22:23 And they cry at all unto me Rather, "Surely, if they cry unto me." Compare Genesis 31:42. Exodus 22:24 I will kill you with the sword. It was, in large measure, on account of the neglect of this precept, that the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and destruction of its inhabitants, was allowed to take place (Jeremiah 22:3-5). Your wives shall be widows, etc. A quasi-retaliation. They shall be exposed to the same sort of ill-usage as you have dealt out to other widows. Exodus 22:25-27 The law of lending money and borrowing. It is peculiar to the Jewish law to forbid the lending of money at interest by citizen to citizen. In the present passage, and in some others (Le Exodus 25:35; Deuteronomy 15:7), it might seem that interest was only forbidden in the case of a loan to one who was poor; but the general execration of usury (Job 24:9; Proverbs 28:8; Ezekiel 18:13; Ezekiel 22:12), and the description of the righteous man as "he that hath not given his money upon usury" (Psalms 15:5; Ezekiel 18:8), seem rather to imply that the practice, so far as Israelites were concerned, was forbidden altogether. On the other hand, it was distinctly declared (Deuteronomy 23:20) that interest might be taken from strangers. There does not seem to have been any rate of interest which was regarded as excessive, and "usurious," in the modern sense. In Scripture usury means simply interest. Exodus 22:26 If thou take at all thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge. Lending upon pledge, the business of our modern pawnbrokers, was not forbidden by the Jewish law; only certain articles of primary necessity were forbidden to be taken, as the handmill for grinding flour, or either of its mill-stones (Deuteronomy 24:6). Borrowing upon pledge was practised largely in the time of Nehemiah, and led to very ill results. See Nehemiah 5:1-19. Thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down. The reason is given in the next verse. As it could not have been worth while to take the pledge at all, if it was immediately to have been given back for good, we must suppose a practice of depositing the garment during the day, and being allowed to have it out at night. Exodus 22:27 Wherein shall he sleep? The outer garment worn by the ancient Hebrews was like that of the modern Bedouins—a sort of large woollen shawl or blanket, in which they enveloped the greater part of their persons. It serves the Bedouins, to the present time, as robe by day, and as coverlet by night. When he crieth unto me. Compare verse 23. If the law is broken, and the man cry unto the Lord, he will hear, and avenge him. Exodus 22:28 Law against reviling God, or rulers. It has been proposed to render Elohim here either 1. "God;" or 2. "The gods;" or 3. "Judges." The last of these renderings is impossible, since Elohim in the sense of "judges" always has the article. The second, which is adopted by the Septuagint and the Authorised Version, seems precluded by the constant practice of the most religious Jews, prophets and others, to speak with contempt and contumely of the false gods of the heathen. The passage must therefore be understood as forbidding men to speak evil of God. (Compare Leviticus 24:15, 16.) Nor curse the ruler of thy people. Rather, "one exalted among thy people." The term is generally used of the heads of families (Numbers 3:24, Numbers 3:30, Numbers 3:35, etc.) and tribes (Numbers 7:10, Numbers 7:18, Numbers 7:24,, etc.) in the Pentateuch. Later, it is applied to kings (1 Kings 11:34; Ezekiel 12:10; Ezekiel 45:7, etc.). Our translators generally render it by "prince." Exodus 22:29, Exodus 22:30 Law concerning first-fruits. God required as first-fruits from his people, 1. The first-born of their children; 2. The firstborn of all their cattle; and 3. The first of all the produce of their lands, whether wet or dry; wine, oil, grain of all kinds, and fruits. The first-born of their children were to be redeemed by a money payment (Exodus 13:13; Numbers 3:46-48); but the rest was to be offered in sacrifice. The phrase, "thou shalt not delay," implies that there would be reluctance to comply with this obligation, and that the offering would be continually put off. In Nehemiah’s time the entire custom had at one period fallen into disuse. (Nehemiah 10:35, Nehemiah 10:36.) The first of thy ripe fruits. Literally, "thy fulness." The paraphrase of the A. V. no doubt gives the true meaning. The first-born of thy sons, Compare above, Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:12. Exodus 22:30 Seven days it shall be with its dam. See Le Exodus 22:27. The main object is that the darn may have during that time the natural relief derivable from suckling its off-spring. On the eighth day thou shalt give it me. Some analogy may be traced between this proviso and the law of circumcision. Birth was viewed as an unclean process, and nothing was fit for presentation to God excepting after an interval. Exodus 22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me. Ye shall not be as other men, but "an holy nation, a peculiar people;" and therefore your separateness shall be marked by all manner of laws and regulations with respect to meats and drinks, designed to keep you free from every uncleanness. One such law then follows— Law against eating the flesh of an animal killed by another. The blood of such an animal would not be properly drained from it. Some would remain in the tissues, and thence the antrum would be unclean; again, the carnivorous beast which "tore" it would also be unclean, and by contact would impart of its uncleanness to the other. Ye shall cast it to the dogs, is probably not intended to exclude the giving or selling of it to an Mien, if one were at hand, according to the permission accorded in Deuteronomy 14:21; but points simply to the mode whereby the flesh was to be got rid of, if aliens were not at hand, or if they declined to eat the animals. Dogs were so unclean that they might be fed on anything. Their chief use was to be scavengers (2 Kings 9:35, 2 Kings 9:36). Exodus 22:16-28 The severity and the tenderness of God. The miscellaneous laws thrown together, without any clear logical sequence or indeed any manifest connection, in the latter part of this chapter, may, generally speaking, be grouped under the two heads of instances of the Divine severity, and instances of the Divine tenderness. Here, as in so many places, "mercy and truth meet together—righteousness and peace kiss each other." God is as merciful to the weak and helpless as severe towards the bold and stubborn evil-doer. If his justice is an inalienable attribute, so is his kindness and compassion. The twofold aspect of the Divine Nature is steadily kept before us by an arrangement in which its opposite sides are presented to our contemplation alternately. I. OF THE DIVINE . 1. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18). 2. "Whoso lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 22:19). 3. "He that sacrifices to any god, save unto the Lord on]y, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20). 4. "Thou shalt not revile the gods (God) nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Exodus 22:28). In these utterances it is Justice that makes itself heard, wrath that manifests itself, severity that gives strict rules for human conduct, and threatens tremendous penalties in case of their infringement. (1) Witchcraft is made a capital offence. Moderns constantly speak of witchcraft as founded on mere illusion, and regard witches and wizards as unfortunate persons, labouring under a certain amount of self-deception, and hounded to their death by persecutors far more to blame than their victims. It is generally assumed at the present day that to hold actual communication with evil spirits, and thus obtain supernatural power, is impossible. We are told that "it is absolutely impossible to acknowledge sorcerers or witches," and that "those who pretend to be such must be considered as impious and nefarious impostors" (Kalisch). The whole round of natural phenomena is presumed to be known, and no mystery to remain anywhere. Witches and wizards are tricksters; demonology and magic, delusions; evil spirits themselves either non-existent, or relegated to another sphere, and so entirely beyond human cognisance. But the language and ideas of Scripture are different. There evil spirits are regarded as really existing, and the witch is considered to have access to them. Death would scarcely be assigned as the penalty for mere trickery and imposture. It is well deserved by those who renounce God, and place their trust in spirits of darkness altogether. While the subject must be allowed to be one about which much obscurity still lingers, it would seem necessary for those who accept Scripture as an infallible guide, to put aside the shallow theories of modern sciolists, and hold, with the wisest of all ages, that "there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in our philosophy." (2) Unnatural crime is made capital. All that is contrary to nature, all that tends to produce "confusion" in his universe, is absolutely hateful to God. Human legislators cared little about a sin which a natural repulsion caused to be rare, and which had no very obvious ill effects upon society. Some religions consecrated it and made it a portion of their ceremonial. Some, and they were the greater number, viewed it with complete indifference. The Mosaic legislation, differing from almost all others, placed upon the offence the brand of heinous guilt, and required that both the man and the beast should die (Le Exodus 20:15, Exodus 20:16). (3) The acknowledgment of false gods in an open and public way is forbidden under the same penalty. Thought is left free—no inquisitorship is established—but if men parade their misbelief by offering sacrifices to the gods of other nations, the insult to Jehovah is to be punished capitally. It was flagrant rebellion against God, and a transgression of the fundamental law on which the community was built (Exodus 20:3). It was a pollution to the land, and might draw down Divine judgment on the nation. It was offensive to the consciences of all God-fearing men in the community. No punishment under the death-penalty could be adequate for a crime, which was against God, against the State, and against society. The severity was, however, without parallel in other codes. (4) Reviling God, and reviling rulers are both sternly forbidden; but the penalty is not as yet affixed. Reviling God was, like sacrificing to false gods, an overt act of insult, challenging notice, and if allowed, destructive of the theocracy. The penalty afterwards affixed to it was death (Le Exodus 24:16). In the Book of the Covenant it was thought enough to forbid it, the temptation to such an act not being great. Reviling rulers seems to have been coupled with reviling God in order to introduce the idea that "the powers that be are ordained of God," and consequently that those who resist them "resist the ordinance of God." The death-penalty, though not positively enacted in this case, is the natural consequence of resisting one who "beareth not the sword in vain." Thus far, therefore, the legislation here placed before us is severe—almost Draconic. Expressly or impliedly the death-penalty is threatened in every case. God is shown forth as an inexorable judge, who "will by no means absolve the wicked"—and man can but tremble before him. On the other hand, in the remainder of the passage we have— II. OF THE DIVINE . 1. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him" (Exodus 22:21). 2. "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child" (Exodus 22:22). 3. "Thou shalt not lend thy money unto any of my people that is poor upon usury" (Exodus 22:25). 4. "Thou shalt not take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge" (Exodus 22:26). The Divine protection is extended especially over four classes of persons. (1) The stranger—the sojourner in a foreign land—alien in blood, in language, in religion probably—cut off from the protection of his own government, or kinsfolk, or fellow-tribesmen, and therefore all the more appealing for protection to the pity anti the providence of God. To him the Sabbath rest had been already extended by a special provision (Exodus 20:10); if he would be circumcised, he might eat the passover (Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49); he might make his offerings at the door of the tabernacle (Le Exodus 17:8, Exodus 17:9); he was to have access to the cities of refuge (Leviticus 35:15). It was now enjoined that he should not be oppressed in any way; that he should not even be "vexed." Kindness, consideration, courtesy, were made the stranger’s due. In the final summary of the law (Deuteronomy 10:18, Deuteronomy 10:19) it was declared that God "loved" him, and the general command was given to all Israelites—"Love ye the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." (2) The widow. His widowed mother was especially dear to our Lord; and it is perhaps with secret reference to the boundless tenderness called forth in him by her condition that throughout Scripture there is so deep a sympathy with the widow’s lot. From the sad Naomi, with her piteous outbreak—"Call me not Naomi, but Mara"—to the blessed Anna and the pious Dorcas, the widows of the Revealed Word have the testimony of the Spirit in their favour. For the widow of Sarepta the great law of there being no return from the grave is first broken through, and the mother is comforted by receiving back her dead child (1 Kings 17:9-24). For the widow of Nain Christ wrought one of his three similar miracles. In the early Church special care was taken of widows (Acts 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:3-9 and 1 Timothy 5:16); and St. James was inspired to declare to the Church of all ages that "Pure religion and undefiled before God is this—to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27). (3) The fatherless. The orphan is generally coupled with the widow in Scripture, and God’s protection is equally extended over both. In the present passage the oppression of both is alike forbidden; and in other parts of the law both are secured certain advantages (Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:19, Deuteronomy 24:21; Deuteronomy 26:12, Deuteronomy 26:13, etc.). God proclaims himself in an especial sense "the father of the fatherless" (Psalms 68:5), and "the helper of the fatherless" (Psalms 10:14); in him the fatherless "find mercy" (Hosea 14:2). That tender compassion of the Most High, wherewith he looks on affliction generally, is poured without stint upon those who have so much need of his support and guidance, being left without their natural earthly protector. (4) The poor. Poverty is a far milder affliction than bereavement, since by nature all are poor, no man bringing with him into the world any property. Still, in states where there has been an accumulation of wealth, it is a disadvantage to be born poor, and a still greater disadvantage to have known riches and to have lost them. Poverty will ever be the lot of large numbers; of the greater portion through their own fault, but of many without fault of their own. "The poor shall never cease out of the land," We are told (Deuteronomy 15:11); and, again, "The poor ye have always with you" (John 12:8). God’s pity embraces this large class also; and he seeks to attract to them the regards of their more fortunate brethren. Not only were the Israelites forbidden to lend money to them upon usury; but they were expressly commanded to be ready to lend to them without (Deuteronomy 15:7-10). Such as fell into servitude for debt, and completed their time, were not to be cast adrift or sent away empty, but to be furnished liberally out of their master’s flock and granary and winepress (Deuteronomy 15:13, Deuteronomy 15:14), that they might begin the world again with a little capital, and be saved from destitution. In modern times, owing to change of circumstances, laws such as this do not admit of a literal obedience; but we may act in the spirit of them, by never pressing hard on the poor, by sharing with them our superfluity, by pleading for them with others, and "seeing that such as are in need and necessity have right." There is still much oppression of poor men even in Christian countries—much need of improvement in their cottages, in the sanitary condition of their surroundings, in the medical provision made for them, and in the administration of the laws for their relief when old and infirm. A wide field is open for those who would obtain the blessing promised to such as "consider the poor" (Psalms 41:1). BY J. ORR Exodus 22:16-21 Abominations. This series of precepts deals with seduction, witchcraft, bestiality, and the sin of sacrificing to other gods than Jehovah. The case of the seducer might have been brought under the laws embodying the principle of restitution. It forms a transition to the others, in which we pass from the sphere of judicial right to what is negatively and positively due from Israel as "an holy people" to Jehovah. 1. Seduction. Lewdness in every form is sternly reprobated by the law of Moses (of. Deuteronomy 22:13-30). The man who seduced an unbetrothed maid was to be compelled to marry her; or, if her parents refused, was to pay her a dowry. 2. Witchcraft. With equal strictness was forbidden all trafficking, whether in pretence or in reality, with unholy powers. The crime—a violation of the first principles of the theocracy—was to be punished with death. There cannot be perfect love to God, and communion with him, and trafficking with the devil at the same time. The witchcraft condemned by the law was evil in itself, and was connected with foolish and wicked rites (cf. Deuteronomy 18:9-15). 3. Bestiality. This, as an inversion of the order of nature, and in itself an act of the grossest abominableness, was "surely" to be punished with death. 4. Sacrificing to other gods. Possibly this crime is mentioned here as, in a sense, the spiritual counterpart of the vices above noted, i.e; as involving (1) Spiritual adultery, (2) The worshipping of "devils" (Le Exodus 18:7; Deuteronomy 32:17), (3) Filthy and impure rites (cf. Deuteronomy 23:17, Deuteronomy 23:18).—J.O. Exodus 22:21-29 Jehovah’s proteges and representatives. I. JEHOVAH’S (Exodus 22:21-28). These are the stranger, the fatherless, the widow, and the poor generally—all of whom the Israelites are forbidden to "afflict." The ground of Jehovah’s interest in them is his own character—"for I am gracious" (Exodus 22:27). In him, however little they may sometimes think of it or feel it, they have a constant Friend, a great invisible Protector. They are (in the sense of Roman law) Jehovah’s "clients." He is their great Patron; he identifies himself with their interests; he will uphold their cause. Injuries done to them he will resent as if done to himself, and will call the wrong-doer to strict account. If earthly law fails, let them cry to him, and he will put the jus talionis in operation with his own hands (Exodus 22:23, Exodus 22:24, Exodus 22:27). Exodus 22:25-28 specially forbid exacting treatment of the poor. Liberal help is to be afforded them. A neighbour is not to be harshly dealt with when driven to a strait. His garment, if given as a pledge, is not to be kept beyond nightfall, which is practically equivalent to saying that it is not to be taken from him at all (Exodus 22:27). What kindness breathes in these precepts! How justly does the law which embodies them claim to be a law of love! And how far, even yet, is our Christian society from having risen to the height of the standard they set up! Let us seek ourselves to translate them more uniformly into practice. Learn also, from these precepts, inculcating love to the stronger, how little ground there is for accusing the religion of Moses of fanatical hatred of foreign peoples. II. JEHOVAH’S (Exodus 22:28). Magistrates and rulers are to be treated with respect. They are invested with a portion of God’s authority (Romans 14:1).—J.O. Exodus 22:29-31 Jehovah’s dues. These, as part of the law’s righteousness, are to be faithfully rendered. Let us not forget, when reflecting on what is due from man to man, to reflect also on what is due from man to God. When inwardly boasting of conscientiousness in rendering to every man his own, let us ask if we have been equally scrupulous in the discharge of our obligations to our Maker. In all spheres of life God claims of our first and best (see on Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:12). God’s highest due is that we be "holy." The precept in Exodus 22:31 is connected with the prohibition to eat flesh with the blood in it.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The treatment of the stranger. I. NOTE THE FACT THAT WOULD COME INTO SUCH CONTACT WITH ISRAEL AS TO PROVIDE FOR THIS . Jehovah had done a great deal in Israel to make them a separated people—separated in many ways as by the land of their dwelling, their national institutions, their worship, their personal rite of circumcision; but separation, with all its rigours and all the penalties for neglecting it, could never become isolation. Solemnly indeed were the people enjoined to drive out the Canaanites, and trample down all idolatry; but there still remained the fact, that by a certain Divine and glorious necessity, strangers were to come into considerable intercourse with them. That strangers should have been drawn to them when they settled in their fertile home was only likely; but this must nave happened to some extent even before. We may be perfectly certain, considering the analogies of after generations and what we read of proselytism in the New Testament, that from the very first there must have been some with the proselyte disposition in them. Few perhaps of this sort were to be found in the mixed multitude coming out of Egypt—but still there were some. The Lord knoweth them that are his. If there are those of whom John might say, "They went out from us because they were not of us," so there are those of whom the Church may ever say, "They come to us because they are of us." For such God lovingly and amply provided from the first, even when they came with all the disadvantages and difficulties of strangers to contend against. There is in this very injunction, a foreshadowing of the power and attractiveness to which Israel in due time would rise, though as yet it was but a fugitive people without discipline and without coherence. Strangers in their need were even now drawn to Israel and would be drawn still more, just as years ago their needy ancestor and his children were drawn to Egypt because of the corn that was there. II. THE STRONG TO TREAT THESE BADLY. There is a very melancholy picture of human inconsistency here presented. Liberated slaves, forgetting the horrors of their own servitude, treat with like cruelty those exposed to the opportunity of that cruelty. Men soon forget their past condition. Israel, we see, forgot the horror of their own Egyptian experiences in two ways. 1. They lusted after the flesh-pots of Egypt. 2. They failed in sympathy for the foreigners among themselves. When we have possessions and power and thus get the chance of domination, we are only too ready to treat foreigners either as interlopers wishing to spoil us, or tools fitted ― to increase our possessions. The world, alas! is always abounding in a great number of the feeble and unfortunate, of whom it is only too easy to take advantage. More than one class of these are mentioned in this chapter, and among them we see that the foreigner occupies a conspicuous place. The stranger is the man without friends; he comes into a place where the very things that profit the knowing are traps and snares for the ignorant. Consider the difficulties of a foreigner planted down in the midst of a huge city like London, a place of dangers and difficulties even for an Englishman who is thrown into it for the first time, and how much more for one whom ignorance of the language makes doubly strange! Blanco White, who it will be remembered was an exile from his native land of Spain, gives as an instance of Shakespeare’s surprising knowledge of the human mind and heart "the passage in which he describes the magnitude of the loss which a man banished from his country has to endure by living among those who do not understand his native language." The words are those put into the mouth of Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, on his banishment by Richard II. "The language I have learn’ d these forty years, My native English, now I must forego. And now my tongue’s use is to me no more Than an unstringed viol or a harp, Or like a cunning instrument cased up Or, being open, put into his hands That knows no touch to tune the harmony: Within my mouth you have engaoled my tongue, Doubly portcullis’ d with my teeth and lips; And dull unfeeling barren ignorance Is made my gaoler to attend on me." If this be so, the stranger’s feelings are some index to the temptations of those among whom he is cast. There may not be downright robbery, but there are tricks of trade, extortionate charges on pretence of making hay while the sun shines; in short there are all sorts of human foxes ever on the watch to catch the ignorant, the innocent, and the confiding. But are God’s people amenable to charges of this kind? It is evident that the Israelites were, from this warning to them. It was so easy to turn Jehovah’s denunciations of the idolater into excuses for maltreating the stranger because he had the look of an idolater. Nay more, how easy it was both to yield to the idolatry and maltreat the stranger! III. THE GREAT WHICH IS TO LEAD TO PROPER OF THE . "Ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Great as the temptation was to treat strangers badly, such treatment if only looked at in a certain light would be scarcely excusable at all This possible treatment of the stranger is to be looked at in the clear light of our Lord’s parable concerning the forgiven yet unforgiving debtor. Israel had been strangers in Egypt, not only foreigners among the Egyptians, but to some extent exiles from God, who had put on the appearance of having forgotten them. But now he had brought them to himself, they were to be his people, a holy nation; and it was want of loyalty to God, it was behaviour unworthy of a holy nation for them to treat strangers as the Egyptians had treated Israel. God hates the oppressor everywhere and pities the oppressed. The people of God never dishonour their name more than when they trample on the alien from the commonwealth of Israel and the stranger from the covenant of promise. The alien may become as the home-born. The stranger may become familiar with Divine covenants and promises as if he were an Israelite from the womb. Even already the Israelites were being warned against counting too much on outward signs and natural descent. We should ever be looking for the minimum of living faith rather than the maximum of formal orthodoxy. A tiny seed is more to be cherished than a huge log of timber; for the one has whole living forests in it, and the other is dead and dead it must remain. We must labour to get the insight whereby we may penetrate through strange outward aspects and discern the spiritual life and sympathies underneath. God will give us the eye to discover, the honest and good eye, whether the stranger who comes is a wandering sheep seeking the true flock or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To mistake the sheep for the wolf is equally lamentable with mistaking the wolf for the sheep. The Pharisaic spirit so easily finds entrance, welcome and dominion in our breasts. It is so natural to play the censor towards those who sin the tins which we have no temptation to fall into. He without mercy for him that seems a stranger to God, may suspect that he is still a stranger himself. Many even of the Israelites at Mount Sinai had not been brought to God in the full sense of the term. Theirs was but a local contiguity to the awful demonstrations, not an attachment of the whole heart to the pure and glorious God who was behind the demonstrations.—Y. The treatment of the widow and the fatherless. This injunction is even more humiliating to receive than the preceding one. It was bad enough to find those who had been foreigners in Egypt oppressing foreigners among themselves, and forgetting their own sufferings and deliverances. Still the slight excuse was available that as God’s mercy to Israel receded into the past, and became a mercy to a former generation rather than a present one (at least, so it might be plausibly put), it was only too likely to be forgotten. Men are unable to make the past stand with any power against the influences of the present. But here are those, the widow and the fatherless, whom Nature in her ever fresh and living power, marks out herself as irresistible objects for pity and succour. What a disgrace to human nature that an injunction not to afflict the widow and fatherless should be necessary! And yet common observation only too often and sadly tells us that the widow and fatherless children may easily become the victims of an inconsiderate and unscrupulous self-seeking, which in its practical results is as afflicting as the most deliberate cruelty. It is a very beautiful element of God’s revelation of himself in the Scriptures, that he is so often set before us as caring for the fatherless and the widow, and denouncing those who do not care for them. Widows in their needs, and his supply for their needs, appear in some of the most prominent scenes of the sacred page. Observe the provision that was made for the fatherless and the widow, along with the Levite and the stranger, to eat of the tithe of the yearly produce (Deuteronomy 14:29), and also to get their share in the rejoicings at the feast of weeks and the feast of tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:11-14). The neighbour’s raiment might be taken to pledge under certain conditions, but a widow’s raiment was not to be taken in pledge at all (Deuteronomy 24:17). The forgotten sheaf in the field, and the gleanings of the olive boughs and of the vineyards, were to be left for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow (Deuteronomy 24:19-21); and cursed was he to be who perverted the judgment of the same (Deuteronomy 27:19). When God sustained Elijah, at the time of judicial drought and famine in the land, he sustained the widow and the fatherless at the same time; and who knows how many widows and fatherless besides? It is part of the praise which is due to God in song, that he relieves the fatherless and the widow. A Father of the fatherless, and a Judge of the widows is God, in his holy habitation (Psalms 68:5; Psalms 146:9). There can thus be no mistake about God’s interest in those who are left without their natural provider and protector. But then on the other hand, these very same Scriptures which assure us of God’s concern, remind us of man’s cruelty, unrighteousness, and oppression. Job tells us of those who drive away the ass of the fatherless, and take the widow’s ox for a pledge (Exodus 24:3); and it was part of memory’s brightening, as he thought upon his happier past, that he had delivered the fatherless and caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy. God sent Isaiah to the hypocrites, the formal religionists who satiated God with ceremonial observances, to bid them turn to the realities of righteousness; and one of the foremost things among these was to judge the fatherless and plead for the widow. The faithful city had fallen, until those whose duty it was to judge the fatherless, and have the cause of the widow come to them, had sunk into companions of thieves and seekers of bribes. In the parable of the judge who feared not God, neither regarded man, we may be sure there is great significance beyond the purpose for which it was spoken. While first of all it teaches the need of importunity in prayer, it reminds us also how hard it is for the feeble woman, whose sphere has been the seclusion of home, to come out in the world and make her way against the oppressor and against the judge, who would be quick enough to listen to her if she was only rich, and could bribe him. By sheer carelessness and thoughtlessness, by the sin of omission even more than the sin of commission, we may fall into the wickedness of afflicting the widow and the fatherless; and to be on the alert to succour them is the only way in which we can effectually guard against this wickedness. We see that even in the Church of Christ, and in those first days when all that believed were together, and had all filings in common—when all seemed so beautiful and promising, heaven fairly begun on earth—even then, and only too soon, the widows began to complain that they were neglected in the daily ministrations. Some of this perhaps was mere mendicant grumbling, but much of it would have a real cause. The only way we can keep the oppressor’s heart out of us is to have the heart living and acting under the power of a Divinely-inspired love. It is a first principle of Christian ethics that if we are not doing good, we are doing ill; and we may be parties to the worst oppression, even when we are not thinking of oppression at all. In what a light does this Mosaic injunction bring out the teaching of James as to that practical element in pure religion of visiting the fatherless and the widow. If the Christian—his opportunities, his motives, his consolations, his resources to help and advise being what they are—does not visit the fatherless and the widow, depend upon it others will with very different designs. The greatest promptitude and decision are needed to anticipate the action of the rapacious and selfish.—Y. The treatment of the poor. Here are two regulations, commanding not to be usurious in the lending of money to the poor, and not to retain the pledged garment over night. How forcibly they bring out the one crowning ill connected with poverty in the eyes of the world! The poor man is the man without money; and lack of money bars his way in only too many directions. Let him be ever so noble in character, ever so heroic, wise, and self-denying in action, it avails nothing. The poor wise man delivered the little city that was besieged by a great king; yet no man remembered that same poor man. These Israelites had gone out of Egypt with immense wealth, but probably even then it was very unequally distributed; and the tendency would be, as the tendency always is, for the inequality to become greater still. Hence in this regulation God was addressing those who from the inordinate feeling of desire which wealth inspires, would be peculiarly tempted to take advantage of the poor. God never shows any mercy to the rich man so far as his riches are concerned. Those riches are full of peril, and fuller of peril to their owner than to any one else. He who counselled, by his Son, to pluck out the right eye and cut off the right hand, is not likely to pay respect to a thing like wealth, even more external still. The chief matter in these regulations is how the poor and needy may be most advantaged, and whatever will do that most effectually is the thing to be done. Whether mere money be lost or gained is a matter of no consequence whatever. I. THESE WITH RESPECT TO LENDING DO NOT EXCLUDE GIVING. "If thou lend money," etc. But God, in many instances, would be better pleased with giving than with lending. If only men were seeking with all their hearts to do his will, all these minute regulations would be unnecessary. The advantage of the poor, as we have just seen, was the main thing to be considered here. And it might be for the advantage of the receiver, and still more for the advantage of the giver in the highest sense of the word advantage, to give, hoping to receive nothing again. Just as money does untold harm when foolishly and wickedly spent, so when wisely spent it may do untold good. Lending may serve well, but giving may serve much better; and that is the wisest course which is judged to do the most good. Some would find it easier to give than to lend, being naturally generous, disposed to lavishness, shrinking from the risk of being thought stingy. And yet sometimes in giving they would be doing a very hurtful thing, for lending would be better. II. Nor is there anything like A OF THE LOAN OF MONEY FOR . If one man lends to another a certain sum of money with which to trade, it is plain that he acts lawfully in getting interest for the use of it. For if he were not lending money to another, he would be using it himself, and the interest represents his profit, which is the same whoever uses the money. The trade of the world, and therefore the good of the world would be greatly limited and hampered but for the use of borrowed capital. It may be that the man who has the capital has neither the disposition nor ability to use it. Let him then, upon a fair consideration, lend the capital to the man who can use it. III. Chiefly we must strive to avoid THE TAKING SELFISH OF OUR ’S . Rather we should rejoice to take advantage of these necessities to show beyond all dispute, that the love of God is indeed the ruling principle of our hearts. Man’s extremity, it has often been said, is God’s opportunity, and so it should be the Christian’s opportunity. By timely aid, if we have it to bestow, let us strive to deliver the poor from the clutches of the usurer, and especially let us give our aid to what may be devised for the curing of poverty’s disease altogether. Every alteration either in laws or customs which will tend to diminish Poverty—let it have our strenuous support. Bear in mind that whatever each man has beyond a certain moderate share of this world’s goods can only come to him because others have less than reasonable comfort demands. We should ever be aiming by all methods that are reasonable, just, and practicable, to secure to each one neither poverty nor riches, but just that food which is convenient for him. God wishes every man to have his daily bread; and it is an awful thing that we by our selfishness do so much to make the question of daily bread the only one that many of our fellow-creatures have time or inclination to ask. It seems to take every hour and every energy to keep the wolf from the door.—Y. THE BOOK OF THE .—Continued. Exodus 23:1-19 LAWS—continued. The same want of logical arrangement appears in this chapter as in the preceding one. The first nine verses contain some twelve laws, of which not more than two that are consecutive can be said to be on the same subject. There is perhaps in the section a predominant idea of warning against sins and errors connected with the trial of causes before a court, but Exodus 23:4 and Exodus 23:5, at any rate, lie quite outside this idea. From Exodus 23:10 to Exodus 23:19 the laws are connected with ceremonial observance and include (1) The law of the Sabbath, (2) of the Sabbatical year, (3) of the Great Festivals, (4) of sacrifice, and (5) of first-fruits. Exodus 23:1 The ninth commandment is here expanded and developed. Thou shalt not raise a false report, forbids the origination of a calumny; the other clause prohibits the joining with others in spreading one. Both clauses have a special reference to bearing witness in a court, but neither would seem to be confined to it. Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. Rather, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to evil." A law alike for deed, for word, and for thought. The example of the many is to be shunned. "Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat." But "strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life; and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14). It is extraordinary that so many, even of professing Christians, are content to go with the many, notwithstanding the warnings against so doing, both of the law and of the Gospel. Neither shalt thou speak, etc. Rather, "Neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to go aside after a multitude to put aside justice." The general precept is followed by a particular application of it. In judging a cause, if thou art one of the judges, thou shalt not simply go with the majority, if it he bent on injustice, but form thine own opinion and adhere to it. Exodus 23:3 Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause. After the many precepts in favour of the poor, this injunction produces a sort of shock. But it is to be understood as simply forbidding any undue favouring of the poor because they are poor, and so as equivalent to the precept in Le Exodus 19:15, "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor." In courts of justice, strict justice is to be rendered, without any leaning either towards the rich, or towards the poor. To lean either way is to pervert judgment. Exodus 23:4 Thine enemy’s ox. A private enemy is here spoken of, not a public one, as in Deuteronomy 23:6. It is remarkable that the law should have so far anticipated Christianity as to have laid it down that men have duties of friendliness even towards their enemies, and are bound under certain circumstances to render them a service. "Hate thine enemies" (Matthew 5:43) was no injunction of the Mosaic taw, but a conclusion which Rabbinical teachers unwarrantably drew from it. Christianity, however, goes far beyond Mosaism in laying down the broad precept—"Love your enemies." Exodus 23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee, etc. The general meaning of the passage is clear—assistance is to be given to the fallen ass of an enemy—but the exact sense of both the second and third clauses is doubtful. Many renderings have been suggested; but it is not clear that any one of them is an improvement on the Authorised Version. Thou shalt surely help with him. The joint participation in an act of mercy towards a fallen beast would bring the enemies into friendly contact, and soften their feelings towards each other. Exodus 23:6 As in Exodus 23:3 men were warned not to favour the poor unduly in courts of justice out of compassion for them, so here there is a warning against the opposite, and far more usual error, of leaning against the poor man in our evidence or in our decisions The scales of justice are to be held even; strict right is to be done; our feelings are not be allowed to influence us, much less our class prejudices. Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter. Hold aloof, i.e; from anything like a false accusation. Neither bring one, nor countenance one, else those mayest cause the death of an innocent and righteous man, and bring down on thyself the vengeance of him, who will not justify the wicked. Exodus 23:8 And thou shalt take no gift. The worst sin of a judge, and the commonest in the East, is to accept abribe from one of the parties to a suit, and give sentence accordingly. As such a practice defeats the whole end for which the administration of justice exists, it is, when detected, for the most part, punished capitally. Josephus tells us that it was so among the Jews (Contr. Apion. 2.27); but the Mosaic code, as it has come down to us, omits to fix the penalty. Whatever it was, it was practically set at nought. Eli’s sons "turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment" (1 Samuel 8:3). In David’s time, men’s hands were "full of bribes" (Psalms 26:10). Solomon complains of wicked men" taking gifts out of their bosoms to pervert the ways of judgment" (Proverbs 17:23). Isaiah is never weary of bearing witness against the princes of his day, who" love gifts and follow after rewards" (Isaiah 1:23);who "justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him" (Isaiah 5:23). Micah adds his testimony—"Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward" (Exodus 3:9-11). The gift blindeth the wise. See Deuteronomy 16:19. Exodus 23:9 Thou shalt not oppress a stranger. This is a repetition of Exo 22:21, with perhaps a special reference to oppression through courts of justice. For thou knowest the heart of a stranger. Literally, "the mind of a stranger," or, in other words, his thoughts and feelings. Thou shouldest therefore be able to sympathise with him. Exodus 23:10, Exodus 23:11 LAWS (Exodus 23:10-19). Law of the Sabbatical year. Days of rest, at regular or irregular intervals, were well known to the ancients and some regulations of the kind existed in most countries But entire years of rest were wholly unknown to any nation except the Israelites. and exposed them to the reproach of idleness.. In a primitive condition of agriculture, when rotation of crops was unknown, artificial manure unemployed, and the need of letting even the best land sometimes lie fallow unrecognised, it may not have been an uneconomical arrangement to require an entire suspension of cultivation once in seven years. But great difficulty was probably experienced in enforcing the law. Just as there were persons who wished to gather manna on the seventh day (Exodus 16:27), so there would be many anxious to obtain in the seventh year something more from their fields than Nature would give them if left to herself. If the "seventy years" of the captivity were intended exactly to make up for omissions of the due observance of the sabbatical year, we must suppose that between the time of the exodus and the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the ordinance had been as often neglected as observed. (See 2 Chronicles 36:21.) The primary object of the requirement was, as stated in Exodus 23:11, that the poor of thy people may eat, what the land brought forth of its own accord in the Sabbatical year being shared by them (Leviticus 25:6.). But no doubt it was also intended that the Sabbatical year should be one of increased religious observance, whereof the solemn reading of the law in the ears of the people at the Feast of Tabernacles "in the year of release" (Deuteronomy 31:10) was an indication and a part. That reading was properly preceded by a time of religious preparation (Nehemiah 8:1-15), and would naturally lead on to further acts of a religious character, which might occupy a considerable period (Nehemiah 9:1-38; Nehemiah 10:1-39.). Altogether, the year was a most solemn period, calling men to religious self-examination, to repentance, to the formation of holy habits, and tending to a general elevation among the people of the standard of holiness. What they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. There was to be no regular ingathering. The proprietor, his servants, the poor, and the stranger were to take what they needed; and the residue was to be for the cattle and for the beasts that were in the land (Deuteronomy 25:6, Deuteronomy 25:7). Thy vineyard—thy oliveyard. Corn, wine, and oil were the only important products of Palestine; and this mention of the vineyard and the oliveyard shows that one and the same law was to hold good of all the lands in the country, however they might be cultivated. The whole land was to rest. Exodus 23:12 Law of the Sabbath, repeated. Nothing is here added to the teaching of the Fourth Commandment; but its merciful character is especially brought out. Men are called on to observe it, in order that their cattle may obtain rest, and their servants, together with the stranger that is within their gates, may find refreshment. It is to be borne in mind that the foreign population of Palestine was mostly held to hard service. (See 2 Chronicles 2:17, 2 Chronicles 2:18.) Exodus 23:13 contains two injunctions—one general, one special:— 1. "Be circumspect" (or cautious, careful) "in respect of all that I command you." 2. "Do not so much as utter the name of any false god." Not even to mention their names, was to show them the greatest contempt possible; and, if followed out universally, would soon have produced an absolute oblivion of them. Moses, it may be observed, scarcely ever does mention their names. Later historians and prophets had to do so, either to deliver the true history of the Israelites, or to denounce idolatries to which they were given. There are many words one would wish never to utter; but while wicked men do the things of which they are the names, preachers are obliged to use the words in their sermons and other warnings. Exodus 23:14-17 Law of Festivals. "The sanctification of days and times," says Richard Hooker, "is a token of that thankfulness and a part of that public honour which we owe to God for admirable benefits, whereof it doth not suffice that we keep a secret calendar, taking thereby our private occasions as we list ourselves to think how much God hath done for all men; but the days which are chosen out to serve as public memorials of such his mercies ought to be clothed with those outward robes of holiness whereby their difference from other days may be made sensible" (Eccles. Pol. 5.70, § 1). All ancient religions had solemn festival seasons, when particular mercies of God were specially commemorated, and when men, meeting together in large numbers, mutually cheered and excited each other to a warmer devotion and a more hearty pouring forth of thanks than human weakness made possible at other times. In Egypt such festivals were frequent, and held a high place in the religion (Herod. 2.58-64:). Abraham’s family had probably had observances of the kind in their Mesopotamian home. God’s providence saw good now to give supernatural sanction to the natural piety which had been accustomed thus to express itself. Three great feasts were appointed, of which the most remarkable features were— 1. That they were at once agricultural and historical—connected with the regularly recurrent course of the seasons, and connected also with great events in the life of the nation; 2. That they could be kept only at one spot, that namely where the tabernacle was at the time located; 3. That they were to be attended by the whole male population. The three festivals are here called— 1. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 23:15), the early spring festival, at the beginning of barley harvest in the month Abib (Nisan), commemorative of the going forth from Egypt; 2. The Feast of Harvest (elsewhere called "of weeks") at the beginning of summer, when the wheat crop had been reaped, commemorative of the giving of the law; and 3. The Feast of Ingathering (Exodus 23:16) in Tisri, at the close of the vintage, when all the crops of every kind had been gathered in, commemorative of the sojourn in the wilderness. The first of the three, the feast of unleavened bread, had been already instituted (Exodus 13:3-10); the two others are now for the first time sketched out, their details being kept back to be fined in subsequently (Le Exodus 23:15-21, and 34-36). Here the legislator is content to lay it down that the great feasts will be three, and that all the males are to attend them. Exodus 23:15 The feast of unleavened bread. This commenced with the Passover, and continued for the seven days following, with a "holy convocation" on the first of the seven and on the last (Leviticus 23:5-8). Unleavened bread was eaten in commemoration of the hasty exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12:34). A sheaf of new barley—the first-fruits of the harvest—was offered as a wave-offering before the Lord (Leviticus 23:10-14). Every male Israelite of full age was bound to attend, and to bring with him a free-will offering. In the time appointed of the month—i.e; on the fourteenth day (Exodus 12:18). None shall appear before me empty. This rule applies, not to the Passover only, but to all the feasts. Exodus 23:16 The feast of harvest. Fifty days were to be numbered from the day of offering the barley sheaf, and on the fiftieth the feast of harvest, thence called "Pentecost," was to be celebrated. Different Jewish sects make different calculations; but the majority celebrate Pentecost on the sixth of Sivan. The main ceremony was the offering to God of two leavened loaves of the finest flour made out of the wheat just gathered in, and called the first-fruits of the harvest. The festival lasted only a single day; but it was one of a peculiarly social and joyful character (Deuteronomy 16:9-11). Jewish tradition connects the feast further with the giving of the law, which must certainly have taken place about the time (see Exodus 19:1-16). The firstfruits. Rather, "Of the first-fruits." The word is in apposition with "harvest," not with "feast." Which thou hast sown. The sown harvest was gathered in by Pentecost; what remained to collect afterwards was the produce of plantations. The feast of ingathering. Called elsewhere, and more commonly, "the feast of tabernacles" (Leviticus 23:34; Deuteronomy 16:13; Deuteronomy 31:10; John 7:2), from the circumstance that the people were commanded to make themselves booths, and dwell in them during the time of the feast. The festival began on the 15th of Tisri, or in the early part of our October, when the olives had been gathered in and the vintage was completed. It lasted seven, or (according to some) eight days, and comprised two holy convocations. In one point of view it was a festival of thanksgiving for the final getting in of the crops; in another, a commemoration of the safe passage through the desert from Egypt to Palestine. The feast seems to have been neglected during the captivity, but was celebrated with much glee in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:17). In the end of the year—i.e; the end of the agricultural year—when the harvest was over—as explained in the following clause. Exodus 23:17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. This seems to moderns a very burthensome enactment. But we must remember that Palestine is not bigger than Wales, and that great gatherings had great attractions for many in the ancient world, when they were the only means by which information was spread, and almost the only occasions on which friends and relations who lived far apart could expect to see each other. The European Greeks had, in their Olympian and other games, similar great gatherings, which occurred once or twice in each year, and, though under no obligation to do so, attended them in enormous numbers. It may be doubted if the religious Hebrews felt the obligation of attendance to be a burthen. It was assuredly a matter of great importance, as tending to unity, and to the quickening of the national life, that they should be drawn so continually to one centre, and be so frequently united in one common worship. Most students of antiquity regard the Greek games as having exerted a strong unifying influence over the scattered members of the Grecian family. The Hebrew festivals, occurring so much more frequently, and required to be attended by all, must have had a similar, but much greater, effect of the same kind. Exodus 23:18 Law of the Paschal sacrifice. That the Paschal lamb is here intended by "my sacrifice," seems to be certain, since the two injunctions to put away leavened bread, and to allow none of the victim’s flesh to remain till the morning (see Exodus 12:10), are combined in the Paschal sacrifice only. Of all the offerings commanded in the law the Paschal lamb was the most important, since it typified Christ. It may therefore well be termed, in an especial way, "God’s sacrifice.’’ By the fat of my feast some understand the fat of the lamb, others the best part of the feast (Keil)—i.e; the lamb itself. In Exodus 34:25, which is closely parallel to the present place, we read, for "the fat of my feast," "the sacrifice of the feast of the passover." Exodus 23:19 Law of first-fruits. The first of the first-fruits may mean either "the best of the first-fruits" (see Numbers 18:12), or "the very first of each kind that is ripe" (ib, Exodus 23:13). On the tendency to delay, and not bring the very first, see the comment on Exodus 22:29. The house of the Lord. Generally, in the Pentateuch we have the periphrasis’’ the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to put his name there" (Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 16:16; Deuteronomy 26:2, etc.); but here, and in Exodus 34:26, and again in Deuteronomy 23:18, this "place" is plainly declared to be a "house" or "temple." Law against seething a kid in the mother’s milk. The outline of law put before the Israelites in the "Book of the Covenant" terminated with this remarkable prohibition. Its importance is shown— 1. By its place here; and 2. By its being thrice repeated in the law of Moses (see Exodus 34:16; and Deuteronomy 14:21). Various explanations have been given of it; but none is saris-factory, except that which views it as "a protest against cruelty, and outraging the order of nature," more especially that peculiarly sacred portion of nature’s order, the tender relation between parent and child, mother and suckling. No doubt the practice existed. Kids were thought to be most palatable when boiled in milk; and the mother’s milk was frequently the readiest to obtain. But in this way the mother was made a sort of accomplice in the death of her child, which men were induced to kill on account of the flavour that her milk gave it. Reason has nothing to say against such a mode of preparing food, but feeling revolts from it; and the general sense of civilised mankind reechoes the precept, which is capable of a wide application—Thou shalt not seethe a kind in his mother’s milk. Exodus 23:1-3; 6-9 God’s care for the administration of justice. The well-being of a community depends largely on the right administration of justice within its limits. It has been said that the entire constitution of England with all its artifices, complications, balances, and other delicate arrangements, exists mainly for the purpose of putting twelve honest men into a jury-box. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Anything is preferable to the triumphant rule of injustice. The present passage clearly shows that God recognises very decidedly the importance of judicial proceedings. By direct communication with Moses, he lays down rules which affect— 1. The accuser; 2. The witnesses; and 3. The judge. I. WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCUSER. False accusation is to be avoided, and especially capital charges against the innocent (Exodus 9:7). II. WITH RESPECT TO . Men are to beware of either inventing an untrue tale or giving any support to it when it has been invented by others (Exodus 9:11). III. WITH RESPECT TO JUDGES. 1. They are not to act like Pilate and "follow a multitude to do evil" (Exodus 9:2). 2. They are not either unduly to favour the poor (Exodus 9:3); or 3. To wrest justice against them (Exodus 9:6). 4. They are not to oppress strangers (Exodus 9:9). And 5. They are, above all things, not to take a bribe. Accusers, beware! Be sure that your charge is true, or do not make it. A false charge, even though proved false, may injure a man for life—he may never be able to recover from it. Particularly, be careful, if your charge is a serious one, involving risk to life. You may, if successful, "slay the innocent and the righteous" (Exodus 9:7). Nay, you may slay a man by a false charge which does not directly affect his life—you may so harass and annoy him as to drive him to suicide, or "break his heart," and so shorten his days. Even if you have a true charge to bring, it is not always wise or Christian to bring it. St. Paul would have us in some cases "take wrong" and "suffer ourselves to be defrauded" (1 Corinthians 6:7). Witnesses, beware! Do not give untrue evidence, either in the way of raising false reports yourselves, or of supporting by your evidence the false reports of others. The witnesses who cause an innocent person to be condemned are as much to blame as the false accuser. Be very careful in giving evidence to speak "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Depose to nothing of which you are not sure. If you are uncertain, say that you are uncertain, however much the adverse counsel may browbeat you. In cases of personal identity, be specially careful. It is exceedingly easy to be mistaken about a man whom you have seen only once or twice. Judges, beware! On you the final issue depends. Be not swayed by popularity. Yield not to the outcries either of an excited mob, or a partisan press, when they shout, "away with him!" Hold the scales of justice even between the rich man and the poor, neither suffering your prejudice of class to incline you in favour of the former, nor a weak sentimentality to make you lean unduly towards the latter. Be sure not to oppress foreigners, who must plead to disadvantage in a country, and amid proceedings, t hat are strange to them. Above all, do not condescend to take a bribe from either side. A gift is a weight in the scales of justice; and "a false balance is an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 11:1). Exodus 23:5, Exodus 23:6 The duties which men owe to their enemies. These duties may be considered as they were revealed to men. 1. Under the law: and 2. Under the gospel. I. UNDER THE LAW. Men were required to protect the interests of their enemies, when they could do so without loss to themselves. For instance— 1. They were not to cut down fruit trees in an enemy’s country (Deuteronomy 20:19, Deuteronomy 20:20). 2. They were not to remove a neighbour’s landmark, even though he might be an enemy. 3. They were to hasten after an enemy’s ox or ass if they saw it going astray, to catch it, and bring it back to him. 4. They were to approach him, if they saw his ass fallen under the weight of its load, and to help him to raise it up. 5. If he were suffering from hunger or thirst, they were to give him bread to eat and water to drink (Proverbs 25:21). 6. They were to refrain from rejoicing over his misadventures (ib, Exodus 24:17). II. UNDER THE GOSPEL. Men are required under the Gospel to do all this, and much more. 1. They are to "love their enemies" (Matthew 5:44). 2. To do good to them in every way—feed them (Romans 12:20), bless them (Matthew 1:1-25.s.c.), pray for them (ib,), be patient towards them (1 Thessalonians 5:14), seek to convert them from the error of their ways (James 5:20), save them (ib,). Christ set the example of praying for his enemies upon the cross—God set the example of loving his enemies when he gave his Son to suffer death for them—the Holy Spirit sets the example of patience towards his enemies, when he strives with them. We have to forgive our enemies day by day their trespasses against us—to pray and work for their conversion—to seek to overcome their evil with our good. In temporal matters, it is our business to be most careful that we do them no injury, by misrepresentation, by disparagement, by unfair criticism, by lies, even by "faint praise." We are to "love" them; or, if poor human nature finds this too hard, we are to act as if we loved them, and then ultimately love will come. The Sabbatical year. The Sabbatical year—an institution peculiar to the Israelites, and quite contrary to anything of which they had had experience in Egypt—is a remarkable proof, I. OF THE DIVINE WISDOM. Under the ordinary circumstances of tillage, land from time to time requires rest. In Egypt it was otherwise. There, under the exceptional circumstances of a soil continually recruited by the spread over it of a rich alluvium from the great river, not only was the whole arable area capable of producing good crops year after year, without ever lying fallow, but from the same soil several crops were ordinarily taken, in the course of the twelvemonth. The Israelites had had no experience of any other agriculture than this for above four centuries. Yet now, suddenly, a new system is adopted by them. God knew that the system of Egyptian tillage was not suitable for Palestine—that there the soil would not recruit itself—that, cultivated on the Egyptian system, it would rapidly become exhausted; and therefore he devised, in the interests of his people, a new system for Palestine. The whole land should have rest one year in seven. Thus only, in the then existing condition of agriculture, could exhaustion be prevented, productiveness secured, and the land enabled to retain its character of "a good land," "a land flowing with milk and honey," "a land of corn and wine, of bread and vineyards, and oil olive," "a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig-trees, and pomegranates—a land of oil olive, and honey—a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack anything in it" (Deuteronomy 8:8, Deuteronomy 8:9). II. OF THE DIVINE . Under the system thus Divinely imposed upon the Israelites, three beneficent purposes were accomplished. 1. The proprietor was benefited. Not only was he prevented from exhausting his farm by over-cropping, and so sinking into poverty, but he was forced to form habits of forethought and providence. He necessarily laid by something for the seventh year, and hence learnt to calculate his needs, to store his grain, and to keep something in hand against the future. In this way his reason and reflective powers were developed, and he was advanced from a mere labouring hind to a thoughtful cultivator. 2. The poor were benefited. As whatever grew in the seventh year grew spontaneously, without expense or trouble on the part of the owner, it could not be rightfully considered to belong exclusively to him. The Mosaic law placed it on a par with ordinary wild fruits, and granted it to the first comer (Leviticus 25:5, Leviticus 25:6). By this arrangement the poor were enabled to profit, since it was they especially who gathered the store that Nature’s bounty provided. In the dry climate of Palestine, where much grain is sure to be shed during the gathering in of the harvest, the spontaneous growth would probably be considerable, and would amply suffice for the sustenance of those who had no other resource. 3. The beasts were benefited. God "careth for cattle." He appoints the Sabbatical year, in part, that "the beasts of the field" may have abundance to eat. When men dole out their food, they have often a scanty allowance. God would have them, for one year in seven at least, eat their fill. The rest of the Sabbath. In the fourth commandment it is the main object of the Sabbath that is put prominently forward. It is a day to be "kept holy"—a day which God has "blessed and hallowed." Here, on the contrary, our attention is called to its secondary object—it is for "rest" and "refreshment." Perhaps men of the classes who are in easy circumstances do not sufficiently realise the intense relief that is furnished by the Sunday rest to the classes below them, to the over-taxed artisan, the household drudge, the wearied and stupefied farm-labourer—nay, even to the clerk, the accountant, the shopkeeper, the salesman. Continuous mechanical work of one and the same kind is required of most of those who labour, from morning till night, and from one end of the week to the other. The monotony of their occupations is terrible—is deadening—is sometimes maddening. For them, the treat that the Sunday affords is the single gleam of light in their uniformly murky sky, the single ray of hope that gilds their else miserable existence, the single link that connects them with the living world of thought, and sentiment, and feeling, for which they were born, and in which their spirits long to expatiate. Rest! To the tired brute, forced to slave for his owner up to the full measure of his powers, and beyond them—ready to sink to the earth the moment he is not artificially sustained—who goes through his daily round in a state that is half-sleep, half-waking—what a blessed change is the quietude of the Sunday, when for four-and-twenty hours at least he enjoys absolute and entire repose, recruits his strength, rests all his muscles, is called on to make no exertion! Refreshment! How thrice blessed to the overwrought man, and still more to the overwrought woman, is the relaxation of the dreadful tension of their lives which Sunday brings! "No rest, no pause, no peace," for six long days—days beginning early and ending late—days without change or variety—without relaxation or amusement—wretched, miserable days, during which they wish a hundred times that they had never been born. On such the Sunday rest falls as a refreshing dew. Their drooping spirits rise to it. They inhale at every pore its beneficent influences. They feel it to be "a refuge from the storms of life, a bourne of peace after six days of care and toil, a goal to which they may look with glad hearts, and towards which they may work with hopeful spirits amid the intense struggles, and fervid contests, and fierce strifes of existence." Without the Sunday rest, modern life, at any rate, would be intolerable; and the mass of those who are actively engaged in its various phases would drift into idiocy, or be driven to madness! Festival times. I. ARE . The joyful occurrences of our own lives we by a natural instinct commemorate yearly, as the day comes round when they happened to us. Our birth-day, our wedding-day, are thus made domestic festivals. Similarly, a nation commemorates the Day of its Independence, or the three glorious days of its Revolution, or the day on which its armies gained a great and crowning victory. It is reasonable that the practice thus established should be followed also in the Church of God, and the days on which great spiritual blessings or deliverances were granted to it kept in remembrance by some appropriate and peculiar observance. The Jews kept three great festivals, to which afterwards two others were added, all of them more or less commemorative. The Passover commemorated the passing over of the houses of the Israelites by the destroying angel and the hasty flight out of Egypt; the feast of Pentecost commemorated, according to Jewish tradition, the giving of the law; tabernacles recalled and perpetuated the dwelling in tents in the wilderness; Purim, the deliverance kern the malice of Haman; the Dedication, that from Antiochus Epiphanes. And Christian festivals are of a similar character. Advent commemorates the approach, and Christmas the birth, of Christ, Epiphany his manifestation to the Gentiles, Easter his resurrection from the dead, Ascension-day his ascent into heaven, Whitsuntide the coming of the Holy Ghost. "Saints’ days," as they are called, commemorate the entrance into final bliss of those whose names they bear. All the greater, and almost all the lesser, festivals of the Christian Church are commemorations, days appointed for perpetuating the remembrance of events dear to the Christian heart and deeply interwoven with the Christian life. It follows that— II. ARE TIMES OF JOY’. There are some to whom religion seems altogether a melancholy thing. Religious persons they suppose to be dwellers in perpetual sadness, gloomy, ascetic, dull, cheerless, miserable. But this is altogether a mistake. Holy joy is continually required of men as a duty in the Bible. "Rejoice evermore," says the great apostle of the Gentiles (1 Thessalonians 5:16); and again, "Rejoice with them that do rejoice" (Romans 12:15). "O be joyful in the Lord," is a constant cry of the Psalmist. Our Lord bade us "rejoice and he exceeding glad," even when we are persecuted, and assured us that "our joy no man taketh from us." There may be a sobriety in Christian joy which distinguishes it from the fitful, feverish, and excited joy of the world; but it is joy—true joy—nevertheless. And for this joy no times are so fitting as festival times. "This is the day which the Lord hath made," said holy David; "let us rejoice and be glad in it." "Offices and duties of religious joy," as Hooker notes, "are that wherein the hallowing of festival times consisteth" (Eccl. Pol. 5:70, § 2). The set services of religion on festival days take a tone of gladness beyond the common; and the "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" suited for such occasions are of a still more jubilant type. Then especially do the precepts hold—"Rejoice in the Lord," "Serve the Lord with gladness," "Show yourselves joyful unto the Lord—sing, rejoice, and give thanks." III. SHOULD BE TIMES OF . Nothing is more remarkable in man than his deadness, and dulness, and apathy in respect to all that God has done for him. Warm gratitude, lively thankfulness, real heartfelt devotion, are rare, even in the best of us. Festivals are designed to stir and quicken our feelings, to rouse us from our deadness, to induce us to shake off our apathy, and both with heart and voice glorify God, who hath done so great things for us. Festivals bring before us vividly the special Divine mercy which they commemorate, and at the same time present to our view the beneficent side, so to speak, of the Divine nature, and lead- us to contemplate it. God is essentially love; "he declares his Almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity" (Collect for Eleventh Sunday after Trinity). Festivals remind us of this. We lose the advantage of them wholly if we do not stir ourselves, on occasion of them, to some real outpouring of love and thanks to him who granted us the blessing of the time, as well as every other blessing, and every "good and perfect gift" of which we have the enjoyment. IV. SHOULD BE TIMES OF BOUNTY. When the soul of a man is glad, and penetrated with the sense of God’s goodness and mercy towards it, the heart naturally opens itself to a consideration of other men’s needs and necessities. Being glad itself, it would fain make others glad. Hence, in the old world, great occasions of joy were always occasions of largess. The Israelites were commanded to remember the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow at the time of their festivals (Deuteronomy 16:14); and the practice was to "send portions" to them (Nehemiah 8:10; Esther 9:22). We shall do well to imitate their liberality, and to make, not Christmas only, but each festival season a time of "sending portions" to the poor and needy. BY J. ORR Exodus 23:1-10 Doing justice and loving mercy. In pursuance of its great requirement of love to one’s neighbour, the law next prohibits the raising of a false report, the bearing of false witness in a court of justice, and the wresting of judgment. Recognising however, that "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Matthew 15:19), the taw, in addition to forbidding the outward acts, is at pains to warn against the motives and influences which most commonly lead to these acts. This section naturally follows the catalogue of "rights’ in previous chapters, as dealing with cases of litigation arising on the basis of these "rights." Notice:— I. THE SINS . 1. The raising of a false report. This also is a species of false witness, though of a less formal character than the bearing of false witness in a court of justice. The forms it may assume are innumerable. The three principal are:— (1) Deliberate invention and circulation of falsehoods. (2) Innuendo, or malicious suggestion. (3) Distortion or deceitful colouring of actual facts. In God’s sight slander ranks as one of the worst of off, aces. It indicates great malevolence. It is grievously unjust and injurious to the person traduced. It is certain to be taken up, and industriously propagated. For a calumny is never wholly wiped out. There are always some evil-speaking persons disposed to believe and repeat it. It affixes a mark on the injured party which may remain on him through life. Everyone is interested in the suppression of such an offence—the parties immediately concerned, the Church, society at large, the magistracy, God himself—of one of whose commandments (the 9th) it is a daring violation. It is a form of vice which should incur the emphatic reprobation of society, and which, where possible, should be visited with heavy legal penalties. 2. False witness in court. This, as a deliberate attempt to poison the stream of public justice, is a crime which admits of no palliation. It is a form of vice which, so far as we know, has never found a defender. All ages and all societies have united in condemning it as an offence deserving of severe punishment. Yet many a privately-circulated slander may do more harm than a falsehood uttered in the witness-box. God judges of these matters, not by their legal but by their moral turpitude. 3. Wresting of judgment. The corruption of public justice here reaches the fountain head. The judge who gives dishonest decisions betrays the cause of righteousness. He misrepresents the mind of God. He inflicts irremediable injury on the innocent. He opens a floodgate to iniquity. Few men, therefore, are guiltier than he. God will not spare him in the day of his judgment. Even in private life, however, we need to beware of judging rashly, of judging with bias and prejudice, of judging so as to do wrong to individuals, of judging so as to injure truth and retard progress and- improvement. This also is "wresting judgment." II. MOTIVES LEADING TO THESE SINS. 1. The influence of the crowd (Exodus 23:2). There is an infectiousness in the example of a crowd which only a firm back-bone of principle, and some independence of mind, will enable us to resist. The tendency is to follow the multitude, even when it is to do evil. (1) Men like to be on the side that is popular. They dread the reproach of singularity. There are those who would almost rather die than be out of the fashion. (2) A crowd can ridicule, and a crowd can intimidate. It may put pressure upon us which we have not the moral courage to resist. (3) A thing, besides, does not look so evil, when many are engaged in doing it. They do not, of course, call it evil. They put new names upon it, and. laugh at us for our scruples. This may lead us to think that the course in which we are asked to join is not so very bad after all. So we belie or dissemble our real convictions, and do what the crowd bids us. To such influences we are certain to fall a prey, if we are governed by the fear of man more than by the fear of God (Acts 4:19, Acts 4:20), or if we seek the praise of man more than the honour which comes from God (John 5:44; John 12:4:3). As counteractives to the influence of the crowd we do well to remember that the "vox populi" is not always "vox Dei;" that the fashion of the clay can never make that right which the law of God declares to be wrong; that the voice of the multitude is one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow, while truth and duty remain one and the same; that whatever others think, it can never be lawful for us to act contrary to our own convictions; that if the multitude are bent on doing evil, it is our duty, not to go with them, but to be witnesses for the truth in opposition to their courses; that great guilt attaches to us if we do wrong simply in deference to popular sentiment; finally, that there is one who judges us, that is, God, and that he will surely call us to account for all such unfaithfulness to conviction (Exodus 23:7). 2. False sympathy. Judgment was not to be wrested, nor false witness given, out of any quasi-benevolent wish to do a good turn to the poor (Exodus 23:3). The poor man is not to be unjustly dealt with (Exodus 23:6), but neither is he to receive favour. A court of law is not the place for sentiment. Equal measure is to be meted out to all. Judgment is to be given impartially as between brother and brother; rich and poor; citizen and foreigner (Exodus 23:9); applying the same principles to each case, and keeping in view the essential merits as the sole thing to be regarded. 3. Enmity. Emnity to another, or the consideration of another’s enmity to us, is not to be allowed to sway us in giving judgment in his cause, or in any other matter in which his rights are affected. This seems to be the connection of Exo 23:4, Exodus 23:5, with what precedes and follows; but the duty is taught somewhat indirectly by laying down the principle that enmity is not to be allowed to influence us at all, in any of our dealings with our neighbours. The illustrations taken are very striking, and fairly anticipate the gospel inculcation of love to enemies (cf. Deuteronomy 22:1, Deuteronomy 22:4). If an enemy’s ox or ass was seen going astray, the Israelite was not to hide himself, and let it go, but was "surely" to take it back again. Or if his enemy’s ass fell under a burden, he was not to yield to the temptation to forbear help, but was "surely" to help him to lift it up. A fortiori, he was not to allow himself to be in any way influenced by enmity in giving evidence before the judges, or in pronouncing judgment on a cause brought before him. 4. Covetenseness. (Exodus 23:8.) This forbids bribery. It is impossible for a judge to take a bribe, whether given directly or indirectly, and yet retain his integrity. Despite of himself, the gift will blind his eyes, and pervert his words. For the same reason a man can never be an impartial judge in his own cause.—J.O. Exodus 23:10-20 Sabbaths and feasts. I. . 1. The Sabbatic year (Exodus 23:10, Exodus 23:11). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow, and what it spontaneously produced was to be a provision for the poor, and for the beasts of the field. There was connected with the ordinance a special promise of unusual fertility in the sixth year—of such plenty as would make the nation independent of a harvest in the seventh (Le Exodus 25:21, Exodus 25:22). The Sabbatic year was (1) A period of rest for the land. Even nature requires her seasons of rest. Only thus will she yield to man the best of her produce. The seventh year’s rest was an agricultural benefit. (2) A period of rest for the labourer. It gave him time for higher employment. Moses enjoined that the whole law should be read on this year at the feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 31:10, Deuteronomy 31:14). This may have been designed to teach, "that the year, as a whole, should be much devoted to the meditation of the law, and engaging in services of devotion" (Fairbairn). (3) A merciful provision for the poor. It laid an arrest on man’s natural selfishness, and taught beneficence and consideration for the needy. It showed that if man cared not for the poor, God did. (4) It was a test of obedience. It would test conclusively whether the people were disposed to obey God, or would be ruled only by their own wills. In point of fact, the ordinance was not kept. It proved to be too high and Divine a thing for covetous and selfish dispositions. The neglect of it commenced very early, and lasted till the period of the captivity (2 Chronicles 36:21). (5) A periodical reminder that the land, and everything that grew upon it, belonged to God. Had the Israelites observed the ordinance, the recurrent plenty of the sixth year would, like the double supply of manna on the sixth day in the wilderness, have been a visible witness to them of the supernatural presence of Jehovah in their midst. 2. The weekly Sabbath (Exodus 23:12). The invaluable seventh day’s rest was also to be sacredly observed by the nation. Well-kept Sabbaths have much to do with national prosperity. II. FEASTS. The stated festivals were three (Exodus 23:14 17). The design in their appointment was to commemorate mercies, to keep alive the memory of national events, to foster a sense of unity in the people, to quicken religious life, to furnish opportunities of public worship. They afforded a means of strengthening the bond between the people and Jehovah, promoted brotherly intercourse, infused warmth and gladness into religious service, and were connected with a ritual which taught the worshippers solemn and impressive lessons. The feasts were:— 1. The Passover—here called "the feast of unleavened bread" (Exodus 23:15-18). It commemorated the great National Deliverance (see on Exodus 12:1-51.). The use of unleavened bread was a call to spiritual purity (1 Corinthians 5:8). The blood was offered (Exodus 23:18) as an ever-renewed atonement for sin. The "fat" of the sacrifice betokened the consecration of the best. 2. Pentecost—here called "the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labours" (Exodus 23:16). Its primary reference was agricultural. It was a recognition of God in the gift of the harvest. It besought his blessing upon the labours of the field. It consecrated to him the first-fruits (Exodus 23:19) of what he had given (two wave-loaves, Le Exodus 23:17). In the dedication of the wave-loaves, as in the weekly presentation of the shewbread in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:30), there was further symbolised the dedication to God of the life which the bread nourished. Fitly, therefore, was this day chosen for the presentation to God of the first-fruits of his Church (Acts 2:1-47.). 3. The feast of Tabernacles—"the feast of ingathering" (Exodus 23:16). This was the feast of the completed harvest, when the corn, the wine, and the oil, had all been gathered in. During the seven days of the feast the people dwelt in booths, in commemoration of their wanderings in the wilderness. The dwelling in booths was a symbol also of their present pilgrim condition on earth, as "strangers and sojourners" (Psalms 39:12). The precept in Exodus 23:19, which seems related to this feast,—"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk," had probably reference to some harvest superstition. On its moral lessons, see Deuteronomy 14:21.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 23:1-9 Seeking the things which make for justice. The illustrations adduced in these nine verses show the various ways in which men may be tempted to injustice in judicial procedure. Those who believe themselves wronged have to appeal to their fellow men to settle the matter so far as human capacity can settle it. Hence the positions indicated in this passage. We see plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, judges, and supporters and sympathisers, and the great aim set before all of them is the attainment of just conclusions. Men feel nothing more bitterly than unjust treatment; and yet just treatment is one of the most difficult of all things to get. Even he who himself has been unjustly treated cannot be induced to treat others justly. Thus there are put before the individual Israelite here illustrations of all the ways in which it is possible for him either to help or to hinder justice. I. THE IS LEST BY TO MOTIVES, HE SHOULD HELP OTHERS TO GAIN OF . It is only too easy to send abroad an empty story which may end in the ruin of an innocent man. We may become afflicted with a spirit of partisanship which, even if it lead not to downright lying, may prompt to exaggerations and distortions, just as valuable for the attainment of malicious purposes, lie who would not deliberately fabricate a lie will nevertheless be well disposed to believe it when fabricated by another, and will then utter it for truth. We easily believe what we want to believe. It is so pleasant to be with the multitude; to go against it requires a great deal of courage, and a deep devotion to what is just, as the paramount thing to be considered in all judicial enquiries. Let us feel that justice is not a matter of majorities, but of great principles honestly and ably applied to particular cases, the nature of these cases being determined by evidence which has been carefully sifted and arranged so as to get at the truth. He who comes into a court of justice comes there in the simple and sufficient claims of his humanity; all considerations of popular applause, all sympathy with a poor man, merely as a poor man, are entirely out of place. We must guard against all cheap sentiment; we must be just before we are generous. Adroit appeals to the feelings of a jury are part of the stock-in-trade of a practised advocate; and witnesses themselves understand how to profit by the prejudices and weaknesses of sensitive minds. The poor, the sick, the maimed only too often think that they may gain by their poverty, their feebleness, their mutilation, what is not to be gained by the righteousness of their cause. Everyone, therefore, who has to do with a court of justice needs great circumspection to keep himself clear of all words and actions such as might lend themselves to injustice. The effort of one may not secure a just judgment, but each individual must do his part. Then the stain of injustice is not on his garments. II. AN INJURED PERSON MUST KEEP CLEAR OF IN THE PURSUIT OF HIS RIGHTS. An illustration is given from the misfortune which may happen to his enemy’s ox or ass (Exodus 23:4, Exodus 23:5). We must never forget that our enemy is also our neighbour. If a man wrongs us, it does not cancel that wrong to do him wrong in return. There is a certain appointed way of getting all such wrong put right, and if it cannot be put right in that way there is no other to be found,—no other at least so far as human aid avails. For a man to see his enemy in this position, with ox or ass gone astray or in any way needing help, is a capital chance for showing that no petty grudge actuates him in legal proceedings. He who is treated wrongly must seek for justice, but he will gladly hail the opportunity of showing that it is justice only that he seeks. It is often those who are most unyielding in the matter of right who are also most tender and assiduous in the matter of compassion. It is an easier thing through sentimental weakness to countenance a poor man in his cause than to take the trouble of driving home a lost ox or ass to its owner. The very same considerations of right which make a man feel that he cannot sit down tamely under injustice, should also make him feel that he cannot allow the property of others to go to ruin, when his timely intervention will save it. III. THERE ARE IN FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TO JUDGE. The instructions in Exodus 23:6-9 seem specially to concern the judge. Plaintiffs, defendants and witnesses are only occasionally in courts of justice, but the judge is always there. It is his daily work to settle right as between man and man. Those who have to come before him are instructed and cautioned to come in a just spirit; but inasmuch as many of them will not attend to the instructions, it is the business of the judge to neutralise as far as he can their unrighteous approaches; and it seems to be particularly implied that he must keep himself from all temptations such as come so fascinatingly through the rich and the powerful. He with whom judicial decisions rest will have many to tempt him if he shows himself at all open to temptation. Let the judge remember that his judgment, though it may gain a cause, does not effect a final settlement. Through prejudice or bribery he may justify the wicked; but that does not hold them justified. He must not say of anyone who comes before him, that he is only a poor man or a foreigner and therefore his interests cannot matter. It should be his joy to feel and his pride to say that no one went away from him with wrongs unredressed, so far as any searching of his could discover the doer of the wrong. A judge has great opportunities. Every upright, discerning and scrupulous judge does much in the circle of his own influence to keep a high standard of right and wrong before the minds of his fellow men.—Y. BY G.A. A threefold cord is not quickly broken. To forget is far easier than to remember. Festivals are like posts to which we can fasten the cords of memory, so that, securely fastened, we may not drift down the stream of Lethe. To forget facts is to ignore the duties to which facts prompt us. We must leave undone what we ought to do, unless we take measures to keep us in remembrance. The great fact which the Israelites needed to remember was the relation of dependence in which they stood to God. He had freed them from slavery, he had provided them with food, he had given them, besides, the means of enjoyment—wine and oil—above all that they could ask or think. By means of the three great annual festivals threefold security was given against forgetfulness of this fact. To keep the festivals was to realise the relation, and to strengthen it by practical acknowledgment. Consider— I. THE FEAST OF FREEDOM. In this connection (Exodus 23:15) the unleavened bread is the point emphasised—to be eaten for seven days, a full week, at the commencement of the sacred year. As a reminder it suggested— 1. Past slavery. The tyrannous oppression of Egypt; hopeless condition ere God looked upon them; life but a synonym for bare existence; even sustenance depending upon the caprice of others. 2. Past deliverance. The paschal night; unleavened bread the accompaniment of the first paschal feast; food a very secondary consideration when freedom was in question. 3. Present duties. God had delivered them from slavery that they might serve him as his free people; an inner slavery worse than the outer; a purification needed in the heart even more important than that in the home. The leaven of malice and wickedness must be sought out and put away; so long as they retained that, freedom was but a nominal privilege. II. THE FEAST OF FIRST-FRUITS. Linked on to the second day of unleavened bread. God would have his children look forward; and so he makes the first blessing a seed in which are enwrapped others. Freed by God, the people could appropriate, as his children, the promise made to children (Genesis 1:29, as modified by the fall, Genesis 3:19). The gift of food was God’s gift, but their cooperation was needed for its fruition; it was to be the fruit, not the creation of their labours. Familiarity breeds forgetfulness as often as it breeds contempt. A reminder needed that human labour can, at most, work up God’s raw material. [The cerealia, or corn plants, well called "a standing miracle." Apparently a cultivated grass, yet no known grass can be improved into corn by cultivation. Corn can be degraded by artificial means into a worthless perennial; as it is, it is an annual, exhausting itself in seeding, needing man’s labour to its perfection and preservation.] To get his food, man is constantly reminded that he must be a fellow-worker with God. III. THE FEAST OF . As the year rolls on, it exhibits more and more of God’s goodness and bounty. It calls for ever fresh acknowledgment of that love which gives "liberally and upbraideth not." Freedom a great gift, the capacity to work for one’s own livelihood; so, too, food, the means through which that capacity may find exercise; further, God gives all the fruits of the earth in their season, so that man through his labour may find not merely health but happiness. Naturally this was the most joyful of all the festivals—the blossoms which glorified the stem springing from the root of freedom. To rejoice in the Lord is the final outcome of that faith which enables us to realise our sonship. Conclusion.—These festivals have more than an historical interest. They teach the same truths as of old, but for Christians their meaning is intensified. Unleavened bread is associated with Calvary, freedom from the tyranny of sin (1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Corinthians 5:8). Linked to this is our first-fruits festival; Christ, the first-fruits (1 Corinthians 15:20), made our food through the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. The feast of ingathering is not yet, but we may rejoice in it by anticipation (1 Peter 1:6). The final festival is described for us by St. John in the Revelation (vii. 9-17). Blessed are they who, with robes washed white, shall share the joy of that feast of Ingathering.—G. Exodus 23:20-31 THE REWARDS OF . God always places before men" the recompense of the reward." He does not require of them that they should serve him for nought. The "Book of the Covenant" appropriately ends with a number of promises, which God undertakes to perform, if Israel keeps the terms of the covenant. The promises are:— 1. That he will send an angel before them to be their guide, director, and helper (Exodus 23:20 - 23). 2. That he will be the enemy of their enemies (Exodus 23:22), striking terror into them miraculously (Exodus 23:27), and subjecting them to other scourges also (Exodus 23:28). 3. That he will drive out their enemies "by little and little" (Exodus 23:30), not ceasing until he has destroyed them (Exodus 23:23). 4. That he will give them the entire country between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean on the one hand, the Desert and the Euphrates on the other (Exodus 23:31). And 5. That he will bless their sustenance, avert sickness from them, cause them to multiply, and prolong their days upon earth (Exodus 23:25, Exodus 23:26). At the same time, all these promises—except the first—are made conditional. If they will "beware" of the angel and "obey his voice," then he will drive their enemies out (Exodus 23:22, Exodus 23:23): if they will serve Jehovah, and destroy the idols of the nations, then he will multiply them, and give them health and long life (Exodus 23:24-26), and "set their bounds from the Red Sea even unto the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river" (Exodus 23:31). So far as they fall short of their duties, is he entitled to fall short of his promises. A reciprocity is established. Unless they keep their engagements, he is not bound to keep his. Though the negative side is not entered upon, this is sufficiently clear. None of the promises, except the promise to send the angel, is absolute. Their realisation depends on a strict and hearty obedience. Exodus 23:20 Behold, I send a messenger before thee. Jewish commentators regard the messenger as Moses, who, no doubt, was a specially commissioned ambassador for God, and who might, therefore, well be termed God’s messenger. But the expressions—"He will not pardon your transgressions," and "My name is in him," are too high for Moses. An angel must be intended—probably "the Angel of the Covenant,"—whom the best expositors identify with the Second Person of the Trinity, the Ever-Blessed Son of God. To keep thee in the way is not simply "to guide thee through the wilderness, and prevent thee from geographical error," but to keep thee altogether in the right path. s, to guard thy going out and thy coming m, to prevent thee from falling into any kind of wrong conduct. The place which I have prepared is not merely Palestine, but that place of which Palestine is the type—viz; Heaven. Compare John 14:2:—"I go to prepare a place for you." Exodus 23:21 Provoke him not. On the disobedience of the Israelites to this precept, see Numbers 14:11; Psalms 78:17, Psalms 78:40, Psalms 78:56, etc. My name is in him. God’s honour he will not give to another. He does not set His Name in a man. The angel, in whom was God’s Blame, must have been co-equal with God—one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Exodus 23:22 If thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak. The change of persons in the latter clause—"all that I speak," instead of "all that he speaks"—implies the doctrine of the perienchoresis or circuminsessio, that God the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, as they are in him. An adversary to thy adversaries. Rather "an affiictor of thy affiictors." Exodus 23:23 The Amorites, and the Hittites, etc. The nations of Canaan proper, to whom the Gergashites are sometimes added. See the comment on 2 Samuel 3:8. I will cut them off. Or "cut them down," i.e; destroy them from being any longer nations, but not exterminate them, as is generally supposed. David had a "Hittite" among his "mighty men" (2 Samuel 23:39), and was on friendly terms with Araunah the "Jebusite" (2 Samuel 24:18-24). Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works. It is always to be borne in mind that with the idolatries of the heathen were connected "works of darkness," which it is shameful even to speak of. The rites of Baal and Ashtoreth, of Chemosh, Molech, Rimmon, and the other Canaanite and Syrian deities were at once defiled by the abomination of human sacrifices, and polluted with the still more debasing evil of religious impurity. "The sacrifice offered to Ashtoreth," says Dr. Dollinger, "consisted in the prostitution of women: the women submitted themselves to the visitors of the feast, in the temple of the goddess or the adjoining precinct. A legend told of Astarte (Ashtoreth) having prostituted herself in Tyre for ten years: and in many places matrons, as well as maidens, consecrated themselves for a length of time, or on the festivals of the goddess, with a view of propitiating her, or earning her favour as hieroduli of unchastity … In this way they went so far at last as to contemplate the abominations of unnatural lust as a homage rendered to the deity, and to exalt it into a regular cultus. The worship of the goddess at Aphaca in Lebanon was specially notorious in this respect. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ FINAL WARNING AGAINST . The "Book of the Covenant" ends as it began, with a solemn warning against idolatry. (See Exodus 20:23.) "Thou shalt make no covenant with them nor with their gods." Thou shalt not even suffer them to dwell side by side with thee in the land, on peaceable terms, with their own laws and religion, lest thou be ensnared thereby, and led to worship their idols and join in their unhallowed rites (Exodus 23:33). The after history of the people of Israel shows the need of the warning. From the exodus to the captivity, every idolatry with which they came into close contact proved a sore temptation to them. As the author of Kings observes of the Ten Tribes’’—The children of Israel did secretly those things which were not right against the Lord their God, and they built them high places in all their cities … And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree; and there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the Lord carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger; for they served idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them, "Ye shall not do this thing" (2 Kings 17:9-12). Exodus 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them. See below, Exodus 34:12-15. According to the forms usual at the time, a treaty of peace would have contained an acknowledgment of the gods of either nation, and words in honour of them. This would have been equivalent to "making a covenant with their gods." Exodus 23:33 They shall not dwell in the land. This law did not, of course, affect proselytes; nor was it considered to preclude the continuance in the land of the enslaved Gibeonites. It forbade any Canaanite communities being suffered to remain within the limits of Palestine on friendly terms with the Hebrews. The precaution was undoubtedly a wise one. Exodus 23:32, Exodus 23:33 The Peril of Idolatry. Idolatry is the interposition of any object between man and God, in such sort that the object takes the place of God in the heart and the affections, occupying them to his exclusion, or to his disparagement. Idolatry proper, the interposition between God and the soul of idols or images, seems to have possessed a peculiar fascination for the Israelites, either because their materialistic tendencies made them shrink from approaching in thought a mere pure Spirit, or perhaps from their addiction to the sensual pleasures which accompanied idolatry, as practised by the greater part of the heathen. (See the comment on Exodus 23:24.) In modern times, and in countries where Protestantism is professed by the generality, there is little or no danger of this gross form of the sin. But there is great danger of other forms of it. In order to make any practical use of those large portions of the Old Testament which warn against idolatry, we have to remember— I. THAT IS . Wealth is made an idol by thousands in these latter days. All hasten to be rich. Nothing is greatly accounted of which does not lead to opulence. God is shut out from the heart by desires, and plans, and calculations which have money for their object and which so occupy it that there is no room for anything else. The danger has existed at all times, but it has to be specially guarded against at the present day, when Mammon has become the most potent of all the spirits of evil, and men bow down before, not an image of gold, but gold itself, whatever shape it may take. II. THAT IS . Men make idols of themselves—of their own happiness, quiet, comfort—allowing nothing to interfere with these, and infinitely preferring them to any intrusive thoughts of God, his glory, or his claims upon them. Persons thus wrapped up in themselves are idolaters of a very gross type, since the object of their worship is wholly bad and contemptible. III. THAT IS . Men idolise a wretched creature,—a girl, or woman, possessed of some transient beauty and personal attractions, but entirely devoid of a single estimable quality. For such a creature they peril all their prospects, both in this life and the next. They make her the queen of their souls, the object of their adoration, the star by which they direct their course. The ordinary consequence is shipwreck, both here and hereafter. When so poor an idol as a weak wanton has stepped in between the soul and God, there is little chance of a real repentance and return of the soul to its Maker. IV. THAT MAY BE . It is quite possible so to devote oneself to amusement as to make it shut out God from us. Those who live in a whirl of gaiety, with no time set apart for serious duties, for instructing the ignorant, consoling the afflicted, visiting the poor and needy—nay, with scant time for private or family prayer—are idolaters, and will have to give account to a "jealous God," who wills that his creatures should worship him and not make it their highest end to amuse themselves. V. THAT LOVE OF FASHION MAY BE . Vast numbers of persons who find no amusement in the pursuit, think it necessary to do whatever it is the fashion to do. Their life is a perpetual round of employments in which they have no pleasure, and which they have not chosen for themselves, but which the voice of fashion forces upon them. They drag themselves through exhibitions which do not interest them; lounge at clubs of which they are utterly weary; dine out when they would much rather be at home; and pass the evening and half the night in showing themselves at balls and assemblies which fatigue and disgust them. And all because Fashion says it is the correct thing. The idol, Fashion, has as many votaries in modern Europe as ever the Dea Syra had in Western Asia, or Isis in Egypt; and her votaries pass through life as real idolaters as the worshippers of the ancient goddesses, albeit unconscious ones. OF THE , AND ASCENT OF MOSES INTO THE CLOUD ON SINAI. THE OF THE . The giving of the Book of the Covenant being now completed, Moses, having received directions with respect to another ascent into the mount (Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2), descended to the people, and in the first instance declared to them the main heads of the Covenant, which they received with favour, and expressed their willingness to obey (Exodus 24:3). Not, however, regarding this as a sufficiently formal ratification, the Prophet proceeded to write out in a "Book" the whole of the commands which he had received, He then built an altar, erected twelve pillars, offered sacrifice, and having collected half the blood of the victims in basins, summoned the people to an assembly. At this, he read over solemnly all the words of the Book to them, and received their solemn adherence to it (Exodus 24:7); whereupon, to complete the ceremony, and mark their entrance into covenant, he sprinkled the blood from the basins on the twelve tribes, represented by their leaders, and declared the acceptance complete (Exodus 24:8). The ceremony was probably modelled on some customary proceedings, whereby important contracts between man and man were ratified among the Hebrews and Syrians. Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2 It has been supposed that these verses are out of place, and suggested to remove them to the end of Exo 24:8. But no change is necessary. It is quite natural that God should have given the directions before Moses descended from the mount, and that he should have deferred executing them until the people had accepted the covenant. Nadab and Abihu were the two eldest of Aaron’s sons, and so his natural successors in the priesthood, had they not sinned by offering "strange fire" (Le Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:2). They had been mentioned previously, in Exodus 6:23. Seventy of the elders. On the elders of Israel, see Exodus 3:16, and Exodus 18:21. The "seventy" eiders may, together with Nadab and Abihu, have represented the twelve tribes, six from each. Worship ye afar off. Though all were to ascend the mount to a certain height, only Moses was to go to the top. The others, being less holy than Moses, had to worship at a distance. Exodus 24:3 And Moses came. Moses descended from the mount, and reported to the people all the words of the Lord—all the legislation contained in the last three chapters and a half (Exodus 20:19, to Exodus 23:33), not perhaps in extenso, but as to its main provisions. And all the people answered with one voice, promising obedience. In times of excitement, a common impulse constantly animates an entire multitude, and an exaltation of feeling leads them to make pledges, which they are very unwilling to stand by afterwards. Hence Moses requires something more than a verbal assent. Exodus 24:4 Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. We may presume that they were miraculously brought to his remembrance by that Spirit of Truth which guided all the Prophets (2 Peter 1:21; John 14:26). Having written the words, he waited till the next day, and then rose up early and builded an altar, in preparation for the sacrifice without which no covenant was regarded as binding. And twelve pillars. Symbolical of the twelve tribes. Compare Joshua 4:3, Joshua 4:9, Joshua 4:20. Exodus 24:5 And he sent young men. The Levitical priesthood not being as vet instituted, either all the people were regarded as holy, and so any one might offer sacrifice, or the "young men" selected may have been of the number of the first-born, who were priests in their respective families until the appointment of Aaron and his sons to be priests of the nation (Exodus 28:1). No doubt young men were selected as most competent to deal with struggling animals. Exodus 24:6 Moses took half of the blood. The blood, which symbolised the life of the victim, was the essential part of every sacrifice, and was usually poured over the altar, or at any rate sprinkled upon it, as the very crowning act of offering. (See Le Exodus 1:5; Exodus 3:8; etc.) On this occasion Moses retained half of the blood, and put it in basins, for the purpose of so uniting all the people in the sacrifice, and thereby the more solemnly pledging them to the covenant, which the sacrifice at once consecrated and consummated. (See Hebrews 9:18-20.) The other half of the blood was, according to the usual practice, sprinkled upon the altar. Exodus 24:7 And he took the Book of the Covenant. In this book we have the germ of the Holy Scriptures—the first "book" actually mentioned as written in the narrative of the Bible. Genesis may contain other older documents, inserted by Moses, under the sanction of the Holy Spirit, in his compilation. But his own composition, if we except the burst of poesy called forth by the passage of the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1-18), would seem to have commenced with "the Book of the Covenant." Upon this nucleus the rest of the law was based; and it was to explain and enforce the law that Moses composed the Pentateuch. In the audience of the people, Literally, "in the ears of the people," which is equally intelligible, and more graphic. And they said, etc The people made the same answer as before (verse 3), adding a general promise of obedience to all that God might command in future. Exodus 24:8 Moses then proceeded to the final act—He took the blood from the basins, and sprinkled it—not certainly upon all the people, who numbered above two millions—but upon their leaders and representatives, the "elders" and other chief men, drawn up at the head of each tribe, and thus brought within his reach. It has been supposed by some that he merely sprinkled the blood on the twelve pillars, as representing the twelve tribes; but, had this been the case, the expression in the text would probably have been different. We read, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that he "sprinkled both the book, and all the people" (Hebrews 9:19). As he sprinkled, he said, Behold the blood of the covenant, etc. It was a common practice among the nations of antiquity to seal covenants with blood. Sometimes the blood was that of a victim, and the two parties to the covenant prayed, that, if they broke it, his fate might be theirs (Hom. 1l. 3.298; 19.252; Leviticus 1:24; 21:45; etc.). Sometimes it was the blood of the two parties themselves, who each drank of the other’s blood, and thereby contracted a blood-relationship, which would have made their breaking the covenant more unpardonable (Herod. 1.74; 4.70; Tacit. Ann. 12.47). Moses seems to have followed neither practice at all closely, but, adopting simply the principle that a covenant required to be sealed with blood, to have arranged the details as he thought best. By the sprinkling of both the altar and the people the two parties to the covenant were made partakers of one and the same blood, and so brought into a sort of sacramental union. Exodus 24:3-8 Man’s readiness to enter into covenant with God, and promise unlimited obedience. In any covenant which God proposes to man, the advantages offered to him are so great, and the requirements made of him so manifestly "holy, just, and good," that it is almost impossible that he should calmly consider the terms and reject them. It is his natural instinct to exclaim—"All that the Lord hath said I will do, and be obedient." There are many reasons for this feeling, of which the following are some:— I. THE IS MORALLY BOUND TO OBEY ITS CREATOR. That which an intelligent agent has made belongs to him absolutely, and cannot resist his will without rebellion. Now, "it is God that has made us, and not we ourselves." We are his, whether we choose to obey him or no—his to punish or reward—to kill or make alive—to exalt to happiness or condemn to misery. We cannot resist his will without being self-condemned. The reasons which make disobedience to a father morally wrong tell with increased force if applied to God, who is far more truly than our father,— 1. The author of our existence; 2. The preserver of our life; and 3. The bestower upon us of favours and benefits which we cannot possibly repay. II. MAN’S BEST ARE BY A PERFECT . Every law ever imposed by God on man has been imposed for man’s sake, and tends to his advantage. If a man were truly wise, he would lay down for himself as rules of conduct exactly those laws which are laid down for his guidance in Holy Scripture. The man whose obedience approaches nearest to perfection is the happiest. For every act of disobedience there is a natural penalty. III. THE HIGHEST OF MAN’S NATURE IS TO DO GOD’S WILL. Angels have no other desire but this. Man has a thousand desires, but, together with them, has an inward conviction that it is better for him to resist than to gratify the greater number. His passions draw him one way, his reason another, his affections, perhaps, a third. He has no unmixed satisfaction but in following the lead of the highest principle within him; and this principle is the love of God, which prompts him to make it the sole object of his life to please God by so acting as God would have him. Man, therefore, readily promises obedience—as of old at Sinai, so now at baptism and confirmation, or, again, after a sudden conversion; and, under the excitation of stirred feelings and an awakened conscience, imagines that he will keep to his brave resolve; but when the excitement is past, and the feelings have calmed down, and the tame, dull course of ordinary life is entered upon, then it is found not so easy to observe the promises made, and "do all that the Lord has said, and be obedient." The flagrant contrast between the conduct of the Israelites and their words is known to all. The contrast is, perhaps, less, but it is still great, between the pledges given by Christians and their acts. Performance ever lags far behind promise. "The spirit, indeed, is willing, but the flesh is weak." Temptations assail—Satan spreads his wiles—the lower nature turns traitor, and men fall away. Happy, if, while there is still time, they "return and repent, and do the first works," anti casting themselves upon Christ obtain pardon for their disobedience from the ever-merciful God. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 24:1-2, Exodus 24:9-11 The vision of God for the selected few. I. THOSE FOR THIS VISION. That Moses himself went up was a matter of course. It was good for him to be there for the strengthening of his own faith. He himself would rejoice in the assurance thus given that the promise of the people was accepted. As to those who went up with him, it is clear that in the revelation something was being done to prepare them for official positions afterwards. They got this glorious sight not because they deserved it more than others, but because they needed it more. Moses required helps in order that he might be a mediator between God and the whole nation, and so these men, the seventy elders in particular, needed help in acting as mediators between Moses and the people. Doubtless it was intended that they should go down again among the people and be witnesses as to what they had seen. Would it not give an elder greater influence in after days if the people took knowledge of him that he had been with Moses in the mount? Notice, that in spite of this great revelation, Aaron soon fell away into the great transgression of the golden calf, and a little later Nadab and Abihu perished before the Lord for their disobedience. And may we not say that their sin was all the greater, just because they had been favoured with a privilege which they had failed to profit by? II. THE VISION ITSELF. "They saw the God of Israel." There is a mysterious yet most instructive reticence as to exactly what it was that they saw. As to what shape and form were seen nothing is said; and even concerning the circumstances nothing more is ventured than an indication o! the sapphire work on which he stood. And since we find this reticence of description it behoves us to put corresponding restraint on our conjectures: we may infer that the purpose of this vision was to give a plain and encouraging contrast between what was now seen and what had been seen before. When God’s people are at peace with him—and there was a symbolic peace at this time—then there is a cessation of such terrorising manifestations as we read of in Exodus 19:1-25. When we see all that strange mingling of terrible darkness, light, and sound, which make up the thunderstorm, we know that Nature is striving to recover her balance. That balance recovered, the body of heaven resumes its clearness; nay it often appears in even more than its accustomed beauty. All the dark and frowning appearances of God, all things that shake and confuse the soul, are meant to lead on to a calming and attracting revelation of God such as this revelation to Aaron and his companions but feebly typifies. First, the presence of God is made known amid thunder, lightning and smoke, and everything trembles to its centre at but the touch of his feet: then there is the change to where he is lifted clean above the polluting earth. Instead of disturbance there is unruffled peace, the beauty and profundity of the cloudless heaven. Thus by this outward symbol should we think of the quiet, untroubled heart where dwells the reconciled God. The more complete that reconciliation, the more settled the peace which we have with God, the more may the state of our hearts be indicated by the language which is here employed. III. THE OF THIS CHOSEN COMPANY DURING THE VISION. 1. They were made to feel unmistakably God’s benignity towards them. He did not lay his hand upon them. That they were not swiftly stretched in death upon the mountain side is spoken of as if in itself a subject of congratulation. The negative must come before the positive. The thought of complete salvation from danger must precede the thought of positive growth and enrichment. It was scarcely credible that men should see God and live. How dependent we are for our conclusions on narrow experiences, sometimes on most superstitious fears! The day is coming when, if we only accept all purifying ministrations, we shall not only see God and live, but also wonder that so long we should have been able to live without seeing him. 2. This benignity is particularly experienced in their being allowed to eat and drink before God. It is in the companionship of the table that social intercourse is commonly supposed to reach its perfection. This eating and drinking before God indicated that a certain composure of mind had been attained, and that the company had some real enjoyment of the position in which it was placed. There is a setting forth of the Divine blessing which ever rests on true fellowship of the saints. As many as are right with God personally are drawn together for united enjoyment as well as for united service. There is no place where the hearts of men are really one but when they are gathered before him who has the sapphire work under his feet. There, and there only, do we find the secret of that penetrating harmony which dissolves and utterly destroys all discords.—Y. The terms of the covenant accepted. I. OBSERVE HOW CLEARLY THESE TERMS HAD BEEN STATED. Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. All the way to Sinai the people had the opportunity of seeing the power of Jehovah; at Sinai something of his glory had been manifested; and now in these words and judgments the character and will of Jehovah were made known. It is observable that at their first approach to Sinai the people had expressed their willingness to be obedient to God (Exodus 19:8). But he does not seek to bind them. down by a formal contract until he has made clear the laws under which he would have them to live. it is well for us to bear in mind that God distinctly and emphatically states all things of practical and present importance. We indeed may have a very imperfect understanding of his statements; but the statements in themselves are perfectly plain, only requiring that our minds should be brought into a right state of humility, and concentrated upon the study of God’s holy commandments with the requisite degree of attention. II. OBSERVE ALSO THE WAY IN WHICH THESE TERMS HAD BEEN . The people answered with one voice. There was a remarkable unanimity. Are we to take it that there was a complete, universal, cordial shout of acceptance? There is no reason to suppose otherwise, no reason to suppose but that a profound impression had been made on every mind. Not the slightest word appears to indicate discord. But of course, although there was no discord in the expression, there was great diversity in the state of mind which underlay the shout of acceptance. The emotion finding vent in this unanimous acceptance could be traced back in a few instances to a thoroughly awakened conscience, desiring to live a thoroughly righteous life, and be in true and complete conformity to the will of God; for there were men of David’s spirit long before David’s time. But in how many was there nothing more than the inconsiderate shout of those who, after all God had said, had yet not the slightest knowledge of his will! And yet with all these profound differences the superficial enthusiastic agreement evidently served a purpose. For not only was there a word, but also a highly significant and impressive deed. Notice that all the preparations in the way of altar, pillars, offerings, etc; made so carefully by Moses, are not said to have been made by God’s commandment. The most we can say is, that they were not out of harmony with his will. They were a visible representation, a kind of writing out of the great contract into which the people thus entered. There stood the altar signifying the presence of God, and there the pillars signifying the twelve tribes, and there was the blood with its principle of life joining together, in a glorious unity, Jehovah and his people. The great and lamentable differences underneath are neither forgotten nor underrated; but for the time they are not regarded. The unity of feeling thus seemed was made to serve a great symbolic purpose. These people, by word and deed, by the erection of these pillars, and by the acceptance of the sprinkled blood, took part in a great historic act, and declared that they were the people of God in a way the consequences of which they could not afterwards escape. III. Observe this very remarkable thing—THAT GOD SHOULD HAVE THEIR . He knew how much and how little it meant, and yet he did not point out the rashness of the utterance, he did not interfere with the symbolic actions by which Moses more deliberately set forth the adhesion of the people. We are bound, therefore, to conclude that in whatever ignorance and sudden enthusiasm the people might subscribe to this covenant, yet that subscription was right. The laws that God gave from Sinai are the laws for men to live by. The constitution of God’s kingdom was by this great symbolic act solemnly introduced into Israel, and made the constitution of Israel also. Every nation, if it is to be anything more than a mere crowd, must have a constitution. Some constitutions grow, and like all things that grow, they occasionally branch out in unexpected directions. Other constitutions, men meet together to determine and formulate, like that of the American republic. But here is a constitution which comes down out of heaven from God; and in a great historic act, the nation into which it comes accepts it. Hence those born under that constitution were bound to accept it also. There was no nation on the face of the earth that had such securities, privileges, and prospects as Israel had under these laws from Sinai. The government was neither a despotism nor a democracy. The people were neither under an arbitrary will which might capriciously change, nor did they depend upon their own fluctuating opinions. God, if we might use such an expression, was bound by these laws, even as the people were themselves.—Y. BY G. A. If any man will do the will he shall know of the doctrine. What a man receives must depend upon what he is able to receive. [illustration. The sponge absorbs more water than the wood, because its pores are more open.] To receive the light of revelation the spiritual pores must be well opened; and this depends upon inward conditions—the will to obey, followed by obedience. Here a revelation is impending. Notice— I. OF THE WOULD-BE . Moses had declared the Divine will. The hearers might have been indifferent, or they might have been disheartened by the stringency of the injunctions. In either case, through their imperfect condition, more perfect light must have been delayed. For a little, however, they were rapt out of self; and though, it may be, the momentary enthusiasm did not pierce clouds which years only could disperse, yet they were ready for the moment to gain a glimpse, at any rate, of the Divine glory. "All the words which the Lord hath said will we do:" such was the utterance of the people’s disposition at the moment. Temporary inclination, however, is not everything; at best it only marks out the way along which effort may compel habit. For a nation to speak with "one voice" is something; but it needs discipline and training to secure the "one heart" as well. The first step towards securing this has next to be taken:— II. AND . A record needed to impress the memory; a sacramental symbol to impress the imagination. 1. The record. "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord," and, when he had read what he had written, the people confirmed their previous promise (Exodus 24:7). A written reminder of the covenant as accepted by them was all-important; a dying enthusiasm goes hand in hand with a waning memory; only a record which will revive the memory can avail to rekindle the enthusiasm. Our own experience illustrates this. The diary, the marked Bible—what a suggestive eloquence they have, not only to remind of old times, but to re-awaken old feelings! 2. The sacramental symbol. Burnt-offerings, the outward sign of dedication and obedience; peace offerings, the outward sign of gratitude and thanksgiving. Half the blood sprinkled on the people and half on the altar, symbol of the union between man and God so long as his commands were thankfully obeyed. So long as man is in the flesh he needs such sensible and visible emblems. His senses are a function of himself; to lay hold of them is to lay hold of him through them. The Bible is our record of what God requires of us; but baptism and the Lord’s Supper give outward expression to the teaching of the Bible. Each confirms the influence of the other; we need both to support our resolutions. III. THE PARTIAL . The people had expressed their willingness to obey; and, further, they had openly confirmed that expression. Time, however, was needed to test and strengthen their resolution: they could not be admitted to the full blaze of light merely because, in partial darkness, they had for a little gazed towards its dawning. A few are selected to represent the multitude (Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:9-11); and even of these few, not all are admitted to equal nearness. Enough is revealed to help faith, more would probably have only injured its growth. [illustration: Plants are kept from too much light until they are firmly rooted.] Faith, here, needed rooting: until that was accomplished an economy of reserve was necessary. Concluding considerations.— 1. The honest promise of obedience is accepted by God as of moral value. He encourages sincerity by glimpses of the reward in store. 2. Only obedience tested by difficulty can win the realisation of the beatific vision. The people must share the life-long training of Moses before they can enjoy with the like freedom his privilege of intimacy with God. Willingness to obey brings knowledge; but full knowledge comes with full obedience.—G. BY J. ORR Exodus 24:3-9 The ratification of the covenant. These verses contain the account of the formal ratification of the covenant between Israel and Jehovah—an event, the most momentous in the history of the nation, big, for weal or woe, with unimaginable issues, and a shadow of the better covenant which God now makes with Christians. Observe— I. THE OF THE . God desires from his people "reasonable service" (Romans 12:1). He would not have them enter it in haste. Vows made under the influence of sudden impressions are not to be trusted. Once committed to his service, God will deal with us with strictness (Exodus 23:21). But he does not wish us to commit ourselves till we have carefully considered the nature of the step we are taking, and the magnitude of the issues involved (cf. Luke 14:26-34). See this illustrated in the history of the covenant with Israel. The covenant was entered into— 1. With great deliberation. It was not forced on Israel. The negotiations connected with it were intentionally drawn out and prolonged, just that the people might have the opportunity of pondering well the character of the proposed engagement. Alike in the events of the exodus, and in the miracles of the desert, they had had abundant experience of the character of the Being with whom they were allying themselves. Arrived at Sinai, preliminary proposals were made to them, and an opportunity given them at the outset of saying Yea or Nay (Exodus 19:3-9). Their acceptance of these proposals was followed by the giving of the law, which drew from them a new promise to do whatever God should speak to them (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27). An interval ensued, during which Moses was in the mountain (Exodus 20:21). On descending, he recites to them "All the words of the Lord, and all the judgments" (Exodus 24:3); and once again they promise full obedience. Even then the matter is allowed to stand over till the morrow, when Moses appears with the written book in his hand, and they are asked, finally, if they adhere to what they have said (Exodus 24:7). Greater precautions against rash committal could scarcely have been taken. 2. After careful instruction. Pains were taken fully to inform the people of the terms of the covenant, before asking them to enter into it. The law was uttered by God’s own voice. The "judgments" were recited to them by Moses. They were read a second time from the "book." Their assent to the covenant was thus sought to be made an intelligent one. If we engage ourselves to God, he would have us do it with "understanding." 3. Amidst impressive solemnities. These—the reading of the words from the book, the sprinkling of the blood, etc.—were of a nature adapted to arouse the minds of the people to a just sense of the momentousness of the transaction. From the whole we learn that if dedication is the result of an act, it should be of a calm, sober, thoughtful act; it cannot be done too solemnly or too intelligently. Our religious life should have a rational basis. II. THE BOND OF THE . The nucleus of the transaction is the people’s promise—"All the words which the Lord hath said will we do" (Exodus 24:3)—"All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient" (Exodus 24:7). There is a tone of rashness—of self-confidence—in this promise, as given by Israel, which forewarns of subsequent defection. The people evidently had but little knowledge of their own hearts. They had little perception of the spiritual requirements of this law. They had not learned to distrust themselves. Their surrender to the Divine will was not thorough or heartwhole. (See on Exodus 19:8.) It remains true, however, that surrender of the will to God, in the spirit of obedience, is an indispensable condition of being received into covenant with him. "The idea of the servant of God is complete only when he who is bound to God also binds himself to God’s will, following God perfectly." (Oehler.) This is as true of the Gospel as of the law. The obedient will is implicit in faith. The end contemplated in salvation is obedience. We are made free from sin that we may become servants of righteousness (Romans 6:18). The recognition of this—the acceptance of the obligation—is involved in conversion, in saving faith, in the new birth, in the coming to Christ, or however else we may express the change from death to life. If we no longer speak of the promise of obedience as the "bond" of the covenant, it is only because that which the Gospel primarily demands of us, viz. faith, goes deeper than such a promise, while implicitly containing it. The object of spiritual trust is, ultimately, God himself, and in the Gospel, Christ, as the sent of God to be the Saviour of the world; but such trust invariably involves the yielding up of the will to God, and is on its practical side, an energy of holiness. The true believer is, of necessity, a doer of the will of the Father. "Faith, without works, is dead" (James 2:17-26). (See further, on Exodus 19:5.) It is, however, well that this implicit element in faith should also be allowed to become explicit in distinct acts of consecration or of self-dedication to God. This brings us very near to what we have in this covenant with Israel. See below. III. THE OF . (1) Moses "builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel" (Exodus 24:4). (2) Young men of his appointment sacrificed burnt-offerings and peace-offerings unto the Lord. (Exodus 24:5). (3) The blood of the sacrificed animals was divided: half was put in basins, and half sprinkled on the altar (Exodus 24:6). (4) The words of the book of the Covenant were next solemnly read in the audience of the people; and the latter renewed their assent to them (Exodus 24:7). (5) The blood was then cast upon the people out of the basins, and the Covenant was declared to be concluded (Exodus 24:8). Two points here claim our attention. 1. The ratifying of the Covenant with sacrifice; and 2. The action with the blood. Both were significant. 1. The sacrifices. The burnt-offering was primarily a symbol of self-surrender (cf. Psalms 51:16-19). The idea embodied here, therefore, was, that in the institution of the Covenant, what was required was the unconditional surrender of the offerer, with all that belonged to him, to God. The peace-offering symbolises reconciliation and fellowship. But the offering of the sacrifices had also a propitiatory reference. This is plain from the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. It is sprinkled there as atoning for the people’s sins. It was through the blood of propitiation that peace was made, that reconciliation was brought about. This teaches several things. It shows (1) That Israel was viewed by God as sinful. (2) That it was not on legal grounds, but as an act of grace, that they were being admitted into covenant. (3) That the covenant embodied grace as well as law. (4) That God. would deal graciously with Israel, if they sincerely endeavoured to keep his law, notwithstanding many defects and failures. (5) That their attitude under the law, in seeking to fulfil its righteousness, ought to be an evangelical, not a legal one, i.e; they ought to draw their motives, their encouragement, and their hope, not from the thought of their self-sufficiency to keep the law, or from the idea that they were actually keeping it in such a way as legally to entitle them to the blessing, but from the conviction of God’s mercy to them, which, as it was the foundation of their national existence, so was it the real ground of their standing all along. 2. The sprinkling of the blood on the people. It is, as Keil remarks, the one blood which is sprinkled on the altar and on the people; and it is not sprinkled on the people, till it has been presented and accepted on the altar. Applied to the people, the blood had the effect of formally cleansing them from sin, and of consecrating them to God’s service. God thereafter claimed them as his special property. Redeemed life is his. Made free from sin, we become servants of God (Romans 6:22).—J.O. Exodus 24:7, Exodus 24:8 Consecration. By the sprinkling of the blood of sacrifice, and by their voluntary acceptance of obligations to obedience, the children of Israel became, formally, the people of Jehovah. They had avouched themselves to be the Lord’s. They had taken on them the vows of his service. They were now consecrated to be doers of his will. The same idea of consecration is embodied in the New Testament word "saint." The believer is one of a sanctified, a consecrated, a priestly people, set specially apart "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5). Consider— I. THE NATURE OF . Consecration, as a Christian duty, involves three ideas—separation from evil, devotement to God, and ceaseless pursuit of holiness in heart and life. It has its ground in the fact of redemption, and in the sense of God’s mercies. The consecrated heart then becomes a sanctuary in which God dwells by his Holy Spirit; while this sacred indwelling in turn becomes a new source of obligations to holiness. The holiness we are to aim at is a holiness like God’s own—nothing lower (1 Peter 1:15, 1 Peter 1:16). Consecration, if never so complete as the Christian could wish, may always be perfect, at least in aim, in spirit, in intention, in desire. We are expected, like Caleb, to follow the Lord fully. The Divine ideal is the absolute consecration of him who said—"Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work" (Hebrews 10:9; John 4:34). "I would rather," says Spurgeon, "my child had a perfect copy to write by, though he might never equal it, than that he should have an imperfect copy set before him, because then he would never make a good writer at all." The Scriptural idea of consecration comes out in the light of the usage of the cognate word—"sanctify." God himself is the fountain of sanctity or holiness. The whole Mosaic ritual was a grand apparatus for impressing this thought of God’s holiness upon the minds of his worshippers. Everything to be used in his service, as contaminated by sin, required to be purged with blood (Hebrews 9:21). To this, in special cases, succeeded an anointing with oil (Exodus 30:25-32). Thus purged and anointed, the sanctuary, person, sacred vessel, or whatever it might be, was regarded as completely sanctified; in other words, as separated from common uses to the service of a holy God. The High Priests and Levites of the Old Covenant were all thus specially sanctified to God. But these things were only shadows; we have the realities corresponding to them under the New Covenant. If a man is really in Christ, he is already, by God’s act, through the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, and the holy anointing of the Spirit, a consecrated person, and ought to regard himself as such. This is the Divine side of the matter. There is clearly, however, a vast difference between the consecration of a mere utensil, say the golden candlestick, or the pots and vessels of the sanctuary, and the consecration of a living, moral, intelligent being. A material thing is sanctified simply by the act of setting it apart to sacred uses; its nature admits of nothing more. But the consecration of a moral being implies an act on his own part, as well as on God’s, else the consecration has no reality; it is such only in name and form. The essence of it lies in a free, cheerful, self-dedication of the person (of. Romans 12:1). Here, then, are two sides of this subject, the Divine and human—the ideal and the real—which two sides are constantly reappearing in Scripture, sometimes apart, sometimes blending together, sometimes standing side by side, almost with the force of contradictions, e.g; "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (1 Corinthians 5:7). In short, God’s consecration gives us a standing and an ideal; but it is only as we consciously accept this standing and ideal as our own, and seek to give them reality by self-dedication, and the strenuous pursuit of holiness, that our consecration becomes truly effectual. God’s consecration of us becomes, so to speak, the ground of our own consecration of ourselves, and of constant striving after that perfection which is implied in the ideal he sets before us. Hence all those manifold Scripture images which imply sanctification as a process, and a work of God’s grace constantly going on within us. II. OF . We come back to the old point that consecration, regarded as a duty, is a personal act whereby, out of a sense of God’s mercies, and specially his grace in redemption, a believer solemnly dedicates himself and all that he has to the service and glory of God. Such consecration, with the surrender of the obedient will, is already, as seen in the previous homily, implicit in every exercise of saving faith. Great moral advantages, however, accrue from making one’s consecration to Christ a distinct solemn act, again and again to be repeated, each time, we shall hope, with more perfect self-surrender; and the remembrance of which is to go along with us in the discharge of every duty. This corresponds pretty nearly to the meaning of the Israelitish covenant. Consecration is the basis of acceptable service. (1) Consecration of self precedes all other consecrations; as of time, substance, talents, service, etc. It is only where self is consecrated, that the consecration of anything else is acceptable. What St. Paul says of charity, that without it all special gifts and acts, even feeding the poor, or giving his body to be burned, are valueless, we may say with equal truth of self-dedication. It is self God wants—the love, reverence, devotion, service of self; not a mere share of self’s possessions. On the other hand (2) the consecration of self includes all other consecrations. If we are God’s, then all is God’s that is ours. Our time is God’s; so is our money, our talents, our influence, everything we have. Let Christians ask, whether, in this view of the matter, consecration is in their case being carried out into all its legitimate results. Not that God desires "a gift;" but he desires "fruit that may abound to our account" (Philippians 4:17). Consecration secures nobler service; it is likewise a source of immense strength in the active pursuit of holiness. In any course of conduct, we know the value of a definite purpose and aim. Most of all is it important to have as the clear, definite motto of our lives—"To me to live is Christ." We know then exactly what we are living for. Consecration invests a man’s whole being with a sanctity from which evil shrinks back repelled. The same sanctity spreads itself over all he has and does. He feels that he must be holy "in all manner of conversation." Even on the bells of his horses he sees something written, "holiness to the Lord." He has "holy garments;" and his great business is to watch and keep his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame (Revelation 16:15). His body is the temple of the Holy Ghost; and he dare not desecrate with worldly pollutions the place where God dwells. He has definitely separated himself from evil; and he must not return to it. Consecration resolves questions of casuistry. How often do we find good people, or people who wish to be good, puzzling and perplexing themselves with questions of this kind—Dare I read this book? Should I go to this party? May I engage in this amusement? Can I take this profit? Unless we greatly mistake, most of these difficulties would disappear with more perfect consecration. A truly consecrated man carries in his breast a principle which easily guides him through all such cases, and makes many things right and pure to him which others would stumble at, while it leads him to discountenance and condemn much that they would pass unnoticed. Finally, consecration is absolutely essential to success in prayer. The heart that has not said—"All for Christ," is in no fit state to approach God’s throne to supplicate blessings for Christ’s sake. There must be iniquity hidden away in that heart somewhere; and "if I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" (Psalms 66:18). But the consecrated man, as a true priest of God, has free access to the holiest of all. He asks what he will, and it is given him. Prayer, indeed, is no prayer, unless it is the outcome of a heart which is the seat of deep consecration, and where the Lord is habitually sanctified. Only to such prayer are the promises yea and amen. From all this, it is manifest that consecration pertains to the deepest essence of religion. Yet many feel as if sometimes they could almost close with Christ, were it not for this very matter of consecration. Their hearts are still clinging to something which God requires them to forego; and clinging to this, they rightly judge that they cannot be Christ’s disciples. Let them reflect that for this something they sacrifice eternal life.—J.O. BY H. T. Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2, Exodus 24:9-11 The Covenant made. 1. THE VISION OF GOD (1, 2, 9, 11).— 1. It is for the called alone. God manifests himself only to the repentant and the believing. 2. These are commanded to approach. This is our warrant for confident boldness of access: he has called us. 3. The vision is bestowed upon those from whose midst the mediator has gone into God’s immediate presence and who wait his return (Exodus 24:2). 4. It is given as they go upwards into the mount where the Lord’s will is declared (9). The heart which seeks after holiness admits the light in which God will by-and-by be manifested. 5. The vision is sure: "they saw the God of Israel." 6. For the called the vision of God is not destruction, but safety and joy. We meet the unveiling, not only of infinite holiness, but also of infinite love. The vision of the Divine glory was a wonder and delight; and the place of vision became a place of feasting. II. THE OF THE .— 1. It was made with a willing people: "all the words which the Lord hath said will we do." 2. It was made with a people who were in possession of God’s testimonies: he "told them all the words of the law," he "wrote all the words of the Lord." God’s light must reveal sin and need before it may manifest his salvation. 3. God and his people are bound together by the blood of accepted sacrifice. The blood of sprinkling is peace and power to the saved.—U. THE FEAST AND THE VISION OF GOD. After the covenant had been ratified by the unanimous voice of the people, Moses proceeded to carry out the injunctions with respect to Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the elders, which he had received while still in the mount (see the comment on Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2). Taking them with him, he ascended Sinai once more to a certain height, but clearly not to the summit, which he alone was privileged to visit (Exodus 24:2 and Exodus 24:12). The object of the ascent was twofold. 1. A sacrificial meal always followed upon a sacrifice; and the elders might naturally desire to partake of it as near the Divine presence as should be permitted them. This was their purpose in ascending. 2. God desired to impress them with a sense of his awful majesty and beauty, and was prepared for this end to manifest himself to them in some strange and wonderful way as they were engaged in the solemn meal (Exodus 24:11). This was his purpose in inviting their presence. The manifestation is described in Exodus 24:10. It was a "vision of God," but of what exact nature it is impossible to say. Having recorded it, the author parenthetically notes that the Divine vision did not destroy any of those who beheld it, or cause them any injury, as might have been expected. Exodus 24:9 Then went up. Compare Exodus 24:1. The mountain was to be partially ascended, but not to any great height. Nadab, Abihu, and the elders were to "worship God afar off." Exodus 24:10 They saw the God of Israel. These words can scarcely mean less than that they saw with their bodily eyes some appearance of the Divine being who had summoned them to his presence for the purpose. Moses, we know, saw a "similitude of God" (Numbers 12:8). Isaiah "saw the Lord sitting upon his throne "(Isaiah 6:1). Ezekiel saw upon the throne "the appearance of a man" (Ezekiel 1:26). It does not follow from Deuteronomy 4:12, Deuteronomy 4:15, that the elders saw no similitude, since in that passage Moses is speaking, not to the elders, but to the people, and referring, not to what occurred at the sacrificial feast after the ratification of the covenant, but to the scene at the giving of the Ten Commandments previously (Exodus 20:1-18). What the form was which the elders saw, we are not told; but as it had "feet," it was probably a human form. It may have been hazy, indefinite, "too dazzling bright for mortal eye" to rest upon. But it was a true "vision of God"—and, as Keil says, "a foretaste of the blessedness of the sight of God in eternity." There was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of a sapphire stone. Rather, "and under his feet was, as it were, a work of clear sapphire." Nothing is said concerning a pavement, but only that below the feet of the figure which they saw was something, which looked as if it were made of bright blue sapphire stone, something as clear and as blue as the blue of heaven. Canon Cook supposes the actual sky to be meant; but the expression, "as it were, the body of heaven," or "like the very heaven," makes this impossible. A thing is not like itself. Exodus 24:11 The nobles—i.e; the notables—the seventy elders, and other persons, already mentioned (Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:9). He laid not his hand. God did not smite them with death, or pestilence, or even blindness. It was thought to be impossible to see God and live. (See above, Genesis 32:30; Exodus 32:20; Judges 6:22, Judges 6:23, etc.) Man was unworthy to draw near to God in any way; and to look on him was viewed as a kind of profanity. Yet some times he chose to show himself, in vision or otherwise, to his people, and then, as there could be no guilt on their part, there was no punishment on his. It is generally supposed that, in all such eases, it was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who condescended to show himself. Also they saw God. Rather, "they both saw God, and did eat and drink." The two were simultaneous. As they were engaged in the sacrificial meal, God revealed himself to them. Exodus 24:9-11 The Covenant Meal on Sinai. The Old Testament contains no mention of any other meal so wonderful as this. Newly entered into covenant with God, fresh from the blood of sprinkling, which was representative of the blood of Christ, Moses, Aaron with his two sons, and the seventy elders, half-way up Sinai, engaged in the sacrificial feast upon the peace-offerings (Exodus 24:5), when lo! the heaven was opened to them, and there burst upon their astonished sight a vision of Jehovah in his glory and his beauty, standing on pellucid sapphire, dazzling in its brilliance. As the meat and drink entered their mouths, God shone in upon their souls. It was indeed a "wondrous festivity," and certainly not without a spiritual meaning, extending to all time, and even beyond time into eternity. Surely, we may say, without over-great boldness, or any undue prying into holy things:— I. THAT THE MEAL WAS A TYPE OF THAT DIVINE FEAST WHICH THE LOUD ON THE NIGHT OF HIS , FOR THE OF HIS PEOPLE. The Holy Communion is a feast upon a sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ—partaken of by Christians as the most solemn rite of their religion, in the wilderness of this life, for their better sustentation and support through its trials. It brings them very near to him, as it were into his presence. As they partake of the bread and wine, they partake of him; his light shines into their souls; his beauty and glory are revealed to their spirits; they obtain a foretaste of heaven. Blessed is the man who thus eats and drinks in his kingdom—eating and drinking and seeing God. II. THAT THE MEAL WAS, FURTHER, A TYPE OF THAT -SUPPER OF THE LAMB, HEREOF ALL THE SHALL ONE DAY PARTAKE IN HEAVEN (Revelation 19:7-9). There the saints shall eat and drink in the Divine presence, their meat the heavenly manna, angels’ food, their drink the wine which they "drink new" in their Father’s kingdom. The glory of God shall shine on them. For the place of their dwelling "has no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it;" for it is "the glory of God that lightens it, and the Lamb that is the light thereof" (Revelation 21:23). The sapphire of Sinai has there its counterpart; for "the first foundation" of the city wherein they dwell "is jasper, and the second sapphire" (Revelation 21:19). The Divine presence is with them perpetually; for the "throne"of God is there, and they "see his face," and "his Name is in their foreheads" (Revelation 22:4). Thrice blessed they who attain to this heavenly feast, and are counted worthy of that beatific vision! BY J. ORR Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2, Exodus 24:9-12 A vision of God. Prior to the ratification of the covenant, God had given Moses instructions that, immediately on the conclusion of the ceremonies, he, together with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (representatives of the future priesthood), and seventy of the elders of Israel (representatives of the body of the people), should again ascend the mountain (Exodus 24:1, Exodus 24:2). The design was to partake of a sacrificial feast, perhaps held on the flesh of the peace-offerings of Exo 24:5, by way of solemn conclusion to the proceedings of the day. Another part of the design was that the eiders might receive a new revelation of Jehovah, setting forth the milder glories of his character as a God reconciled with Israel, in contradistinction to the manifestations on Sinai, which revealed him solely as the God of law and terror. The later revelation was the counterbalance of the earlier. It does that justice to the character of God, as standing in friendly relations to his people, which was not possible in harmony with the special design, and within the special limits, of the revelation from the summit of the mount. It showed him as the God of grace. It taught Israel to think of him, to love him, to trust him, and to worship him as such. It kept them from being overwhelmed by the remembrance of the former terrors. It forestalled that view of the graciousness of God which was afterwards peculiarly associated with the mercy-seat and with Mount Zion, and is now the aspect of his character predominant in the Gospel (see on Sinai and Zion, Exodus 19:16-19). We are told, accordingly, that when the company ascended the mount, "they saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:10). What they did see is not further described than that "there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness" (Exodus 24:10). The vision, however, was plainly one addressed to the outer or inner sense, an "appearance" of God in some recognisable way. So mild and beneficent was the spectacle, nevertheless, that it seems to have disarmed all terror; and Aaron and his sons, with the "nobles," ate and drank while still witnessing it. We may regard the vision, in its relation to the situation of Israel, as— 1. Declarative. It gave a view of the character of God. (1) To some extent of his essential character. The blue of the sapphire symbolised his holiness, while in the deep, clear ether was mirrored his untroubled purity, his superiority to earthly passion and disturbance, his perfect blessedness, his transcendency over creation, etc. (2) More especially of his gracious character. The idea suggested was that of a God at peace with Israel—reconciled. The vision would be read in its contrast with the previous revelation. The terrors of the law-giving were now laid aside; all is sweetness, beauty, mildness, serenity, love. This vision of God as a God at peace with Israel, is mediated by the offering of sacrifice. It is so also under the Gospel. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). 2. Symbolic of privilege. (1) The "nobles," though in God’s presence, suffered no harm. "Upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand" (Exodus 24:11). He might have done so, for they were by nature sinners. But they were safe, as sprinkled with blood of atonement, and as in presence of a God of mercy. Though sinners, we are permitted in Christ to draw nigh to God. He will not harm us; he will welcome, accept of, and bless us. (2) Though in God’s presence, they "did eat and drink" (Exodus 24:11). They had this freedom before him; this feeling of confidence. It is only the revelation of God as a God of grace which can inspire this confidence. Their eating and drinking was symbolical of the privilege of every pious Israelite, sheltered from his sin in God’s mercy, and taking confidence from his word of grace. Much more is it symbolic of the privilege of Christians, in whom perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). 3. Prefigurative of future blessedness. The goal of the kingdom of God is the feast of perfected bliss in glory, where the saints shall eat and drink and see God with no intervening veils, and in the full beauty of his love and holiness. 4. A warning. These seventy elders ate and drank in God’s presence, yet at last perished in the desert. Nadab and Abihu were consumed by fire. Cf. the warning (Luke 13:26, Luke 13:27). Lessons— 1. The vision of God in Christ disarms fear. 2. Let us try to see God, even in our eating and drinking (1 Corinthians 10:31). 3. Those sheltered by Christ’s blood are safe. Note the following—" (1) There are those who eat and drink, and do not see God. (2) There are those who see God, and cannot eat and drink. (3) There are those who eat and drink, and see God" (Rev. W.B. Robertson, D.D.).—J.O. MOSES’ ENTRY INTO THE CLOUD, AND FORTY DAYS’ COMMUNE WITH GOD. It was necessary now that Moses should receive full directions for the external worship of God, the sanctuary, and the priesthood. Every religion has something tangible and material about it—holy places, holy things, rites, ceremonies, rules, forms, regulations. If man sets himself to devise these things of his own head, he may very easily go wrong, and find his elaborate inventions "an offence" to God. To avoid this—to secure the result that all should be pleasing and acceptable to "the High and Holy One which inhabiteth eternity," it was thought fitting that "patterns" should be shown to Moses of all that was to be made for the worship (Hebrews 8:5), and exact details given him with respect to the material, size, shape, and construction of each. The results are put before us in seven chapters (chs. 25-31.). For the purpose of allowing ample time for the communications which had to be made and of securing that undivided attention which was requisite in order that all should remain fixed in the memory, God summoned his servant to a long and solitary colloquy, on the mountain summit whereon the cloud rested (Exodus 19:18), apart from all his people. Moses, of course, obeyed; but before ascending, arranged with the elders that in his absence Aaron and Hur should have the direction of affairs, and decide all doubtful questions (Exodus 24:14). He then went up the mountain, accompanied for part of the way by Joshua, who is now spoken of as his "minister," or "attendant" (verse 13). Joshua probably remained with him for six days, while Moses waited for a summons to enter the cloud. On the seventh day the summons came: and Moses, leaving Joshua, entered the cloud, and was hid from the sight of all men. Exodus 24:12 Come up to me. Moses, apparently, had descended again into the plain, with Aaron and the seventy elders, after the festival was over. (See Exodus 24:14, and compare Exodus 32:1.) He is now commanded to reascend, and be there—i.e; "And continue there"—foreshadowing the length of the stay. Tables of stone, and a law, and commandments, etc. Literally, "Tables of stone, and the law and the commandments which I have written." The three expressions alike refer to the Decalogue, which alone God wrote. That thou mayest teach them. Rather," to teach them." God wrote the commandments on stone, in order to inculcate them with the greater force upon his people. Exodus 24:13 Moses went up. Prompt to obey, Moses, though he had only just descended from the mount, immediately made ready to set forth and again ascend it. This time he was attended by his minister, Joshua, whose arm he had employed on a former occasion against the Amalekites (Exodus 17:9-13). The name, Joshua, is, however, still given him by anticipation, since he did not receive it until he was sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:8, Numbers 13:16). Exodus 24:14 And he said unto the elders. Before taking his departure for the long sojourn implied in God’s address to him, "Come up to me into the mount, and be there" (Exodus 24:12), Moses thought it necessary to give certain directions to the elders as to what they should do in his absence— 1. They were to remain where they were—i.e; in the plain at the foot of Sinai, until his return, however long it should be delayed. 2. They were to regard Aaron and Hur as their leaders, and his (Moses’) representatives. In case of any difficulty arising, they were to refer the matter to them. On Hur see the comment upon Exodus 17:12. Exodus 24:15 Moses went up into the mount. Having made the necessary arrangements for the government of the people during his absence, Moses ascended, in company with Joshua, to the upper part of the mountain, and there waited for some further summons. A cloud, or, rather, the cloud previously mentioned (Exodus 19:16), stood gathered upon the highest eminence, and marked the special presence of God there. Moses, though called up into the mount, would not intrude into this inner sanctuary, until specially bidden to enter it. Exodus 24:16 Now occurred a remarkable pause. The summons had been given to Moses, and he had obeyed it. He was there on the platform a little below the summit, ready, but waiting for a further call. The call was not made for six days. A holy calm reigned upon Sinai—the cloud rested upon the summit, and in the cloud was the glory of the Lord. Moses and Joshua waited near—but for six days there was no sign. God thus taught Moses, and through him the world, that near approach to him requires long and careful preparation. Moses, no doubt, was occupied during the six days in continual prayer. At last, on the seventh day, the call, which Moses had expected, came. God called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. God summoned him to a closer approach—bade him enter the cloud—and draw as nigh to him as possible. Exodus 24:17 Meanwhile, to those below in the plain, "the glory of the Lord" on the summit above them, was like devouring fire on the top of the mount. They had but to lift their eyes thither, and they saw his wonderful glory—showing like a huge fire—on the spot from which he had spoken to them (Exodus 20:18). This manifestation continued certainly for the first six days; whether it lasted longer or not is open to question. Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud. Quitting Joshua, Moses at last, in obedience to the call out of the midst of the cloud, entered within its shadow and disappeared from human vision In this abnormal condition, alone with God, he continued for thirty-four days, making, together with the six days before he entered the cloud, the forty days and forty nights of the text before us. It is noted in Deuteronomy 9:9, that during the whole of this time he was without food. Compare Elijah’s fast (1 Kings 19:8), and our blessed Lord’s (Matthew 3:2). Exodus 24:12-18 Prolonged commune with God. Prolonged commune with God is the soul’s truest strengthening, and sweetest refreshment. Without it our spirits languish—we grow weary and faint—worldliness creeps upon us—our thoughts and discourse become "of the earth, earthy"—we have no life or liveliness in ourselves, and can impart none to others. Moses’ commune was abnormal, extraordinary, inimitable by us in its main features—its duration, locality, nearness of access, and completeness of isolation. But it may serve as a pattern to us in many respects, nevertheless. I. IN THE FOR IT. Here we note (1) a ready heart. "Moses rose up"—did not delay, did not offer objections, did not say, "Suffer me first" to do this or that, but responded to the call of God at once. (2) A thoughtful regard for others. Moses instructed the ciders how to act while he was away. "Tarry ye here"—"Seek ye to Aaron and Hur, if ye have matters to do." (3) A willingness to help others towards the higher life, to carry them on with him, as far as he might. "Moses rose up, and his minister, Joshua. (4) A patient and reverential waiting. Summoned, called up, bidden to draw near, he yet rested for six days outside the cloud, longing to enter in, but withheld by a sense of unworthiness and a fear of intrusion, fasting all the while, and seeking to prepare himself for the nearer approach by supplication and meditation. II. IN THE PLACE OF IT. A holy place—"the mount of God"—a place sacred from common uses—into which worldly thoughts could scarcely penetrate. We, who have no Sinai, have at any rate our churches, and other sacred buildings—some of them always open, not merely for public worship, but for private prayer and meditation—inviting us to enter in and draw nigh to God. In our houses we have, or may easily have, our oratories—spots reserved for prayer and praise, and sacred thought—sanctuaries in the desert of life—places in which all that we see will remind us of heavenly things. III. IN THE OF IT. The world was shut out. Relations, elders, people, left below in the plain—left with strict injunctions to remain—"Tarry ye here." Even the faithful Joshua parted from—and "the cloud" entered. The cloud—the awful cloud—"thick darkness" (Exodus 20:21); yet within the darkness a marvellous light. Such seclusion we cannot obtain—but we may obtain an approach to it. We may "enter our closet, and shut to the door" (Matthew 6:6), and let it be known that we would be undisturbed; or we may seek the solitude of a church at an hour when there is no public service, and no one present who will meddle with us; or we may, even at the present day, find solitudes in nature, deep woods, or lone mountain tops, or unfrequented glens, where we may feel ourselves secure from intrusion, and stand face to face with God, and know him near, and pour out our hearts before him. A modern poet, in one of his better moments, says— "My altars are the mountains, and the ocean, Earth, air, sea—all that springs from the Great Whole, Who hath produced, and will receive the soul"— and truly on any lone spot an altar may be raised, and worship offered, as acceptable to God as any that is addressed to him "in pillared fanes, ’neath fretted roofs, ’mid storied glass or sculptured monuments." Even in the whirl and bustle of a great city, solitude is not very far from us. Half an hour’s journey by steamer or rail, and ten minutes’ walk, may take us into still woods, or shady lanes, or on to open heaths, where we shall not see a fellow creature or hear a sound reminding us of man. IV. IN THE OF IT. "Forty days and forty nights!" As we cannot have the complete seclusion which Moses enjoyed, so neither can we look for such sustained commune as his. We must eat and drink—we can rarely leave our worldly work to others—family claims, correspondence, business imperatively require our attention—six weeks’ interruption of communication between ourselves and the outer world would, in most cases, break or tangle all the threads of which our life is composed. But still some prolonged periods of religious contemplation and commune between the soul and God are needed, if the soul is to retain the vigour of its life, or its ability to be of service to others. With this view religious "retreats" have been devised, lasting sometimes a week or ten days. Where men’s duties allow of it, they may be well worth a trial. The weary spirit may derive more refreshment from them than from the ordinary "holiday." The heart may be purified, the aspirations raised, the insight into doctrinal truth augmented, above all, the love of God so intensified in the soul, by the suspension of all secular thought and the devotion of the whole mind to religion and worship, during the three, or five, or seven, or ten days of a "retreat," as would scarcely be possible, under the present conditions of our life, in any other way. BY J. ORR Moses ascends the mount. Observe, 1. He alone ascends (Exodus 24:12). Aaron and his sons, with the seventy elders, were left behind. Their privilege was great as compared with that of the body of the people. Yet even they are not permitted to enter the cloud—to draw nigh into God’s immediate presence. The limitations and imperfections of the legal economy are stamped on these arrangements. How superior the standing of Christians, who are all permitted to draw nigh; who have now the privilege, formerly possessed only by Moses, of beholding with unveiled flee the Divine glory in the ecstasy of immediate vision (2 Corinthians 3:18). 2. The design of this ascending was primarily to receive the stone tables (Exodus 24:12). These were to be written by God’s own finger. God took every pains to impress upon the minds of the people that the law they had to deal with was his law. Its perpetuity was symbolised by the rock tablets. 3. Moses made arrangements for the conduct of business in his absence (Exodus 24:14). His absence would be a trial of the faith and disposition of all parties. 4. The fire still burned on the summit of the mount (Exodus 24:16, Exodus 24:17). This, notwithstanding the vision of Exo 24:10. The economy was outwardly and characteristically one of law; interiorly, one of grace. Even Moses had to wait seven days for the summons (Exodus 24:16).—J.O. BY J. Moses’ sojourn with God the type of Christ’s. I. THE : MOSES THE TYPE OF JESUS. He must needs pass up into God’s presence: "Come up to me … and be there." It is there, in communion with God, that gifts are received for men. The power and blessing we now receive there, are prophecies of the power and glory with which Jesus will come again. 2. He must pass up to receive the law and commandments which God had written. Jesus will return with the perfected will of the Father. 3. The days of seclusion are numbered. Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. We know not how many or few they be; but each hour the coming of the Lord draws nearer. II. THE OF GOD’S PEOPLE . 1. They tarry for the Mediator: "tarry ye here for us until we come again unto you." The attitude of the Churches to-day should be confident, joyous expectation: "this same Jesus will in like manner come again." 2. They are ministered unto by those who tarry with them (Exodus 24:14). (1) The blessing bestowed in these temporary leaders. (2) Their responsibility: let them not be leaders or helpers to the people in their idolatry, as Aaron. III. THE VISION GRANTED THEM. The mountain is covered with clouds; but from the mountain top flames out the glory of the Lord. The eye cannot follow him who has entered within the veil; but we can behold the glory of the Lord, and know that every word of God will be fulfilled.—U. THE AND ITS , THE ATTIRE. THE AND THE GIFTS FOR IT. The great principles of the moral law had been given in the Ten Commandments uttered by God amid the thunders of Sinai. The "Book of the Covenant," or short summary of the main laws, civil, political, and social, had been communicated to Moses, and by him reduced to a written form (Exodus 24:4). A solemn league and covenant had been entered into between God and his people, the people undertaking to keep all the words of the Lord, and God to be their Protector, Guide, and King. But no form of worship had been set up. Abstract monotheism had been inculcated; and worship had been so far touched upon that an "altar" had been mentioned, and certain directions, chiefly negative, had been given with respect to it (Exodus 20:24-26). It remained that the abstract monotheism should be enshrined in forms, obtain a local habitation, and be set forth before the eyes, and so fixed in the heart and affections of the people. God was now about to declare to Moses what the character of the habitation should be, its size, form, and materials. But before doing this, as a first and fitting, if not necessary, preliminary, he required of the people to bring of the best of their possessions for the service which he was about to institute, enumerating the substances which he would condescend to receive at their hands, and especially enjoining upon them that all should be offered willingly and from the heart (Exodus 25:2). Exodus 25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel that they bring me an offering. The word translated "offering" is that commonly rendered" heave-offering;" but it seems to be used here (as in Exodus 30:13; Exodus 35:5, etc.) in a generic sense. The propriety of the people, when God was about establishing his habitation among them, presenting to God all the materials needed, is self-evident and requires no comment. Of every man that giveth it willingly. Literally, "of every man whose heart drives him." God will have no gifts but such as are freely offered. He "loveth a cheerful giver. If a man gives grudgingly or of necessity," God rejects the gift. On the noble spirit which the people showed when the appeal was made to them, see Exodus 35:21-29; and Exodus 36:3 7. Exodus 25:3 This is the offering—gold and silver and brass. Gold was needed for the overlaying of the boards, whereof the ark was composed (Exodus 25:11); for the "crown of gold," which surmounted it (ibid.); for the "rings" (Exodus 25:12); the "mercy-seat" (Exodus 25:17)—the cherubim (Exodus 25:18); the dishes, the spoons, the covers, the bowls (Exodus 25:29); the candlestick (Exodus 25:31); the tongs and snuff dishes (Exodus 25:28); the hooks and taches (Exodus 26:6, Exodus 26:32); for the covering of the table of shew bread (Exodus 25:24); and of the staves and pillars (Exodus 26:28: Exodus 26:32, Exodus 26:37); and also for many parts of the dress of the High Priest (Exodus 28:6, Exodus 28:8, Exodus 28:11, Exodus 28:14, etc.). Silver was required for the sockets which supported the hoards of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:19); and for the "hooks" and "fillets" of the pillars of the court (Exodus 27:10) Brass, or rather bronze, was wanted for the "taches" which coupled together the curtains of the tent (Exodus 26:11); for the "sockets" which received the pillars or tent-poles (Exodus 26:37); for the external coating of the altar (Exodus 27:2); for the vessels and utensils of the altar (Exodus 27:3); for the covering of its staves (Exodus 27:6); for the sockets of the pillars of the Court (Exodus 27:10); for the "pins" of the Court (Exodus 27:19); and generally for the vessels of the Tabernacle (ibid.). To understand how the Israelites could supply all that was wanted, we must remember, 1. That they had a certain amount of ancestral wealth, as that which Joseph had accumulated, and what Jacob and his sons had brought with them into Egypt. 2. That they had received large presents of gold and silver from the Egyptians just before their departure (Exodus 12:35); and 3. That they had recently defeated, and no doubt despoiled, the Amalekites (Exodus 16:8-13). Whether they had further made money by trade since they entered the Sinaitic peninsula, may be doubted. The supposition is not at all needed in order to account for their wealth. Exodus 25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet. Cloths of these three colours seem to be meant. The material was probably wool; the blue dye probably indigo, which was the ordinary blue dye of Egypt; the purple was no doubt derived from one or other of the shell-fish so well-known to the Syrians (of which the one most used was the Murex trunculus), and was of a warm reddish hue, not far from crimson; the scarlet (literally, "scarlet worm" or "worm scarlet,") was the produce of the Corcus ilicis, or cochineal insect of the holm oak, which has now been superseded by the Coccus cacti, or cochineal insect of the prickly pear, introduced into Europe from Mexico. And fine linen. The word used is Egyptian. It seems to have designated properly the fine linen spun from flax in Egypt, which was seldom dyed. and was of a beautiful soft white hue. The fineness of the material is extraordinary, equalling that of the best Indian muslins. It would seem that the Israelite women spun the thread from the flax (Exodus 35:25), and that the skilled workmen employed by Moses wove the thread into linen (Exodus 35:35). And goat’s hair. The soft inner wool of the Angora goat was also spun by the women into a fine worsted (Exodus 35:26), which was woven into cloths, used especially as coverings for tents. Exodus 25:5 And rams’ skins dyed red. The manufacture of leather was well-known in Egypt from an early date, and the Libyan tribes of North Africa were celebrated for their skill in preparing and dyeing the material (Herod. 4.189). Scarlet was one of the colours which they peculiarly affected (ibid.). We must suppose that the skins spoken of had been brought with them by the Israelites cut of Egypt. And badgers’ skins. It is generally agreed among moderns that this is a wrong translation. Badgers are found in Palestine, but not either in Egypt or in the wilderness. The Hebrew takhash is evidently the same word as the Arabic tukhash or dukhash, which is applied to marine animals only, as to seals, dolphins, dugongs, and perhaps sharks and dog-fish. "Seals’ skins" would perhaps be the best translation. Shittim wood. It is generally agreed that the Shittah (plural Shittim) was an acacia, whether the seyal (Acacia seyal) which now grows so abundantly in the Sinaitic peninsula, or the Acacia Nilotica, or the Serissa, is uncertain. The seyal wood is "hard and close-grained of an orange colour with a darker heart, well-adapted for cabinet work;" but the tree, as it exists nowadays, could certainly not furnish the planks, ten cubits long by one and a half wide, which were needed for the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:21). The Serissa might do so, but it is not now found in the wilderness. We are reduced to supposing either that the seyal grew to a larger size anciently than at present, or that the serissa was more widely spread than at the present day. Exodus 25:6 Oil for the light. That the sanctuary to be erected would require to be artificially lighted is assumed. Later, a "candlestick" is ordered (Exodus 25:31-37). The people were to provide the oil which was to be burnt in the "candlestick." In Exodus 27:20, we are told that the oil was to be "pure oil olive beaten." Spices for anointing oil. Anointing oil would be needed for the sanctification of the Tabernacle, the ark, and all the holy vessels, as also for the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. The spices required are enumerated in Exodus 30:23, Exodus 30:24. They consisted of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, sweet calamus, and cassia. And for sweet incense. The spices needed for the incense were, according to our translators, stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense (Exodus 30:34). Exodus 25:7 Onyx stones. On the need of onyx stones, see Exodus 28:9, Exodus 28:20. Stones to be set in the ephod, etc. Rather, "stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastplate." The only stones required for the ephod were two large onyx stones; for the breastplate twelve jewels were needed (Exodus 28:17-20), one of them being an onyx. It has been proposed to translate the Hebrew shoham by "beryl" instead of "onyx;" but onyx, which is more suitable for engraving, is probably right. Exodus 25:1-7 The law of acceptable offerings. For offerings to be acceptable to God, it is necessary— I. THAT THEY BE FREELY OFFERED BY A WILLING HEART. Offerings were to be taken of those "whose heart drove them to it" (compare Tennyson—"His own heart drove him, like a goad"), not of others. There was to be no tax—no church rate. The entire tent-temple was (with one unimportant exception) to be the produce of a free offertory. Thus was generosity stirred in the hearts of the people, and emulation excited. They gave so liberally that they had to be "restrained from bringing" (Exodus 36:6). This is noble and acceptable service, when no exhortation is required, no persuasion, no "pressing"—but each man stirs himself up, and resolves to do the utmost that he can, not seeking to obtain the praise of men, but desirous of the approval of God. A like spirit animated those who lived in David’s time (1 Chronicles 29:6-9); and again those who returned from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:68, Ezra 2:69; Nehemiah 7:70-72). II. THAT THEY BE OF THINGS IN THEIR KIND, AND THE BEST THAT WE POSSESS OF EACH. All that is rich and rare, all that is lovely and beautiful, all that is expensive and magnificent, is suitable for an offering to God. We must not "give to Into of that which costs us nothing." We must not offer "the blind, and the lame, and the sick" (Malachi 1:8) to him. Things excellent in their kind befit his service. Gold and silver, of metals; of fabrics, silk, and velvet, and fine linen; of woods, cedar, and acacia, and olive, and sandal-wood; of stones, ruby and diamond, and emerald; of spices, myrrh, and cinnamon, and cassia, and frankincense. Each, however, can only give what he has. Cedar, and olive, and sandal-wood were unattainable in the desert, and so acacia sufficed; silk and velvet were unknown, wherefore God accepted linen and woollen fabrics, and goat’s hair; rubies and diamonds were uncut, so God was content with emeralds and sapphire, and onyx. The widow’s mite pleases him, as much as the alabaster box of spikenard very precious, or the price of an estate brought and laid at the apostles’ feet. If men "have little," he is content when they "give gladly of that little," provided still that they give him of their best. And this is true of other offerings besides material ones. The best of our time should be his—the fair promise of youth—the strength of manhood—not the weakness of decrepitude. The best of our powers should be his—our warmest affections, our intensest thoughts, our highest aspirations—not the dull tame musings of an exhausted and jaded spirit. Each man should seek to consecrate to God’s service the best that he possesses in intellect, in knowledge, in fortune. III. THAT THEY BE SUCH IN KIND AS HE HAS HIS TO ACCEPT. There were "unclean animals" which were an abomination if offered to God. There are gifts of intellect, valuable in their way, which are unsuitable for the service of the sanctuary. Many a picture of the highest power, and exhibiting the greatest genius, would be out of place in a church. God points out with sufficient clearness in his holy word, the kinds of gifts with which he is pleased. It will be well for man to "do all things after the pattern showed him in the mount"—to avoid "will-worship"—and even in his offerings, to follow in the line of precedent, and see that he has a warrant for what he proposes doing in God’s honour. BY D. YOUNG The materials for the sanctuary. I. GOD THESE FROM THE PEOPLE. It might have been thought that in order to make this holy habitation, this tent for God travelling along with his people, God himself would have in some way supplied the material. Even as he gave Moses the stones on which the law was written (in the first instance at all events), so he might have made a sanctuary to descend in marvellous manner into the midst of Israel. But it pleased him, who we may be sure always does the wise and fitting thing, to act differently. He required the materials for this sanctuary from the people. They could not provide food for themselves—but they could provide such a dwelling-place for Jehovah as he would approve and accept. These people who had required so many interventions of God to deliver and secure them had yet been carrying with them in the midst of all their helplessness the great store of wealth indicated in this passage. It is somewhat perplexing to consider the revelation thus afforded of the Israelite condition. In their hearts these people were sinful, idolatrous, unbelieving, unstable—it is humiliating to gaze on the sad exhibition of human nature they present—and yet they had managed to surround themselves with these treasures. They were those who had been laying up treasures on earth; and so far these treasures had been of little use; for what will it profit a man to have all this store of gold and silver, and brass and fine linen, and what not, if he lack the daily bread?—all the efforts of the people, all their scraping, had ended in the bringing of these things into the wilderness where they seemed of no use. Even gold and silver would not buy bread in the wilderness. But now, behold how God can take this gold and silver and show how to make a profitable and acceptable use of it. When we begin to look regretfully on the results of our natural efforts as if those efforts had been wasted, he comes in to overrule our ignorance and folly. By his consecrating and re-arranging touch, the treasures upon earth can be transmuted into treasures in heaven. II. THE THAT MARKED THESE GIFTS. These materials, valuable as they were, yet yielded in respect of worth to an element more valuable still. These rare and … beautiful materials, workable into such beautiful forms, could have been gotten without human intervention at all, if that had been the whole of the necessity. As not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of the lilies, so nothing man can make with his utmost art is so beautiful as the handiwork of God. Nor is the question altogether one as to what is beautiful to the outward eye. The value of beautiful forms is a thing only too easily exaggerated. But no one can exaggerate the beauty of a spiritual action, the beauty of a gift where the willingness and devotion of the whole heart are manifest. This tabernacle might be a very inferior structure, when measured by such principles as dictated Grecian art; but this was a thing of no consequence when compared with the higher consideration that its materials were freely brought. There was none of that extortion and slavish toil, such as we read of in connection with some of the huge fabrics of ancient civilisations. What blood and tears, what reckless expenditure of human life, for instance, in the construction of buildings like the pyramids! When we look at the great buildings—aqueducts, roads, of ancient times—we must not look at the outward appearance only. These Israelites doubtless had helped in the building of splendid structures; but the foundation of these structures was laid in oppression, and therefore on their topstone rested a destroying curse. There was nothing about all the tabernacle more beautiful than the willingness that marked the gift of the materials. There was no specific demand on any particular person. Let everyone consider for himself whether he will give, and how much. A free-will offering of the inferior brass would be of ever so much more value than an extorted one of gold or silver, or precious stones. III. THE OF THE GIFTS. Evidently such things were taken as the people had by them; but of these things the very best were taken. Being already in the possession of the people, and valued by them, they were exactly the things to test the willingness of their disposition. When God asks us to give, he asks us to give of our best. All this gold and silver symbolised what was most precious in the heart within. One is reminded of Paul’s words with respect to the materials that might be laid upon the foundation given in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:12). We must not bring to God just what we do not want ourselves. The value of the gifts constituted a most searching test of willingness, and willingness was the particular quality that needed to be tested at this time. Men willing to give gold and silver, might be reasonably supposed as willing to give anything else within their power. Then there was a test also in the variety of the gifts. The man without gold and silver would not escape the responsibility of considering what he could do in the way of another gift. For the needs of the tabernacle God required a large diversity of materials; and probably there were few in Israel but could do something towards the supply if only they were so disposed.—Y. BY G. A. Exodus 25:1, Exodus 25:2 God loveth a cheerful giver. A message to the people. Like messages are often sent, but seldom welcomed. Even when God demands an offering, many people grudge to give it; they yield, as to a kind of heavenly highwayman, of necessity if at all. Consider here:— I. THE . 1. Purpose. Jehovah will give the people a visible sign of his presence in their midst. He will have a home amid their homes, a tent dwelling like in character to their dwellings. More than this—he will be their guest. They shall provide for him the sacred tent. If we count it an honour for a town to receive and entertain a member of our royal family, how much greater an honour to be permitted to entertain the head of the royal family of heaven! 2. Materials. All manner of things required (Exodus 25:3-7), so that all can share the privilege of providing them. Some may give a few gold ornaments; even a poor man may yet find some goat’s hair for cloth. Not a member of the nation but can do his part in helping to rear the tabernacle for God. All gifts can be used, so that each may have a share in the work. 3. A precedent for ourselves. God treats us as he treated Israel. He asks our help in building for him a spiritual temple, a dwelling-place in which men are the living stones. Some can give personal effort; some can give money to assist the actual workers; no one so poor but that he can give something. Surely the opportunity of helping God is one which ought not to be undervalued. II. THE OF . All may help, but on one condition—they must help "willingly," with the "heart." The offering is valued not on its own account, but as a symbol of that which is more valuable. Gifts to God are a kind of human sacrament, which God deigns to receive at the hands of man: they are acceptable as outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace. If the grace be wanting, the gifts are worthless. God is good enough to make needs for himself that his creatures may have the privilege of satisfying them; if they degrade the privilege into a tax, he would rather be without their assistance. How often is this forgotten! We give to God, when asked, for many reasons. It is the proper thing to do, and respectability requires it; or it will get our name into some subscription list; or we may have an uneasy feeling that we ought to give, and to soothe our uneasiness we must do something. "Grudgingly and of necessity" is the epitaph which must be written above such wasted offerings. God cannot accept as gifts offerings which are never truly given. He may use them, for they are his in any case to do as he wills with them; he cannot, however, enter them in his inventory as received from the giver who nominally presents them. Only he who gives with his heart has his name set down in the inventory of God. The two mites of the widow are remembered; the talents of the ostentatious tax-payer are forgotten. III. THE MADE. The people of Israel realised their privileges. They remembered what God had done for them, and were eager to manifest their gratitude. They gave even more than enough (Exodus 36:6, Exodus 36:7). Their hearts stirred them up, and their spirits made them willing (Exodus 35:21); so that they even had to be restrained. What an example for us! Church debts, fettered missionary enterprise, ministers of the Gospel converted into persistent yet unsuccessful beggars; what are the Lord’s people doing when such phenomena abound? Do we not need to be reminded of the privilege offered us, which is so fearfully profaned? Do we not need to stir up our hearts, and to take active measures to make our spirits willing? The roused heart loosens the purse-strings; only the willing spirit can offer the willing and generous gift.—G. BY J. Exodus 25:1-9 The rearing of the Lord’s sanctuary. I. FROM WHAT IT IS FORMED. 1. Of material supplied by his redeemed. To them only request and direction come—’’ Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them." This is still our high calling, to make God a dwelling-place in the earth. Are we obeying? Is God being glorified by us? 2. Of their free-will offerings. There is no constraint; everything is free and spontaneous—the loving gifts of children, not the forced labour of slaves. 3. Of their choicest and best, and yet, 4. of things named by God himself. Even here we are not left to impose burdens upon ourselves. God’s word and the Spirit’s voice in the heart will direct us. II. GOD IS THE OF HIS OWN . The building and furniture are to be in every particular according to his own plan (Exodus 25:9). We may not bring into God’s worship or service our own devices. The stepping aside from the simplicity of God’s ordinances is disservice. It is contempt of God or open rebellion to his authority.—U. BY J. ORR Exodus 25:1-10 The command to build a sanctuary. The covenant being now ratified, everything was prepared for Jehovah taking up his abode with the people. He would dwell among them as their King. In keeping with the genius of the dispensation, commands are given for the erection of a visible sanctuary. It is here called "mikdash, or sanctuary (Exodus 25:8), and "mishkan," or dwelling-place (tabernacle, Exodus 25:9), the latter being the name most commonly applied to it. Considering the purpose which the sanctuary was to serve, and the "plenitude of meaning" designed to be conveyed by its symbolism, it was necessary that the whole should be constructed under immediate Divine direction. A plan of the tabernacle, embracing minute details, was accordingly placed before the mind of Moses on the mount (Exodus 25:9). It was presented in its completeness to his inner eye, before any part of it was set up on earth. The ark of Noah, the tabernacle of Moses, and the temple of Solomon (cf. 1 Chronicles 28:11, 1 Chronicles 28:12, 1 Chronicles 28:19), are probably the only buildings ever erected from plans furnished by direct revelation. In the building of the spiritual temple—the Church—God is himself not merely the architect, but the builder; and the beauty and symmetry of the structure will be found in the end to be perfect (cf. Revelation 21:1-27.). Consider— I. THE OF THE . These were ordered to be collected before the work began. They were to be— 1. Costly and various—representing (1) every department of nature (mineral, vegetable, animal); (2) the richest products of each, so far as accessible in the desert (gold, silver, fine linen, dyed skins, precious stones, etc.); (3) all varieties of human skill. The design was to make a palace for Jehovah: a beautiful and glorious house. 2. Abundant. There was to be no stint in the gifts. Profuse liberality befitted the occasion. Grudging in our gifts to God betrays an unworthy spirit. 3. Free-will offerings (Exodus 25:2). This point is put in the foreground. The people were to bring an offering—"Of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering." Observe in this— (1) The people first offered themselves to God (Exodus 24:7), then their gifts. This is the true order. Compare what is said of the Macedonian believers (2 Corinthians 8:1-6). (2) The giving of themselves to God was followed by the devotion to his service of the best of their possessions. The consecration of self, as formerly remarked, includes all other consecrations. If we are God’s, then all is God’s that is ours. He has the first claim on everything we have. Our best ought cheerfully to be dedicated to him. (3) God values only such gifts as come from a willing heart. He loves the cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). He puts no value on givings which are not cheerful. (4) Free-will offerings are necessarily various in kind and amount. Not all could give gold, or silver, or precious stones. Some, whose means were small, could probably give only their labour in working up the gifts of the wealthier. Each gave as he was able, and according to the kind of material in his possession. So far, however, as the gifts were offered willingly, they met with God’s acceptance. The giver was accepted in his gift, not according to its absolute amount, but according to his ability, and to the spirit in which he gave. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12.) And all the gifts were needed. The variety which they exhibited was part of their appropriateness. What one could not furnish another could. Many kinds of gifts are required in Christ’s service, and there is none so poor but he can furnish something which others have not at command. The Lord accepts, and will use, all. (5) God’s dwelling with his people must rest on a voluntary basis. They must wish him to dwell among them, and must prove their wish by voluntarily providing the materials for his sanctuary. A living Church will show its desire for God’s presence, and will evince its gratitude, and its sense of obligation to him, by large and willing gifts in his service. These, indeed, are not conclusive as proofs of genuine spiritual interest; but the absence of them speaks with sufficient plainness of spiritual coldness. (6) The ideal state in the Church is that in which "ordinances of Divine service" are freely supported by the gifts of the people. This principle found distinct expression, not simply in the freewill offerings for the making of the tabernacle, but in the general arrangements of the Jewish economy. The law prescribed amounts—commanded tithes, etc; but the fulfilment of the obligation was left to the individual conscience. It was not enforced by legal means. What was given had to be given freely. II. THE IDEA OF THE . Some remarks on this subject seem called for before entering on the study of details. A firm grasp of the central idea is essential to a right understanding of the parts. The tabernacle may be considered— (1) Actually, as the literal dwelling-place of Jehovah with his people; (2) symbolically, as in its different parts and arrangements symbolical of spiritual ideas; and (3) typically, as prophetic of better things to come. The typical treatment, however, will best be connected with what is to be said under the two former heads. 1. Actually, the tabernacle was the place of Jehovah’s dwelling with his people (Exodus 25:8). This is to be viewed as, on the one side, a privilege of the Church of Israel; but, on the other, as a step towards the realisation of the great end contemplated by God from the first, as the goal of all his gracious dealings with our race, namely, the taking up of his abode among them. God seeks an abode with men. He cannot rest with perfect satisfaction in his love to them till he has obtained this abode (Psalms 132:13, Psalms 132:14). He wishes to dwell with them. The history of revelation may be viewed as but a series of steps towards the realisation of this idea. The steps are the following— (1) God dwelling with men in the visible sanctuary of the Jews—the tabernacle and temple. This served important ends. It brought God near to men. It enabled them to grasp the reality of his presence. It was, however, but a very imperfect stage in the realisation of the truth. It would not have suited a universal religion. There was, besides, no congruity between the nature of the spiritual Deity and a building "made with hands." It was but an outward, local presence which this visible sanctuary embodied. The union between the dwelling and the Dweller was not inherent or essential; it could at any moment be dissolved. Higher realisations of the idea wore possible. (2) God dwelling with men in Christ. Christ pointed to himself as the antitype of the temple (Matthew 12:6; John 2:19-22). He was Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23). The fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 2:9). The temple in this case is not a mere material structure, but a holy, and now perfected, humanity. The union is personal and indissoluble. The revelation of God, through the medium of humanity, cannot rise higher than it has done in Christ. The life of God in the individual and in the Church is but the unfolding of the fulness already contained in him (John 1:16). This unfolding, however, is necessary, that the temple-idea may reach its complete fulfilment. A third stage, accordingly, is (3) God dwelling in the soul of the believer. Rather, we should say, in the humanity of the believer—body, soul, and spirit forming, unitedly, a habitation for God through the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 6:19). In this tabernacle, as in the former, there is the innermost shrine—the holy of holies of the spirit, the "inner man" in which is deposited the law of the Lord (Ephesians 3:16); a holy place—the soul or mind, with its lamps of understanding, etc.; and an outer court—the body—the external side of the being, open and visible to all. The individual, however, taken by himself, is but a fragment. The full idea is realised (4) in the Church as a whole—the whole body of believers, in heaven and on earth, with Christ as Head. This is the true and the living temple (Ephesians 2:21, Ephesians 2:22). Realised in part on earth, and wherever a portion of the Church of Christ exists, the perfection of the manifestation of the idea is reserved for the future and for glory. Cf. Revelation 21:3—"The tabernacle of God is With men," etc. The idea of the Jewish tabernacle thus finds its fulfilment (1) in the body of Christ; (2) in the body of the believer; (3) in the body of the Church. 2. Symbolically—the tabernacle figured out, in its structure, its contents, and its arrangements, various spiritual truths. (1) On the ark and its symbolism, see next homily. (2) The separation into two apartments had as its basis the twofold aspect of God’s fellowship with man. The holy of holies was God’s part of the structure. Its arrangements exhibited God in relation to his people. The outer apartment—the holy place—exhibited in symbol the calling of the people in relation to God. The shew-bread and the lighted lamps, with the incense from the golden altar, emblematised aspects of that calling. See next homily. (3) The arrangements of the tabernacle had further in view the symbolising of the imperfect condition of privilege in the Church under the old economy. A veil hung between the holy place and the holy of holies. Into this latter the high priest only was permitted to enter, and that but once a year, and not without blood of atonement. The mass of the people were not allowed to come nearer than the outer court. They could enter the holy place only in the persons of their representatives, the priests. All this spoke of distance, of barriers as yet unremoved, of drawbacks to perfected communion. The arrangements were of such a nature as studiously to impress this idea upon the mind. Accordingly, at the death of Christ, the removal of these barriers, and the opening of the way for perfected fellowship between God and man, was signified by the striking circumstance of the rending of the veil (Matthew 27:51). It is implied in the teaching of Scripture that a like imperfection of privilege marked the condition of the departed just, and that this also was removed by Christ, who, passing into the highest heavens, made manifest, both for them and for us, the way into the holiest of all. (Cf. Hebrews 9:6-13; Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 10:20; Hebrews 11:39, Hebrews 11:40; Hebrews 12:23.)—J.O. GENERAL . After the gifts which God will accept have been specified, and the spirit in which they are to be offered noted (Exodus 25:2), God proceeds to unfold his purpose, and declare the object for which the gifts are needed. He will have a "sanctuary’’ constructed for him, an habitation in which he may "dwell." Now, it is certainly possible to conceive of a religion which should admit nothing in the nature of a temple or sanctuary; and there are even writers who tell us that a religion has actually existed without one That God should "dwell" in a house, as a man does, is of course impossible; and the Hebrews were as deeply impressed with this truth as any other nation (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; Isaiah 56:1; Jeremiah 23:24, etc.). But a religion without a temple was probably unknown in the days of Moses; and, with such a people as the Hebrews, it is inconceivable that religion could have maintained its ground for long without something of the kind. "It was," as Kalisch says, "above all things necessary to create a firm and visible centre of monotheism, to keep perpetually the idea of the one omnipotent God alive in the minds of the people, and so to exclude for ever a relapse into the pagan and idolatrous aberrations". A sanctuary was therefore to be constructed; but, as the nation was in the peculiar position of being nomadic, without fixed abode, that is, and constantly on the move, the usual form of a permanent building was unsuitable under the circumstances. To meet the difficulty, a tent-temple was designed, which is called mishkan, "the dwelling," or ’ohel, "the tent," which was simply an Oriental tent on a large scale, made of the best obtainable materials, and guarded by an enclosure. The details of the work are reserved for later mention. In the present passage two directions only are given:— 1. A sanctuary is to be constructed; and 2. Both it, and all its vessels, are to be made after patterns which God was about to show to Moses. Exodus 25:8 A sanctuary well expresses the Hebrew micdash, which is derived from cadash—"to be holy." It is a name never given to the temples of the heathen deities. That I may dwell among them. Compare Exodus 29:45; Numbers 35:34. There is a sense in which "God dwelleth not in temples made with hands"(Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24)—i.e; he is not comprehended in them, or confined to them; but there is another sense in which he may be truly said to dwell in them, viz; as manifesting himself in them either to the senses, or to the spirit. In the tabernacle he manifested himself sensibly (Exodus 40:34, Exodus 40:35, Exodus 40:38). Exodus 25:9 The patterns. Many of the old Jewish commentators supposed, that Moses was shown by God a real material structure, which actually existed in the heavens, far grander than its earthly copy, after which he was to have the tabernacle fashioned. Some recent Christian writers, without going these lengths, suggest that "an actual picture or model of the earthly tabernacle and its furniture was shown to him" (Keil). But the words of the text, as well as those of Act 7:44, and Hebrews 8:5, are sufficiently justified, if we take a view less material than either of these—i.e; if we suppose Moses to have had impressed on his mind, in vision, the exact appearance of the tabernacle and its adjuncts, in such sort that he could both fully understand, and also, when necessary, supplement, the verbal descriptions subsequently given to him. It is unnecessary to inquire how the impression was produced. God who in vision communicated to Ezekiel the entire plan of that magnificent temple which he describes in ch. 40-42; could certainly have made known to Moses, in the same way, the far simpler structure of the primitive Tabernacle. Earthly sanctuaries typical of the heavenly dwelling-place. Such habitations as God condescends to acknowledge for his in this earthly sphere, are, all of them, more or less types of the New Jerusalem, the eternal heavenly home. "The temple of God was opened in heaven," says St. John the Divine, "and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament" (Revelation 11:19); and again, "After that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened" (Revelation 15:5). Note the following common features:— I. THE CENTRAL FACT IN EACH AND ALL IS, THE OF GOD. Of the Tabernacle we are told—"Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Exodus 40:34, Exodus 40:35). Christian churches have the promise," Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"—and again, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of you." In the New Jerusalem "the city has no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God doth lighten it, and the Lamb is the Light thereof" (Revelation 21:23). And the saints "see his face" (Revelation 22:4). II. THE SECOND LEADING FACT IS THE IN EACH OF "MANY ." An outer court, a porch, a holy place, and a holy of holies, are features manifestly common to the Hebrew tabernacle and temple with Christian churches. These give different degrees of access to God, and imply different degrees of fitness to contemplate him. In heaven there is a throne—the throne of God and of the Lamb—and round about the throne four and twenty seats for four and twenty elders to sit on (Revelation 4:4); and beyond these angels (Revelation 5:11), and martyrs (Revelation 7:14); and, last of all, "the nations of them that are saved" (Revelation 21:24). And each individual of the "nations" finds his fitting place. III. IN ALL, THE OF THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND IS THE PRAISE AND WORSHIP OF GOD. "Enter into his courts with praise," says holy David, of the tabernacle (Psalms 100:4)—"be thankful unto him, and bless his name." "When ye come together, every one of you has a psalm," says St. Paul of a Christian Church. In heaven there is "a great voice of much people, saying, Alleluia: Salvation and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God, for true and righteous are his judgments … and again they say, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him" (Revelation 19:1-7). IV. IN ALL, THE ENJOY A SACRED FEAST. Of the worship of the tabernacle sacrifice was an essential part; and a sacrificial feast, of which the offerer partook, always followed the sacrifice. In Christian worship upon earth, the crowning act is a heavenly banquet, to which the minister in Jesus’ name invites all the faithful. "Hail sacred feast, which Jesus makes Rich banquet of his flesh and blood! Thrice happy he, who here partakes That sacred stream, that heavenly food." In the New Jerusalem there is a "tree of life," which bears "twelve manner of fruits;" and they who enter in "have right to the tree of life" (Revelation 22:2, Revelation 22:14), and are "given to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7). How far this is literal, how far allegorical, we shall scarcely know till we are translated to that celestial sphere, and become dwellers in that glorious city. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 25:8, Exodus 25:9 God’s dwelling-place among his people. God announces to Israel that he is about to take up his abode in their midst, and that various offerings are to be used in the construction of a suitable dwelling-place. Observe here— I. JEHOVAH’S REGARD FOR THE WANTS OF ISRAEL. This tabernacle with all its belongings was not constructed for any real need that Jehovah had of it. The people had to construct tents for themselves because they needed them, and the making of a tent for Jehovah was also in condescending compliance with their need. This thought is brought out still more clearly by the parallel reference to the incarnation in John 1:14, where it is said that the Word tabernacled among us. Something in the shape of an ever visible dwelling-place of God was given to the people, that thus they might comfort their hearts with the assurance that he was constantly near them, sympathising with them in their changing circumstances and requirements. The people had been compelled to go to Sinai, there to be impressed with the majesty of God and receive his commandments; but at Sinai they could not stay. With all its glories and revelations, it was but a halting place on the way to Canaan. God had indeed already given an assurance of his daily providence in the manna; but he now added a further sign than which none could be more expressive, none more illustrative of the desire of God to adapt himself to the spiritual blindness and infirmity of men. He took for himself a tent like the rest of the travellers through the wilderness. Where a dwelling place is we look for an inhabitant, and especially where it is manifestly kept in order and regularly attended to. If at any moment an Israelite was in doubt whether God was indeed with the people, here through the sight of the tabernacle was his readiest resource to expel all doubt. God’s own house with its services and attendants was continually before him to rebuke and remove his unbelief. II. THOUGH JEHOVAH TO DWELL IN A TENT, YET THAT TENT HAD TO BE A HOLY PLACE. The condescension was simply a condescension in circumstances. God himself remained the same. He who was holy and jealous, when removed to a distance from the people, amid the clouds and sounds of Sinai, was not the least altered as to his vigilant holiness by coming down to the apparent limitations of a tent. Coarse and humble though the tent appears, there is an unspeakably glorious inhabitant within whose presence exalts and sanctifies the tent. God himself thus furnishes an illustration of the truth that those who humble themselves shall be exalted. He needs not to preserve his glory by extraneous and vulgar pomps. And just because this dwelling-place of God was a tent, the people needed to remember its function with peculiar carefulness. Though it was only a tent, it was God’s tent. A very mean tent, that in ordinary circumstances would excite no attention, would be carefully guarded if the king happened for a night to make his abode therein. III. THIS WAS MADE BY THE AND FORM OF THE AND ITS . Just imagine if, instead of prescribing an exact pattern for everything, God had left the people’ to make any sort of structure they liked. In the first place there would hardly have been unanimity. Those who might have been very willing and united in the bestowal of raw material would at once have split asunder in attempting to settle how the material was to be used. Then, even if a majority had proceeded to action, they would probably have introduced something idolatrous, assuredly something that savoured rather of human error than Divine truth; and the error would have been none the less because those who committed it, committed it in a spirit of cordial devotion to what they believed was best. What an exposure is thus made of the plausible notion that if only men are in earnest, God will accept the will for the deed! As to the supply of the raw material, God stipulated for free will there—perfect liberty either in giving or withholding. But the raw material once gathered, the freedom of the givers was at an end. God himself supplied the moulds in which the gifts were to flow. A dwelling-place for God must supply all his wants for the time being. He must have just exactly those ordinances of worship and those channels of Divine distribution which he deems best. God’s wants, as we see more and more from a careful study of the Scriptures, are not as man’s wants; and therefore we must wait humbly for him to reveal what it is impossible for man to conjecture. The materials for the tabernacle and the instruments thereof were human and earthly, but the patterns are Divine and heavenly. We know not into what beautiful, glorious, and serviceable forms man and his belongings may be wrought, if only he will humbly and attentively wait for directions from God above. These Israelites, when all was finished according to the pattern in the mount, had then something to show which would make an impression on men of the right sort in the outside world. Here was an answer to the question, "Where is now your God?" Visible he himself is not; but here is a dwelling-place not in anything constructed after art and man’s device, but entirely of Divine direction. All our institutions are nothing unless we can trace them to the inspiration and control of God.—Y. THE PATTERN OF THE ARK.—Moses is first shown, not the pattern of the tabernacle, but the patterns of those things which it was to contain—the ark, the table of shew-bread, and the seven-branched candlestick, or lamp-stand, with its appurtenances. The ark, as the very most essential part of the entire construction, is described first. Exodus 25:10 Thou shalt make an ark of shittim wood. Arks were an ordinary part of the religious furniture of temples in Egypt, and were greatly venerated. They usually contained a figure or emblem, of some deity. Occasionally they were in the shape of boats; but the most ordinary form was that of a cupboard or chest. They were especially constructed for the purpose of being carried about in a procession, and had commonly rings at the side, through which poles were passed on such occasions. It must be freely admitted, that the general idea of the "Ark," as well as certain points in its ornamentation, was adopted from the Egyptian religion. Egyptian arks were commonly of sycamore wood. Two cubits and a half, etc. As there is no reason to believe that the Hebrew cubit differed seriously from the cubits of Greece and Rome, we may safely regard the Ark of the Covenant as a chest or box, three feet nine inches long, two feet three inches wide, and two feet three inches deep. Exodus 25:11 Thou shalt overlay it with pure gold. Or, "cover it with pure gold." As gilding was well known in Egypt long before the time of the exodus, it is quite possible that the chest was simply gilt without and within. It may, however, have been overlaid with thin plates of gold (a practice also known in Egypt, and common elsewhere)—which is the view taken by the Jewish commentators. The crown of gold was probably an ornamental moulding or edging round the top of the chest. Exodus 25:12 Four rings of gold. These rings were to be fixed, not at the upper, but at the lower corners of the chest, which are called pa’amoth, literally "feet" or "bases." The object was, no doubt, that no part of the chest should come in contact with the persons of the priests when carrying it (see Exodus 25:14). As Kalisch notes, "the smallness of the dimensions of the ark rendered its safe transportation, even with the rings at its feet, not impossible." Exodus 25:13 Staves of shittim wood. Similar staves, or poles, are to be seen in the Egyptian sculptures, attached to arks, thrones, and litters, and resting on the shoulders of the men who carry such objects. Exodus 25:14 That the ark may be borne with them. The Hebrew ark was not made, like the Egyptian arks, for processions, and was never exhibited in the way of display, as they were. The need of carrying it arose from the fact, that the Israelites had not yet obtained a permanent abode. As soon as Canaan was reached, the ark had a fixed locality assigned to it, though the locality was changed from time to time (Joshua 18:1; 1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Samuel 7:1; 2 Samuel 6:10, etc.); but in the desert it required to be moved each time that the congregation changed its camping-ground. Exodus 25:15 The staves, when once inserted into the rings of the ark, were never to be taken from them. The object probably was that there might be no need of touching even the rings, when the ark was set down or taken up. The bearers took hold of the staves only, which were no part of the ark. On the danger of touching the ark itself, see 2 Samuel 6:6, 2 Samuel 6:7. Exodus 25:16 The testimony which I will give thee, is undoubtedly the Decalogue, or in other words, the two tables of stone, written with the finger of God, and forming his testimony against sin. (Compare Deuteronomy 31:26, Deuteronomy 31:27.) The main intention of the ark was to be a repository in which the two tables should be laid up. Exodus 25:17 Thou shalt make a mercy seat. Modern exegesis has endeavoured to empty the word kapporeth of its true meaning, witnessed to by the Septuagint, as well as by the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:5). It tells us that a kapporeth is simply a cover, "being derived from kaphar, to cover,"—used in Genesis 5:14, with respect to covering the ark with pitch. But the truth is that kapporeth is not derived from kaphar, but from kipper, the Piel form of the same verb, which has never any other sense than that of covering, or forgiving sins. In this sense it is used in the Old Testament some seventy times. Whether the mercy seat was the real cover of the ark of the covenant, or whether that had its own lid of acacia wood, as Kalisch supposes, is uncertain. At any rate, it was not called kipporeth because it was a cover, but because it was a seat of propitiation. On the importance of the mercy seat, as in some sort transcending the ark itself, see Le Genesis 16:2, and 1 Chronicles 28:11. Atonement was made by sprinkling the blood of expiation upon it (Leviticus 1 Chronicles 16:14, 1 Chronicles 16:15). Of pure gold, Not of wood, plated with metal, or richly gilt, but of solid gold—an oblong slab, three feet nine inches long, two feet three inches wide, and probably not less than an inch thick. The weight of such a slab would be above 750 lbs. troy, and its value above 25,000l. of our money. The length and breadth were exactly those of the ark itself, which the mercy seat thus exactly covered (1 Chronicles 28:10). Exodus 25:18 Two cherubims. The form "cherubims,’’ which our translators affect, is abnormal and indefensible. They should have said either "cherubim," or "cherubs." The exact shape of the Temple cherubim was kept a profound secret among the Jews, so that Josephus declares—"No one is able to state, or conjecture of what form the cherubim were" (Ant. Jud. 8.3, § 3). That they were winged figures appears from Exodus 25:28 of this chapter, while from other parts of Scripture we learn that cherubim might be of either human or animal forms, or of the two combined (Ezekiel 1:5-14; Ezekiel 10:1-22). These last have been with some reason compared to the symbolical composite figures of other nations, the andro-sphinxes and crio-sphinxes of the Egyptians, the Assyrian winged bulls and lions, the Greek chimaerae, and the griffins of the northern nations. But it is doubtful whether the cherubim of Moses were of this character. The most sober of recent inquirers (Bp. Harold Browne, Canon Cook, Kalisch, Keil),while admitting the point to be doubtful, come to the conclusion that they were in all probability, "winged human figures, with human face too." In this case their prototype would seem to have been the winged figures of Ma, the Goddess of Truth, frequently seen inside Egyptian arks, sheltering with their wings the scarabaeus or other emblem of the deity.. In the two ends. Rather, "From the two ends"—i.e; "rising," or, "standing up from the two ends." Exodus 25:19 On the one end on the other end … on the two ends. The preposition used is in every case the same as ,that of the last clause of Exo 25:18—viz; min, "from." The idea is that the figures rose from the two ends. Exodus 25:20 The cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high. Compare Exodus 37:9. It would seem that the two wings of both cherubs were advanced in front of them, and elevated, so as to overshadow the mercy seat. This was a departure from the patterns furnished by the figures of Ma (see the comment on Exodus 37:18), since in them one wing only was elevated, and the other depressed. It is clear that in no case was any part of the Hebrew sacred furniture a mere reproduction of Egyptian models. Whatever was made use of was so transformed or modified as to acquire a new and independent character. Their faces, etc. The words are not without difficulty; but the generally received meaning appears to be correct that the faces were bent one towards the other, but that both looked downwards, towards the mercy seat. Thus the figures, whether they were standing or kneeling, which is uncertain, presented the appearance of guardian angels, who watched over the precious deposit below—to wit, the two tables. Exodus 25:21 Thou shalt put the mercy seat above the ark. Rather, "upon the ark"—"thou shalt cover the ark with it." This had not been expressed previously, though the dimensions (Exodus 25:17), compared with those of the ark (Exodus 25:10), would naturally have suggested the idea. In the ark thou shalt put the testimony. This is a mere repetition of Exo 25:16, marking the special importance which attached to the provision. Exodus 25:22 And there I will meet with thee. The whole of the foregoing description has been subordinate to this. In all the arrange-meats for the tabernacle God was, primarily and mainly, providing a fit place where he might manifest himself to Moses and his successors. The theocracy was to be a government by God in reality, and not in name only. There was to be constant "communing" between God and the earthly ruler of the nation, and therefore a place of communing. Compare Exodus 29:42-45. The special seat of the Divine presence was to be the empty space above the mercy seat, between the two cherubim, and above the ark of the covenant. Exodus 25:10-22 The symbolism of the ark of the covenant. The symbolical meaning of the ark of the covenant may be considered, either (1) separately, as to its parts; or (2) collectively, as to the bearing of its several parts one upon the other. I. , AS TO ITS PARTS. These were (1) The ark itself, or chest; (2) The mercy seat; and (3) The cherubim. (1) The ark, or coffer of acacia wood, coated within and without with pure gold, and intended as a receptacle for the law written by the finger of God, would seem to have represented Divine law as enshrined in the pure nature of God. Acacia is said to be one of the most incorruptible of woods, and gold is undoubtedly the most incorruptible, as well as the most precious, of metals. The law of God—"holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12)—needs such a receptacle. It dwells fitly in God himself—in the incorruptible hearts of the sinless angels—and in the undefiled hearts of godly men. It is in itself pure and incorrupt, an emanation from him who is essential purity. It is a "golden" rule, perfect, lovely, beautiful. It is no cruel code of a tyrant, but the only rule of action by which the well-being of man can be secured. At the same time there is severity and sternness in it. It was written oft stone, and shrined in gold. It was fixed, unbending, unchangeable. (2) The mercy seat represented God’s attribute of mercy. It covered up the law, as he "covers up" the sins and offences of his people (Psalms 32:1; Psalms 85:2; Romans 4:7). It was prepared to receive the expiatory blood wherewith the high-priest was to sprinkle it, the blood that typified the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ (Le Exodus 16:14). It was of gold because mercy is the most precious of God’s attributes. It was placed over the law, because mercy transcends justice. (3) The cherubim represented at once guardianship and worship. Doubtless holy angels at all times guarded invisibly the ark, and especially the "testimony" which it contained. The presence of the two golden figures signified this holy watchfulness to the Israelites, and spoke to them of the intense holiness of the place. The shadowing wings represented protecting care; and the cherubic form showed that the most exalted of creatures were fitly employed in watching and guarding the revelation of the will of the Almighty. By their attitude, standing or kneeling with bent heads end faces turned down toward the mercy seat, they further spoke of worship. On the Divine presence, which was manifested "from between them," they dared not gaze—their eyes were lowered, and fixed for ever on the mercy seat—the embodiment of the Divine attribute of mercy. As under the new covenant angels desired to look into the mystery of redemption (1 Peter 1:12), so, under the old, angels doubtless saw with admiring wonder God commencing the recovery of a lost world; they looked on his attribute of mercy with rapture but with amaze; it was a new thing to them; the angels who lost their first estate had not elicited it; man alone had been thought worthy of the "afterthought," whereby sin was condoned, and the salvation of sinners made possible. II. , AS TO THE BEARING OF THE SEVERAL PARTS ONE UPON ANOTHER. The teaching of the ark in this respect was, primarily, that of David in the eighty-fifth psalm: "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Mercy without justice is a weak sentimentality, subversive of moral order. Justice without mercy is a moral severity—theoretically without a flaw, but revolting to man’s instinctive feelings. The synthesis of the two is required. The law, enshrined in the holiest place of the sanctuary, vindicated the awful purity and perfection of God. The mercy seat, extended above the law, assigned to mercy its superior directive position. The cherubic figures showed the gaze of angels riveted in astonishment and admiration on God’s mode of uniting mercy with justice, by means of vicarious suffering, which he can accept as atonement. Finally, the Divine presence, promised as a permanent thing, gave God’s sanction to the expiatory scheme, whereby alone man can be reconciled to him, and the claims both of justice and of mercy satisfied. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 25:10-16; Exodus 37:1-5 The ark of the testimony. When Jehovah provided for Israel an abiding record of his holy will, it was needful that Israel should also provide an appropriate receptacle. Nor was it left to Moses and the people to determine what might be most appropriate. Jehovah arranged things so that all the religious service of the people gathered around the two tables of stone. An Israelite gazing upon the great holy place of another nation and inquiring what might be its innermost treasure hidden and guarded from all presumptuous approach, would get for answer that it was some image graven by art and man’s device; and he would further learn that the supposed will of this deity found its expression in all licentious and abominable rites. But, on the other hand, a gentile, looking towards Israel’s holy place and inquiring what might be behind the curtains of the tabernacle, and expecting perhaps to hear of some magnificent image, would be astounded with a very different reply. No image there! and not only no image, but words graven by God’s desire which forbade fabrication of everything in the shape of an image. Within that gilded box of shittim wood there lie written the leading requirements for those who would obey the will of Jehovah. Litera scripta manet. The spot where that ark had a resting-place was a sacred spot, not approachable by the common multitude: but this was not because there was anything to conceal. The recesses of heathenism will not bear inspection. The character of the deity worshipped corresponds with the degradation of the worshippers. But here is the great distinction of that Divine service found in Israel, that however vile the people might be, and even the officiating priests, an exposure of the hidden things of their sacred place would have been an exposure of their apostasy. No Israelite needed to be ashamed of what lay within the ark on which he was bound to look with such veneration, which he was bound to guard with such assiduity; and if it be true that every human heart ought to be a sanctuary of God, then the very heart of hearts should be as the ark of the testimony in the sanctuary of old. Our hearts should be better than our outward services. We should have the consciousness that God’s will has a real, an abiding, a cherished, a predominating place in our affections. All the actions of life should flow from the fountain formed by the ever living force of a Divine will within us. Let us ever consider the internal more than the external. If the internal be right, the external will come right in due time. If God’s commandments—the full scheme of Christian virtues—are indeed written in our hearts, then all superficial hindrances and roughness can only last for a little time. The Divine life ruling within must subdue all things to itself.—Y. Exodus 25:17-22; Exodus 37:6-9 The mercy seat and the cherubim. The ark already indicated as the repository of the two tables, is now further indicated as the resting-place of the mercy seat and the cherubim. Thus there was presented to the thoughts of the people a Divinely constituted whole, a great symbolic unity which set forth the glory and the mystery of God’s presence as no unaided human conception could have done, however sublime, however sincere. The ark, the mercy seat, and the cherubim once made and placed in position, were hidden away from the general gaze. Bezaleel looked no more upon his handiwork. But though the things behind the veil were themselves hidden, yet their general character and relations were known. Hidden in one sense, in another sense they were all the more manifest just because they were hidden. It was perfectly well known that behind the veil God made himself known as the God of the commandments, the God of the mercy seat, the God shining forth between the cherubim. The proximity of the mercy seat to the tables of the law was an excellent way of showing that the requirements inscribed on these tables were to be no dead letter. If they could not be honoured by a heartfelt and properly corresponding obedience, then they must be honoured by a heartfelt repentance for transgression, an adequate propitiation, and an honourable forgiveness. There was a place for profound and permanent repentance, and a place for real and signal mercy to the transgressor: but for a slurring over of disobedience there was no place at all. Very close indeed are the law and the gospel. The law, when its comprehensiveness and severity are considered, magnifies the gospel; and the gospel, when we consider how emphatically it is proclaimed as being a gospel, magnifies the law. Then we have also to consider what may be signified by the presence of the cherubim; and surely we shall not go far wrong in connecting these golden figures here with the presence of those awful guardians who prevented the return of Adam and Eve to the scene of earthly bliss which they had forfeited. The presence of these cherubim suggested a solemn consideration of all that man had actually lost; God looking from between the cherubim, was looking as it were from the scene of the ideal human life on earth; that life which might have been the real, if man had only persisted according to the original injunction of his Maker. Thus the cherubim are associated, first with the barrier against return, and then with the working out of a plan for glorious and complete restoration. There is here no word of the flaming sword. The cherubim seem to be regarded as contemplative rather than active, somewhat as St. Peter phrases it when he speaks of things which the angels desire to look into. Over against the delight of those faithful ones who guarded Eden, we must set the thought of those in whose presence there is such inexpressible joy over the repenting sinner. God looked forth from between these symbols of the unsullied creatures who serve him day and night continually, and towards those people whom, though at present they were disobedient, carnalised, and unsusceptible, he nevertheless called his own. Sinners may be so changed, renewed, and energised as to be joined in the most complete harmony of service even with the cherubim.—Y. BY J. Exodus 25:10-40 What must be found with every soul that is God’s dwelling-place I. THE ARK (Exodus 25:10-22). The place where the Lord meets and communes with us. 1. It contained the testimony. The light of the meeting-place with God is the word concerning righteousness and sin. There is no communion with God if that be left out. The law which searches and condemns us must be honoured as God’s testimony. 2. Between God and the law we have broken is the mercy seat, sin’s glorious covering, on which the cherubim—emblems of the highest intelligence and purity of creation—look, and before which we also bow, with adoring awe. 3. Over the mercy seat rests the cloud of God’s glory. We shall meet God only as we seek him here. His glory can be fully revealed and the might of his salvation proved here alone. II. THE TABLE OF SHEW-BREAD, THE SOUL’S ENTIRE . 1. The bread was the emblem of God’s people. The twelve cakes represented the twelve tribes. The fruit of the great Husbandman’s toil is to be found in us. 2. God’s joy is to be found in us. The Lord’s portion is his people. 3. We are to be prepared and perfected for his presence, and to be for ever before him (Exodus 25:30). III. THE , THE EMBLEM OF THE LORD’S PEOPLE, AND THEIR WORLD-SERVICE. 1. It is made of pure gold, the only metal that loses nothing, though passed through the fire and whose lustre is never tarnished. 2. It was the only light of the holy place. The true Christian Church the only light which in the world’s darkness reveals the things of God and the pathway to his presence.—U. BY J. ORR The ark, the table, and the candlestick. The instructions for the making of these essential parts of the tabernacle furniture occupy the remainder of the chapter. The directions for making the altar of incense are postponed to Exodus 30:1-10. The reason seems to be that the uses of this altar could not be described without reference to commands which were to be given respecting the altar of burnt-offering—to which the altar of incense stood in a certain relation of dependence—and to the ordinance for the institution of the priesthood. The instructions have respect to the internal relation of the parts. I. THE ARK AND MERCY SEAT (Exodus 30:10-23). This was the heart of the sanctuary—the throne of Jehovah. As the nucleus of the whole structure, it is described first. 1. The ark proper (Exodus 30:10-17). For details, consult the exposition. A plain wooden box or chest, overlaid within and without with pure gold, and borne upon staves, for the insertion of which rings were provided in its feet or corners, its structure could not well have been simpler. On the resemblances and differences between this ark and the religious arks of the Egyptians, see the interesting article in "Kitto’s Cyclopaedia." The ark, in the religion of Israel, was simply a depository for the two tables of stone—the tables of the covenant. In its freedom from idolatrous symbols (in this respect a contrast to the Egyptian arks), it was a testimony to monotheism; in the character of its contents, it testified to the ethical foundation of the religion—to the severe and stern morality which formed its basis. If ever doubt is cast on the pure moral character of the Hebrew faith, it should suffice to refute it, to point to the ark of the testimony. What a witness to the ruling power of the moral in this religion that, when the sacred chest is opened, the sole contents are found to be the two stone tables of the moral law (Exodus 30:16)! The deposition of these tables in the ark, underneath the mercy seat, had three ends. (1) They testified to the fact that God’s kingdom in Israel was founded on immutable justice and righteousness (Psalms 89:15; Psalms 97:2). Even grace, in its actings, must respect law. Favour cannot be dispensed on terms which make the law "void" (Romans 3:31). If sin is pardoned, it must be with full recognition of the law’s claims against the sinner. The ultimate end must be to "establish the law" (Romans 3:31). Only in the Gospel have we the clear revelation of how, on these terms, mercy and truth can meet together, and righteousness and peace can kiss each other (Psalms 85:10; Romans 3:21-27). (2) They testified to the covenant obligation. The tables were, as Oehler calls them, "the obligatory document of the covenant." As such they were laid up in the heart of the sanctuary. (3) They testified against Israel’s sins and backslidings. They testified against all sin in Israel, but especially against rebellion and deliberate apostasy. This appears to be the special force of the expression—"the testimony," "tables of testimony," etc. 2. The mercy seat (Exodus 30:17). The mercy seat, or propitiatory, made of pure gold, served as a lid or covering to the sacred chest. The name, however, as the Piel form implies, had more especial reference to the covering of sins. Sprinkled with blood of atonement, the mercy seat cancelled, as it were, the condemnatory witness of the underlying tables—covered sin from God’s sight (Exodus 30:21). From above this mercy seat, and from between the two cherubim that were upon it, God promised to meet with Moses, and to commune with him (Exodus 30:22). The gracious element in the covenant with Israel here reaches its distinct expression. Jehovah could "by no means clear the guilty;" i.e; he could not call sin anything else than what it was, or tamper in the least degree with the condemnatory testimony of the law against it; but he could admit atonements, and on the ground of expiatory rites, could forgive sin, and receive the sinner anew to his favour. The mercy seat thus foreshadowed Christ, as, in his sacred Person, the great Propitiatory for man (Romans 3:25)—priest, sacrifice, and mercy seat in one. On the basis of mere law, there can be no communion between God and man. The blood-sprinkled mercy seat must intervene. Only on the ground of Christ’s mediation and intercession, can God transact with sinners. 3. The cherubim (Exodus 30:18-23). The cherubic figures were formed from the same piece of gold which constituted the mercy seat, and rose at either end of it, with wings overspreading the place of propitiation, and faces turned inward. On the various interpretations, see the exposition. The view which finds most favour is that which regards the cherubim, not as real and actual, but only as symbolic and imaginary beings—hieroglyphs of creation in its highest grade of perfection. Egyptian and Assyrian art abound in similar ideal forms, most of them representative, not of qualities of the creature, as distinct from its Creator, but of attributes of God revealed in creation. This view, also, has been taken of the cherubim of Scripture, but it must be rejected as untenable. We confess that, after all that has been written of the purely ideal significance of these figures—"the representative and quintessence of creation, placed in subordination to the great Creator"—we do not feel the theory to be satisfactory. We incline very much to agree with Delitzsch: "The Biblical conception considers the cherub as a real heavenly being, but the form which is given to it changes; it is symbolical and visionary." It seems fair to connect the cherubim with the seraphs of the temple-vision in Isaiah 6:2; and this, taken with Genesis 3:24, points strongly in the direction of an angelic interpretation. The conception, however, unquestionably underwent development, and in the highly complex form in which it appears in Ezekiel may quite possibly take on much more of the ideal character than it had at first; may, in short, closely approximate to what is commonly given as the meaning of the symbol. Confining ourselves to the figures of the tabernacle, we prefer to view them, with the older writers, and with Keil and others among the moderns, as symbolic of the angel hosts which attend and guard the throne of Jehovah, zealous, like himself, for the honour of his law, and deeply interested in the counsels of his love (1 Peter 1:12). The angel-idea is so prominent in the theology of Israel that we should expect it to find some embodiment in this symbolism. And what finer picture could be given of angels than in these cherubic figures, who, with wings outspread and faces lowered, represent at once humility, devotion, adoration, intelligence, service, and zeal? On the angels at the giving of the law, see Deuteronomy 33:2. On the assembly or council of holy ones, see Psalms 89:6-9. The wings of the cherubs constituted, as it were, a protecting shade for those who took refuge under them in the Divine mercy (Psalms 91:1). Jehovah’s guards, they appear in the symbol as ready to defend his Majesty against profane invasion; as avengers of disobedience to his will; as sheltering and aiding those who are his friends. They are, when otherwise unemployed, rapt in adoration of his perfections, and deeply attent on the study of his secrets. So interpreted, the cherubs are hieroglyphs of the heavenly spiritual world. II. THE TABLE OF SHEW-BREAD (Psalms 89:23-31). The table was part of the belongings of the holy place. This shows it to have been primarily connected, not with the relation of God to Israel, but conversely, with the works and services of the people, in their relation to Jehovah. Like other articles in the sanctuary, the table was to present a golden exterior, and on it were to be placed twelve cakes of shew-bread (Psalms 89:30; Le Psalms 24:5-9), with flagons for purposes of libation (Psalms 89:29). The shew-bread had thus the significance of a meat-offering. The sense may be thus exhibited. Bread is the means of nourishment of the natural life. The twelve cakes represented the twelve tribes. The presentation of the bread on the table was, accordingly, 1. A recognition of Jehovah’s agency in the bestowal of what is necessary for the support of life. Natural life is supported by his bounty. The cakes on the table were a grateful acknowledgment of this dependence. Spiritually, they pointed to the higher bread with which God nourishes the soul. They remind us of our duty to give thanks for this, not less than for the other. The true bread is Christ (John 6:32). 2. A dedication of the life so nourished to him whose goodness constantly sustained it. We take this to be the essential feature in the offering. The life-sustaining food and drink is placed upon the table of Jehovah. In the act of placing it there, the tribes offer, as it were, to God, the life which it sustains, and which is derived from his bounty. The meaning could not be better expressed than in words borrowed from St. Paul—"Unto which promise, our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come" (Acts 26:7). Perpetual consecration—a life fruitful in good works, and acts of holy service to God. This is the conception which is embodied in the shew-bread. Here, also, the symbolism points to a life higher than that nourished on material bread, and might almost be said to pledge to Israel the gift of the higher bread needed for it. Fed on this bread from heaven—i.e; on Christ, who gave himself for us (John 6:51), we are to live, not to ourselves, but to him who died for us, and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:15). III. THE GOLDEN (Psalms 89:31-40). This sacred ornament was, like the mercy seat, to be made of pure gold. Art was to be allowed to do its best to make it massive, shapely, beautiful. Stem and branches were to be wrought with great artistic skill. The lamps, seven in number, fed with beaten olive oil (Exodus 27:20, Exodus 27:21), were to burn all night in the sanctuary. The immediate design of its introduction was, of course, to illuminate the holy place. Symbolically, the candlestick represented the calling of Israel to be a people of light. Compare, as regards Christians, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:16; Philippians 2:15. The church is the abode of light. It has no affinity with darkness. The light with which it is lighted is the light of truth and holiness. The lamps are the gifts of wisdom and holiness, which Christ bestows upon his people. Their own souls being filled with light, they become, in turn, the lights of the world. The oil which feeds the light is the oil of God’s Holy Spirit. Note—we cannot make a higher use even of natural girts, say of knowledge or wisdom, than to let their light burn in the sanctuary—in the service of God.—J.O. BY G. A. Exodus 25:18-21 He maketh the winds his messengers, and his ministers a flame of fire. The cherubim were to be of one piece with the mercy seat, the whole a lid, or guard above the lid, to the ark or chest which contained the tables of the law. I. THE AND THEIR MEANING. 1. The symbol. They are not described here; but by comparing the various passages in which they are re[erred to we may get a general notion as to their appearance. Ezekiel, who must have been familiar with their appearance, describes them as seen in his vision (Ezekiel 1:1-28.), four wings, four faces, etc. In Revelation 4. the same idea is seen in a developed form, four creatures having each a different face, and each having six wings. This latter feature suggests identity with the seraphim in Isaiah’s vision (Isaiah 6:1-13.), and the name "seraphim," which seems connected with fire or burning, reminds us of the "flaming sword" with which the cherubim are associated in Genesis 3:24. In any case wings, fire, and a mixture of the human and the animal in their appearance are characteristic features. 2. That which is symbolised. Wings in Scripture almost always represent the wind. The appearance of the cherubim is as fire. Their faces are those of the chief beasts—the lion, the bull-calf, the man, the eagle. Their form tends towards the human. On the whole, we may say they represent nature under her manifold aspects, nature as interpreted chiefly through the natural man in his perfection regarded as a part of nature. The cherubim shadow forth the natural creation according to the Divine ideal. The clause in the Te Deum—"To thee, cherubim and seraphim continually do cry," is the Benedicite condensed into a sentence! II. AND OFFICE OF THE . 1. Position. One piece with the mercy seat. Nature, in spite of appearances, is a manifestation of God’s mercy to man. His voice may not be in the tempest or the fire, yet the tempest and the fire form a canopy to that throne whence issues the "still, small voice." If we regard the mercy seat as typical of Christ (cf. Romans 3:25), then we are reminded of the mysterious relation which exists between Christ and nature (Colossians 1:17; John 1:1, etc.). 2. Office. Here they protect the ark and its contents, as in Genesis 3:24, they "keep the way of the tree of life." The way of the tree of life is the way of righteousness, the way of the law of God. Thus the cherubim above the ark declare that nature, a manifestation of God’s mercy, is also the guardian of God’s law. III. . 1. Nature does guard the way of the tree of life, the law of God. There is a tendency implanted in the very constitution of nature which "makes for righteousness." Break a law, and, by God’s merciful ordinance, you are compelled to reap the penalty. Sin in secret, yet you cannot escape the cognisance of this vigilant, sleepless, unconscious sentinel [cf. Eugene Aram’s dream]. It is "full of eyes within and without." 2. Nature is a manifestation of mercy. Undiscoverable transgression would be irretrievable damnation. Christ, too, is one with the mercy seat; nature is rooted in the Divine Word. If we go to that throne of grace we may still obtain mercy, and win, through Christ, peace with the avengers.—G. THE TABLE OF SHEW-BREAD. From the description of the ark, which constituted the sole furniture of the most holy place, God proceeded to describe the furniture of the holy place, or body of the tabernacle, which was to consist of three objects— 1. A table, called the table of shew-bread ("bread of presence" or "bread of setting-forth"). 2. A candelabrum, or lamp-stand; and 3. An altar for the offering of incense. Of these the table seems to have been regarded as of primary importance; and its description is therefore made to follow immediately on that of the ark. It was of acacia wood, overlaid with pure gold, and was of the most ordinary shape—oblong-square, i.e; with four legs, one at each corner. The only peculiar features of the table, besides its material, were the border, or edging, which surrounded it at the top, the framework which strengthened the legs (Exodus 25:25), and the rings by which it was to be carried from place to place. Exodus 25:23 Two cubits shall be the length thereof, etc. The table was to be three feel long, one foot six inches broad, and two feet three inches high. It was thus quite a small table, narrow for its length, and about two inches below the ordinary height. Exodus 25:24 Thou shalt overlay it with pure gold. Again, gilding may be meant; but a covering with thin plates of gold is perhaps more probable. A crown of gold round about. A border, or edging round the top, which would prevent anything that was placed on the table from readily falling off. (Compare Exodus 25:11.) Exodus 25:25 A border of a hand-breadth. Rather "a band" or "framing." This seems to have been a broad flat bar, placed about hallway down the legs, uniting them and holding them together. It was represented in the sculpture of the table which adorned the Arch of Titus. A golden crown to the border—i.e; an edging at the top of the bar, which could be only for ornament. Exodus 25:26 The four corners that are on the four feet, is scarcely an intelligible expression. Pe’oth, the word translated "corners," means properly "ends;" and the direction seems to be, that the four rings should be affixed to the four "ends" of the table; those ends, namely, which are "at the four feet." It is a periphrasis, meaning no more than that they should be affixed to the feet, as Josephus tells us that they were. (Ant. Jud. 3.6, § 6.) Exodus 25:27 Over against the border. Rather "opposite the band" or "framing"—i.e; opposite the points at which the "band" or "framing" was inserted into the legs. Bishop Patrick supposes that the table "was not carried up as high as the ark was, but hung down between the priests, on whose shoulders the staves rested." But it is carried upright in the bas-relief on the Arch of Titus, and might have been as easily so carried as the ark. (See the comment on verse 12.) Of the staves. Rather, "for staves." Staves for the table had not yet been mentioned; and naturally the word has no article. Exodus 25:29 The dishes thereof. Literally" its dishes," or rather perhaps, "its bowls" (LXX. τρύβλια). They were probably the vessels in which the loaves were brought to the table. Loaves are often seen arranged in bowls in the Egyptian tomb decorations. Spoons thereof. Rather, "its incense cups"—small jars or pots in which the incense, offered with the loaves (Le Exodus 24:5), was to be burnt. Two such were represented in the bas-relief of the table on the Arch of Titus. Covers thereof and bowls thereof. Rather, "its flagons and its chalices" (LXX. σπονδεῖακαὶκύαθοι)—vessels required for the libations or "drink offerings" which accompanied every meat-offering. To cover withal Rather, as in the margin, "to pour out withal." So the Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, and most of the Targums. Exodus 25:30 Thou shalt set upon the table shew-bread before me alway. Here we have at once the object of the table, and its name, explained. The table was to have set upon it continually twelve loaves, or cakes, of bread (Le Exodus 24:5), which were to be renewed weekly on the sabbath-day (Le Exodus 24:8), the stale loaves being at the same time consumed by the priests in the holy place. These twelve loaves or cakes were to constitute a continual thank-offering to God from the twelve tribes of Israel in return for the bless-Lugs of life and sustenance which they received from him. The bread was called "bread of face," or "bread of presence," because it was set before the "face" or "presence" of God, which dwelt in the holy of holies. The Septuagint renders the phrase by ἄρτοιἐνώπιοι "loaves that are face to face"—St. Matthew by ἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως, "loaves of setting-forth"—whence the Schaubrode of Luther, and our "shew-bread," which is a paraphrase rather than a translation. Exodus 25:23-30 The symbolism of the table of shew-bread. Before the holy of holies, within which was the Divine Presence, dwelling in thick darkness behind the veil, was to be set perpetually this golden table, bearing bread and wine and frankincense. The bread and wine and frankincense constituted a perpetual thank-offering, offered by Israel as a nation to the high and holy God. The idea was that of a constant memorial (Le Exodus 24:8), a continual acknowledgment of the Divine goodness on the part of the nation. The essence of the offering was the bread—we know of the wine only by implication; the frankincense is distinctly mentioned (Le Exodus 24:7), but is altogether subordinate. Israel, grateful to God for maintaining and supporting its life, physical and spiritual, expressed its gratitude by this one and only never ceasing offering. It was intended to teach— I. THAT WAS DUE TO GOD FROM HIS PEOPLE . Men are so cold by nature, so selfish, so little inclined to real thankfulness, that it was well they should be reminded, as they were by the shew-bread, of thankfulness being a continuous, unending duty, a duty moreover owed by all. No tribe was ever exempt, however reduced in numbers, however little esteemed, however weak and powerless. The twelve loaves were perpetually before the Lord. II. THAT MUST BE SHOWN BY . The best offering is that of a "pure heart;" but no man of a pure heart, who possessed aught, was ever yet content to offer merely "the calves of his lips"—men instinctively give of their best to God. Bread, the staff of life—wine, that maketh glad the heart of man—frankincense, the most precious of spices, are fitting gifts to him. The offering of bread signifies the devotion of our strength—of wine, the devotion of our feelings—of frankincense, the devotion of our most sublimised spiritual aspirations to the eternal. Israel, as a nation, perpetually offered these offerings, and thereby inculcated on each individual of the nation the duty of doing the same, separately and individually, for private, as the nation did for public, benefits. III. THAT NO COULD BE TO GOD, UNLESS ALL ITS WERE PURE AND HOLY. The loaves were to be of the finest flour (Le Exodus 24:5). The frankincense was to be "pure frankincense" (Le Exodus 24:7). The table was to be overlaid with "pure gold" (Exodus 26:24). All the utensils of the table were to be of the same (Exodus 26:29). Nothing "common or unclean" was to come into contact with the offering, which was "the most holy unto the Lord" of all the offerings made to him (Le Exodus 24:8). The purity and perfection of all the material surroundings of the offering suggested the need of equal purity in those who offered it. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 37:10-16 The table of shew-bread. Between the ark of the testimony and the table of the shew-bread we see this great correspondence—that they were of the same material of shittim wood and had the same adornment of gold. But along with this correspondence there was a great difference, in that the ark of the testimony stood within the veil, while the table of shew-bread stood without. The ark of the testimony had the mercy seat above it, while the table of the shew-bread had the lighted candlestick over against it. There must be some significance in having the table on the people’s side of the veil rather than God’s side; and may it not be that the table with its bread and the candlestick with its light were meant to set forth God’s providential support and illumination of all his people? The shew-bread was not so much an offering presented to God as something placed on the table by his command, regularly and unfailingly, to symbolise the unfailing regularity with which he supplies his people in their ordinary wants. The daily meat offering with its fine flour was the representation of the labour of the people: and so we may take the shew-bread as representing that blessing of God without which the most diligent toil in sowing and watering avail nothing. The God of the shew-bread is the God in whom we live and move and have our being; we cannot do without him for the necessities and comforts of natural life. Were he to cease the operations of his energy in nature, it would soon be seen how utterly fruitless is all our working just by itself. A great and efficient providing power cannot be denied by whatsoever name we choose to call him. Would we know him and more of him than we can ever know in nature—we must think of what lies within the veil. He gives us the things belonging to the outer holy place, the bread and the light, the natural strength and the natural wisdom, in order that we may come to know him in his spiritual demands and his ability to satisfy the deepest demands of our hearts. The God who gives that bread to his people, of which the shew-bread was an ever renewed sample, gives it that we whose lives are continued by the bread may spend them to his glory. God feeds us that we may be in all things his servants, and not in anything our own masters.—Y. THE GOLDEN (Exodus 25:31-40). Though the holy of holies was always dark, unless when lighted by. the glory of God (Exodus 40:34, Exodus 40:35), the holy place, in which many of the priests’ functions were to be performed, was to be always kept light. In the day-time sufficient light entered from the porch in front; but, as evening drew on, some artificial illumination was required. In connection with this object, the golden candlestick, or rather lamp-stand, was designed, which, together with its appurtenances, is described in the remainder of the chapter. Exodus 25:31 A candlestick. The golden candlestick is figured upon the Arch of Titus, and appears by that representation to have consisted of an upright shaft, from which three curved branches were carried out on either side, all of them in the same plane. It stands there on an octagonal pedestal, in two stages, ornamented with figures of birds and sea-monsters. This pedestal is, however, clearly Roman work, and no part of the original. Of beaten work. Not cast, but fashioned by the hand, like the cherubim (verse 18). His shaft. Rather, "its base" (literally "flank"). His branches. Our version follows the Septuagint; but the Hebrew noun is in the singular number, and seems to designate the upright stem, or shaft. The "branches are not mentioned till verse 32, where the same noun is used in the plural. His bowls, his knops, and his flowers. Rather, "its cups, its pomegranates, and its lilies." The "cups" are afterwards likened to almond flowers (verse 33); they formed the first ornament on each branch; above them was a representation of the pomegranate fruit; above this a lily blossom. The lily-blossoms supported the lamps, which were separate (verse 37). The remainder were of one piece with the candlestick. Exodus 25:32 Six branches. The representation on the Arch of Titus exactly agrees with this description. It was a peculiarity of the "candlestick," as compared with other candelabra, that all the branches were in the same plane. Exodus 25:33 Three bowls made like unto almonds. Cups shaped like almond blossoms seem to be intended. Each branch had three of these in succession, then a pomegranate and a lily-flower. The lily probably represented the Egyptian lotus, or water-lily. In the other branch. Rather, "on another branch." There were six branches, not two only. The ornamentation of two is described; then we are told that the remainder were similar. Exodus 25:34 In the candlestick: i.e; in the central shaft or stem, which is viewed as "the candlestick" par excellence. Here were to be twelve ornaments, the series of cup, pomegranate, and lily being repeated four times, once in connection with each pair of branches, and a fourth time at the summit. Exodus 25:35 A knop under two branches of the same. The branches were to quit the stem at the point of junction between the pomegranate (knop) and the lily. Exodus 25:36 All it. Rather, "all of it." Shall be one beaten work. Compare Exodus 25:31 Exodus 25:37 The seven lamps. The lamps are not described. They appear by the representation on the Arch of Titus to have been hemispherical bowls on a stand, which fitted into the lily-blossom wherewith each of the seven branches terminated. They shall light the lamps. The lamps were lighted every evening at sunset (Exodus 27:21; Exodus 30:8; Le Exodus 24:3, etc.), and burnt till morning, when the High Priest extinguished them and "dressed" them (Exodus 30:7). That they may give light over against it. The candlestick was placed on the southern side of the holy place, parallel to the wall, the seven lamps forming a row. The light was consequently shed strongly on the opposite, or northern wall, where the table of show-bread stood. Exodus 25:38 The tongs thereof. Tongs or pincers were required for trimming the wicks of the lamps. Compare 1 Kings 7:49; 2 Chronicles 4:21. Snuff-dishes were also needed for the reception of the fragments removed from the wicks by the tongs. "Snuffers," though the word is used in Exodus 27:1-21:23, in the place of tongs, had not been indented, and were indeed unknown to the ancients. Exodus 25:39 Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it. The candlestick, with all its appurtenances, was to weigh exactly a talent of gold. The value of the Hebrew gold talent is supposed to have been between 10,000l. and 11,000l. of our money. Exodus 25:40 Their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. Compare Exodus 25:9, and the comment ad loc. It would seem from this passage that the "patterns" were shown to Moses first, and the directions as to the making given afterwards. Exodus 25:31-40 The symbolism of the candlestick. The light which illuminated the darkness of the tabernacle can represent nothing but the Holy Spirit of God, which illuminates the dark places of the earth and the recesses of the heart of man. That the light was sevenfold is closely analogous to the representation of the Holy Spirit in the Revelation of St. John, where there are said to be "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God" (Revelation 4:5). It is generally allowed that these "seven spirits" represent the one indivisible but sevenfold Spirit, who imparts of his sevenfold gifts to men. Seven is, in fact, one of the numbers which express perfection and completeness; and a sevenfold light is merely a light which is full and ample, which irradiates sufficiently all that it is designed to throw light upon. The light from the golden candlestick especially irradiated the opposite wall of the tabernacle where the table of shew-bread was set, showing how the offerings of the natural man require to be steeped in the radiance of the Spirit of God in order to be an acceptable gift to the Almighty. We may see— I. IN THE PURE GOLD OF THE THE OF HIM, WHOSE EMBLEM IS THE DOVE—WHO IS "THE SPIRIT OF PURITY." The pure light of the refined olive oil, and the pure gold of the candlestick were in harmony. Both indicated alike the Spirit’s awful holiness. Both taught the presence of One, who was "of purer eyes then to behold iniquity." II. IN THE SIMPLE YET OF ALMOND BUDS, AND , AND LILIES, WE MAY SEE THE DELIGHT OF THE SPIRIT IN ALL THINGS LOVELY, SWEET, AND . The Spirit of God, which, when the earth was first made, "brooded upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2), still tenderly watches over creation, and rejoices in the loveliness spread over it by his own influences. Flowers and fruits are among the most beautiful of created things, and well befit the interior of the sanctuary where God’s presence is manifested, whether cunningly carved in stone, or fashioned in metal-work, or, best of all, in their own simple natural freshness. III. IN THE SOFT SHED AROUND BY THE , WE MUST SEE THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT, WHICH GIVES LIGHT TO THE WORLD. Spiritual gifts, however diverse, are his gifts. "To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing; to another faith; to another prophecy; to another miracles; to another tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). It is he who "doth our souls inspire, and lighten with celestial fire." It is he from whom all wisdom and knowledge, and spiritual illumination are derived. He informs the conscience, guides the reason, quickens the spiritual insight, gives us discernment between good and evil. Christ is "the light of the world," but Christ diffuses his light by his Spirit. Man’s contact is closest with the Third Person of the Trinity, who communicates to the soul every good and perfect gift which has come down to it from the Father of lights. Illumination is especially his gift; and it is therefore that light and fire are made the especial symbols of his presence (Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:3, Acts 2:4; Revelation 4:5). IV. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SEVEN LAMPS WE MAY SEE THE FULNESS AND OF THE WHICH THE SPIRIT TO MAN. Fulness and completeness in respect to man’s needs—not absolute completeness or fulness; for "Now, we see through a glass darkly," "we know in part only—not as we are known." But "his grace is sufficient for us." We know all that we need to know—we see all that we need to see. "Full light" and "true knowledge" are for another sphere; but still, even here, we are privileged to see and know as much as would be of advantage to us. Inspired messengers have declared to us what they have felt justified in calling "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). We are familiarly acquainted with mysteries, which the very "angels desire to look into" (1 Peter 1:12). V. IN THE OF TONGS AND SNUFF-DISHES WE MAY SEE THAT THE CO- OF MAN IS , IF THE OF THE LIGHT TO HIM IS TO REMAIN . The lamps of the golden candlestick had to be "dressed" each morning. Perpetual vigilance is necessary. Phrases once instinct with power lose their force; and new phrases, adapted to each new generation, have to be coined and circulated. The translation of the word of God in each country has from time to time to be revised, or an accretion of usage will dim the light of the pure word, and overshadow it with traditional glosses. Teachers must be watchful, that they do not suffer the light of their teaching to grow dim; hearers must Be watchful, that they do not by their obstinacy refuse to give the light passage into their souls. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 25:31-40; Exodus 27:17 -24 The candlestick. As the shew-bread was a symbol of what Jehovah gave to his people in one way, so the lighted candlestick in all the preciousness of its material and elaboration of its workmanship was a symbol in another way. And even as the shew-bread was in magnitude only as a crumb of all the great supply which God gives in the way of food, so the candlestick even in full blaze was but as a glimmer compared with all the light which God had gathered and arranged in various ways to guide and cheer his people. But glimmer though the light of the candlestick might be, it was quite enough to act as an inspiring and encouraging symbol for all who, seeing, were able to understand. From that place between the cherubim, shrouded as it was in awful sanctity, there radiated forth abundance of light for every one in Israel who was disposed to profit by it. In heathendom the perplexed went long distances to consult renowned oracles, only to find that for all practical purposes they might just as well have stayed at home. There was a great boast of illumination; but the reality turned out ambiguous and delusive. But here is the seven-branched candlestick (seven being the perfect number) to indicate that God would assuredly give all needed light to his people. On one side stood the shew-bread, and over against it the light. So we need God’s guidance to show us how to use what materials he puts in our hands for our support. It is only too easy for man, following the light of a corrupted nature, to waste, abuse, and degrade the choice gifts of God. Consider the vast quantities of grain that instead of passing through the hands of the baker to become food, pass through the hands of the brewer and distiller to become alcohol. In all our use of the resources which God has placed in our hands, we must seek with simplicity of purpose and becoming humility for God’s light, that we may be assured of God’s will. God has placed us in the midst of such profusion that we may use it for him and not for self. And is not a lesson taught us in this respect by the very candlestick itself? It was made of gold. The Israelites at this time seem to have had great store of gold; and left to their own inclinations, they gave it for shaping into an image to be worshipped. Now, by causing this candlestick to be made of gold, Jehovah seemed to summon his people to give their gold to aid in supporting and diffusing his light. What God gives may be a curse or a blessing, just according to the spirit in which we receive and use it. We can desire no nobler office than to be ourselves as lamps, doing something to shed abroad that great, true light of the world, which radiates from the person of Christ. He who is living so as to make Christ better known amid the spiritual darkness of the world has surely learnt the great lesson that God would teach to all ages by this golden candlestick in his sanctuary of old.—Y. Exodus 26:1-37 THE . The sacred furniture which the tabernacle was to contain having been described, with the exception of the "altar of incense" the description of which is reserved for Exodus 30:1-38. (Exodus 30:1-10)-directions were next given for the sacred structure itself. This was to consist of three main things— 1. A quadrangular enclosure thirty cubits long by ten broad, open at one end, and on the other three sides enclosed by boards of acacia-wood overlaid with gold—called the mishkan, or "the dwelling-place," in our version usually translated "tabernacle." 2. A tent of goat’s hair, supported upon poles, and stretched by means of ropes and tent-pegs in the ordinary manner over the mishkan. This is called the ’ohel—which is the usual word for a "tent" in Hebrew, and is so translated generally (Genesis 4:20; Genesis 9:21; Genesis 13:1-18:31; Genesis 18:1, etc.), though in this chapter, unfortunately, "covering" (Exodus 30:7); and 3. A "covering"—mikseh, to be placed over the ’ohel, composed of rams’ skins dyed red, and seals’ skins (Exodus 30:14). Subordinate parts of the structure were— (a) The sockets, or bases, which were to receive and support the upright boards (Exodus 30:19-25); (b) The bars which were to hold the boards together (Exodus 30:26-29); (c) The veil, stretched on pillars, which was to be hung across the" dwelling-house," and to separate it into two parts, the "holy place" and the "holy of holies" (Exodus 30:31-33); and (d) The curtain or "hanging" at the open end of the "dwelling-place," where there were no boards, which was intended to close that side of the structure when necessary (Exodus 30:36, Exodus 30:37). Exodus 26:1 The fine linen covering (Exodus 26:1-6). Thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains. These "ten curtains" are explained in the verses which follow to be ten "breadths," so fastened together as to form practically a single curtain or awning, which constituted the cieling or inner covering of the tabernacle. The mode of its arrangement is not quite certain. Some suppose that it was really a part of the "tent," being laid over the same framework as the goats’ hair curtain (Fergusson, Cook); others believe it to have been strained across the mishkan and fastened to the top of the boards on either side, thence depending, either inside or outside (Bahr, Keil). The former supposition appears the more probable. Fine twined linen is linen the threads of which are formed of several fine strands twisted together. This is often the case with Egyptian linen. On blue and purple and scarlet, see the comment upon Exodus 25:4. Cherubims of cunning work. Rather, "cherubim, the work of a skilled weaver." Figures of cherubs were to be woven into the hangings in the loom itself, not embroidered upon them afterwards. Exodus 26:2 Eight and twenty cubits. This is the exact length required for a rectangular tented roof over such a space, which should descend (as tent roofs usually do) within about seven feet of the ground. The comparison made in Exodus 26:12, Exodus 26:13, between the fine linen covering of the mishkan and the goats’ hair covering of the "tent," implies that the one was directly under the other, and that both were arranged in the same way. The breadth of four cubits. This gives for the entire length of the curtain (4 by 10), 40 cubits, or ten cubits more than the length of the boarded space. The roof must thus have been advanced some distance in front of the tabernacle proper, or rectangular boarded space. Every one of the curtains shall have one measure. They shall all, i.e; have the same measure. Exodus 26:3 When the ten "breadths" had been woven, five were to be sewn together to form one portion of the awning, and the other five to form another portion, the reason for this being, probably, that if all the ten breadths had been sewn together, the awning would have been too cumbrous to have been readily folded together, or easily conveyed when the people journeyed. Exodus 26:6 The Authorised Version gives the sense fairly. The two curtains, each composed of five "breadths," were to be united by means of one hundred loops, fifty on each curtain, which were to be coupled together by fifty "taches" or clasps. The loops were to be of the "blue" material used generally in the textile fabrics of the tabernacle (Exodus 25:4; Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:31, Exodus 26:36), and the "taches" or clasps were to be of gold. In this way the covering of the mishkan was to be completed. Exodus 26:7 The goat’s skin tent-cloth (Exodus 26:7-13). From the inner covering of the tabernacle the directions proceed to the external covering, or rather coverings, which constituted the real strength of the structure, and its protection from wet or stormy weather. Curtains of goats’ hair, such as the Arabs still use, as the ordinary covering of their tents, were to form a true "tent" (’ohel) above the tabernacle, being supported by tent-poles, and kept taut by means of cords and pegs (Exodus 27:19; Exodus 35:18). See the representation in Dr. W. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3. p. 1454, which is reproduced in the Speaker’s Commentary, vol. 1. p. 376. To be a covering. In Exodus 36:14, we have—"he made curtains of goats’ hair for the tent over the tabernacle," which is far better. The word used in both places is the same (’ohel). Eleven curtains—i.e; "eleven breadths." Compare Exodus 36:1. Exodus 26:8 The length … shall be thirty cubits. A tent with a rectangular roof, over such a chamber as the mishkan, brought down, as tents usually are, within six or seven feet of the ground, would have required a covering of this length. If the slope of the roof had been greater, the covering must have been longer. The breadth … four cubits. This gives for the entire covering, when made up, a width of forty-four cubits, or sixty-six feet. As the entire length of the mishkan was only thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, it is evident that the tent projected considerably beyond the tabernacle, either at both ends, or, at any rate, at one end. Probably the projection was at one end only—viz; in front; where it constituted a porch, eighteen or twenty feet deep. The temple, which was modelled after the tabernacle, had a porch fifteen feet deep. Exodus 26:9 Thou shalt couple, etc. As with the inner awning of linen, so with the goats’ hair tent-cloth. The whole when made up was to be in two pieces, for convenience of transport. (See the comment on Exodus 26:3.) The number of breadths in the tent-cloth being uneven, the two pieces were to be of different sizes, one containing five, and the other six, "breadths." Thou shalt double the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tabernacle. "Tabernacle" here is a mistranslation; since the Hebrew word is ’ohel, "tent." The meaning may be, either that the sixth breadth was to be doubled back upon the fifth, or that half of it was to be doubled back upon the other half. The latter view is to be preferred, since otherwise the extra breadth would have been superfluous. Exodus 26:10 Fifty loops in the edge of the curtain that coupleth the second. Rather, "fifty loops at the edge of the second curtain of coupling." The two portions of the goats’ hair covering were to be united in exactly the same way as those of the inner awning of linen. Fifty loops were to be sewn on to the edge of the extreme, or outermost, breadth of each portion, and these loops were to be connected by clasps or links. The outermost breadth on which the loops are sewn, is called the curtain of coupling." Exodus 26:11 Fifty taches of brass. Rather "of bronze." The links of the inner curtain were of gold (Exodus 26:6). Exodus 26:12 The remnant which remaineth, etc. Both this and the next verse presume a very close connection between the fine linen covering of the mishkan and the goats hair tent-cloth which protected it. "The remnant that remaineth" is the half-breadth by which the tent-cloth would overlap the linen covering at the back of the tent, when at the front half of the eleventh breadth had been turned back upon the other half (see comment on Exodus 26:9). This "remnant" was to be ’allowed to hang down over the back part of the tabernacle. Exodus 26:13 And a cubit. Rather, "And the cubit." The cubit by which the goats’ hair tent-cloth, which was thirty cubits across (Exodus 26:8), would exceed the linen covering, which was twenty-eight cubits (Exodus 26:2), on either side of the tabernacle, was to be allowed to hang down, like a valance, hiding so far the golden boards of the tabernacle. Exodus 26:14 The outer protection (Exodus 26:14). And thou shalt make a covering for the tent. Nothing is said of the size of this covering; but, as its object was clearly to protect the roof of the tent from penetration by wet, it seems reasonable to suppose that it extended at least as far as the boards of the tabernacle. To do this, it must have been thirty cubits long, and fourteen broad. Exodus 26:15 The boarding of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:15-30). Boards … of shittim wood. These boards were to be fifteen feet long by two feet three inches broad, and, if they were each of a single plank, can scarcely have been furnished by any of the acacias which now grow in the Sinaitic peninsula. It is possible, however, that they were made up of two or more planks, since the name by which they are designated, kereth, is thought to be applied in Ezekiel 27:6, to the "deck of a ship." Standing up. The way in which they were to be made to "stand up" is explained in Ezekiel 27:17 and Ezekiel 27:19. They were not to have one end sunk in the ground, but to be fitted by means of "tenons" into silver "sockets." Exodus 26:17 Two tenons. Literally, "hands." Projecting rods, such as those common in our dinner tables, seem to be meant. They may have been of metal, let into the boards to a certain depth, and projecting several inches beyond them. Or, possibly, they may have been of acacia wood. In one board—i.e. "In each board"—no doubt, at the bottom of each. Set in order one against the other. Arranged, i.e; at regular intervals, the position of each corresponding to the position of its fellow. Exodus 26:18 Twenty boards. Each board being a cubit and a half in width (Exodus 26:16), the length of the chamber was, necessarily, thirty cubits. On the south side southward. Literally, "On the south side, to the right." The Orientals regarded it as natural to look to the east, and spoke of the east as "in front," the west as "behind," the north as "on the left," and the south as "on the right hand." Exodus 26:19 Forty sockets of silver. Nothing is said of the shape of these "sockets." They were certainly very massive, as each contained a silver talent (Exodus 38:27), and thus weighed from eighty to ninety pounds. It has been supposed that they stood on the ground, and formed a sort of continuous base, out of which the planks rose. But this would have constituted a very unsafe structure. Kalisch is probably right in his view, that the sockets were let into the ground resembling those at the bottom of a gate, into which the bolt is pressed down. Each socket received one of the "tenons." Exodus 26:20 The second side … the north side. The north side, or left hand, was always regarded as less honourable than the south side or right hand (see Genesis 48:13-20), probably because in the northern hemisphere the sun illumines the south side. It showed the superior dignity of the south side that the golden candlestick was set against it (Exodus 40:24). Exodus 26:22, Exodus 26:23 For the sides of the tabernacle westward. Rather, "for the back" (τὰὀπίσω—LXX.). Here there were to be six boards only, which would give the abnormal and improbable width of nine cubits. The additional cubit required was no doubt obtained from the corner boards, or posts, each of which added to the (internal) width half a cubit (see Exodus 26:23). Exodus 26:24 They shall be coupled together beneath … unto one ring. This is very obscure, and might be explained in several ways. Perhaps it is best to suppose that the coupling was by the "bars," cf. Exodus 26:26-29, the ends of which fitted into a sort of double ring, like the figure 8, attached to the corner posts. Above the head. Rather "at" or near the head." Exodus 26:25 And they shall be eight boards. Counting in the two comer boards, or posts, the boards of the back would be eight. Each of them was to have two "tenons," like the boards of the sides, and every "tenon" was to have its own silver "socket." Thus the "sockets" would be sixteen, two under each board. Exodus 26:26-28 Bars of shittim wood. To give greater stability to the structure, to keep the boards in their places, and to prevent there being any aperture between them, five bars were to be made for each side, and the same number for the end, of the mishkan, which were to be passed through rings attached to the boards—one at least to each—and thus to hold the boards firmly together. The middle bar in each case was to extend the whole length of the enclosure (Exodus 26:28), and thus in two cases to be thirty cubits, or forty-five feet long. The exact length, and the disposition of the other bars is not indicated; but it is with reason conjectured that two were above and two below the "middle bar" that all were horizontal—and that each coupled together one half of the boards of each side. The length of each was probably fifteen cubits; and the ends which reached the two comer posts at the back ran into the corner rings, which were shaped so as to receive the two bars (see Exodus 26:24). It is not said whether the bars were inside or outside the mishkan; but the best authorities suppose them to have been outside. Exodus 26:29 The rings were to be of solid gold; the boards and the bars of acacia wood overlaid with gold. Exodus 26:30 According to the fashion. Where the description was incomplete (and it could not but be incomplete in many points), Moses was to follow his recollection of the "pattern," which either in vision, or otherwise—he had seen in the mount This would be his best guide, for "Segnius irritant animum demissa per aures, Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus." Exodus 26:31-35 The veil and the ordering of the holy places. Exodus 26:31 A vail. The veil was to be of the same material and workmanship as the inner covering extended over the mishkan, and like that, was to have figures of cherubim woven into its texture by a skilled weaver. Exodus 26:32 Four pillars. The contrast between these four pillars of the interior, and the "five pillars" at "the door of the tent" (Exodus 26:36, Exodus 26:37), is striking, and justifies the supposition that the veil in the tabernacle did not completely divide the holy of holies from the holy place, but formed a screen, above which the space was open. If the veil had been hung from the top of the tented roof, so as completely to separate the two places, there must have been fire pillars, or at any rate an odd number, m the interior. Their hooks shall be of gold. These are hooks attached to the pillars, for the purpose of their having the curtains hung upon them. Upon the four sockets. The word "sockets" has no article. Translate—"Thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold, with their hooks of gold, and standing upon four sockets of silver. The pillars probably had "tenons," like the boards (Exodus 26:17), which were inserted into silver sockets, let into the ground. Exodus 26:33 Thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches. If the "taches" of Exodus 26:6 or even of Exo 26:11, are intended, and" under" is to be taken strictly as" immediately under," the mishkan must have been divided by the veil into two equal, or very nearly equal parts; and the tabernacle must in an important particular have completely differed from the temple. In the temple the holy place was twice the length of the holy of holies (1 Kings 6:16, 1 Kings 6:17). It is possible that "under "may be used vaguely, or that the "taches" of this verse are the "hooks" of Exodus 26:32. That thou mayest bring in. Rather, "And thou shalt bring in." The clause is directive. The most holy. Literally, "the holy of holies"—the inner chamber, that within the veil, which constituted the adytum, or innermost recess of the tabernacle. The ark and the mercy-seat were the special furniture of this inner sanctuary. To these is added later (Exodus 30:1-10) the altar of incense. Exodus 26:35 The table here is, of course, "the table of shew-bread" described in the preceding chapter (Exodus 26:23-30), immediately after the mercy-seat It was to be set "without the veil," in the holy place or outer chamber, against the north wall. The candlestick is the seven-branched lamp-stand described in Exodus 25:31-39. It was to be placed over against the table, and consequently on the south side (Exodus 40:24). Exodus 26:36, Exodus 26:37 The entrance to the tent. Exodus 26:36 Thou shalt make a hanging. A curtain which could draw up and. down, seems to be intended. When let down, it probably covered the entire eastern side, or front of the tabernacle. When raised, it allowed the eye to penetrate into the holy place. Exodus 26:37 Five pillars. The central pillar was, no doubt, as Mr. Fergusson long ago pointed out, one of two tent-poles, which supported between them a ridge-pole, over which were thrown the coverings that formed the roof of the tent. Its height was probably fifteen cubits, so as to give a due slope to the roof. The two pillars nearest to the central one probably measured ten cubits, and stood in line with the two walls of the mishkan. The outer pair would then have a height of five cubits, and support the two extremities of the goats’ hair covering. Their hooks. The hooks whereby the "hanging" was attached to the pillars. Compare Exodus 26:32. Sockets of brass—i.e; of bronze. These were probably let into the ground, like the other sockets. The symbolism of the tabernacle structure. I. That the HOLY OF HOLIES typified heaven itself is declared in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:7-12). In it were the forms of cherubim, representing the angelic choir, and between them was the manifestation of the presence of God himself. It was cut off from the rest of the sanctuary by the veil, which none was to lift save the High Priest once a year: "the Holy Ghost thus signifying, that the way into the holiest of all"—i.e; into heaven—"was not made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing" (Hebrews 9:8). II. THE VEIL thus typified and represented the separation between man and God—the awful barrier which shuts out from the Divine presence all, even the holiest, unless they have with them the blood of expiation, "that speaketh better things than that of Abel." The veil was covered with cherubic forms, reminding men of those watchers at the gate of Eden, who with "a flaming sword that turned every way, kept the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24). Men saw in the thick curtain that hid the holiest from view, that heaven was shut to them, unless a "new and living way" could be found, whereby they might enter. They had impressed upon them the awful holiness and inaccessibility of the Supreme Being, and their own unworthiness to approach him. They learnt that God had hidden himself from them, until some "better time," When the veil would be rent, and in and through their true High Priest, and through faith in his blood, they might "have boldness to enter into the holiest." III. The tabernacle outside the veil—THE HOLY PLACE, as it was called—represented the church militant. Here was perpetual worship offered to the God behind the veil. Hither were all who had received the holy anointing, and so been made "priests to God" (Revelation 1:6) privileged to enter. Here was a perpetual thank-offering presented to God in the shew-bread that lay always upon the table. Here was illumination from the sevenfold lamp which typified the Holy Spirit (see above on "the symbolism of the candlestick "). The place was "all glorious within" (Psalms 45:13)—on the wails "clothing of wrought gold,"—above, a canopy of fine twined linen, and blue and purple and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work" interwoven into it—at either end a curtain of nearly similar materials. Those who looked on the tabernacle from without saw the goats’ hair, and the rams’ skins, and seals’ skins, and perceived in it no beauty that they should desire it. The beauty was revealed to those only who were within. So now, the Church is despised and vilified by those without, valued as it deserves only by those who dwell in it. Again, the structure seems weak, as does the structure of the Church to worldlings. A few boards, an awning, a curtain or two—what more frail and perishable! But, when all is "fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth" (Ephesians 4:16), when by a machinery of rings and bars, and tenons and solid sockets, and pillars and hooks, the whole is welded into one, under Divine direction and contrivance, the fragility disappears. "God’s strength is made perfect in weakness." A structure is produced which continues, which withstands decay, which defies assaults from without, which outlasts others seemingly far stronger, and bids fair to remain when all else is shattered and destroyed. "Behold! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The tabernacle, frail as it was, lasted from the exodus until the time when Solomon expanded it into the temple. Our tabernacle, the Church, will endure until it shall please God to merge it in a new and wonderful creation—"the new Jerusalem" (Revelation 21:2, Revelation 21:10-27; Revelation 22:1-5). IV. THE CURTAIN AT THE symbolises the fact, that there is a division between the Church and the world. The curtain may be lifted at times; but the world has only glimpses of the real inner life of the Church, does not fully see it, does not comprehend it. The life consists in worship—in contemplation, prayer, and praise. The world "cares for none of these things." It may glance curiously at the external fabric, and scoff a little at the contrast between the homely goats’ hair that shows itself in one part, and the "blue and purple and scarlet, and fine twined linen wrought with needlework" that is seen in another; it may be angered at the sight of "pillars overlaid with gold," and ask scornfully, "Wherefore this waste?" But it does not care to consider seriously the fitness of these things, or to weigh the reasons for them. The only interest which it feels is one arising from cupidity: the Church, it thinks, would be worth plundering; and it looks forward hopefully to the time when it will "divide the spoil." V. The support of the entire fabric upon TENONS and SOCKETS indicates that the Church is detached from earth, has here no resting-place, no continuing abode, awaits removal to heaven. What is of the earth, is earthy. If the Church were of the earth, if it were a human institution, if it rested on human wisdom, or power, or affection, it would be swayed by human emotions; it would seek those things which are the main objects of human desire; it would cease to witness for God; it would be powerless to raise man above himself and fit him for the life which is to come. But the Church is not of man’s building. Christ built it. It is his. He is its "chief corner-stone;" and there—fore, "while it touches earth, it belongs altogether to heaven." BY J. ORR Jehovah’s dwelling. Instructions are now given for the making of the "dwelling-place," of that sacred house or tent which was to be the special abode of Jehovah, and within which, when reared according to the fashion shown to Moses in the mount (Exodus 26:30), the sacred articles described in the previous chapter were to be deposited. We need not encumber our homily with the minutiae of construction. It will suffice to direct attention to the general arrangement of parts, and to the costly and beautiful character of the erection as a whole. 1. General arrangement. The tabernacle may be described as a quadrangular enclosure of boards, sumptuously overlaid with gold, and fitted beneath into sockets of silver (Exodus 26:15-30). Over this were placed (1) the tabernacle-cloth proper—a finely-woven double curtain of byssus, glowing all over with figures of cherubim, in blue, and purple, and scarlet (Exodus 26:1). (2) A tent cloth of goats’ hair (Exodus 26:7). (3) Exterior coverings. These consisted of rams’ skins dyed red, and of skins of seals (Exodus 26:14). Loops and taches united the two divisions of the tabernacle and tent-cloths. The clasps in the one case were of gold (Exodus 26:6), in the other of brass (Exodus 26:11). Internally, four pillars supported a magnificent veil, also wrought in blue, and purple, and scarlet with figures of cherubim (Exodus 26:31, Exodus 26:32). This divided the sacred enclosure into two apartments, the outer, the holy place, and the inner, the holy of holies, the true dwelling of Jehovah. The division, as already seen, "corresponded to the design of the tabernacle, where Jehovah desired not to dwell alone by himself, but to come and meet with his people’ (Keil). The holy of holies, accordingly, contained the ark; the holy place, the symbols of the vocation of the people. It was the place of the people’s approach to God. Another curtain, "wrought with needlework," and, like the veil, suspended from pillars by hooks of gold, hung before the entrance in front. The pillars, in this case, were five in number (Exodus 26:36, Exodus 26:37). For details, dimensions, and theories of arrangement, consult the exposition. No scheme yet propounded is entirely free from difficulties. The general measurements, and the mention of "pins" in Exodus 27:19, point strongly in the direction of a tent form such as that suggested by Mr. Fergusson (Dict. of Bible, art. Temple). A difficulty, on this theory, arises from the statement that the veil was to be hung" under the taches" (verse 33). But the expression, "under the taches," may be used of a high-roofed structure with some degree of latitude, otherwise we must suppose that the veil originally divided the sanctuary into two apartments of equal size. 2. Glory and beauty of the dwelling-place. Within the limits of its dimensions, the tabernacle was really a place of great splendour—a costly and magnificent erection. We should err, however, in going much beyond the general effect to be produced in seeking for symbolical meanings. The shittim wood, the precious metals, the colours, the finely-embroidered linen fabrics, have significance only as adding to the beauty and richness of the place designed for Jehovah’s abode. The end was, as far as possible, to rear a residence worthy of" the King of glory," or, from another point of view, to set forth, by the external splendour of the dwelling, the surpassing glory and magnificence of him who dwelt in it. Thus also was enhanced the idea of the singular honour enjoyed by those who were permitted to minister before him (see Fairbairn). The cherubic figures woven into the tabernacle drapery, point, if our interpretation of these figures is correct—to the host of angels who continually attend Jehovah, who are his willing servants in all that relates to his kingdom, who take so deep an interest in its progress, who furnish to his people a constant model of obedience (Matthew 6:10), and who may be viewed as joining with them, in all their services, in the worship of their King. They are part of the heavenly community, to which, as citizens in God’s kingdom, we belong (Hebrews 12:22). The chapter suggests the following general reflections:— 1. Whatever glory or beauty the tabernacle possessed was derived ultimately from God. Man could but work up materials furnished to him by the Maker of all. So with the "beauties of holiness" in the Church. It is God who gives us of his grace, and who works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). 2. The tabernacle, in another aspect of it, was a product of human art and skill. The plan was Divine; the materials were from God; but the workmanship was man’s. It is a characteristic of the "spiritual house" which God is now building on earth, that it also is being reared by human agency, and that each individual has it in his power to contribute something to its beauty. Every holy life that is being lived is the weaving of a beautiful fabric for the adornment of this house. 3. God’s condescension is seen in his willingness to dwell with Israel in this wilderness-made abode. Magnificent as it was, it was but a paltry abode to offer to the maker of heaven and earth—to the possessor of all things. Yet Jehovah did not spurn it. He sought an abode with men. His dwelling in the tabernacle was, in some aspects of it, a grander thing than his inhabitation of the infinities of space. It told of a God who does not spurn to enter into personal relations with his creatures. He will stoop as far as holiness permits, in his endeavour to reach them, and to lift them up to communion with himself. 4. The tabernacle, glorious as it was, was but the type of dwelling-places more glorious than itself. We have found the antitypes in the once abased, but now glorified, humanity of Christ; in the renewed heart of the believer; in the redeemed Church as a whole. God prefers the temple of the humble and contrite heart to the grandest building ever reared by hands of man (Isaiah 57:15).—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The tabernacle itself. Consider here— I. GOD’S THAT A -PLACE SHOULD BE FOR HIM. Against even the least degree of image-making there was a stern edict; and we might also have expected that there would be equal sternness in forbidding the creation of aught in the shape of a holy house. For what on the face of it would seem more probable than this, that the erection of a holy house would be a strong inducement towards the fashioning of some visible representation of Deity? Thus we might conjecture; but our conjectures soon get swept away as we are made clearly to understand that it was a good thing for Israel that Jehovah their God, their guide, and their unfailing support, should have a dwelling-place in the midst of their dwelling-places. Such a dwelling-place was no necessity for him, but to the people it was a help so great, that it became a necessity; and so we see they were more than permitted, they were even commanded, to construct an enclosure which should be reckoned the house of God. When we want to find one of our fellow-men, we reckon that it is at his house we shall find him easiest; and just as it is possible, by going and making proper request at the palace-gates, to get a great favour from a king without even a momentary vision of his face, so an Israelite was to be taught that by going to the holy dwelling of Jehovah—whom no man had seen or could see—he might unquestionably secure Divine benefits. As there was a condescension in the new dispensation, so there was in the old. He who became to a certain extent circumscribed in the limits of a human body, only carried out into a more abiding and far-reaching mystery, the circumscribing which first became a fact at Sinai. He who has the heaven for his throne and the earth for his footstool, chose to make the narrow limits of the tabernacle his peculiar dwelling-place. He meant Israel to understand that he was there, as he was nowhere else. II. THE FORM WHICH THIS -PLACE ASSUMED. Ever as the people dwelt in tents, easily set up and easily taken down, so God, in the midst of them, likewise dwelt in a tent. There was of course an elaboration and costliness about the tent of Jehovah, such as could not be found in the tents of even the noblest and wealthiest of the people; but still it was essentially a tent. A correspondence obtained between this tabernacle with all its splendid adornments which could not have obtained, if even the plainest of true buildings had taken its place. It is most needful for us to remember that the house of God in the midst of his people was not a building that had foundations. It was strictly suited to their wants. It was more suited to their immediate future than they themselves had any apprehension of; and we cannot but feel that for one thing, God had in view their forty years’ wandering. They had not yet sinned the sin which led to this penalty; but that sin was before the mind of him who knew their expectations and their instability. Then it would appear also that God had nothing else than a tabernacle in view, even after his people secured each one their place in the lot of their temporal inheritance. It is not perhaps too much to say that the erection of the splendid temple which glorified Solomon’s reign was no part of the Divine intent. God made the erection of that imposing mass to work in with his intent; but in the end it proved to have no more stability than the tabernacle which preceded it. Bear in mind what Jesus said of the temple which was standing in his time. His disciples in admiration pointed to the great stones which went to compose it; hut Jesus in the discernment of his heart nevertheless was able to point out that not one stone should be left on another. The temple seemed more stable than the tabernacle; but it was only a seeming. Well-meaning men, not able to escape from carnal notions, may make God’s house to take the temple-form, but God himself will take care that it has the tabernacle-reality. It is not in what we can make with our hands, be we ever so liberal, be we ever so diligent, that God can find a real abode. His real abode is in ourselves, in each of us who are holy and perfected individuals through our believing connection with Christ, and still more in the midst of his perfected people, joined together in the inexpressible, indestructible harmony of heaven.—Y. BY G. A. God dwelleth not in temples made with hands. An idea, to be realised, must be embodied; e.g; thoughts must be expressed in words; the vision of the artist must take form on canvas or in marble. So, too, with the Divine ideas; they also must be embodied, and as presented for man’s instruction, they must be so embodied that man may apprehend them. The unseen must be made visible; the pattern on the mount must be modelled and reared up upon the plain. Notice— I. THE DIVINE IDEAL. Moses was shown the original Divine embodiment, not a mere toy model which he was to enlarge, but the actual God-fashioned tabernacle, in all the perfection of its related parts. So far as man was concerned, it might be a purely ideal structure; but the ideals of earth are the realities of heaven. The holy of holies, and the holy place, and the outer court—all these must exist, or Moses could not have been shown them. May we not also discern dimly that reality which Moses saw? The holy of holies, where God’s throne is set—heaven in its innermost recesses, screened off from earth by the blue sky-curtain, which no unaided eye can pierce. The holy place and the outer court, God’s earthly sanctuary, his Church in this world, related on the one side to heaven, and on the other to the world around it; the visible heavens are, in some sort, an expression of this Divine idea, illuminated by the sun (cf. Psalms 19:1-14.), and with the earth—from man’s standpoint—forming a kind of outer court. Even this true tabernacle (cf. Hebrews 8:2) is only an embodiment of the Divine idea; but then it is the Divine embodiment, the expression found for it by God himself. II. THE HUMAN COPY. The divine ideal as divinely embodied is still beyond man’s understanding; it needs to be translated for men into language with which they are familiar. The child must be spoken to as a child (Isaiah 28:11), "with stammering lips and a feigned tongue." The tabernacle of nature expresses God’s idea in polysyllables; the tabernacle which Moses reared translates it into easier language. Notice— 1. The holy of holies. (1) The sanctity of the Divine dwelling-place emphasises the sanctity of its Divine inmate. "Clouds and darkness are round about him." "Holiness becometh his house for ever." (2) "Righteousness and judgment are the establishment of his throne;" it is founded upon a guarded law. (3) Mercy rejoiceth over judgment. God is just, or righteous, but also the justifier who makes righteous. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." 2. The holy place. God has made it possible for man to approach him. They who may not bear the presence may yet be admitted to the ante-chamber. The Church is the link between heaven and earth, as the high priest is the link between the Divine and human. Notice— (1) The golden altar. The fumes of the incense may penetrate the veil, which shuts out the priest who offers it. Prayer can go where the worshipper cannot go. (2) The golden candlestick. No lamp needed in the holiest place (cf. Revelation 21:23). Here, when man meets with God, for man’s sake the lamp is needed. The light derived from God must be guarded by man, so only is the required illumination to be secured. (3) The golden table. Furnished week by week with food satisfying alike to God and man. Such the Church—a heaven on earth. Prayer ascending towards the unseen holy; light from God carefully guarded; offerings wherein God and man both find satisfaction—such are the notes of a true Church, one wherein man may have communion with his Maker, holy as preluding to the holy of holies. (4) The outer court. Here we have the first stage in man’s progress from the world God-wards. The altar and the laver, sacrifice and purification, must come before communion. Consecration and cleansing precede intercourse and fellowship, and these again prepare for the beatific vision. Conclusion.—What is the central thought thus shadowed forth? Is it not this:—God’s holiness can only be approached step by step, whilst the road by which we must approach it is that which will ensure for us growth in holiness. "The pure in heart shall see God;" the beatific vision is for those only whose spiritual eyesight has been prepared for its reception. We cannot come up to the throne of God save through the outer court and through the sanctuary; sacrifice and cleansing, illumination and communion; then, for those who can receive it, the open vision and the presence of God.—G. THE ALTAR OF BURNT . From the description of the tabernacle, or sacred tent in which worship was to be offered by the priests, it followed in natural sequence, that directions should be given concerning the court, or precinct, within which the tabernacle was to stand Ancient temples were almost universally surrounded by precincts, which the Greeks called τεμένη, whereto a sacred character attached; and this was particularly the case in Egypt, where the temenos seems to have been a regular adjunct to the temple. Among the chief uses of such an open space, was the offering of victims on altars, as these could not be conveniently consumed elsewhere than in the open air, on account of the clouds of smoke and the fumes of the sacrifices. As in the description of the tabernacle, the furniture was first described, then the structure, so now the altar takes precedence of the court which was to contain it. Exodus 27:1 Thou shalt make an altar. Rather, "the altar." God had already declared that he would have an altar made to him in the place where he should "record his name" (Exodus 20:24). And, even apart from this, an altar would be regarded as so essential an element in Divine worship, that no place of worship could be without one. Of shittim wood. God had required (1. s. c.) that his altar should be "of earth," or else of unhewn stones (Exodus 20:25). The command now given was to make, not so much an altar, as an altar-case (see Exodus 27:8). There can be no doubt that Jarchi is right in supposing that, whenever the tabernacle for a time became stationary, the hollow case of the altar was rifled up with earth, and that the victims were burnt upon this. Four-square. Altars were commonly either square or round. An Assyrian triangular one was found by Mr. Layard at Nineveh; but even this had a round top. The square shape is the most usual, and was preserved, probably in all the Temple altars, certainly in those of Solomon (2 Chronicles 4:1) and Herod (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 5.5, § 6). Exodus 27:2 The horns of it. Literally, "its horns." Horns were not usual adjuncts of altars; indeed they seem to have been peculiar to those of the Israelites. They were projections at the four top comers, probably not unlike the horns of bulls, whence their name. Criminals clung to them when they took sanctuary (1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28); and the blood of sin-offerings was smeared upon them (Exodus 29:12; Le Exodus 8:15; Exodus 9:9; Exodus 16:18, etc.). Victims also were sometimes, when about to be sacrificed, bound to them (Psalms 118:27). According to Kalisch, "The horns were symbolical of power, of protection and help; and at the same time of glory and salvation." His horns shall be of the same. Part and parcel of the altar, that is, not extraneous additions. Thou shalt overlay it with brass. A solid plating of bronze is no doubt intended, such as would protect the shittim wood and prevent it from being burnt. Exodus 27:3 His pans to receive his ashes. Literally, "to cleanse it from fat’—i.e; to receive what remained after burning the victims, which would be ashes mixed with a good deal of fat. His shovels. Those would be used in removing the ashes from the altar, and depositing them in the pans. His basins. Vessels for receiving the blood of the victims and from which it was poured on the altar. Compare Exodus 24:6. His flesh hooks. So the Septuagint, and our translators again in 1 Samuel 2:13. They would seem by the latter passage to have been three-pronged forks, the proper use of which was, no doubt, to arrange the various pieces, into which the victim was cut, upon the altar. His fire-pans. The word used is generally translated "censers" (Leviticus 10:1.; Leviticus 16:12; Numbers 4:14: Numbers 16:6, Numbers 16:17, etc.), but sometimes "snuff-dishes" (Exodus 25:38; Exodus 37:23). It here perhaps designates the vessels used for carrying burning embers from the altar of burnt-offering, to the altar of incense on certain occasions (Leviticus 1 Samuel 16:12). Etymologically, it means simply "a receptacle.’’ All the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. Rather, "of bronze." Bronze was the usual material of utensils and implements in Egypt. Copper was scarcely used without the alloy of tin which converts it into bronze; and brass was wholly unknown. A trace of iron is sometimes found in Egyptian bronze Exodus 27:4 Thou shalt make for it a grate. Rather, "a grating." This was probably a protection for the lower part of the altar, and prevented it from being touched by the feet of the ministrant priests. It was outside the altar, and had the rings attached to it, by which the altar was carried when the Israelites journeyed. Exodus 27:5 Thou shalt put it under the compass. The "compass" (karkob) is spoken of as if it were something well-known; yet it had not been previously mentioned. Etymologically the word should mean "a cincture" or "band" round the altar; and thus far critics are generally agreed. But its position, size, and object, are greatly disputed. Some hold that it was a broad bench, or step, on which the officiating priests stood at the time of a sacrifice, and that its position was about the middle of the altar. Others think that it was a mere border round the top, from which the net-work depended, and that the object of both was to catch anything that might fall from the altar. Others again, while placing it mid-way in the altar, regard it as a mere ornament, only projecting slightly, and forming a sort of finish to the net-work. This, which is the view of Knobel, seems to be, on the whole, the most probable one. That the net may be even to the midst of the altar. If the" compass" was at the top, the net must have extended thence to the middle. If it was mid-way in the altar, the net must have covered the lower half. To us this latter seems the more probable view. But the point is uncertain. Exodus 27:6, Exodus 27:7 Staves, or polos, were needed for the carriage of the altar from place to place, as for the ark (Exodus 25:13) and the table of shew-bread (Exodus 25:28). They were to be inserted into the rings mentioned in Exodus 27:4. As the altar was of bronze, so the rings were to be of bronze, and the staves overlaid with bronze. There is a gradual descent in the preciousness of the materials from the holy of holies to the holy place, and from that to the court. Exodus 27:8 Hollow with boards shalt thou make it. See the comment on Exodus 27:1. The term here used for" boards," (which is different from that in Exodus 26:15-29) implies strength and solidity. As it was showed thee in the mount, Compare Exodus 26:30, with the comment ad loc. Exodus 27:1-8 The symbolism of the brazen altar. The noticeable points of this altar are its position, material, ornaments, and purpose or use. I. ITS . (1) It was without the sanctuary, in the open court beyond; (2) under the canopy of heaven; (3) directly in front of the sanctuary, and so of the ark and the mercy-seat. (1) It was without the sanctuary, that none might venture inside the holy structure, and so draw nigh to God without passing it, and obtaining from it the purification which it could confer. Even if the priests on the way to the tabernacle did not always stop at the altar to offer a victim as a sacrifice, they would have the thought of the need of expiation brought home to them by the sight of it, and might as they passed propitiate the Most High by the offering of a prayer. The position of the altar taught that man’s first need is to have his sins and impurities purged away; and that until this is done, he must not presume to worship God, or enter into his presence, or offer the sacrifice of praise, or mingle in the company of those who form "the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven." (2) It was under the open canopy of heaven, visible to all, accessible to all, for all Israel might enter the court; thereby teaching, that the necessary purification was intended by God to be open to all, and that his eye looked down from heaven with favour upon all who desired to be purged from their impurities, and were willing to accept the appointed mode of purging. (3) It was directly in front of the sanctuary, and so of the ark and the mercy-seat. By this position it pointed to them, led the eye towards them, reminded men of them. With God, in the holy of holies, was at once justice, and also mercy—the law and the mercy-seat. Here, at the altar, was the place where the two could be reconciled, where "mercy and truth might meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other." Here was to be begun that purging, both of the nation and of individuals, which was only complete when once in the year the high priest entered into the holiest, with the blood of the sin-offerings, and sprinkled it on the horns of the altar that was within the veil (Exodus 30:10), and "on the mercy-seat eastward" (Le Exodus 16:14), so atoning both for himself and for the sins of the people (Hebrews 9:7). II. ITS . The material was (1) shittim or acacia wood; (2) bronze; and (3) earth; the earth alone constituting the true altar (Exodus 20:24), and the wood and metal a casing, by means of which the earth was kept together. (1) Shittim, or acacia, the most incorruptible of woods, typified the purity required in all that is set apart for God. (2) Bronze, the metal most common in the use of the time, indicated that the altar was for every-day employment by the mass of the people (Leviticus 1-7.). (3) Earth, pure fragrant mould, that of which man was formed at the first (Genesis 2:7), and into which he is resolved at the last (Genesis 3:19), may well have represented Humanity; so that in the altar, which God had required to be made of earth (Exodus 20:24), he saw Humanity making its offerings to him,—peace-offerings in thankfulness for his mercies, sin-offerings in deprecation of his anger, burnt-offerings in complete dedication of the whole being to his service. Or the mould may primarily have represented this earth, on which we live, whereof it is the essence as being the life-sustaining portion, and only secondarily man, for whom the earth was brought into existence, and of which he is the master. III. ITS . These were, (1) perhaps, its cincture; (2) certainly, its horns. (1) The cincture, or "compass" (Exodus 27:5), if it was wholly for ornament, may simply have indicated the propriety of adorning and beautifying everything which is brought into the service of the sanctuary. Without some wreath, or moulding, where the grating began, the altar would have had a bare and unfinished look. It would have been wanting in elegance and beauty. The pattern shown to Moses in the mount did not allow of this. It left nothing bare, unsightly, inelegant, out of taste. God chose to be worshipped "in the beauty of holiness." It is easy to disparage beauty; and certainly beauty alone, not accompanied by purity and goodness, is worthless, vain, trivial. But, as men desire beauty in their own houses, furniture, utensils, vessels, implements, so natural piety leads them to desire even greater beauty for the houses, vessels, etc; used in the service of God. "The house," said David, "that is to be builded for the Lord, must be exceedingly magnifical" (1 Chronicles 22:5). And congruity requires that, if a house be magnifical, all its contents, down to the meanest vessel, should possess some beauty; otherwise, the law of harmony is broken—a discord manifests itself. (2) The horns at the four corners, uprearing themselves to heaven, and showing conspicuously, as symbols of power and strength, spoke of the God to whom the altar was reared, and indicated his ability to help, protect, and succour his worshippers. But there was also a human side to their symbolism. They further indicated the victory which man gains over death and Satan by means of expiation, the height to which he is exalted when the atonement made for him cleanses him from all sin. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord!" IV. ITS PURPOSE. We have assumed throughout that the purpose of the altar—its main purpose—was expiation. Its proper title was "the altar of burnt-offering." All offerings, except those which the high priest offered at the altar of incense in the holy of holies, were to be made at this brazen altar before the door of the tabernacle. Hither were the Israelites to bring alike their peace or thank-offerings, their burnt-offerings, and their sin-offerings. Expiation was the sole idea of the last of these, and a main idea of the second; it was absent only from the first. Thus it was the predominant idea of sacrifice. The altar witnessed to the guilt of man in God’s sight, and the need of an atonement being made for him before he could be reconciled to "the High and Holy One." It witnessed also to God’s eternal purpose, that a way of reconciliation should be devised, and made known to man, and that thus it should be put into his power to make his peace with God. The true victim was not indeed as yet offered. Bulls and goats, lambs and rams, could never of themselves, or of their own proper force, sanctify the unclean or take away sin. It was only by virtue of the death which their sacrifice prefigured, that they had any atoning force, or could be accepted by God as expiatory. Each victim represented Christ—the one and only sacrifice for sin which could propitiate the Father. And the altar therefore represented and typified the cross on which Christ died, offering himself thereon to the Father as both priest and victim. Shape and material were different, and the mode of death was different; but each was the material substance on which the atoning victim died, each was stained with the atoning blood; and each was unspeakably precious to the trembling penitent who felt his need of pardon, and, if possible, even more precious to him who knew that atonement had thereon been made for him, and felt his pardon sealed. No true Israelite would sacrifice on any altar but that of the sanctuary. No true Christian will look for pardon and atonement anywhere but to the cross of Christ, and to him who on that altar gave his life for man. BY J. Exodus 27:1-21 The tabernacle and its teachings. I. THE ALTAR OF . 1. The situation of the altar. (1) It faced the worshipper as he entered. The cross of Christ must be held up before men, if they are to be brought nigh to God. (2) It stood before the holy place, and had to be passed by all who entered there. The realisation of Christ’s atonement for sin is the only path to God’s presence. 2. The altar, on which the sacrifice for sin is laid, is the place of power. The horns, the symbol of Divine power. The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation. 3. In Christ God gives us a place for accepted offerings. The altar was Israel’s as well as God’s: upon it were laid their offerings as well as those prescribed for the daily service and the great day of atonement. In Christ we are able to offer sacrifices that are well pleasing to God. II. THE COURT OF THE . 1. Its limits were appointed by God himself. The Church must be made no broader than his commandment makes it. In his own time he will make it conterminous with the world; but meanwhile we must obey his commandment and fulfil his purpose by making it conterminous with living faith. 2. It was for all Israel. Living faith in Christ should be a passport to all his churches. 3. How the court was formed— (1) Its walls were made of fine linen. The distinction between the world and the Church is righteousness. (2) The gate was formed of blue and purple and scarlet. Entrance is had not by man’s righteousness, but by bowing beneath the manifested grace of God in Christ. III. THE OIL FOR THE LAMPS. 1. It was the free-will offering of the people. The light of the world springs from the consecration of believers. 2. It was to be pure. Believers must keep themselves unspotted from the world. 3. It was to be beaten, not pressed, and thus be the finest which the olive could yield. The highest outcome of humanity is the Christ-like life. 4. The lamps were to burn always. Our light, the flame of love, must burn constantly before God, and its radiance be shed always before men. 5. The lamps were to be tended by the ministers of God. The aim of those who labour in weird and doctrine should be the development of Christ-like life, love to God and man.—U. THE COURT BEFORE THE . The description of the altar is (as already observed) naturally followed by that of the court which was to contain it, and in which it was to be the most conspicuous object. This is given with great clearness in ten verses, and presents scarcely any problem for solution. The court was an oblong square, three hundred feet in length and seventy-five in breadth. It was enclosed by curtains, hung on sixty pillars, placed at intervals of seven feet and a half apart. The pillars were connected by rods, and each of them fitted into a socket. There was but one entrance, which was at the eastern side, midway in it. It was thirty feet wide, and had its own curtains and its own pillars. These curtains were of similar material with those at the entrance to the tabernacle, but the hangings round the rest of the court were merely of fine white linen. Exodus 27:9 Thou shalt make the court. Rather, "a court." For the south side southward. Rather," For the south side, upon the right." Compare the comment on Exodus 26:18. Hangings. The word used is a rare one in this sense, quite different from those which have been employed for "curtains" or "hangings "previously (Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:7, Exodus 26:36). The LXX. translate by ἱστία "sails;" and the Jewish commentators believe a loosely woven sail-cloth to be intended. Fine twined linen. See the comment on Exodus 26:1. Exodus 27:10 And the twenty pillars thereof, etc. Literally, "And its pillars, twenty (in number), and their sockets, twenty (in number, shall be) of bronze." The hooks of the pillars are loops whereto the curtains were to be attached. See Exodus 26:32. Their fillets. It is now generally agreed that the word used designates "connecting rods," which joined the pillars at the top, and probably helped to support the "hangings." These, and the "hooks," were of solid silver. Exodus 27:11 The north side of the court is to be exactly similar to the south in all respects. Exodus 27:12 The west side is also to be similar, except that it is to be half the length, fifty cubits—and, therefore, requires only half the number of pillars and sockets. Exodus 27:13 The breadth of the court on the east side eastward. Rather, "in front toward the east." The Rabbinical tradition was that Adam found himself on his creation fronting towards the east, and had consequently the south on his right, the north on his left, and the west behind him. Hence, they said, the four cardinal points received the names of kedem, "in front" (the east); yamin, "the right hand" (the south); ’akhor, "behind" (the west); and shemol, "the left hand" (the north). For this use of all four words, see Job 23:8, Job 23:9. Exodus 27:14 The hangings of one side. Literally, "of one shoulder." The two extreme parts of the east side, between the entrance (Exodus 27:16) and the corners are thus named. They were to extend on either side a distance of fifteen cubits, and to have their curtains suspended to four pillars, one of them being the corner pillar, which is not counted. Hence the pillars are said to be three Exodus 27:16 For the gate. The word used is the common one for "gate;" but here it rather signifies "entrance." Strictly speaking, there was no "gate;" the worshippers entered by drawing aside the curtain. This was a hanging of similar material, colours, and workmanship to that which hung in front of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:36). By its contrast with the white linen screen which surrounded the rest of the court, it would show very clearly where men were to enter. Exodus 27:17 Filleted with silver. Rather, "joined by silver rods." See the comment on Exodus 27:10. They were also to have their capitals overlaid with silver (Exodus 38:17). Exodus 27:18 The length and the breadth of the court had been already implied in what had been said of the external screen-work, or "hangings" (Exodus 27:9 and Exodus 27:12). What this verse adds is the height of the pillars, which was five cubits, or seven feet six inches. Exodus 27:9-18 The Court of the Tabernacle. I. THE USE OF THE COURT. The court was primarily a precinct inclosing the sacred structure, and preserving it from contact with the roughnesses of the rude world without. It formed a sort of vestibule to the tent-temple, which awoke solemn thoughts, and gave men time to put away secular considerations, and attune their minds to the Divine harmonies, before entering the house itself, which contained the manifestation of the Divine presence. God must be approached with preparation, humbly, reverently, tremblingly. The court at once preserved the sacred structure from accidental or intentional profanation, and helped to prepare the priests for the duties of their office. Secondly, the court was the place of sacrifice. It contained the brazen altar, whither all Israel was to bring their gifts. Here were offered, at once all the stated sacrifices, daily, or weekly, or monthly, or yearly, and all the irregular and voluntary offerings which the piety of the Israelites induced them to bring in. The smoke of victims continually ascended from it to heaven. Here was the place for expiation—for thankfulness—for self-dedication to the service of God. II. THE PERSONS TO HAVE THE USE OF IT. These were all Israel—young and old, rich and poor, great and small, priests and laymen. Into the holy of holies none but the high priest, into the holy place none but the priests might enter. But the court was common to the priesthood with the laity. Hither came, to "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation," every pious Israelite who was minded to offer a sacrifice of any kind—whose heart swelled with gratitude for mercies received, and who therefore brought a "thank-offering"—whose soul was weighed down with the sense of sin, and who sought relief by the sacrifice of a "sin-offering"—whose awakened spirit told him that unless the soul wholly rests on God there is no peace for it, and who, as a sign of absolute self-dedication, came to offer a "burnt-offering." Hither came many a man, anti many a woman, like Hannah (1 Samuel 1:7-11), in sore trouble, and offered to the Lord Almighty their vows. Whatever may have been the practice with respect to the temple, while the tabernacle endured, the whole congregation had free access to it. Here they felt themselves to be that "kingdom of priests"—that "holy nation " Ñ which God had declared that they should be (Exodus 19:6). Here they realised, at any rate to some extent, that blessing which is among the greatest of the Christian’s privileges-the right to "come boldly to the throne of grace" (Hebrews 4:16)—to "draw near to God," without an earthly mediator, "in full assurance of faith" (Hebrews 10:22)—to "cast all our care upon him"—to have direct communion with him—to speak with him, "as a man speaks with his friend." III. THE OF THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE . There was clearly a gradation in holiness. The inner shrine had a sanctity peculiar to itself, expressed by the very name, "holy of holies." Here was the greatest beauty and the greatest magnificence. Walls entirely of gold, curtains of cunning work, interwoven with the graceful forms of cherubim, furniture all covered with gold, golden cherubs of beaten work upon the mercy-seat—above all, the glory of God showing in the space between these figures. A lesser degree of sanctity belonged to the outer chamber—"the holy place;" and this was indicated by inferior richness and magnificence. Though gold was still the metal chiefly used, silver, and even bronze (Exodus 26:37), were introduced. The outer curtain was not wrought with cherubim (verse 36). The change was even greater between the "holy place" and the court. In the court was no gold, but only silver and bronze. The "hangings" were for the most part plain. Only at the entrance did the eye rest upon the mingled glory of blue and purple and scarlet, and upon the cunning work of embroidery. The furniture and utensils were of bronze only. Again, the gradation was marked by the law of admission: into the court, all the congregation; into the "holy place," the priests only; into the "holy of holies," none but the high priest. And thus it will be always, as we are nearer to God or further from him. If we dwell only in his courts, on the outer verge of his kingdom, we must be content with the bronze and plain linen of bare acceptance; we must not expect favour, glory, beauty. If, on the other hand, we press forward from his courts into his sanctuary; if we strive ever to advance in holiness, then he has better things in store for us. "For brass he will give gold" (Isaiah 60:17), for acceptance, approval—for mere pardon, communion and fellowship; and to such as press into the inner shrine, with the "boldness" that is now legitimate (Hebrews 10:19), he will reveal himself in the full splendour of his majesty, and in the perfect glow of his love. THE VESSELS OF THE . There were many "vessels of the tabernacle" which have not hitherto been mentioned, as the great laver in the court (Exodus 30:18; Exodus 40:30) with the basins for washing which must have belonged to it; the pins or pegs whereby the various curtains were extended and supported; and probably much sacrificial apparatus besides what is enumerated in Exodus 27:3. All these were to be of bronze, the commonest metal of the time, but one very suitable for the various purposes, being, as the Egyptians manufactured it, of great hardness, yet exceedingly ductile and ready to take all shapes. Its usefulness and convenience caused it to retain its place, even in the gorgeous and "magnificent" temple of Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:2, 1 Chronicles 29:7), where it was employed for the two great pillars, Jachin and Boaz, for the great laver or "brazen sea," for the mailer layers upon wheels, for the pots, the shovels, the basins, the snuffers, the spoons, and many other sacred vessels (1 Kings 7:15-45; 2 Kings 25:13, 2 Kings 25:14). Though "common," it was never reckoned "unclean," or less fitted for the service of the sanctuary than silver or gold. It had, however, its own proper place, an inferior place to that held by the more precious metals. Exodus 27:19 All the pins thereof. The "pins" of the tabernacle are undoubtedly the pegs or tent-pins, whereby the tent-cloth wherewith it was covered was extended and kept taut. There were also probably similar pegs or pins for cords used to keep the "pillars" (Exodus 26:37) or tent-poles in place. The pins of the court supported in the same way the pillars of the court (Exodus 27:10-15). The value is God’s sight of what is common and homely. God does not despise anything that he has made. "His mercy is over all his works" (Psalms 145:9). Each of them has its fit and proper place. Each one of them is needed in his universe. Much less does he despise any of his human creatures. He has seen fit to gift them variously, to make some of gold, some of silver, and some of brass, some to honour, and some to comparative dishonour; but for all he has a use. No intellect is too homely, no nature too rude and unrefined to find a place somewhere in his Church where it can do him service, and even perhaps do it better than a more refined and more highly gifted nature. Difference, gradation, variety, is the law of his universe. "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:41). In the angelic hierarchy there are angels and archangels, principalities, and powers; in the Church triumphant there are grades—princes who sit on thrones, judges of tribes, rulers over ten cities, rulers over five cities, and a "great multitude" who have no authority, but are simply "saints." And so it is, and must ever be, in the Church militant. "There are diversities of gifts," higher and lower natures, minds of extraordinary power, and dull, homely intellects. Bat all have their use; for all there is room; and God values each. God will have none despised. The brazen vessels of the outer court—ash-pans and basins, and flesh-hooks, and fire-pans, and tent-pins—were as much needed for the tabernacle and its service, as the silver sockets and rods, or the golden taches, and rings, and snuff-dishes. Bronze is more suitable for many purposes than gold; and ordinary human nature can do God’s work better in many positions than great gifts or extraordinary intellect. THE OIL FOR THE LAMP. It has been observed that this paragraph is somewhat out of place. It would more appro priately, according to human ideas, have terminated Exodus 25:1-40. But "God’s ways are not as man’s ways, nor his thoughts as man’s thoughts." It is frequently difficult—some-times impossible—for the keenest human intellect to trace the connecting links between one portion of God’s word and the next. In such cases it is best not to speculate on the nature of the connection, but to content ourselves with laying to heart the lesson which each portion teaches separately. Exodus 27:20 Thou shalt command. Compare Exodus 25:6, where the general command had been given. Here certain additions are made as to the quality of the oil which was to be brought. The oil was to be pure olive oil beaten that is to say, it was to be olive oil purified from any admixture of that watery juice which the Romans called amurca; and it was to be of the kind which is obtained by mere beating or pounding in a mortar, and not by crushing in a mill. Oil of this kind, which is usually made from the unripe fruit, is reckoned much the best; it is clear and colourless, and gives a bright pure light with little smoke. To cause the lamp to burn always. It has been supposed from this expression that the lamp must have been kept constantly burning both day and night; and Josephus declares that this was actually so, at least with three out of the seven lights (Ant. Jud. 3.7, 7). But there are several places m Scripture which state, or imply, the contrary. (See especially Exodus 30:8; and 1 Samuel 3:3.) It seems to have been the duty of the high-priest to light the lamps every evening, and to give them a sufficient supply of oil to last till daybreak, at which time "the lamp of God went out" (1 Samuel l.s.c.) The supposition that "one light at least was always burning" (Kalisch), because no daylight could penetrate into the structure through the fourfold covering, ignores the fact that light would enter through the single curtain at the entrance, as well as the probability that some portion of that curtain may generally have been looped up. If we regard the lamp as extinguished during the daytime, we must understand "always" here to mean "regularly every night." Exodus 27:21 The tabernacle of the congregation. Rather, "the tent of meeting"—the tent where God would meet the earthly ruler of the people (Exodus 25:22), and give him commands and directions—not the place of meeting for the people themselves, who might in no case go beyond the entrance to the structure. The testimony—i,e; the ark which contained the "testimony," or two tables of stone written with the finger of God. Aaron and his sons. Compare Exodus 24:1. The intention to confer the priesthood on the descendants of Aaron, first openly revealed in the next chapter (Exodus 24:1 -43), is tacitly assumed from time to time in the earlier narrative. Shall order it from evening to morning. See the comment on verse 20. It is difficult to assign these words any distinct meaning unless we accept the view, that the lamp burnt during the night only. It shall be a statute for ever. This expression is not at all common. In Exodus it occurs only here and in four other places. In Leviticus it is met with some six or seven times. The portions of the law thus characterised must be regarded as of special importance. (See the homiletics on this verse.) Exodus 27:20, Exodus 27:21 Oil for the lamp. I. THE PEOPLE’S DUTY. (1) The people were to bring the oil regularly—to attend to what may have seemed to them a little matter, but what was in God’s sight of such importance that he made it "a statute for ever"—and to attend to it with such regularity that oil should never be lacking. (2) They were to bring of their best. The oil was to be from the olive—not from the sesame plant, or the castor-oil plant, or the Raphanus olifer, or from any vegetable which furnished oil of a coarse kind. It was to be "pure," not adulterated, as oils often were in Egypt (Plin. H.N 13.1), and not mixed with the amurca, or watery juice of the olive, which made it unfit for burning. Next, it was to be "beaten oil"—oil made with extra trouble by careful pounding with the hand, instead of rough mechanical crushing in mills. II. THE PRIESTS’ DUTY. The priests were perpetually to trim and tend the lamps. Daily, at even, they were to light them; daily, in the morning, they were to extinguish them, if any were still alight; to trim the wicks; to cleanse the bowls which held the oil; and to replenish them with a proper supply. They were to lake every care that a pure light was constantly maintained night after night, so that the house of God should never be dark, or even obscure, but be ever ready for worship, ever illumined, ever prepared for any visitation of its Lord, who might come at the third, or the sixth, or the ninth, or the twelfth hour. It does not appear that there were any night services in the tabernacle; but the lighted lamp was a testimony that the Church continued ever on the watch, strove ever to be "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:14)—like the wise virgins, "kept its lamp burning." And this is the duty of ministers at all times. The Christian ministry must take care that the light of the Church shines pure and bright continually—that nothing dims it—that it glows ever as a beacon light, a guide and a help amid the storms and tempests of the world. If the people do not bring a due supply of oil—i.e; of loving, faithful service—the Church must suffer, its light be dimmed. If the people do their duty, and the ministers fail, if they are careless, or slothful, or self-seeking, or worldly, or wanting in faith, the result is the same—the flame flickers; the light sinks and threatens to go out; gross darkness settles down upon the people. A Church in this condition must expect to have its candlestick removed, unless it repents, and bestirs itself, and turns to God, and "does the first works" (Revelation 2:5), and "strengthens the things that remain and are ready to die" (Revelation 3:2). III. THE TRUE LIGHT. After all, let ministers and people be as faithful as they will, let them "keep their lamps burning," and cause "their light to shine before men" ever so brightly, still they are not, they will never be, "the true light." Christ is "the true light"—"the light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not"—"the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:4-9). In him are hid "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge"—nothing needful for man to know but he has taught it—nothing expedient for man to see but he has revealed it. "His word is a lantern unto our feet, and a light unto our paths." He is both an outward and an inward light. His gospel illumines the world without—penetrates its dark places, exposes its unholy doings, throws a flood of light upon the past, makes plain to us the ways of God with man. And his Spirit illumines the soul within, quickens and guides the conscience, makes our own way plain before our face, "enables with perpetual light the dulness of our blinded sight." He is the only true "light of the world"—the light which will endure throughout all time—the one Teacher who cannot deceive-the one Guide who cannot lead astray! And he is the light of the world to come. "In him is the well of life; and in his light shall we see light" (Psalms 26:9). The "holy city, New Jerusalem," has therefore "no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it," because "the glory of God cloth lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." BY J. ORR Exodus 27:1-20 The brazen altar and court of the tabernacle. From the sanctuary, we pass in this chapter to the outer court, the principal object in which was the brazen altar, or altar of burnt offering. I. THE BRAZEN ALTAR (Exodus 27:1-9). 1. Form of the altar. The altar was a foursquare case of shittim wood, five cubits long and five broad, made with four horns, and overlaid with plates of bronze. Round it, at some distance from the ground, was apparently a ledge, on which the priests stood when engaged with the sacrifices. We must suppose that the central part was filled with earth, or with the unhewn stones commanded in Exodus 20:24, Exodus 20:25. The "grate of network" of Exodus 20:4, seems to us to have supported the ledge, or compass of Exo 20:5. Some take a different view of it. 2. Its horns. These are rightly understood as the points in which the force or virtue of the altar concentrated itself. 3. Its uses. It was— (1) the place to which the people brought their offerings to God; (2) the place at which reconciliation was made for sin; (3) the place on which the parts of the sacrifices which belonged to God were consumed by fire. Here, at the altar, were the victims slain; around the altar the atoning blood was poured or sprinkled; in the case of the sin offering, the blood was smeared upon the horns: with live coals from the altar did the priest replenish his censer when he went in to burn incense before the Lord. On this altar was laid the daily burnt-offering, together with the "sacrifices of righteousness,’’ "the burnt-offering, and whole burnt-offering" (Psalms 51:19), by which the people expressed their consecration to God. Here were consumed the fat and choice parts of the peace-offerings, etc. 4. Its typical significance. (1) The altar, as the place of atonement, reminded the worshipper of sin, and of his need of cleansing from sin’s guilt. In this way, it pointed forward to Christ, in whom the whole ritual of sacrifice reaches its consummation. (2) As the altar of burnt-offering, it taught the duty of unconditional and entire surrender to the will of God. This offering up of the whole being to God in inward consecration underlies the special acts of consecration symbolised in the shew-bread, in the lighted candlestick, and in the ascent of incense from the golden altar. (3) As God’s altar, it was a witness to the Divine readiness to pardon; yet a testimony to the stern truth that without shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). II. THE COURT OF THE (Exodus 20:9-20). On the general construction of the court, see the exposition. We have to view it as a spacious enclosure of a hundred cubits by fifty, its sides formed by linen hangings, five cubits in height, and supported by pillars of brass (bronze) five cubits apart, to which the hangings were attached by hooks and fillets of silver. The brazen altar stood in the forepart of the court; the tabernacle towards the rear. Between the brazen altar and the tabernacle was the laver. The design of this court was to furnish the people, who were precluded from entering the sanctuary, with a place in which they might still, though at some distance, personally appear before Jehovah. The court conferred a privilege, yet taught a lesson. The fact that he could approach no further than its precincts painfully reminded the Israelite that, as yet, the work of atonement was incomplete—that he still stood, because of his unholiness, at a great distance from God. In the gospel of Christ, these barriers are all done away with.—J.O. The burning lamp. God’s care for his sanctuary descends even to so small a matter as the replenishing and trimming of its lamps, Note— 1. The end of the ordinance. God desires that the light obtained from the lamps in his sanctuary be— (1) pure, (2) bright, (3) constant. The best light possible. Such should be the light of the Christian life. 2. The means to this end. (1) The lamps were to be fed with the best and purest oil. The Holy Spirit. (2) The lamps were to be duly trimmed and ordered. Watchfulness, care. The light needs to be attended to.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG The oil for the lamp. A special commandment was given that the oil should be pure and rich:— I. THAT THERE MIGHT BE A DUE BETWEEN THE LIGHT AND THE GLORY OF THE . The candlestick was composed of the most precious of all metals, and it had been fashioned by the hands of an artist Divinely chosen and inspired. Great, therefore, would have been the incongruity, if any but the steadiest and most brilliant light had shone forth from this candlestick. Indeed the provision of the very best material might seem to have been self-suggested and to require no commandment at all, did we not know how forgetful, how inconsiderate human nature is. Man needs to be kept up to the mark by sharp and frequent admonitions; else he will keep the best for himself, and let anything be put forward for such a mere formality as too often he reckons the service of God to be. Still it surely would not require much thought to perceive how disgraceful a dim light would be in connection with such a glorious fabric as the candlestick presented. But there is a more glorious fabric far than this candlestick, if we only consider each human life that comes into this world; if we only consider the riches and strength that are in each one of us by natural constitution. There is something very glorious about the natural life of man, in spite of its depravity, its miseries and its mortality; and God has given us the opportunity of still further glorifying our natural life in this world by offering to make us supports such as may aid in sustaining and diffusing the light he would shed abroad amongst men. When God puts his gospel into the charge of human beings he calls attention to the peculiar glory and eminence of our nature. The more faithful his servants have been to the gospel charge put into their hands, the more they have revealed how vile a thing humanity is. God wishes us in all our connection with him to be worthy of our humanity, and to keep ever in our thoughts the gulf that divides us from even the highest of the brutes. Man is never more truly human, never more fully an exponent of the peculiarities of his nature than when he is doing his best to reveal the saving light of God to men. The Christian, no matter what he may lack in such endowments as the world values, is the best kind of man; and the better Christian he becomes, the higher he stands in that best kind wherein he is already numbered. II. THAT THERE MIGHT BE A DUE BETWEEN THE LIGHT AND THE GLORY OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE. From between the cherubim within the veil God shone forth when it was so required with a glory and impressiveness which no light of human invention could rival. But outside the veil the seven-branched candlestick was ever to be lighted in the night-time to symbolise the glorious illumination which came from Jehovah himself. How important, therefore, that the light should be the very best which man could afford l Nowhere in all the tents of Israel was there to be a brighter light than that which shone in the holy place. A symbol was needed of such light, instruction and wisdom, as are not to be found in the most sagacious and experienced of men, advising simply upon the grounds of human sagacity and experience. When we look at a Christian we must be able to look at one whose light, while it does not fail in a certain sense to glorify himself, glorifies still more his Father who is in heaven. Every Christian is meant to live so as to arrest the attention of men, and make them ask whence comes the power to inspire him with such remarkable motives and make him the agent of such remarkable effects. Whereas the humiliating confession is to be made that most Christian lives are lived on such a low level that one is led to ask "Is this all?" We read of remarkable manifestations and approaches of the Divine in the way of an incarnate Son of God, a resurrection of the dead, a descent into the Church of a life-giving and transforming Spirit, so that all believers may become new creatures in Christ Jesus; and then, when we look at these professed new creatures, and see how much remains unchanged, inveterate as ever, we ask "Is this all the product of Christ’s appearance on the earthly scene?" It is a dreadful reproach that we should let our inconsistency and infirmity be made an excuse for unbelievers to mock at God. We ought to be so under Divine influences, as to combine in one the bright candlestick and the pure, rich oil; and then from us there might shine forth in a pure inviting radiance, a light such as would guide, and cheer while it guided, many a wanderer to God.—Y. THE HOLY . The special object of the present chapter is to prescribe the form, materials, colour, etc; of the holy garments—or the attire of those who were to minister in the tabernacle at the time of their ministration. As the service of the tabernacle was about to be committed to Aaron and his sons, their selection for this office is mentioned in Exodus 28:1, and their investiture and consecration briefly touched in Exodus 28:41. Otherwise the whole chapter is concerned with the attire That of Aaron is first prescribed (Exodus 28:4-39). It consists of an ephod (Exodus 28:6-12); a breastplate (Exodus 28:13-30); a robe (Exodus 28:31-35); a mitre (Exodus 28:36-38); a coat, or tunic; and a girdle (Exodus 28:39). The dress of his sons follows. It comprises drawers (Exodus 28:42), tunics, girdles, and caps or turbans (Exodus 28:40). Incidentally it is mentioned in Exodus 28:43, that drawers are also to be worn by Aaron; and, in conclusion, the neglect of this ordinance in the case of either Aaron or his sons is forbidden under penalty of death Exodus 28:1 Take thou unto thee. Literally, "Make to draw near to thee." Moses had hitherto been of all the people the one nearest to God, the medium of communication. He was now to abdicate a portion of his functions, transferring them to his brother and his brother’s sons. By this act he would draw them nearer to him than they were before. It is worthy of remark that he makes no remonstrance or opposition, but carries out God’s will in this matter as readily and willingly as in all others. (See Le Exodus 8:4-30.) From among the children of Israel. The LXX. react "And from among the children of Israel," as if others besides the family of Aaron had been admitted to the priesthood. But this is contrary to the entire tenor of the later narrative. The existing Hebrew text is correct. Nadab and Abihu, and again, Eleazar and Ithamar, are always coupled together in the Pentateuch (Exodus 24:1; Le Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:12; etc.), while a marked division is made between the two pairs of brothers. It is probably the sin and early death of the two elder (Le Exodus 10:1-2) that causes the separation. Of Ithamar after the death of his brothers, nothing is known. Eleazar became high priest (Numbers 34:17; Joshua 4:1; Joshua 16:4; etc.). Exodus 28:2 Holy garments have provoked an extreme aversion and an extreme affection at different periods of the world’s history. In Moses’ time probably no one thought of raising any objection to them. Priestly dresses of many different kinds were worn in Egypt, and some costume other than that of ordinary life, was probably affected by the priest class of every nation. Without entering into any elaborate "philosophy of clothes," we may say that the rationale of the matter would seem to be that expressed with great moderation by Richard Hooker—"To solemn actions of royalty and justice their suitable ornaments are a beauty. Are they in religion only a stain?" (See Eccl. Pol. 5.29, § 1.) The garments ordered to be made for Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28:41), are said to have been for glory and for beauty. 1. "For glory." To exalt the priestly office in the eyes of the people—to make them look with greater reverence on the priests themselves and the priestly functions—to place the priests in a class by themselves, in a certain sense, above the rest of the nation. 2. "For beauty." As fit and comely in themselves—suitable to the functions which the priests exercised—in harmony with the richness and beauty of the sanctuary wherein they were to minister. God, himself, it would seem, is not indifferent to beauty. He has spread beauty over the earth, fie will have beauty in his earthly dwelling-place. He requires men to worship him "in the beauty of holiness" (Psalms 29:2; Psalms 96:9; 1 Chronicles 16:29). He ordains for his priests rich and splendid dresses "for glory and for beauty." Exodus 28:3 Wise-hearted. In modern parlance the heart is made the seat of the affections and emotions, the brain of the intellect. But the Hebrew idiom was different. There the heart was constantly spoken of as the seat of wisdom. (See below, Exodus 31:6; Exodus 35:10, Exodus 35:25; Exodus 36:1, Exodus 36:2; Job 9:4; Proverbs 11:29, etc.) The spirit of wisdom might seem to be scarcely necessary for the work of constructing a set of priestly garments; but where "glory and beauty" are required, high artistic power is needed; and this power is regarded by the sacred writers, as indeed it is by most of those who have written on the human understanding—notably Plato and Aristotle—as a very important part of the intellect. Techne, says Aristotle, involves theoria, as well as aesthesis and genesis, requires, i.e; a knowledge of high abstract truths, as well as the perceptive faculty which we commonly call "taste," and the constructive one known as "power of execution.’’ (See Eth. Nic. 6.4, § 4.) It is, with him, one of the five chief intellectual excellences. To consecrate him. Investiture in the holy garments was made a part of the ceremony of consecration (Exodus 29:5-9; Le Exodus 8:7-9, Exodus 8:13), as it is in the English Ordinal in the consecration of a bishop. Exodus 28:4 These are the garments. The enumeration does not follow the same order exactly as the description. The two agree, however, in giving the precedence to the same three articles of apparel out of the six—viz; the breast-plate, the ephod, and the robe. His sons—i.e; his successors in the office of high priest, Exodus 28:5 The materials of the priestly garments. The materials for the priestly garments were to be limited to six—precious stones, which are not here mentioned, as being ornamental, rather than essential, parts of the apparel; a blue thread, known as "blue" (compare Exodus 25:4); a purple or crimson one, known as "purple;" a scarlet one, known as "scarlet;" and a white one, which is called "fine linen." These were the same materials as those used for the veil (Exodus 26:31), and curtains (Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:36) of the sanctuary; but probably the fabric was of a more delicate quality. They shall take—i.e.," They," the wise-hearted men to whom the work was to be entrusted—"shall take," or receive from Moses—"the (necessary) gold, blue, purple," etc. In the original all these words have the definite article prefixed. Exodus 28:6 The Ephod, They shall make the ephod The word ephod signifies etymologically any "vestment" or "garment;" but in its use it is confined to the special vestment here described, the great object of which was to be a receptacle for the "breast-plate." The ephod was a sort of jerkin or waistcoat, consisting of two pieces, one to cover the chest and the other the back, joined together probably by a seam, above the shoulders, and united at the waist by a band called "the curious girdle of the ephod." This band was of one piece with the ephod, being woven on either to the front or the back part; it held the other part in place, and was passed round the body and fastened either with a clasp, or with buttons, or strings. Of gold, of blue, of purple, etc.—i.e; "of the same materials as the curtains and veil of the sanctuary, with the addition of gold." The gold was probably in the shape of gold thread, or wire of extreme tenuity, and was introduced by the needle after the fabric bad been woven, as was commonly done in Egypt. The white, blue, purple, and scarlet threads were doubtless woven into a pattern of some kind; but it is impossible to say what the pattern was. In Egypt patterns were not much affected, the dress worn being commonly white, with a stripe sometimes at the edge; but the Semitic tribes, who bordered Egypt on the East, affected gay colours and. varied designs, if we may trust the Egyptian wall-paintings. With cunning work. Literally, "work of the skilled (workman)." Some of the Hebrews had evidently carried on the trade of weaving in Egypt, and had brought their looms with them. The Egyptian looms were hand-looms, and of no great size; they admitted of easy transport. Exodus 28:7 The two shoulder-pieces thereof, Literally, "Two shoulder-pieces." There is no article, and no possessive pronoun. At the two edges thereof. Literally, "at its two ends." A union of the back and front flaps of the dress by a seam at the top of the shoulder seems to be intended. Female dresses were made in this way among the Greeks, but fastened with a brooch or buckle. Exodus 28:8 The curious girdle. Josephus says of the ephod, ζώνῃπερισφίγγεταιβάμμασιδιαπεποικιλμένῃχρυσοῦσυνυφασμένου, "it is fastened with a girdle dyed of many hues, with gold interwoven in it." Hence its name, khesheb, which means properly "device" or "cunning work." Of the ephod. Rather "of its girding"—i.e. "wherewith it (the ephod) was to be girded." Shall be of the same. Compare above, Exodus 25:19. The girdle was to be "of one piece" with the ephod, woven on to it as part of it, not a separate piece attached by sewing. According to the work thereof. Rather, "of like workmanship with it." Exodus 28:9 Two onyx stones. The correctness of this rendering has been much disputed. The LXX. give σμάραγδος, "emeraid." as the Greek equivalent in the present passage, while many argue for the beryl (Winer, Rosenmuller, Bollermann), and others for the sardonyx. This last rendering has the support of Josephus and Aquila. The sardonyx is, in fact, nothing but the best kind of onyx, differing from the onyx by having three layers—black, white, and red—instead of two—black and white—only. When large, it fetches a high price, as much as a thousand pounds having been asked for one by a dealer recently. The probability is, that it is the stone here intended. It is an excellent material for engraving. With respect to the possibility of Moses having in the congregation persons who could engrave the sardonyx, we may remark that the Egyptians cut stones quite as hard, from a date long anterior to the exodus. Grave on them the names of the children of Israel. Egyptian names are frequently found engraved on rings and amulets in hard stone; these rings and amulets date from the time of the twelfth dynasty. The names here intended are evidently the Israelite tribe names, which are reckoned as twelve, the double tribe of Joseph counting as one only. (Compare Numbers 1:10; Deuteronomy 33:13-17.) Exodus 28:10 The other six names of the rest. Literally, "The remaining six names." According to their birth—i.e; in the order of seniority—or perhaps, in the order observed in Exodus 1:2-4, where the children of the two legitimate wives are given the precedence. Exodus 28:11 With the work of an engraver. Rather, "an artificer." The engravings of a signet. Signets in Egypt were ordinarily rings, on the bezel of which the name of the owner was inscribed. Some were of solid gold; others with cylindrical bezels of glass or hard stone. On the early use of such signet rings in Egypt see Genesis 41:42. Cylinders, strung round the wrist and engraved with a name and titles, were common in Mesopotamia from b.c. 2000. Ouches of gold. Settings in open-work or filagree seem to be intended—a kind of setting which is very common in Egyptian ornaments. Exodus 28:12 Stones of memorial unto the children of Israel. Rather "for the children of Israel"—stones, i.e. which should serve to remind God that the high priest represented the twelve tribes, officiated in their name, and pleaded on their behalf. Exodus 27:1-5 The glory of holy garments. "Holy garments"—garments appropriated to the service of God in his sanctuary—will always be "glorious," however simple they are:— 1. As the dress of office for those whose office is of an exalted and glorious character, who are "ambassadors for God," and "stewards of his mysteries." 2. As associated with rites, which show forth, and help forward, the glorious work of redemption: and 3. As typical of the glorious robes which will be worn by the saints in heaven. The garments assigned by the will of God to the Levitical priesthood were, further, glorious in themselves, i.e; splendid, magnificent, of rich and beautiful materials. They thus harmonised with the richness and magnificence of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple, and taught the people, by the eye, that whatever is rich and rare should be devoted to the service of God. But the highest glory of holy garments is to be found in those "robes of righteousness," which the set apparel of priests is intended to suggest and signify (Psalms 132:9; Isaiah 61:10). The white linen of priestly robes tells of purity and innocence—gold and jewels, of precious gifts and graces—azure, the hue of heaven, speaks of heavenly thoughts and aspirations—the scarlet and the purple are signs of the martyr spirit, which is willing to" resist unto blood" (Hebrews 12:4). If the priest or the Levite have no other adorning but that of the outward apparel, if they are not "clothed with the garments of salvation" (Isaiah 1:1-31.s.c.), and robed with righteousness, "holy garments’’ will little avail either themselves, or those to whom they minister. The "marriage garment" required of each Christian in Holy Scripture is purity of life and conduct; and certainly without this, "holy garments" are vain, and lose both their "glory" and their "beauty." Exodus 27:6-12 The symbolism of the ephod and its onyx stones. The ephod was, par excellence, the priestly garment. When idolatrous rites grew up in Palestine, which sheltered themselves under the pretence of being modifications, or adaptations, of the Sinaitic religion, an ephod was always retained, and made a prominent feature in the new form of worship (Jud. Exodus 8:27; Exodus 17:5; Exodus 18:14; etc.). The ephod came to be worn by all Israelitish priests (1 Samuel 22:18; Hosea 3:4), and even by laymen when engaged in sacred functions (2 Samuel 6:14; 1 Chronicles 15:27). Its materials and workmanship united it pointedly with the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1), and especially with the holy of holies (Exodus 26:1-37:51). It may be considered— I. AS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. The shoulder pieces of the ephod were to be "joined together" (Exodus 27:7). The "curious girdle" was to be of one piece with it (Exodus 27:8). Though formed of various parts, it was to be one single indivisible garment, united both above and below, and always worn in its entirety. The seamless robe of our Blessed Saviour is generally allowed to prefigure his one Church. The ephod as worn, was, perhaps, not seamless; but still it was "woven of one piece," and so far resembled the Lord’s garment. II. AS THE VARIETY OF GIFTS AND GRACES WITHIN THE CHURCH. The blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and gold, and gems of the ephod gave it a variety and a beauty which made it the most glorious of all the priestly vestments. Variety has a charm of its own, and is a mark of the Church, in which there is such vast "diversity of gifts," though there is but one spirit. Gold is especially appropriate for the dignity of those whom God has made "both priests and kings." "The king’s daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold" (Psalms 45:13). Purple, too, is an imperial colour, and suits those who shall "reign with Christ for ever" (Revelation 22:5). III. AS , WHEN WORN BY THE HIGH-PRIEST, A OF THE CHURCH TO GOD IN PERFECT BEAUTY. The onyx, or sardonyx stones, with the twelve names engraved upon them, completed the representative character of the ephod, and showed clearly that the high priest, when, thus attired, he entered the sanctuary, presented before God the Church whereof he was the head, as freed from sin by the expiation which he had made at the altar before entering, and made meet for the presence of the Most High. And this presentation was, we are distinctly told (Hebrews 9:9-12; Hebrews 10:19-22), a type or figure of that far more precious one, which Christ is ever making before his Father’s throne in heaven, where he presents to him his Church, "a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:27), washed in his blood, redeemed by his death, sanctified by his in-dwelling. Christ can and will purge his elect from all sin (1 John 1:7); Christ can and will present them pure before God. He has his "sealed" ones of all the twelve tribes (Revelation 7:4-8); and, besides these, he has others who are equally his—"a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues" (Revelation 7:9) who "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14), and whom he will "present faultless" to his Father. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 27:1-4 The priests’ garments. I. OBSERVE HOW THE IS HERE TO THE OFFICE. Jehovah tells Moses here, amid the solemnities of the mount, that his brother Aaron and Aaron’s sons are to be taken for service in the priest’s office; but no word is said concerning the characters of any of these men, not even Aaron himself. There is a demand that those who made the priestly garments should be wise-hearted, men with a spirit of wisdom which Jehovah himself would put into them; but nothing is said as to Aaron himself being wise-hearted. Nor is there any indication given beforehand of any personal fitness that he had for the office. We gather much as to the way in which God had been training Moses; but Aaron so far as we can see, seems to have been led by a way that he knew not. All the commandment to Moses is, "take to thee Aaron thy brother." He is indicated by a natural relation, and not by anything that suggests spiritual fitness. It is interesting to compare the utter absence of any reference here to personal character with the minute details of what constitutes fitness for bishop and deacon, as we find these details in the epistles to Timothy and Titus. In the old dispensation where there was but the shadow of good things to come, the trappings of the official and the ceremonies of the office were of more importance than the character of any individual holder. The purpose of Jehovah was best served, in proportion as the people, beholding Aaron, forgot that it was Aaron, and were chiefly impressed by the fact that they were looking on the appointed priest of the Most High. II. OBSERVE WHAT WAS AIMED AT IN THE OF THE . They were to be for glory and for beauty. Not only different from the garments of the common people, but much more splendid. Gold was worked into the very substance of these garments; precious stones glittered upon them; and everything was done to make them beautiful and impressive. Nor was the splendour of these garments for a mere occasional revelation. Though not worn constantly, yet they had to be assumed for some part of every day; and thus all eyes were continually directed to symbols of the glory, beauty, and perfection which God was aiming to produce in the character of his people. There was as yet no finding of these things in human nature. The gold of human nature could not yet be purified from its debasing dross; but here for a symbol of the refined and perfected man, was gold, pure and bright, we may imagine, as ever came out of the furnace; and here were these precious stones, inestimably more precious since the tribal names were graven on them, and with the preciousness crowned when they took their place on the shoulders and breasts of the priest. Thus, whenever these stones flashed in the light, they spoke forth afresh the great truth, that this priest so gloriously attired, was the representative of the people before God; not a representative whom they had elected for themselves, and who would therefore go to God on a peradventure, but one who, because God himself had chosen him, could not fail to be acceptable. The principle underlying the direction to make these splendid garments is that which underlies the use of all trappings by government and authority. The outward shows of kingly state, the crown, the sceptre, the throne, the royal robes—these may not be impressive now as once they were; but they have been very serviceable once, and may still serve an important purpose, even though it be not easily perceived. It might make a difference in the administration of justice, if the garb of those who are the chief administrators were to differ nothing in public from what it is in private. III. OBSERVE THAT TO SHOW FURTHER THE TO THESE , GOD HIMSELF SKILL FOR THE MAKING OF THEM. Much skill might be needed, far more than could be guessed by the observer, to make these garments graceful and impressive. What was all the richness of the material unless there was also dextrous, tasteful, and sympathetic workmanship? The gold, and the blue, and the purple, and all the rest of the promising materials would have availed nothing in some hands to avert a clumsy and cumbrous result. The people provided all they could, and it was a great deal; but God had to provide the craftsmen in order to make full use of the people’s gift.—Y. BY G. A. Exodus 27:1, Exodus 27:2 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? The tabernacle (cf. outline on Exodus 26:30) shows through what steps a man must pass who would approach God. The high priest shows what the man must be like who would attempt to take those steps. The dress of the high priest is usually said to have consisted of eight pieces, viz.: breast-plate, ephod with its girdle, robe of the ephod, mitre, gold plate or holy crown, broidered robe, drawers, girdle. Such a dress is meant to be characteristic, to shadow forth what ought to be the character of the man who wears it. As the high priest represents the people in their relation to God, the character required in him must be the character required in all would-be worshippers. Take a few points:— I. THE MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH HIS . The colours and materials of the garments are the same as those of the tabernacle with its veil and entrance curtain—gold, blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen. So, too, the character of the worshipper must match with the character of the sanctuary. What can a man do in heaven if he be not heavenly-minded? Every one, in the end, like Judas, must go to his own place; the character of the individual must decide the character of his surroundings (cf. Matthew 22:11-13). II. HE MUST BE CAPABLE OF THE LIGHT AMID WHICH HE WALKS AND THE GLORY WHICH HE IS . The breast-plate is, amongst the garments of the high priest, what the mercy seat is amongst the furniture of the sanctuary. In some sort, also, the two are related; the mercy seat is the throne of glory, the resting-place of the shechinah, whilst the breast-plate reflects the same glory, and glorifies the wearer by reflecting it. 1. Man is glorified by reflecting the glory of God. The more he can reflect, the more manifold the ways in which he can reflect it, the more perfect is the glory which is revealed on him. We may note, however, that the high priest representing the nation, the breast-plate which he wears suggests rather the national than the individual reflecting power. The one grows out of the other, but amongst individuals some may reflect as the sardius, some as the topaz, etc. The great thing is that they do reflect, though each may reflect differently to others. Remember, too, that the glory of each helps to make and to intensify the glory of the whole. 2. The reflector is the breastplate. The breast-plate covers and symbolises the heart or the affections. "God is love," and the glory of God is the glory of love made manifest. Only love can reflect love; the loving heart is the enlightened and the enlightening heart. III. MUST NOT BE SILENT BUT MUSICAL. The robe of the ephod with its border of embroidered pomegranates, blue, red, and crimson; bells of gold alternating with the pomegranates. The music of the priest’s movement is associated with fruitfulness; look whence the sound comes and you see the varicoloured pomegranates. So, too, the melody of a holy life rings out from amongst good deeds; deeds which like the varicoloured pomegranates are all one fruit, "the fruit of the Spirit" (cf. Galatians 5:22). Such fruit advertises to his fellows a man’s progress along the way of holiness (cf. Ecclesiasticus 45:9, "a memorial to the children of his people"); yet specially is it required by God for his own pleasure and satisfaction (cf. Exodus 28:35): whether men hear or no, the golden bells must not be silent. IV. THE MUST BE AND CROWNED WITH . (Cf. Exodus 28:36.) The golden plate with its inscription. 1. Generally, it may be said, that they who approach a holy place must approach it as a holy people. We have safeguards against unseemliness and impurity (Exodus 28:42). 2. Specially does the head, associated with the intellect, need consecration. Unless the head be protected the heart must soon cease to reflect. He who lays aside the helmet of holiness cannot retain the breast-plate of glory. Conclusion.—We want to draw nigh to God. The tabernacle shows us by what successive stages we must approach him; the high priest shows us how in character and conduct we must be prepared for those successive stages. As we should put it now-a-days,—to get to heaven a man must be like Christ; the journey thither can only be achieved by those who are in communion with the great High Priest. In and through him we may draw nigh; growing daily more heavenly-minded, and therefore more fit for heaven; reflecting more and more of the light and glory which shines out upon us; making life musical with the melody of good works, a sweet sound in God’s ears and a sign to direct men’s attention God-wards; consecrated wholly to God’s service, hallowed now by outward dedication; at length like the great High Priest himself, to be not merely hallowed but altogether holy.—G. BY J. ORR Exodus 27:1 -43 The priests and their garments. From instructions about inanimate things, we come now to persons. Aaron and his four sons were to be set apart for the office of the priesthood, and garments were to be made for them, "for glory and for beauty." Aaron was to be high priest (" the priest who is higher than his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured," Le Exodus 21:16); his sons were to be ordinary priests. The high priest was a very especial type of Christ. I. THE OF THE (Exodus 27:1). Hitherto there had been no distinct class invested with the office of the priesthood. The need for a separate priesthood arose with the giving of the law, with the entrance of Israel into covenant relationship with God, and with the founding of a sanctuary. 1. With the giving of the law. A distinct revelation had been made of God’s holiness. But God’s holiness had as its correlative the unholiness of the people. By the law came the knowledge of sin. A priesthood, specially sanctified to God’s service, became necessary to mediate between an unholy people and a holy God. 2. With the establishment of a covenant relationship between Israel and Jehovah. In virtue of the covenant, Israel became to God "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5). It was this priestly calling of the nation which found official expression in the priesthood of the house of Aaron. The priests were "vicars," in the sense of the following passage—"A truly vicarious act does not supersede the principal’s duty of performance, but rather implies and acknowledges it …. In the old monastic times, when the revenues of a cathedral or cure fell to the lot of a monastery, it became the duty of that monastery to perform the religious services of the cure. But inasmuch as the monastery was a corporate body, they appointed one of their number, whom they denominated their vicar, to discharge those duties for them. His service did not supersede theirs, but was a perpetual and standing acknowledgment that they, as a whole and individually, were under the obligation to perform it". That is to say, the priests stood in a representative relation to the body of the people. They acted in the name of the community. 3. With the founding of a sanctuary. "The groundwork of this new form of religion stood in the erection of the tabernacle, which God chose for his peculiar dwelling-place, and through which he meant to keep up a close and lively intercourse with his people. But this intercourse would inevitably have grown on their part into too great familiarity, and would thus have failed to produce proper and salutary impressions upon the minds of the worshippers, unless something of a counteracting tendency had been introduced, fitted to beget feelings of profound and reverential awe toward the God who condescended to come so near to them. This could no otherwise be effectually done than by the institution of a separate priesthood, whose prerogative alone it should be to enter within the sacred precincts of God’s house, and perform the ministrations of his worship" (Fairbairn). The Aaronic priesthood had thus a twofold function to discharge in relation to the people. 1. Representative. It represented the nation in its priestly standing and vocation. It performed sacerdotal acts in the name of the tribes. The representative character culminated in the person of the high priest. 2. Mediatory. The priesthood mediated between the people and Jehovah. It was the link of communion between the holy and the unholy. Gifts and. offerings, which otherwise, on account of the unholiness of the people, would not have been accepted, were accepted at the hands of the priests. The high priest transacted with God on behalf of his constituents as well as in their name. It pertained to him, and to the other priests, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). The priesthood, and especially the high priest, thus typifies Christ— (1) in his Divine appointment to his office (Hebrews 5:5, Hebrews 5:6); (2) in his personal and official holiness (Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26); (3) in his representative relations to his people (Hebrews 6:20); (4) in his work of mediation and intercession (Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:24); (5) in his heavenly glory (Hebrews 2:9). Note, however, the following point of difference (one among many) between the high priest and Christ. The Jewish high priest embodied priestly rights already existing in the nation. Believers, on the contrary, derive their priestly rights from Christ. They are admitted to a share in his priestly standing. Their priesthood, unlike that of the old covenant, is purely spiritual. It includes privileges formerly possessed only by the official classes, e.g; the right of direct access to God (Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 10:19). II. THE (Exodus 27:2 -43). Having chosen his priests, God next proceeds to clothe them. As the office was of his appointment, so must the garments be which are to be the insignia of it. Nothing is left to individual taste. The articles of attire; their shape, material, co]our, workmanship; the manner of their ornamentation; everything is fixed after a Divine pattern. The garments are to be "for glory and for beauty" (Exodus 27:2, 40), indicative of the official dignity, of the sacred character, and of the honourable prerogatives of the wearers of them. Men are even to be inspired with "the spirit of wisdom" (Exodus 27:3), for the purpose of making them, so entirely are they to be garments of Divine origin. Look (1) at what these garments were, and (2) at the functions and privileges of the priesthood as shadowed forth in them. 1. The parts of the priestly dress. The dress of the ordinary priests, with the exception of the girdle of needlework (cf. Exodus 39:29), was to be of fine white linen. It consisted of an embroidered coat, a cap, and plain white linen drawers. The high priest’s garments were of a much richer order. They embraced (1) the ephod, with its curious girdle (Exodus 27:6-15). (2) The breast-plate, in which were to be placed "the Urim and Thummim" (Exodus 27:15 -31). (3) The robe of the ephod, "all of blue," and embroidered along the hem with pomegranates. Alternating with the pomegranates were to be little golden bells, which should give a sound when the priest went into the holy place, and when he came out (verses 31-36). (4) The mitre, on which was to be a plate of gold, fastened with blue lace, and engraved with the words—"Holiness to the Lord" (verses 36-39). (5) A broidered coat, girdle, and drawers, similar to those of the ordinary priests (verse 39). 2. The symbolism of the dress. The blue of the robe of the ephod denoted the heavenly origin of the priest’s office; the shining whiteness of the ordinary garments, the purity required in those who served before Jehovah; the gold, the diversified colours, the rich embroidery and gems, in the other articles of attire, the exalted honour of those whom Jehovah had chosen, and caused to approach to him, that they might dwell in his courts (Psalms 65:4). More specifically, the garments bore testimony (1) to the fundamental requirement of holiness in the priesthood. This requirement found its most distinct expression in the engraved plate on the high priest’s mitre. Holiness was to be the characteristic of the people as a whole. Most of all was it required in those who stood in so peculiarly near a relation to Jehovah, and on whom it devolved to make atonement for the others. The requirement is perfectly fulfilled in Christ, whose people, in turn, are called to holy living. (2) To the representative character of the priesthood. This was beautifully imaged by the fact that, both on his shoulders and on his breast, the high priest bore precious stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 27:9-13; 17-23). Another indication of this representative character is found in the order to place bells upon the hem of the robe of the ephod, that the people might hear the sound of his movements as he went in and out of the holy place (verse 35). Conscious that he was transacting in God’s presence in their name, they were to follow him with their thoughts and prayers in the different parts of his sacerdotal task. It was, however, the wearing of "the breast-plate of judgment" (verse 29), which most specially declared that the high priest appeared before God as the people’s representative. His function, as clothed with the breast-plate, was to sustain the "right" of the children of Israel before Jehovah (verse 30). The "right" included whatever claims were given them on the justice and mercy of Jehovah by the stipulations of the covenant, it was a "right" derived, not from unfailing obedience to the law, but from Jehovah’s goodness. It was connected with atonement. Our "right," in like manner, is embodied in Christ, who bears us on his heart continually in presence of his Father. (3) To the priestly function of mediation. The onyx stones on the shoulders of the high priest, each having engraved on it six of the names of the tribes of Israel (Exodus 27:12), indicated that on him rested the burden or responsibility of the entire congregation. A more distinct expression of this idea is given in verse 38, in connection with the gold plate of the mitre, engraved with TO THE LORD—"It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron. may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord." A shadow of the higher mediation. Our persons, gifts, and works find acceptance only in Christ. (4) To the need of sympathy in the priest, as a qualification for his office. The high priest was to bear the names of the children of Israel upon his heart, graven on the stones of the breast-plate (verse 23). Christ has perfect sympathy (Hebrews 2:14-18; Hebrews 4:14 16). The people also, as is hinted in verse 35, were to have sympathy with their priest. (5) To the function of the priest, as revealer of God’s will (verse 30). Urim and Thummim—whatever these were—are now superseded by the external word, and the inward illumination of Christ’s Spirit. Christ gives forth unerring revelations of the will of the Father. "Lights and perfections" is not too high a name to bestow upon the Scriptures (Psalms 19:7-12; 2 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16).—J.O. THE BREAST-PLATE. It has been noticed that the ephod had for its main object or purpose to be a receptacle for the breast-plate which was attached to it after it had been put on, and formed its principal ornament. The Hebrew word khoshen, which is translated "breast-plate," means "ornament;" and the khoshen must certainly have been the most striking and brilliant object in the whole attire of the high priest. Externally, it did but repeat the symbolism of the ephod, exhibiting the high priest as the representative of the twelve tribes, whose names were engraved upon its twelve stones, as well as upon the onyxes of the ephod. Internally, it had, however, another, and a deeper import. It contained within it the Urim and the Thummim (Exodus 28:30), by means of which God was consulted, and signified his will to his people. This must be regarded as its main end and use. It was from the decisions thus given that it received the name of "the breastplate (or ornament) of judgment." Exodus 28:13 Ouches of gold. "Buttons" according to one view (Cook): "sockets," according to another (Kalisch): "rosettes," according to a third (Keil). Some small ornament of open-work (see the comment on Exodus 28:11), which could be sewn on to the ephod, and whereto a chain might be attached, seems to be intended. The object was to fasten the "breast-plate" firmly to the ephod. Exodus 28:14 At the ends. The meaning of the Hebrew word migaloth is very doubtful. Jarchi and Rosemuller approve of the rendering of our translators. Geddes, Boothroyd, and Dathe render "chains of equal length." Gesenius, Kalisch, Canon Cook, and others, believe the true meaning to be "wreathed," or "of wreathen work," so that the next clause, "after the manner of a rope," would be simply exegetic. Of wreathen work. Literally, "after the manner of a rope." Cords of twisted gold wire were frequently used, instead of chains, by the Egyptians. Exodus 28:15 The breast-plate. As the khoshen was to be worn upon the breast (Exodus 28:29), this name is appropriate; but it is not a translation of khoshen. Of judgment. See the introductory paragraph to this section. Kalisch translates "the breast-plate of decision." It was to be made, so far as its main fabric was concerned, of exactly the same materials as the ephod. See Exodus 28:6. Exodus 28:16 Four square … being doubled. It has been generally supposed that the doubling was merely for the purpose of giving additional strength to the work, which was to receive twelve heavy gems; but Gesenius and others are of opinion that the object was to form a bag, in which the Urim and Thum-mira, which they regard as material objects, might be kept. A span. Half a cubit, or about nine inches. Exodus 28:17 Settings of stones. These were similar to those of the two shoulder stones—i.e. of filagree or cloisonne work—as appears from Exodus 39:13. The first row of the stones is said to have been composed of a sardius, or sard, a topaz, and a carbuncle. Of these names the first only would seem to be tolerably certain. The second cannot be right, since the topaz was too hard a stone to be engraved by the ancient engravers. We may conjecture that the chrysolite, a pale stone not unlike the topaz, but far less hard, was the Genesis intended. The "carbuncle" is also thought to be wrong; and the "beryl" is suggested by some; by others "a sort of precious corundum." Emerald, to which the "smaragdus" of the LXX. and Josephus would seem to point, cannot be right, since that stone is fully as hard as the topaz. Exodus 28:18 The second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. Here all the names must be wrong, for none of these three stones could be cut by the ancient engravers. Probably, carbuncle (or garnet), lapis lazuli, and onyx are intended. Exodus 28:19 The third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. The term "ligure" is unknown in modern mineralogy; and it is to the last degree uncertain what stone the ancients intended by their lingurium or lapis ligurius Some think that "jacinth," others that "tourmaline," is the stone here meant. A few suggest amber, but amber cannot receive an engraving. "Agate" and "amethyst" are generally allowed to be right translations. Exodus 28:20 The fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper. If the identifications above suggested are allowed, two at least of these translations must be rejected. We have supposed the third stone in the first row to have been the "beryl," and the third in the second the "onyx." Perhaps we should translate, "a turquoise, a sardonyx, and a jasper." (See the comment on Exodus 28:9.) Their inclosings. Rather, "their settings," as in Exodus 28:17. Exodus 28:21 The stones shall be with the names. Rather, "according to the names;" the number of the stones shall agree with that of the names, viz; twelve. Everyone with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. Rather, "every one according to its name, they shall be for the twelve tribes," i.e; each, according to the name that is on it, shall stand for one of the twelve tribes. Exodus 28:22 Chains at the ends. Compare the comment on Exodus 28:14. Kalisch translates, "chains of wreathen work, twisted in the manner of ropes." Exodus 28:23-28 These verses present no difficulty. They describe very minutely, and with some tautology, the mode in which the breast-plate was to be fastened to the ephod. It was to have four rings, two at its two upper corners (Exodus 28:23), and two just behind its two lower corners (Exodus 28:20); a gold twist or cord was to be passed through each of the two upper rings, and then attached to the" ouches" or settings of the shoulder stones (Exodus 28:25; compare Exodus 28:11-14). A blue lace or ribbon was to be passed through each of the two lower rings, and these laces were to be tied to two rings, sewn for the purpose on to the front of the ephod a little above the "curious girdle" (Exodus 28:26, Exodus 28:27). By these four fastenings at its four corners, the breast-plate was securely attached to the ephod, and could not readily get loose from it. Exodus 28:27 Over against the other coupling thereof. Rather, "near its joining." The "joining" of the ephod is perhaps the place where the ’curious girdle" was woven on to it. Exodus 28:29 And Aaron shall bear, etc. "Aaron," i.e; "shall not only bear the names of the twelve tribes upon his shoulders (Exodus 28:12), but also upon his heart." He shall thus make a double presentation of them to God continually. The explanation is somewhat fanciful, that the names on the shoulder-stones indicated that the people were a burthen to him, while those on the stones of the breast-plate, being upon his breast, indicated that he bore them affection. The breast and the shoulder were probably chosen as being conspicuous and honourable positions. Exodus 28:30 Thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim. The words Urim and Thummim mean respectively "Lights "and" Perfections," or perhaps "Light" and "Perfection—the plural form being merely a plural of honour. They were well translated by Aquila and Symmachus, φωτισμοὶκαὶτελειότητες: less well by the LXX. ἡδήλωσιςκαὶἡἀλήθεια: still worse by the Vulgate, Doctrina et Veritas. What exactly the two words represented is doubtful in the extreme. It has been supposed by some that they were not material objects, but a method by which God communicated his will; e.g; a miraculous light, or a miraculous voice. But such things as these could not have been put by Moses either "in," or "on the breastplate of judgment." Modern critics are generally agreed that the Urim and Thummim must have been material objects of one kind or another. The objects suggested are— 1. The engraved stones of the breast-plate. 2. Two small images, like the teraphim. 3. A gold plate, engraved with the name of Jehovah. 4. Three plates or slips; one blank, one engraved with "yes," and one with "no." 5. Diamonds, cut and uncut, with marks engraved on them. Against the first of these views it is urged with very great force that the present passage shows the Urim and Thummim to be something quite distinct from the breast-plate—something which was to be added to the breast-plate after all the stones had been set in it; and which Aaron was to bear upon his breast in addition to the breast-plate and its jewels (compare Exodus 28:29 with Exodus 28:30). Against the fourth and fifth, it is sufficient to observe that they are pure conjectures, without any basis of authority, either in Scripture or tradition. The second and the third remain. The third has important Jewish names in its favour, but is open to the objection that it makes a single object correspond to both words. The second alone seems to have any basis in Scripture, which certainly connects the use of teraphim with the use of an ephod (Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14, Judges 18:17, Judges 18:20; Hosea 3:4). On the whole, while admitting that there is no sufficient evidence to determine the question, we incline to regard the Urim and Thummim as small images, kept in the bag of the "breast-plate" (Exodus 28:16), by means of which the high priest gave a decision when he was consulted. How the decision was arrived at, is an even more difficult problem than the one which we have attempted to solve. Some suppose the two images to have been used as lots, one giving an affirmative and the other a negative answer. Others imagine, that by gazing attentively upon them, and fixing his thoughts on the qualities which they symbolised—illumination and perfection—the high priest was thrown into an ecstatic state which enabled him to prophesy aright. The notion has even been started, that an angel spoke by their lips, and answered any question that was put to them. The truth seems to be that no theory on the subject can be more than a theory—quite arbitrary and conjectural—neither Scripture nor tradition furnishing any hint on the matter. If we knew how men divined from teraphim (2 Kings 23:24; Ezekiel 21:21; Zechariah 10:2), we might thence obtain some inkling of the truth, since there is much probability in the view, that the teraphim were employed as an unauthorised substitute for the Urim and Thummim. (See Judges 17:5; Judges 18:5, Judges 18:6, Judges 18:14-20.) But the method of this divination is wholly unknown. It is not however likely to have been a mere casting of lots, which is a very simple process, and requires no images; nor can this explanation of the decision by Urim and Thummim be regarded as having probability m its favour. Perhaps, of all the theories, that which supposes the Urim and Thummim to have been objects gazed at by the high priest until he entered the ecstatic state, is the least objectionable. It must not, however, be considered an essential part of this theory, that the material objects were derived from the religion of Egypt (Plumptre). The objects must have been well known to Moses and to those for whom he wrote; otherwise, they could not have been introduced, without any account of their nature, as," The Urim" and "The Thummim." They had probably been long possessed and consulted by the nation, which was accustomed to believe that it received enlightenment from them. Perhaps they were a sort of teraphim, but unconnected with any idolatrous worship. It is quite conceivable that an old usage, hitherto un-authorised, but not debased by any flagrant corruption, should have been adopted by Divine command into the Mosaic ritual, purified of any evil that attached to it, and consecrated to an important purpose. Exodus 28:13-30 The Teachings of the Breast-plate. The breast-plate of judgment has many aspects, and teaches us several important truths—e.g.:— I. THE OF SOULS IN GOD’S SIGHT. The tribes of Israel are represented by gems—gems of the most precious kinds known to, and workable by the engravers of the day—sard, and onyx, and carbuncle, and lapis lazuli, and chrysolite, and perhaps turquoise. We are reminded by this of the saying of the Lord recorded by the prophet Malachi—"They (that fear me) shall be mine in that day when I make up my jewels" (Malachi 3:17). His own elect are the "jewels" of Christ, wherewith he decks himself as a bridegroom with his ornaments (Isaiah 61:10). As Israel was of old, not only his "special people," but his "peculiar treasure" (Exodus 19:5), so are Christians now—each one of them dear to him; each one of them purchased with his blood; each one of them a stone in that glorious temple whereof he is the chief corner stone—a "white stone," having on it "a new name written" (Revelation 2:17; Revelation 3:12). II. THE VARIETY IN THEIR GIFTS. Each stone in the breast-plate was different from all the rest—each had its own peculiar beauty. One was more brilliant, one more lovely in its hue, one more curious from its complexity. Yet the breast-plate needed all, would not have been perfect without all. None could say to its neighbour—"I have no need of thee." Contrast with its neighbours heightened the effect of each and so added to its beauty. It is the same with Christ’s "jewels"—no two are alike—each has his own peculiar characteristics, his idiosyncrasy. And the crown in which the jewels are set is rendered more beautiful than it would otherwise have been by this diversity and variety. An endless repetition of even that which is most lovely pails. Of the thousands upon thousands whom Christ has saved and will save, no two but will be different; no one but will add somewhat to the majesty and beauty of the Church in heaven by its peculiar and distinctive character. III. THE HIGH VALUE OF HIDDEN GIFTS OF WISDOM AND . It was not from its external beauty—from the gold and purple, and scarlet, and blue, and fine linen of its main fabric, or from its ouches and its golden chains of wreathed work; or even from the dazzling brilliancy and varied hues of its twelve gems—that the breast-plate of the high priest drew either its main value or its honourable title. It was "the breast-plate of judgment;" and this "judgment" was wholly unconnected with the external beauty and gorgeous appearance of the breast-plate. Hidden away in the treasury of its innermost folds lay the mysterious objects, known as "light" and "perfection," by means of which the priest pronounced his "judgments," and declared the will of God to the people. These constituted the true glory of the breastplate. While the twelve stones symbolised the twelve tribes, with their varied gifts and faculties (Genesis 49:3-27; Deuteronomy 33:6-25), the Urim and the Thummim symbolised light and perfection—intellectual and moral excellence—those best gifts of wisdom and moral knowledge which are the crowning graces of the regenerate human being (Ephesians 1:8, Ephesians 1:17; Philippians 1:9; Colossians 1:9, Colossians 1:10; etc.). IV. THE OF ALL OUR DOUBTS TO GOD FOR . Though the Christian Church does not enjoy, any more than did the post-captivity Jewish Church (Ezra 2:63), the advantage of oracular responses from on high, though our High Priest is gone before us into the holiest, and has taken with him the light and perfection, which are his alone, yet it is still possible to refer doubts to God, and so obtain light enough to serve as a guide to conduct. If we take our difficulties to God on our knees, and ask his counsel upon them in a faithful spirit, we have full reason to trust that we shall receive illumination from him. What after prayerful communion with God appears to us the best course to take, we may accept as his decision, his voice speaking to us. How consoling and encouraging the thought that we can, each one for himself, in the solitude of our chambers cast the burthen of our cares upon One who is perfectly good and perfectly wise, and who has promised to be our guide unto death! BY J. Exodus 28:1-38 Aaron in his priesthood the type of Jesus. I. IN HIS (Exodus 28:1). 1. He is chosen of God (Hebrews 5:4), and therefore our accepted intercessor. 2. He is taken from among his brethren; "from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me." The priest who ministers before God for us must go up with a brother’s heart and with experience of human infirmity (Hebrews 4:15). II. IN HIS ARRAY. The holy garments were "for glory and for beauty," the symbol of the perfect humanity of Jesus; "holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners.’ III. IN HIS . 1. The names of the tribes were engraved upon and identified with the choicest jewels. Christ not only remembers, us; we are loved, honoured, treasured by him. 2. The name of each tribe was engraved upon a separate, and different kind of jewel. We are not grasped by our high priest in a mass; we are individually known, loved, cared for. 3. The names were borne upon Aaron’s heart whenever he went into the holy place (Exodus 28:29), for a memorial before the Lord con-tin,ally. We are held in perpetual remembrance before God. IV. IN HIS . 1. That remembrance was burden-bearing; he went in for them, his heart was bowed before God in the consciousness of their sin and need. For us in our sin and need Christ’s entreaties ascend day and night. 2. In his zeal for holiness (Exodus 28:36-38). Christ, sin’s sacrifice, shall also be sifts destruction.—U. THE ROBE OF THE EPHOD. Underneath the ephod and breast-plate the high priest was to wear a robe, or frock, wholly of blue. This robe was to have a hole for the head at the top, and was to be woven without seam (Exodus 39:22). It was put on over the head, like a habergeon or coat of mail, and probably reached below the knee. Josephus says that it had no sleeves. Exodus 28:31 All of blue. This plainness and uniformity offered a strong contrast to the variegated hues of the breast-plate and ephod, and threw those portions of the attire into greater prominence. If the blue used was indigo, the effect of the contrast must have been heightened Exodus 28:32 An hole in the top of it. A mere circular hole for the head to go through, unaccompanied by a slit or longitudinal opening. In the midst of it. Midway between the two arm-holes. A binding of woven work round about the hole of it. This would strengthen the edge of the opening) and prevent it from tearing or fraying. The binding was probably sewn on after the frock was woven. As it were the hole of an habergeon. Linen corselets or habergeons have been found in Egypt. They were sometimes covered with metal scales, and were of the make here indicated. The word here used for "habergeon" (takharah) is Egyptian. Exodus 28:33 Upon the hem of it. Literally "at its edge" Pomegranates. Tassels in the shape of pomegranates, of three colours, seem to be intended. An ornament of the kind is common in Assyria, but not in Egypt. Bells of gold between them. The bell is not often found in Egypt, and seems certainly not to have born in common use there. It was, however. often hung round the necks of horses in Assyria, and is so simple an object that its invention was probably very early. The Assyrian bells are shaped almost exactly like our own. as are the classical ones. Exodus 28:34, Exodus 28:35 A golden bell and a pomegranate. Hebrew tradition gives a most uncertain sound with respect to the number of the bells. According to some, they were 12 only; according to others, 72; according to a third school, 3651 Equally conflicting are the explanations given of their symbolism— (1) that they typified the proclamation and expounding of the law by the high-priest— (2) that they were a musical offering of praise— (3) that they marked kingly dignity, since Oriental kings sometimes wore bells—and (4) that they were a call to vigilance and attention. This last view is supported by the words of Exo 28:35—it shall be upon Aaron to minister, and his sound shall be hoard, or "that its sound may be heard." The bells were a means of uniting priest and people in one common service—they enabled the people to enter into and second what the priest was doing for them, and so to render his mediation efficacious—they made the people’s worship in the court of the sanctuary a "reasonable service." And hence the threat, which certainly does not extend to all the priestly garments, implied in the words, "that he die not." If the high priest neglected to wear the robe with the bells, he separated himself off from the people; made himself their substitute and not their mouthpiece; reduced their worship to a drear formality; deprived it of all heartiness and life and vigour. For thus abusing his office, he would deserve death, especially as he could not do it unwittingly, for his ears would tell him whether he was wearing the bells or not. The Teachings of the Robe. I. THE NEED OF CALM AND PURITY, The robe was to be of one hue—uniform, peaceful; without glitter; something on which the eye could rest itself with a quiet satisfaction. And it was to be "blue "-the colour of heaven, the hue which God has spread over "that spacious firmament on high," which in his word represents to us his dwelling. "The blue sky is an image of purity." Nothing purer, nothing calmer, nothing more restful, than the deep soft azure of the eternal unchanging sky. The high priest’s robe was to mirror it. He was to present himself before God in a robe "all of blue." So let us present ourselves before him arrayed in purity and peacefulness. II. THE NEED OF UNITY. If the ephod was to some extent emblematic of the oneness of the Church, so, and much more, was "the robe of the ephod." It was of woven work (Exodus 39:22), absolutely seamless—one, emphatically, in material, in hue, in texture. So Christ prayed that his Church might be one—"as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us—one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one" (John 17:21-23). Visible unity is broken up; but something of invisible unity there may still be, if all true lovers of Christ will cultivate the spirit of unity; judge charitably; think the best they can of all branches of the Church; look to the good points of each; pray for their advance in holiness and in the know]edge of Christ; work with them so far as they can—e.g; for charitable and moral objects, amicably. If we thus act, if we be thus minded, we shall, in a true sense, put on "the robe of the ephod"—we shall be promoters, and not hinderers, of unity. III. THE NEED OF KEEPING OUR FIXED ON THE ACTIONS OF OUR TRUE HIGH PRIEST, AND JOINING IN THEM. The bells of the robe were to advertise the people of every movement made by the high priest, and enable them to take their part in his actions. To profit by the contrivance, they had to keep their ears attent to the sound, and their minds fixed on the service which was in progress within the sanctuary. We Christians have equal need to mount up in thought continually to that holy place, whither Christ has taken our nature, and set it down at the right hand of God—to join with him as he pleads his meritorious sacrifice on our behalf; to "have boldness" with him "to enter into the holiest;" with him to ask the Father to pardon our sins; with him to intercede for the whole Church; with him to pray that strength may be given us to persevere. We do not, indeed, need bells to tell us how he is employed at each successive moment, because he is always doing all these things for us—always interceding, always pleading his sacrifice, always beseeching his Father to forgive us and sustain us. We may join him in these acts at any moment. Thus, bells are not necessary for us; but still they may sometimes help us. Many an Israelite, whose thoughts wandered and became fixed on worldly things, when no sound issued from the sanctuary, was recalled to a sense of religion, and the recollection of his soul’s needs, by the tinkling of the priest’s golden bells. So Christians, who ought in heart and mind ever to ascend to where Christ sits at the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1-3; Ephesians 2:6, etc.), but whose attention will wander to earth and earthly objects, may sometimes by the chime of bells, or by their solemn toll, be woke up to higher thoughts,—recalled, as it were, from earth to heaven, taken back from the vain distractions of the world to that holy place where their High Priest is ever interceding for them. THE MITRE. Josephus tells us that the head-dress of the high priest was "not a conical cap, but a sort of crown, made of thick linen swathes" (Ant. Jud. 3.7, § 3). It was thus really a species of turban. The colour was white; and the only ornament on it was the gold plate, with its blue ribbon or fillet. Exodus 28:36 Thou shalt make a plate of pure gold. The plate, though a mere ornament of the mitre, was, at once, its most conspicuous and its most significant feature. Placed directly in front, right over the forehead, and probably of burnished gold, it would attract universal attention, and catch the eye even more than the breast-plate. Its position made it "the culminating point of the whole priestly attire" (Kalisch)—and its inscription gave to that position extraordinary force and significance. For it taught that "holiness to the Lord" is the very highest crown and truest excellence of religion—that to which all ceremonial is meant to conduce—that without which all the paraphernalia of worship must ever be in God’s sight a mockery. It set this truth conspicuously before the eyes, and was apt to impress it upon the hearts of all. It taught the high priest himself not to rest upon outward forms, but to aim in his own person, and teach the people to aim continually, at internal holiness. The extreme importance of this, causes the putting forward at once of the plate and its inscription before any account of the "mitre" is given. Exodus 28:37 Thou shalt put it on a blue lace. In Exodus 39:31, it is explained that the blue lace, or ribbon, was "tied to it," probably at either end. That it may be upon the mitre—i.e; "that it may be kept in place, and not slip from its position on the mitre." Exodus 28:38 It shall be upon his forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things. Imperfection attaches to everything that man does; and even the sacrifices that the people offered to God required to be atoned for and purified. It was granted to the high priest in his official capacity to make the necessary atonement, and so render the people’s gifts acceptable. For this purpose he was invested with an official holiness, proclaimed by the inscription upon the plate, which exhibited him as the type and representative of that perfectly Holy One, through whom alone can any real atonement be made to the Father. It shall be always upon his forehead—i.e; whenever he ministers. Exodus 28:36-38 The Teachings of the Mitre. The main lesson taught by all the priestly garments is intensified in the mitre, namely, the need of holiness. "Without holiness no one shall see God; Holiness becometh thine house for ever." The high priest was to be— I. HOLY, . By his birth, of Levi and Aaron—by his bringing up—by his consecration—by his investiture—by his representative position as priestly head of his nation and type of Christ—he was set apart from all others, dedicated to holy employments, assigned a holy character. Of these things he could not dispossess himself. Even a Caiaphas "prophesied, being high priest that same year." II. HOLY, . To wear holy garments, to be employed about holy things, and yet to be impure in heart and life, is to be a "whited sepulchre," beautiful outwardly, but "within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). Nothing can be a greater offence to God. A high priest, with "holiness to the Lord" written upon his brow, and unholiness working in his brain and nestling in his heart, was a moral contradiction, a paradox, a monstrosity. Such there may have been, and their official acts for the benefit of others God may have accepted and allowed, since otherwise the innocent would have suffered for the guilty; but their hatefulness in his sight must have been great, and their punishment will be proportionate. We may believe that such cases were few. Not many men can bear to be hypocrites. The holy attire, the holy offices, the profession of holiness upon the brow, must have helped to make the great majority holy, or at least harmless, in life—true "examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:3)—holy, not merely officially, but personally. III. A CAUSE OF IS OTHERS. The high priest, as the religious leader of the nation, had to help forward holiness in every possible way— (1) Ceremonially, by his official actions; (2) Ministerially, by teachings and exhortations; (3) Individually, by the force of example. It was his mission to make the people "accepted before the Lord." The mediation which he offered not only purified from legal defilements, but, by virtue of his typical character, purged the conscience and cleansed the soul from sin. His exhortations and example had the natural force of one in authority, and must have been potent at all times. It was at his peril if he took life too easily, and rebuked sin too mildly, and was not "a faithful priest," as appears from the history of Eli (1 Samuel 2:22-36; 1 Samuel 3:13; 1 Samuel 4:11-15). Unfaithful priests are, in truth, an abomination, and have need to tremble at the "terrors of the Lord." Those who have undertaken a holy office are doubly bound to holiness. If men "corrupt the covenant of Levi," God will "send a curse upon them, and curse their blessings" (Malachi 2:2, Malachi 2:8), THE TUNIC AND GIRDLE. From the outer garments, which were the most important and distinctive, a transition is now made to the inner ones, in which there was nothing very remarkable. The linen drawers are for the present omitted, as not peculiar to the high priest. Directions are given for the tunic and the girdle. The former is to be woven in some peculiar way—so as to be diapered, as some think—and the latter is to be "the work of the embroiderer." Exodus 28:39 Thou shalt embroider. This is certainly not the meaning of the Hebrew. Some peculiar mode of weaving the coat is intended. The coat. Rather, "the tunic" or "shirt." The keloneth was a long linen gown or cassock, worn immediately over the drawers. It reached to the feet, and had tightly-fitting sleeves (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 3.7, § 2). Whether it showed beneath the "robe of the ephod," or not, is uncertain; but the sleeves must certainly have been visible. The keloneth was white. Thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen. This direction had not been previously given. It is a little out of place. Thou shalt make the girdle of needlework. Literally, "of the work of the embroiderer." The girdle was worn directly over the linen shirt, and under "the robe of the ephod." It would seem that it was not seen at all, unless its ends hung down below "the robe of the ephod." It was however to be artistically embroidered (See Exodus 39:29.) The Lesson of the Tunic. The tunic, or inner vest, was to be of fine linen, and of spotless white. Both the material and the hue denoted purity. God’s priests must be clothed in purity from top to toe. Purity must wrap them round on every side. This purity may be hidden—unseen of man, or nearly unseen. But God sees it and honours it. The tunic, though it must be all of white, shall not lack its ornamentation. It is to be diapered with a pattern, like the best damask cloths, and so to be rich and costly. The Lessons of the Girdle. (1) Girdles were less for beauty than for use. Men girded themselves for battle, for a race, for active exertion of any kind. The high priest was to have his loins continually girded, that he might be ready at all times for God’s service. But he was not to make a parade of this readiness. The girdle was to be hidden under the robe of the ephod. (2) Hidden as it was, the girdle was to be costly and beautiful—of many colours, the work of the skilled embroiderer. The Israelites were taught by this, that things devoted to God’s service, whether they be seen or not, should be of the best. The intention is not to please men’s eyes by beauty of colour or form, or richness of material, but to do honour to God. Scamped work in places where it is not seen has been thought allowable by many a church-architect; dust and untidiness in hidden corners are tolerated by many who have the care of sacred buildings. True piety will make no difference between the seen and the unseen, the hidden and that which is open to sight, but aim at comeliness, fitness, beauty, in all that appertains to the worship of God. THE APPAREL OF THE PRIESTS. The chapter concludes with brief directions concerning the official attire of the ordinary priests. This was to consist of linen drawers like those of the high priest; of a tunic, also of linen (Exodus 39:27), shaped like his, but not diapered; of a linen girdle, the exact character of which is not stated; and of a close-fitting cap. The entire dress, with perhaps the exception of the girdle, was white. The linen drawers were regarded as of primary necessity, and the priest who did not wear them was threatened with death. Exodus 28:40 For Aaron’s sons. His actual sons at this time—his descendants afterwards, to whom the priesthood was rigidly confined. Thou shalt make coats. The verb is different from that used in Exodus 28:39, and seems to imply that the priests’ tunics were not to be patterned. Girdles. It has generally been supposed that these were of the same material and workmanship as the high priest’s; but this is nowhere stated. In Exodus 39:29, the high priest’s girdle alone is spoken of. Bonnets. Certainly not "bonnets "in the modern sense. Plain, close-fitting caps, shaped like a cup, or rather basin, seem to be meant. Such caps were often worn in Egypt, but not by the priests. For glory and for beauty. See above, Exodus 39:2. It is very noticeable, that the extremely simple attire of the ordinary priests—a dress of pure white, without anything ornamental about it, unless it were the girdle—is still regarded as sufficient "for glory and for beauty." White robes have certainly a vast amount of scriptural testimony in their favour. Exodus 28:41 Thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, etc. These words serve to connect the present chapter with the following one. They contain the first intimation that Moses is not only to cause the holy garments to be made, but to invest the priests in them, and further to consecrate both Aaron and his sons by anointing. On this point, see the comment on Exodus 29:7-9. Exodus 28:42 Linen breeches. Rather, "linen drawers" (Kalisch), such as we see worn by the Egyptians generally, reaching from the waist to a little above the knee. This also was of linen (Herod. 2.83). Unto the thighs—i.e; to the bottom of the thighs where they adjoin on the knee. Exodus 28:43 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation. Literally," when they go into the tent of meeting—i.e; the place where God and the high priest were to meet. The holy place. The "holy place" seems in this passage to include the court of the tabernacle, wherein the altar was situated. That they bear not iniquity. To "bear iniquity" is to incur guilt, or have sin imputed to one. If even through forgetfulness a priest entered the sanctuary without this necessary article of clothing, and so risked an unseemly, exposure of his person, he was to be accounted guilty, and punished by death. This was to be a "statute for ever," and to apply both to the high priest and the ordinary priests. Compare Exodus 20:26. Exodus 28:40-42 The priests’ attire. The dress of the ordinary priests teaches us— I. THAT NOT ONLY THE CHIEF, BUT THE , OF THE MUST BE CLAD IN . The priests’ garments are called "holy," no less than the high priest’s (Exodus 28:4). They are almost entirely of fine white linen. The linen drawers denote the need of holiness with respect to sins of the flesh. The linen cap implies purity of thought and imagination. The linen tunic is symbolical of the complete sanctification in which the whole man should be wrapped. The girdle, also of linen, marks the need of purity in respect of all the active part of life. In every one of these respects the ordinary priests were on a par with the high priest. The same holiness was required of both. II. THAT IN EXTREME THERE MAY BE A HIGH DEGREE OF BEAUTY. The priests’ garments were, like the high priest’s (Exodus 28:2), "for glory and for beauty" (Exodus 28:40). And, being designed by God for those ends, they doubtless attained them. Yet, unless the girdle was an exception, they were all white. So, when Jesus was transfigured, "his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them" (Mark 9:3). There is a wondrous beauty in pure, spotless, snow-white raiment. Still more is there beauty in the simplicity of a spotless life. A pure mind—a pure heart—pure conduct—simple, uniform performance of every-day duty—what is more lovely, more glorious? To such the Divine Bridegroom will address the words—"Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee" (So Exodus 4:7). Exodus 29:1-37 THE OF THE PRIESTS. From the description of the priestly attire, the Divine Law-giver passed to the form of priestly consecration, whereof investiture in the "holy garments" was a part. The ceremony of consecration was to consist of four things:— 1. Ablution; 2. Investiture; 3. Chrism or Anointing with oil; and 4. Sacrifice. In the directions given, we have, first, the preparation of the offerings (Exodus 29:1-3); secondly, directions for the ablutions (Exodus 29:4); thirdly, directions for the investiture of Aaron (Exodus 29:5, Exodus 29:6), of his sons (Exodus 29:8, Exodus 29:9); fourthly, directions for the anointing (Exodus 29:7); and fifthly, directions as to the mode in which the sacrifices should be offered and disposed of (Exodus 29:10-34). A command is then given that the ceremonies should be repeated every day for a week (Exodus 29:35); and another, that the altar should receive consecration at the same time as the priests (Exodus 29:36, Exodus 29:37). Additional light is thrown on most of these matters by the account contained in Leviticus (Leviticus 8:1-36.), of the manner in which Moses carried oat the directions here given to him. Exodus 29:1 This is the thing that thou shalt do to them—i.e; "This is the ceremonial that thou shalt use on the occasion." There is a tacit reference to Exodus 28:41, which had announced that the priests were to be consecrated. Take one young bullock. The offerings were to be provided beforehand, so as to be in readiness when the investiture and anointing were over. Hence they are mentioned first. Rams without blemish. Literally "perfect." On the offence to God of offering him blemished offerings, see Malachi 1:6-14. Exodus 29:2 Unleavened bread was regarded as purer than leavened, since fermentation is a sort of corruption. See the comment on Exodus 12:15. Cakes tempered with oil. Literally, "mixed with oil," i.e; having oil as one of their ingredients, in contrast with the wafers, which had oil poured over them. Exodus 29:3 Thou shalt bring them in the basket. Rather, "Thou shalt offer them." A preliminary offering of the animals and of the "meat-offerings," in the lump seems to be intended. This, apparently, preceded the ablution. Exodus 29:4 The Ablution. Unto the door of the tabernacle. The great laver was to be placed between the entrance to the tabernacle and the altar of burnt-offering (Exodus 30:18). It was to this probably that Aaron and his sons were to be brought. Its main purpose was to be a lustral vessel, placed ready for the various ablutions which the law required (Exodus 30:19-21). Thou …. shalt wash them with water. Ablutions were an important part of the ceremonial of almost all ancient religions. In Egypt, the priests were compelled to wash themselves from head to foot in cold water twice every day, and twice every night (Herod. 2.37). In the religion of Zoroaster frequent washing with water was prescribed for many kinds of impurity. The Greeks were particularly addicted to ceremonies of which ablution formed a part; and it is to Rome that we are indebted both for the word and for the idea of "lustration." It is a true instinct which has taught men the analogy between physical and moral purity, and led them to typify the removal of spiritual, by the cleansing from physical, defilement. The religion given at Sinai set a stamp of approval in many points on what may be called "the religion of nature;" and among them on this. Ablutions were required of the priests, not only at consecration, but every time that they entered the tabernacle, or sacrificed on the altar of burnt-offering (Exodus 30:20). Washing was a main feature in the cleansing of leprosy (Leviticus 13:54, 58) and of the leper. (Le Exodus 14:8). It was also employed for the purification of many minor defilements (Leviticus 11:25; Exodus 15:5; Exodus 17:15, etc.). At what date it first came into use in the admission of proselytes is uncertain. Whether the washing of consecration extended to the whole body, or was limited to the hands and feet, is also a point on which critics have disagreed, but one of no great importance. (See John 13:9, John 13:10.) Exodus 29:5, Exodus 29:6 The Investiture of Aaron. Exodus 29:5 Thou shalt take the garments. The directions, as here given, are incomplete, and not quite in the right order. In the LXX. they are still more incomplete. For the full process of investiture, we mast look to Le Exodus 8:7-9. There we find that the process included nine acts.— 1. The putting on of the linen tunic. 2. The girding with the under-girdle. 3. The putting on of the robe of the ephod. 4. The putting on of the ephod. 5. The girding with the curious girdle of the ephod. 6. The putting on of the breast-plate. 7. The putting into the breast-plate of the Urim and Thummim. 8. The putting on of the mitre. 9. The affixing to the mitre of the golden plate. The second and seventh are omitted here; and the order of the fifth and sixth is inverted. Exodus 29:6 The holy crown. The plate of gold with its blue ribbon, or lace, formed a species of diadem, such as in the East seems to have been always regarded as the special emblem of royalty. An ornament of the kind seems to have been introduced into Egypt by Khuenaten or Amenophis IV. It marked the royal character of the high priest, who, as the main type of Christ in the Mosaic law, was bound to be "Prophet, Priest, and King." (Compare Le Exodus 8:9.) Exodus 29:7 The Chrism or Anointing. The anointing oil had been mentioned previously in Exodus 25:6, when "spices" had been required from the congregation to form a portion of it. Its composition is given in Exodus 30:23-25; a passage from which we gather that it was exceedingly rich and costly. And pour it upon his head. Compare Psalms 133:2. While ablution is a rite common to many religions, the religious use of unction is peculiar to the Mosaic and the Christian. In the Mosaic it was applied to initiate into their office the prophet, the priest, and the king. In Christianity it was originally a rite by which sick persons were miraculously cured (James 5:14, James 5:15), from which use it was afterwards extended by ecclesiastical authority to other important ceremonies. The typical meaning under Christianity is clear; the oil represents the Holy Spirit, and the anointing the outpouring of that Spirit on those who are the objects of it. Christ himself obtained his title of Christ (or Messiah), because he was "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts 10:38). Under Mosaism this idea was, at most, latent. Unction was understood to mark (1) Dignity, because the olive was the first of trees (Judges 9:9); and (2) Continuance, because oil preserves things for a long time from corruption. Unction with the holy oil of the sanctuary no doubt further signified consecration to God’s service. It was applied not only to the priests, but to the tabernacle, the ark, the table of shew-bread with its vessels, the seven branched candlestick, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering, and the laver, all of which thereupon became "most holy" (Exodus 30:26-29). Exodus 29:8, Exodus 29:9 The Investiture of Aaron’s sons. Exodus 29:8 Thou shalt bring his sons. See Exodus 29:4. They were to be brought to the door of the tabernacle. Put coats upon them. The investiture of the high priest consisted of nine acts (see the comment on Exodus 29:5); that of the ordinary priests of three only. 1. The putting on of the linen tunics. 2. The girding with the girdles. 3. The putting on of the cap. They do not seem to have been anointed, as Aaron was, by having the holy oil poured upon their heads, but only by having some of it sprinkled upon their garments (Exodus 29:21; Le Exodus 8:30). Exodus 29:9 The bonnets. Rather "caps." There is no article. Thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. Literally, "Thou shalt fill the hand of Aaron and the hand of his sons." Installation in an office was usually effected among the Eastern nations by putting into the hand of the official the insignia which marked his functions. In this particular case certain portions of the offerings were used as the insignia. See Exodus 29:24. Exodus 29:10-34 The Consecration Offerings. Exodus 29:10 Thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought. Rather, "the bullock,"—i.e; "the bullock mentioned in Exodus 29:1, which was to be made ready before the ceremonies commenced.’’ Aaron and his sons were to put their hands upon the head of the bullock, in order to identify themselves with it, and transfer to it the guilt of their own sins and imperfections, since it was to be a "sin-offering" (Exodus 29:14; compare Le Exodus 4:4). Exodus 29:12 Thou shalt take of the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar. The virtue of the altar was regarded as residing especially in its horns. Here expiation was obtained by the blood—"which is the life "—of the victim being first smeared upon the four horns, and then the remainder poured out at the altar’s base. Such was the usual practice with "sin-offerings" (Le Exodus 4:7) whereof this was to be the first example. Exodus 29:13 Thou shalt take all the fat, etc. Among all nations who have offered sacrifices, it has been very usual to select certain parts of the victim only for burning upon the altar, and to dispose otherwise of the remainder. The Greeks commonly burnt on the altar the thighs and the fat only. The Romans burnt certain parts of the intestines only, and called them prosecta, prosiciae, or ablegmina. In Egypt, according to Herodotus, the greater part of the body was burnt; but the head, the neck, the shoulders, and the lower part of the legs, as well as the paunch, were reserved and not burnt (Herod. 2.40). The fat was generally regarded as the best part of the offering, and most acceptable to the gods. This was probably on account of its burning with a bright flame and helping to consume the rest of the offering. The caul that is above the liver. Probably the membrane which covers the upper part of the liver, sometimes called "the small omentum." (reticulum jecoris, Vulg.) Exodus 29:14 The flesh … shalt thou burn with fire without the camp. Such was the rule with sin-offerings generally (Le Exodus 4:11, Exodus 4:12). The curse of sin which was on them, made them unfit for food and even unworthy of burial within the camp. On the symbolism of the burial, see Hebrews 13:11-13. His dung. That which the bowels contained at the time of death. Exodus 29:15 One ram. Literally "the one ram"—i.e; "one of the two rams mentioned in Exodus 29:1. Put their hands. Here, again, the object was to identify themselves with the victim, and make it their representative; though now, as the ram was to be a burnt offering, self-sacrifice, rather than expiation, was the leading thought. Exodus 29:16 Thou shalt take his blood and sprinkle it. Rather, "and cast it." The blood was to be thrown from a basin, not sprinkled with the hand or with hyssop. Rabbinical tradition says that it was so cast at two of the corners, and thus moistened all the four sides. This was regarded as casting it "on the altar round about." Exodus 29:17 Thou shalt cut the ram in pieces. Literally, "into its pieces," which Kalisch supposes to mean "into its natural limbs." Egyptian sculptures show us animals thus cut up, and offered at sacrificial feasts to ancestors. Wash its inwards—i.e; its "intestines"—probably the stomach and bowels only. Its legs. The lower joints of the leg, with the foot, to which it was likely that dust might attach. Put them unto his pieces—i.e; "replace them after washing with the other pieces," or joints, into which the animal had been cut. Exodus 29:18 Thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar. This became the general law of the burnt-offering (Le Exodus 1:9, Exodus 1:13, Exodus 1:17). It indicated that self-sacrifice was wholly acceptable to God; whereas in sin-offerings there was a taint of evil which rendered all but certain parts of the victim unacceptable (Exodus 29:14). A sweet savour. This is not to be understood in the coarse sense in which heathen writers used similar expressions, meaning by them (as it would seem) that the gods were really pleased with the odour of sacrifices. No candid mind can ascribe to the Hebrews such anthropomorphism. Evidently no more is meant than that the offering would be pleasing to God. See Genesis 8:21; Le Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:17, etc. Exodus 29:19 The other ram. Compare Exodus 29:15; and see also Exodus 29:1 and Exodus 29:3, where two rams had been mentioned. This second ram is called, "the ram of consecration" in Exodus 29:22, and again in Le Exodus 8:22. It was "by far the most peculiar part of the whole ceremony" (S. Clark). It must be viewed as a "peace-offering" (Le Exodus 3:1-17), but one of a peculiar character. The application of the blood to the persons of the priests was altogether unique, and most significant. It was the crowning act of consecration, and implied the complete dedication of their life and of all their powers to the service of the Almighty. Exodus 29:20 The victim having been offered and accepted, its blood had a sanctifying power. Placed upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron and his sons, it sanctified that organ, which was to be ever open to the Divine voice; placed upon the thumb of their right hand, it sanctified their ministerial actions; placed upon the great toe of their right foot, it sanctified their whole walk in life, their "going out," and their "coming in." The consecrated life of the victim which they had offered "was given back to them, in order that it might be devoted to the service of the Lord." Exodus 29:21 Thou shalt take of the blood … and of the anointing oil. Apparently, this is the only unction that the ordinary priests were to receive. (Compare Le Exodus 8:30.) The mixture of the blood with the oil is unusual, and presents some difficulties; but perhaps it is best to view it as symbolising the intimate union which exists between justification and sanctification—the atoning blood, and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. And sprinkle it. The verb is different from that used in Exodus 29:16, and is rightly rendered, "sprinkle." He shall be hallowed and his garments. As the garments shared in the sprinkling, they shared also, so far as was possible, in the consecration. It was hence especially that they became "holy garments.’’ Exodus 29:22 The rump. Rather, "the tail." Oriental sheep have very commonly a broad fat tail, which weighs from six to twenty pounds, and is sometimes laid upon a little cart with two wheels, which the sheep drags after it. There is no doubt that a "tail" of this kind is here meant. The caul. Rather, "the membrane." See the comment on Exodus 29:13. The right shoulder. Or "leg," according to some. The difference is not important. Exodus 29:23 One cake of oiled bread—i.e; one of the "unleavened cakes tempered with oil," mentioned in Exodus 29:2. Out of the basket of the unleavened bread. See Exodus 29:3. Exodus 29:24 Thou shalt put all in the hands, or "on the hands." The offerings were to be laid first, on the hands of Aaron, and then on those of his sons, which were to support them; while Moses, putting his hands under theirs, made a waving motion with them towards the four corners of the heavens, to indicate that the gifts were offered to the omnipresent God. This process was that "filling of the hand," by which the actual installation in office took place. Moses, by the act, transferred the priestly functions, which he had hitherto exercised, to his brother and his brother’s descendants. He made them by his muscular energy perform their first priestly act. Exodus 29:25 Thou shalt receive them at their hands and burn them. Moses was still to continue the priestly acts, and to complete the peace-offering by burning the selected parts (Exodus 29:22) on the brazen altar. (See Le Exodus 3:3-5.) Exodus 29:26 Thou shalt take the breast. Henceforth Aaron and his sons were to have the breast of all wave-offerings (Leviticus 7:31-34); but on this occasion, as Moses officiated, the breast was to be his. Exodus 29:27, Exodus 29:28 A short digression is here made, from this particular offering, to all future offerings for consecration. For the future both the breast and the right shoulder are to belong to the priests. The shoulder, moreover, is to be "heaved," and only the breast "waved; …. heaving" being a single lifting up of the offering towards heaven, while" waving" was a repeated movement in a horizontal direction. Wave and heave offerings are always connected with the portions of the priests, or with things dedicated to God’s service. (See Exodus 25:2; Exodus 35:22, Exodus 35:24; Exodus 38:24, Exodus 38:29; Leviticus 7:30-34; Numbers 18:11, Numbers 18:19, Numbers 18:24, etc.) Exodus 29:29, Exodus 29:30 Here we have a second digression, also concerning future consecrations. The holy garments made for Aaron were to be preserved after his death, and used at the consecration of each successive high priest, who was to be anointed and consecrated in them, and to wear them for seven days from the time that he entered upon his office. Eleazar’s investment in them is mentioned (Numbers 20:28); but not that of any later high priest. Exodus 29:31 The ram of consecration—i.e; the part of the ram that was left and had not been burnt (Exodus 29:25). Seethe his flesh in the holy place. This was understood to mean boiling at the door of the tabernacle (Le Exodus 8:31). A sacrificial meal followed on every peace-offering, in which the offerers participated. (See above, Exodus 18:12.) Exodus 29:32 The bread that is in the basket—i.e; the loaf, cake, and wafer which still remained in the basket after one of each had been subtracted (see Exodus 29:23, and compare Exodus 29:2, Exodus 29:3). Exodus 29:33 They shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made. An atoning force pervaded all sacrifice. Sin-offerings were wholly expiatory; burnt-offerings and peace-offerings partially so (Le Exodus 1:4). A stranger shall not eat thereof. "A stranger" in this place does not mean a foreigner, but anyone who is not a priest. Exodus 29:34 Thou shalt burn the remainder with fire. Compare above, Exodus 12:10. Exodus 29:35-37 The repetition of the ceremonial, and the consecration of the altar. Exodus 29:35 Seven days shalt thou consecrate them. The repetition of the ceremony seven times on seven separate days seems to be intended. Thus was an ideal completeness given to it. Compare the seven days’ compassing around of Jericho (Joshua 6:3, Joshua 6:4,), the seven washings in Jordan by Naaman (2 Kings 5:14), the seven ascents to the top of Carmel by the servant of Elijah (1 Kings 18:43, 1 Kings 18:44), etc. Exodus 29:36 Thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it. Rather, "thou shelf purify the altar by making an atonement for it." The sin-offering for the altar was the same bullock which served for Aaron and his sons. Its virtue was applied to the altar by smearing the blood upon its horns and pouring the remainder at its base (Exodus 29:12). See Le Exodus 8:15:—"And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it." And thou shalt anoint it. In his execution of these directions, Moses separated the anointing of the altar from the cleansing, placing it even before the anointing of Aaron. He anointed it by sprinkling the holy oil upon it seven times (Le Exodus 8:11). Exodus 29:37 Seven days shalt thou make an atonement. All the ceremonial was to be repeated seven times, not only the atonement for the altar (Leviticus 8:33). An altar most holy. Literally, "holiness of holinesses," as in Exodus 40:10. Whatever toucheth the altar shall be holy. Rather, "must be holy." Nothing that is not holy must touch it (Kalisch). The Consecration of the first High Priest. Aaron may be viewed as either (1) a type of Christ, or (2) a pattern to all ministers who shall come after him. I. AS A TYPE OF CHRIST, he typifies especially Christ’s priestly character. (1) Christ "glorified not himself to be made an high priest" (Hebrews 5:5), but was appointed by his Father, when he sware to him, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Psalms 110:4). So Aaron took not the honour of the high priesthood to himself (Hebrews 5:4), but was chosen by God (Exodus 28:1-38), and invested with his office by Moses (Le Exodus 8:6 -36). (2) Christ was "the Messiah"—the anointed one—anointed with that profusion and abundance, with which none other ever was or will be for "God gave not the Spirit unto him by measure" (John 3:34). Aaron received the holy oil in profusion, by pouring. "The precious ointment ran down upon his beard"—nay, "went down to the skirts of his clothing" (Psalms 133:2). (3) Christ was at once priest and king—"born king of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2); crucified as "king of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37); crowned by the soldiers in mockery (Matthew 27:29); founder of an imperishable "kingdom" in reality. Aaron, in his capacity of priest, wore a diadem, a "holy crown" (Exodus 29:6; Le Exodus 8:9), and may thus be regarded as having had committed to him "a royal priesthood." (4) Christ has "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hid away (ἀπόκρυφοι) in him" (Colossians 2:3), and could freely declare the will of God to man. Aaron had the precious Urim and Thummim hid away in the folds of his breast-plate, and by their means could obtain a knowledge of God’s will in any practical matter. Lastly, (5) Christ is the great mediator between God and man, the one and only man who can intercede for his brethren effectually, who can make real atonement for their sins, and reconcile them to his Father. Aaron’s special office was to make continual atonement for all the sins of the people by such sacrifices as were appointed by the law, to intercede for his brethren with God continually, and to be a mediator between them and him, representative of the true mediator. II. AS A PATTERN TO , Aaron is (1) solemnly called by God and set apart for his high office. (2) Prepared for it by an ablution, which typifies the removal of all impurity. (3) Invested with it by a human authority, viz; Moses. (4) Required on all occasions of its exercise to wear robes of office. (5) Anointed with a holy oil, typical of the graces of the Holy Spirit. (6) Appointed to minister continually before God in the tabernacle of the congregation. (7) Appointed to resolve doubts by declaring God’s will in difficult cases which should be brought before him. (8) Required to bear upon his brow, in the sight of all men, a profession of "Holiness to the Lord." The official Aaron is thus, in numerous respects, a pattern and example to all—even Christian ministers; but the personal Aaron is, on the contrary, rather a warning. The weakness which allowed the worship of the golden calf, and the presumption which led to "murmuring against Moses" (Numbers 20:10-12) indicate a character which, if it had some virtues, had many and very serious defects. BY J. ORR Exodus 29:1-33 The rites of consecration for the priesthood. The next portion of the Divine directions relates to the formal investiture of Aaron and his sons with the priests’ office. This was to be made the occasion of a solemn and imposing ceremonial. "The rites of consecration proclaimed the necessity of holiness—a holiness not their own, but imputed to them by the grace of God; and following upon this, and flowing from the same source, a plentiful endowment of gifts for their sacred office, with the manifest seal of heaven’s fellowship and approval" (Fairbairn). We may view the inaugurative ceremonies as having reference— I. TO THE , IN THE IDEA OF IT (Exodus 29:4-10). Aaron and his sons were to be— 1. Washed with water—symbol of purification from all uncleanness (Exodus 29:4). 2. Clothed with the holy garments—which robing was the real installation. Aaron was to be first robed (Exodus 29:6, Exodus 29:7), afterwards his sons (Exodus 29:8, Exodus 29:9). 3. Anointed—symbol of the abundant communication of Divine influences (Exodus 29:7). The anointing took place immediately after investiture. See exposition. Nothing could be simpler than these introductory ceremonies, which yet, in connection with the symbolism of the dress, meant a great deal. They "filled the hand" of the priest with his office (Exodus 29:9), declared the need of holiness in the discharge of his duties, and conveyed to him the gifts of heavenly grace necessary fir their right performance. So Christ "glorified not himself to be made an high priest" (Hebrews 5:5), but was formally installed in his office by the Father; was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26); and is endued above measure with the Spirit (John 3:34). II. TO THE , AS HELD BY SINFUL MEN (Exodus 29:10-15). The direct installation to the priesthood is followed by ceremonies having reference to the personal sinfulness of the holders of the office. The tact could not be overlooked that the law was making men priests that had infirmity (Hebrews 7:28). Themselves sinful, Aaron and his sons were not as yet fit to transact with God as mediators for others. The true High Priest, having no sin, laboured under no disqualification of this kind (Hebrews 7:27); but it was different with priests "taken from among men" (Hebrews 5:1). They needed to have sacrifices offered for themselves. "This, therefore, was what was next provided; and through an entire series of sacrifices and offerings they were conducted as from the depths of guilt and condemnation to what indicated their possession of a state "of blessed peace and most friendly intercourse with God" (Fairbairn). The sacrifices were three—a sin-offering (Exodus 29:10-15); a burnt-offering (Exodus 29:15-19); and a peace-offering (Exodus 29:19-22); and these sacrifices, with the accompanying ceremonies, were to be repeated on seven successive days (Exodus 29:35). The altar, as defiled by the sin of those officiating at it, was likewise to be cleansed by the blood of the sin-offering (Exodus 29:36, Exodus 29:37). This is the first appearance of the sin-offering in the law. III. TO , DUTIES, AND (Exodus 29:15-38). The sin-offering had especially to do with the removal of guilt. The second sacrifice—the burnt-offering—denoted the duty of unconditional and entire surrender to Jehovah. The third—"the ram of consecration" (Exodus 29:22)—was that by which the newly-made priests were wholly put into the functions and rights of their office. 1. The ram’s blood was significantly applied to different members of the person (Exodus 29:20). It was put upon the tip of the right eat’, upon the thumb of the right hand, and upon the great toe of the right foot, of Aaron and of his sons. This denoted, of course, entire dedication of the person to God’s service, in hearing, in acting, and in the daily walk. It beautifully symbolises, not only the perfect consecration of him whose meat it was to do his Father’s will (John 4:34), but the completeness of devotion which ought to characterise each of his disciples, who also are priests to God. 2. The priests were sprinkled with the ram’s blood and oil mingled (Exodus 29:21). This symbolised the new life of God, in which the priest was "henceforth to move and have his being, in conjunction with the Spirit, on whose softening, penetrating, invigorating influence all powers and movements of that Divine life depend" (Fairbairn). 3. The portions of the sacrifice which belonged to God, with a loaf, cake, and wafer, of the meat offering—symbolic of fruitfulness in good works—were next to be placed on the priests’ hands, and waved before the Lord (Exodus 29:24). This signified, (1) "The conveyal of the function which belongs to the priest to offer the fat pieces of God’s altar; and (2) the infeoffment of the priests with the gilt, which they receive in future for their service, but which they must now give over to Jehovah, because they are not yet fully dedicated, and therefore cannot yet themselves act as priests" (Oehler). The conclusion of the ceremony was a sacrificial meal, indicative of restored fellowship, and happy communion with God (Exodus 29:31-35). Exodus 29:29, Exodus 29:30, provide for the handing down of the high priest’s office to Aaron’s sons. The priesthood continued till superseded by that of the greater Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7:1-28.).—J.O. THE DAILY . The consecration of the altar, which is made a part of the consecration of the priests, is to be followed immediately by the establishment of the daily sacrifice. Two lambs are to be offered day by day to the Lord, one in the morning and the other in the evening, as "a continual burnt-offering" (Exodus 29:42), in acknowledgment that the life of the people belonged to Jehovah (Cook), aria that they were bound to offer perpetually "themselves, their souls and bodies, to be a reasonable holy, and lively sacrifice" to him. The burnt-offerings were to be accompanied by appropriate "meat and drink-offerings"—i.e; by a certain quantity of flour mingled with olive oil for the one, and a certain quantity of wine for the other—indications of the debt of gratitude which the nation owed to God for his continual benefits Exodus 29:38 Lambs of the first year. Compare Exodus 12:5. The LXX. add "without blemish." But this is unnecessary, as all victims were to be without blemish (Le Exodus 22:20: Deuteronomy 15:21, etc.) Exodus 29:39 At even. Literally, "between the two evenings." (See the comment on Exodus 12:6.) Josephus says (Ant. Jud. 14.4, § 3) that the hour in ordinary use was three. Exodus 29:40 A tenth deal—i.e; a "tenth part." The tenth part of an ephah is no doubt meant. This was sometimes called "an omen" (Exodus 16:36), and would be about three pounds weight of flour, or a little more. One fourth part of an hin of beaten oil. The word hin is said to be Egyptian. It occurs here for the first time. The bin was the sixth part of a bath, and probably contained about one pint and a half English. The fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink-offering. The application of the "drink-offerings" is uncertain. Josephus says (Ant. Jud. 3.9, § 4) that they were poured out round the brazen altar. But the analogy of the "meat offering" makes it probable that a portion only was thus treated, while the greater part belonged to the priests. In the entire provision by which burnt and peace-offering were to be necessarily accompanied with meat-offerings and drink-offerings, we can scarcely be wrong in seeing an arrangement made especially for the convenience of the priests. Exodus 29:41 Thou shalt do thereto according to the meat-offering, etc. "Thou shalt offer"—i.e; "the same meat-offering and drink-offering with the evening as with the morning sacrifice." For a sweet savour, See the comment on Exodus 29:18. Exodus 29:42 Throughout your generations. Rather, "for your generations." The tabernacle of the congregation. Rather, "of meeting"—"the tabernacle of meeting, where I will meet you." The verb and substantive are modifications of the same word, ועד. It is this passage which definitely fixes the meaning of the phrase incorrectly rendered "the tabernacle of the congregation" by our translators. Exodus 29:38 42 The value of a daily service. Perpetual remembrance of God is one of the greatest needs for the maintenance and furtherance of religion. "Pray without ceasing." "In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God" (Philippians 4:6). "I have set the Lord alway before my face" (Psalms 16:8). These and numerous other texts lay down the perfect law—constant worship of the Almighty. But human weakness, and the pressing concerns of life, make literal compliance with the perfect law impossible. And in his mercy God relaxes the law. "At evening and morning, and at noonday, will I pray," says the man after his own heart (Psalms 55:17); "and he shall hear my voice." Daniel prayed "three times a day, with his window open towards Jerusalem" (Daniel 6:10). Coldness and worldliness have in the Christian Church reduced, for the most part, the "three times" to twice; but still the obligation is acknowledged under all circumstances at morn and even to lift the heart to God, and "look up." Now, it is a great help towards maintaining this minimum that there should be, twice a day, a public service. The daily morning and evening sacrifice were a perpetual reminder to the Israelites of their duty in respect of prayer—they felt the "lifting up of their hands" to be—according to the time of it—a morning or "an evening sacrifice" (Psalms 141:2). And so, in the Christian Church, public service twice a day, which prevails widely, is of great value. I. AS MEN OF THE DUTY OF SUCH —as keeping it before them, by the sight of open church doors, and the sound of chiming bells, that God is, at the least, to be addressed twice a day, at morn and even, in earnest, heartfelt prayer; to be praised and thanked for his mercies, intreated for his forgiveness, besought for his support, and help, and blessing. What is done by public authority rouses attention, provokes inquiry, raises a general feeling that it would not be done unless it were right. Many a man, who has long neglected private prayer, has been led to acknowledge himself wrong, and to revert to the practice of it by the witness borne—the protest made—by those churches which persistently keep up the substitute for the morning and evening sacrifice of the tabernacle and temple, to wit—that daily morning and evening service in the sanctuary, which the Church of England, among others, enjoins upon her ministers. II. AS THEM TO PERFORM THE DUTY IN , WITHOUT . In many homes there is no quietness, no retired spot to which husband, or wife, or child can go for silent communion with the Almighty Father, or the Saviour. All is noise, tumult, bustle, hurry—nay, sometimes, all is quarrel, angry words, cruel blows, threats, curses. Private prayer in such households, if it was ever known, drops out of use. Frequently, it is not allowed—it provokes an outbreak—if done at all, it has to be done secretly, hastily, in fear and trembling. In such cases, how great a blessing is it to those who feel the need of prayer, that there should be somewhere near them a sacred spot, whither they can, occasionally at any rate, betake themselves to pray their own prayers, or join in the prayers of others as may seem best to them, and feel the near presence of the Almighty! "How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of Hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord!" "One day in thy courts is better than a thousand" elsewhere. BY J. ORR Exodus 29:38-43 The daily burnt-offering. Symbol of consecration of life of the nation. 1. Offered at morn and even. 2. Continually. 3. With meat-offering-Medication of life in its practical activities.—J.O. Exodus 29:43-46 GOD’S . The chapter terminates with a parenthetic insertion of various promises, intended to cheer the Israelites under the hard circumstances of their wanderings in the wilderness, and growing out of the mention of the tabernacle as "the tabernacle of meeting" (Exodus 29:42). "There," says God, "He will meet, not only Moses, to speak to him, but also the children of Israel, to receive their offerings, hear their prayers, and grant their requests. There will he meet them, and there his glory shall be; and the tabernacle shall be thereby sanctified. He will sanctify both the tabernacle and the altar; he will sanctify, moreover, both Aaron and his sons; and he will dwell among the children of Israel, and be their God; and they shall know him." Very precious and gracious promises, made absolutely; though, as the result showed (2 Chronicles 36:14-18), contingent on their obedience; and faithfully performed, as long as even a remnant was obedient, during a space of above seven hundred years from the Exodus to the Captivity! Exodus 29:43 There will I meet the children of Israel. Lay Israelites might not enter the tabernacle, and could only "meet God" at its entrance, when they brought their sacrifices to the altar. He promises, however, to meet them on these occasions with favour and. acceptance. The tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. Compare Exodus 40:34. The presence of the Shechinah was the true sanctification of the tabernacle—all the rest was mere type and figure. God not only "put his name there," but put his presence there visibly. Exodus 29:44 I will sanctify … the altar. See Le Exodus 9:24, where we learn that on the first occasion of Aaron’s offering sacrifice upon the brazen altar, "there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat." Thus the altar had its miraculous sanctification, as well as the tabernacle, and was not merely consecrated by human instrumentality. I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons. It would seem to follow, by parity of reasoning, that here also something more is intended than had been accomplished by the rites of consecration. The verb is in the future—"I will sanctify"—and must allude to something which has not yet taken place. Probably, sanctification of the spirit is intended—that Divine influence upon the heart which alone makes men really and truly "holy." (Compare Le Exodus 21:8, Exodus 21:15; Exodus 22:9, Exodus 22:16.) But in this ease the promise must have been conditional. God would sanctify them so far as they would allow him. Exodus 29:45 I will dwell among the children of Israel. Compare Exodus 25:8. Primarily, the indwelling of the Shechinah in the holy of holies is, no doubt, meant; but the expression need not be limited to this. God would be present with his people in manifold ways—to direct, sustain, enlighten, defend, and save them. And will be their God. Compare Exodus 6:7. What treasures of love, protection, bounty, tenderness, and pardon, are there in this phrase! Exodus 29:46 And they shall know, etc. When they experience my protection, bounty, love, tenderness, pardon, they shall truly feel and know in their inmost hearts, that I am the same God who delivered them out of the bondage of Egypt, and brought them forth, for the very purpose of "dwelling among them." I am Jehovah, their God. No other God could deliver after this sort. No other God could be so long-suffering to a "stiff-necked people." God’s promises to Israel. Here we may note— I. THE DIVINE AS SHOWN IN THE MAKING OF , Man has no claim upon his Maker. Our "goodness extendeth not to him." So far forth as we "do him true and laudable service," we are "unprofitable servants—we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). But how little of such service is rendered! How great are our shortcomings! How many our "sins, negligences, and ignorances!" How little do we deserve anything but evil at God’s hand! And yet, he not only bears with us, but makes us gracious promises. He binds himself to us beforehand by express engagements—he pledges his own sacred word to bestow upon us divers blessings. Here he promised Israel five things— 1. The sanctification of the tabernacle by the Shechinah; 2. The sanctification of the altar; 3. Holiness in Aaron and his sons; 4. His own permanent abiding presence with them as their God; and 5. Their own recognition of him as their Lord God the deliverer who brought them out of Egypt—the eternal—Jehovah Eloheyhem. And to Christians he has promised far more—pardon, redemption, acceptance, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, eternal life! Utterly unworthy as we are, these promises have been made to us. God’s infinite goodness has caused him to condescend to enter into covenant with his creatures; and the promises which he has made to us, "he for his part will most surely keep and perform." II. THE DIVINE , AS SHOWN IN THE OF THE MADE. (1) The sanctification of the tabernacle was effected by the entrance into it of the Shechinah (Exodus 40:34); (2) That of the altar by the fire which "came out from before the Lord" (Le Exodus 9:24); (3) Aaron and his sons were sanctified to the effectual performance of all their ministerial acts, and were further personally sanctified, so far as their own wills would permit; (4) God did abide with his people Israel, notwithstanding all their short-comings, for at least seven centuries; defended them from their enemies; taught them by his prophets; made them a praise and a wonder among the nations. And, on the whole, (5) notwithstanding occasional defections, Israel did recognise Jehovah as their God, did maintain his worship, did observe his laws, did believe that he dwelt among them, and was "the Lord their God." Shall we think that to us he will be less faithful? Shall we doubt that he will give to us the covenanted blessings—pardon, and redemption, and acceptance, and sanctification, and eternal life? Surely, "God is not a man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should repent." He is "the faithful and the true" (Revelation 19:11). He never broke a promise. All to which he is pledged he will most assuredly perform, if we only are not wanting on our part. BY J. ORR Israel sanctified by God’s presence. 1. Three grades of sanctification. (1) By blood. (2) Unction of the Spirit. (3) Personal Divine indwelling. 2. God’s dwelling with Israel sanctifies (1) the tabernacle; (2) his servants; (3) the whole people.—J.O. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. This chapter has the appearance of being one in which accidental omissions are supplied. The natural place for a description of the altar of incense—part of the furniture of the holy place (Exodus 30:6)—would seem to have been Exodus 25:10-40, where we have the descriptions of the ark, the mercy-seat, the table of shew-bread, and the candlestick; the natural place for "the ransom of souls," the earlier part of the same chapter (Exodus 25:3), where the silver is required which was to be collected in this way; the natural place for an account of the bronze laver, Exodus 27:1-21; where the bronze altar, near which it stood, is described; the natural place for the composition of the holy oil, Exodus 29:1-46; where its use is commanded (Exodus 29:7, Exodus 29:21); and the natural place for a description of the perfume the same as for the altar on which it was to be offered. Whether Moses made the omissions in writing his record, and afterwards supplied them in the present chapter, or whether Divine wisdom saw fit to give the directions in the order in which we now have them, cannot be determined. Hitherto certainly no sufficient reason has been shown for the existing order, which hence appears accidental. The altar of incense was to be in many respects similar to the altar of burnt-offering, but of smaller size and richer material. Both were to be "four-square," and both of shittim wood cased with metal; but the former was to be taller, the latter shorter, than it was broad; and while the latter was to be cased with bronze, the former was to have a covering of gold. The place for the altar of incense was the main chamber of the tabernacle, a little in front of the veil; and its purpose was, as the name implied, the offering of incense to almighty God. This was to be done by the officiating priest, twice a day, morning and evening, and in practice was performed before the morning, and after the evening sacrifice. Exodus 30:1 An altar to burn incense upon. The offering of incense was an element in the religious worship of most ancient nations. In Egypt frankincense was especially used in the festivals of the god Ammon;. and on one occasion an Egyptian sovereign sent a naval expedition to Arabia for the express purpose of bringing frankincense and frankincense trees to Egypt, in connection with the Ammon feasts. The Babylonians burnt a thousand talents’ weight of frankincense every year at the great festival of Bal (Herod. 1.183). The Greeks and Romans offered frankincense, as a rule, with every offering; and in the early ages of Christianity it was made the test of a Christian whether he would do this or no. What exactly the religious notion was which underlay these acts, or whether it was the same everywhere, may be questioned. In the Mosaic religion, however, there can be little doubt that, in the main, incense symbolised prayer. (See Psalms 141:2; Luke 1:10.) Of shittim wood. Compare above, Exodus 27:1. Exodus 30:2 Four square shall it be. Like the altar of burnt-offering. See the comment on Exodus 27:1. Two cubits shall be the height thereof. Altars of this small size are often represented on ancient vases and other remains. The horns thereof. It seems to be assumed that an altar must have horns. Those of the altar of incense were to have the blood of certain sin-offerings smeared upon them (Le Exodus 4:7, Exodus 4:18). Shall be of the same—i.e. "shall be of one piece with the top of the table"—not projections added to it. Compare Exodus 27:2. Exodus 30:3 Thou shalt make unto it a crown of gold—i.e; a border, or moulding, all round the top, to prevent anything from falling off. Compare what is said of the table of shew-bread, Exodus 25:24. Exodus 30:4 By the two corners. Rather, "on its two sides." The ensuing clause is redundant. All that is meant is, that the altar should have two rings only—not four—one at each side, directly below the moulding. As it was so small, two rings were enough. For the staves. Rather, "for staves." Exodus 30:5 The staves were to be of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, like those used for carrying the ark (Exodus 25:13) and the table of shew-bread (Exodus 25:28). Exodus 30:6 Thou shalt put it before the vail. It might have been doubtful from what is said here, which side of the veil the altar was to be placed. The doubt is precluded by the narrative of what Moses actually did in Exodus 40:21-29, which makes it clear that the altar was placed with the golden candlestick and the table of shew-bread, outside the veil, in the "holy place," and not within the "holy of holies." Where I will meet with thee. See above, Exodus 25:22. Exodus 30:7 Sweet incense. Literally, "incense of perfumes." For the composition of the incense, see Exodus 30:34-38. When he dresseth the lamps. The lamps of the golden candlestick were to be trimmed and cleaned, their wicks looked to, and fresh oil added, if necessary, every morning, immediately after daybreak. See the comment on Exodus 27:21. The duty devolved on the priests. Exodus 30:8 At even. Literally, "between the two evenings." (See the comment on Exodus 12:6.) The offering of incense by the high priest twice a day, at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, indicated that prayer was needed as constantly as expiation, and that neither might for a single day be intermitted. A perpetual incense. "Perpetual," in the sense that it was to be burnt twice a day, as long as the religion lasted—not in the sense that it was to be kept burning constantly. Exodus 30:9 By strange incense is meant any which was not prepared according to the directions given in Exodus 30:34-38. None such was ever to be offered. Nor was the altar to be used for burnt-offering, meat-offering, or drink-offering. For burnt-offering it was manifestly unfit; but the prohibition of the others seems to show a determination to keep its use markedly distinct from that of the brazen altar in the court, which was to receive all that was offered either for expiation, or for self-dedication, or in gratitude. On the sole exception made to this general law, see the comment on the next verse. Exodus 30:10 Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in the year. Once in the year, on the great day of atonement—the tenth day of the seventh month—the high priest, after burning incense within the veil, and sprinkling the blood of a bullock and a ram towards the mercy seat, was to take of the blood, and put it on the horns of the altar of incense "to make an atonement for it—to cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (Le Exodus 16:18, Exodus 16:19). This was not making it an altar of expiation, but merely expiating it. There was, however, another use for the altar, where it seems to have served for an altar of expiation. When the high priest had sinned in his official character, and offered a sin-offering for his cleansing (Le Exodus 4:3-12), or when the whole congregation had committed an offence through inadvertence, and did the same (Le Exodus 4:13-21), the high priest was to put of the blood of the sacrifice on the horns of the altar of incense, "for the expiation of his own sin and the sin of the people" (Keil). In these two cases, the altar of incense served the purpose of the altar of burnt-offering, on which was put the blood of private sin-offerings (Le Exodus 4:22 -35). It is most holy. There seems to be sufficient reason for considering the altar of incense as, next to the ark and mercy seat, the most sacred object in the furniture of the tabernacle. This precedence indicates the extreme value which God sets upon prayer. Exodus 30:1-10 The symbolism of the Altar of Incense. We have seen that the ascent of incense signifies the mounting up to heaven of the grateful odour of man’s earnest and heart-felt prayers. The altar, therefore, symbolises the heart which offers such prayers,— 1. IN ITS . The altar is of acacia wood and gold—the one a symbol of soundness and strength, the other of purity. Prayer, to be acceptable, must proceed out of a true heart—a sound, honest, sincere, strong heart—not one that is weak and unstable, one thing to-day and another to-morrow; but one that is consistent, steady, firm, brave, resolute. And it must also proceed out of a pure heart. The gold of the altar was to be "pure gold," refined till every atom of the native dross was purged away. And the heart of the worshipper should be refined similarly. There is much native dross in the hearts of all men. The discipline of life, the furnace of affliction, under God’s blessing, does much to purge the dross. But something of it always remains. One only was absolutely pure. We must approach God through the intercession of Christ, and then our incense will mount up from a golden altar heavenwards. II. IN ITS . The altar was "by the ark of the testimony"—directly in front of the mercy seat—very close to the Divine presence, therefore. Prayer brings us into the presence of God. The heart that is drawn upward, and fixed in worship and adoration in its Creator and Redeemer, feels itself near to him. Near, very near; yet still separated by a veil. The eyes of the body cannot pierce that impenetrable curtain, which shrouds the invisible world from our eager, curious gaze. The heart itself cannot so lift itself up as to rise out of the present conditions of its mortal, finite nature, and really enter the empyrean. There is still a veil between man and the spiritual world. Through death only can he pass beyond it. III. IN ITS HORNS, WHICH WERE SYMBOLS OF POWER. Great is the might of prayer. By means of it the heart has power with God, can wrestle with him, as Jacob did; and as it were, force him to bless it (Genesis 32:26). The parable of the importunate widow illustrates this power. Let us follow her example; let us persist, let us besiege God with our prayers, for ourselves, for others, and we shall prevail with him; at length he will hear us. It has been questioned in these "last days" whether prayer is ever answered; and tests have been proposed, by which men have hoped to demonstrate its inefficiency. But God will not be tested. "Thou shelf not tempt" (i.e. "try" or "test") "the Lord thy God." He does not undertake to answer faithless, or even doubting, wavering prayers. The promise is—"Whoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith" (Mark 11:23). BY J. ORR Exodus 30:1-11 The Altar of Incense. See below, Exodus 30:34-38.—J.O. THE RANSOM OF SOULS. The various commands given with respect to the tabernacle and its furniture would necessarily involve a very considerable outlay; and it was important that Moses should receive directions as to the source, or sources, whence this expenditure was to come. In Exodus 25:2-7, one source had been indicated, viz; the voluntary contributions of the people. To this is now added a second source. On occasion of rite numbering of the people—an event which is spoken of as impending (Exodus 25:12)—Moses was told to exact from each of them, as atonement money, the sum of half a shekel of silver. The produce of this tax was to be applied to the work of the sanctuary (Exodus 25:16), and it is found to have formed an important clement in the provision for the cost, since the total amount was above a hundred talents, or, more exactly, 301,775 shekels (Exodus 38:25). The requirement of atonement money seems to have been based on the idea, that formal enrolment in the number of God’s faithful people necessarily brought home to every man his unworthiness to belong to that holy company, and so made him feel the need of making atonement in some way or other. The payment of the half-shekel was appointed as the legal mode under those circumstances. It was an acknowledgment of sin, equally binding upon all, and so made equal for all; and it saved from God’s vengeance those who, if they had boon too proud to make it, would have been punished by some "plague" or other (Exodus 25:12). Exodus 30:12 When thou takest the sum. The sum had been taken roughly at the time of the exodus (Exodus 12:37). Moses was now, it would seem, about to take it again, more accurately. No command had ever been given that the people should riot be numbered; and the Egyptian habit of compiling exact statistics naturally clung to one who had had an Egyptian training. A ransom. Rather "an expiation," "an atonement"—(as in Exodus 29:33, Exodus 29:36)—something to show that he was conscious of sin, and of his not deserving to be numbered among God’s people. That there was no plague. "That they be not punished for undue pride and presumption. There is no thought of such a plague as was provoked by David’s numbering (2 Samuel 24:15). Exodus 30:13 Half a shekel. The shekel of later times was a silver coin, about the size round of our shilling, but considerably thicker, and worth about one shilling and eightpence. But at the date of the exodus coins were unknown, and the "shekel" meant a certain weight. The burthen imposed by the tax was evidently a light one. The shekel of the sanctuary. A standard weight in the possession of the priests, equal probably to about 220 grains troy. Twenty gerahs. The word "gerah "means" a bean;" and the gerah must bare been a weight equal to about eleven grains troy, It remained in use to the time of the captivity (Ezekiel 45:12). Exodus 30:14 From twenty years old and upward. Twenty was the age at which an Israelite was reckoned a man; at twenty he became liable to serve in the wars (2 Chronicles 25:5), and entered otherwise on the duties of citizenship. At twenty the Levites began their service in the temple (1 Chronicles 23:24, 1 Chronicles 23:27; 2 Chronicles 31:17; Ezra 3:8). Exodus 30:15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less. This is very emphatic testimony to the equal value of souls in God’s sight. The payment was "the ransom of a soul" (Exodus 30:12)—an acknowledgment of God’s mercy in sparing those whose life was justly forfeit. As each soul that he has created is equally precious in his sight, and as he designs equally the salvation of all—it was fitting that the same exact sum should be paid in every case. Exodus 30:16 The application of the "atonement money" is stated more distinctly in Exodus 38:27, Exodus 38:28. It was employed for the silver sockets that supported the boards of the tabernacle, and for the hooks, capitals, and connecting rods of the pillars which surrounded the court. Thus employed, it was a continual "memorial" in the eyes of the people, reminding each man of his privileges and duties Exodus 30:12-16 The atonement money. Remark three things:— I. THE MONEY WAS OF ALL. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). There was to be no exemption. Moses and Aaron were to bring their half-shekel no less than the others; the priests had to make the offering, just the same as the laity; the rulers, as much as the common people. The lesson taught was, that every soul was guilty before God—all unclean in his sight, who "is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity"—all in need of pardon and cleansing. So far there was certainly "no difference" (Romans 3:22). "Every mouth was stopped" (Romans 3:19). Boasting was excluded—the right attitude of the soul towards God shown to be one of humility, deprecation, penitence. II. THE SAME MONEY WAS OF EACH. It is true to say, that all men equally are guilty in God’s sight; but it would not be true to say that all are equally guilty. Yet the same atonement was required of all. "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less." This marks that one and the same atonement is required, whatever be the degree of a man’s guilt, whether he be (so far as is possible) "a just man needing no repentance," or "the chief of sinners." On the man’s part is required in every case "repentance and faith;" these, however, cannot atone. The true "atonement money," the true "redemption," the real "ransom of souls," is the death of Christ—one and the same for all—necessary for all—not too much for the least, not too little for the most guilty; but "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world." it saves all that trust in it—saves them from wrath and death—saves them from sin—atones for them—puts them "at one" with the Father. III. THE WAS TO BE KEPT IN MEND, TO BE FOR A . There are those who are content to acknowledge that Christ has died for them, and has saved them, who yet object to giving the fact, what they call, undue prominency. They would acknowledge it once for all, and then have done with it. But this is not the general teaching of the Bible, nor is it that of the present passage. The "atonement money" was to be so employed as to be "a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord" perpetually. They were to have the shapes of silver, into which it had been cast, ever before their eyes. And assuredly there is nothing in the whole range of spiritual facts which deserves such continual remembrance, such constant dwelling upon in thought, as the atonement made for us by Christ. Herein alone have we hope, trust, confidence. Hereby alone are we saved. The cross of Christ should be ever before the Christian’s eye, mind, heart. He should not for a moment forget it, much less be ashamed of it. BY J. Exodus 30:11-16 The numbering of Israel and their ransom. I. THE OF THE PEOPLE, AN EMBLEM OF THE . God’s claims were brought home to them; their unworthiness was contrasted with the place assigned to them as the people whom God had visited with his light and salvation. When we remember that we are the Lord’s, and the light of that just claim is shed upon our life, it is to our shame and confusion. But life will be read at last in this very light! II. THE WHICH SHIELDS US. 1. It is a ransom for the life: "that there be no plague among them when thou numberest them." God’s wrath will not smite if this be provided. 2. it must be given from one’s own in that judgment day. Christ to avail us then must have been made ours by faith. It must be Christ in us. 3. It is required from all. None are guiltless. 4. The same is demanded from each. All alike are in themselves lost and under God’s wrath. 5. The atonement is for the service of the tabernacle. The changed life of God’s people through the indwelling of Christ is for God’s service now, and the manifestation of his glory hereafter.—U. BY J. ORR Exodus 30:11-17 It pertained to the full admission of Israel to theocratic privilege, that, the nation as a whole having been admitted into covenant, a formal registration should be made of at least the grown part of the community. Directions were accordingly issued for the taking of a census, which had also in view a more complete military organisation of the nation than as yet existed. The males of the tribes from twenty years old and upwards were to be made to pass before Jehovah, and were to be regularly counted and enrolled as members of the holy commonwealth. This act, however, which involved a near approach to Jehovah, and was on the part of the individual an entrance into the full rights of his citizenship, called for some new recognition of the principle of atonement on which the covenant was built. Hence the ordinance that each individual of those who were numbered should make an offering of half a shekel of silver, as a ransom or atonement for his soul (Exodus 30:15). The silver thus obtained was to go for the service of the tabernacle (Exodus 30:16). On which observe— 1. The money was money of atonement. It was paid in ransom for life. If we seek the principle on which the ransoming proceeds, we must view the half shekel in the light of the practice of commutation. In strictness, atonement could be made only by blood. Here, as in other cases, the animal sacrifice is commuted for money, and the money, in virtue of that for which it is commuted, is admitted as atonement. The purpose to which the silver was to be applied required that the ransom should take this form. 2. All were to be taxed alike. "The rich shall not give more, nor the poor less" (Exodus 30:15). This intimates that, as respects his need of atonement, no man has any advantage over his neighbours. "There is no difference" (Romans 3:22). It intimates, too, the essential equality of men in the eyes of God. 3. The money was to be applied to the work of the tabernacle. The greater part of it was used in making the silver sockets for the dwelling-place (Exodus 38:27). Thus (1) the tabernacle—symbol of God’s kingdom in Israel—was founded on the silver of atonement. This, surely, was a profound testimony to the fact that only on the basis of atonement can communion exist between heaven and earth. (2) Each Israelite was individually represented in Jehovah’s sanctuary. His tribute money formed part of it. He had a stake and interest in it. The honour was great: not less so the responsibility.—J.O. THE BRAZEN LAVER. That the tabernacle was to have an ample supply of water had been implied in the directions given for the washing of Aaron and his sons at its outer door (Exodus 29:4). That it would contain some provision of the kind is further indicated by the command to "wash the inwards" of victims (Exodus 29:17). We have now, in this place, the special directions given to Moses on the subject. He was to provide a brazen, or rather a bronze laver, which was to stand on a separate "foot," or base, of bronze, in the court of the tabernacle, between the entrance to the tabernacle and the "brazen altar." This was to be kept constantly supplied with water, and was to furnish whatever might be needed for the various ceremonies. Among its other uses, it was to supply liquid for the constant ablution of the priests, who were to wash both their hands and their feet on every occasion of their entering the sacred tent, and even on every occasion of their ministering at the brazen altar (Exodus 30:20). This law was to be "a statute for ever" (Exodus 30:21), and its violation was to be punished by death. Exodus 30:18 A laver. It is remarkable that nothing is said respecting either the shape or the size of the laver. In 1 Kings we have an elaborate description of the "molten sea," which replaced it in Solomon’s temple, as well as an almost equally elaborate one of ten other layers made by Hiram, Solomon’s artist, at the same time. We may perhaps assume from these examples that the brazen laver of the tabernacle was a large bronze vase or basin, standing upon a stem, which was fixed into a base. It was probably fitted up with an apparatus of taps and cocks. Between the tabernacle …. and the altar. The Rabbinical commentators say that it was not exactly in the middle, but a little towards the south side. Exodus 30:19 Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. Ablution by clear fresh water is so plain and simple a type of purity as to have been used in almost all religions. The hands and the feet would designate symbolically all a man’s active doings, and even his whole walk in life—his "goings out" and his "comings in," in the phraseology of the Hebrews. There would also be a special practical need for such ablutions in the case of persons who were employed about bloody sacrifices, who slew the victims, sprinkled, the blood, and even dashed it against the base of the altar. On some rare occasions the priests were required to bathe their whole persons, and not their hands and feet only (see above, Exodus 29:4; and below, Le Exodus 16:4). Exodus 30:20 That they die not. Compare Exodus 28:35 and Exodus 28:43. Contempt of the simple and easy regulation to wash at the laver would imply contempt of purity itself; and so an entire hypocrisy of life and character, than which nothing could be a greater offence to God. Exodus 30:21 It shall be a statute for ever. Compare Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43; Exodus 29:9: etc. Even to him—i.e; to Aaron. Exodus 30:18-21 The Brazen Laver. Primarily, the brazen altar has its antitype in THE FONT. "Baptism saves us," says St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21). "Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins," said Ananias (Acts 22:16). "There is one baptism for the remission of sins," said the Nicene Fathers. As the priests had to wash at the laver ere they might enter the sanctuary, so entrance into the Church, by the institution of Christ, is by baptism. To wash, of course, is by itself not enough—each of us must "lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." So the priests, besides washing, had to observe all God’s other ordinances. Ultimately, both the laver and the font, both the priestly ablutions and the Christian sacrament of baptism, are types of the true washing, which is WASHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This washing is— I. , AND IN ALL CASES, NEEDFUL. Only "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). "If Christ wash us not, we have no part in him" (John 13:8). The saved in heaven are those who have "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14). Baptism is "generally necessary" since Christ came and instituted it; yet no one doubts that many unbaptized persons have entered heaven. But not one has entered, or will ever enter, whom the blood of Christ has not cleansed. "Wash me, Saviour, or I die," is the constantly repeated cry of every Christian heart. II. A REMEDY THAT NEVER, FAILS TO SAVE. Thus "washed," we are at once both "justified and sanctified" (1 Corinthians 6:11); both pardoned and made pure. Thus washed, we have access to the Father; we are made fit to enter his courts; our robes are made white, and not only our robes, but our souls. God will never reject one who comes to him in the wedding garment of a robe that Christ has cleansed. Only we must be sure to keep our robes clean—we must not "defile our garments" (Revelation 3:4)—we must wash them again and again in the purifying blood; we must look nowhere else for salvation, but only to the Cross, and we must look to that perpetually. BY J. ORR Exodus 30:17-34 The laver and the anointing oil. I. THE LAVER (Exodus 30:17-22). This was to be made of brass (bronze), and was to be placed near the door of the tabernacle between it and the altar. It was to be used by Aaron and his sons for purposes of ablution. A new symbol of the purity required in those who serve before Jehovah. The Christian contracts daily defilements in his walk, for which also daily cleansing is required (cf. John 13:10; 1 John 1:7). II. THE OIL (Exodus 30:22-34). Precious, fragrant, holy. To be applied not only to Aaron and his sons, but to the tabernacle and all its vessels. See Homily on Consecration (Exodus 24:6, Exodus 24:7). The oil is the symbol of the Spirit. The holiness imparted to Aaron and his sons by this anointing, and by the rites of consecration generally, was indeed no more than a ceremonial or official holiness. It pertained to the office rather than to the man. Yet the holders of the office were, in virtue of their consecration, laid under obligations to personal holiness as well. The private character of the priest might not avail to nullify his official acts; but the absence in the public representative of the spiritual qualifications for his office would not be allowed to go unpunished. Iniquity in the priest would be visited both on priest and people.—J.O. THE HOLY OIL. The composition of the oil required for anointing the priests (Exodus 29:7), the altar (ib, 36), the tabernacle itself (Exodus 30:26), and its furniture (Exodus 30:27, Exodus 30:28), was a necessary matter for Moses to know, and is now declared with much minuteness; the exact weight of each spice, and the exact quantity of the olive oil being given: and finally, a warning is given against its application to any persons except the priests, or its composition for any other purpose besides the use of the sanctuary (Exodus 30:31-33). Exodus 30:23 Principal spices. The ancients recognised a vast variety of spices. Pliny notices an ointment which was composed of twenty-six ingredients, chiefly spices (H.N. 13.2, § 18). Herodotus mentions five "principal spices" as furnished by Arabia (3:107), of which four seem to be identical with those employed in the holy oil. Pure myrrh. Literally, "myrrh of freedom," or "freely flowing myrrh." The shrub which yields myrrh (Balsamodendron myrrha) produces two kinds—one, which exudes spontaneously, and is regarded as the best (Plin. II. Exodus 4:12:35; Theophrast. De Odoribus, § 29); and another, of inferior quality, which flows from incisions made in the bark. It is the former kind which is here intended. Myrrh was among the ancients in high request as a spice. It was used by the Egyptians for embalming (Herod 2.86), in Persia as an odour; by the Greeks for incense and in unguents; by the later Jews in funerals (John 19:39); and was largely exported from Arabia and Ethiopia into various parts of Asia and Europe. Sweet cinnamon. Cinnamon was a far rarer spice than myrrh. It is only mentioned three times in the Old Testament (cf. Proverbs 7:16; So Proverbs 4:14). I am not aware of any trace of it in Egypt; but Herodotus says that it was obtained by the Greeks from Arabia in his day (3.111). It is the inner bark or rind of a tree allied to the laurel, and called by some Laurus cinnamomum, by others Cinnamomum zeylanicum. The tree now grows only in India on the Malabar coast, in Ceylon, Borneo, Sumatra, Cochin China, and China. If its habitat has not suffered contraction, we must regard the mention of it here as indicative of a very early commerce of a very extensive character. Sweet calamus. Aromatic reeds, probably of several distinct kind, seem to have been the produce anciently of Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and India. It is impossible to say what exactly was the species here intended. Calamus is mentioned as a spice in Isaiah 43:24; Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:17; and So Ezekiel 4:14; but the term used (kaneh, "cane ") is vague; and it is not at all clear that one species only is alluded to. Exodus 30:24 Cassia. The modern cassia is the inner bark of a tree distinct from the cinnamon tree, known to botanists as Cinnamo-mum cassia, which is a native of India, Java, and the Malay peninsula. In taste and scent, it "bears a strong resemblance to cinnamon, but is more pungent and of coarser texture" (Cook). It is uncertain, however, if this is the spice here indicated. The Hebrew word used is kiddah, not ketsioth (as in Psalms 45:8); and it is very doubtful whether the two are identical On the shekel of the sanctuary. see the comment on Exodus 30:13; and on the kin, see Exodus 29:40. Exodus 30:25 An oil of holy ointment. Literally, "an oil of holy anointing," or "a holy anointing oil," as our translators render in Exodus 30:31, and also in the last clause of the present verse. An ointment compound after the art of the apothecary. Not a simple mixture of the ingredients mentioned, but the product of trained skill and knowledge applied to the materials. Jewish tradition says that the essence of each spice was extracted from it, and only these essences mingled with the olive oil. We are told later (Exodus 37:29) that the task of preparing the holy oil was committed to Bezaleel. Exodus 30:26-29 Thou shalt anoint the tabernacle. The first application of the holy oil was to be to the inanimate objects constituting the paraphernalia of worship—viz., 1. The tabernacle itself as a whole; 2. The furniture of the holy of holies—the ark and mercy seat; 3. The furniture of the holy place—the show-bread table, the candlestick, and the altar of incense; and 4. The furniture of the court—the altar of burnt-offering, and the laver. After applying the oil to these, Moses was to proceed to the anointing of the priests. (Compare Le Exodus 8:10-12.) Exodus 30:27 The table and all his vessels. See above, Exodus 25:29. The candlestick and his vessels. See Exodus 25:37, Exodus 25:38. Exodus 30:28 The altar of burnt-offering with all his vessels. See Exodus 27:3. Exodus 30:30 And thou shalt anoint Aaron, etc. Not till all his surroundings had received sanctification was Aaron to be consecrated. The tent, the ark, the table, the candlestick, the altar of incense, the brazen altar, the laver, and its base, each and all were to be touched with the holy oil, and thereby formally dedicated to God’s service (Le Exodus 8:10, Exodus 8:11), and then at last was Moses to "pour of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anoint him, to sanctify him" (Le Exodus 8:12). So God constantly prepares men’s spheres for them before he inducts them into their spheres. Even in the next world our Blessed Lord "prepares places for us." Exodus 30:32 Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured—i.e; "it shall not be used by any privately as a mere unguent, but shall be reserved wholly for sacred purposes." Neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it. Rather, "after its proportion.’’ The Israelites were not forbidden the use of the different materials in their unguents, or even the combination of the same materials, provided they varied the proportions. The object is simply that the holy oil should remain a thing separate and apart, never applied to any but a holy use. Exodus 30:33 Upon a stranger. A "stranger" here means any one not of the family of Aaron. Compare Exodus 29:33. Exodus 30:23-25 The sweetness of the Holy anointing Oil. The holy oil had infused into it the essence of four "principal spices"—myrrh, that scents the garments of the great king (Psalms 45:8; So Psalms 3:6); cinnamon, the choicest of the spices of distant and; sweet calamus, that exhales its best fragrance when bruised; cassia, which, together with sweet calamus, formed one of the glories of the market of Tyro (Ezekiel 27:19). How passing sweet must have been the odour of these blended perfumes—each delicious alone—all enhanced by the combination, which had taxed the best skill of the "apothecary" (Exodus 30:25)! But the sweetness of our anointing oil is greater. "We have an unction from the Holy One." Our "anointing oil" is the Blessed Spirit of God. What is there in all the experiences of this world so sweet to the weary soul as he? How sweet and dear is he— I. Is THE SOFT OF HIS DESCENT UPON US. Silently, unperceivedly, without sight, or sound, or stir, the gentle influence comes—steals into the heart—only by degrees makes its presence known to us. A crisis—a manifest change—"tongues of fire," or the rush of a "mighty wind" would cause the weak believer to tremble with fear, and perhaps draw back to his undoing. Our "anointing oil" descends upon us soft as "the dew of Hermon, which fell upon the hill of Sion." "He comes, sweet influence to impart, A gracious willing guest, While he can find one humble heart Wherein to rest." II. IN THE METHOD OF HIS WORKING. Not by rude shocks, or sudden terrible alarms; but by the mild coercion of little checks and scarcely-felt restraints—by whispers softly breathed into the ear of the soul—by the suggestion of good thoughts—by the presentation of holy memories—does he effect his ends. Wise as any serpent, harmless as his own emblem, the dove, he feeds us as we are able to receive of him. He has "milk" for such as stand in need of milk. He has "strong meat’ for such as can bear it. Manifold and diverse are his gifts, but given to every man "to profit withal" (1 Corinthians 12:7). "His is that gentle voice we hear, Soft as the breath of even, That checks each fault, that calms each fear. And speaks of Heaven. "And every virtue we possess, And every conquest won, And every thought of holiness, Are his alone." III. IN HIS WITH US WHEN WE ABE WAYWARD. God once declared, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3); and Scripture warns us that the Holy Ghost may be "resisted" (Acts 7:51) and even "quenched" (1 Thessalonians 5:19). But how wonderful is his patience and forbearance towards those who thwart and oppose him! How unwilling is he to give them up! How loth to quit their souls, and leave them to their own guidance! Assuredly he is "provoked every day" by each one of us. But he is not even angry—he simply "grieves" (Ephesians 4:30)—is "vexed" (Isaiah 63:10)—made sorrowful. No sooner do we show any signs of relenting than he forgives—encourages us, cheers, comforts, consoles. "There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." Such a friend to man is "the Comforter." IV. IN HIS TOWARDS US WHEN WE TURN TO HIM. It is the Christian’s privilege to speak with God "as a man to his friend" (Exodus 33:11). With the in-dwelling Spirit we may ever have this "mystic sweet communion." Would we speak to him at any moment, his ear is attent to hear. Unworthy as we are, unclean as we are, rebellious as we are, and self-willed, and self-seeking, he will commune with us, if we will commune with him—he will tell us of the things of heaven, "guide us into all truth" (John 16:13), "receive of Christ’s and show it unto us" (ib, 14). The sweetness of such commune is inexpressible—it may well "ravish our heart" (So Exodus 4:9) and make us "sick of love" (So Exodus 5:8). THE HOLY INCENSE. It remained to give directions concerning the composition of the incense, which, according to Exodus 30:7, was to be burnt upon the altar of gold. That it was to be of one and one only peculiar kind had been already implied in the prohibition to burn "strange incense" (Exodus 30:9). Moses is now told exactly how it was to be composed. As the oil was to contain four spices, so was the incense to be made of a like number—stacte, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense—of each the same quantity (Exodus 30:34). The art of the apothecary was to be called in for making it up (Exodus 30:35). A portion of it was to be "beaten very small," and placed in front of the ark of the covenant, probably on the golden altar outside the vail (Exodus 30:36). A prohibition is added, similar to that given with respect to the holy oil: no one is to make any like it for private use, under pain of being "cut off from his people" (Exodus 30:37, Exodus 30:38). Exodus 30:34 Take unto thee sweet spices. Rather, "Take unto thee spices," or "perfumes." The word has no epithet. Stacte. The Hebrew word used means simply "a drop" (Job 32:1-22:27), and might be applied to any gum or resin which exuded from a tree. We have no clue to the gum here intended but that which is furnished by the rendering of the LXX; στακτή, which our translators have followed. Now the Greeks seem to have called two gums by this name—one, the natural exudation from the myrrh tree, called above (Exodus 30:23) "pure myrrh," or "the myrrh that flows freely;" and the other gum storax. As it is not likely that the same substance has been given two names within the space of ten verses, we must suppose the latter to be meant. Gum storax is the produce of a tree allied to the poplar, and known as Styrax officinalis, which grows abundantly in Syria and Palestine. It was frequently used as a perfume by the ancients (Herod. 3.107; Plin. H. N. Exodus 12:17, §40). Onycha. The Hebrew word, shekheleth, seems to mean a "shell" of some kind or other. The Greek ὄνυξ, Lat. onycha, was applied to the operculum—the "nail" or "claw"—of certain shell-fish of the genus Strombidae, which were common in the lied Sea, and elsewhere. The particular strombus which furnishes the onycha of the ancients is thought to have been the Unguis odoratus or Blatta Byzantina. The opercula of these shell-fish have, when burnt, a strong odour, "something like castoreum." The onycha is, again coupled with galbanum and gum storax in Ecclesiates Exodus 24:15. Galbanum. The Hebrew word khelb’nah, is so near the Greek χαλβάιη and the Latin galbanum that it has with good reason been assumed to designate the same substance. Galbanum is a gum well known both to ancients and moderns. It is admitted into the pharmacopeia. Several plants seem to produce it, as the Opoidia galbanifera, the Galbanum Persicum, and a plant which grows in Northern Persia, very like the Ferula erubeseens. When burnt, galbanum has a strong pungent odour, which is said to be disagreeable by itself, but to improve and preserve other odours (Plin. H. N. 12.54). Frankincense. On the wide use of frankincense, see the comment on Exodus 24:1. It was the produce of a tree which anciently flourished in Arabia, but which appears to have degenerated, and now produces only an inferior quality. The best frankincense comes now from the high lands of India. It exudes from a tree called salai (the Boswellia setrata or thurifera of botanists). Some think that the frankincense exported largely from Arabia to the neighbouring nations was in part the produce of this tree imported by the Arab merchants from Hindustan. Exodus 30:35 A confection after the art of the apothecary. Like the holy oil, the incense was to be artistically compounded by one accustomed to deal with such ingredients. It was actually, in the first instance, the work of Bezaleel (Exodus 27:1-21:29). Tempered together. This translation is supported by the authority of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and is defended by Canon Cook. But the mass of modern critics is in favour of the translation "salted," or "with salt." (So Buxtorf, Gesenius, De Wette, Kalisch, Keil, etc.) If, nobel suggests "comminuted," identifying malakh with marakh. The point is not one of much importance. Exodus 30:36 Thou shalt beat some of it very small. This is against Knobel’s rendering of malakh, which would imply that all was broken into small pieces. A certain portion only was to be thus prepared from time to time and placed ready for offering. It was to be put before the testimony—i.e; opposite the m-k, but outside the vail. This near vicinity to the Divine Presence rendered it most holy. Exodus 30:37, Exodus 30:38 Ye shall not make unto yourselves, etc. None shall be made by any man for private use according to the same recipe, since the compound, as described, is "holy unto the Lord." If any man does so, he shall be "cut off from among his people"—i.e; "put to death by the civil authority." (See Exodus 31:14.) Exodus 30:34-38 The Holy Incense. Let us note here— I. THE OF THE INCENSE (Exodus 30:34, Exodus 30:35). The utmost care was taken in the law that the incense should be properly composed, of the right materials, in the right proportion. Equal care is to be taken by Christians with their incense. Prayer is not to be adventured on rashly, carelessly, unpreparedly. The matter, even the very words, of prayer should be carefully weighed beforehand. To approach God with unworthy thoughts, to beseech him for those temporal advantages which we ought to regard as of no moment at all, is to "pray amiss"—to approach him with "strange incense." Equally unbecoming is it to use homely or over-familiar expressions in prayer. What we have to aim at is to reflect "the mind of Christ." Christ has given us three pattern prayers— 1. The Lord’s prayer; 2. The intercessory prayer after the last supper (John 17:1-26.), and 3. The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39). Let these be our frankincense, and stacte, and onycha. For a fourth material, we may us( the Psalms of David—especially the penitential Psalms. We need not then to fear lest our incense should be "strange." II. THE OF THE INCENSE (verse 30).—A portion of the incense was to be "beaten very small, and. put before the testimony" i.e; before the ark and the presence of God, where it was to remain continually. It was not to be lighted, but to be in constant readiness for lighting. So there is in the Christian heart a prayerful temper, ever present before God, which God accepts and values, in the intervals between actual prayer. Our incense cannot always be mounting in cloud after cloud to the courts of heaven. But the temper may be in us, ready to kindle, at all times. III. THE VALUE OF THE INCENSE. The incense was among the things that were "most holy" (verse 36). God set special store by it. He would have it near him—in front of the tabernacle—only just outside the vail—and he would have it there constantly. So it pleases him to value the prayers of his saints. Angels offer them (Revelation 8:3). They ascend before his throne (Revelation 8:4). They are acceptable to him. They have power with him. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). One humble prayer, breathed by the publican, gained him forgiveness—"justified" him. One earnest prayer, uttered by the penitent thief, obtained him Paradise. There is no limit to the value of faithful prayer, whereby we draw upon the bank of omnipotence. BY J. ORR Exodus 30:1-11, Exodus 30:34-38 The golden altar and the perfume. The golden altar was of small dimensions, a cubit in length, a cubit in breadth, and two cubits high. It was a true altar, as shown by its square shape, and by its horns. Its place was immediately in front of the vail dividing the two portions of the sanctuary, with the innermost or’ which—the holy of holies—it was regarded as having the more intimate connection (1 Kings 6:22; Hebrews 9:4). The command was that Aaron should burn upon it sweet incense morning and evening—in the morning when he trimmed, and in the evening when he lighted, the lamps. This was done, in the one case, at the offering of morning, in the other, at the offering of evening sacrifice, the synchronism of the acts deserving our attention. Once a year the horns of the altar were to be smeared with the blood of the sin-offering. Minute directions are given for the making of the incense (Exodus 30:34-38). It was to be "salted, pure, and holy" (Exodus 30:35). The burning of this incense on the altar was at once a symbol of prayer and devotion, and a call to the congregation to engage in these spiritual exercises (Psalms 141:2; Luke 1:10; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 8:3, Revelation 8:4). As an act of the priest, it may be viewed as a type of the intercession of Christ. The service of this altar suggests the following ideas— 1. Prayer—taking the word in its widest sense, as denoting the exercise of.all devout feeling and spiritual desire towards God—is the holiest act of the spiritual life. It is figured as incense. And the altar of incense stood in immediate relation with the holy of holies. The altar and the incense offered upon it, are declared to be "most holy" (Exodus 30:10, Exodus 30:36). The reason is not difficult to find. The very essence of the devotional life expresses itself in prayer. Its love, its awe, its thankfulness, its aspirations, its unutterable yearnings after God—its breathings after holiness, its very contrition and sorrow for its sins—all ascend to Jehovah in this supreme act of the nature. Words bear but a small part in prayer. The province of words is to define. Hence the soul, in the intensity of its aspirations, in its reachings out towards the infinite, often feels the need of escaping from words, of leaving them behind. Prayer becomes "the burden of a sigh"—"the falling of a tear"—perhaps a purely inward act of the mind realising union with Jehovah. Or its uncontrollable desires may express themselves in "groanings which cannot be uttered" (Romans 8:26). And it is precisely these unutterable parts of our prayers which are the sweetest to God. The appropriate symbol of them is the incense, rising in its unconfined wreaths from the priest’s censer, or from the golden altar. 2. Prayer is an act of sacrifice. "In prayer," says Martensen, "the profoundest act of conscience and obedience is inwardly accomplished, for prayer is only in so far a laying hold and appropriation of God, as it is likewise a sacrifice; and we can only receive God into us when we likewise give ourselves to him. he who offers no sacrifice in his prayer, who does not sacrifice his selfwill, does not really pray." 3. The connection with the sacrifice of burnt-offering. The coals for the altar of incense were brought from the altar of burnt-offering (cf. Le Exodus 16:12, Exodus 16:13). This teaches that the worshipper needs reconciling before he can acceptably offer the sacrifices of his devotion. But there is a further connection, arising from the significance of the burnt-offering as a symbol of dedication. Keil says truly—"The incense-offering was not only a spiritualising and transfiguring of the burnt-offering, but a completion of it also." The connection may be stated thus. The yielding up of the life to God, symbolised in the continual burnt-offering, transforms itself in practice into the three following modes of self-surrender. 1. Holy practical activity, of which the fruit, good works, is represented in the shew-bread. 2. Public witness-bearing for God, by manifestation of the truth, and by holiness of walk—represented by the candlestick. 3. Devotion—"the soul’s going forth to unite itself in appropriate actings with the great centre of Being, and to devote its own inmost being to him" (Fairbairn)—symbolised by the burning of the incense. This is the culminating act of self-devotion, and crowns the sanctuary-worship, raises it to its consummation. 4. Connection with light. The incense was to be burned at the time of the trimming, and again of the lighting of the lamps. The brighter the light, the purer the devotion. In Christianity no countenance is given to the maxim that devotion is connected with ignorance. Christ and his apostles attach the utmost importance to the possession of right knowledge, and to growth in it. Growth in knowledge is the condition of sanctification, of spiritual fruitfulness, of enlargement of nature, of being filled with all the fulness of God. 5. Prayer a daily duty. The "perpetual incense before the Lord" reminds us of the apostolic injunction, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Prayer, devotion, is to be the element we live in. And prayer, "with thanksgiving," is to sanctify everything we do (Ephesians 5:20; Philippians 4:6; Colossians 3:17; 1 Timothy 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:5).—J.O. THE CALL OF AND AHOLIAB. The directions for the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture being now complete, and the composition of the holy oil and the holy incense having been laid down minutely, it only remained to designate the persons to whom the oversight of the work was to be especially entrusted. These were to be two—Bezaleel, of the tribe of Judah, as head and chief; Aholiab, of the tribe of Dan, as his assistant. There can be no doubt that they were selected, primarily, as already possessing superior artistic powers and acquirements; but in appointing them God promised an infusion of special wisdom and knowledge, so that they were at once naturally and supernaturally fitted for their task. It is important to note that artistic ability is thus distinctly recognised as being quite as much a gift of God as any other, and indeed as coming to man through the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3). Artistic excellence is not a thing to be despised. It is very capable of abuse; but in itself it is a high gift, bestowed by God on a few only, with the special intent that it should be used to his honour and glory—not indeed in his direct service only—but always so as to improve, elevate, refine mankind, and thus help towards the advancement of God’s kingdom Exodus 31:2 I have called by name. God "calls by name" only those whom he appoints to some high office, as Moses (Exodus 3:4; Exodus 33:12), Cyrus (Isaiah 45:3, Isaiah 45:4), and here Bezaleel and Aholiab. He honours us highly in even condescending to "know us by name," still more in "calling" us. Bezaleel is traced to Judah in Chronicles through five ancestors—Uri, Hur, Caleb, Hezron, and Pharez, Judah’s son by Tamar. The genealogy, though less contracted than most of those in Exodus, probably contains two or three omissions. The son of Hur. Hur, the grandfather of Bezaleel, is thought to be the person mentioned in Exodus 17:10, and Exodus 24:14. Exodus 31:3 The Spirit of God. There is no article in the Hebrew, any more than in Genesis 1:1; and some would therefore translate "a Divine Spirit"; but no change is needed. Ruakh elohim contains in itself the idea of singularity, since God has but one Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the medium of communication whereby God the Father bestows all gifts upon us. In wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge. By the first of these terms is meant the power to invent and originate; by the second ability to receive and appreciate directions and suggestions; by the third, such information as is acquired by experience and acquaintance with facts. Bezaleel was to have all these, and, in addition, was to be wise in all manner of workmanship; i.e.—to possess manual dexterity, the power of artistic execution. Exodus 31:4, Exodus 31:5 The result of these gifts would be to enable him—1. To devise cunning works—i.e; to design everything excellently; and 2. To work in all manner of workmanship—i.e; to carry out his designs with success. It has been said that "as everything that had to be done was prescribed in strict and precise detail, there was to be no exercise of original powers of invention nor of taste" (Cook); but this was scarcely so. The forms of the cherubim, the patterns to be woven into the stuffs, or embroidered on them, the shapes of the vessels, of the capitals of the pillars, and of the laver were not prescribed in the directions. Bezaleel and Aholiab would have had to design them after such a description as Moses could give of the "pattern" which he had seen in the mount. In doing this, there would be much room for the exercise of inventive power and taste. Exodus 31:5 In cutting of stones—i.e; "in Genesis-curling." The fabric of the tabernacle was entirely of metal, cloth, and wood. In carving of timber. Rather "cutting." The word is the same as that used of the stones. And no ornamental "carving" of the woodwork was prescribed. Exodus 31:6 Aholiab appears to have had the entire charge of the textile fabrics, both woven and embroidered (Exodus 38:23). Of the tribe of Ban. It is remarkable that Hiram, the chief artist employed by Solomon for the ornamental work of the temple, was also a descendant of Dan (2 Chronicles 2:14). Yet the Danites were in general rather warlike and rude than artistic (Genesis 49:17; Deuteronomy 33:22; Judges 13:2; Judges 18:11, Judges 18:27). In the hearts of all that are wise hearted have I put wisdom. "Unto him that hath shall be given. Those who were already "wise hearted—possessed, that is, of artistic power—were selected by God to receive extraordinary gifts of the same kind. Exodus 31:7-11 Contain an enumeration of the various works already commanded to be made The same order is observed, except that here the tabernacle itself is placed first, and the altar of incense takes its natural position next to the candlestick. Exodus 31:10 The cloths of service. Rather "the vestments of office’—i.e; the distinguishing vestments of the High Priest, which he alone was allowed to wear. These were the blue robe, the ephod, the girdle of the ephod, and the breast-plate (Exodus 28:6-35). The holy garments. The rest of the High Priest’s dress—i.e; the linen drawers, the diapered tunic, the inner girdle and the mitre (Exodus 28:39, Exodus 28:43; Le Exodus 16:4), which constituted his whole apparel on the great day of atonement. The garments of his sons—i.e, the linen drawers, tunics, girdles, and caps, mentioned in Exodus 28:40, Exodus 28:42. Exodus 31:3-6 Artistic excellence. I. ITS A NATURAL GIFT. God singled out from the mass of the people such as were "wise hearted." A natural foundation was necessary for his spirit to work upon. It is generally allowed, in the case of a poet, that "nascitur, non fit." But the same is true of all art-genius. Every artist, be he poet, painter, sculptor, musician, or mere designer of furniture, requires to have a something implanted within him from the first, out of which his artistic power is to grow, and without which he could never attain to excellence. Bezaleel and Aholiab were such persons. They were men of natural genius, with a special aptitude for the task to which they were set. II. THE NATURAL GIFT MAY BE LARGELY AND BY GRACE. There is a natural affinity between artistic excellence and spirituality. God, who gives artistic power originally for wise and good purposes, will, if men use the power worthily, augment it by the direct action of his Spirit on their intellects. Those poets, painters, etc; who have been good men, have found their artistic ability improve with time. Those who have lived evil lives have found it deteriorate. The spirit of devotion gave to the school of Angelico, Francis, and Perugino, its wonderful power and intensity. Milton’s religious ardour sublimised his poetry. The best art has always had a religious purpose, and derived much of its excellence from its association with religion. Men who regard their gifts as a trust, and exercise them in the fear of God, find constantly that their conceptions grow in grandeur and dignity, while their execution becomes more and more happy. The spirit of God fills them with wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge, and even with "all manner of workmanship." III. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE NATURAL GIFT MAY BE TO EVIL, AND BECOME A CURSE BOTH TO ITS AND OTHERS. There is no intellectual power which is not liable to misuse. Artistic excellence is perhaps more liable to it than most others. If it is divorced from moral goodness, and made a mere instrument of self-glorification, it becomes debased at once. And the decline is easy from bad to worse. "Facilis descensus Averni." There are few things which have worked greater evil in the world than high artistic genius combined with moral depravity. A whole generation may be utterly corrupted by a single sensualistic poet. Sculpture and painting have less influence; yet still a sensualistic school of either may have a most deleterious effect upon the morals of an age. It is of the greatest importance that such a perversion of artistic genius should not take place. It should be impressed on all that their artistic powers are the gift of God, to be accounted for just as much as other gifts; to be used, as all gifts are to be used, to his honour; to be made to subserve the ends for which his kingdom has been established upon earth—the advance of holiness, the general elevation, refinement and spiritualisation of mankind, and the special purifying to himself of a peculiar people, zealous of good works. BY J. ORR Bezaleel and Aholiab. The calling of these two craftsmen for the work of the sanctuary, and the statement concerning Bezaleel that Jehovah had "filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship" (Exodus 31:3), suggest various important lessons. On the distinction of the terms—"wisdom," "understanding," "knowledge," see the exposition, and consult the valuable notes on Ephesians 1:8, Colossians 1:9, in the Bishop of Durham’s Commentaries. The general moral is, that when God has any important work to be done, whether in Church or State, he will not fail to raise up, and in due time to "call by name," the individuals needed for the doing of it. The preparatory training school or’ these individuals may be far removed from the scene of their future labours. Bezaleel and Aholiab were trained in Egypt. Of what is said in "From Log Cabin to White House" of Presidents Lincoln and Garfield, of the United States—"Both of these statesmen were born in log-cabins, built by their fathers, in the wilderness, for family homes. Both were poor as mortals can well be. Both were born with talents of the highest order; but neither enjoyed early advantages of schools and teachers … Both worked on a farm, chopped wood, and did whatever else was needful for a livelihood, when eight years of age," etc. Thus God gifts, trains, prepares men, without a hint of the use to Which he means afterwards to put them. Till the event discloses it, the honour in reserve for them is kept a secret, even from themselves. The Genesis is polished in obscurity by the master’s hand. Ultimately it is brought to light, and astonishes the beholders by the rare finish of its beauty. The tabernacle was built with the spoils of the Egyptians in more senses than one. More special lessons are the following— I. ALL GIFTS ARE FROM GOD. Not simply gifts of intellect, of oratory, of holiness, of spiritual understanding, but gifts of every kind, from the highest to the lowest. Grace, in the case of Bezaleel, Aholiab, and their fellow-craftsmen, proceeded on a basis of natural endowment. Cf. verse 6—"into the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom." Skill in handicraft is a species of mental excellence, and deserves the name "wisdom." It, also, is from God. So with all natural talents; with, e.g; the pectic gift; gifts of music, painting, sculpture, architecture; business faculty; the gift of statesmanship; the power to "think out inventions"; the skill of the artificer. This truth lies at the basis of the demand for a religious use of gifts. II. NATURAL GIFTS ADMIT OF AND UNDER THE OF GOD’S SPIRIT. The workers in the tabernacle were supernaturally assisted in their work. Nothing less than this is implied in the words—"And I have filled him with the spirit of God" (verse 3); "into the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom" (verse 6). Grace aids nature. Regeneration is often accompanied by a mysterious and almost miraculous improvement in the powers of knowledge, so much so that, from a state of stolid imbecility, a person may be seen rising up and standing forth an acute argumentative pleader for the truth. What holds good of the general invigoration of the powers, may be expected to apply in the particular. Dedication of self carries with it dedication of gifts. And if an individual dedicates to God any special gift which he possesses, seeking, whether in the Church or in pursuit of an ordinary calling, to use the same for God’s glory, it will be his privilege to have it aided, strengthened, purified, and largely enhanced in its operations by the influences of Divine grace. The commonest work will thus be better done, if done in the spirit of prayer. And so with the noblest. Milton speaks of his great epic as a work "not to be raised from the heat of youth, or the vapours of wine, like that which flows at waste from the pea of some vulgar amourist or the trencher-fury of a rhyming parasite—nor to be obtained by invocation of Dame Memory and her siren daughter, but by devout prayer to that Eternal Spirit who can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his seraphim, with the hallowed fire of his altar, to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases." III. LABOUR. The Bible is a text-book of instruction on the dignity of labour. It has no sympathy with the contemptible foppishness which looks on labour as degrading. It includes labour in religion. It sees in the occupation of the humblest handicraftsman the exercise of a Divine gift. The good man who, whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he does, does all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31) does not demean himself by an honest calling, but transfigures his calling into part of his service to his Maker. In his case, laborare est orate. The shewbread on the table in the sanctuary was a recognition of the sacredness of labour. It had as one of its meanings the dedication to God of the exercise of the calling by which Israel won its daily bread. So manual labour was sanctified to God in the making of the tabernacle. But it was reserved for Christianity to give the crowning proof of the dignity of labour by showing it ennobled and glorified in the person of its Founder. The fathers of the Christian Church, in contrast with the Greeks and Romans, who looked on artisans and barbarians with contemptuous disgust, preached in their noblest tones the duty and dignity of honourable toil. "The proudest bishops were not ashamed to dig; a Benedict worked six hours a day with hoe and spade; a Becket helped regularly to reap the fields. The monks at once practised labour, and ennobled and protected it. The towns and the middle classes grew up under their shelter. Laborare est orate became the motto of Christian life". IV. THE HIGHEST USE OF GIFTS IS TO THEM TO THE SERVICE OF GOD IN THE WORK OF HIS CHURCH. Transformed by grace, and employed in the service of religion, gifts become graces—"Charismata." All labour, all gifts, admit of being thus devoted. The handicrafts can still bring their tribute to God, if in no higher way, in the erection of places for his worship. Art can labour in the adornment of the sanctuary (cf. Psalms 60:13). The service of praise affords scope for the utilisation of gifts of music, vocal and instrumental. There is need for care lest art, ministering to the worship of God, should overpower devotion; but, considered in itself, there need be no jealousy of the introduction of the tasteful and beautiful into God’s service. It is meet that the Giver of gifts should be served with the best our gifts can yield. Earthly callings may minister to God’s kingdom in another way, by bringing of their lawful gains and laying them at Christ’s feet. There is, besides, the private consecration of gifts to God, as in the case of Dorcas, making coats and garments for the poor (Acts 9:39), or as in the case of a Miss Havergal, or an Ira D. Sankey, consecrating to God a gift of song. Minor lessons taught are— (1) Gifts are not all alike, yet God can use all. (2) Some are made to lead, others to serve and follow, in the work of God’s kingdom. We glorify God most when unambitiously content to fill our own place; when not envious of the greater gifts of others. The humblest is needed. Bezaleel could ill have dispensed with the artificers; Aholiab, with the needle-workers. They in turn needed the master minds to direct them. There should be no jealousy among those engaged in the same work (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1-31.). (3) Diversity of gifts gives rise to division of labour. (4) Bezaleel and Aholiab, though of different tribes (Judah and Dan), wrought together as friends, were not opposed as rivals. What kept out the spirit of rivalry was the consciousness that both were working in a sacred cause, and for God’s glory, not their own. The feeling that we are working for Christ should keep down dissensions among Christians.—J.O. THE PENALTY FOR NOT THE SABBATH. Various reasons have been given for this recurrence to the sanctity of the sabbath. Kurtz connects it with the giving of the two tables, in which "the law of the sabbath held a particularly prominent place." Kalisch and others view it rather as the sequel to the directions concerning the tabernacle, and as designed to teach "that the holy service in the tabernacle could not supersede the observance of the sabbath, but derived front that observance its true value." A third set of critics regard the recurrence to the subject as purely practical—being intended to meet an immediate danger—that of the people, in their zeal to erect the tabernacle, setting sabbath observance at nought. (So Jarchi, Aben-Ezra, Clark, Rosenmuller, Canon Cook, and others.) It is to be observed, however, that the present passage is not a mere repetition. It adds to former notices (Exodus 20:8-11; Exodus 23:12) two new points:— 1. That the sabbath was to be a sign between God and Israel, a "distinguishing badge," a "sacramental bond" (Cook); and 2. That its desecration was to be punished with death (Exodus 31:15). These were supplementary points of so much importance as to furnish ample reason against their announcement being delayed. Exodus 31:13 Verily. Rosenmuller suggests, "Nevertheless." But there is no need for any change. It is a sign. Hitherto circumcision had been the only visible "sign" that the Israelites were under a special covenant with God—his people, bound to him by special ties (Genesis 17:9-14; Acts 7:8). The adoption of circumcision by the Egyptians and other nations (Herod. 2.104) had produced the effect that this "sign" was no longer distinguishing. It might be still" a sign of profession "; but it had ceased to be "a mark of difference "; and some other mark was therefore needed. Such the observance of the sabbath by entire abstinence from servile work became. No other nation adopted it. It continued to Roman times the mark and badge of a Jew.(Juv. Sat. 6.159; 14.96). That ye may know, etc. By keeping the sabbath day as a day of holy rest the Israelites would know—i.e; would realise severally in their own per sons, that God was their sanctifier. Sanctification would be the fruit of their obedience. Exodus 31:14 Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. To defile the sabbath was to do any unnecessary servile work upon it. Works of mercy, works of necessity, and works connected with religious observance were not prohibited. (See Matthew 12:1-7; 10-12.) The penalty of death for breaking the sabbath seems to moderns over-severe; but the erection of sabbath-observance into the special sacramental sign that Israel was in covenant with God made non-observance an offence of the gravest character. The man who broke the sabbath destroyed, so far as in him lay, the entire covenant between God and his people—not only broke it, but annulled it, and threw Israel out of covenant. Hence, when the sin was committed, no hesitation was felt in carrying out the law. (See Numbers 15:32-36.) Exodus 31:15 The sabbath of rest. Rather, "a sabbath." There were other sabbaths besides that of the seventh day (Exodus 23:11; Le Exodus 25:2-12; etc.). By the expression, "a sabbath of rest"—literally, "a rest of resting"—the idea of completeness is given. Perhaps the best translation would be—"in the seventh is complete rest." Exodus 31:16 For a perpetual covenant. The sabbath is itself a covenant—i.e; a part of the covenant between God and Israel (Exodus 24:4)—and it is, also, a sign of covenant—i.e; a perceptible indication that the nation has entered into a special agreement with God, and undertaken the observance of special laws. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign. See above, Exodus 31:13. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth. See the comment on Exodus 20:11. And was refreshed. Literally," and took breath." The metaphor is a bold one, but not bolder than others which occur in holy scripture (Psalms 44:23; Psalms 78:65). It does but carry out a little further the idea implied in God’s "resting." We cannot speak of any of God’s acts or attributes without anthropomorphisms. Exodus 31:13-17 Covenant signs. To each covenant which he has made with man, God has attached some special sign or signs. And each sign has been significant, has set before the mind of those to whom it was given some great religious truth. I. THE FIRST SIGN WAS THE RAINBOW. God had destroyed by a deluge the whole human race, except eight persons. It pleased him, after this, to enter into a covenant with Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:8, Genesis 9:9), and through them with the human race, that he would never bring such a destruction upon the world again (Genesis 9:11). Of this covenant he appointed the rainbow to be the sign, symbolising by its brightness and beauty his own mercy (Genesis 9:14-17). Here the religious truth taught and impressed by the sign was that precious one, that God is not only a just, but also a merciful God. II. THE SECOND SIGN WAS . When God selected Abraham out of the entire mass of mankind to be the progenitor of the chosen race and of him especially in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed, and entered into a covenant with him, it was in these words—"Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations—this is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every man child among you shall be circumcised" (Genesis 17:9, Genesis 17:10). Hence the covenant itself was called "the covenant of circumcision" (Acts 7:8). This rite of initiation, the covenant sign of the Abrahamic dispensation, shadowed forth the great truth that man has an impurity of nature, which must be put away before he can be brought near to God and received into his full favour. III. THE THIRD SIGN WAS THE SABBATH. Its institution to be a covenant sign is set forth in the words, "Verily, my sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations" (Exodus 31:13). It witnessed to the truth that God requires distinct and open acknowledgment at the. hands of men, and not only so, but material worship at stated times, the least that will content him being one day in seven. The nations, when they served him at all (Acts 10:35), served him irregularly. They knew nothing of a definite day, or a formal apportionment of time, for his service. By the institution of the Sabbath the Israelites were taught, and through them the world, that God is interested in man, claims his thoughts, sets a value on his worship, and will not be satisfied with mere occasional acknowledgment, but demands that a fixed proportion of our time shall be dedicated to his worship exclusively. IV. OTHER SIGNS. NO further covenant signs were given until our Lord came upon earth. Then two were instituted in the Sacraments. Baptism taught the same truth as circumcision—the need of putting away impurity; but taught it by a simpler rite, and one to which no exception could be taken. The Lord’s Supper taught a new truth, the necessity of reconciliation through the death and atoning blood of Christ. It witnessed to the certain fact that man cannot save himself, cannot atone for his own sins, but needs a mediator, a redeemer, an atoner, to make satisfaction for him. BY J. ORR Exodus 31:12-18 The Sabbath. If this prohibition to work upon the Sabbath is introduced, as probably it is, lest the people, in their zeal for the service of the sanctuary, should be tempted to infringe upon the holy day, it has certain obvious sides of instruction turned towards ourselves. We cannot but see in it the high honour which God puts upon his Sabbath. 1. It is the one command of the Decalogue to which reference is made in the conclusion of this series of instructions. This implies its great importance. It shows that, in God’s esteem, the observance of the Sabbath was intimately bound up with the best interests of Israel. 2. The Sabbath is declared to be a sign between God and the Israelites. It was to be a memorial to future generations that Jehovah had made a covenant with the nation, and had sanctified them to himself. But its very selection for this purpose was a tribute to its importance. The reason of the selection could only be that the Sabbath was in itself a boon of the highest kind to Israel, and had important bearings on the state of morals and religion. A well- or ill-spent Sabbath, as all history shows, has much to do with the character both of the individual and of the community. The Sabbath, further, is a "sign" in this respect, that it is at once a means for the promotion of true religion, and a test or indication of its presence. A disregard of Divine authority shows itself in nothing more readily than in a disposition to break in upon the day of rest—to take from it its sacred character. 3. The Sabbath is not to be infringed upon, even for the work of the tabernacle. There was no such excessive haste, no such imperative call, for the sanctuary being finished, that the Sabbath needed to be broken by the plying of handicrafts, in order to get it done. We are taught that even our zeal for God’s work is not to be allowed to betray us into unnecessary infractions of the day of rest. This is not, of course, to be applied to spiritual work, to afford an opportunity for which is one end of the giving of the Sabbath. 4. The breaker of the Sabbath was to be put to death. This was not too severe a punishment for the deliberate breaking of a law so repeatedly enforced, and the observance of which had been made by Jehovah a "sign" of the covenant between himself and Israel. Slight as the act seems, it was, in this case, a crime of a very flagrant order. It was punished as an act of treason. At the conclusion of these commands, God gave to Moses the two tables of testimony, "tables of stone, written with the finger of God." A symbol (1) of the perpetuity of the law, (2) of its want of power to regenerate (2 Corinthians 3:7).—J.O. THE TABLES OF . It had been assumed, in the directions given for the construction of the ark, that God would give, in some material form, a document to be called "the testimony," which was to be laid up inside it (Exodus 25:16). It is not too much to say that the tabernacle, with its various appurtenances, was constructed for this purpose; the rest of the tabernacle was designed with a view to the holy of holies the holy of holies was designed as a receptacle for the ark—and the ark was designed as a receptacle for the tables of testimony. This section could, therefore, scarcely be concluded without some definite account of the document which was to give the ark and the tabernacle itself, its main significance. Exodus 31:18 When he had made an end of communing. Literally, "when he had finished speaking." Two tables. Rather, "the two tables"—i.e; the tables promised when he went up into the mount (Exodus 24:12). Of stone. Stone was the ordinary material on which Egyptian documents were engraved, both at the time of the Exodus, and before and after. They were, however, for the most part, either inscribed upon the natural rock, or engraved on the walls of temples or tombs. Inscriptions upon slabs of stone are rare, more especially in the early times, and would scarcely have occurred to Moses himself. Written with the finger of God—i.e; "inscribed supernaturally"—not cut by any human hand. Compare Exodus 32:16. It is idle to speculate on the exact mode of the Divine operation. The Tables of Testimony were in many respects like the document impressed upon them. For instance, they were— I. OF STONE, AND AND WELL NIGH . Few things are more enduring than some kinds of stone. Inscriptions exist, engraved on stone, which are certainly anterior to Abraham. No remains in metal go back so far. Gold and silver are, comparatively speaking, soft. Iron corrodes. Steel was unknown at the period. The material selected to receive the moral law was as nearly indestructible as possible. The tables may still exist, and may one day be discovered under the mounds of Babylon, or in the bed of the Euphrates. The character of the material was thus in harmony with the contents of the tables, consisting, as they did, of laws whereof no jot or tittle shall pass away till the fulfilment of all things (Matthew 5:18). II. WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD. The stones had the laws engraved upon them by a Divine agency which is called "the finger of God." The laws themselves had been long previously written with the finger of God in the fleshly tables of men’s hearts. The Divine power, which was competent to do the one, could no doubt with can accomplish the other. The human heart is the most stubborn of all materials, and the most difficult to impress permanently. III. TWO-FOLD. Twin tables, alike in the main, but inscribed differently. So was the law of the tables two-fold—containing (1) man’s duty to God, and (2) his duty to his neighbour. It is uncertain how the Ten Commandments were divided between the two tables, but quite possible that the first four were written on one table, and the last six on the other. In that case the material division would have exactly corresponded to the spiritual. IV. WRITTEN ON BOTH THEIR SIDES (Exodus 32:15). So the moral law—the law of the Decalogue—is written both within and without the human heart—presses externally upon men as a rule of right which they are constrained to obey, and approves itself to them from within, as one which the voice of conscience declares to be binding, apart from external sanction. The book seen in vision by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2:9) was "written within and without" (ib, 10), like the tables; but its entire contents were "lamentation, and mourning, and woe." The moral law, as convincing us of sin, has a painful side; but it sustains as much as it alarms, and produces as much effort as mourning. THE OF THE GOLDEN CALF. During the absence of Moses in Mount Sinai, an absence of nearly six weeks, the Israelites grew impatient, and regarding their leader as lost to them, and the Divine Presence which they had hitherto enjoyed as lost with him, insisted on having a symbol of that presence made for them, which should henceforth go in front of the host and so lead them on in their journeyings. It would seem that the pillar of the cloud, which had gone before them from Succoth to Sinai, was now removed from the camp, and resting upon the "mount" where Moses was (Exodus 24:15). Under these circumstances they wanted a visible tangible something, in which they could regard the Divine Presence as resting, and whereto they might offer worship and sacrifice (Exodus 32:8). They therefore went to Aaron, whom Moses had bid them consult in any difficulty (Exodus 24:14), and requested him to "make them a god." Aaron had not the courage to meet this request with a plain negative. As Augustine and Theodoret conjecture with much probability, he sought to turn them from their purpose by asking them to give up those possessions which he conceived that they most valued—viz, the personal ornaments of their wives and children. But he had miscalculated the strength of their fanaticism. The people immediately complied—the ornaments were brought in—and Aaron was compelled, either to fly from his word, or to lend himself to the people’s wishes. He did the latter. Either looking to Egypt for a pattern, or falling back on some old form of Syrian or Chaldaean idolatry (see the comment on Exodus 32:4), he melted down the gold and cast it into the form of a calf. The "god" being thus made, an altar was built to it (Exodus 32:5) and sacrifice offered (Exodus 32:6). Such was the condition of affairs when Moses, having just received the two tables of stone, was warned by God of what had occurred, and bidden to descend from Sinai. Exodus 32:1 The people saw that Moses delayed to come down. He had been absent, probably, above a month. It was the first day of their worship when he descended; and a week would suffice for the collection of the ornaments, the formation of the mould, and the casting of the idol. Unto Aaron. It is not clear why no mention is made of Hur, who had been made co-regent with Aaron (Exodus 24:14); but perhaps Aaron was known to be the weaker of the two. Up, make us gods. Most moderns translate" a god." But the word is vague, and the speakers did not themselves perhaps care whether one idol was made or more. Which shall go before us. The Israelites were apparently tired of their long delay at Sinai, and were anxious to proceed upon their journey. They wanted a visible god at their head, to give them confidence and courage. Compare 1 Samuel 4:3-8. We wot not what is become of him. He might, they thought, be dead—he might have returned to Egypt—he might be going to stay always with God in the mount which they did not dare to approach. At any rate, he was lost to them, and they might never see him again. Exodus 32:2 Break off. "Take off" would perhaps be a better translation. The ear-rings would not require any breaking. They were penannular, and could be removed by a smart pull. Your wives, your sons, and your daughters. See the comment on Exodus 3:22. It is implied that the men did not wear earrings. At an earlier date the household of Jacob, chiefly men, had worn them (Genesis 35:4). Exodus 32:3 All the people broke off the golden ear-rings. Thus, as is supposed, disappointing Aaron, who had counted on the refusal of the women to part with their finery, and the reluctance of the men to compel them. Had ear-rings been still regarded as amulets (Genesis 1:1-31.s.c.) it is not likely that they would have been so readily given up. Exodus 32:4 And fashioned it with a graving tool. Rather, "and bound it (the gold) in a bag." Compare 2 Kings 5:23, where the same two Hebrew words occur in the same sense. It is impossible to extract from the original the sense given in the Authorised Version, since the simple copula van cannot mean "after." When two verbs in the same tense are conjoined by van "and," the two actions must be simultaneous, or the latter follow the former. But the calf cannot have been graven first, and then molten. It is objected to the rendering, "he bound it in a bag," that that action is so trivial that it would be superfluous to mention it (Keil). But it is quite consonant with the simplicity of Scripture to mention very trivial circumstances. The act of putting up in bags is mentioned both here and also in 2 Kings 5:23, and 2 Kings 12:9. They said. The fashioners of the image said this. These be thy gods. Rather, "This is thy God." Why Aaron selected the form of the calf as that which he would present to the Israelites to receive their worship, has been generally explained by supposing that his thoughts reverted to Egypt, and found in the Apis of Memphis or the Mnevis of Hellopolis the pattern which he thought it best to follow. But there are several objections to this view. 1. The Egyptian gods had just been discredited by their powerlessness being manifested—it was an odd time at which to fly to them. 2. Apis and Mnevis were not molten calves, but live bulls. If the design had been to revert to Egypt, would not a living animal have been selected? 3. The calf when made was not viewed as an image of any Egyptian god, but as a representation of Jehovah (2 Kings 12:5). 4. The Israelites are never taxed with having worshipped the idols of Egypt anywhere else than in Egypt (Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:8; Ezekiel 23:3). To us it seems probable that Aaron reverted to an earlier period than the time of the sojourn in Egypt, that he went back to those "gods on the other side of the flood," which Joshua warned the Israelites some sixty years later, to "put away" (Joshua l.s.c.). The subject is one too large for discussion here; but may not the winged and human-headed bull, which was the emblem of divine power from a very early date in Babylon, have retained a place in the recollections of the people in all their wanderings, and have formed a portion of their religions symbolism? May it not have been this conception which lay at the root of the cherubic forms, and the revival of which now seemed to Aaron the smallest departure from pure monotheism with which the people would be contented? Exodus 32:5 He built an altar before it. Aaron thus proceeded to "follow a multitude to evil" (Exodus 23:2), and encouraged the idolatry which he felt himself powerless to restrain. Still, he did not intend that the people should drift away from the worship of Jehovah, or view the calf as anything but a symbol of him. He therefore made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord (literally, "to Jehovah "). Exodus 32:6 They rose up early on the morrow. The people were like a child with a new toy. They could scarcely sleep for thinking of it. So, as soon as it was day, they left their beds, and hastened to begin the new worship Burnt offerings and peace offerings. It is evident that both of these were customary forms of sacrifice—neither of them first introduced by the Law, which had not—except so far as the "Book of the Covenant" was concerned—been promulgated. Compare Jethro’s offerings (Exodus 18:12). The people sat down to eat and drink. A feast almost always followed upon a sacrifice, only certain portions of the victim being commonly burnt, while the rest was consumed by the offerers. See the comment on Exodus 18:1-27:32. And rose up to play. This "play" was scarcely of a harmless kind. The sensualism of idol-worship constantly led on to sensuality; and the feasts upon idol-sacrifices terminated in profligate orgies of a nature which cannot be described. See the application of the passage by St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Exodus 10:7), and compare Exodus 18:25 Exodus 32:1-6 The hankering after idols, and its consequences. There is a war ever going on in human nature between the flesh and the spirit (Romans 7:23; Romans 8:1-13). The two are "contrary the one to the other." From the time of their leaving Egypt, the Israelites had been leading a spiritual life, depending upon an unseen God—following his mandates—reposing under the sense of his protection. But the strain was too much for them. So long as they had Moses with them, to encourage them by his exhortations and support them by his good example, they managed to maintain this higher life, to "walk in the spirit," to "live by faith and not by sight." When he was gone, when he seemed to them lost, when they had no hope of seeing him again, the reaction set in. The flesh asserted itself. They had given way to idolatry in Egypt, and worshipped, in part, Egyptian gods, in part, "the gods which their fathers served on the other side of the flood" (Joshua 24:14, Joshua 24:15); they had, no doubt, accompanied this worship with the licentiousness which both the Egyptians (Herod. 2.60) and the Babylonians (ib, 1.199) made a part of their religion. Now the recollection of these things recurred to them, their desires became inflamed—the flesh triumphed. The consequences were— I. THAT THEY BROKE A PLAIN COMMAND OF GOD, AND ONE TO WHICH THEY HAD PLEDGED . "All the words which the Lord hath said," they had declared "we will do" (Exodus 24:3); and among these "words" was the plain one—"Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." Nevertheless they required Aaron to make them a material god, and it was no sooner made than they hastened to worship it with burnt-offerings and other sacrifices. II. THAT THEY TO BREAK THE MORAL LAW WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, AND LATELY BY THE PLAIN OF THE SEVENTH . "They sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." They engaged in licentious dancing (Exodus 32:19), and perhaps laid aside some of their usual garments (Exodus 32:25). They turned a worship, which they still pretended to render to Jehovah (Exodus 32:5) into an orgy. If they did not proceed to the lengths of completed sin, they entered upon the slippery path which, almost of necessity, leads to it. By this conduct they so provoked God— III. THAT THEY RAN THE RISK OF BEING SWEPT AWAY FROM THE EARTH. A sentence of death was at first pronounced against the whole people (Exodus 32:10), and would infallibly have taken effect, had not Moses interceded, and by his intercession prevailed. Universal apostasy deserved universal destruction. There is no reason to believe that the execution of the sentence pronounced would have been stayed, but for the expostulation and the prayer recorded in Exodus 32:11-13. IV. THAT THEY BROUGHT UPON A HEAVY . The immediate slaughter of three thousand was required to purge the offence (Exodus 32:28). The sin was further visited upon the offenders subsequently (see comment on Exodus 32:34). Some were, on account of it, "blotted out of God’s book" (Exodus 32:33). Christians should take warning, and not, when they have once begun "living after the Spirit," fall back and "live after the flesh" (Romans 8:13). There are still in the world numerous tempting idolatries. We may hanker after the "lusts of the flesh," or "of the eye"—we may weary of the strain upon our nature which the spiritual life imposes—we may long to exchange the high and rare atmosphere in which we have for a while with difficulty sustained ourselves, for the lower region where we shall breathe more easily. But we must control our inclinations. To draw back is to incur a terrible danger—no less a one than "the perdition of our souls." It were better "not to have known the way of righteousness," or walked in it for a time, "than, after we have known it," and walked in it, "to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto us" (1 Peter 2:21). BY D. YOUNG The Golden Calf. I. THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO AARON. 1. The cause of the request. There are really two causes to be considered here, first, a cause of which they were conscious, and then, secondly, a deeper cause of which they were not conscious. The delay of Moses to return was the reason they put forward. We must do them the justice of noticing that they seem to have waited till the forty days were well-nigh expired before preferring their request; and an absence of forty days was inexplicable to minds as yet so spiritually darkened and benumbed as those of the majority of the people. What he could have to do, and how he could live so long, away up on a barren mountain, was beyond their power of imagination. Moses was given up just as a ship is given up when it has not been heard of for many days after the reasonable period of the voyage. It was not a case of being out of sight, out of mind; he had been a great deal in mind, and the general conclusion was that in some mysterious way he had vanished altogether. But there is also the deeper reason of the request to be found in the people’s continued ignorance of the real hold which Jehovah had upon them, and the sort of future towards which he would have them look. Their action here was founded not on what they knew, but emphatically on what they did not know. They could not say, "Moses is dead," or "he has forsaken us." They could only say, "We wot not what is become of him." So far as outward circumstances were concerned, the people seem to have been in a state of comparative security and comfort. When Moses went up into the mountain, he knew not how long he would have to wait; that was not for him or Aaron or any man to know. But however long he was to be away, all due provision had been made for the people’s welfare. The daily morning manna was there; and Aaron and Hur were appointed to settle any disputes that might arise. There is no word of any external enemy approaching; there is no threatening of civil strife; there is not even a recurrence of murmuring after the fleshpots of Egypt. All that was needed was quiet waiting on the part of the people; if they had waited forty months instead of forty days, there would have been nothing to cause reasonable astonishment; for Jehovah and not man is the lord of times and seasons. 2. The request itself. There is a certain unexpectedness in this request. Who is it that is missing? Moses, the visible leader," the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt." Hence we might suppose the first feeling of the people would be to put some one in Moses’ place; even as later they said, "Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt" (Numbers 14:4). But instead of this their cry to Aaron is, "Make us gods." How little did Moses expect, when he put Aaron to be counsellor of the people in his absence, that it was for image-worship they would seek his help! And yet the more we ponder, the more we shall be led. to feel that this was just the kind of request that might be expected from the people. Their ancestors, Abraham, IsaActs and Jacob believed in the invisible Jehovah; but faith in the invisible will not go down from generation to generation, as if it were a blood quality. The God of Abraham was one whom, though Abraham could not see, he could hear as speaking with most miraculous organ. But these people at Sinai wanted above all things a god whom they could see, even though it was but a lifeless, sightless, voiceless image. Great is the mystery of idolatry. How men have come to bow down to stocks and stones is not a question to be dismissed with a few contemptuous words. These idolatrous Israelites were seeking satisfaction for a desire of the heart as imperious in its own way as bodily hunger and thirst. They wanted something to be a centre of worship and religious observances in general, and the quickest way seemed to fabricate such a centre by the making of gods. Whereas, if they had only been patient and trustful and waited for Moses, they would have found that, even by the very absence of Moses, God himself was providing for the worship of the people. We have here another illustration of the frequent follies of popular decisions. The greatest thing that required to be done for these Israelites was the thing that needed to be done in them. II. AARON’S WITH THE REQUEST. He shewed great readiness in falling in with the request; and it has been suggested that his readiness was only in appearance, and that he hoped the women would refuse to surrender their cherished ornaments, thus making the construction of a suitable image impossible. It may have been so; but why should we not think that Aaron may have been as deeply infected with the idolatrous spirit as any of his brother Israelites? There is everything to indicate that he went about the execution of the request with cordiality and gratification. And it must not be forgotten that in the midst of all his forgetfulness of the command against image-worship, he evidently did not think of himself as forsaking Jehovah. When the image and the altar were ready, it was to Jehovah he proclaimed the feast. What Aaron and the people along with him had yet to learn was that Jehovah was not to be served by will-worship or by a copy of the rites observed in honouring the gods of other nations. Thus all unconsciously, Israel demonstrated how needful were the patterns given in the mount. The feast to Jehovah, indicated in Exodus 32:6, was nothing but an excuse for the most reckless and degrading self-indulgence. How different from the ideal of those solemn seasons which Jehovah himself in due time prescribed; seasons which were meant to lift the people above their common life into a more hearty appreciation of the Divine presence, goodness and favour, and thus lead them into joys worthy of the true people of God.—Y. BY J. ORR Exodus 32:1-7 The sin of the golden calf. Disastrous effects followed in the camp of Israel on the withdrawal of Moses’ to the mount. Moved as by a common impulse, the people "gathered themselves together," and demanded of Aaron that he should make them "a god," i.e. an idol, that it might go—be carried in procession—before them (cf. Amos 5:26). It was a case of "hand joined in hand" to do iniquity (Proverbs 11:21). Many, doubtless, looked on the movement with dismay and horror (cf. Exodus 32:26); but their voices were drowned in the general clamour. The "lewd fellows of the baser sort" (Acts 17:5) had, for the moment, the upper hand in the host, and swept all before them. Intimidated by the show of violence, Aaron weakly acceded to the people’s request. The whole incident strikingly illustrates the commanding space which must have been filled in the camp of Israel by the personality of Moses, and affords some measure of the turbulent and refractory dispositions of the multitude whom ordinarily he had to deal with. It sheds light, also, on the greatness of Moses’ character, set as that is in contrast with the weakness and irresolution exhibited by Aaron. Consider— I. THE PEOPLE’S TRIAL (Exodus 32:1). Every situation in which we can be placed has its elements of trial. These are purposely mingled with our lot (1) that dispositions may be tested, and (2) that life may be to us in fact, what it is needful that it should be for the proper development of character, viz. a succession of probations. The trial of the Israelites consisted: 1. In the delay in the return of Moses. Moses had disappeared in the mountain. Weeks had passed without his return. It had not been told the people how long his absence was to last. This constituted a trial of faith and patience. It gave colour to the allegation that Moses had perished—that he had gone from them for e Cf. what is said in Luke 12:37-49 of the uncertainty left to rest upon the time of the Lord’s second advent. Faith has its trial here also. Because Christ’s coming is delayed, there are those who would fain persuade themselves that he will not return at all (2 Peter 3:4). 2. In the scope given by his absence for the manifestation of character. On this, again, compare Luke 12:37-49. It was the first time since the departure from Egypt that the people had been left much to themselves. Hitherto, Moses had always been with them. His presence had been a check on their wayward and licentious tendencies. His firm rule repressed disorders. Whatever inclinations some of them may have felt for a revival of the religious orgies, to which, perhaps, they had been accustomed in Egypt, they had not ventured, with Moses in the camp, to give their desires publicity. The withdrawal of the lawgiver’s presence, accordingly, so soon after the conclusion of the covenant, was plainly of the nature of a trial. It removed the curb. It left room for the display of character. It tested the sincerity of recent professions. It showed how the people were disposed to conduct themselves when the tight rein, which had hitherto kept them in, had been a little slackened. It tested, in short, whether there were really a heart in them to keep all God’s commandments always (Deuteronomy 5:29). Alas! that in the hour of their trial, when so splendid an opportunity was given them of testifying their allegiance, their failure should have been so humiliating and complete. II. THE PEOPLE’S SIN. Note— 1. The sin itself. They had made for them "a molten calf" (Luke 12:4), which, forthwith, they proceeded to worship with every species of disgraceful revelry (Luke 12:6). The steps in the sin are noted in the narrative. (1) They approached Aaron with a demand to make them "a god." The light, irreverent way in which, in connection with this demand, they speak of their former leader—"As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of him" (Luke 12:1)—betrays an extraordinary levity, ingratitude, and callousness of nature. (2) They stripped themselves of their ornaments of gold for the making of the "god" (Luke 12:3). They did this gladly. People, as a rule, spend freely on their vices. They are not so ready to part with their valuables for the service of Jehovah. (3) They mixed up their calf worship with the service of the true God. On the supposed connection with the ox- and calf-worship of Egypt, see the exposition. The calf made by Aaron was evidently intended as a symbol of Jehovah (Luke 12:4). The result was an extraordinary piece of syncretism. An altar was built before the calf, and due honours were paid to it as the god which had brought Israel out of Egypt (Luke 12:4, Luke 12:5). A feast was proclaimed to Jehovah (Luke 12:5). When the morrow came, the people "offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings," only, however, to engraft on the sacrificial festivities the rites of the filthiest heathen worships (Luke 12:6; cf. Luke 12:25). It was their own passions which they sought to gratify; but, in gratifying them, they still endeavoured to keep up the semblance of service of the revealed God. Strange that the wicked should like, if possible, to get the cloak of religion even for their vices. But light and darkness will not mingle. The first requirement in worship is obedience. "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Samuel 15:22). "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 15:8). It was monstrous to propose to worship the spiritual Jehovah, who had expressly forbidden the use of graven images in his service, under the symbol of a calf, albeit the idol was of gold. It was worse than monstrous, it was hideous, to employ the name of the Holy One to cover the shameless and revolting orgies with which their calf-worship was associated. (4) They were eager in this worship. They rose up early in the morning to engage in it (Luke 12:6). Would that God’s people were as eager in his service as these servants of Belial were in the service of their idol! 2. The sin in its generic character. The sin at Sinai was a case (1) of sense reasserting its supremacy over faith. "As for this Moses, we wot not what has become of him" (Luke 12:1). (2) Of carnal tendencies regaining the ascendancy over temporary religious impressions. (3) Of engrained evil habits resuming their sway after having been for a time forcibly kept in check. The incident shows that nothing short of a thorough regeneration, of a radical change of heart, can be relied on to keep men in the way of good. It is the heart that needs renewal. David seized the matter at the root when he was led to pray, "Create in me a clean heart" etc. (Psalms 51:10). It was the want of this thorough renewal which was the bane of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:27-30). 3. Aggravations of the sin. The circumstances under which the sin was committed added greatly to its enormity. (1) It was a sin committed immediately after solemn covenant with God. The transactions recorded in Luke 24:1-53. were not yet forty days old. The people had literally heard God speaking to them. They had acknowledged the solemnity of the situation by entreating Moses to act as mediator. They had formally, and under awful impressions of God’s majesty, pledged themselves to life-long obedience. Yet within this brief space of time, they had thrown off all restraints, and violated one of the main stipulations of their agreement. A more flagrant act of impiety it would be difficult to imagine. (2) It was a sin committed while Moses was still in the mount transacting for them. He had gone to receive the tables of the law. He had been detained to receive instructions for the making of the sanctuary—that God might dwell among them. A solemn time, truly! While it lasted, the people might surely have been depended on to conduct themselves with at least ordinary propriety. Instead of this, witness their mad gambols round their calf. The very time when, of all others, their frame of mind ought to have been devout, sober, prayerful, was the time chosen for the perpetration of this great iniquity. III. AARON’S SHARE IN THE . This, it is to be noted, the narrative makes no attempt to conceal. It tells the story with perfect impartiality. The Bible, like its author, is without respect of persons. If Aaron leads the people astray, he must, like others, submit to have the truth told about him. This is not the way of ordinary biographies, but it is the way of Scripture. It is one mark of its inspiration. It is a guarantee of its historic truthfulness. The conduct of Aaron cannot be justified; but suggestions may be offered which help to render intelligible. 1. Aaron was placed in a situation in which it was very difficult to know exactly what to do. A mob confronted him, evidently bent on gratifying its dangerous humour, its demand was peremptory. To resist its will was to run the risk of being stoned. The temptation which, in these circumstances, naturally presented itself to a timid mind, and to which Aaron yielded, was to put the people off, and endeavour to gain time by some show of concession. In the interval, Moses might return, and the difficulty would be solved. See the mistake of this policy. It was (1) wrong. It involved a sacrifice of principle. It was temporising. (2) Weak. Had Aaron been brave enough to take a firm stand, even at the risk of losing his life for it, not improbably he might have crushed the movement in its bud. As it was, his sanction and example gave it an impetus which carried it beyond the possibility of being subsequently controlled. (3) Self-defeating. A temporising policy usually is. The favourable chance on which everything has been staked, does not turn up. Moses did not return, and Aaron, having yielded the preliminary point, found himself hopelessly committed to a bad cause. 2. Aaron may have thought that by requiring the women of the camp to part with their personal ornaments, he was taking an effectual plan to prevent the movement from going further (Luke 24:2). They might, he may have reasoned, be very willing to get gods, and yet not be willing to make this personal sacrifice to obtain them. If this was his idea, he was speedily undeceived. The gold ornaments came pouring in (Luke 24:3), and Aaron, committed by this act also, had no alternative but to proceed further. "He received them at their hands," etc. (Luke 24:4). 3. Aaron may have thought that, of the two evils, it would be better to put himself at the head of the movement, and try to keep it within bounds, than to allow it to drift away, without any control whatever. He may have argued that to allow himself to be stoned would not make matters better, but would make them greatly worse. On the other hand, by yielding a little, and placing himself at the head of the movement, he might at least succeed in checking its grosser abuses. This is a not uncommon opiate to conscience, in matters involving compromise of principle. It is the idea of the physician who humours a mad patient, in the hope of being able to retain some control over him. The step was a false one. Even with madmen, as wiser doctors tell us, the humouring policy is not the most judicious. With a mob, it is about the worst that could be adopted. IV. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The strength of evil propensities in human nature. 2. The fleetingness of religious impressions, if not accompanied by a true change of heart. 3. The degrading character of idolatry. Sin bestialises, and the bestial nature seeks a god in bestial form (cf. Romans 1:21-32). "Men," says Xenophanes, "imagine that the gods are born, are clothed in our garments, and endowed with our form and figure. But if oxen or lions had hands, and could paint and fashion things as men do, they too would form the gods after their own similitude, horses making them like horses, and oxen like oxen." But we have seen that men also can fashion their gods in the similitude of oxen. "They that make them are like unto them" (Psalms 115:8). 4. Mammon-worship is a worship of the golden calf. Cf. Carlyle on "Hudson’s Statue" ("Latter-Day Pamphlets").—J.O. THE OF MOSES. Moses, in Sinai, was so far removed from the camp, and the cloud so shut out his vision of it, that he had neither seen nor heard anything unusual, and was wholly ignorant of what had happened, until God declared it to him (Exodus 32:7, Exodus 32:8). After declaring it, God announced his intention of destroying the people for their apostasy, and fulfilling his promise to Abraham by raising up a "great nation" out of the seed of Moses (Exodus 32:10). No doubt this constituted a great trial of the prophet’s character. He might, without sin, have acquiesced in the punishment of the people as deserved, and have accepted the promise made to himself as a fresh instance of God’s goodness to him. There would have been nothing wrong in this; but it would have shown that he fell short of the heroic type, belonged to the ordinary run of mortals, was of the common "delf," not of "the precious porcelain of human clay." God’s trial of him gave him an opportunity of rising above this; and he responded to it. From the time that he reached full manhood (Exodus 2:11) he had cast in his lot with his nation; he had been appointed their leader (Exodus 3:10); they had accepted him as such (Exodus 4:31); he had led them out of Egypt and brought them to Sinai; if he had looked coldly on them now, and readily separated his fate from theirs, he would have been false to his past, and wanting in tenderness towards those who were at once his wards and his countrymen. His own glory naturally drew him one way, his affection for Israel the other. It is to his eternal honour that he chose the better part; declined to be put in Abraham’s place, and generously interceded for his nation (Exodus 32:11-13). He thereby placed himself among the heroes of humanity, and gave additional strength and dignity to his own character. Exodus 32:7 Go, descend—i.e; "make haste to descend—do not tarry—there is need of thy immediate presence." Thy people, which thou broughtest, etc. Words calculated to awaken the tenderness between which and self-love the coming struggle was to be. Exodus 32:8 They have turned aside quickly. A few weeks have sufficed to make them forget their solemn pledges (Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3), and fly in the face of a plain unmistakable commandment. A molten calf. In the contemptuous language of Holy Scripture when speaking of idols, such an emblematic figure as the Babylonion man-bull would be a mere "calf." That the figure made by Aaron is called always "a molten calf"—literally, "a calf of fusion"—disposes of the theory of Keil, that it was of carved wood covered with gold plates hammered on to it. These be thy gods, which have brought thee. Rather, "This is thy god, which has brought thee." The plural must be regarded as merely one of dignity. Exodus 32:9 A stiffnecked people. This epithet, which becomes epitheton usitatum, is here used for the first time. It does not so much mean "obstinate" as "perverse" like a horse that stiffens the neck when the driver pulls the right or left rein, and will not go the way he is wanted to go. (Compare Exodus 33:3, Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6, Deuteronomy 9:13; Deuteronomy 31:27; etc.) Exodus 32:10 Now, therefore, let me alone. This was not a command, but rather a suggestion; or, at any rate, it was a command not intended to compel obedience—like that of the angel to Jacob—"Let me go, for the day breaketh" (Genesis 32:26). Moses was not intended to take the command as absolute. He did not do so—he "wrestled with God," like Jacob, and prevailed. That my wrath may wax hot. Literally, "and my wrath will wax hot." I will make of thee a great nation. (Compare Numbers 14:12.) God could, of course, have multiplied the seed of Moses, as he had that of Abraham; but in that case all that had been as yet done would have gone for nought, and his purposes with respect to his "peculiar people" would have been put back six hundred years and more. Exodus 32:11-13 Moses has three pleas wherewith he "wrestles with God:"— 1. Israel is God’s people, for whom he has done so much that surely he will not now destroy them, and so undo his own work. 2. Egypt will be triumphant if Israel is swept away, and will misapprehend the Divine action. 3. The promises made to Abraham (Genesis 15:5; Genesis 17:2-6; etc.), IsaActs (Genesis 26:4), and Jacob (Genesis 28:14; Genesis 35:11), which had received a partial fulfilment, would seem to be revoked and withdrawn if the nation already formed were destroyed and a fresh start made. Exodus 32:14 The Lord repented of the evil. Changes of purpose are, of course, attributed to God by an "economy," or accommodation of the truth to human modes of speech and conception. "God is not a man that he should repent." He "knows the end from the beginning." When he threatened to destroy Israel, he knew that he would spare; but, as he communicated to Moses, first, his anger, and then, at a later period, his intention to spare, he is said to have "repented." The expression is an anthropomorphic one, like so many others, on which we have already commented. (See the comment on Exodus 2:24, Exodus 2:25; Exodus 3:7, Exodus 3:8; Exodus 31:17; etc.) . Exodus 32:7-10 The anger of God. God may well be angry when his people apostatise; and having recently professed entire submission to his will (Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3), rebel suddenly, and cast his words behind their backs. God’s anger against Israel was at this time intensified— I. BY THEIR EXTREME . He had just delivered them by a series of stupendous miracles from a cruel bondage. He had brought them out of Egypt—he had divided the Red Sea before them, and led them through it—he had given them a complete victory over the Amalekites. He was supporting them day after day by a miraculous supply of food. He had condescended to enter into covenant with them, and to make them his "peculiar treasure"—"a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5, Exodus 19:6). He was further engaged in giving them a law which would place them tar in advance of other nations, and render them the main source of life and light in a world of moral darkness and deadness. There had been no moment in their history when they were more bound by every consideration of duty, honour, and thankfulness to cling to Jehovah—yet, spite of all, they had rebelled and rushed into idolatry. II. BY THE OF THEIR . "They have turned aside quickly out of the way," said the Almighty to Moses (Exodus 32:8). A few weeks only had gone by since they had declared themselves God’s willing servants—had entered into covenant with him, and promised to keep all his commandments. What had caused the sudden and complete change? There was nothing to account for it but the absence of Moses. But surely it might have been expected that their convictions would have had sufficient root to outlive the disappearance of Moses for as long as six weeks. The fact, however, was otherwise. They were of those who had "no root in themselves"—and as soon as temptation came, they fell away. The remembrance of their old idolatries came upon them with a force that they had not strength to resist—and it happened unto them according to the true proverb: "The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:22). III. BY THEIR SINNING AGAINST LIGHT. Until the delivery of the second commandment at Sinai, it might perhaps have been a doubtful point whether the worship of God under a material form was, or was not, offensive to him. But after that delivery, all doubt was removed. The bowing down to an image had been then and there declared an "iniquity," an offence to a "jealous God," which he would visit unto the third and fourth generation. Nor was this all. An express prohibition of the very act that Israel had now committed, had been put in the forefront of the "Book of the Covenant"—which opens thus—"Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven—ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold" (Exodus 20:22, Exodus 20:23). It was impossible therefore that they should plead ignorance. Knowingly and wilfully they had transgressed a plain command of the Great God, whose power and glory had so lately been revealed to them. They had sinned in the full light of day. Christians in their manifold idolatries—of covetousness, lust, fashion-worship, etc.—are more ungrateful than even the Israelites, since they sin against One who has died to redeem them, and they sin against a still clearer light—the double light of a full revelation of God’s will, and of a conscience enlightened by the Holy Ghost. God’s wrath may well "wax hot against them, to consume them from the face of the earth." Exodus 32:11-15 The intercession of Moses. This intercession should be studied and laid to heart by all Christians, especially by Christian ministers, whose duty it is to "watch for the souls" of others, as "they that must give account." It was— I. EARNEST AND . No feeble voice, no lukewarm, timid utterance, was heard in the words whereby the leader sought to save his people. Prayer, expostulation, almost reproach, sound in them. God is besought, urged, importuned, to grant the boon begged of him. The tone of Jacob’s answer rings in them,—"I will not let thee go, except thou bless me" (Genesis 32:26). II. , OR RATHER SELF-. The promise, "I will make of thee a great nation," has evidently taken no hold of the unselfish nature of the prophet. He declines to give it a thought. God must keep his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—not make a new promise, as if everything was now to begin afresh. The offer, which might have tempted any man, is simply set aside, as if it had not been made, or at any rate could not have been seriously meant; and the whole energy of the speaker concentrated on inducing God to spare his people. III. WELL-. Three arguments are used, and each of them has real weight. (1) Israel is God’s people—has been chosen, called, taken into covenant, protected and defended after a marvellous fashion. All this Divine effort would have been simply thrown away, if the announced purpose were carried out and Israel destroyed. God does not usually allow his plans to be baulked, his designs to remain unaccomplished. If he "has begun a good work," he (commonly) wills to "bring it to good effect." Will he not do so in this case? (2) Are the enemies of God to be allowed a triumph? Israel’s destruction would afford to the Egyptians an ample field for scoffs, ridicule, self-glorification. Would God suffer this? (3) Promises had been made, with great solemnity (" Thou swarest by thine own self," Exodus 32:13), to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that the "Peculiar people" should spring from them. These might be kept in the letter, but would they be kept in the spirit, if all their descendants were now destroyed, except some three, and a new nation was created out of the descendants of Moses? IV. . "The Lord repented of the evil, which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14). The intercession of Moses prevailed—the announced purpose was given up. God spared his People, though his anger against them continued; and they were punished in a different way (Exodus 32:33-35). BY D. YOUNG Exodus 32:7-14 The wrath of Jehovah and the intercession of Moses. I. JEHOVAH TO MOSES THE OF ISRAEL. Jehovah is omniscient; even while spreading before Moses, with all elaboration, the patterns in the mount, his all-observant eye is equally on the doings of the people below. And now, just when Moses is expecting to be dismissed with his instructions for the people, he is fated to learn that they have proved themselves utterly unworthy of Jehovah’s great designs. The thing described is an utter, shameless, and precipitate apostasy from Jehovah. Previous outbreaks of the sinful heart were as nothing compared to this. If it had only been the sin of a few, some half-secret departure from Jehovah confined to a corner of the camp; if there had been a prompt repudiation of it and punishment of it on the part of the great majority: then, indeed, Jehovah might have found cause even for rejoicing that the apostasy of the few had been occasion to prove the fidelity of the many. But alas! the transgression is general; there is a public adoption of the golden calf with worship and sacrifice. The idolatrous spirit has been shown in the completest and most demonstrative way. Idolatry, with its awful degradations and its fatal influences, must always be an abomination to God; but how peculiarly abominable when it rose in the midst of a people with whom God had been dealing with the tenderest compassion and the sublimest power! It is to be noticed that God calls special attention to the quickness of this apostasy. "They have turned aside quickly, out of the way." The fact of course was that they had also been turned quickly into that way, and kept in it by a kind of external force. They might promise, and while they promised mean to keep the promise, but nature was too much for them; and as soon as the Divine constraint was in any way relaxed they returned to the old path. The impression Jehovah would make on the mind of his servant is that nothing can be expected from them. II. Jehovah indicates to Moses THE WITH WHICH HE TO TREAT ISRAEL (Exodus 32:9, Exodus 32:10). We have to think here not only of the words of Jehovah, but also of the attitude of Moses, which seems to be indicated by these words. Even before Moses puts in his earnest intercession, we have a hint of what is in his heart. Jehovah says, "Let me alone;" as one man, about to strike another, might speak to some third person stepping between to intercept the blow In the speaking of Jehovah’s words there must have been an indication of wrath, such as of course cannot be conveyed by the mere words themselves. And what, indeed, could Jehovah do, but give an unmistakable expression of his wrath with such an outbreak of human unrighteousness as is found in idolatry? No doubt there is great difficulty in understanding such expressions as those of Jehovah here. When we remember the low estate of the Israelites spiritually, and the infecting circumstances in which they had grown up, it seems hardly just to reproach them for their lapse into idolatry. But then we must bear in mind that the great object of the narrative here is to show how Jehovah cannot bear sin. The thing to be considered first of all is, not how these Israelites became idolaters, but the sad and stubborn fact that they seemed inveterate idolaters. Such a decided manifestation of idolatry as the one here revealed, when it came to the knowledge of Jehovah, was like a spark falling into the midst of gunpowder. It matters not how such a spark may be kindled; it produces an explosion the moment it touches the powder. The wrath of God must be revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Yet doubt not that the God who spoke here in such wrath and threatening loved these Israelites in the midst of their apostasy. But it was not possible in one and the same moment, and from one and the same voice, to make equally evident love for the benighted apostate himself, and wrath because of the evil that was so intimately mixed with his nature. On such an occasion it became God to give a direct and emphatic expression of wrath from his own lips, leaving his love and pity to be known indirectly through the intercession of his servant Moses. When Jehovah is angry, it is then we need most of all to remember that love is the great power in his nature. III. Jehovah further indicates A CERTAIN TO MOSES. "I will make of thee a great nation." Thus we see how the word of Jehovah is made to serve two purposes. It both expresses the fulness of wrath with an apostate people, and at the same time puts a cherished servant upon a most effectual trial of his magnanimity and mediatorial unselfishness. Thus this proposition of Jehovah comes in most beautifully to emphasise the simplicity and purity of the feeling of Moses in his subsequent mediation. And though Moses makes no reference to this proposition, it is well to be enabled to see how little hold any self-seeking thoughts took of his mind. IV. THE REPLY OF MOSES HAS NOW TO BE . Not that we need stay to investigate the merits of the considerations which Moses here puts forward. He could only speak of things according as they appeared to him. We know, looking at these same things in the light of the New Testament, that even if God had destroyed these People as at first he hinted, his promises would not therefore have been nullified. The temporal destruction of a single generation of men, however perplexing it might have seemed at the time, would afterwards have been seen as neither any hindrance in the fulfilment of God’s purposes, nor any dimming of the brightness of his glory. Be it remembered that these same people whom God brought out with great power and a mighty hand, yet nevertheless perished in the wilderness. Spared this time, they were in due season cut down as cumberers of the ground. And as to any scornful words the Egyptians might speak, God’s glow was not at the mercy of their tongues; for it had been manifested beyond all cavil in a sufficiently terrible chapter of their own history. Then as to the words spoken to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even if all but Moses had been swept away, yet in him the seed of Abraham would have been continued, just as in the days of the flood. God did not utterly destroy the human race, but narrowed it down to one family. And more than all we should bear in mind that the true fulfilment of God’s promises was to Abraham’s spiritual seed; they who being of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Hence we must not too readily conclude that what Moses said was the thing which here influenced Jehovah in what is called his repentance. The influential power was, that here was a man to say something, to act as a mediator, one deeply concerned to secure escape for these people, even while they, revelling in the plain below, are all unconscious of their danger. Notice that Moses says nothing by way of excuse for the people. Indeed, the full magnitude of their offence had not yet been comprehended by him; and it is interesting to contrast his pleadings here with an angry God, and his own wrath when he came actually in sight of the golden calf. The one thing Moses fixes on, in his appeal to God, is the great Divine purpose for Israel. He recaps how great that purpose is; he is profoundly concerned that it should not be interfered with; and so we are led to think of Jesus the true Mediator, with a knowledge of Divine purposes and human needs, such as it was not for Moses to attain. Consider how Jesus dwells and caused his apostles to dwell on God’s great purposes for the children of men. Thus both from Moses the type, and Jesus the antitype, we should learn to think of men not as they are only, but as they ought to be, and as God proposes they should be. Evidently Moses kept constantly in mind God’s purposes for Israel, even though he knew not how profound and comprehensive those purposes were. So let us, knowing more than Moses of God’s purposes for men in Christ Jesus, keep constantly in mind that which will come to all who by a deep patient, and abiding faith approve themselves true children of Abraham.—Y. BY G. A. Some powers restrain, some compel. Here we see a restraining power, and one which can even restrain God. Notice— I. EVIL . 1. Justly merited. Remember all that had gone before: deliverance after a series of awe-inspiring judgments on the oppressors; warnings after previous murmurings; now, with a fuller revelation of God’s majesty, this act of impatient apostasy: all compelled to the conclusion that the people were utterly stiff-necked (Exodus 32:9). 2. Complete and final. As a moulder in clay, when he finds his material getting hard and intractable, throws it down, casts it away, and takes up with something more pliable, so God determines with regard to Israel (Exodus 32:10). Let the children of Israel go, and let the children of Moses inherit the promises. II. THE . Only one thing held back the judgment (Exodus 32:10). As though God could not act without the consent of Moses. [Cf. Hot sun would melt snow but for shadow of protecting wall.] The heat of God’s wrath cannot consume so long as Moses stands in the way and screens those against whom it burns. What a power! See how it was exercised:— 1. Unselfishly. He might have thought, "A disgrace to we if these people are lost when I have led them;" this fear, however, provided against by the promise that he shall be made "a great nation," The intercession is prompted by pure unselfishness; Moses identifies himself with those for whom he pleads; and this gives the power. To come between the sun and any object, you must be in the line of the sun’s rays; and to come, as Moses did, between God and a people, you must be in the line of God’s will 2. With perfect freedom. Moses talks with Jehovah as a trusted steward might with his employer: (1) Why so angry when he has exercised such power on their behalf? (Exodus 32:11). (2) Why should the Egyptians be permitted to taunt him with caprice and cruelty? (Exodus 32:12). (3) Let him remember his oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 32:13). The unselfish man need not fear to speak thus openly with God. Unselfishness is so God-like that it permits familiarity whilst it guards against irreverence. III. EVIL OF. Notice:— 1. The repentance was in direct answer to the intercession (cf. Exodus 32:12, Exodus 32:14). God did as Moses begged that he would do. Had Moses been less firm, God’s wrath would certainly have consumed the people. Yet— 2. God cannot change! No: but Moses kept his place [cf. the wall screening the snow]; and therefore the conditions were never such as they must have been for judgment to be executed. God’s repentance was one with Moses’ persistence. The evil threatened was against the people, but the people apart from Moses. Moses identifying himself with them altered the character of the total. Conclusion—What Moses did for his people that our Lord does for his Church (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). That also we may do, each in his measure in behalf of others. It is the Pharisee who thanks God that he is not as other men are! True men love rather to identify themselves with their race, thus, salt-like, saving it from corruption; giving it shelter by the intercession of their lives.—G. BY J. ORR Exodus 32:7-11 The first intercessions. If Israel has been forgetting God, God has not been forgetting Israel. His eye has been on all their doings. There has not been a thought in their heart, or a word on their tongue, but, lo! it has altogether been well known to him (Psalms 139:4). It is God’s way, however, to permit matters to reach a crisis before he interposes. For a time he keeps silence. During the inception and early stages of the movement in Israel, he makes no discovery of it to Moses. He allows it to ripen to its full proportions. Then he tells his servant all that has happened, and orders him to repair at once to the scene of the apostasy (Exodus 32:7-11). Mark the expression:—"Thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves"—indicating that they are no longer God’s, that the covenant is broken. Moses intercedes for Israel, urging various pleas why God should not destroy them (verses 11-14). Consider— I. THE DIVINE WRATH. "Let me alone," says God, "that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them" (verse 10). This wrath of God against the sin of Israel was— 1. Real. What we have in these verses is no mere drama, acted between God and Moses, but a most real wrath, averted by most real and earnest intercession. But for Moses’ intercession, Israel would actually have been destroyed. 2. Holy. Wrath against sin is a necessary part of God’s character. Not that we are to conceive of the thrice Holy One as swayed by human passions, or as needing to be soothed by human entreaty. But sin does awaken God’s displeasure. He would not be God if it did not. "Resentment against sin is an element in the very life of God. It can no more be separated from God than heat from fire God is merciful. What does this mean? It means a willingness to lay aside resentment against those who have sinned. But it follows that the greater the resentment, the greater is the mercy; if there is very little resentment, there can be very little mercy; if there is no resentment at all, mercy is impossible. The difference between our religion, and the religion of other times, is this—that we do not believe that God has any very strong resentment against sin, or against those who are guilty of sin; and since his resentment has gone, his mercy has gone with it. We have not a God who is more merciful than the God of our fathers, but a God who is less righteous; and a God who is not righteous, a God who does not glow with fiery indignation against sin is no God at all." Put otherwise,-a God who cannot be angry with my sin, is one from whom it would be meaningless in me to sue for pardon. His pardon, could I obtain it, would have no moral value. Yet, 3. Restrained. The expression is peculiar—"Now, therefore, let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot," etc. The meaning is, that God is self-determined in his wrath, even as in his love (cf. Exodus 33:19). He determines himself in the exercise of it. It does not carry him away. In the present instance he restrained it, that room might be left for intercession. The words were a direct encouragement to Moses to entreat for his erring charge. II. MOSES’ (verses 11-15). The last occasion on which we met with Moses as an intercessor was at the court of Egypt. We have now to listen to him in his pleadings for his own people. Four separate acts of intercession are recorded in three chapters (cf. verses 31-35; Exodus 33:12-18; Exodus 34:9). Taken together, they constitute a Herculean effort of prayer. Each intercession gains a point not granted to the previous one. First, the reversal of the sentence of destruction (verse 14); next, the consent of God to the people going up to Canaan, only, however, under the conduct of an angel (Exodus 33:1-4); third, the promise that his own presence would go with them (Exodus 33:14); finally, the perfect re-establishment of friendly relations, in the renewal of the covenant (Exodus 34:10). Like Jacob, Moses, as a prince, had power with God, and prevailed (Genesis 32:28). It is to be noted, also, that this advance in Power of prayer is connected with an advance in Moses’ own experience. In the first intercession, the thought which chiefly fills his mind is the thought of the people’s danger. He does not attempt to excuse or palliate their sin, but neither does he make direct confession of it. He sees only the nation’s impending destruction, and is agonisingly earnest in his efforts to avert it. At this stage in his entreaty, Moses might almost seem to us more merciful than God. A higher stage is reached when Moses, having actually witnessed the transgression of the people, is brought to take sides with God in his wrath against it. His second intercession, accordingly, is pervaded by a much deeper realisation of the enormity of the sin for which forgiveness is sought. His sense of this is so awful, that it is now a moot question with him whether God possibly can forgive it (verse 32). The third intercession, in like manner, is connected with a special mark of Jehovah’s condescending favour to himself (Exodus 33:9), emboldening him to ask that God will restore his presence to the nation (verse 15); while the fourth follows on the sight which is given him of Jehovah’s glory, and on the revelation of the name (Exodus 34:5-8). Observe more particularly in regard to the intercession in the text— 1. The boon sought. It is that God will spare the people, that he will turn aside his fierce anger from them, and not consume them (verse 12). Thus far, as above hinted, it might almost seem as if Moses were more merciful than God. God seeks to destroy; Moses pleads with him to spare. The wrath is in God; the pity in his servant. (Contrast with this the counter scene in Jonah 4:1-11.) The affinity of spirit between Jehovah and Moses, however, is evinced later, in the hot anger which Moses feels on actually witnessing the sin. God’s mercy, on the other hand, is shown in giving Moses the opportunity to intercede. It was he who put the pity into his servant’s heart, and there was that in his own heart which responded to it. 2. The spirit of the supplication. (1) How absolutely disinterested. Moses sets aside, without even taking notice of it, the most glorious offer ever made to mortal man—"I will make of thee a great nation" (verse 10). This was Moses’ trial. It tested "whether he loved his own glory better than he loved the brethren who were under his charge." He endured it nobly. (2) How intensely earnest. He seems to clasp the feet of God as one who could not, would not, leave, tilt he had obtained what he sought. (3) How supremely concerned about God’s glory. That is with Moses the consideration above all others. 3. The pleas urged. Moses in these pleas appeals to three principles in the Divine character, which really govern the Divine action (1) To God’s regard for his own work (verse 11). The finishing of work he has begun (Philippians 1:6). (2) To God’s regard for his own honour (verse 12). Moses cannot bear to think of God’s action being compromised. (3) To God’s regard for his own servants (verse 13). The love he bears to the fathers (of. Deuteronomy 4:31; Deuteronomy 10:15). These are points in God’s heart on which all intercession may lay hold. 4. The effect produced. God repented him of the evil he thought to do to Israel (verse 14). Repented, i.e; turned back from a course which his displeasure moved him to pursue, and which, but for Moses’ intercession, he would have pursued. It does not appear, however, that Moses was at this time informed of the acceptance of his intercession. Notice, also, that the actual remission was bestowed gradually. In this first act of intercession God sees, as it were, the point to which the whole series of intercessions tends, and in anticipation thereof, lays aside his anger.—J.O. MOSES BREAKS THE TWO TABLES. The entire conference between God and Moses being now ended, Moses hastened to descend from the mount, and interpose in the crisis that had arisen, he took carefully the two tables of stone, which he had received, in his two hands (Deuteronomy 9:15), and set out on his return to the camp. On the way, he fell in with Joshua, who must have been on the watch for his descent, and the two proceeded together. When a certain portion of the distance had been traversed, the sounds of the festivity which was going on in the camp reached their ears; and Joshua, mistaking the nature of the shouts, suggested that fighting was in progress (verse 17). Moses, however, better instructed in the actual nature of the proceedings (verses 7, 8), caught their character more correctly, and declared that what he heard was nothing but shouting (verse 18). Soon afterwards, the camp came into sight—a disorderly crowd, half stripped of their garments (verse 25), was singing choruses and dancing round the figure which Aaron had cast—the sights and sounds were those of a dissolute orgy—Moses was struck with horror and in the frenzy of his indignation, dashed the two tables to the ground and broke them into fragments (verse 19). The people, he felt, were utterly unworthy of the holy laws which he had brought them—they had "altogether gone out of the way"—they had become "abominable"—at the moment he perhaps despaired of obtaining mercy for them, and expected their entire destruction. God had not as yet told him whether he would "turn from his fierce wrath," or not. Exodus 32:15 The two tables … were in his hand. In Deuteronomy 9:15, using greater particularity, Moses says that they were "in his two hands." One was in each hand probably. Written on both their sides. This is the case generally with Assyrian and Babylonian tablets, but not with Egyptian ones, which are moreover scarcely found at this early date. Here we seem to have again an indication that some of the Israelitic civilisation had come to them from "Ur of the Chaldees." Exodus 32:16 The tables were the work of God. Shaped, i.e; by the same power by which the commandments were inscribed upon them; not, necessarily, of matter newly created for the purpose. Exodus 32:17 When Joshua heard. This abrupt introduction of Joshua, who has not been mentioned for seven entire chapters, is curious. Probably he had considered himself bound, as Moses’ minister (Exodus 24:13), to await his return, and had remained in the middle portion of the mount, where he may have fed upon manna, until Moses came down from the top. The noise of the people. It is noted by travellers, that in all the latter part of the descent from Sinai, the plain at its base is shut out from sight; and that sounds would be heard from it a long time before the plain itself would open on the view. Sounds, however, which come circuitously, are always indistinct; and it is not surprising that Joshua, knowing nothing of the proceedings in the camp, should have fancied he heard a sound of war. Exodus 32:18 This verse is difficult to translate, being markedly antithetical and at the same time idiomatic. Perhaps it would be best to render—"It is not the voice of them who raise the cry of victory, nor is it the voice of them who raise the cry of defeat—the voice of them who raise a cry do I hear." The verb is the same in all the three clauses; and it would seem that Moses simply denied that there was any sound of war without making any clear suggestion as to the real character of the disturbance. Exodus 32:19 The dancing. Rather "dancing." There is no article; and as the subject had not been mentioned before, the use of the article would have been unmeaning. Dances were a part of the religious ceremonial in most ancient nations. Sometimes they were solemn and grave, like the choric dances of the ancient Dorians, and (probably) that of David in front of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:5-22); sometimes festive and joyous, yet not immodest, like the Pyrrhic and other dances at Sparta, and the dancing of the Salii at Rome; but more often, and especially among the Oriental nations, they were of a loose and lascivious character. In Egypt, the dancers appear to have been professionals of a degraded class, and the dancing itself to have been always sensual and indecent; while in Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylon, dancing was a wild orgy, at once licentious and productive of a species of phrenzy. We must suspect that it was this sort of dancing in which the Israelites were engaged—whence the terrible anger of Moses. He saw idolatry before his eyes, and idolatry with its worst accompaniments. In the extremity of his anger, he cast the tables out of his hands, dashed them violently against the ground, and brake them. For this act he is never reprehended. It is viewed as the natural outcome of a righteous indignation, provoked by the extreme wickedness of the people. We must bear this in mind when we come to consider the justice or injustice of the punishment which he proceeded to inflict on them for their sin (Exodus 32:26-29). Exodus 32:15-19 The act of Moses in breaking the tables. At first sight the act seems impious, and wholly inexcusable. Here was a marvel—the greatest marvel existing in all the world—transcending the finest statue, the most glorious picture—more wonderful than the pyramids themselves or the great temple of Karnak—here was a monument shaped by the hand of God, and inscribed with his finger in characters that would have possessed through all ages an undying interest for man. Here, moreover, was a precious deposit of truth—God’s great revelation to his people—put in a written form, and so rendered unalterable; no more liable to be corrupted by the uncertainty of human memory, or the glosses of tradition—pure, changeless, perfect truth; the greatest blessing that man can receive. All this, committed by God to his servant’s care, and knowingly, wilfully destroyed in a moment of time! The thing seems, at first, incredible; yet we have the witness of God that it is true. Then we ask, How could Moses have so acted, and was not his action inexcusable? We look to Scripture, and we find that he is never blamed for it. He relates it of himself without any sign of self-condemnation—nay! he, at a later date, reminds the people of it in a tone which is evidently one of self-approval (Deuteronomy 9:17). What is the explanation of all this? It may help us to find a satisfactory answer, if we consider— I. THE TO THE ACT. Moses had left the people devoted apparently to God’s service. When he reported to them the entire contents of the "Book of the Covenant," they had answered with one voice, "All the words which the Lord hath said, we will do" (Exodus 24:3). He had given them in charge to Aaron and Hur, on whose faithfulness he might well imagine himself justified in placing complete reliance. He had been absent less than six weeks—it might seem to him that he had been absent but a few days. And now—now that on rounding a corner of the gorge through which he was descending—he comes in sight of them once more and has them fully presented to his view, what is it he beholds? He sees the entire people—Levites and priests as well as laymen—dancing around a golden idol in a lewd and indecent way! Was not this enough to move him? Was it not enough to transport him out of himself, and render him no longer master of his actions? The wickedness of the people stood revealed to him, and. made him feel how utterly unworthy they were of the treasure which he was bringing them. Yielding to an irresistible impulse, in a paroxysm of indignation, to shew his horror at what he witnessed, he cast the tables to the ground. God seems to have regarded the provocation as sufficient, and therefore Moses receives no blame for what he did. II. THE ACT ITSELF. The act was the destruction of a record which the people were at the moment setting at nought. It was akin to the action of God in withdrawing light from them who sin against light. It was a deserved punishment. It was a way of declaring to the people that they were unworthy to receive the truth and should not receive it. Those who saw Moses descend saw that he was bringing them something, carefully, in his two hands, and must have felt that, as he had gone up to the summit to God, it must be something from God. When he lifted up his two hands, and with a gesture of abhorrence, cast the "something" to the ground, there must have gone through them a sudden thrill of fear, a sudden sense of loss. They must have felt that their sin had found them out—that their punishment had begun. Casting the tables down and breaking them, was saying to the multitude in the most significant way’’ God has cast you off from being his people." III. THE SEQUEL OF THE ACT. If anything could have brought the Israelites generally to a sense of their guilt and shame, it would have been the act of Moses which they had witnessed. As it was, a deep impression seems to have been made; but only on the men of his own tribe. When Moses, shortly afterwards, demanded to know," Who was on the Lord’s side?" (Exodus 32:26), "all the men of Levi"—i.e; the great mass of the tribe—rallied to him, and were ready to become the executioners of his wrath upon the most determined of the idolaters. This revulsion of feeling on their part was probably brought about, in a great measure, by the exhibition of indignation on the part of Moses, which culminated in his dashing the tables to the earth. BY J. ORR Exodus 32:15-25 The return of Moses to the camp. It may well be believed that it was with deeply agitated heart that Moses, stunned by the tidings he had just received, rejoined his faithful attendant, and as speedily as possible descended the rocky sides of the mountain. Great was the contrast between the things heavenly on which for forty days and forty nights his eyes had been uninterruptedly feasting, and the scenes he was now to witness. Even the light of common day could hardly seem otherwise than strange to him, emerging from his ecstasy. His bodily aspect, too, would be considerably altered. But in his spirit there is a stored-up energy, the product of his long rapture, which it only needs the sight of Israel’s sin to kindle into awful heat of wrath. I. THE OF THE TABLES (Exodus 32:15-19). The downward journey was a silent one. Moses refrains from communicating to Joshua the news he has received. He is absorbed in his own thoughts. And while he muses, the fire burns (Psalms 39:3). So soon as they approach the camp, sounds of revelry are heard. Joshua, with his soldier’s instinct, thinks at once of war, but Moses can tell him that it is "not the voice of them that shout for mastery," nor yet "the voice of them that cry for being overcome" that he hears, but "the voice of them that cry" (verse 8). Even Moses, however, is unprepared for the spectacle which presents itself, as, pursuing the descent, some turn in the road at length puts before his eyes the whole scene of folly. The tables of testimony are in his hands, but these, in his hot anger, he now dashes from him, breaking them in pieces on the rocks (verse 19). It was an act of righteous indignation, but symbolic also of the breaking of the covenant. Of that covenant the tables of stone were all that still remained, and the dashing of them to pieces was the final act in its rupture. Learn, 1. The actual sight of wickedness is necessary, to give us full sympathy with God in the hot displeasure with which he regards it. 2. The deepest and most loving natures are those most capable of being affected with holy indignation. Who shall compete with Moses in the boundlessness of his love for Israel? But the honour of Jehovah touches him yet more deeply. 3. It is right, on suitable occasions, to give emphatic expression to the horror with which the sight of great wickedness inspires us. II. THE OF THE CALF (verse 20). Returning to the camp, Moses brought the orgies of the people to a speedy termination. He had little difficulty in restoring order. His countenance, blazing with anger, and exhibiting every sign of grief, surprise, and horror, struck immediate dismay into the evil-doers. No one, apparently, had the courage to resist him. The idolaters slunk in guilty haste to their tents, or stood paralysed with fear, rooted to the spot at which he had discovered them. He, on his part, took immediate steps for ridding the camp of the visible abomination. "He took the calf which they had made and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it." View this— 1. As a bitter humiliation. What could be more humiliating to these idolaters than to see their god ground to powder, and its dust made into a nauseous mixture, which afterwards they were compelled to drink? But is not this the end of all sin? The instruments of our sin become the instruments of our punishment. Our sin turns to bitterness. The golden sheen by which it at first allured us disappears from it. It ends in humiliation and degradation. 2. As a righteous retribution. Why was the calf thus ground to powder, and given to the Israelites to drink? It was no mere act of revenge on Moses’ part. It was no hasty doing of his anger. It was a just retribution for a great sin. It was a method deliberately adopted of branding idol and idolaters alike with the print of the Almighty’s judgment. It suggests to us the correspondence between sin and its punishment; the certainty of our sins coming home to roost; the fact that sin will be paid back to us in its own coin. Sin and retribution hang together. We "receive the things done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10). 3. As a prophecy of worse evil to come. Bitter as this humiliation was, it was not the whole. It was but the mark put upon the deed by God, which told those who had committed it that they must abide by it, and be prepared to eat the fruit of their doings. The drinking of the dust had its sequel in the slaughter and the plagues (verses 27, 35). Even so, the bitterness and humiliation following from sins in this life do not exhaust their punishment. They warn of worse punishment in the world to come. III. AARON’S EXCUSES (verses 21-25). The first duty was to destroy the calf. This accomplished, or while the work was proceeding, Moses addresses himself to Aaron. His words are cuttingly severe,—"What did this people unto thee?" etc. (verse 21). Aaron, on his side, is deprecating and humble. He is afraid of Moses’ anger. He addresses Moses as "my lord," and proceeds to make excuses. His excuses are typical, and deserve consideration. 1. He falls back upon the old, old plea—as old as Eden—that the blame of his sin rested on some one else than himself. "Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are bent on mischief. For they said to me," etc. (verses 22-24). It is, as we say, the old, old story of all evil-doers—"It wasn’t me, indeed it wasn’t; it was those wicked people who made me do it." It is the weak, childish excuse of all who, having been tempted into sin, or having through their own irresolution fallen into it, have not the honesty or manliness to make at once a frank avowal of their fault. An easy way this, were the excuse admissible, of getting rid of our responsibility; but transgressors were early taught that they will not be allowed to avail themselves of it (Genesis 3:12-20). It is not a plea which will be held valid on the day of judgment. All, more or less, are conscious of pressure exerted on them by their circumstances. There is, however, no fatality binding us to yield to that pressure, if yielding means sin. The pressure is our trial. Aaron’s sin lay in his unmanly fear, in his not having the resolution to say at the critical time, No. Probably Aaron would have urged that if he had not yielded, the people would have killed him. "Then," Moses would have answered, "let them kill you. Better a thousand times that they had killed you than that you should have been the means of leading Israel into this great sin." Yet how often is the same species of excuse met with! "I couldn’t help it;" "The necessity of my situation;" "Compelled by circumstances;" "Customs of the trade;" "If I hadn’t done it, I would have offended all my friends;" "I should have lost my situation," etc. It may be all true: but the point is, Was the thing wrong? If it was, the case of Aaron teaches us that we cannot shield ourselves by transferring the blame of what we have done to circumstances. 2. If Aaron’s first excuse was bad, the second was worse—it just happened. He put the gold, poor man, into the fire, and "there came out this calf!" It came out. He did not make it; it just came out. This was a kind of explaining which explained nothing. Yet it is precisely paralleled by people attributing, say, to their "luck," to "chance," to "fate," to "destiny," what is really their own doing. Thomas Scott says—"No wise man ever made a more unmeaning or foolish excuse than Aaron did. We should never have supposed ’that he could speak well,’ were we to judge of his eloquence by this specimen." Note— (1) The right way of dealing with a fault is frankly to acknowledge it. (2) Though Moses so severely rebuked Aaron, he could yet intercede for him (Deuteronomy 9:20). The future high priest, who truly had "infirmity" (Hebrews 5:2), needed, on this occasion, an intercessor for himself. The severity of Moses was the severity of aggrieved love.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 32:15-35 Judgment and mercy. I. THE DESCENT or MOSES THE EMBLEM OF THE LAW’S INTO A WORLD OF SIN (Exodus 32:15-29). 1. He came with tables written by God’s own finger. The Divine origin and claims of the law are still attested by its own nature and by man’s conscience. 2. He was met by the exhibition of gross and defiant sin. The law does not come to a people waiting to receive the knowledge of God’s will, but busy with their idolatry and breaking what they already know to be his will. 3. The law’s advent, therefore, is in wrath (Exodus 32:19). (1) The broken tables declare that God’s covenant is broken. This is still shown in the taking away of God’s word from the sinful: it is not understood. Though held in the hand, a veil is drawn between the soul and it. Spiritual death, rationalism, and infidelity, are tokens to-day of God’s broken covenant. (2) The burning of the idol, etc. The broken law is a prophecy and foretaste of wrath. (3) The slaughter of the persistent idolaters. The place of feasting becomes the place of death. II. THE . 1. His deep consciousness of the evil of their sin (Exodus 32:30, Exodus 32:31). The intercessor cannot make light of man’s iniquity. He who bore our burdens felt their weight and terribleness as we have never yet done. 2. His love. Though he hates their iniquity, his life is bound up with theirs (Exodus 32:32). III. THE OF SIN AS SEEN IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE ANGER. 1. The impossibility of ransom. "Whosoever hath sinned against me him will I blot out of my book." There is but one sacrifice which avails, and that reaches the heart of the sinful and changes it. 2. Mercy to the unrenewed only means a delayed judgement: "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit I will visit their sins upon them."—U. MOSES THE GOLDEN CALF. The first vengeance which Moses took was upon the idol. It was probably hollow, and possibly of no great size. He might easily break it to pieces and subject the pieces to the action of fire, whereby they would be calcined, and might then be easily reduced to powder. This powder he caused to be mixed with the stream of the brook that flowed from Sinai, so that the Israelites were obliged to swallow with their drink particles of their own idol. Compare the action of Josiah with respect to the "grove" set up in the temple precincts by Manasseh (2 Kings 23:6), which was not identical, but still was similar. It has been suggested that this portion of the narrative is out of proper chronological order; and this may be so far true that the calcining and mixing with the water were at this point commanded rather than executed; but the destruction of the idol would naturally be the first thing which Moses would take in hand, and provide for, before proceeding to anything else. Only when the "abomination" was removed and. its destruction commenced, would he turn his attention to other points. Exodus 32:20 Burnt it and ground it to powder. Silver and gold subjected for a short time to a white heat, which may be easily produced by bellows, readily calcine, and are then easily crushed to a fine powder. Silver becomes detonating. I am not aware whether the case is the same with gold also. Strawed it—i.e; "sprinkled it." We need not suppose Moses to have done the whole—or even any part—himself. It was enough that he directed it to be done. The water. The article shows some particular water to be meant. We learn from Deuteronomy that it was the water of "the brook that descended out of the mount." Made the children of Israel drink of it. The brook being the only water readily accessible, the Israelites, if they drank at all, were compelled to risk swallowing particles of their "god." Idolatry condemned by the idol’s weakness and nothingness. An idol is "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4)—has no power—cannot even save itself. Nothing convinces men of the vanity of idolatry so much as to see their idol destroyed We read in Bede that Northmnbria was converted chiefly through the priest Coifi running a tilt at the great idol of the day, and throwing it to the ground (Eccles. Hist. 2.13). Hence the command given "utterly to abolish idols" (Isaiah 2:18). And what is true of idols proper, is true also, in its measure, of all those substitutes for God which the bulk of men idolise. Riches readily make themselves wings, and vanish, leaving their worshipper a beggar. Wife, mistress, favourite child, lover, erected into an idol, is laid low by death, decays, and crumbles in the grave. Reputation, glory, sought and striven for throughout long years as the one sole good, fades suddenly away before the breath of slander or the caprice of fortune. And when they are gone—when the bubble is burst—men feel how foolish was their adoration. Their idolatry stands self-condemned by their idol’s weakness and nothingness. AARON TRIES TO EXCUSE HIMSELF. Having taken the needful steps for the destruction of the idol, Moses naturally turned upon Aaron. He had been left in charge of the people, to guide them, instruct them, counsel them in difficulties (Exodus 24:14). How had he acquitted himself of his task? He had led the people into a great sin—had at any rate connived at it—assisted in it. Moses therefore asks, "What had the people done to him, that he should so act? How had they injured him, that he should so greatly injure them?" To this he has no direct reply. But he will not acknowledge himself in fault—he must excuse himself. And his excuse is twofold:— 1. It was the people’s fault, not his; they were "set on mischief." 2. It was a fatality—he threw the gold into the fire, and "it came out this calf." We are not surprised, after this, to read in Deuteronomy, that "the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him," and was only hindered from his purpose by the intercession of Moses Exodus 32:21 What did this people unto thee? Moses does not suppose that the people had really done anything to Aaron. He asks the question as a reproach—they had done nothing to thee—had in no way injured thee—and yet thou broughtest this evil upon them. So great a sin. Literally, "a great sin"—the sin of idolatry. If Aaron had offered a strenuous opposition from the first, the idolatry might not have taken place—the people might have been brought to a better mind. Exodus 32:22 Let not the anger of my lord wax hot. Aaron’s humility is extreme, and the result of a consciousness of guilt. He nowhere else addresses Moses as "my lord." Set on mischief. Or "inclined to evil" (Kalisch). Exodus 32:23 Make us gods. Rather "Make us a god." Exodus 32:24 There came out this calf. Aaron speaks as if he had prepared no mould, but simply thrown the gold into the hot furnace, from which there issued forth, to his surprise, the golden calf. This was not only a suppressio veri, but a suggestio falsi. Having no even plausible defence to make, he is driven to the weakest of subterfuges. Exodus 32:22-24 Aaron’s excuses. We are all ready enough to condemn Aaron for his insincere and shifty answer; but do not the apostle’s words occur to any of us?—"Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" (Romans 2:1). Do not we all, when we are taxed with faults, seek to shift the blame of them elsewhere? e.g.:— I. ON THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM WE LIVE. Society, we say, is corrupt—is "set on mischief." Its customs are wrong, we know; but it is too strong for us. We must conform to its ways. There is no use in resisting them. Public men say—"Such and such changes in the law would be bad we know it—we admit it—but the people ask for them, so we must lend ourselves to their wishes, and take steps to get the changes made." Or again—"This or that war would be unjust, iniquitous, a flying in the face of Christian principle. To engage in it would be a crime—a disgrace to the age we live in." But let the popular voice call for the war a little loudly—and the public man yields, silences the remonstrances of his conscience, and becomes an active agent in bringing the war about. And the case is the same in private life. Ask a man why he spends on entertainments twice as much as he spends in charity, and he will immediately lay the blame on others—"every one does it." Ask him why he wastes his whole time in frivolous pursuits, newspaper-reading, club-gossiping, card-playing, party-going, and his reply is the same. Descend a little in the social scale, and ask the manufacturer why he scamps his goods; the shopkeeper why he adulterates; the ship-owner why he insures ships that he knows to be unseaworthy and sends out to be wrecked—and his answer is parallel—"every one in his line of business does the same." They compel him to follow their bad example. Descend again, ask the confidential servant why he takes "commission" from tradesmen; the cook, why she hides fresh joints among the broken victuals; the footman, why he purloins wine and cigars; they defend themselves with the same plea—"It is wrong, they know: but their class has established the practice." "We are all the victims of our social surroundings; it is not we who are in fault, but the crowd that pushes us on." II. ON THE NATURE THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US, ON THE IN WHICH WE ARE PLACED. Sins of temper and sins of impurity are constantly set down by those who commit them to their nature. Their tempers are naturally so bad, their passions naturally so strong. As if they had no power over their nature; as if again, they did not voluntarily excite their passions, work themselves up into rages; "make provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." In thus doing they construct the mould into which the sins run. Sins of dishonesty are commonly attributed to circumstances: the temptation came in their way, men say, without their seeking it, and was too much for them, was not to be resisted. So with drunkenness, idleness, and the other sins connected with evil companionship; men’s plea is they were brought into contact with persons who dragged them, almost forced them into evil courses. Had they been more happily circumstanced it would have been different. As if a man did not to a large extent make his own circumstances, choose his companions, construct his own way of life. We are not forced to company with any men, much less any women, out of business hours. We are not compelled to go to places of public amusement where we are tempted. The "circumstances" which lead to sin are usually circumstances which we might easily have avoided, if we had chosen, as Aaron might have avoided making the mould, or even asking for the ornaments. MOSES THE . The presence of Moses in the camp—his impressive act in breaking the tables—even his seizure of the idol and consignment of it to destruction—did not arrest the licentious orgy in which the people had engaged before his coming. The "play" that had followed on the feasting still continued; though we may suppose that many had been impressed and had desisted. Moses felt that an example must be made, and a stop put to conduct which was more and more provoking the Almighty, and might at any moment bring down the judgment of complete destruction upon the whole people. He therefore took his station at the main gate of the camp (Exodus 32:26), and shouted the words "Who is on Jehovah’s side? Here, to me!" The sound of the words could not, of course, have reached very far—but they rallied to him those of his own tribe who stood near, and thus placed a strong force at his disposal. Moses bade them get their swords, and proceed through the camp from end to end, slaying the idolaters—not, we may be sure, indiscriminately, but executing God’s judgment on those who were most conspicuous and persistent. They were especially bidden not to spare their own nearest and dearest, which implies that many Levites were among the ringleaders. The result was the destruction by the sword of three thousand men—and the suppression of the festival. It is not to be doubted that Moses had Divine sanction for what he did in this matter (Exodus 32:27). Exodus 32:25 The people were naked. It has been suggested that "licentious" or "unruly" would be a better rendering (Gesenius, Dathe, Rosenmuller, Kalisch, Cook), but the primary sense of pharua is "naked," "stript;" and of the licentious orgies of the East, stripping or uncovering the person was a feature (Herod. 2.60), so that there is no reason for changing the expression used in the Authorised Version. Moses saw that most of the people were still without the garments that they had laid aside when they began to dance, and were probably still engaged in dancing and shouting. Aaron had made them naked. Aaron is said to have done that to which his actions had led. He had made the calf and proclaimed a festival. The "nakedness" had naturally followed. Unto their shame among their enemies. Amalekites were no doubt still hovering about the camp; indeed, the tribe probably still held most of the surrounding mountains. They would witness the orgy, and see the indecent and shameful exposure. Exodus 32:26 Moses stood in the gate of the camp. We must understand "the principal gate," since the camp had several (Exodus 32:27) Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come to me. Literally, "Who for Jehovah? To me"—but expressed, as the Hebrew idiom allows, in three words, forming an excellent rallying cry. All the sons of Levi—i.e; all who heard the cry. It is evident that there were Levites among the idolaters (Exodus 32:27, Exodus 32:29.) Exodus 32:27 Go in and out from gate to gate, etc.,—i.e; "pass through the whole camp—visit every part of it—and, where you see the licentious rites continuing, use your swords—do not spare, though the man be a brother, or a companion, or a neighbour—strike nevertheless, and bring the revel to an end." Exodus 32:28 About three thousand. We cannot gather from this, as some have done, that the Levites who rallied to Moses were only 3,000—for every Levite was not obliged to kill a man—but only that, when this number was slain, the idolaters desisted from their orgy Exodus 32:29 For Moses had said. Moses, on giving them their commission (Exodus 32:27), had told them, that their zeal in the matter would he a consecration, and would secure them God’s blessing. They earned by it the semi-priestly position, which was soon afterwards assigned to them (Numbers 3:6-13). Exodus 32:26-28 The punishment of idolatry. God did not long allow the sin against his majesty to remain unpunished. He declared his will to Moses (Exodus 32:27)—"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel"—and Moses, with his usual dutifulness, was prompt to execute his will. Having obtained the necessary force, he lost no time in inflicting the punishment. Of the punishment itself, we shall do well to note— I. ITS . Men talk and think very slightingly in these days of sins against God’s majesty. They profess scepticism, agnosticism, atheism, "with a light heart." The idea does not occur to them that their conduct is likely to bring upon them any punishment. But "God’s thoughts are not as man’s thoughts"—God visits such sins with death. Three thousand are slain with the sword on one day because of a few hours of idol-worship. Such is God’s award. And the record of it has been "written for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come." It is intended to teach us that God will visit for these things; and, if not in this world, then assuredly in the next. II. ITS JUSTICE. Idolatry is apostasy. It is a "casting of God behind the back"—a turning away from him, and a deliberate preference to him of something which is not he, and which cannot therefore but be infinitely inferior. The heart witnesses against idolatry; it tells us that we are bound, being God’s creatures, to devote our whole existence to him. Idolatry might well be punished with death, if it had never been positively forbidden. But the Israelites had heard it forbidden amid the thunders of Sinai (Exodus 20:4, Exodus 20:5). They had a law against it in "the Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 20:23). They had pledged themselves to obey this law (Exodus 24:3). They could not therefore now complain. If all who had taken part in the calf-worship had perished, no injustice would have been done. But God tempers justice with mercy. There were well-nigh six hundred thousand sinners; but the lives of three thousand only were taken. III. THE METHOD WHEREBY IT WAS ESCAPED. Those escaped who put away their sin as, 1. The Levites, who hastened to repent, and placed themselves on the Lord’s side at the first summons made by Moses. This was the best course, and the only safe one. This was "turning to the Lord with all the heart;" and, though no atonement for past sin, was accepted by God through the (coming) atonement of his Son, and obtained from him, not only forgiveness, but a blessing (Exodus 32:29). 2. Those escaped who desisted either when Moses made his first appeal, or even when they saw the swords drawn, and vengeance about to be taken. To draw back from sin is the only way to escape its worst consequences. Even then, all its consequences are not escaped. Their iniquity was still "visited" on those who were now allowed to escape with their lives—"the Lord plagued the people because they made the calf" (Exodus 32:35) at a later date. BY J. ORR Exodus 32:25-30 The zeal of Levi. Panic was in the camp. The idolaters stood as they had been taken in their guilty revels. Their sin had been of too heinous a nature to admit of its being passed over without severe punishment. Law must be vindicated. Vengeance must be taken for the injury offered to the majesty of Jehovah. Stern as the duty is, the mediator does not shrink from immediately addressing himself to the execution of judgment. I. THE SUMMONS. He stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto me" (Exodus 32:26). This must be taken to mean, not, "Who is willing to be on the Lord’s side now?" but "Who has shown himself on the Lord’s side during the recent apostasy?" Note—the Lord’s side, though for a time the unpopular one, proves in the end to be the side of honour, of safety, and of comfort. Fidelity has its ultimate reward. Wisdom is justified of her children. (Matthew 11:19.) II. THE . "All the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him" (Exodus 32:26). The Levites, as a tribe, would thus appear to have been less implicated in the idolatry than the rest of the people. "Faithful found Among the faithless, faithful only he" This now turns to their honour. The text, however, does not forbid the supposition that individuals from the other tribes also came out, anti separated themselves at the call of Moses. III. THE . This was sufficiently sanguinary. It put the fidelity, of Levi to a terrible test. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out," etc. (Exodus 32:27). 1. In the work of executing Jehovah’s vengeance, the Levites were to "consecrate" themselves (Exodus 32:29). They were to devote themselves. They were to be actuated in what they did by pure zeal for God’s glory. They were to obey to the letter the command he had given them. 2. In the doing of this work, they were sternly to repress all natural impulses: "every man upon his son, and upon his brother" (Exodus 32:29; cf. Deuteronomy 33:9). So earthly ties are not to be permitted to stand between us and duty to Christ (Matthew 8:21, Matthew 8:22; Matthew 10:27). IV. THE OF THE MANDATE. 1. The Levites showed unflinching zeal in the work entrusted to them. By their zeal on this, and on other occasions (Deuteronomy 33:8), they reversed the curse which lay upon their tribe, and won for themselves great honour and blessing. In particular, they won the privilege of serving in the sanctuary. 2. They slew three thousand of the people (Exodus 32:28). "Terrible surgery this," as Carlyle says of the storming of Drogheda; "but is it surgery, and judgment, or atrocious murder merely?" The number of the slain was after all small as compared with the whole body of the people. Probably only the ringleaders and chief instigators of the revolt were put to death, with those who still showed the disposition to resist. Note, that notwithstanding their great zeal on this occasion, the Levites were among those afterwards excluded from Canaan for unbelief. This is a striking circumstance. It shows how those that think they stand need to take heed lest they fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). It reminds us that one heroic act of service is not enough to win for us the kingdom of God. "We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence fast unto the end" (Hebrews 3:14). It may suggest to us also, that many of the Israelites who failed under the later trial, and so were excluded from Canaan, thus forfeiting the earthly inheritance, may yet have had the root of the matter in them, and so, spiritually, were saved.—J.O. Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto me. The following points suggest a practical treatment of the passage— I. IN THE WARFARE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL, THERE IS NEED FOR TAKING SIDES. Some side we must take. We cannot remain neutral. Not to be on the Lord’s side, is to be on the side of his enemies. It is our duty to choose the Lord’s side. (1) He has a claim on our allegiance. (2) It is the side of honour and of duty. (3) It is the side we will ultimately wish we had chosen. II. THE EXAMPLE OF ONE GOOD MAN, IN HIMSELF ON THE LORD’S SIDE, AFFORDS A -POINT FOR OTHERS. He gathers others around him. His influence decides and emboldens them. III. THE TEST OF BEING ON THE LORD’S SIDE IS, THAT, WHEN OTHERS ARE AROUND US, WE REMAIN . Weak natures will always go with the multitude. Decided piety shows itself in being able to resist the contagion of numbers. It needs courage to be singular. IV. BEING ON THE LORD’S SIDE CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN . (1) The obligation of personal consecration. (2) The obligation of renouncing earthly ties, so far as inconsistent with the higher allegiance. (3) The obligation of doing the Lord’s work. V. ON THE LORD’S SIDE WILL MEET WITH AN REWARD.—J.O. MOSES ONCE MORE WITH GOD FOR THE PEOPLE—GOD ANSWERS HIM. No distinct reply seems to have been given to the previous intercession of Moses (Exodus 32:11-13). He only knew that the people were not as yet consumed, and therefore that God’s wrath was at any rate held in suspense. It might be that the punishment inflicted on the 3000 had appeased God’s wrath: or something more might be needed. In the latter case, Moses was ready to sacrifice himself for his nation (Exodus 32:32). Like St. Paul, he elects to be "accursed from God, for his brethren, his kinsfolk after the flesh" (Romans 9:3). But God will not have this sacrifice. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). He declares, "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Exodus 32:33). Moses shall not make himself a victim. Without any such sacrifice, God will so far spare them, that they shall still go on their way towards the promised land, with Moses as their earthly, and an Angel as their heavenly leader. Only, their sin shall still be visited in God’s own good time and in his own way. How, is left in obscurity; but the decree is issued—"In the day that I visit, I will visit their sin upon them" (Exodus 32:34). And, writing long years after the event, the author observes—"And God did plague the people because they made the calf which Aaron made" (Exodus 32:35). Exodus 32:30 On the morrow. The day must have been well-nigh over when the slaughter of the 3000 was completed: and after that the corpses had to be buried, the signs of carnage to be effaced, and the wounded, of whom there must have been many, cared for. Moses would have had to direct, if not even to superintend, everything, and therefore could not reascend Sinai until the next day. Moses said unto the people, Not now to the elders only, as in Exodus 24:14, but to all the people, since all had sinned, and. each man is held by God individually responsible for his own sin. Ye have sinned a great sin. One which combined ingratitude and falseness with impiety. Peradventure I shall make an atonement. Moses has formed the design, which he executes (verse 32); but will not reveal it to the people, from modesty probably. Exodus 32:31 Gods of gold. Rather "a god of gold." Exodus 32:32 If thou wilt forgive their sin. The ellipsis which follows, is to be supplied by some such words, as "well and good"—"I am content"—"I have no more to say." Similar eases of ellipses will be found in Danial Exodus 3:5; Luke 13:9; Luke 19:42; John 6:62; Romans 9:22. And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book. Some interpret this as merely equivalent to, "Blot me out of the book of the living," and explain that phrase as meaning simply—"Take my life—kill me instead of them"—but something more seems to be meant. "The book of the living"—"the book of life"—the book of God’s writing—is not merely a register of those who happen to be alive at any given time. It "contains the list of the righteous, and ensures to those whose names are written therein, life before God, first in the earthly kingdom of God, and then eternal life also" (Keil). Thus Moses declared his willingness—nay, his wish—that God would visit on him the guilt of his people, both in this world and the next, so that he would thereupon forgive them. St. Paul has a similar burst of feeling (Romans 9:1-3); but it does not involve a formal offer—it is simply the expression of a willingness. Ordinary men are scarcely competent to judge these sayings of great saints. As Bengel says—"It is not easy to estimate the measure of love in a Moses and a Paul; for the narrow boundary of our reasoning powers does not comprehend it, as the little child is unable to comprehend the courage of heroes." Both were willing—felt willing, at any rate—to sacrifice their own future for their countrymen—and Moses made the offer. Of all the noble acts in Moses’ life it is perhaps the noblest; and no correct estimate of his character can be formed which does not base itself to a large extent on his conduct at this crisis. Exodus 32:33 Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Beyond a doubt, it is the general teaching of Scripture that vicarious punishment will not be accepted. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son—the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). Man "cannot deliver his brother, or make agreement with God for him; for it cost more to redeem their souls, so that he must let that alone for ever "(Psalms 49:7, Psalms 49:8). One only atonement is accepted—that of him who is at once man and God—who has, himself, no sin—and can therefore lake the punishment of others. Exodus 32:34 Lead the people unto the place, etc. This was a revocation of the sentence of death passed in Exodus 32:10. The people was to be spared, and Moses was to conduct them to Palestine. Mine Angel shall go before thee. Mine Angel—not I myself (compare Exodus 33:2, Exodus 33:3). Another threatened punishment, which was revoked upon the repentance of the people (Exodus 33:4, Exodus 33:6), and the earnest prayer of Moses (Exodus 33:14-16). I will visit their sin upon them. Kalisch thinks that a plague was at once sent, and so understands Exodus 32:35. But most commentators regard the day of visitation as that on which it was declared that none of those who had quitted Egypt should enter Canaan (Numbers 14:35), and regard that sentence as, in fact, provoked by the golden calf idolatry (Numbers 14:22). Exodus 32:35 The Lord plagued, or "struck"—i.e; "punished" the people. There is nothing in the expression which requires us to understand the sending of a pestilence. Exodus 32:30-34 Moses as the forerunner of Christ. "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me," said the great lawgiver, ere he left the earth (Deuteronomy 17:15, Deuteronomy 17:18); and the parallelism between Christ and Moses is in many respects most striking. 1. Both were of obscure birth—"the son of a carpenter"—the son of "a man of the house of Levi." 2. Both were in great peril in infancy—their life sought by the civil ruler—Herod—Pharaoh. 3. Both passed their youth and early manhood in obscurity—Christ for thirty, Moses for forty years. 4. Both felt they had a mission, but on coming forward were rejected by their brethren. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (John 1:11). "He supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not" (Acts 7:25). 5. Both showed "signs and wonders," such as have rarely been seen upon earth, and thus made it manifest that their missions were from God. 6. Both were law-givers—promulgators of a new moral code—Moses of an imperfect, Christ of a perfect law—(" the perfect law of love"). 7. Both were founders of a new community—Moses of the Hebrew state, Christ of the Christian Church. 8. Both were great deliverers and great teachers—Moses delivered his people from Egypt and Pharaoh, and led them through the wilderness to Canaan; Christ delivers his from sin and Satan, and. leads them through the wilderness of this life to heaven. 9. Both willed to be a sacrifice for their brethren—God could not accept the one sacrifice (Exodus 32:33), but could and did accept the other. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 32:31, Exodus 32:32 The confession and intercession of Moses. Notice here— I. THE OF THIS . It is very necessary to contrast the words of Moses in Exodus 32:31 and Exodus 32:32 with his previous words in Exodus 32:11-13. What a difference there is in the ground, elements, and tone of the two appeals! and this difference is fully explained by the experience through which he had been in the interval. It was a bitter and humiliating experience—we may almost say an unexpected one. For, although, before he had gone down from the mount, Jehovah had given him a clear forewarning of what awaited him, somehow he seems not to have taken in the full drift of Jehovah’s words. It is not till he gets down into the camp and sees the golden image, and the revelry and riot, and the implication of his own brother in a broken covenant, that he discerns the full extent of the calamity, and the difficulty, almost the impossibility of bringing together again Jehovah and his revolted people. Vain is it to seek for anything like sure conclusions in the details of Moses’ conduct on this occasion. The things he did were almost as the expressions of a heart beside itself with holy grief. There is a good deal of obscurity in this portion of the narrative; and our wisest course is to turn to what is clear and certain and most instructive, namely, the great result which came out of this experience. It was truly a result, beyond all estimation, to have been led to the conclusion—"This people have sinned a great sin." That was just the light in which Jehovah looked upon their conduct; and though Moses could not see all that Jehovah saw, we may well believe that he saw all that a brother man could see, one whose own heart’s vision was not yet perfectly clear. Blessed is that man who, for himself and for others, can see the reality and magnitude of the human heart’s departure from God. It would not, indeed, be hard, from a certain point of view, to frame a very plausible story on behalf of these Israelites; but it is far better to bear in mind that just at this particular juncture this very Moses who at first had expostulated with Jehovah, making not the slightest reference to the people’s sin, is now found on account of that sin bending himself in the utmost submission before God. Aaron came to Moses with an excuse (Exodus 32:22-24); he spoke in the spirit of Adam, laying the blame elsewhere. But Moses attempts neither excuse nor extenuation. Nor was any enlargement needed. The brief sentence he spoke, standing in all its naked severity, was quite enough. II. HOW MOSES IS IN HIS . The confession is as full and emphatic as it can be, but the heart is of necessity very doubtful as to what may come out of the confession. The words of Moses here are very consistent with the quick fluctuations of human nature. From extreme to extreme the pendulum swings. Previously he spoke as almost rebuking Jehovah for thinking to destroy his people; now even when the insulting image is ground to powder, and the ringleaders in transgression destroyed, he makes his way into the Divine presence as one who is fully prepared for the worst. "If thou wilt forgive them." One can imagine the stammering, half-ashamed tones in which these words would issue from the lips of Moses. The man who was so fruitful of reasons before is silent now. Jehovah’s past promises and past dealings he cannot urge; for the more he thinks of them, the more by an inevitable consequence, he thinks of the broken covenant. The light of these glorious promises shines for the present, upon a scene of ruin and shame. Then it is noteworthy that Moses had to go up, from the impulse of his own heart. We do not hear as yet of any general confession; it is not the weeping and wailing of a nation returning in penitence that he bears before God. If only the people had sent him to say, "We have sinned a great sin;" if only they had made him feel that he was their chosen spokesman; if only their continued cry of contrition, softened by distance, had reached his ears, as he ventured before God, there might have been something to embolden him. But as yet there was no sign of anything of this sort. lie seems to have gone up as a kind of last resort, unencouraged by any indication that the people comprehended the near and dreadful peril. Learn from this that there can be no availing plea and service from our great advocate, except as we look to him for the plea and service, in full consciousness that we cannot do without them. We get no practical good from the advocacy of Jesus, unless as in faith and earnestness, we make him our advocate. III. HOW MOSES HIMSELF WITH THE FATE OF HIS . He could not but feel the difference there was between his position and theirs; but at the moment there was a feeling which swallowed all others up, and that was the unity of brotherhood. The suggestion to make out of him a new and better covenant people came back to him now, with a startling significance which it lacked before. Israel, as the people of God, seemed shut up to destruction now. If God said the covenant could not be renewed; if he said the people must return and be merged and lost in the general mass of human-kind, Moses knew he had no countervailing plea; only this he could pray that he also might be included in their doom. lie had no heart to go unless where his people went; and surely it must have a most inspiring and kindling influence to meditate on this great illustration of unselfishness. Moses, we know, had been brought very near to God; what glimpses must have been opened up to him of a glorious future. But then he had only thought of it as being his future along with his people. In the threatenings that God was about to forsake those who had forsaken him, there seemed no longer any brightness even in the favour of God to him as an individual. Apostate in heart and deed as his brethren were, he felt himself a member of the body still; and to be separated from them would be as if the member were torn away. lie who had preferred affliction with the people of God rather than the pleasures of sin for a season, now prefers obliteration along with his own people rather than to keep his name on God’s great book. It can hardly be said that in this he spurns or depreciates the favour of God; and it is noticeable that God does not rebuke him as if he were preferring human ties to Divine. Jehovah simply responds by stating the general law of what is inevitable in all sinning, lie who sins must be blotted out of God’s book. God will not in so many words rebuke the pitying heart of his servant; but yet we clearly see that there was no way out by that course which Moses so very deferentially suggests. When first Moses heard of the apostasy of Israel he spoke as if the remedy depended upon Jehovah; now he speaks as if it might be found in his own submission and self-sacrifice; but God would have him understand that whatever chance there may be depends on a much needed change in the hearts of the people, a change of which all sign so far was lacking.—Y. BY J. ORR Exodus 32:30-35 The second intercession. This second intercession of Moses is even more wonderful than the first. The question raised on that former occasion—Is Moses more merciful than God?—will, indeed, no longer occur. Those who might have been disposed to press that question then will probably not be disposed to press it now. They have since had sufficient evidence of Moses’ severity. They have found that, whatever elements of character are lacking to him, he is not wanting in energy of indignation at patent wickedness. The temptation, on the contrary, may now be to accuse the lawgiver of unjustifiable and unholy anger—of reckless disregard of human life. The charge is groundless; but if, for a moment, it should appear natural, the reply to it is found in the study of this second scene upon the mount. Surely, if ever human heart laid bare its intense and yearning love for those whose sin fidelity to duty yet compelled it to reprobate and loathe, it is the heart of Moses in this new, and altogether marvellous, juncture in his history. Consider— I. THE MADE (Exodus 32:30, Exodus 32:31). Moses makes a full confession of the sin of the people. This confession was— 1. Holy. He has just views of the demerit of the sin for which he seeks forgiveness. His impressions of its enormity are even stronger than at the time of his first intercession. So heinous does it now appear to him that he is mentally in doubt whether God possibly can forgive it. 2. Perfectly truthful Moses fully admits the people’s sin. He does not make light of it. He does not seek to minimise it. Not even to secure the salvation of the people over whom he yearns with so intense an affection will he unduly palliate their offence, or feign an excuse where he knows that there is none to offer. Mark how, in both of these respects, Moses answers to the true idea of a mediator. "A mediator is not a mediator of one" (Galatians 3:20). It is his function, in conducting his mediation, to uphold impartially the interests of both of the parties between whom he mediates. Both are represented in his work. He stands for both equally. He must do justice by both. His sympathy with both must be alike perfect. He must favour neither at the expense, or to the disadvantage, of the other. These acts of intercession show in how supreme a degree this qualification of the mediator is found in Moses. He has sympathy with the people, for whose sin he is willing, if need be, even to die; he has also the fullest sympathy with God. He looks at the sin from God’s standpoint. He has sympathy with God’s wrath against it. He is as jealous for God’s honour as he is anxious for the forgiveness of the people. He is thus the true daysman, able to lay his hand upon both. 3. Vicarious. He confesses the people’s sin for them. On the depth to which this element enters into the idea of atonement, and on the place which it holds in the atonement of Jesus, see J. McLeod Campbell’s work on The Nature of the Atonement. II. THE OFFERED (verse 32). The new and awful impressions Moses had received of the enormity of the people’s conduct gave rise in his mind to the feeling of the need of atonement. "Now I will go up to the Lord," he says to them, "peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin" (verse 30). That the intercessory element entered into Moses’ idea of "making an atonement" is not to be denied. But it is not the only one. So intensely evil does the sin of the people now appear to him that he is plainly in doubt whether it can be pardoned without some awful expression of God’s punitive justice against it; whether, indeed, it can be pardoned at all. This sense of what is due to justice resolves itself into the proposal in the text—a proposal, probably, in which Moses comes as near anticipating Christ, in his great sacrifice on Calvary, as it is possible for any one, beating the limitations of humanity, to do (cf. Romans 9:3). Observe— 1. The proposal submitted. It amounts to this, that Moses, filled with an immense love for his people, offers himself as a sacrifice for their sin. If God cannot otherwise pardon their transgression, and if this will avail, or can be accepted, as an atonement for their guilt, let him—Moses—perish instead of them. The precise meaning attached in Moses’ mind to the words, "If not, blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written," must always be a difficulty. Precision, probably, is not to be looked for. Moses’ idea of what was involved in the blotting out from God’s book could only be that afforded him by the light of his own dispensation, and by his sense of the exceeding greatness of God’s wrath. His language is the language of love, not that of dogmatic theology. Infinite things were to be hoped for from God’s love; infinite things were to be dreaded from his anger. The general sense of the utterance is, that Moses was willing to die; to be cut off from covenant hope and privilege; to undergo whatever awful doom subjection to God’s wrath might imply; if only thereby his people could be saved. It was a stupendous proposal to make; an extraordinary act of self-devotion; a wondrous exponent of his patriotic love for his people; a not less wondrous recognition of what was due to the justice of God ere sin could be forgiven—a glimpse even, struck out from the passionate yearning of his own heart, of the actual method of redemption. A type of Christ has been seen in the youthful IsaActs ascending the hill to be offered on the altar by Abraham his father. A much nearer type is Moses, "setting his face" (cf. Luke 9:51) to ascend the mount, and bearing in his heart this sublime purpose of devoting himself for the sins of the nation. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). 2. The alternative desired. If the people must perish—this meaning also seems to be conveyed in the words—Moses would wish to perish with them. Not only has the proposal to make of him "a great nation" (Exodus 32:10) no allurement for his mind, but, if the people are to be destroyed, he would prefer to die with them. He desires no life outside of theirs. Patriotic devotion could no further go. Noble Moses! Yet only the type of the nobler than himself, who, devoting himself in the same spirit, has actually achieved the redemption of the world. See in this incident (1) The connection of a feeling of the need of atonement with just views of sin’s demerit. (2) The certainty, when just views of sin are entertained, of this feeling of the need of atonement arising. In declining the proposal of Moses, God does not say that atonement is not needed. He does not say that his servant has exaggerated the enormity of the sin, or the difficulties which stand in the way of its forgiveness. He does not say that it is not by means of atonement that these difficulties connected with the forgiveness of sins are ultimately to be removed. On the contrary, the spirit of Moses in this transaction is evidently in the very highest degree pleasing to Jehovah, and so far as atonement is made for the people’s sins, it is by Jehovah accepting the spirit of his sacrifice, even when rejecting the proposal in its letter. (3) The naturalness of this method of salvation. The proposal sprang naturally from the love of Moses. It expressed everything that was grandest in his character. It shadowed forth a way in which, conceivably, a very true satisfaction might be offered to Divine justice, while yet mercy was extended to the sinner. The fulfilment of the prophecy is the Cross. III. THE REPLY GIVEN. 1. The atonement is declined in its letter. God declares that so far as there is to be any blotting from the book of life, it will be confined to those who have sinned. It may be noted, in respect to this declinature of the proposal of Moses that, as above remarked, it does not proceed on the idea that atonement is not needed, but (1) Moses could not, even by his immolation, have made the atonement required. (2) God, in his secret counsel, had the true sacrifice provided. (3) Atonement is inadmissible on the basis proposed, viz. that the innocent should be "blotted out from the book of life." Had no means of salvation presented itself but this, the world must have perished. Even to redeem sinners, God could not have consented to the "blotting from his book" of the sinless. The difficulty is solved in the atonement of the Son, who dies, yet rises again, having made an end of sin. No other could have offered this atonement but himself. 2. While declining the atonement in its letter, God accepts the spirit of it. In this sense Moses, by the energy of his self-devotion, does make atonement for the sins of Israel. He procures for them a reversal of the sentence. Further intercession is required to make the reconciliation complete. 3. God makes known his purpose of visiting the people for their sin (verse 34). The meaning is— (1) That the sin of the people, though for the present condoned, would be kept in mind in reckoning with them for future transgressions. (2) That such a day of reckoning would come. God, in the certainty of his foreknowledge, sees its approach.—J.O. THE THREAT OF GOD’S , AND THE OF THE PEOPLE. The intercession of Moses, and his offer to sacrifice himself for his people had obtained from God some great concessions, viz.— 1. That the people’s lives should be spared (Exodus 32:14); 2. And that they should be led into Palestine (Exodus 32:34) But a change had been introduced into the conditions under which the future journeys were to be made, somewhat obscurely indicated in the words—"Behold, mine angel shall go before thee" (ibid.)—which was now to be more distinctly set forth. "God’s angel" may mean his Presence in the Person of his Son—as it appears to mean in Exodus 23:20-23—or it may mean simply one of the created angelic host, which seems to be its sense in Exodus 32:34, and in Exodus 32:2 of this chapter. By Exodus 32:2 and Exodus 32:3 taken in combination it was rendered manifest, both to Moses and to the people (Exodus 32:4), that they were threatened with the loss of God’s actual presence and personal protection during the remainder of their wanderings, and would have, instead of it, the mere guidance and help of an angel in the inferior sense of the word. This was felt to be "evil tidings" and the people consequently "mourned" and "stripped themselves of their ornaments" (Exodus 32:6). Real penitence at last entered their hearts, and led to self-abasement. Exodus 33:1 The Lord said unto Moses. In continuation of what he had said in Exodus 32:33, Exodus 32:34, but possibly at another time; and with the object of fully explaining what had been meant in Exodus 32:34. The land which I sware unto Abraham. See Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18, etc. Exodus 33:2 I will send an angel before thee. Note the change from "my angel" (Exodus 32:34) to "an angel;" which, however, would still have been ambiguous, but for what follows in Exodus 33:3. The angel of God’s presence is "an angel" in Exodus 23:20. I will drive out. The whole covenant had fallen with Israel’s infraction of it, and it was for God to retract or renew his part of it as it pleased him. He here of his free grace renews the promise to drive out the Canaanitish nations. Compare Exodus 23:23-31. Exodus 33:3 Unto a land. Exodus 33:2 is parenthetic, and Exodus 33:3 coheres with Exodus 33:1—"Go up hence, thou and the people, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham—unto a land flowing," etc. On the milk and honey of Canaan, see the comment upon Exodus 3:8. For I will not go up in the midst of thee. At length there was an end of ambiguity—God’s purpose was made plain—the people had shown themselves unfit for his near presence, and he would withdraw himself. So it would be best even for them; since, if they were about to show- themselves as perverse in the future as they had in the past, his near presence could only lead to their entire destruction. Some day they would so provoke him, that he would consume them in the way. Exodus 33:4 When the people heard. Moses had communicated to the people what God had said to him. They felt it to be evil tidings—they woke up at last to a feeling of the ineffable value of the privileges which they bad hitherto enjoyed—his guidance by the pillar of the cloud (Exodus 13:21)—his counsel, if there were need to ask anything (Exodus 15:25)—his aid in the day of battle (Exodus 17:8-13)—his near presence, by day and by night, constantly (Exodus 13:22)—and they dreaded a change, which they felt must involve a loss, and one the extent of which they could not measure. "An angel" is a poor consolation when we are craving for Jehovah! So the people mourned—felt true sorrow—were really troubled in their hearts—and, to show their penitence, ceased to wear their customary ornaments. These may have consisted of armlets, bracelets, and even, perhaps, anklets, all of which were worn by men in Egypt at this period. Exodus 33:5 ― For the Lord had said unto Moses, etc. Rather, "And the Lord said unto M." (so most recent commentators, as Keil, Kalisch, etc.) The message was sent to the people after their repentance, and in reply to it. It was not, however, as our version makes it, a threat of destruction, but only a repetition of the statement made in Exodus 33:2, that, if God went up with them, the probable result would be their destruction. Translate—"Ye are a stiff-necked people; were I for one moment to go up in the midst of thee, I should destroy thee," Put off thy ornaments. The command seems strange, when we had just been told that "no man did put on him his ornaments" (Exodus 33:4) but the word translated put off probably means "lay aside altogether." The intention was to make their continued disuse of the ornaments a test of their penitence. Exodus 33:6 The people accepted the test and stripped themselves of their ornaments—i.e; ceased to wear them henceforward. By the Mount Horeb. Rather, "from Mount Horeb." From and after this occurrence at Horeb (= Sinai), the Israelites wore no ornaments, in token of their continued contrition for their apostasy Exodus 33:1-6 The hiding of God’s face from man. When God hides away his face from his people, it may be— I. AS A . It was as a judgment that God separated between himself and man after the Fall, and "drove man forth" from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). It was as a judgment that he withdrew from Saul, and "answered him not, neither by dreams, by Urim, nor by prophets" (1 Samuel 28:6). When he "hid his face" from David, and forgot all his misery and trouble, it was because David had offended him by the grievous sin into which he had fallen. This, again, was a judgment. Of a similar character was his "removal of Israel out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:23) in the reign of Hoshea, and his "casting of Jerusalem and Judah out of his sight" (2 Kings 24:20), in the reign of Zedekiah. And so, when, at the present day, he ceases to make his light shine upon us, withdrawing, as it were, behind a cloud, and no longer shedding the brightness of his radiance upon our souls—it may be, it sometimes is, in judgment. Our sins separate between us and him. They raise the barrier which conceals him from us. They constitute the cloud which shuts him out from our sight. And he judges us for them. Or, the withdrawal may be made— II. AS AN ACT OF MERCY. When Jesus "did not many miracles" at Capernaum "because of their unbelief," it was in mercy. When he retired to Galilee, and "walked no more in Jewry," it was in mercy. When he spake in parables, "that hearing they might not understand," it was in mercy. Our responsibilities are co-ordinate with the light vouchsafed us; and the more God reveals himself to us, the more he makes his presence manifest, the greater the peril which we incur. Unless his near presence purifies us and spiritualises us, it deadens us. Two disciples were the nearest to Jesus—one "lay upon his breast," the other habitually "dipped with him in the dish" one was "the beloved disciple," the other was "the traitor." In either case, the withdrawal is properly regarded— III. AS A GROUND FOR SADNESS. "The people mourned when they heard the evil tidings." Justly, for, if it was-in mercy, how sad that they should need such a mercy! How sad that to be removed further from God should be a mercy to them! And, if it was in judgment, how much more sad that their conduct should have brought upon them such a judgment—have caused God to withdraw himself—have led him to punish them by banishment from his near presence! What real satisfaction is there in existence except his presence? Whom have we in heaven but him, or who is there upon earth that we can desire in comparison with him? In him is life; "in his presence is fulness of joy, and at his right hand are pleasures for evermore." If we lose him, we lose all; if we are shut out, even for a time, from him, we lose more than we can express. lie is to our spirits more than the sun to all material things. "In him we live, and move, and have our being." Happily for us, while we live, we may recover his favour; we may prevail on him once more to "lift up the light of his countenance upon us." Mourning, self-abasement, real heart-felt sorrow for sin will in every case find acceptance with him for his Son’s sake, and obtain for us a restoration of the light of his presence. THE FIRST OF A . The decision of the matter still hung in suspense. God had not revoked his threat to withdraw himself and leave the host to the conduct of an angel. He had merely reserved his final decision (Exodus 33:5). Moses was anxious to wrestle with him in prayer until he obtained the reversal of this sentence; but he could not be always ascending Sinai, when the camp needed his superintending care, and the camp as yet contained no place of worship, where a man could pray and be secure against disturbance. Moses, under these circumstances, with the tabernacle in his mind, but without leisure to construct it, contrived "for the present distress" a temporary tabernacle or tent. He took, apparently, the tent that had hitherto been his own, and removed it to a position outside the camp, erecting it there, and at the same time giving it the name of "the tent of meeting" (Exodus 33:7). Hither he decreed that all persons should come who desired communion with God (Exodus 33:7), and hither he resorted himself for the same purpose (Exodus 33:8). It pleased God to approve these arrangements; and to show his approval by a visible token. Whenever Moses entered the "tent of meeting," the pillar of the cloud descended from the top of Sinai, and took up its station at the door of the tent (Exodus 33:9), thus securing Moses from interruption. At the sight the people "worshipped," each at his tent’s door, while Moses was privileged to speak with God "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Exodus 33:11). Joshua accompanied him on the first occasion, and remained behind, to guard the tent, when Moses left it (ibid.). Exodus 33:7 Moses took the tabernacle. The "tabernacle" proper was not yet constructed. (See chs. 35-40.) And the word used is not that properly rendered "tabernacle"—viz; mishkan (Exodus 26:1); but the far more common word ’ohel, which means "tent." The proper translation would be, "Moses took the tent." But the question at once arises—What tent? It is suggested that the article may have the force of the possessive pronoun, and indicate that he took "his tent." (Compare Matthew 9:10, where "the house" undoubtedly means "his house.") Moses took his own tent, probably as the best in the encampment, and converted it to a sacred use, transferring his own abode to another. Afar off from the camp. The sacred and the profane must not approach each other too closely—an interval must be set between them. But the distance, evidently, was not great (Exodus 33:10). The tabernacle of the congregation. Rather, "the tent of meeting" or "of conference"—i.e; the tent in which he expected to meet and converse with God. See the comment on Exodus 27:21. Every one which sought the Lord went out. Moses must have commanded this. The "tent" was not to be a mere oratory for himself, but open to all Israelites. Exodus 33:8 When Moses went out …. all the people rose up. Probably Moses "went out" at a set time, or at set times, each day; and the people watched for his going, and "rose up," as a mark of respect and reverence. They felt that he went to the tent mainly to pray for them. Exodus 33:9 As Moses entered into the tabernacle. Rather, "When Moses was gone into the tent." The cloudy pillar descended. It is not quite clear whether this was done once only, or whether the pillar, during the continuance of this "tent of meeting," alternated between the top of Sinai and the door of the tent, descending when Moses entered the tent and reascending when he quitted it. The latter supposition is most consonant with the previous statement (Exodus 33:7) that "every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle" (tent), for the people were at no time allowed to approach the cloud. And the Lord talked with Moses. Literally, "And talked with Moses." The cloudy pillar, in and through which God made his presence felt, is here identified with God, and said to have conversed with Moses. Exodus 33:10 And all the people saw … and all the people rose up. This is a literal translation; but it would make the sense clearer to the ordinary reader if the passage were rendered—"And when all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the door of the tent, then all the people rose up," etc. Worshipped. Literally, "bowed themselves down"—"made an obeisance," in token that they recognised the presence of God. Exodus 33:11 The Lord spake unto Moses face to face. As one present—not as one at a distance—"month to mouth," as we read in Numbers 12:8—but not under any visible form (see verses 20, 23, and compare Deuteronomy 4:12, Deuteronomy 4:15). He turned again. After each conference, Moses returned to the camp, where, no doubt, he had put up for himself another tent, and where his presence was needed He left, however, his personal attendant ("minister"), Joshua, to watch and guard the sacred structure during his absence. It is remarkable that the trust was committed to Joshua, rather than to Aaron, or any of the Levites. Probably the reason of this was, that Joshua alone had had no paw in the idolatry of the calf. (See Exodus 32:17.) Exodus 33:9-11 The mode of recovering God’s presence. Moses felt that he could not rest till he bad obtained for the people the complete return of God’s favour, and the assurance of his perpetual presence. But this was no easy task. The offence given was so grievous that it could not be condoned at once. Even the penitence of the people had produced no more than a promise that God would take the matter into his consideration, and determine later what he would do to the people (Exodus 33:5). Moses sought to hasten a favourable decision. It is well worth noting the means whereto he had recourse. These were— I. THE OF A HOUSE OF PRAYER. Moses called it "the tent of meeting"; because he hoped that there God would be met with or would suffer himself to be addressed would let his people draw nigh to him. He erected it "without the camp," afar off—partly on account of the recent pollution of the camp—partly to separate and sunder it from secular sights and sounds. Intolerant of delay, he thought it better to take the best of existing structures, rather than wait till he could erect a new one. As his own tent was the best in the camp, he gave it, not without some self-sacrifice. II. THE RESORT OF THE PEOPLE TO THE HOUSE. "Every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tent" (Exodus 33:7). Doubtless Moses urged the need of all the people’s seeking the Lord, turning to him, besieging him with their prayers, importuning him. There had been, so far as appears, no set times of prayer hitherto, and no set place of prayer. All had been left to individual feeling or conviction. And the people, we may be sure, had for the most part neglected prayer. In their difficulties they had been content that Moses should pray for them (Exodus 14:15; Exodus 15:25; Exodus 17:4, Exodus 17:11, Exodus 17:12, etc.). Now at length they had awoke to the need of personal religion; they had "mourned" and "put off their ornaments"; they—some of them, at any rate—"sought the Lord," and resorted to the "tent of meeting," in the hope of finding him there. III. HIS OWN RESORT TO IT, AND , EARNEST . The narrative of Exo 33:8-11 describes a continual practice. Moses made it his habit to go forth from the camp to the "tent of meeting" at a fixed hour each day—possibly more than once a day; and, when there, no doubt prayed to the Lord with all the fervour that we observe in the recorded prayer of the next section (Exodus 33:12-16). "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). The daily intercession, recorded in Exodus 33:8-11, culminated in the "wrestle with God," which obtained the gracious promise—"I will do this thing that thou hast spoken" (Exodus 33:17). The general lesson taught is the might of prayer (1) for oneself; (2) for others. There is a further particular lesson upon the value of a "house of prayer"—most appreciated, through the perversity of human nature, where least readily obtainable, least regarded where closest to men’s doors and most accessible. BY J. OR Exodus 33:1-12 A nation in garb of penitence. On this section consider— I. THE PROMISE (Exodus 33:1-4). God has consented to spare the nation. They are to set out forthwith on the journey to Canaan. But his presence is no longer to go with them. He would send an angel. Notice— 1. Everything, in one sense, remains the same. The people are to be conducted to Canaan. They are to inherit the promises. God will drive out their enemies before them. The land will still flow with milk and honey. It will still be able to be said of them, that there is no nation on earth so favoured as they are. Yet, 2. Everything, in another sense, is different. Blessings without God in them are not the same blessings. They want that which gives them their chief value. See below, on Exodus 33:15. II. THE SUMMONS TO (Exodus 33:4-7). A command is next given to the people to strip off their ornaments. They are to humble themselves before Jehovah that Jehovah may know what to do with them. This command they obeyed. From this time forward they ceased to wear ornaments. On this observe, 1. Repentance for sin is an indispensable condition of restoration to God’s favour. It was required of Israel. It is required of us. There can be no salvation without it (Luke 17:5). "Cease to do evil; learn to do well" (Isaiah 1:16, Isaiah 1:17). Had Israel not repented, Moses would have interceded in vain. 2. Repentance, if sincere, must approve itself by appropriate deeds.—"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8). The people put off their ornaments. Ornaments do not become those with whom God is displeased. This act of the people was a first step in obedience. 3. A very imperfect repentance is sometimes accepted by God as a reason for forbearance with the sinner. The people mourned; but their repentance, as events showed, did not amount to a real change of heart. They mourned for "the evil tidings." It was the consequences of their sin which distressed them, more than the sin itself. Yet do them justice. The "evil tidings" was not the loss of any material blessings, hut, solely, the loss of God’s presence. There is still good in a heart which feels the withdrawal of God’s presence to be a loss to it. 4. It is well that the remembrance of great sins should go with us all our days. Those who have committed them should go softly ever after. III. THE OF JEHOVAH’S FROM THE CAMP (Exodus 33:7-9). Moses, we are next informed, took a tent, possibly his own, possibly one which had hitherto served as a sanctuary, pitched it "without the camp, afar off from the camp," and called it "the tent of meeting." Thither came out every one that sought the Lord. The act was, 1. A symbol of Jehovah’s formal withdrawal from the midst of the people. 2. A token that a final decision had not yet been come to as to how God meant to deal with them. Communications were not wholly broken off. Space was left for repentance. God might still be entreated of them. Learn (1) iniquities separate between man and God (cf. Isaiah 59:2); (2) the withdrawal of God’s presence is not necessarily the end of the day of grace. There is an "accepted time" during which, if the sinner repents, he will be forgiven, and God’s presence will be restored to him (2 Corinthians 6:2). Meanwhile, even God’s keeping back from him has its side of mercy. God’s near presence would consume (cf. Exodus 33:5). (3) The day of grace which sinners enjoy is won for them by the intercession of another. Israel’s "accepted time" was based on the intercession of Moses. Ours, as the passage above referred to implies, rests on the intercession of Christ. "I have heard thee (Christ) in a time accepted" (cf. Isaiah 49:8)—"Behold, now is the accepted time"—for men (2 Corinthians 6:2). (4) it is our duty to seek the Lord while he may be found, and to call on him while he is near (Isaiah 55:6). IV. THE TOKEN OF FAVOUR TO MOSES (Exodus 33:9-12). The cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle. There the Lord talked with Moses, as a man talketh with his friend. This was (1) a mark of favour to Moses himself; (2) an honour put upon him before the people; (3) an encouragement to further intercession.—J.O. THE OF THE THREAT OF . After some days’ "wrestling with God" in the "tent of meeting," Moses prayed to know definitely what God had determined on. "Show me thy way," he said (Exodus 33:13)—"Whom wilt thou send with me?" To this demand, God made the gracious reply—"My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest" (Exodus 33:14). This was satisfactory, except that it did not distinctly include the conduct of the people—it might be merely a promise to himself. So Moses (Exodus 33:15, Exodus 33:16) requires a more explicit assurance, and, closely associating the people with himself, declares that he will not move a step further, unless God allows the people to find grace in his sight, and consents to "distinguish" them by "going up" with them. Then at length God yields and gives the assurance" I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken" (Exodus 33:17)—i.e. "I will go up visibly with the people and distinguish them." (See the comment on Exodus 33:16.) Exodus 33:12, Exodus 33:13 See, thou sayest. Moses takes advantage of his privilege of speaking as friend with friend, and uses familiar terms—"See," he says, "thou hast told me to conduct the people to Canaan, yet thou hast not made it clear whom thou wilt send with me. If it is to be an angel, what angel? Why not the angel of the original promise (Exodus 23:20-23)? Thou hast distinguished me with thy favour—Consider that this nation is thy people, and extend thy favour to them. At any rate shew me thy way—tell me plainly what thou wilt do." Exodus 33:14 My presence shall go with thee. Literally," My presence shall go up"—my own presence, not that of an angel. That for which Moses had been so earnestly pleading is, seemingly, granted. God will go up. I will give thee rest.—i.e. "bring thee to Canaan." (Compare Deuteronomy 3:20; Hebrews 4:8.) Exodus 33:15, Exodus 33:16 And he said. Still Moses is not quite satisfied. God had said—"I will give thee rest"—not "I will give you rest." Moses must see distinctly that the people are associated with him before he desists. So he replies—"If thy presence go not up, carry us not up hence. For wherein shall it be known that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? Is it not in that thou goest with us?" The reply in Exodus 33:17 sets his doubt finally at rest. Exodus 33:16 So shall we be separated. Rather, "So shall we be distinguished." God’s presence with them would distinguish them from all the other nations of the earth—place them in a category alone and apart from all others. Angelic guidance would not have done this; for even heathen nations had their protecting angels (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:1). Exodus 33:17 I will do this thing also. "I will extend my favour to thy people also, and distinguish them, as well as thee, by going up with them. I will do this for thy sake, because thou hast found grace in my sight." Moses’ petition is at last fully granted—the threat of withdrawal cancelled—the promise of Divine guidance and protection renewed I know thee by name. It is a supreme favour for God to know us by name. It marks "a specifically personal relation to God" (Keil). The expression is perhaps taken from the phraseology of Oriental Courts, where not one in a hundred of the courtiers is known to the monarch by name. Exodus 33:12-17 Effectual importunity. Our Lord Jesus Christ spake a parable to show "that men ought always to pray and not to faint" (Luke 18:1). The present record is, we may be sure, inserted in the Old Testament for the same purpose. God wills to be importuned. Not, however, for his own sake, but for ours. He would have us fervent and persistent in prayer, for the improvement of our characters, the increase of our faith by exercise, the intensifying of our sense of dependence upon him. Especially he would have us persistent in intercessory prayer, because we are then exercising, not only faith, but love; and by increasing in love, we advance in resemblance to himself. For "God is Love." Note, that, to be importuned effectively, God must be importuned— I. WITH FERVOUR. Mere repetition will not do. Cold prayers, repeated day after day for blessings on ourselves or others, are a mere battologia, no more effectual than the involuntary repetitions of a stammering tongue. God grants nothing to coldness, nothing to mere words, nothing unless it be earnestly desired by a fervid heart. The Buddhists, in many parts of Asia, erect praying-machines, which are turned by a small windmill, believing that in every revolution of the machine a prayer is offered, and that, after so many turns, Buddha is bound to grant it. As well expect God to respect the requests of a praying-machine, as the utterances of many who languidly repeat the prayers of the Church after the clergyman, or say a set form, with small thought and no heart, morning and evening. It is "the fervent prayer of a righteous man"—nay, even of a sinner—that is "effectual." II. . Moses postponed his now earnest desire to behold for his own satisfaction God’s glory, until he had obtained the restitution of the people to favour. His importunity was for them. Let us importune God for the conversion of ore’ relatives and friends, the forgiveness of their sins, the awakening of their consciences, their perseverance in well-doing, and their final entrance into his glory, and we may feel confident of prevailing with him. But, if we importune him for our own worldly advancement, or even if we ask increase of grace for our own sakes solely or mainly, we must not be surprised if our prayers remain unanswered. "Ye ask and obtain not, because ye ask amiss." The spirit of sacrifice is required to sanctify prayer. Those who in a spirit of self-seeking asked to sit on the right hand and left hand of Christ in his kingdom obtained no promise. Our prayers even for our spiritual advancement will scarcely be answered, unless we desire it to promote God’s glory, or to help forward the salvation of our fellow-men. BY J. ORR Exodus 33:12-18 The third intercession. Moses on this occasion pleads with God to restore his presence to the people. Very noteworthy are the steps in his entreaty. 1. He veils his request under the form of a desire to know the divine intentions (Exodus 33:12). Will God go up with them or not? God has not yet told him—will he tell him now? What, underneath this form of expression, the heart of Moses really presses for, is, of course, the assurance that God will go with them. 2. He urges the friendship God has shown him as a reason for granting his request—"Thou hast said, I know thee by name," etc. (Exodus 33:12). 3. He entreats God to consider that Israel is his own people (Exodus 33:13). He has chosen them; he has redeemed them; he has declared his love for them; can he bring himself now to cast them off? 4. When God at length—reading in his servant’s heart the thought which he has not as yet dared openly to express—says, "My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest" (Exodus 33:14); Moses eagerly seizes on the promise thus given him, and pleads with God to make it good. "If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence" (Exodus 33:15). This, in Moses’ view, is the greatest distinction of Israel, that it has God in its midst, and if this distinction is withdrawn, he cares not what else remains (Exodus 33:16). The earnestness of his entreaty secures for him a confirmation of the promise, this time given without reserve. For in the utterance of Exo 33:14, perhaps, a certain tone of distance is still to be detected. This disappears in Exodus 33:17. View the passage as illustrating— I. THE OF WITH GOD (Exodus 33:12, Exodus 33:13). 1. Friendship with God gives boldness of approach to him. It casts out fear (1 John 4:18). 2. Friendship with God admits to intimacy with his secrets (Exodus 33:13). "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him" (Psalms 25:14). Cf. God’s words concerning Abraham—"Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation," etc. (Genesis 18:17); and Christ’s words to his disciples" I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you" (John 15:15). 3. The best use we can make of friendship with God is to intercede for others. So Abraham for Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33). So Moses here. So Daniel (Daniel 9:1-27.). So Christ for his disciples (John 17:1-26.). II. THE OF GOD’S (verses 14, 15). 1. God’s presence is the highest blessing. Nought else can be compared with it (Psalms 73:25, Psalms 73:26). 2. It is the blessing which enriches all other blessings. It is that which makes earthly blessings truly worth having. They are not the same to us without it as with it. 3. God’s presence, going with us, invariably conducts to rest. III. THE POWER OF PRAYER (verses 16, 17).—J.O. THE REQUEST TO SEE GOD’S GLORY, AND THE REPLY TO IT. Having obtained the full restoration of the people to God’s favour, Moses felt emboldened to ask a boon for himself. He had already been admitted to closer communion with God than any one of the race of man since Adam in Paradise. But what had been granted him, instead of satisfying, only made him desirous of something further, something closer, something than which nothing more close could be imagined. So he asks to see the unveiled glory of God (Exodus 33:18). He asks, that is, to see exactly that which man in the flesh cannot see, or at any rate cannot see and live. But, of course, he does not know this. God, in reply, tells him he shall see all that can be seen of him—more than anything which he has seen before. He shall see "all his goodness"—he shall have another revelation of the name of God (Exodus 33:18); and, further, he shall be so placed as to see as much as mortal man can behold of "his glory"—God will pass by him, and when he has passed, Moses shall be allowed to look after him, and see what is here called "his back." This was probably some afterglow or reflection from the Divine glory, which language must have been as inadequate to describe as it was to embody the "unspeakable words" heard by St. Paul in the "third heaven," and declared by him "impossible for a man to utter" (2 Corinthians 12:4). Exodus 33:18 Show me thy glory. The glory of God had been seen by Moses to a certain extent, when God "descended in fire" upon Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:18). It had been seen with more distinctness when he was called up and "went into the midst of the cloud" (Exodus 24:18). But he felt, nevertheless, that he had not as vet really beheld it. He longed for that ineffable blessing of the full "beatific vision," which is promised to us after death, if we die in the faith and fear of Christ (1 Corinthians 13:12). "Increase of appetite doth grow by what it feeds on"—and the veiled splendours that he had been allowed to see only made him hunger the more for the unveiled radiance that he had not seen as vet. Exodus 33:19 I will make all my goodness pass before thee. It is not quite clear what this means, or how it was fulfilled—whether the reference is to the revelation of God’s goodness in Exodus 34:7, or to the entire experience that Moses would have of God in his later life. It is against the former view, that, if we take it, we can assign to the ensuing clause no distinct and separate sense. I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee. See Exodus 34:5, Exodus 34:6. And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious—i.e; I am not bound to do all this for thee. It is of my free grace that I do it. I intend, however, to be gracious, and show mercy to thee, because thou hast found favour in my eyes. Exodus 33:20 No man can see me and live. The inability proclaimed in these words is not an absolute inability to see God, but an inability to see and survive the sight. Jacob, when he wrestled with the angel, marvelled that he could see God, even in that intermediate way, and live (Genesis 32:30). It may well be that actually to see God, while we are in the flesh, would kill us. Exodus 33:21 Behold, there is a place by me. No sufficient indication is given by these words, or by any other words in Scripture, of the exact locality of the manifestation to Moses. The so-called" traditions "are worthless; and we can only say that the scene was probably some portion of the upper part of the Ras Sufsafeh. Exodus 33:22 I will put thee in a clift of the rock, The "clift" has been identified with the "cave of Elijah" (1 Kings 19:9); but the words used are different; and even were they the same, no identity could be established. It is rather in the broader lines of their missions and characters that resemblance is to be sought between Moses and Elijah than in the minuter details of their careers. Cover thee with my hand—i.e; "at once conceal thee and protect thee." Without these precautions, it is implied, the nearness of the Divine Presence might have had injurious effects. Exodus 33:23 Thou shalt see my back parts. Literally, "my back." The anthropomorphisms of the passage are numerous and strong—they must, of course, be regarded as accommodations to human ideas. After the Divine Presence had passed by, Moses was to be permitted to look out, and would see so much of the Divine glory as he would be able to bear; but still something far short of that which he had desired to see. The explanation that "the back of God" means "his works—the consequences of his activity" (Kalisch) is fanciful, and not borne out by the context. My face cannot be seen. See above, Exodus 33:20; and. compare John 1:18; John 6:46; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 John 4:12. The craving for close communion with God, may be considered— I. AS BASED ON A NATURAL . Man without God—without the consciousness of being sustained and upheld by an eternal omnipotent being—can have no strength or confidence in the present, no hope in the future. He is a feeble part of the vast mechanism of a great incomprehensible universe—a form which matter has assumed for a time—powerless to shape his future—the sport of circumstance. From this his better nature revolts, and, like some marine organism, throws out tentacles to seek a hold on some firm solid object without him. God is the only such object truly firm and stable; and hence man may be said to have a natural desire for God. As soon as the idea of God is in any way brought before him, he feels that it exactly answers an instinctive craving of his nature. His soul goes out to it—seizes it—appropriates it—rests on it as a sure prop and stay. Intellectually, the idea clears up the riddle of the universe; morally, gives a firm foundation to right and wrong, explains the authority of conscience, and supplies a motive for virtue; even physically it has a value, reducing the infinitude of nature within limits, and furnishing a reasonable origin to nature’s laws. II. As A TEST OF . Man needs the idea of God, and cannot be satisfied without it; but whether, having got it, he shall thrust it into the background, or ever more and more cling to it, and seek to realise it, depends on his spiritual condition. Adam and Eve, after they had sinned, "hid themselves from the presence of God amongst the trees of the garden" (Genesis 3:8). The Gergesenes "besought Christ that he would depart out of their coasts" (Matthew 8:34). The guilty conscience cannot bear the near presence of the Most High, shrinks from the keen inspection of the all-seeing Eye, would fain skulk and hide among the bushes. The worldly heart is indifferent to the thought of God—turns away from it in the present—reserves it for a more convenient season. Only the spiritually minded delight in dwelling on the thought of God—seek him constantly—crave for communion with him. Only they can say with sincerity-" As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God" (Psalms 42:1, Psalms 42:2). They, however, can, and do say this continually. And the more communion they obtain, the more they desire. It is after Moses had entered into the cloud, and "spoken with God face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Exodus 33:11), that he beseeches him to "show him his glory." We cannot while on earth obtain the full communion for which our spiritual nature craves. We cannot therefore while on earth be satisfied, but must ever be craving for something more, ever crying—"Nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!" Only in heaven, if we be found worthy, shall we "see face to face, and know as we are known" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Clifts in the rock. God has many places of safety—"clifts in the rock"—where he puts us when trials approach. "As our day is, so is our strength." Bereavemeat comes upon us, and he elevates us on a pinnacle of faith to which we had never before mounted. Poverty and disgrace fall on us, and he gives us insensibility to them. Pain comes, and he enables us to see that pain is exactly the chastening we want, and to thank him for it. We do not cry out, with the Stoic, "How sweet!" for "no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous" (Hebrews 12:11); yet we have the spiritual strength to cry out to him—"How kind! How gracious!" The best "clift in the rock," is that cleft in the "Rock of Ages," which the soldier’s spear made, wherein, if we please, we may lie hidden from every danger that can assail us. "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee!" BY J. ORR Exodus 33:18-23 Shew me thy glory. On this incident, remark— I. THE GOOD MAN THIRSTS FOR EVER FULLER OF THE DIVINE GLORY. The more he knows of God, the more he would know. The nearer he gets, he presses nearer still. He "longs" to see God’s power and glory" (Psalms 63:2). He prays to see as much of it as may be possible to him on earth. He will only be satisfied when admitted to the full vision of it in heaven (Psalms 16:11; Psalms 17:15; 1 John 3:2). II. GOD’S GLORY IS TWOFOLD— AND ETHICAL. 1. God’s essential glory. This is the glory which pertains to his existence. It is compared in Scripture to the white dazzling light—"light which no man can approach unto" (1 Timothy 6:16). 2. God’s ethical glory. This is the glory of his character. It was revealed when God proclaimed his "name" to Moses (Exodus 33:19; Exodus 34:5-8). III. MAN, IN HIS PRESENT STATE OF , CAN RECEIVE THE VISION OF GOD’S GLORY ONLY UNDER GREAT . The full discovery of it would slay him (Exodus 33:20). Moses beheld it but partially, hid in a clift of the rock—saw but its reflection (Exodus 33:21-23). Even thus to perceive it implied an exaltation of the consciousness—an opening of the spiritual eyes—not vouchsafed to ordinary men. A mediate revelation is at present all that is possible to us. We have this in the reflection of the Creator’s glory in creation (Psalms 19:1, Psalms 19:2). IV. GOD’S ETHICAL GLORY ADMITS OF BEING WITH MUCH GREATER FULNESS. 1. No barrier, either to the revelation or the perception of it, exists in physical conditions. It is glory of character. It is discerned by the same faculties by which we discern spiritual beauty and goodness in the characters of our fellow-men. 2. God has revealed it. We are not straitened in him. He has kept nothing back. He has made his goodness pass before us. He has revealed his name. The Divine Son is a perfect embodiment of the moral glory of the Father (John 1:14). 3. The sole barrier to the perception of it is the limitation of moral capacity in ourselves. It is in ourselves we are straitened. We lack the purity of heart necessary to give right spiritual discernment. Our perception of the glory of truth, righteousness, holiness, love, and mercy in God, will be in precise proportion to the degree in which these qualities are formed in our own natures.—J.O. Divine sovereignty. On this note— I. GOD IS IN THE OF HIS MERCY. He dispenses it to whom he will. He is free and unconstrained in its bestowal. The sinner cannot claim it as a right. He is not entitled to reckon upon it, save as the free promise of God gives him a warrant to do so. He dare not dictate to God what he shall do. God is sovereign as respects (1) The objects, (2) The time, (3) The manner, (4) The measure of his mercy. He gives no account of his matters to any one. He allows none to challenge him. II. GOD’S IS BEST STUDIED ON ITS SIDE OF MERCY. This is the easier and more approachable side. It is the least disputable. It does not raise the same dark and knotty problems as the other side—"Whom he will he hardeneth" (Romans 9:18). The contemplation of it is purely delightful and consolatory. It is, besides, the side to which the other—the side of judgment—is subordinate. See this sovereignty of God illustrated in the history of Israel— (1) In the initial choice of the nation in Abraham. (2) In the deliverance from Egypt, with its attendant circumstances. (3) In the forming of the covenant at Sinai. (4) In the restoration of the people to favour after the covenant had been broken. III. GOD’S IN THE OF MERCY IS NOT . (See on Exodus 6:14-28.) It has, as there shown, its self-imposed limitations and inherent laws of operation. It is holy, wise, and good. It aims, we may believe, at the ultimate salvation of the largest number possible, consistently with all the interests involved.—J.O. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 33:1 -32 The restoration to Divine favour completed. This is a chapter which, beginning very gloomily, ends very gloriously. In the beginning Jehovah seems as if bidding farewell to the people for whom he had done so much; but at the close he is seen giving a revelation to Moses their leader, which must have sent him forth to resume his arduous work with greater encouragements than he ever had before. It is therefore very interesting to trace how this change was brought about. I. WE SEE THE PEOPLE ARE BROUGHT TO A MEASURE OF . We cannot assume that this penitence went very deep, so far as the general apprehension of unworthiness of conduct was concerned. But there was this depth in it, that the people perceived they had done something wrong, something insulting to Jehovah, something very dangerous to their own prospects. And how had this been brought about? Simply by the statement of Jehovah that he would not go up with those who had hitherto been his people. He would not go—the real truth was that he could not go. The sin of the people, their reckless, thoughtless trifling with holy things made his presence among them a peril. Something, indeed, had to be done to get these people from Horeb to Canaan, and settle them in possession; but that could be done by a sort of exercise of physical force. So much Jehovah could do for these Israelites, howsoever idolatrous they became. But his great blessing for them was not in the mere possession of Canaan, with its temporal riches and comforts. The temporal riches of Canaan were no more than those of any other land, save as God himself was in the midst of those who possessed the riches. What a humiliating thing to consider that God had to threaten withdrawal from his people in a sort of exercise of mercy. Suppose for a moment that the people had continued obdurate, what would the end have been? They would, indeed, have gone forward and got Canaan, and then sunk back, so that Israelite would have had no more importance in the history of the world and the development of God’s purposes than Amorite, Hittite, or any of the other tribes mentioned in Exodus 33:2. II. THE OF THE . In all probability this was the tent of Moses, and if so, we see at once a beautiful mingling of grace with necessary severity. Moses was prompted to separate from the people, but not to depart from them. Jehovah could not come down in the pillar of cloud into the midst of the camp; and for this no reason needs be sought other than the peril to the people flowing from his holiness. Thus there was everything to fill the minds of the people with a suitable mingling of humility and hope. Moses, true type of the greater Mediator yet to come, gave a point where God and the people could meet together. Jehovah will not depart, unless, so to speak, he is driven away. These people could not bear his presence; and yet—apparent contradiction—they could not do without him. Individual Israelites made it plain by their seeking Jehovah that they could not do without him; and he in his never-failing loving-kindness and pity, provided for such. The fate of the nation was trembling in the balance; but ample access and counsel were secured to the individual believerse There was a definite and favoured place for every individual who in his need sought the Lord. National trouble did not eclipse, it rather intensified and aggravated, individual trouble and need. III. NOTE THE POINTS OF IN THE BETWEEN MOSES AND JEHOVAH WITH WHICH THIS CHAPTER . 1. There is what we may call the holy boldness of Moses. There is an illustration here of the importunity and great confidence with which God’s people should persist in their approaches to the throne of the heavenly grace. Only just before God had spoken in great anger; and Moses, when he became aware from his own observation of the extent of the people’s transgression, approached Jehovah with the utmost deference. Pat as time went on, and he was able to take all the elements of the position more and more into consideration, he felt himself shut up to persistent waiting upon God. A return to God’s favour and guidance is the only way out of the difficulty; and therefore Moses cannot but be bold and pertinacious in doing his best to secure that way. 2. He makes the most out of God’s favour to him as an individual. Not only have the people been apostate and reckless, but their very apostasy and recklessness bring out into stronger relief the clinging obedience of Moses. He has done well, and, more than that, Jehovah has approved him; and now, therefore, he pleads that the approval may not be in word only, but in deed; not in the promise of some future and distant recompense, but in deliverance from a present difficulty near at hand. Moses is not slow to avail himself of every legitimate consideration which he may plead with God. There were times when he would have been the first to allow and indeed affirm his unworthiness before God; but God had counted him worthy, and in his present need he avails himself of God’s gracious regard to gain as much as he can for his needy brethren. Thus some slight hint is given to us of the way in which, for Christ’s sake, God regards men. God had made it plain to Moses that he regarded him; and in effect Moses says, "If this regard be real, I will try it by large requests for my people." So let us feel that from the undisputed regard of God for the person, obedience, and everything belonging to his well-beloved Son, there will also come a regard to all the intercessions of that Son on behalf of a world so much alienated from God; and yet the more it is alienated, only the more in need of his mercy and deliverance. 3. The determined manner in which Moses associates himself with his people. He and Israel were as one. He may not in so many words speak of them as his people; on the contrary, he very emphatically alludes to them, in addressing Jehovah, as "thy people;" but we feel that underneath mere expressions there lies this natural and beautiful resolution, not to be separated from those who were one with him in blood. He felt that if Israel was to be frowned upon, he could not, so far as his consciousness was concerned, be favoured; and so we are led to think of the intimate association of Jesus with the children of men. Human nature is his nature; and however unworthy and polluted human nature often shows itself, however low it may sink in forgetfulness of its original constitution and purpose, the fact remains that the Word of God became flesh, and the consequent kinship and claim must ever be recognised. 4. The cry to God for a revelation of his glory. Much intercourse Moses had enjoyed with Jehovah, and often had he heard the voice that gave commandment and guidance. Indeed, as our minds go back over the past experience of Moses, and we consider how much he had been through, this strikes us at first as a somewhat puzzling request:—"I beseech thee show me thy glory." But the puzzle rises rather from unspirituality in our minds than from anything in the circumstances of Moses himself. Consider well the point to which he had attained, the distance which there was between him and his brethren, heart-infected as they still were with image-worship, and there will seem little wonder that in the heart of this lonely servant of God there should rise desires for what strength and satisfaction might come to him from the vision of God. He had asked much for his people, and it was fitting that he should ask something for himself. And he asked something worthy, something pleasing to God, something of highest profit to himself, even as Solomon did later on. He asked that he might no longer have to deal with a voice as behind a vail, but might see the face from which that voice came. The request was right and acceptable; but it could not be fully granted. What a fact to ponder over! What a humbling and yet hope-inspiring fact that sinful man cannot look upon the glory of the Lord and live! What of Divine glory is manifested to us has to be manifested in a way that is safe; and surely this is part of the salvation wherewith we are saved, that by-and-bye, when all pollution is cleansed away, we may be able to bear visions and revelations which, if they were to be attempted now, would only destroy us.—Y. BY J. Exodus 33:1-11 Mercy vailed in judgment. I. GOD’S FROM THE PEOPLE AND ITS EFFECTS. 1. The separation. (1) In wrath he remembers mercy. They will receive the land, but for the fathers’ sake and his oath’s sake, not because he has delight in them. God’s goodness is not always a proof of his being pleased with us, any more than his chastisements prove his auger. The former may be a loud call to repentance. (2) The reason for God’s absence; his presence would be judgment, not mercy:—"Lest I consume thee in the way." If God’s face be hidden, and the sense of his presence and guiding gone from us, his next revelation may be judgment. 2. Its effects. (1) The people mourned. It was no satisfaction that God and they were no longer to walk together. (2) Other delights lost their attractiveness:—No man did put on his ornaments." (3) They were troubled by fear of judgment, for the Lord had said, "I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment and consume thee." These are the effects of the Spirit’s work to-day. The same cry is lifted:—"Flee from the wrath to come." II. THE OF GOD’S PEOPLE FROM THE MIDST OF SIN AND ITS RESULTS. 1. Its necessity as a testimony to God’s separation from sin. This is the duty of the Church to-day:—"Come ye out from among them and be ye separate." The tabernacle of the congregation, meant though it be for all, must be pitched "without the camp." 2. The results. (1) Moses’ example led others to declare themselves on God’s side (Exodus 33:7). (2) The people "looked after Moses." Yearning for the light of God’s face is stirred up in the hearts of men by those who go forth to meet with him, (3) God manifests himself to the separated (Exodus 33:9). A living Church is ever the means of revealing God’s reality. (4) The people worshipped "every man in his tent-door." A true Church will send forth a cry for mercy from the homes of the sinful.—U. Exodus 33:12-23 Intercession and its reward. I. THE ’S POWER. 1. God, who had disowned Israel, and refused to go with them, consents to go with him:—"My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest." The first step in successful intercession for others is the receiving of power to serve God among them. This is the dropping which foretells the shower. 2. God is brought back by persistent asking into the midst of Israel:—"I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken" (Exodus 33:17). We must not be content till our whole desire is given us. He can make not only our words a power to others, but also his own presence felt by them. II. THE ’S PLEAS. 1. God’s love to himself:—"Thou hast said I know thee by name," etc. The realisation of our personal interest in God’s love is the basis of intercession for others. It gives confidence that God will hear us. It gives hope. He who has blessed us can also bless them. 2. God’s relation to them for whom he entreats:—"Consider that this nation is thy people." We can urge on behalf of the vilest that God created them, and gave Christ to die for them. 3. That God’s presence and favour are needful to make himself and the people what God desires them to become:—"So shall we be separated." They can be consecrated only by the might of God’s revealed love. III. THE ’S REWARD: THE VISION OF GOD’S GLORY. 1. "And he said, Show me thy glory." The lifting up of availing prayer for others quickens our desire to know more of him with whom we speak. 2. The full vision of God is for the sinless life. The splendour of the Divine purity would slay us. John fell at Christ’s feet as one dead. 3. How the fuller vision granted in the present may be had. (1) By listening to the proclamation of the Lord’s name in his word. (2) We can see the glory which has passed us. God’s deeds reveal him. 4. The place of vision:—"A rock," "by me." Taking our stand upon Christ, the glory of God’s words and deeds breaks upon us. 5. The place of safety, "in a clift of the rock." Only in the riven side of Jesus the vision of God is not to condemnation and death, but to justification and life.—U. THE OF THE TWO TABLES, AND RENEWAL OF THE . THE TWO TABLES RENEWED. The fervent and prolonged intercession of Moses had brought about the pardon of the people; and that, together with their repentance and their prayers (Exodus 33:7), had been accepted as a renewal of the covenant on their part; but it remained for God to renew the covenant on his part The first step to this was the restoration of the tables, which were essential to the covenant, as being at once the basis of the law and of the ordained worship. To mark, however, that something is always forfeited by sin, even when forgiven, the new tables were made to lose one glory of the first—they were not shaped by God, as the first were (Exodus 32:16), but by Moses. Exodus 34:1 Hew thee two tables of stone. Literally, "of stones"—two separate tables, i.e; made of two separate stones. Moses is required to do this with strict justice, since it was by his act that the former tables were broken (Exodus 32:19). Upon these tables. Literally," upon the tables," which has exactly the same force. The words that were in the first tables. It is quite true that we have not yet been explicitly told what these words were. (See Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:15, Exodus 32:16, Exodus 32:19.) It has been left to our natural intelligence to understand that they must have been the "ten words" uttered in the ears of all the people amid the thunders of Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 20:1-19, which are the evident basis of all the later legislation. We have, however, in verse 28, and still more plainly in Deuteronomy 10:4, and Deuteronomy 5:22, the desired statement. The fiction of a double decalogue, invented by Goethe and supported by Hitzig, and even Ewald, is absolutely without foundation in fact. Exodus 34:2 Be ready in the morning. An interval was required for the hewing of the tables. It was made as short as possible. In the top of the mount. Where he had been with God previously (Exodus 19:20; Exodus 24:12, Exodus 24:18). Exodus 34:3 No man shall come up with thee. This time, no one, not even Joshua, was to accompany Moses. The new manifestation of the glory of God was to be made to him alone. Neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount, etc. Compare the injunctions given in Exodus 19:12, Exodus 19:13. The present orders are even more stringent. Exodus 34:4 Moses obeys all the directions given him to the letter—hews, or causes to be hewn, the two tables, making them as like as he can to the former ones—rises early, and ascends the mountain to the appointed spot—and takes with him the tables, for God to perform his promise (Exodus 34:1)of writing the commandments upon them. It has been questioned whether God did actually write the words upon the second tables; but Kurtz’s arguments upon the point are unanswerable. Exodus 34:1-4 The second promulgation of the moral law, by the renewal of the two tables may teach us— I. THAT ALL WITH GOD MUST REST ON THE BASIS OF THE MORAL LAW. Moses had not asked for a renewal of the tables. He had requested the return of God’s favour and the renewal of God’s share of the covenant. It was God who made the restoration of the tables a condition. God, that is, will not divorce favour from obedience, privilege from the keeping of his law. Man desires the rewards that God has to bestow, but is not anxious to have the rewards tied to a certain course of action. God insists on the combination. He can only enter into covenant with those who accept his law as their rule of life. This is not for his own sake, but for theirs. They can only be fitted to enjoy his favour, and the rewards which he has to bestow on them, by leading a life in accordance with his law and acquiring the character which such a life forms in them. II. THAT THE MORAL LAW IS ETERNAL AND . The broken tables must be restored. In restoring them no change must be made. Their very form must resemble as nearly as may be the form of the preceding ones. This, of course, was typical. It foreshadowed the further—not mere resemblance, but—identity of the words that were to be written on the tables. From first to last, "the words were those that were in the first table" (Exodus 34:1). There is no hint of any alteration. Even Christianity changes nothing in the law that is moral. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets," says our Lord; "I am not come to destroy but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). No "jot or tittle" of the moral law is to pass away. Even with respect to the Sabbath, which verges upon positive law, nothing is changed but the day of the week, and to a small extent the method of observance. Apostolic writings show us the Decalogue as still binding (Romans 13:9; Ephesians 6:2; James 2:11; etc.). III. THAT THE MORAL LAW IMPOSES ON US FRESH . "Hew thee"—literally, "hew for thyself"—"two tables of stone," said the Lord to Moses; repair the loss caused by thine own action. Repentance is no part of man’s original duty to God; but if he once break the moral law, it becomes obligatory on him. Every infraction involves this new duty; some infractions involve more. Fraud involves the duty of restitution; calumny, that of retractation; insult, that of apology; and the like. Each of our sins lays upon us as a new burthen, not only of guilt, but also of labour, to efface it. We had best refrain from evil, even in our own interest, or we may increase our burthen till we sink under it. BY J. The renewal of God’s covenant. I. THE FIRST EFFECT OF IS THE RE-WRITING OF THE LAW. Moses ascends that God may again inscribe his commandments upon the tables of stone; Jesus, that God may write them upon the fleshly tables of the heart. The sprinkling of the blood is "unto obedience." We are to be "zealous of good works." II. THE OF GOD’S MORE EVIDENT IN THE THAN IN THE FIRST GIVING OF THE LAW. Formerly Moses had been accompanied so far by the elders, and further still by Joshua. Now he must go up alone. No man is to be seen throughout the mount. Neither flocks nor herds are to feed before it. The terrors of Sinai awe the heart less than the cross of him who treads the wine-press alone. III. THE ’S ZEAL. "And Moses rose up early in the morning." He cannot loiter; for man’s life hangs upon the issue; the world’s cry rings in his ears. "For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace," etc. (Isaiah 62:1). IV. THE MUST MOULD THE HEART TO RECEIVE GOD’S LAW. "He hewed two tables of stone, like unto the first." The power of Christ’s love must cut between us and sin, and give again the form man wore when he came from the hands of God. We must experience the circumcision of Christ. Christ’s work may be measured by the heart’s tender receptivity for the re-writing of God’s law. V. THERE MUST BE UNION BY FAITH WITH CHRIST IN HIS RISEN LIFE. He "took in his hand the two tables of stone." We pass up with Jesus into the presence of God. That the law may be written upon the heart, our life must be hid with Christ in God.—U. BY D. YOUNG The second set of tables. Jehovah graciously answered the supplications of Moses (Exodus 33:12-23) so far as it was possible to answer them. Supplications may be very importunate, and, therefore, so far well pleasing to God, and yet at the same time they may be faulty in two respects: first, they may ask for things which it is impossible altogether to grant; and, secondly, they may omit from the field of view, certain other things which form a necessary accompaniment of every Divine gift. In all his supplications, Moses said nothing about these broken tables; it would be too much to say that they were never in his thoughts. But whether in his thoughts or not, they assuredly had to be considered and provided for. Moses had asked for the presence of God to go with Israel; and the presence of God meant for one thing the commandments of God. Furthermore, all the elaborate furniture of the tabernacle had for the centre around which it was gathered, these very tables of stone. When Moses broke them, he broke the holiest thing in all Israel’s belongings; these tables, appointed to rest within the ark, and underneath the cherubim. No word of censure indeed is uttered against Moses for having broken them; but it does not therefore follow that he is to be praised for having broken them. The action, so to speak, was one to be regarded neither with praise nor blame, but simply as an inevitable result of Moses’ sudden and violent wrath. When Moses broke the tables, he was not in a mood of mind for considering anything but the monstrous transgression before his eyes. What had happened to the fragments we are not told; except this much, that they were no longer available. All that Jehovah does is simply to command from Moses the preparation of new tablets. As Moses prepares them, he may safely be left to his own thoughts. Whatever lesson he needed in respect of self-control, the opportunity was given him to learn. Opportunity was also given to learn the need of being continually on the watch for manifestations of human weakness and instability. If Moses was in so many things the type of Christ in respect of mediatorial office, it was, alas! also true that he was unlike Christ in respect of penetrating insight into human nature. Moses was not like Christ; it could not be said of him that he knew what was in man.—Y. BY J. ORR Exodus 34:1-10, Exodus 34:28 Renewal of the tables, and fourth intercession. One more mighty effort of intercession, and Moses will bear away the blessing which he seeks. It needs, however, that it be a mighty one. The covenant is not yet restored in its integrity. The people’s sin is not yet perfectly forgiven. God, indeed, has promised to go with them, but he has not said, as of old, "I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God" (Exodus 6:7). The new relations are not those of perfected friendship. They are moreover, unstable. New transgressions of the people may at any moment upset them. Moses, accordingly, would not only have the covenant renewed—restored in its old completeness and integrity—the last trace of the Divine displeasure wiped away—but would have God give him a pledge of grace beyond anything he has yet received—a pledge that he will show great forbearance with the people: that he will not deal summarily with them, or cast them off, on account of backslidings which he now perceives to be inevitable (Exodus 34:9). It was a high thing to ask: too high, Moses may have thought, for him to be able to attain to it. If he did, it could only be as the result of an earnestness, a perseverance, and a sublimity in intercesssion beyond everything of which he had yet felt himself capable. The strength he needed, however, was not to be withheld from him. He had already, though, probably, without this being present to his mind as a motive, put himself in the way of getting it, by asking for a vision of the Divine glory. From this would flow into his soul a spiritual might which would make "all things possible" to him. By sheer power of prayer, he would obtain what he desired. Jehovah, on his side, was too well pleased with his servant’s zeal and devotion, too willing to be entreated of him, too entirely in accord with the object of his supplication, not readily to grant him the opportunity of pressing his request. I. JEHOVAH’S "COME UP HITHER" (Exodus 34:1-4). 1. The command to hew out tables (Exodus 34:1). Formerly, it was God himself who furnished the tables on which the law was written (Exodus 32:16). Now, the tables are to be provided by Moses. This may have had reference to the facts (1) that it was Moses who had destroyed the former tables (Exodus 32:19); and (2) that it was by the mediation of Moses that the covenant was being renewed. It was a suitable reward for his intercession, that God should give him this honour of supplying the tables on which the covenant terms were to be inscribed. View the command to hew out tables as (1) Retrospective. God had already promised that his presence should go with Israel (Exodus 33:14). This implied, on the part of the people, return to their obedience. The law is unalterable. God can walk with men only as they are willing to walk with him in the way of his commands. The tables testified to the unchangingness of the obligation. (2) Anticipative. It had in view the fact that, through Moses’ intercession, the covenant was about to be restored. (3) Promissory. It gave Moses encouragement to entreat for its restoration. 2. The command to ascend the mount (Exodus 34:2). The summons to ascend the mount was, (1) An answer to prayer—"Shew me thy glory" (Exodus 33:18). (2) A preparation for vision. (3) An opportunity for intercession. 3. The command to preserve the sanctity of the mount (Exodus 34:3). This was to be done by keeping man and beast from approaching it. Moses was to ascend alone. The command—a parallel to that in Exodus 19:12-13—has for its end the warning back of intruders from what, for the time being, is "holy ground" (cf. Exodus 3:5). Other reasons are, that there might be (1) No interruption of communion. (2) No distraction in intercession. (3) No injury done by the manifestation of the Divine glory. "The manifested glory of the Lord would so surely be followed by the destruction of man that even Moses needed to be protected before it" (Exodus 33:21, Exodus 33:22). II. THE NAME (Exodus 19:4-8). (1) Jehovah "passed by before him" (Exodus 19:5), i.e; gave him the glimpse of his glory promised in Exodus 33:22, Exodus 33:23. (2) He "proclaimed his name"—i.e; made known to Moses the essence of his character. This was the higher revelation. The other is only alluded to; this is dwelt on and expanded (Exodus 33:6, Exodus 33:7). 1. The name itself. Note here in regard to it— (1) It unites mercy and justice. (2) The merciful attributes preponderate. (3) The word which syllables it is "Love." Love is the union of goodness and holiness. The history of revelation has been but the spelling out of this name. Christ is the perfect embodiment of it. 2. The effects on Moses. (1) It awed him (Exodus 33:8). (2) It encouraged him. It gave iron a new ground of confidence in entreaty (Exodus 33:9). (3) It strengthened him. Cf. the chorus of the archangels in Goethe’s "Faust"— "Though none may fathom thee—thy sight Upon the angels power bestows," etc. III. THE (Exodus 33:9, 27, 28). 1. The intercession. This fourth and last intercession presents us with several noteworthy features. (1) It was very prolonged. The account here is summary; but Moses tells us in Deuteronomy (Exodus 9:25), that he "fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights as at the first," and prayed earnestly that the people might not be destroyed (cf. verse 28). (2) It included intercession for Aaron (Deuteronomy 9:20). (3) It is marked by a deep perception of the root of depravity in the people’s nature. Moses has no longer the same optimistic views regarding them as when he disputed with God the necessity of giving them further warning about not approaching the mount (Exodus 19:23). Note how, in the first intercession, it is the people’s danger; in the second, the people’s guilt; and in the last, the people’s depravity, which is chiefly before the intercessor’s mind. He here pleads the innate tendency as a reason why God should deal mercifully with them (verse 9). Human nature does not improve on closer inspection. But there is weakness as well as sin in its condition. The Divine ruler may be trusted to make the requisite allowances (cf. Genesis 8:21). (4) It is marked—and this is the outstanding circumstance in connection with it—by the degree in which Moses is now able to identify himself with the people for whom he intercedes. "Let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us …. And pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance" (verse 9). More than ever he feels himself one with his nation. Intercession has perfected sympathy. But not intercession alone. It may be inferred that no act had more to do with this result than the supreme act of self-devotion, already considered, in which he expressed his willingness to die, and, if need be, to be blotted out of God’s book, for the salvation of the people. In that amazing act, the last traces of selfishness must have perished. He has given himself for Israel, and is thenceforth one with it. Subsequent intercessions can but develop, and give clearer and fuller expression to the sense of unity with his people born within him in that supreme hour in his experience. Sinful as the people are, accordingly, Moses, in his present entreaty does not shrink from including himself among them. "Our iniquity"—"our sin." The just takes part with the unjust. He makes their sin his, and pleads for its forgiveness. The worse they show themselves, the more earnestly he holds by them, and endeavours to sustain them by his prayers. If sympathy be a qualification for the task of mediation, Moses thus possesses it. His intercession, in this respect, throws striking lights on Christ’s. 2. The success. The prolonged, fervent, and sympathetic intercession of Moses did not fail of its reward. "The Lord," he tells afterward, "hearkened unto me at that time also" (Deuteronomy 9:19). Nothing was wanting to the completeness of his success. The last frown had. disappeared from the countenance of Jehovah. Covenant relations were perfectly restored. The people were reinstated in privilege. No wonder that the mediator’s face "shone" as he descended from the mount! We, too, have an intercessor whom the Father "heareth always" (John 11:42).—J.O. THE BY GOD OF HIS PROMISE TO MOSES. This section coheres closely with the last section of the preceding chapter, and must be regarded, as the historical account of how God fulfilled the promises there made by him to Moses (Exodus 33:19-23). The promises were mainly two— 1. That he would proclaim his name to him afresh; and 2. That he would pass by him, and let him see, after he had passed, what man might see of his glory. The fulfilment of the first promise appears in the long enumeration of attributes contained in Exodus 34:6, Exodus 34:7; the fulfilment of the second is expressed with extreme brevity in the words—,’ And the Lord passed by before him" (Exodus 34:6). Probably no further description could be given of that marvellous manifestation beyond those words in which it was promised (Exodus 33:21-23). Its effects were seen in that permanent reflection of God’s glory on the face of Moses, which thenceforth compelled him to wear a veil mostly when he showed himself to the people (Exodus 34:33-35). Exodus 34:5 The Lord descended in the cloud. The cloudy pillar, which had stood at the door of the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 33:10), was withdrawn while Moses ascended Sinai, and probably disappeared from men’s sight. When Moses reached the top, it descended once more from the sky, and stood with him there. Then a voice from the cloud proclaimed the name of the Lord in the manner more fully stated in the ensuing verses. Exodus 34:6, Exodus 34:7 The Lord passed by before him. God did as he had promised in Exodus 33:22, Exodus 33:23. He made his glory pass by, Moses, as he stood in a "clift of the rock," and "covered him with his hand as he passed by," and, when he had passed, "took away his hand," and allowed Moses to look after him, and see a glorious and transcendent vision—a vision so bright and radiant, and so real, that the light which streamed from it settled on Moses face, and remained there (Exodus 33:20). And proclaimed. In his passage God proclaimed his name; not however, as in the burning bush, an actual name contained in a single word—but a description in many words of his essential nature—a description setting forth especially his three qualities of mercy, truth, and justice, but dwelling most upon the first of the three—perhaps, as most essential, for" God is love" (1 John 4:8)—certainly, as moot needing to be prominently set forth at the time, when his favour had been justly forfeited, and but for ]]is mercy could not have been restored. Note the accumulation of terms that are nearly synonymous— 1. Merciful (or pitiful); 2. Gracious; 3. Long-suffering; 4. Abundant in goodness; 5. Keeping mercy for thousands: and 6. Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin an accumulation for the purpose of emphasis—to assure Moses, and through him mankind at large, of the reality of this attribute, on which the possibility of our salvation depends, and which had never hitherto been set forth with anything like such fulness. That will by no means clear the guilty. Some critics take this clause in an entirely different sense, translating "who in destroying will not wholly destroy" (Maimonides, Pool, De Dieu, Patrick), or, "who acquits even him who is not innocent" (Geddes); but the rendering of our translators (which agrees with the LXX.], is approved by Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Kalisch, Keil, and others. It seems to have been also the meaning assigned to the passage by the prophet Nahum, who quotes it (Nahum 1:3) when he is threatening Nineveh. Visiting the iniquity. See above, Exodus 20:5. While setting forth his attribute of mercy in all its fulness, God will not have his attribute of justice forgotten (Exodus 20:8). Exodus 34:8 Moses made haste and bowed his head. Worshipping the glory that had passed by, and accepting the gracious words addressed to him. The second proclamation of God’s name. God had proclaimed his name to Moses, when he spoke with him out of the burning bush. He had declared it to be JEHOVAH, "the Self-Existent One." Under this name the people of Israel had known him from the time of Moses’ return to Egypt from Midian, until that of which he is here speaking. Hitherto it had sufficed for them. It had marked him as, 1. eternal; 2. uncaused; 3. unconditioned; 4. self-sufficient; 5. all-powerful. But it had not revealed his moral nature. Something of that had always been known to man. Something more had become known to Israel through the law already given from Sinai. But in their present state of sorrow and depression (Exodus 33:4-6) something further was needed. God accordingly "proclaimed his name" afresh. Of this second proclamation we may note— I. THAT IT CANCELS NOTHING, BUT ADDS. The first words of the name are "Jehovah, Jehovah El," or "the Self-Existent, the Self-Existent God." What had been revealed before is confirmed; nay, is still put in the fore-front, as the proper foundation of all the rest. For a true knowledge of God, we must, first and foremost, have the conviction that there is a self-existent being, eternal, uncaused, the cause of all things, and therefore of our own existence, on whom we are absolutely dependent. It follows, after this, to inquire and learn the moral character of this Eternal One. II. THAT IT SETS FORTH GOD AS, ABOVE ALL THINGS, . The Jewish commentators make out thirteen epithets of God in these two verses, and say that all but one are epithets of mercy. This seems to be an overstatement of the actual fact, that the epithets of mercy form a large numerical majority. They are 1. Rakhum, "the tender or pitiful one," who is full of kindness and compassion; 2. Khunnun, "the gracious one," who bestows his benefits out of mere favour, without obligation; 3. Erek appayim, "the long-suffering one," who is not easily provoked, but "suffers long and is kind"; 4. Rab-khesed, "the great in mercy" which needs no explanation; 5. Notser-khesed, "the keeper of mercy," he who does not desert those he loves, bet is merciful to them, and their children, from generation to generation; 6. Nose ’avon, vapesha vekhattaah, "the forgiver of iniquity and transgression and sin"—the being who alone can forgive sin and give peace to the guilty soul. Moses did well to make appeal to this description of himself by God himself, when Israel had a second time provoked God to destroy them (Numbers 14:17, Numbers 14:18). We shall do well to make our appeal to the same, whenever we have offended our Lord and Master by our faults and shortcomings, our "sins, negligences, and ignorances." Conjured by this "name," God can scarcely refuse to reply, as he replied to Moses, "I have pardoned according to thy word" (Numbers 14:20). III. THAT IT FURTHER SETS HIM FORTH AS JUST AND TRUE. God gives it as part of his name, that he "will by no means clear the guilty," or rather perhaps that he will not "always" do so (Kalisch). There is some guilt that he will not, cannot pardon. "There is a sin unto death—I do not say that a man shall pray for it" (1 John 5:16). Unrepented sin cannot be forgiven. "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" cannot be forgiven. God’s justice is an essential part of his nature, no less than his mercy; and is perhaps, as has been argued, a necessary consequence of his love. £ Again, God is true—"abundant in truth" (Exodus 34:6). There can be no trust in any being who is not true. Truth lies at the root of all moral goodness; and the truth of God is pre-supposed in any revealed religion, since without it revelation could have no force or value. Further, beth in the Old and the New Testament, God reveals himself as "true," or sometimes as "the truth." "Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds" (Psalms 108:4). "The truth of the Lord endureth for ever" (Psalms 117:2). "God is true." "I am the truth." It is essential to a right conception of him that we should believe in his absolute veracity. If we "make him a liar," we ruin our whole idea of him. We might as well make him non-existent. BY J. ORR Exodus 34:5-8 The name. Consider on this I. THE WITH THE NAME JEHOVAH. "Proclaimed the name of Jehovah" (Exodus 34:5). Observe— 1. The name Jehovah connotes moral attributes. The absolute being is, at the same time, the most perfect being. His excellence includes all possible perfection. This implies the possession of moral attributes. "That character," says Dean Graves, "from which the acutest reasoners have endeavoured demonstratively to deduce as from their source all the Divine attributes, is SELF-. Is it not then highly remarkable that it is under this character the divinity is described, on his first manifestation to the Jewish lawgiver?" 2. Former revelations implied moral attributes. The attributes on which, in former revelations, the main stress needed to be laid, were those to be illustrated in the events of the exodus—power, freedom, supremacy, changelessness (cf. on Exodus 3:14; Exodus 6:2, Exodus 6:3). But that moral attributes—the attributes of truth, mercy, goodness, justice, also belonged to Jehovah was shown— (1) From the nature of his purpose. (2) From the character of his actings. (3) From the simple fact of his revealing himself. 3. The new revelation declares moral attributes. Formerly, the revelation was in deeds, now it is in words. Formerly, God told Moses what, as Jehovah, he would do. Now he declares what, as Jehovah, he is. The name was first spelt, then pronounced. Cf. with law of ordinary historical progress— (1) action; (2) reflection on what has been done, with generalisation of principles. Or of scientific progress— (1) accumulation of facts; (2) generalisation of law. For this announcement of the name, the renewal of the covenant furnished an appropriate historical occasion. II. OF THE NAME. The name exhibits the Divine character. It lays bare to us God’s very heart. It reveals his essence. Learn— 1. There is justice in God. "That will by no means clear the guilty," etc. (Exodus 34:7). (1) This attribute is essential. Without it, God would not be God. Says the poet, "A God all mercy is a God unjust." We go further, and affirm that without justice, there would be no mercy left to exercise. See Homily on Exodus 32:10. We have defined love in God as the perfect union of goodness and holiness. Mercy we would define as a mixed feeling of pity and resentment. See this point well illustrated in the chapters on "the Law of Mercy" in "Ecce Homo." (2) Justice cannot be laid aside. God "will by no means clear the guilty." See Homily on Exodus 23:21. But if God cannot clear the guilty, cannot, i.e. call guilt other than what it is, or refuse to punish it, he can, on the ground of his Son’s atonement, which fulfils every condition of a perfect satisfaction to justice, forgive the guilty. (3) Manifestation of justice. In his personal dealings with individuals—not clearing the guilty. In his general government of the world—"visiting the iniquity of the fathers," etc. (cf. on Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9). 2. There is mercy in God. This side of the Divine character is exhibited with much greater fulness than the other. "Merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin" (Exodus 23:6, Exodus 23:7). (1) God delights in mercy; he does not delight in judgment. Judgment is "his work, his strange work" (Isaiah 28:21). The visitation of sin is viewed as extending only "unto the third and fourth generation"; mercy is kept for "thousands" (cf. Psalms 103:17). (2) Mercy is "abundant." Cf. Isaiah 55:7—"will abundantly pardon." A wonderful utterance this from the standpoint of the Old Testament. Anticipates Paul—"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20). (3) Mercy qualifies judgment. It leads to forbearance with the sinner—"long-suffering" (cf. Romans 2:4). It secures pardon on repentance—"forgiving iniquity," etc. (4) It is yet exercised in strictest harmony with the requirements of justice. The mode of the reconciliation of these two sides of the Divine character, however, remains in the Old Testament a partially unsolved problem. 3. Mercy rules in the character of God. This is a fair inference (1) from the preponderating place assigned to the attributes of mercy, and (2) from the fact that the attributes of mercy stand before the attributes of justice. It is but an earlier expression of the truth which the Gospel has now made a great spiritual certainty to us—"God is love" (1 John 4:16). Not simply loves, but is love. But if God is love, and love constitutes his essence, then must love dominate, wield, work through his other perfections, using all for its own purposes, transmuting all into its own nature. There cannot be discord or division in the breast of the Eternal. What God is, he must ever have been, must be at all times, through all ages, in all his works, under all forms of his manifestation. This is a conception so deep and far-reaching as to pass in its length and breadth beyond our grasp. Its lines prolong themselves to infinity. There lie in it possibilities which it is not given to man to fathom. III. THE NAME AS . 1. We need a revelation. It is but a dumb, inarticulate revelation of this name which we have in nature. What is revealed relates more to God’s justice than to God’s love. If there is much in nature which supports, there is also much which seems to discredit, belief in the entire goodness of God. Nature in. particular, has no answer to give to the questions—Can God forgive and restore sinners? Can he undo their evil? Can he turn back from its avenging course that terrible law of retribution which holds us in its grasp? 2. We may expect a revelation. If God loves men, we may expect him in some way personally to attest his love to them. "Gracious thoughts never revealed are not gracious thoughts at all. It is essential to the being of grace or love that it manifest itself. Love unrevealed is love unreal" (Dr. A. B. Bruce). 3. The revelation has been given. (1) In deeds. (2) In words. (3) In the Son.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 34:5-9 The Manifestation of God. I. GOD’S GLORY VEILED THAT IT MAY BE . "The Lord descended in the cloud." The glory of Jesus was veiled by his humanity. There is but one avenue through which the knowledge of God can come—the spirit; it cannot come by the senses. God reveals himself by a word, by one in whom he has put his name, and by the Spirit’s unveiling of the word in the heart. II. GOD’S NAME. 1. Faithfulness: he proclaimed "JEHOVAH." He changes not, his purpose abides, his word is fulfilled. 2. Faithfulness and might. "Jehovah, Elohim." God’s power waits upon his unchanging purpose. 3. "Merciful." He will not spurn need. He is moved by, and drawn to, it. 4. "Gracious." God is not merely a just master, bestowing rewards which have been earned. There is favour to be found with him, unmerited and free. 5. "Long-suffering." He is patient with blindness and weakness and sin. He waits to be gracious. The great husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth and "hath long patience for it." 6. "Abundant in goodness and truth." The ages have been unveiling their fulness; but the story is not yet told. Eternity will never know all the length and breadth and depth and height. 7. The largeness of God’s mercy (1) toward persons. "Keeping mercy for thousands," (2) toward sins, "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." 8. The severity of God. (1) He will not always leave sin unpunished. (2) His mercy may save men from sin, but will not acquit them in sin. "Be not deceived." (3) The father’s sins are visited upon the children. The inheritance of wrong is accompanied by an inheritance of wrath. What is punishment for the fathers may be mercy for the children. III. THE FRUITS OF THE OF GOD. 1. Adoration. For deep and true worship the soul must know God in the reality of his existence and the glory of his nature. 2. Prayer for himself and his people. To Jesus the vision of God is intercession for his Church and the world. (1) Prayer for God’s presence. "Let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us." (2) That God may come in mercy, not in judgment. "Pardon our iniquity." (3) The transforming power of the presence of God. "And (so) take us for thine inheritance."—U. BY D. YOUNG The name of the Lord. Moses had asked to see the glory of Jehovah, a request which it was possible to grant only in a very modified way. As much as Moses could bear to see he was allowed to see; and for what he was not able to see he received a most abundant and timely compensation in the revelation made to him of the Divine character. For this of course is what the proclamation of the name of Jehovah amounts to. The name of Jehovah is what we should call the character of Jehovah. It is always a great comfort and stay to know that the character of one with whom we have to deal is satisfactory through and through. Nay more, it is well to know character, whether it be good or bad; not to go to a man, uncertain of his disposition and altogether in doubt as to what we may expect. From the proclamation here made we may judge Moses to have been up to this point ignorant of certain fundamental qualities in the character of God. He might have certain guesses, certain inward promptings, which led him into supplication and conduct accordant with the Divine character; but now he is lifted above all guess-work. From God’s own lips he gets an account of all that is deepest in the disposition and relations of God toward man. He is made to see that God’s recent action towards apostate Israel was based, not on incessant importunity in supplication, but on what was a constant source of the Divine action. God was pleased to see Moses so importunate; importunity we may even say was needful to the occasion; but God bad not in him the spirit of the unjust judge, that he should be moved by importunity alone. The character here revealed doubtless gave Moses confidence in all future necessary intercession. Henceforth he knew, and knew from as solemn and authoritative a communication as could be made, what there was in the great Disposer of his movements upon which he could at all times rely. The aspect of Jehovah’s character here presented is of course one which it is important for his sinful creature man to know. God does not tell us here all that may be known of him; he singles out that, the knowledge of which we cannot do without in our hours of deepest need, and although there is thus revealed to us only a part of the Divine nature, it is a part which has the harmony of a whole. God is here made known as indescribably considerate of all the needs of men, and yet at the same time inexorably just. His mercy and love are not as human mercy and love too often are. There is a mercy which, while it may soothe present agonies and smooth present difficulties, is yet essentially nothing more than an opiate; it does not go to the root of the trouble and show how it may be entirely swept away. The’ tender mercies of the wicked, it is said, are cruel; and so in another sense the tender mercies of the thoughtless and the ignorant may be called cruel. Stopping suffering for the immediate present, they may be sowing the seed of suffering a hundred times greater in the future. But God’s mercy is so offered and exercised that it needs never to be regretted. It is mercy gloriously allied with great considerations of righteousness. It is mercy for the repentant; for those who confess and forsake their sins; and although from a superficial glance this visitation of suffering upon children and children’s children may seem to contradict the mercy of God, we find on further reflection that it is a great warning against human selfishness. What a rebuke to the man who, knowing that his sin will involve posterity in suffering, yet goes on with the sin! Who are we, to indulge in aspersions on the mercy of God, when perhaps at the very moment we are sowing in self-indulgence what others must reap in pangs which our self-denial and regard for God’s wise will might have utterly prevented?—Y. BY G. A. God is love. A previous revelation, cf. Exodus 3:14. Then the emphasis was on the name, now it is on the character of him who bears the name. Moses, in common with the people, longed after some visible manifestation of the glory of the unseen God who spoke to him (Exodus 33:18). His desire is granted; but at the same time God turns his thoughts from the visible to the invisible. "It is not," he seems to say, "what I appear to be that man has to trust to; it is what I am." Consider— I. THE . 1. It implies intelligence in the Being who is characterised. The name Jehovah might, conceivably, be given to "a stream of tendency." Law, irresistible and impersonal, might be described as "the eternal." You cannot, however, speak of law as "merciful and gracious," etc. There must be some one who works through law. A divine heart is the mainspring whence flow all "streams of tendency," the issues of the universal life. 2. It is not such as man could have imagined. Men do create their own gods; deifying the exaggerated and distorted shadows cast by their own characters—so the mountaineer is at first awe-struck when confronted by his own gigantic shadow. Here, however, is a character which cannot he traced to such an origin; it is not man’s thought about God, it is God’s revelation of himself to man. Contrast the character of the shadow, man-created, god, with that of Jehovah. The one is revengeful, arbitrary, cruel, etc.; the other is merciful and gracious, etc. The man-made god is at best kindly with a weak and sentimental kindliness; with Jehovah, love is the heart-root of his nature, a love which will by no means clear the guilty. Nature "red in tooth and claw" scarcely suggests such a god as this; man could never have conceived him. The character is a revelation of himself, made here to Moses; made, yet more clearly, later, in the life of "the Word made Flesh." II. THE AS IN ACTION. Men are treated by some one or some thing as God says he treats them. The "stream of tendency" makes for righteousness; it is not purposeless, it must be purposed. Though experience was insufficient to suggest the character, it yet helps us to verify the revelation. Notice, specially, the stern side of love. The latter part of the revelation seems at first inconsistent with the first part; they give, however, two aspects of the same homogeneous character. True love is quite distinct from kindliness; its brain is wisdom, and justice nerves its right hand. 1. The action which love will take, must depend upon the circumstances which call for action. Our own experience shows sufficiently that love does not shrink from giving pain. The parent wilt forgive his child, and yet, at the same time, not "clear" him; he cannot pass over without notice conduct of which he disapproves. Love may wield the surgeon’s knife; or the scourge, with a view to moral surgery. So long as the child keeps sound and well, physically and morally, love is all sunshine; with illness or danger, physical or moral, love—seeking the good of the beloved object—may strike and pierce like lightning. Apply the general principle and it explains:— 2. A special case. Can love visit upon children the sins of their parents? Yes, for children inherit the sinful tendencies of their parents; and it is just this visitation which may best secure them against falling into sin. Sad that the drunkard’s child should be an epileptic; yet epilepsy may be a loving visitation if it guard against the confirmed drunkenness which might otherwise have mined body and soul. A warning for parents; yet consolation for the victims of their sins, when it is seen that love has inspired severity (cf. Hebrews 12:11). Conclusion. Such the God revealed to Moses, and such the God revealed in Christ. Before such a Being what attitude so fitting as that of Moses? (Exodus 3:8; cf. Job 42:1-6).—G. THE RENEWAL OF THE . Dazed, as it would seem, by the splendour of the vision which he had beheld, Moses forgot that God had already pledged himself to renew the covenant, and lead the people in person to Canaan. In his forgetfulness, he once more set himself to intercede with God on their behalf, and besought him— 1. That he would go up with them; 2. That he would pardon them; and 3. That he would once more take them as his inheritance (Exodus 34:9). Without replying separately to these requests, God formally renews the covenant; promises not only to go up with the people, but to work miracles for them (Exodus 34:10), and to drive out the nations before them when they have arrived (Exodus 34:11); and makes a brief summary of the chief points of positive observance, which he requires of them in addition to the moral law. These points may be reduced to twelve:— 1. That no treaty of peace should be made with the Canaanite nations (Exodus 34:12). 2. That all their images, altars, and groves should be destroyed (Exodus 34:13). 3. That no molten image should be made to represent God (Exodus 34:17). 4. That the Passover festival should be observed as previously commanded (Exodus 34:18). 5. That the first-born should be dedicated, or redeemed (Exodus 34:19, Exodus 34:20). 6. That the Sabbath rest should be observed at all times of the year (Exodus 34:21). 7. That the feast of Pentecost (weeks) should be observed regularly (Exodus 34:22). 8. That the feast of tabernacles should also be observed (ib,). 9. That at all the three great festivals all the males should appear before God (Exodus 34:23). 10. That no leaven should be used with any sacrifice (Exodus 34:25). 11. That first-fruits of all things should be offered to God (Exodus 34:26). 12. That no kid should be seethed in her mother’s milk (Exodus 34:26). Exodus 34:9 If now I have found grace in thy sight. The vision vouchsafed him makes Moses feel that he has indeed been received into favour with God. The first use which it occurs to him to make of his position is to intercede anew for his people, he, apparently, forgets that God has already promised to go with them (Exodus 33:17), and prefers exactly the same request which he had made on the preceding day, and which had been granted. To this he adds a prayer for pardon, and a request that God would take Israel for his inheritance. The last phrase is a new one, but expresses perhaps no more than has been implied in such phrases as "thy people, which thou hast purchased" (Exodus 15:16)—"ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me" (Exodus 19:5). Exodus 34:10 I make a covenant—i.e; "I lay down afresh the terms of the covenant between me and Israel." On my part, I will go with them (implied, not expressed), and do miracles for them, and drive out the nations before them (Exodus 34:10, Exodus 34:11), and enlarge their borders, and not allow their land to be invaded at the festival seasons (Exodus 34:24): on their part, they must "observe that which I command them" (Exodus 34:11). Marvels such as have not been done in all the earth. As the drying up of the Jordan (Joshua 3:16, Joshua 3:17); the falling down of the walls of Jericho (Joshua 6:20), the slaughter of the army of the five kings by hailstones (Joshua 10:11), and the like. It is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Terrible, not to Israel, but to Israel’s enemies. Compare Deuteronomy 10:21; Psalms 106:22; Psalms 145:6, etc. Exodus 34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day. The precepts expressly given (Exodus 34:12-26) are, as observed above, almost wholly positive. The moral law did not require recapitulation, because it was enjoined on the people afresh by the writing on the two tables (Exodus 34:28). I drive out before thee. Compare Exodus 3:8, Exodus 3:17; Exodus 6:4, Exodus 6:8; Exodus 13:5, Exodus 13:11; Exodus 33:2. Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself lest thou make a covenant. See above, Exodus 23:32 A snare. See Exodus 23:33. Exodus 34:13 Ye shall destroy their altars, etc. This command is more sweeping than the corresponding one in the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 23:24), which expressly mentions only the "images." Here the destruction of idol-altars and idol-groves is further commanded. On idol-altars, see Numbers 23:1, Numbers 23:29; Judges 2:2; 1 Kings 16:32; 1 Kings 18:26, etc. Groves are here for the first time mentioned. They appear to have been artificial constructions, either of wood or metal, or both, more or less imitative of trees, and regarded as emblems of the Oriental nature-deities, especially Baal and Astarte or Ashtoreth. The word translated "grove" (asherah) is a modification of the name Ashtoreth. The well-known "sacred tree" of the Assyrians is probably an asherah. Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other God. This is a reference to the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:5). The meaning is—"Thou shalt not spare the idolatrous emblems of the Canaanite nations, for thou couldst only do so to worship them, and thou art already forbidden to worship any other god beside me." The existence of the Decalogue and its binding nature, is assumed throughout this chapter Exodus 34:15, Exodus 34:16 The probable consequences of making treaties with the Canaanite nations, alluded to in Exodus 34:12, and in Exodus 23:33, are here fully set forth. They include— 1. Joining in their idol-feasts; 2. Intermarriages; 3. The actual apostasy of. those who married idolatrous wives. The event fully justified the warning here given. See Judges 2:2, Judges 2:11-13, Judges 2:17; Judges 6:25; Judges 10:6, etc. They go a whoring. This expression, so common in the later books, is here used for the first time It implies that the relation between man and God is analogous to that of the marriage-bond, so that deserting him for other gods is a species of adultery. Compare the frequent representations in the New Testament of Christ as the "Bridegroom" and the Church as his "Bride." Exodus 34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. An express allusion to the recent sin of the golden calf. Exodus 34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. See Exodus 23:15, and compare Exodus 12:14-20, and Exodus 13:3-10. The month Abib. See the comment on Exodus 13:4. Exodus 34:19, Exodus 34:20 All that openeth the matrix is mine, etc. This is a repetition of the command given in Exodus 13:12, Exodus 13:13, which had not been inserted in the "Book of the Covenant." It is again enjoined in Leviticus 27:26, 27. None shall appear before me empty. Repeated from Exodus 23:15. Exodus 34:21 Six days, etc. This is repeated from the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 23:12), but with a remarkable addition—in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. "Earing time" is "ploughing time"—to "ear" being to "plough" in Old English, a word cognate with the Greek ἄρω and the Latin are; and the command to rest both then and at harvest time is a command not to break the Sabbath rest at the seasons when it might seem most necessary so to do The temptation to "save the harvest" is readily intelligible to Englishmen. To appreciate the other temptation, we require to know the peculiar circumstances of the East. It is necessary there to complete the ploughing before the spring rains are over. These last but a short time; and when they are once past no rain can be looked for till the autumn. Exodus 34:22 Of the first-fruits. There is here an unfortunate ambiguity. The English reader naturally supposes that three festivals are mentioned— 1. That of weeks; 2. That of the first-fruits of wheat harvest; and 3. That of in-gathering. But in reality the feast of weeks is that of the first-fruits of wheat harvest. See Le Exodus 23:17; Numbers 28:26. The observance of this feast, as well as that of the feast of in-gathering, was commanded in the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 23:16). Exodus 34:23 Thrice in the year, Repeated from Exodus 23:17. Exodus 34:24 I will … enlarge thy borders. The original promise to Abraham was to give to his seed "the land of Canaan" (Genesis 12:5-7). Afterwards this promise was enlarged, and he was told that the land assigned them was the entire tract between the Nile and the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). And practically, they took possession first of the one, while at a later date their border was enlarged, and they became masters of the other. See 1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24; 2 Chronicles 9:26. Neither shall any man desire thy land, etc. This promise is nowhere else made. It would serve as a great encouragement to the proper observance of the festivals. Exodus 34:25 Repeated from Exodus 23:18. Exodus 34:26 Repeated from Exodus 23:19. It is remarkable that both legislations terminate with the same, somewhat strange, proviso. There must have been an intention of impressing strongly upon the people the principle of tenderness involved in it. (See the comment on Exodus 23:19.) Exodus 34:9-26 The covenant renewed. That God should have consented to renew the covenant with Israel after it had been violated so flagrantly is evidence of two things: 1. His faithfulness towards his true followers, which makes him "merciful unto thousands of those that love him," and renders him tender to the children for the sake of the fathers; 2. The value that he sets on intercessory prayer, when offered earnestly by a believer. In the renewal itself we may notice:— I. THAT THE NOW MADE EXCEED ALL THOSE WHICH HAD BEEN MADE TO THE PEOPLE . Leadership had been promised; help in driving out the nation had been promised; the possession of Canaan had been promised. But not "marvels such as had not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation" (Exodus 34:10)—not an enlargement of the nation’s boundaries beyond the limits of Canaan (Exodus 34:24)—not security against their land being invaded when they went up to the three great festivals (ibid.). These, so far as the people were concerned, were new and additional pledges. God is apt "to do exceeding abundantly beyond all that we ask or think." He ties himself down to perform certain promises; but he does not tie himself down not to do more than he has promised. He will give to man ultimately, not only more than he is bound to give, but more than "it has entered into the heart of man to conceive." II. THAT THE ARE IN SOME CASES MORE THAN BEFORE. According to the former covenant, idolatrous images were not to be spared; according to this neither images, nor altars, nor groves (Exodus 34:13); according to that, the Sabbath rest was not to be infringed, as a general rule—according to this, not even on account of the most necessary operations of husbandry (Exodus 34:21); according to that, treaties were not to be made with the Canaanitish nations—according to this, neither treaties nor matrimonial alliances. To balance the greater favours, there were imposed greater obligations, whereby was inculcated the lesson that the two are correlative. III. THE WERE, IN TO THE , CHIEFLY THOSE WITH WORSHIP. It was the attraction of a corrupt worship which had caused Israel to fall away. Their best security against a second similar fall would be careful and constant observance of the pure worship prescribed to them. If they kept properly the Sabbath, the great festivals, the laws of sacrifice, of redemption, of first fruits, and whatever was similar to these, it might well content their religious aspirations, and leave no such vacuum in their lives as they had hoped to fill with their calf-worship. True, that many of the precepts could not be observed until they reached Canaan; but, as a compensation, they would have in the wilderness the daily worship—morning and evening—of the tabernacle, and the near presence of God in the pillar of the cloud, not henceforth to be withdrawn from them. The true spiritual life could be amply sustained on these—it was only a pseudo-spiritualism that the calf-worship would have exercised. BY J. ORR I make a covenant. I. A RENEWED. Mark how in connection with this there is— (1) A new command to ascend the mount. (2) A new command that the mount shall not be touched. (3) A new manifestation of the Divine glory. Yet how different! (4) A new giving of the law. (5) A new rehearsal (in summary) of the "rights." (6) A new fast of forty days and forty nights. II. A RENEWED ON THE BASIS OF . We have even more than this—we have a "shadow of the Cross" (ch. 32:32). Peace made by (1) mediation, (2) atonement, (3) intercession. The bestowal of the blessing on this ground— 1. Prevented the people from looking lightly on sin, or from imagining that God looked lightly on it. 2. Conserved the Divine honour. 3. Gave a higher value to the gift. 4. Put honour upon Moses. 5. Taught that blessings can be won from God by intercession.—J.O. Exodus 34:10-29 Revived obligations. Former instructions are renewed; only, however, so far as relates to the duties of religion. Renewal of the civil code was not required. Subject to this limit, the new book of the covenant (Exodus 34:27) revives, supplements, expands, and endorses the teachings and precepts of the old one. We have in it— I. PROMISE (Exodus 34:10, Exodus 34:11). God, as on the former occasion (Exodus 23:23-30), pledges himself to drive out all their enemies. The work would be 1. Wonderful—"Before all the people will I do marvels," etc. 2. Terrible—"For it is a terrible thing which I will do with thee." Men have passed the same judgment upon it. God however, called it terrible before they did. They should remember this when they build on it an objection to the Bible. God can do terrible things. 3. Thorough. The extirpation would be complete. II. CAUTION (Exodus 34:12-18). The Israelites were to beware of being snared into idolatry. To this end they were— 1. To make no league with the Canaanites. "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33). 2. To destroy all signs of their idolatrous worship. No good comes of retaining in our midst that which can only be a snare to us. 3. To avoid intermarriages. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14). III. COMMAND (Exodus 34:18-27). The command relates to the three feasts. See former Homilies.—J.O. FINAL DESCENT OF MOSES FROM SINAI. The covenant having been renewed, Moses prepared to descend, having first however received a command to commit to writing the words of this second covenant (Exodus 34:27). He received back the tables from God, inscribed with the Ten Commandments, and after a stay in Sinai of equal duration with the former one (Exodus 34:28), descended, having the tables in his hands. He was not aware that the skin of his face had become radiant (Exodus 34:29), and first learnt the fact by the rulers being afraid to come near him (Exodus 34:30). After conversing with them and with the people he resolved to "put a vail on his face" ordinarily, only taking it off when he "went in before the Lord" into the "tent of meeting," and when, having received a message from the Lord to the people, he came out to deliver it. Exodus 34:27 Write thou these words. Literally, "write thee these words"—i.e; "write them for thyself and for thy people." According to the tenor of these words have I made a covenant. That is, "the covenant on my part is conditional on the observance of these words on the part of Israel." The "words" intended are those of Exo 34:10-26. Exodus 34:28 He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. As on the former occasion (Exodus 24:18). The patience and faith of the people was tested by this second long delay. Happily, they stood the test; and on Moses’ final descent from Sinai the Israelites were found expectant and obedient (Exodus 34:30-32). He did neither eat bread nor drink water. This was so also on the former occasion (Deuteronomy 9:9), though it is not mentioned in Exodus. The near presence of God sustained the vital powers and made food unnecessary. Moses, Elijah (1 Kings 19:8), and our Lord have alone accomplished a fast of this duration. Modern parodies are not held by scientific men to belong to the category of established facts. He wrote upon the tables. It has been argued from this expression that Moses wrote the words on the second tables; and it would be natural so to understand the passage, had nothing else been said on the subject. But in verse 1 we are told that "God said, I will write upon these tables;" and the same is repeated in Deuteronomy 10:2. Moreover in Deuteronomy 10:4, it is distinctly declared "He" (i.e. God) "wrote on the tables according to the first writing." We must therefore regard "he" in this passage as meaning "the Lord," which is quite possible according to the Hebrew idiom. Exodus 34:29 The skin of his face shone while he talked with him. Rather, "through his talking with him." The glory of God, as revealed to Moses on this occasion, caused his face to become henceforth radiant. Compare the effect of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:2). The Vulgate wrongly translates haran, "to shine," as if it were derived from keren, "a horn"—whence the painters of mediaeval times commonly represent Moses as horned. St. Paul’s words (2 Corinthians 3:7) are conclusive as to the true meaning. Exodus 34:30 They were afraid. They shrank from Moses, as if he were more than man. (Compare Ezekiel 1:28; Revelation 1:17.) Perhaps they thought that what they saw was his spirit. Exodus 34:31 Moses called unto them. Moses bade them approach—no doubt assured them that there was no cause for fear (cf. Luke 24:38, Luke 24:39)—and by his manner and familiar voice dispelled their fears and re-assured them. Aaron and all the rulers … returned unto him. Apparently, in their alarm they had drawn back. Being re-assured, they "returned." Exodus 34:32 All that the Lord had spoken. "All," i.e; "that the Lord had commanded him to enjoin upon them"—especially the precepts in Exodus 34:10-26—not all that he had heard from God in the space of forty days and forty nights. Exodus 34:33 -36 Till Moses had done speaking with them. The Hebrew text will not bear this rendering. All the ancient versions (LXX. Vulg. Syr. etc.) and the Targums agree that the meaning is—"when Moses had done speaking, he put a veil on his face." And this agrees with the plain meaning of Exo 34:34 and Exodus 34:35, which are to be taken connectedly. Moses first delivered his message with face unveiled, then he veiled himself, and thenceforth he wore a veil at all times except when he sought the Divine presence in the "tent of meeting" or the tabernacle, and when he delivered to the people any message sent them from God by him. He wore the veil ordinarily to prevent them from being dazzled. He took it off when he entered the tabernacle, that the Divine presence might shine fully on him and renew his strength. He kept it off when he returned, if he had any message to the people, until he had delivered it, in order the more fully to authenticate the message and shew to the people that it was from God. Then the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone (Exodus 34:35). Having discharged himself of the message intrusted to him, he once more covered himself, and continued veiled until he again entered the tabernacle. The only objection that can be taken to this exegesis is derived from 2 Corinthians 3:7-16, which has been thought to imply that Moses wore the veil whenever he was in the sight of the people. But the passage does not really assert any such thing. It is quite enough for the argument, that under the old covenant a veil had been worn to conceal some of its glory. This concealment St. Paul contrasts with the openness of Christianity (2 Corinthians 3:13, 2 Corinthians 3:18); while at the same time he argues that it may be viewed as typical of that blindness and darkness which was characteristic of the Jewish nation of his day. Exodus 34:29, Exodus 34:30, Exodus 34:35 The shining of Moses’ face. This strange phenomenon, one of the distinctive marks which most closely assimilate the Jewish with the Christian lawgiver, is well worthy of our attentive consideration. I. AS TO ITS ORIGIN. Admission to the Divine presence within the cloud had not, on the former occasion, left any such visible trace. It cannot, therefore, be ascribed simply to communion with God for a period of a certain duration. We must endeavour to see how the second sojourn in Sinai was differentiated from the first, if we would discover the real cause of the wonder. Now the difference was mainly this: that Moses in the interval had been severely tried, and had emerged from the trial better, purer, fitter for close intercourse with the Supreme. He had shown zeal, fervour, promptness, in checking the revolt against Jehovah; he had shown a spirit of extraordinary self-sacrifice in refusing to become the sole male progenitor of a people whom God would substitute for the existing Israel (Exodus 32:10), and in offering himself as an atonement for the people’s sins (Exodus 32:32); and he had shown that persistent importunity in kindly intercession for others (Exodus 33:12-16) with which God is especially pleased. Under these circumstances—thus elevated above his former self—he had been admitted, not only to a second conference of forty days’ duration, but also to a special vision—never vouchsafed to any but him—of the Divine glory (Exodus 33:8 -28; Exodus 34:5, Exodus 34:6). The radiance that rested on his face is ascribed especially to his long "talk" with God (Exodus 34:29); but we can scarcely doubt that a portion of it was due to the transcendent vision which passed before him prior to the forty days’ conference. The brightness then shed upon his face increased from day to day during the long and close communion closer now than before, from his greater fitness; and he, "with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, was changed into the same image from glory to glory" (2 Corinthians 3:18), until his countenance was such that it could not be steadfastly beheld for long; and he, in mercy to his people, veiled it. II. AS TO ITS EFFECT. 1. Its immediate effect was to alarm. "Aaron and the elders were afraid to come nigh him." The unknown and unexpected is always fearful to man; and this was a novelty which might well startle. What did the sight portend? Certainly, an increase of supernatural power. Would this power be used to punish and avenge? Would the radiance burn like fire, or scathe like the thunder-bolt? They could not tell. Knowing their own sinfulness, they trembled, conscience making cowards of them, as it does of us all. And they feared to approach—nay, they drew back—perhaps fled. 2. Its after effect was to increase Moses’ authority. The glow was a perpetual credential of his Divine mission. Like the moon, it witnessed, whenever seen, to the absent sun. Always beheld, whenever Moses had any new orders to give, it was a sanction to his entire legislation, and caused the laws which were least palatable to be accepted without resistance. Though it did not prevent partial revolts, it kept the bulk of the nation faithful to their leader for forty years. Even when they did not see the brightness, the veil that hid it showed that it was there. Its presence could never be forgotten. Moses was exalted by it into a condition half-Divine, half-human; and was felt to be marked out by Heaven as the supreme chief of the nation. III. AS TO ITS INTENT. Its intent would seem to have been— 1. To strengthen and support Moses in his difficult position as leader of a wayward and "stiff-necked" people. 2. To impress the people, and render them more submissive and obedient. (See the preceding section.) 3. To symbolise the great truth, that by drawing near to God, by communion with him, we become like him—like him and ever more like; changing "from glory to glory;" reflecting his attributes, as snow-summits reflect the sunset; receiving from him a real effluence, which shows itself in our lives, in our acts, in our very features. There is in the countenances of God’s most advanced servants a brightness, a gladness, a beaming radiance, which can come only of long communion with him, and which is a sensible evidence, to those who "have eyes to see," that they are indeed his friends, his favoured ones. The best artists—Perugino, Francia, Rafaelle sometimes, Fra Angelico, Fra Bartolomeo, Bellini, Luini, Basaiti—express this in their pictures. But it is not a grace that has passed away. The eye that has true spiritual vision may still see among those who walk the earth faces with such unmistakable glow of true piety upon them as marks their owners for God’s friends, Christ’s loved ones, souls constant in their communion with him who is "the Light of the world," and "in whose light we shall see light." Exodus 34:33-35 The symbolism of the veil. The veil upon Moses’ face shrouded the glory of his countenance from Israel, except at such times as he spake to them the commands of God. So God himself shrouds his glory from us ordinarily, and only at rare intervals, when he would impress us most deeply, lifts the veil and lets the brightness flash forth. So Christ, when he came on earth, emptied himself of the glory which he had with the Father, hid it away, and seldom let it be seen. Tenderness and compassion for man’s weakness is the cause of the concealment in such case. Human nature, while we are in the flesh, cannot bear the blinding light of Divine glory, any more than the eye can bear to gaze upon the noonday sun. The veil was thus, primarily, a token of Moses’ love for Israel; but it was also a token of many other things besides; e.g.— I. OF THE AND MYSTERY IN WHICH DIVINE TRUTH WAS UNDER THE . The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, Justification, Sanctification, even Immortality—all the great doctrines which constitute the heart and kernel of true religion, though in a certain sense contained in Mosaism, were concealed, hidden away, wrapt in a veil. Men "saw through a glass darkly" fewer or more of these truths—had, that is, some dim conception of them, but saw none of them clearly till they were "brought to light" by the Gospel. "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation," said holy Simeon, when he looked upon the Lord, then first having made plain to him what had been darkness and cloud previously. Much of the Divine scheme of mail’s salvation had been a mystery even to angels until it was revealed to them by and through the Church (Ephesians 3:4-10). When Christ came, and lived, and preached, "the people which sat in darkness saw great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light sprang up" (Matthew 4:16). A solemn thought to Christians that this is so; for responsibility is in proportion to the light vouchsafed. "He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?" (Hebrews 10:28, Hebrews 10:29). II. OF THE WHICH LIES UPON THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE JEWS. The veil of obstinate unbelief has so shrouded, and still so shrouds, the intelligence of the race, that, though Moses is read to them every Sabbath day, and the words of the prophets are continually sounded in their ears, they cannot see or understand. Still they remain "fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25). Like the Ethiopian eunuch, they "understand not what they read" (Acts 8:31); but, unlike him, they will not accept guidance. "The veil is upon their heart" (2 Corinthians 3:15). Christians should ever pray that the time may come, and come speedily, when "the veil shall be taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:16), and so "all Israel be saved" (Romans 11:26). Hopeless as the task seems, Christians should still labour for the conversion of the eight millions of Jews dispersed throughout the world. Christians should beware lest they themselves, by their sinful lives, intensify and prolong the blindness of Israel, pressing the veil down upon the brows that otherwise might have cast it off, and dimming the brightness of the Gospel of Christ that otherwise might have pierced through the veil’s folds, and have given sight to the shrouded eyes. BY J. ORR Exodus 34:29-35 The shining face. Consider— I. THE SHINING OF MOSES’ FACE (Exodus 34:29, Exodus 34:30). (1) A result of personal communion. (2) A symbol of the glory of his dispensation (2 Corinthians 3:7). (3) A foreshadowing of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8). (4) Partly a consequence of inward mental exaltation (cf. Acts 6:15). Communion with God, vision of Jesus, the joy of salvation, fulness of spiritual life, make both face and character to shine (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18). II. THE FEAR OF THE PEOPLE (Exodus 34:30). The beauty of the glory had something of terror in it. Symbol of the dispensation—"a ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7). See sermon by Dr. John Ker on Moses and Stephen—"The Old Testament and the New". III. THE VEIL (verses 31-33). The notable fact is that Moses did not veil his face during the time when veiling might seem to be most required, viz; while speaking to the people. The commandments were delivered with the face unveiled. When he had "done" speaking, Moses put this screen before it. The act, therefore, must be taken as symbolic. A symbol— 1. Of the veiled character of the dispensation—types, carnal ordinances, "broken lights," etc. Its "end" was not manifest. 2. Of the veiled hearts of the people. This kept them from perceiving even what might have been seen (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:12-18). The Gospel, in contrast with the law, is an unveiled system (2 Corinthians 3:14). Preachers of the gospel, bearing this in mind, should use" great plain-hess of speech" (verses 11, 12). The later system provides further for the removal of the veil from the heart (verses 16, 17). It ministers "the Spirit." IV. THE VEIL TAKEN OFF ON THE (verses 34, 35). "When Moses went in before the Lord," etc. Again symbolic— 1. Of what is necessary for the removal of the veil from the heart. It must "turn to the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:16). The instant it does so the veil will be taken away (verse 16). 2. Of the privilege of Christian believers. They are admitted to gaze "with unveiled face" on the "glory of the Lord" (verse 18). V. AND . Compare and contrast the privilege of Moses with that now enjoyed by believers in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). 1. Resemblances. (1) Both have a vision of the divine glory. (2) Both are admitted to gaze upon it with face "unveiled." (3) On both the vision exercises a transforming influence. (4) Both must "go in" to the divine presence in order to obtain it. 2. Contrasts. (1) It is a higher glory which is revealed in Christ. (2) That, the privilege of one man; this, the privilege of all—"we all." (3) That, an external transfiguration; this, spiritual. (4) That, a transitory glory; this, permanent and progressive. "From glory to glory."—J.O. BY D. YOUNG I. THE ITSELF. The skin of Moses’ face shone. As to the precise manner of this shining, it is of course vain to speculate; but we may be tolerably certain it was not anything in the way of a mere reflection from a mirror. It must surely have been the shining out for a little while of some glorious gift which had entered, if one may say so, into the bodily constitution of Moses. There may be some connection of this glory with the miraculous sustaining of his life without the eating of bread, or the drinking of water. Thus we are led to consider what wondrous capabilities there may be in matter, capabilities beyond our present knowledge to conceive. Even with unorganised matter, man himself has been able to do much. And the God of the physical universe has shown us how many wonders, beauties, and enjoyments rise out of matter under the power of vital action. Think of all that is exquisite in form, colour, and fragrance in plant-life. Think of the refinement which distinguishes the face of a cultivated man from that of some embruted savage. Think of that best of all charms visible in the face of one who is truly good. Then think, on the other side, of the degradations of matter. Think of the physical results of sottishness and sensuality. Think of the putrescence and corruption which seem to dominate a body when its principle of life has passed away. We shall then feel how, beyond anything we can at present conceive, there may be on the one hand an exaltation of matter, and on the other a degradation of it. II. THE OF MOSES. He wist not that the skin of his face shone in this way. Of some change within him during the time when he was with God in the mount, he was doubtless conscious. He may have felt himself getting a clearer view of Jehovah’s purposes, and a heartier fellow-feeling with respect to them. He may have felt himself conscious of a remarkable approach to inward holiness and purity; but of this outward and visible expression of it he knew nothing at all. That which was intolerable to his deeply-polluted brethren, so much alienated in heart from God, was utterly unperceived by him. Thus effectually separated from his brethren, the separation came from no pretension of his own, but from an inevitable confession made by those who once and again tried to repudiate him. He who is filled with the spirit of God becomes more glorious than he can imagine. And from those who live near to God, we may be sure there goes out an influence, which, though they themselves be utterly unconscious of it, is yet most mighty in its effect on others. As Moses came down from the mountain, he would be anxiously thinking how he could convey to the people some sense of that which he himself had been privileged to see. He may have despaired of putting into words the impression made on his mind; but now behold God has taken the matter into his own hands. When we take care to keep right Godwards, God will take care that we are kept right and powerful manwards. Our greatest impression upon men is to be made, not by that which we are labouring to achieve, but by that which we achieve unconsciously, when we become as much as possible mere instruments of the wisdom and power coming from above. III. THE CONDUCT OF THE PEOPLE. It is not made clear as to whether the people were unable to gaze upon the splendour of Moses’ face through the excess of light which radiated thence, or whether they were filled with superstitious terror because one who hitherto had looked but as themselves had become so changed in appearance. Probably the latter way of accounting for their conduct comes nearest to the truth. They were afraid of Moses, much as the disciples were of Jesus when they saw him walking on the lake and thought it was an apparition. Hence we have another instance of how men, whom God made to be so near to him, yet through their alienation from him, and constant immersion in earthly concerns, start back when there is some overwhelming manifestation of the unearthly and the divine. Presence of mind is lost just when presence of mind would be most helpful. Moses put on the veil in necessary toleration of human weakness; but we should always read of such necessities with a feeling of humiliation. In only too many things these ungodly Israelites are our representatives. God, who is our benefactor, cannot reveal himself in all his glory, because of our weakness. When God honoured and enriched the mediator Moses by putting a divine splendour into his countenance, as he came down among men with the laws of a holy and a happy life, this very splendour became a cause of abject terror rather than of confidence and gladness. Yet when the final Mediator came, full of grace and truth, men rushed to the other extreme. They could see no divinity and authority, and in their contempt and presumption, put the Mediator to death. It is very difficult for men to make a right estimate of the outward shows of things.—Y. BY J. Exodus 34:28-35 Fellowship with God and its fruits. I. WITH GOD. 1. The length of his sojourn—forty days and forty nights. Time sped unmarked in the presence and fellowship of God. The future glory an untiring joy. The redeemed serve him day and night in his temple. 2. Lower wants were forgotten: "he did neither eat bread nor drink water." The need of the body was unfelt in the satisfying of the desires of the spirit. "In thy presence is fulness of joy." To escape from temptation we have only to enter into the presence of God and to let the eye rest upon his glory. II. MAN THROUGH . 1. The descent of Moses, radiant with the glory of God, the type of Jesus in his coming again the second time without sin unto salvation. 2. A prophecy of the after glory of them who believe. "They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." "We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." 3. An example of the present glory of those who have fellowship with him who is light. We are "light in the Lord." 4. Its effect upon the worldly and the sinful. They were afraid to come nigh. It awakens conscience. It proves the reality of the Unseen. It reveals the distance between the soul and God. III. THE VEILING OF MOSES’ FACE. He was unconscious of the glory: "he wist not that his face shone." The vision of God is ever accompanied with lowly self-judgment. 2. It was not worn ostentatiously. We may not boast of our nearness to God. Vanity in the Divine life is an impossibility. 3. The glory was veiled in accordance with the dispensation which alone these men were able to receive. The whole law with its types and shadows was a veiling of the sun of righteousness, and the redemption glory. We must meet men where they are that they may be led to God. The Apostle who spoke "wisdom among them that were perfect" knew how to give milk also to babes in Christ and to speak to the carnal.—U. BY G. A. Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. His face "shone"—literally, "shot out rays"—as we say, was irradiated, became radiant. Notice: I. THE CAUSE OF THE . "Talked with him." Self had been forgotten in communion with Jehovah, in hearing him and attending to his utterances. It is from such communion as this that the radiant countenance results. 1. What the communion is. God a Spirit. Communion must be spiritual The fleshly face cannot directly reflect spiritual light, that light "which never was on sea or land." Spirit is kindled by spirit, the human by the Divine, when spirit meets with spirit and realizes the sympathy which exists between them. 2. What the communion does. The illuminated spirit, reflecting God, kindled into brilliancy by his light, cannot but shine out through the fleshly envelope which shrouds it. [Illustration: As opaque porcelain shade to lamp, so is the body to the spirit; light the lamp, illuminate the spirit, and the shade, in either case, becomes radiant.] If you would have a happy face, a radiant countenance, you must first have an illuminated spirit. That can only be gained from the Fount of light in and through communion with God. II. OF THE SUBJECT OF THE . "Wist not." His face was radiant, but Moses knew nothing of it. His mind was so full of God that his attention was drawn off from all thought of his appearance. Notice: 1. All sincerity forgets egotism (F. W. Robertson). Attention is a fixed quantity; to fix it on God is to draw it off from self [cf. a lock on a river; open the flood-gates of communion and the level of self-love is soon lowered]. 2. Radiancy cannot be obtained by trying for it. If aim in prayer is to increase self-glory, it cannot succeed. God first; God all in all; then comes the illumination, and the light flows forth. Self lost in God [cf. wick saturated with oil] before we can ray out the light of God. How many selfish prayers are offered, and the countenances of those who offer them are often anything but radiant! The puritanical cast of countenance repels by its gloom rather than by its brilliancy. The best prayer is that which rises from communion; which seeks first, as in Christ’s model prayer, that God’s name may be hallowed, and his kingdom come, and his will be done, before going on further to seek satisfaction for personal needs. Conclusion.—Do you want to have a radiant face? The best way is not to think about it. Lose self, as Moses did, in communion with God; then your face will be radiant, though you know it not.—G. THE AND OF THE . OF THE LAW THE SABBATH. The work commanded during the time of Moses’ first stay upon Sinai (ch. 25-31.), and hindered first by the infraction (Exodus 32:1-35.), and then by the renewal (Exodus 33:1-23; Exodus 34:1-35.) of the covenant, was now about to commence under the direction of Moses, who alone knew what was to be constructed. Before giving his orders upon the matter, he assembled the people (Exodus 35:1) and once more recited to them in a solemn manner the law of the sabbath (Exodus 35:2), adding to the general law a special injunction concerning the kindling of fire (Exodus 35:3), which may have been required by some recent breach of the law in this respect. The iteration of a command, already so often enjoined upon the people (Exodus 16:2,Exodus 16:3-30; Exodus 20:8-11; Exodus 23:12; Exodus 31:13-17), is best accounted for by the consideration, that a caution was needed, lest the people, in their zeal to hurry on the work of the tabernacle, and regarding that work as a sacred one, and so exceptional, might be tempted to infractions of the law, or even to an entire neglect of it, while the work was in progress. Exodus 35:1 All the congregation. All the Israelites were to be allowed the privilege of making offerings for the tabernacle (Exodus 25:2-7), and all who were competent might take part in the spinning and the weaving of the materials for the curtains and the holy vestments (Exodus 28:3; Exodus 35:10, Exodus 35:25; Exodus 36:4, etc.). All therefore had to be summoned, to learn what was required. These are the words, etc.—i.e; "These are the injunctions especially ’laid’ upon you at this time." Exodus 35:2 Is almost a repetition of Exo 31:15. Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire. The kindling of fire in early times involved considerable labour. It was ordinarily affected by rubbing two sticks together, or twisting one round rapidly between the two palms in a depression upon a board. Fire only came after a long time. Moreover, as in the warm climate of Arabia and Palestine artificial warmth was not needed, fire could only have been kindled there for cooking purposes, which involved further unnecessary work, and had already been forbidden (Exodus 16:23). The Karaite Jews still maintain the observance of this precept to the letter, even in cold climates, as in that of the Crimea, and allow neither fire nor light in their houses on the sabbath day; but the Jews generally view the precept as having had only a temporary force, and have lights and fires, like other persons, even in Palestine. Strict Jews, however, still cook no food on the sabbath day. Exodus 35:1, Exodus 35:2 The sabbath rest not to be broken even for sacred work. Note here a difference. Some work is rendered necessary by the very nature of that public worship which is especially commanded on the sabbath. "On the sabbath days the priests in the temple," says our Lord, "profane the sabbath day and are blameless "(Matthew 12:5). Offering sacrifice was a heavy work—cleansing the altar and its precincts after sacrifice was perhaps a heavier one—reading aloud, teaching, preaching are works, the last-named to many a most exhausting work. Against such kinds of work there is no law. But physical toil, not needed for Divine worship, and so not necessary to be undergone on the sabbath day, stands on a different footing, and was forbidden, at any rate to the Jews. The spinning, weaving, dying, embroidering, carpentering, metallurgy, which occupied hundreds during the rest of the week, were to cease upon the sabbath. Men were not to consider that the fact of the purpose whereto the fabrics were about to be applied so sanctified the making of them as to render that a fit occupation for the "day of holy rest"—of "rest to the Lord." Application.—Christians will do well to apply the lesson to themselves, and not allow themselves in occupations, on their "day of holy rest," which are really secular, because it may be argued that they have, in some respects, a sacred aspect. To play sacred music, for the excitation of devotional feelings in themselves and others, is a fitting Sunday occupation; but to practise Handel as an exercise, for the acquirement of skill in execution, would be no better than to practise Rossini or Auber. To write articles for the press on Sundays, if otherwise wrong, is not justified by the fact that they are written for a "religious" newspaper. To cast up accounts does not become a right act because they are the accounts of a charity. Whatever our rule of Sunday observance, let us beware of evading it under the excuse that our employment has a connection with religion when it is essentially secular in its character. BY J. ORR Exodus 35:1-4 The new start. Moses’ second absence, though, like the first, it lasted-forty days and forty nights (Exodus 34:28), was not followed by the same disastrous effects as the former one. The people had meantime had enough of "gods of gold." They were too frightened at what had happened to think of seeking out any more" inventions" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). They were penitent and well disposed. When at length the news came that God had forgiven them, no bounds could be set to their zeal for service. Learn— 1. How God brings good out of evil. The Divine physician so treated the distemper of the people that it ended, not simply in restored health, but in increased vitality and energy. The lapse into sin was made the means of imparting to the people the stimulus necessary for the erection of the tabernacle. 2. That revival of religion evinces its reality by the effects which it produces. (1) Willingness to hear. "I will hear what God the Lord will speak" (Psalms 85:8). Happy would it have been for Israel had it not "turned again to folly." (2) Willingness to give. Liberality in the Lord’s service. (3) Willingness to work. The joy of salvation cannot better spend itself than in the doing of the work of the Lord’s kingdom, Willing hearts, ready hands. On the injunction to keep the sabbath, see Homily on Exodus 31:12-18.—J.O. THE PEOPLE INVITED TO BRING GIFTS, AND ASSIST IN THE WORK OF THE . Having warned the Israelites against breaches of the sabbath, Moses proceeded to enumerate the offerings which God had said that they might bring (Exodus 35:4-9), and the works which he had required to be constructed (Exodus 35:10-19). In the former enumeration, he follows exactly the order and wording of the Divine command to himself, as recorded in Exodus 25:3-7; in the latter, he changes the order, mentioning first the building, with its component parts (Exodus 25:11), then the contents of the building (Exodus 25:12-15), then the court with its contents (Exodus 25:16, Exodus 25:17) together with some details which had been omitted in the former account (Exodus 25:18), and finally the holy garments (Exodus 25:19). After hearing him, the people returned to their several tents (Exodus 25:20). Exodus 35:5-10 Correspond to Exodus 25:2-7, the correspondence in the list of offerings being exact. Exodus 35:11 On the tabernacle, see Exodus 26:1-6; on the tent, Exodus 26:7-13; on the covering, Exodus 26:14; the boards, Exodus 26:15-25; the bars, Exodus 26:26-29; the pillars, Exodus 26:32-37; and the sockets, Exodus 26:19, Exodus 26:21, Exodus 26:25, Exodus 26:32, and Exodus 26:37. The enumeration comprises all the main parts of which the tabernacle consisted. Exodus 35:12 On the ark and the staves thereof, see Exodus 25:10-15; on the mercy-seat, Exodus 25:17-22; on the vail of the covering, see Exodus 26:31. Exodus 35:13 On the table and its appurtenances, see Exodus 25:23-30. Exodus 35:14 For the candlestick, its furniture, and its lamps, compare Exodus 25:31-39. Exodus 35:15 The incense altar. See Exodus 30:1-10. His staves. See Exodus 30:5. The anointing oil is described in the same chapter, Exodus 30:23-25; the sweet incense in Exodus 30:34, Exodus 30:35; the hangings for the door in Exodus 26:36. Exodus 35:16 Is a reference to Exodus 27:1-8, Exodus 30:18-21. Exodus 35:17 Is a reference to Exodus 27:9-18. Exodus 35:18 The pins of the tabernacle and the court had not been previously mentioned. They must be regarded as tent-pegs, whereto were attached the cords which kept taut the covering of the tent over the tabernacle, and which steadied the pillars whereto the hangings of the court were fastened. Exodus 35:19 The cloths of service. See the comment on Exodus 31:10. On the symbolism of the Tabernacle and its parts, see the Homiletics on Exodus 25:10-39; Exodus 26:1-37.; Exodus 27:1-8; and Exodus 30:1-10. On the symbolism of the anointing oil and the holy incense, see the Homiletics on Exodus 30:23-28. Exodus 35:5-19 The duty and privilege of making offerings to God. That God allows us to offer to him of his own, and accepts such offerings as free gifts, is one of his many gracious condescensions. It is the part of all ministers to give opportunity for such offerings—to encourage them, suggest them, elicit them. Moses now summoned "all the congregation of the children of Israel," that he might give to all, without partiality or favouritism, the opportunity for a good action, which would obtain its due reward. Doubtless he pointed out that the object was one for the glory of God and the edification of his people—no less an object than the substitution for that poor "tent of meeting," which he had extemporised on the morrow of his first descent from Sinai (Exodus 33:7), of a glorious structure, Of the richest materials, designed by God himself, worthy of him, and suited to intensify and spiritualise the devotions of all worshippers. It was fit that the structure should, if possible, be raised by means of the free gifts of the faithful. For this Moses now, like a faithful minister of Christ, made appeal to all. In doing so, he pointed out the two modes in which such offerings may be made. I. MAY BE MADE BY THE TO A SACRED USE OF A PORTION OF OUR . All who had gold, silver, brass, blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goat’s hair, etc; were invited to contribute out of their abundance to the erection of the new sanctuary. It was especially urged that, if they did so, it should be with "a willing heart" (Exodus 35:1)—"not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7). Such a mode of offering is open to those only who have property of some kind or other, and is especially suited to the rich and well-to-do classes; and it was no doubt the wealthy who at this time chiefly contributed in this way. But, as God is "no respecter of persons," and regards the poor and needy fully as much as those who are of high estate, some further mode of making him an offering is necessary. Note, in this connection, that— II. MAY BE MADE BY THE TO A SACRED USE OF SOME PORTION OF OUR TIME AND LABOUR. "Every wise-hearted among you shall come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded" (Exodus 35:10). All who had sufficient skill were invited to join in the actual work of preparing and making the various fabrics. Carpenters, weavers, dyers, smiths, embroiderers, metallurgists, might contribute their time and work, and so make an offering to God as acceptable as that of the gold or jewels of the wealthy. Even poor women, whose only skill was to spin thread with their hands (Exodus 35:25), might "bring that which they had spun," and were accepted as offering worthily. In this way there were few families that might not have their part in the work, for spinning was a wide-spread accomplishment. And so, in our own day, whenever any good work is taken in hand, it will always be found that every one who wills can have some part in it—can he]p, by headwork or by handiwork, to effect the end desired. And the value of such participation is quite equal to that rendered by rich contributors, at any rate, in the sight of God. For observe, the women who spun goat’s hair are placed side by side with the "rulers" who "brought onyx stones," and costly spices, and jewels to be set in the high-priest’s breastplate (Exodus 35:26-28). BY J. ORR Verse 4-36:8 Gifts and workers. Learn from this section that the Lord’s work requires— I. LIBERAL GIVERS. Almost everything needed for the sanctuary was provided by the free gifts of the people. What was required was readily forthcoming. The only exception to the voluntariness of the givings was the half-shekel of atonement money (Exodus 30:11-17; Exodus 38:25, Exodus 38:26). These givings, which may well be made the model of our own, were: 1. Willing—"Every one whose heart stirred him up, and whom his spirit made willing" (Exodus 36:21). The Lord "loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7). 2. According to ability. Each gave as he was able (Exodus 36:23-29). The princes gave costly gifts. Others brought silver and brass. Others gave wood. Those who could not give anything else gave work (Exodus 36:25, Exodus 36:26). 3. Universal. All classes gave. The princes, the people, young and old, men and women. 4. Overflowing. So zealous was the spirit of the people, and so abundant were their gifts, that they had in the end to be restrained (Exodus 36:5-7). When will a like liberality be manifested in the cause of Christ? Liberal givings are needed. There is still much land to be possessed at home. Heathen lands are opening to the Gospel. 5. It sufficed for the work (Exodus 36:7). Thus would God teach us that it is his will that his work should be supported by the voluntary contributions of his people. 6. The giving was made an act of worship—" Every man that offered, offered an offering (lit. a wave-offering) of gold unto the Lord" (Exodus 36:22). "Every one that did offer an offering of silver and brass brought the Lord’s offering" (Exodus 36:24). This is the true spirit of religious giving. The humblest offering, thus presented, will not fail of acceptance. Cf. the widow with her two mites (Mark 12:41-44). II. WILLING WORKERS (Exodus 36:1, Exodus 36:2). The work, like the giving, was hearty. Those only were asked to engage in this work whose hearts stirred them up to do it. God desires no other kind of workers. III. DIVERSE GIFTS. These were needed for the different parts of the work. The man who made the "pin" (Exodus 36:18) was as truly a worker in God’s service, as Bezaleel, who drew the plans. He had his own gift and use. IV. THE WISDOM OF THE SPIRIT. "He hath filled him with the spirit of God" (Exodus 36:31). "Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart," etc. (Exodus 36:35).—J.O. THE ZEAL OF THE PEOPLE IN . Moses dismissed the people; but they soon began to return, bringing their offerings with them. There was a general, if not a universal, willingness Men and women alike "brought bracelets (brooches?), and earrings, and rings, and armlets—all articles of gold," and offered them to the Lord (Exodus 35:22). Others brought blue and purple and scalier and fine linen, and goats’ hair and rams’ skins dyed red, and badger (or rather, seal) skins (Exodus 35:23). Silver and bronze and shittimwood were contributed by others (Exodus 35:24). The women, who were the only spinners, brought their spun yarn of blue and purple and scarlet and fine linen, and their yarn of goats’ hair (Exodus 35:25, Exodus 35:26); while the richest class of all—"the rulers"—gave, as their contribution, the onyx stones for the ephod, the jewels for the high-priest’s breastplate, and the oil needed for the light, together with rare spices for the anointing ointment and the incense (Exodus 35:27, Exodus 35:28). Subsequently, we are told that what was contributed was "much more than enough" (Exodus 36:5), and that the people had to be "restrained from bringing" (Exodus 36:6). Exodus 35:21 The Lord’s offering—i.e; "their offering to Jehovah." For all his service. The use of "his" for "its" causes an unfortunate ambiguity here. The antecedent to the pronoun is not the Lord, but the tabernacle. Exodus 35:22 They came, both men and women. That among the Hebrews gold ornaments were worn by men, as well as by women, is indicated by Exodus 3:22, and Exodus 32:2. The Egyptian men at the time of the Exodus wore armlets, bracelets, and sometimes anklets, but not often earrings Earrings, however, had been worn by the household of Jacob (Genesis 35:2). Bracelets. Rather, "buckles" or "brooches." Kalisch says, "nose-rings," and so Gesenins and Rosenmuller. Tablets. Rather, "armlets" (Furst, Cook), or perhaps "necklaces "(Gesenius Kalisch, Knobel). Every man that offered, offered an offering of gold. It is not meant that every man who offered anything gave with it an offering of gold, but simply that, besides those who brought the articles named there were others who brought gold offerings of some different kind. Exodus 35:23 Red skins of rams. The words are the same as those translated "rams’ skins dyed red" in Exodus 25:5. The earlier rendering is the better one. Badger skins. Rather, "seal skins." See the comment on Exodus 25:5. Exodus 35:24 Every one that did offer an offering of silver. It would seem that silver was offered by some in the way of a free-will offering, in addition to the compulsory half-shekel (Exodus 30:12-16). Curiously, however, the amount obtained in this way is not given in Exodus 38:24-29. Exodus 35:25 All the women that were wise-hearted—i.e; "skilful." See the comment on Exodus 28:3. Brought that which they had spun, both of blue, etc. The flax itself was dyed, so that the thread produced was already coloured. Of fine linen—i.e. "white." All the threads were flaxen. Exodus 35:26 All the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom. This strong expression seems to imply that peculiar skill was required for spinning goats’ hair. Exodus 35:27, Exodus 35:28 The rulers are, no doubt, the "elders" of Exodus 3:16; Exodus 4:29; Exodus 24:9, etc. Moses had made them "rulers," or rather, "princes" (sarey), according to the advice of Jethro (Exodus 18:25). They brought onyx stones for the ephod (Exodus 28:9-12) and stones to be set,—i.e; gems for the breastplate (Exodus 28:17-20); oil of olive for the lamp (Exodus 27:20) and the holy ointment (Exodus 29:24), and spice for the same (Exodus 29:23, Exodus 29:24) and for the incense (Exodus 29:34). Exodus 35:21-29 Zeal in offering. Appeals are made to men, in all parts of the world, and in all ages, for material contributions towards the erection of structures in which God is to be worshipped. The spirit in which such appeals are met varies. (1) Occasionally, they are met in a scoffing spirit. "What, your God needs a house, and cannot build one for himself! He must beg contributions, put out a subscription list! And for what? To make a huge building, which will be of no practical use—not a school, not a hospital, not a corn-exchange, but a Church! Catch us giving anything!" Or (2) it is met in a grudging spirit. "Why is so much required? What need is there for so large a building, or for such rich ornament, or for such architectural display?" And the general inclination,, is to give as little as it is’ decent to give. Or (3) it is met in a fussy spirit. Let the matter be well considered—let meetings be held—let a committee be formed—let our advice be taken. If we give, we must be consulted—we must have a voice in the arrangements—we must examine the plans and express our opinion upon them. Then Perhaps we may bead the subscription-list with something handsome." Very different was the spirit which now animated the Israelites, and which is here held up for our imitation. Their response to the appeal made to them by Moses was— I. DEVOUT. None objected. None asked why a tabernacle was wanted, or why the tent which Moses had made a place of worship would not suffice. None scoffed at the idea of a "House of God." All seemed to see the propriety of it. All felt that what they brought was "the Lord’s offering" (Exodus 35:21, Exodus 35:24)—a real gift to Jehovah. All longed to have a place of worship of a worthy character. II. AND . Their "hearts stirred them up," their "spirits made them willing" (Exodus 35:21). They "brought a willing offering unto the Lord" (Exodus 35:29). The rich brought jewels and precious spices; the men and women of the middle class brought their personal ornaments; the poor men gave brass, or silver, or a ram’s skin, or a piece of acacia wood; the poor women gave the labour of their hands, and spun thread for the hangings. There was no murmuring, no complaining, no fabrication of excuses—so far as appears, no open refusing to give, though there was some abstention. III. . In one verse we read "they departed" (Exodus 35:20), in the next (Exodus 35:21) "they came." There was no delay, no considering, no discussing one with another, no asking "How much do you intend to give?" Each man seemed to be well persuaded of the truth of the adage—"Bis dat qui cito dat," and brought his offering at once. IV. AND . NO one wanted to have a quid pro quo as the condition of his giving. No one asked to "see the plans." All were willing to leave the ordering of the work to Moses, and put their contributions absolutely in his bands. A spirit of enthusiasm was stirred up, and none thought of anything but how much he could possibly spare for the grand work which they understood Moses to contemplate. The wealth of Easterns is stored chiefly in the form of ornaments, and to denude themselves of these was a great effort of self-sacrifice. THE OF AND AHOLIAB TO THE WORK. Though, in some real sense, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," still Moses was probably devoid of the technical knowledge requisite for a "superintendent of the works" on the present occasion. At any rate, his other duties imperatively required that he should decline to undertake, in addition to them, so onerous an office. And God had told him whom it would be best for him to set over the work (Exodus 31:1-6). Accordingly, he now made known to the people that the construction of the tabernacle and its appurtenances would be committed to two men—Bezaleel, the son of Uri, as principal, and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, as his assist-ant—who would "teach" those under them what they were to do (Exodus 35:34). Exodus 35:30 The Lord hath called, etc See Exodus 31:2:—"I have called by name Bezaleel," etc. Of the tribe of Judah. The descent of Bezaleel from Judah has been already traced. (See the comment on Exodus 31:2.) Exodus 35:31-33 Correspond almost word for word with Exodus 35:3-5 of Exodus 31:1-18; q. vide. Exodus 35:34 And he hath put in his heart that he may teach. Rather, "And he hath put it into his heart to teach." He (God) has given him the gift of being able to teach others, and so has enabled him to form a body of workmen competent to carry out his conceptions. Both he and Aholiab. God has given the same gift to Aholiab. On the special talent of Aholiab, see the comment upon Exodus 31:6. Exodus 35:35 Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart—i.e; "with talent or genius." Of the engraver. Rather, "of the artificer," a general term, under which working in metal, Gem-engraving, and wood-carving are included. And of the cunning workman. Rather, "and of the skilful weaver." This clause seems to apply to Aholiab (Exodus 38:23), the preceding one to Bezaleel. And of the embroiderer. This also applies to Aholiab (1.s.c.). And of the weaver—i.e; "the ordinary, weaver," who wove a cloth all of one colour. The "skilful weaver" produced a patterned fabric. (See Exodus 26:1.) The methods of working here spoken of are, all of them, such as were well known in Egypt at the time, and which, consequently, it would have been quite natural for some of the Israelites to have learnt. We are not to suppose that God supernaturally communicated to Bezaleel and Aholiab the technical knowledge required in their occupations, but only that he gave them genius and artistic skill, so that both their designs, and their execution of them, were of unusual excellence. Exodus 35:30-35 Master-Craftsmen. The qualities needed for a master-craftsman are fourfold. These are here enumerated (Exodus 35:31) as— I. WISDOM (Hebrews khakam; LXX. σοφία; Vulg. sapientia), the highest gift of all—the power of original conception, which, if he combines with it the other necessary qualities, makes the true artist, the master-workman, in whatsoever branch of art his work may lie. This is appropriately placed first as the most necessary quality for those who are to direct a great construction of an artistic character. II. (Hebrews taban; LXX. σύνεσις; Vulg. intelligentia), a desirable, but very inferior quality, consisting in the power of appreciating the work of others, and estimating it aright. This power is needed in master-craftsmen, to qualify them for passing judgment on the work produced by those under their direction. III. (Hebrews yada; LXX. ἐπιστήμη; Vulg. scientia), or acquaintance with the laws and facts of science bearing on their art. In the present case, acquaintance with such things as elementary mechanics, the method of cutting hard stones, the process of dyeing, the best mode of working different metals, and the like. An inferior quality this, which the master-craftsman should not lack, but which will avail him little without the higher excellences. IV. (Hebrews m’lakah; LXX. ἀρχιτεκτονία; Vulg. doctrina), or power of execution, next to genius the most necessary quality of the artist, and accepted to a large extent in lieu of genius, as placing a man high in the artistic scale. This excellence does not consist in mere dexterity of hand, but in a happy way of working out designed effects, producing the feeling of complete mastery over the materials. It is by their wonderful execution that the genuine works of great masters are known from copies. Note, that all these qualities were possessed by both of the master-craftsmen in an eminent degree, and that all of them were the gift of "the Spirit of God" (Exodus 35:31), from whom comes down "every good gift and every perfect gift" (James 1:17). Artists should bear this in mind, and sanctify their art by directing it to holy, or at any rate to good ends. What a sad spectacle is genius prostituted to the service of Satan! BY D. YOUNG Bezaleel and Aholiab. Note— I. THE FACT THAT THE LORD CHOSE MEN TO DO THE WORK. It might have been otherwise. As the people were requested of their free-will to provide the materials, so they might have been requested to provide the necessary artificers. But it is easy to see what differences and jealousies might have resulted, all to end in some unsatisfactory compromise. There was no difficulty as long as each one gave of his own decision; and what further difficulty then threatened to come, God immediately removed by himself selecting the men who were to carry out his designs. It is very likely that Bezaleel and Aholiab were not the men whom the people themselves would have chosen. So far as pure artistic originality was concerned they may have been excelled; for the possession in Israel of so much material for artistic and precious work seems to show that there must have been many with the ability requisite for such work. But God had his own principles of choice, his own purposes to serve; and it would appear in due time how wise God was in indicating certain men and not others for what needed to be done. II. THE WITH WHICH GOD ENDOWED THEM. God, we may be sure, to some extent took them for what they were by nature. He always looks at the natural basis on which he proposes to build up some Divine work. But he did not leave them to their natural strength to carry out his designs. He did not leave them to toil onward to impressive results through many attempts which had to be forsaken as failures. Great works of art, which only too many spectators regard with but a glance, are to the artist memorials of weary and tantalising hours. Sir Joshua Reynolds said of one of his completed paintings, "there are ten under it, some better, some worse." Bezaleel and Aholiab were spared all such disappointments, all vain hunts after the unattainable ideal. A variety of words are used with respect to them, as if to signify how eminently and abundantly God had endowed them with all that was necessary for the task. Thus it was to be made plain to the then living generation and their successors that the tabernacle and its contents were in a very important sense the work of God. These things were to be sacred in every way: they were not to be criticised and compared, as if they were the outcome of art and man’s device. Perhaps criticism did come, for fault-finders are numerous in every age; but the two chosen artificers needed not to trouble themselves about any complaining. And should we not all find it better if, instead of straining to do work for God in our own strength and wisdom—which must ever be a saddening failure as to spiritual results—we sought to be as tools directed by the wisdom of God? We have no right to complain if keen eyes discover the weak points in what is fashioned by our own skill; but if we are sure that God’s Spirit is ruling in all we do for him, then we may meet complaints with a meek indifference.—Y. BY J. ORR Bezaleel and Aholiab. See Homily on Exodus 31:1-12.—J.O. Exodus 36:1-3, Exodus 36:8-38 THE OF THE WORK, AND THE OF THE PEOPLE—THE LATTER HAS TO BE (Exodus 36:3-7). Bezaleel and Aholiab felt that the time for action was now come. They at once addressed themselves to their task. Moses delivered into their hands all the various offerings which the people, rich and poor, had brought in (Exodus 35:21-29); and skilled workmen were immediately called upon to shape it for the designed uses. The fact of the work being commenced did not stop the inflow of gifts. More and yet more continued to be brought "every morning" (Exodus 36:3). At last it became clear that the supply had exceeded the demand; and the workmen reported so to Moses (Exodus 36:4, Exodus 36:5), who thereupon commanded that the offerings should cease (Exodus 36:6). The progress of the work is then reported in detail, and in the following order:— 1. The covering for the tabernacle (Exodus 36:8-13); 2. The goats’ hair covering for the tent above the tabernacle (Exodus 36:14-18); 3. The outer coverings of rams’ skins and seals’ skins (Exodus 36:19); 4. The boards for the walls of the tabernacle (Exodus 36:20-30); 5. The bars for the boards (Exodus 36:31-34); 6. The veil of the most holy place (Exodus 36:35, Exodus 36:30); 7. The hanging for the entrance to the tabernacle (Exodus 36:37, Exodus 36:38). The chapter, from Exodus 36:8, runs parallel with Exodus 26:1-37; differing from it mainly in describing as made that which in Exodus 26:1-37. is ordered to be made. Exodus 36:1 Then wrought Bezaleel, etc. This is introductory to the entire sub-section, which extends to the end of Exo 39:1-43. It means—"Then, under the direction of Bezaleel and Aholiab, began the work of constructing that place of meeting for which commandment had been given to Moses in the mount." The master-craftsmen, and those under them, "wrought," and took care that all was done according to all that the Lord had commanded. It is to mark the exactitude of the obedience that chs. 36-39, follow so closely, and with such minuteness, the wording of chs. 26-28. Exodus 36:2, Exodus 36:3 Moses called Bezaleel, etc. Having received sufficient materials for a beginning, Moses summoned Bezaleel, Aholiab, and their chief assistants, to his presence, and delivered into their hands the various offerings—the wood, the metal, the precious stones, the thread, the goats’ hair, the rams’ skins, the seals’ skins, etc. Upon these materials they proceeded at once to work. They brought yet unto him free offerings every morning. The people still continued to give. Freewill offerings kept continually flowing in. Morning after morning a fresh supply was brought to Moses, who passed it on to those engaged in the work. Exodus 36:4, Exodus 36:5 At last, remonstrance had to be made. The workmen were cumbered with an overplus of material—an embarras de richesses—and came in a body to Moses, to make complaint. All the wise men came, every man from his work, with the cry "The people bring much more than enough—we are hampered in our work by the too great abundance—let an end be put to it." Exodus 36:6 Moses accordingly had proclamation made through the camp, and so put a stop to further offerings. Exodus 36:8-38 The remainder of this chapter requires no comment, since it goes over ground already covered. The passage from Exodus 36:8 to Exodus 36:18 corresponds exactly with Exodus 26:1-11; that from Exodus 26:19-34 with Exodus 26:14-29; that consisting of Exo 26:35, Exodus 26:36, with Exodus 26:33, Exodus 26:34; and the two concluding verses with Exodus 26:36, Exodus 26:37. Under these circumstances a few mistranslations will alone be noticed. Exodus 36:22 Two tenons, equally distant one from another. Rather, as in Exodus 26:17, "two tenons, set in order one against an other." Exodus 36:27 For the sides of the tabernacle westward. Literally correct; but it would be more intelligible to render "for the side," or "for the back." Exodus 36:32 For the sides westward. The same alteration should be made. Exodus 36:33 He made the middle Bar to shoot through the boards. Rather, as in Exodus 26:28, "to reach from end to end of the boards." Exodus 36:37 For the tabernacle door. Rather, as in Exodus 26:36, "for the door of the tent." Their chapiters and their fillets. Rather "their capitals and their rods." These had not been previously mentioned. Exodus 35:3-7 Superabundant giving. Too much is far better than too little. Let a great work be taken in hand, and it is impossible to anticipate the exact quantity of the material that it will require, or the exact cost of work and material together. Care should always be taken to have a margin beyond the supposed necessity. Unless this is done— I. THE WORK IS APT TO BE SCAMPED AND STINTED TOWARDS THE CLOSE. Fear naturally arises lest the material or the money should not hold out; and economies are practised which detract from the beauty, the finish, the perfection of the construction. Or (which is worse) desirable, even necessary, adjuncts are omitted, given up as impracticable under the circumstances. II. THE WORK MAY HAVE TO BE LEFT . All calculations of cost are uncertain. Prices rise while a work is in progress; material purchased, or presented, turns out to be defective, and has to be replaced by something better. Accidents occur. The actual cost of a work almost always exceeds the estimate—some-times greatly exceeds it. How often do we hear of there being a debt upon a building! This would occur far less frequently, if gifts and offerings kept flowing in until the authority entrusted with the work cried "Stop." Superabundant giving shows a truly liberal spirit in those who give. It is not a very common thing. Cases are rare of its needing to be "restrained." The example of the Israelites should stir Christians to emulate them. While these poor wanderers in the desert were so generous, how is it that we are, for the most part, so niggardly? Superabundant giving is a trial to those who receive the gifts. How easy to appropriate what is not required to our own advantage! Moses withstood this temptation. Bezaleel and Aholiab withstood it. It may be doubted whether all Christians have always done so. The gifts that flowed in at the shrine of Becket, at the exhibition of the holy coat of Troves, at the altar of St. Januarius, were intended as offerings for the service of the sanctuary. Were they always used for sacred purposes? Was there not often a superfluity, which men converted to their own benefit? There have certainly been those in modern times who have enriched themselves out of moneys subscribed for charitable purposes, as the records of our assize courts sufficiently show. Exodus 35:8 -38 Exactitude in obedience. Kalisch observes on this passage, that, "though even literal repetitions of the same occurrence, or the same command, are not unusual in the Biblical style, yet the lengthened and accurate reiteration" which here occurs, is unusual and must have some special meaning. He himself considers that he has sufficiently accounted for it as intended to draw attention to the importance of the tabernacle in the Mosaic system, and the significance, and especially the symbolical character of the descriptions. To us it seems that there must have been some further reason for the phenomenon; and we are inclined to find it in the importance of the example which Moses here sets of exactitude in obedience. If any one might ever be supposed entitled to depart from the strict letter of observance, where the commands of God are concerned, it would be such an one as Moses, who had conversed as friend to friend with God, and had been twice summoned to a conference of forty days’ duration. But Moses does not seem to feel that he is so privileged. The exact correspondency of paragraph with paragraph, verse with verse, clause with clause, word with word, seems intended to teach and enforce the lesson that what God commands is to be observed to the letter, down to its minutest point. Certainly, what these five concluding chapters of Exodus especially set forth, is the extreme exactitude which Moses and those under him showed in carrying out all the directions that God had given with regard to the tabernacle. If "fifty taches" were ordered (Exodus 26:6), "fifty taches" were made (Exodus 36:13); if "five pillars" were commanded here (Exodus 26:37), and "four pillars" there (Exodus 26:32), the five and the four were constructed and set up accordingly (Exodus 36:36, Exodus 36:38); if this curtain was to have a pattern woven into it (Exodus 26:31), and that curtain was to be adorned with embroidery (Exodus 26:36), the embroiderer’s and the weaver’s art were employed upon them as ordered (Exodus 36:35, Exodus 36:37). Nothing commanded was ever neglected; only in one or two cases (notably in verse 38) small additions were made, if not to the orders given, at any rate to the orders recorded. Generally, however, there was an entire effacement of self, a complete restraint of private fancy and private preference. Note— 1. The rarity of exact obedience; 2. The difficulty of it; 3. The scant praise which it obtains from men; 4. The certainty that it is approved in God’s sight. Examples— 1. The obedience of Moses as here set out; 2. The perfect obedience of Christ. "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me" (John 4:34). "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do" (John 17:4). Exodus 35:8 -37 On Tabernacle symbolism see the Homiletics on Exodus 26:1-11. BY J. ORR Exodus 35:8 Exodus 39:43 The Tabernacle made. These chapters recount how the tabernacle, etc; was actually made. On the several sections, see the Homiletics and Homilies on chs. 26-28. We have in them— I. WORK DONE. The point to be observed here is that everything was done precisely according to the Divine directions. The makers turned not aside, either to the right hand or to the left, from what had been commanded them. They attempted no alteration on the plans. They did not try improvements; they added no ornaments. This was their wisdom, and secured for their work the Divine approval. Work for Christ should be done in the same way. We cannot improve upon his Gospel. We are not entitled to add to, or take from, his commands. II. WORK (Exodus 39:33-43). When the work was finished the makers brought it to Moses, who looked upon it and pronounced that all had been done according "as the Lord had commanded" (Exodus 28:43). The day of inspection will come for our work also (1 Corinthians 3:14, 1 Corinthians 3:15). Happy for us if the same verdict can be passed upon it! III. WORK BLESSED. "And Moses blessed them" (Exodus 28:43). "If any man’s work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward" (1 Corinthians 3:14).—J.O. Jehovah’s dwelling-place. See homily on Exodus 26:1-37.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 35:1 -38 The work fails not either for gifts or skill. I. MOSES GOES FORWARD IN FAITH. 1. He makes an immediate beginning. He might have doubted the people’s liberality (so much was required) or the workmen’s ability, and have waited; but it was enough that God had commanded the work. If Christ has commanded us to rear up a tabernacle for God in every land nothing should stay us. He will give offerings and men. 2. He followed the Lord’s guiding. He called the men whom he had named and prepared. There must be obedience as well as faith, not calling those we would choose, but hailing gladly, and honouring, the men whom God has prepared. 3. The materials are committed to them. If we are to be built into God’s temple we must obey them who have the rule over us. II. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE FROM GIVING. 1. The glory of a liberal spirit. There was no need of a second appeal. Though they knew that much had been contributed they still gave. 2. It consecrated the work. (1) It was a joy for the workmen to labour amid that generous liberality. (2) It was a joy to Israel and their children to remember the story of the tabernacle. To labourers in the Lord’s vineyard it is a mighty consecration when hearts are yielded on every side and more is thrust upon them than they can well use for the Master; and the remembrance of such times is power and refreshing in after days. III. THE WORK ; THE SKILL AND LABOUR FAILED NOT. First the framework of the tabernacle is reared and the inner curtains made and placed; then the outer curtains, and lastly the boards, and bars, and veils are set up. The heart is first gained for God, then more and more of light and power is poured upon the outer life till the whole "grows unto an holy temple in the Lord."—U. Exodus 37:1-29 THE FURTHER OF THE WORK THE OF THE FOR THE HOLY OF HOLIES (Exodus 37:1, Exodus 37:9) AND FOR THE HOLY PLACE (Exodus 37:10-28) THE MAKING OF THE HOLY OIL AND OF THE INCENSE (Exodus 37:29). On the history of the construction of the tabernacle follows naturally that of the construction of its furniture. The order of dignity is followed, as in Exodus 25:1-40; and the furniture of the holy of holies taken first. Exodus 37:1-9 correspond to Exodus 25:10-20. Exodus 37:10-16 to Exodus 25:23-29; Exodus 37:17-24 to Exodus 25:31-39 of the same; and Exodus 37:25-28 to Exodus 30:1-5. Exodus 37:29 is an abbreviation of Exo 30:23-25, and Exodus 30:34, Exodus 30:35. Exodus 37:1 Bezaleel made the ark. The particular maker of the various parts and contents of the tabernacle is not elsewhere pointed out. Thus this mention of Bezaleel is emphatic, and seems intended to mark the employment of the highest artistic skill on that which was the most precious of all objects connected with the new construction. Exodus 37:7 Beaten out of one piece. Rather, "of beaten work," as the same word is translated in the corresponding passage, Exodus 25:18. Exodus 37:23 His snuffers. Or, "tongs," as in Exodus 25:38. Exodus 37:25 The incense altar here occurs in its right place, among the furniture of the outer chamber of the tabernacle—not, as in Exodus 30:1-6, out of place. Exodus 37:29 The holy anointing oil. For the composition of the oil, see Exodus 30:23-25; for the uses whereto it was to be applied, Exodus 30:26-30. The pure incense of sweet spices. The composition of the incense is given in Exodus 30:34, Exodus 30:35. It is there said to have been "a confection after the art of the apothecary—tempered together, pure and holy." The combination of artistic power with practical knowledge in Bezaleel and Ahollab calls to mind cinque-cento Italy, and the wonderful grasp of art and science possessed by Michael Angelo and Benvenuto Cellini Art’s highest efforts should be concentrated on what is most essential to the work in hand. "Bezaleel made the ark." Bezaleel, "filled with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship" (Exodus 35:31), while he entrusted most of the rest of the work to others, reserved to himself the construction of the ark, with the cherubim and mercy seat. The ark was clearly the central object of the newly devised structure, that towards which the eyes of all would be directed, on which the thoughts of all would rest, which, itself unseen, dominated the entire edifice and formed its material basis and raison d’etre. Shrined in the holy of holies, shrouded from sight by the veil, never seen but by the high-priest once a-year, yet known to occupy the innermost penetrale of the sanctuary, and to lie there in the light of the Divine presence constantly, it challenged the attention of all, and occupied a unique position among the sacred objects which the sanctuary was to contain. Bezaleel, the master-artist, felt that there was a call on him to construct it. What wealth of loving work he lavished on the construction, with what rich and delicate tracery of fanciful ornament he adorned it, no one can say. The ark never returned from Babylon; and the master-work of the master-artist of these times has been lost to humanity. But his choice asserted some important principles, and deserves imitation through all ages. It pointed out— I. THAT THE LAW OF IS NOT ONE OF GENERAL UNIFORM UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT, BUT ONE OF SPECIAL UPON A POINT OR POINTS. Compare Magdalen Tower with the Houses of Parliament, the western front of the Parthenon with the ordinary porch of a church of the Jesuits, the facade of St. Zeno at Verona with even the front of St. Mark’s at Venice, and it will at once be seen how superior is ornament concentrated to ornament dispersed, elaboration of certain parts, set off by the comparative plainness of others, to diffusion generally of equal elaboration everywhere. A sense of heaviness, of over-loading, of weariness, is produced by the one plan, a feeling of unmixed pleasure by the other. II. THAT THE SHOULD BE ON SUCH PARTS OF THE WORK AS ARE MOST TO IT. If a campanile or bell-tower be the work in hand, the concentration should be towards the chamber in which the bells are hung, as in the great campanile of St. Mark’s, Venice. If a college, towards the parts common to all, the chapel, hall, library; if a sepulchral monument, towards the tomb; if a palace, towards the state-rooms; and the like. Here, in this case of the tabernacle, the concentration was towards the holy of holies. Most properly. And on the ark: since, of the holy of holies, the ark was the glory. In Christian churches, according as preaching, or the administration of the sacraments, or the elevation of the thoughts to heaven, are regarded as the main object of sacred buildings, the concentration of artistic effort will naturally be towards the pulpit, or towards font and altar, or towards the roof. Examples of the first are common in Germany and Switzerland, of the second in Roman Catholic churches generally, of the third in English churches of the Tudor period, e.g. Henry the Seventh’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and the like. For further Homiletics, see those on chs. 25. and 30. BY J. ORR Exodus 37:1-28 The furnishing of the tabernacle. I. ALL WAS AS GOD HAD . 1. Successfully. It might have been feared that though the tabernacle was erected there would be some failure in this more delicate and ornate work; but all is perfectly executed even to the smallest details. In the work of him whom God has called by name there will be no failure. His work will be presented faultless, and every word which God has spoken will be fulfilled. 2. Faithfully: as they failed in nothing, so they added nothing. In God’s work there must be no alloy of human devices. In worship, ordinances, life, our sole guide must be God’s commandment. II. THE OF THE : THE OF THE ’S LIFE. 1. The ark, the meeting-place of righteousness and peace. The heart in which God’s law is set, on which the atonement rests, and which is bathed in the glory of the Divine love. There is, in a word, living faith. 2. The table of shew-bread: a yielded life, the sacrifice presented before God of body, soul, and spirit. 3. The candlestick: "ye are the light of the world." (1) There is life, which in the measure it exists is, like Christ’s, the light of men. It shows the reality and power of God’s grace. (2) There is labour in word and doctrine. God’s mind and will are understood. 4. The incense altar, the uplifting of holy desire and intercession for all men. Are these things found in us? They may be. It is the work to which Christ has been called, and he is waiting to accomplish it in us.—U. Exodus 37:1-25 The ark, the table, and the candlestick. See Homily on Exodus 25:10-40.—J.O. Exodus 37:25-29 The altar of incense. See Homily on Exodus 30:1-11; 34-38.—J.O. Exodus 38:1-8 THE FURTHER OF THE WORK—THE OF THE FOR THE COURT.—Exodus 38:9-20.—AND OF THE COURT ITSELF. On the completion of the tabernacle, Bezaleel and his assistants turned their attention to the court and its furniture; and constructed, first, the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 38:1-7); secondly, the bronze laver (Exodus 38:8); and thirdly, the hangings, pillars, connecting-rods, hooks and pins for the circuit of the court (Exodus 38:9-20). Exodus 38:1-7 correspond to Exodus 38:1-8 of Exodus 27:1-21.; Exodus 27:8 corresponds to Exodus 27:18 of Exodus 30:1-38.; and Exodus 30:9-20 correspond to Exodus 30:9-19 of Exodus 27:1-21. Exodus 38:3 The pots. This translation is better than that of Exo 27:3, which is "pans." Buckets or scuttles to convey the ashes from the altar to the ash-heap (Le Exodus 1:16) are intended. Exodus 38:8 Of the looking-glasses of the women. This interesting fact has not been previously mentioned. Bronze plates, circular or oval, admitting of a high polish, were used by the Egyptian women as mirrors from a very early date, and may be seen in the Egyptian collection of the British Museum. They have handles like those of our fire-screens, generally also of bronze. It was natural that the Hebrew women should possess similar articles, and should have taken care to bring them with them out of Egypt. The sacrifice of them for a sacred purpose is rather to be ascribed to their own serf-denying piety than to any command issued by Moses (Spencer). Which assembled. Literally, "who came by troops." Women assembled themselves by troops at the entrance of the "tent of meeting" set up lay. Moses (Exodus 33:7), as at a later date we find Hannah (1 Samuel 1:9-12) and other women who were less worthy (1 Samuel 2:22) doing. The women who showed this zeal were those that made the sacrifice of their mirrors for God’s service. There is no reason to suppose (with Hengstenberg and others) that they constituted a regular "order." Exodus 38:10 Their fillets. Rather, "their connecting-rods," as in Exodus 27:10. Exodus 38:17 The overlaying of their chapiters of silver. This is additional to what is recorded in Exodus 27:1-21; and is parallel to what we find related of the tabernacle pillars in Exodus 36:38. Filleted with silver. Rather, "connected with silver rods." Compare Exodus 27:17. Exodus 38:18 The height in the breadth was five cubits. The height of the hangings all round the court was required to be five cubits, or seven and a half feet (Exodus 27:18). It appears by the expression here used—"in the breadth"—that the material was woven of exactly this width. Exodus 38:19 Their chapiters. This again is additional to the directions given Compare the comment on Exodus 38:17. The triumph of female piety over female vanity. Hebrew women were, it must be presumed, much like other women in their natural dispositions, and therefore not without their share of personal vanity. The fact, that in all the haste of their sudden departure from Egypt they had not omitted to carry with them their metal mirrors, is indicative of this. The mirror was the most valued of toilet articles, and the most indispensable for effecting that end, at which almost all women aim—the making the best of those advantages of personal appearance which nature has vouchsafed to them. It is difficult to imagine any material sacrifice to which a woman would not more readily have consented than the loss of her mirror. Yet we know that the sacrifice was made by large numbers; for the laver was a vessel of considerable size. Let us consider then, 1. The motive of the act; 2. the antecedent conduct which led up to it; 3. the reward which it obtained. I. THE MOTIVE OF THE ACT. No other motive can be conceived of than true piety. Piety loves to make offerings to God. Piety does not count the cost. Piety, the gift of grace, can triumph over nature; transform a poor vain worldling into a saint; make no sacrifice seem a hard one. It must have been piety which made these women give their mirrors, either, 1. In addition to their personal ornaments (Exodus 35:22), or 2. In default of them. Some after offering their ear-rings, rings, necklaces, bracelets, and the like, may have desired, from pure love of God, to give more, and casting about to consider what more they could give, may have bethought them of their mirrors. Others may have had no personal ornaments to give; and if unable to spin, may have had nothing else but their mirrors which they could contribute. In either case, piety was at the root of their giving. II. THE CONDUCT WHICH LED UP TO IT, They who contributed their mirrors were women wont to "assemble at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." In other words, they were such as had previously made all the use they could of their religious opportunities. We see that God does not shower down his precious gifts of grace at random—but "helps such as help themselves." He granted the priceless grace of self-denying love to those who were constant in serving him at the place where he had "set his name," and was to be found of them that sought him. Much prayer, much waiting upon God, had gone to form the character of those who now found themselves able to make a willing sacrifice of their vanity. III. THE REWARD WHICH THEIR ACT OF FOR THEM. It obtained for them the high reward of special mention in God’s holy word—a place in his "Valhalla"—a record in his "Roll of worthies." Of the other offerings we know not, for the most part, whether they were made by men or women—much less by what class of men, or what class of women. Only here, and in Exodus 35:25, Exodus 35:26, is the sex specified, and only here the class. Let women take this to heart. Let them be ready to sacrifice to him all their adornments—"braided hair and gold and pearls, and costly array" (1 Timothy 2:9)—let them be ready to sacrifice even, if need be, their personal charms (as many do in fever or small-pox hospitals), and they will not be forgotten by him—they will not go without a recompense. If their act be not recorded in any other book it will be written in that heavenly record, out of which all will be judged at the last day (Revelation 20:12). For other Homiletics on the subjects of this chapter, see those on Exodus 27:1-21. BY J. ORR Exodus 38:1-21 The brazen altar, the laver, and the court. See Homilies on Exodus 27:1-20; Exodus 30:17-22.—J.O. The mirrors of the women. The women assembling at the door of the tabernacle (see Hengstenberg’s "Egypt and the Books of Moses,"—"The Institution of Holy Women ") gave up their mirrors for the making of the laver. Learn— 1. Peculiar devotion to God expresses itself in acts of sacrifice. 2. Religion gives power to make sacrifices. 3. It weans the affections from the world. 4. It gives superiority to the motives of personal vanity. The mirror is peculiarly a woman’s instrument of self-pleasing. It is her means of pleasing the world. 5. Religion teaches godly women to study simplicity in personal adornment (1 Peter 3:1-5). 6. Self-denial in outward adornment is valueless, unless" in the hidden man of the heart," there be the positive inward adornment of holiness (1 Peter 3:4). This was taught by the use to which Moses put the offerings—the making of the "laver." Regeneration is the true beautifier.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 38:1-31 The Court and its lessons. I. THE AND OF THE COURT (1) The altar on which the sacrifice for Israel’s sin was laid, and their own offerings accepted. Christ is the foundation and the power of all our service. (2) The laver. It was fashioned from the mirrors of the women, The adornment of the outward was exchanged for inward purity, the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. It stood there for the daily use of God’s priests. They could pass into God’s presence only as their defilement had been washed away. "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Are we being washed ere that hour comes when we must appear before him? 2. The construction of the court. (1) God’s grace makes a separation between the Church and the world. To break down this is to undo God’s work. (2) The wall of separation was fine twined linen. It is a separation not only between faith and unbelief, but between righteousness and unrighteousness. (3) The world sees the results only, the means by which they are attained are hid from its view; but the results are a call to come and see. 3. The order in which they were made. The altar first, then the laver, and, last of all, the enclosing of the court. First, Christ and his sacrifice; next, the washing of regeneration by him through the Spirit; and, last of all, the gathering together of the Church. This is the Divine order. The true Church has ever this history. None have a right to be there on whom the work of altar and laver has not first been done. II. THE . 1. The record of it is kept. There is nothing of all that is given for God’s service, the history or place of which is forgotten. 2. The use to which it is applied. The gold is put to the highest use; the silver—the redemption money—is the foundation of the sanctuary; the brass is used for the altar, the laver, and the court. Each is put to its proper use, and a place is found for all. No gift can be brought to God which he will not employ.—U. THE SUM OF THE , OR WEIGHT OF THE METALS IN IT. Before dismissing the subject of the construction of the tabernacle, Moses places on record the sum of the gold, silver and bronze contributed and consumed in the work. At the same time he informs us who was the accountant by whom the sum was made up (Exodus 38:21), and what were the portions of the work formed of each metal (Exodus 38:24, Exodus 38:27, Exodus 38:28, Exodus 38:30, Exodus 38:31). Incidentally he mentions the number of the congregation at this period (Exodus 38:26), and the weight of the "sockets" or "bases" (Exodus 38:27). Exodus 38:21 This is the sum. Or "numbering" (as in Numbers 26:63). The tabernacle of testimony. The tabernacle, i.e; of which the great glory was that it contained "the testimony" or "Two Tables." Compare Exodus 25:16. For the service of the Levites. Literally "a service of the Levites by the hand of Ithamar," etc.—i.e. "a service which was performed by the Levites at the command of Ithamar." It is somewhat remarkable that the direction of the Levites should be assigned to Ithamar, rather than to Nadab or Abihu. Exodus 38:22 Bezaleel made all. The direction of the whole work by Bezaleel is here asserted more definitely and decidedly than elsewhere. Compare Exodus 31:2-6; Exodus 36:1, Exodus 36:2. Exodus 38:23 Aholiab’s special gifts are here pointed out. He was 1. An artificer (a general term with no special application); 2. A skilled weaver; and 3. An embroiderer. Altogether, his business was with the textile fabrics—not with the wood-work or the metal-work—of the sanctuary. Exodus 38:24 The gold. The value of the gold has been estimated by Canon Cook at £175,075 13s. 0d. of our money; by Thenius at 877,300 Prussian thalers, or about £131,595. It was certainly under £200,000. De Wette and others have argued that the possession of so large a sum in gold at this time by the Hebrew nation is inconceivable. But most critics are of a different opinion. Gold was very abundant in Egypt at the period, being imported from Ethiopia, a rich gold-producing country (Herod. 3.23; Diod. Sic. 3.11), as well as taken in tribute from the nations of Asia. The wealth of Rhampsinitus (Rameses III.), a little later than the exodus, was enormous. According to the preceding narrative (Exodus 12:35, Exodus 12:36) much of the wealth of Egypt had, at the moment of their quitting the country, passed from the Egyptians to the Hebrews. If they numbered two millions of souls, their gold ornaments are likely to have been worth very much more than £200,000 of our money. On the shekel of the sanctuary, see the comment upon Exodus 30:13. Exodus 38:25 The silver. The silver seems to have amounted to about four times the weight of the gold; but the value of it was very much less, not exceeding £40,000 of our money (Cook). It may seem surprising that this should have been so; but there are grounds for believing that both in Africa and in Asia gold was more plentiful than silver in the early ages. And it is certainly much more suitable for ornaments. Of them that were numbered. See above, Exodus 30:12-16. The silver for the sanctuary was collected by a compulsory tax, of the nature of a church-rate. This produced the amount here given, No estimate is made of the weight of the silver freewill offerings (Exodus 35:24), nor is any account given of their application. It has been suggested that they were returned to the donors as superfluous, which is certainly possible, Exodus 38:26 A bekah for every man. Literally, "for every head." From twenty years old and upward. Compare Numbers 1:3, Numbers 1:22, etc. Six hundred thousand, etc. It is remarkable that this number agrees exactly with the sum total of the numbering in Numbers 2:32, which took place about six months later, and was exclusive of 22,000 Levites. Perhaps the number was lost in this place, and restored from Numbers 2:32, without its being recollected that the Levites were not included in that reckoning. Exodus 38:27 The sockets of the sanctuary and of the veil See above, Exodus 36:24, Exodus 36:26, Exodus 36:30, and Exodus 36:36. The numbers given are 40, 40, 16, and 4, making exactly the hundred. Exodus 38:28 Hooks for the pillars. See above, Exodus 38:10, Exodus 38:12, Exodus 38:17, and Exodus 38:19. Chapiters. See Exodus 38:19. Filleted them. Rather, "connected them with rods" Exodus 38:29 The brass of the offering—i.e; the bronze which had been brought by the people in answer to the invitation of Moses (Exodus 35:24). Exodus 38:30, Exodus 38:31 The sockets. See Exodus 36:38. The brazen altar and the brazen grate. See Exodus 36:1 and Exodus 36:4. The vessels. See Exodus 36:3. The sockets of the court. See above, Exodus 36:11, Exodus 36:14, Exodus 36:15, Exodus 36:17, and Exodus 36:19. The pins of the tabernacle and of the court. See above, Exodus 36:20. Exodus 38:24-31 Great wealth worthily employed. I. THE AMOUNT BY THE WAS GREAT . Although the materials contributed for the construction of the tabernacle are quite within the estimate which would reasonably be formed of the wealth of the Israelites from the general tenor of the narrative, yet they certainly reach altogether to such an amount of value as would constitute a very serious call on the resources of such a people. The worth of the metals alone was not far short of a quarter of a million of our money. (Gold, £175,000; silver, £40,000; bronze (say) £15,000—total, £230,000.) The precious stones, the spices, the wood-work, the raw material for the cloths, the dyed rams’ skins and seals’ skins, have to be added, and would raise the sum total to at least £250,000. This was contributed by a population of about two millions; which may be regarded as equivalent to 10s. a family, or half-a-crown a head. Now the entire taxation for imperial purposes of each British subject is about £2 a head, of which the amount paid in direct taxation is not more than 5s. a head. So that the Israelite of the 13th or 14th century, b.c; paid at one time for church purposes of his own free will, half as much as the British subject of the present day pays directly for State purposes in the whole course of the year. Thus the amount was great absolutely, and showed a noble spirit in those who contributed. II. THE AMOUNT WAS ALSO GREAT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE . What was required was a structure sixty feet long by thirty, with a skirting for a court or precinct 150 feet long by seventy-five. The main structure, or tabernacle, would be about the size of a small college chapel. The precinct would be smaller than most churchyards. Yet upon these two objects, without making any estimate for labour, a quarter of a million of money was spent. On the first blush, one asks, how was it possible for so enormous an outlay to be made? The answer is, by the lavish use of the precious metals, especially gold. That the structure might be rich, splendid, magnificent, gold and silver were lavished upon it, both externally and internally—scarcely any wood was seen—nothing caught the eye but costly fabrics of rich colour, and masses of silver or gold. A warm, harmonious, rich result was no doubt produced; and nomadic Israel, unable to compete with the settled nations in the size and grandeur of its "holy place," erected for itself a sanctuary, which in its own way was unequalled and unique. III. THE OBJECT OF THE WAS A WORTHY ONE. If a people have temples at all, men will always judge their religious views, more or less, by them. If Israel was to have a place of worship—and it may be doubted whether any race of men will ever be able to do without one—it would certainly be subjected to rough criticism and comparison. The Egyptian temples were magnificent—of vast size, of the most solid construction, of handsome material, elaborately painted and adorned; they delighted those who worshipped in them, and challenged the admiration of extraneous beholders. Israel, in the desert, could not possibly vie with these. But it might construct a work perfect in its kind, of a different class, which would compensate for smallness of size by richness of material and artistic elaboration. It could show in this way its sense that men should give to God of their best. It could secure an extraordinary degree of beauty, finish, and elegance. The nations among which the tabernacle passed—even those who heard an account of it—must have been impressed with the feeling that here was a people which thoroughly believed in its God; which thought nothing too good for him; which was ready for his sake to submit to much self-sacrifice. And the people itself must also have been impressed by its own work. No such apostasy as the worship of the calf ever took place after the tabernacle had been constructed. It was no longer faith, but sight, which told them, that "God was in the midst of them." The sense of this begat a courage and a confidence, which supported the nation under many trials, and many temptations. They had never to regret the outlay which they had made upon their "tent-temple." Application.—There has been much church-building in modern times, but in no instance such a lavish outlay as that here held up to our imitation. Germany, indeed, has completed the Dom of Cologne; but not much of the money was subscribed; for the most part, it came out of the general taxation of the country. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Calcutta, have raised cathedrals; but the cost has not been very considerable. The spirit of munificence has been shown rather by individuals than by any nation; and, in England at any rate, the nineteenth century will not, it is to be feared, be signalised among others by the completion of any really first-rate ecclesiastical edifice. New dioceses are formed; but new cathedrals, worthy of taking rank with the masterpieces of former times, do not arise. The prevailing practice is to convert a parish church into a cathedral. May it not be hoped that ere long some new diocese, where wealth abounds, will devote to its cathedral some such amount as the Israelites in the desert contributed towards their tabernacle, and raise an edifice which will prove to the world that Post-Reformation England does not yield to the England of the Middle Ages in the virtue of Christian munificence? BY J. ORR Exodus 38:21-31 The enumeration of the metals used. This served a useful purpose— 1. As an account rendered to the people of what had been done with their gifts. 2. As gratifying a very laudable wish of the contributors to know how much the sum-total of their contributions amounted to. 3. As giving a just idea of the splendour and costliness of the building. 4. As a testimony to the liberality, willingness, and unstinting self-sacrifice of all classes in the congregation. 5. As specially indicating the destination of the atonement-money—the making of the "sockets" on which the tabernacle was reared (Exodus 38:27). 6. As a lesson of exactitude in church finance. A church is not at liberty to deal in a slovenly manner with its receipts and disbursements. Careful accounts should be kept and published. This (1) Gives confidence in the management; (2) is an encouragement to giving; (3) prevents charges of maladministration; (4) is a prevention against waste.—J.O. Exodus 39:1-31 THE FURTHER OF THE WORK—THE MAKING OF THE PRIESTS’ DRESSES. Exodus 39:32-43 THE GENERAL OF THE WORK BY MOSES. The entire work for the structure of the tabernacle being completed, it only remained for Bezaleel and Aholiab to take in band the priestly vestments, which had been prescribed with the greatest elaboration in Exodus 28:4-40. The present chapter is mainly occupied in relating how the vestments were made, and follows, very nearly, the order of the directions. Exodus 39:1-7 correspond to Exodus 28:5-14; Exodus 39:8-21 to Exodus 28:15-38; Exodus 39:22-26 to Exodus 28:31-34; Exodus 39:27-29 to Exodus 28:39, Exodus 28:40; and Exodus 39:30, Exodus 39:31 to Exodus 28:36, Exodus 28:37. The remainder of the chapter (Exodus 28:32-43) contains a recapitulation of the work done, and a statement that it was all submitted to Moses and approved by him, Exodus 39:1 Of the blue, and purple, and scarlet—i.e; of the blue, purple, and scarlet thread which had been spun by the women, and brought to Moses. See Exodus 35:25. The omission of "fine linen" seems to be accidental. Cloths of service. See the comment on Exodus 31:10. Exodus 39:3 They did beat the gold into thin plates and out it into wires. This mode of producing gold thread is remarkable, and had not been previously mentioned. Exodus 39:9 For a memorial. Compare Exodus 28:12. Exodus 39:10-13 On the probable stones intended, see the comment upon Exodus 28:17-20. Exodus 39:16 Two ouches of gold. Compare Exodus 28:13 and Exodus 28:25. Exodus 39:24 And twined linen. Rather "twined," i.e; twisted together. There was no direction to use "fine twined linen" in making the pomegranates. See Exodus 28:33. Exodus 39:27 Coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron and for his sons. Compare Exodus 27:1-21:29 and 30. Exodus 39:28 A mitre … and goodly bonnets. The "mitre" for Aaron (Exodus 28:37-39), the "goodly bonnets," or rather "caps" for his sons (Exodus 28:40). The linen breeches, or "drawers," were for both (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 28:43). Exodus 39:29 A girdle of fine twined linen, etc. In the directions of Exo 28:39, this is called simply, "A girdle of needlework." Exodus 39:30, Exodus 39:31 The plate of the holy crown. See Exodus 29:6, and compare Exodus 28:36. To fasten it on high. This was not mentioned in the directions, which only ordered that it should be placed in front (Exodus 28:37). Everything was brought to Moses for his approval—not perhaps all things at once, but each as it was finished—and was judged by him "according to the pattern which he had seen upon the mount’ (Exodus 25:40; Exodus 26:30, etc.). The order observed in the enumeration is nearly, but not quite, the order in which it has been stated that the various things were made. We must suppose that if Moses disapproved of anything, it was rejected; but no disapproval is mentioned. Moses did look upon all the work, and behold, they had done it as the Lord commanded. Accordingly Moses concluded all by "blessing" them; thereby signifying, not his own approval only, but the Divine approval, of their diligence and obedience. Exodus 39:43 A blessing upon obedience. It is not every kind of obedience that brings down a blessing upon it. To deserve the Divine approval, and obtain the Divine benediction, obedience must be, as was that here recorded— I. EXACT. "According to all that the Lord commanded, so the children of Israel made the work" (Exodus 39:42). "As the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it" (Exodus 39:43). II. PROMPT. The work could not have commenced before the sixth or the seventh month, since Sinai was not reached till the third month (Exodus 19:1), and Moses passed in conference with God nearly three months. Yet the whole was finished before the year was out (see Exodus 40:1). Thus it appears that six months sufficed for the completion of everything. III. . There was little misunderstanding—few, if any, mistakes. All comprehended the orders given to them, and each carried out his assigned portion. Unless this had been the case very generally, it is impossible that all would have been ready by the end of the year. The rapid completion of the work proves the intelligence of the workmen, Note what is said of their being "wise-hearted" (Exodus 36:1, Exodus 36:2, Exodus 36:8). Men, for the most part, think to obtain the supreme blessing of eternal life, though their obedience has been 1. Partial and inexact; 2. tardy; 3. marred by misapprehension of the commands given them. They do not seem to imagine that there will be any real inspection of their work, such as that which is here ascribed to Moses. "Moses did look upon all the work" (Exodus 39:43). Yet surely at the last day, man’s work will be tested in some real, searching way. Whatever may be meant by the expression—"The fire shall try every man’s work" (1 Corinthians 3:13), at any rate, some trial there will be. Faithful service to Christ will be rewarded by a blessing exceeding all that we can ask or think; but there will be minute inquiry, whether the service has been indeed faithful. For further Homiletics on the subjects of this chapter, see those upon Exodus 28:1-43. BY J. ORR Exodus 39:1-32 The garments of the priests. See Homily on Exodus 28:1-43.—J.O. BY J. Exodus 39:1-41 The Clothes of Service; the work perfected. I. THE PRIESTS’ . 1. Their splendour. They were fashioned of gold and jewels, and blue, and purple, and scarlet. God gives glory to his servants. He makes us kings and priests unto himself. The spiritual nobleness and beauty given now are but the earnest of the glory which will be hereafter. 2. Their purpose: they were clothes of service. The honour and comeliness which God bestows are for service to him in the midst of our brethren, not to minister to our own spiritual pride and unbrotherly judgment. II. ALL THE WORK WAS DONE IN STRICT TO THE LORD’S , "As the Lord commanded Moses" (5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31). "The children of Israel did according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did they" (32). "And Moses did look upon all the work; and behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it" (43). 1. There was no deficiency: no part of the work was slighted. We may not abate anything of all the Lord has commanded. The ordinances must be observed as they have been delivered to us. The cross which Jesus has called us to take up in his service must not be laid aside. 2. There was no excess. No room was given for the exercise of fancy, or taste, or judgment, as to what might better impress, or improve, the vulgar. There was only one solicitude—to do what the Lord had commanded. He alone is master here. We are merely servants. The things which God had not commanded were as carefully kept out of the worship as the things he had commanded were kept in it. 3. "And Moses blessed them." Serving God thus, the blessing of a greater than Moses will rest upon us. And there awaits us in the eternal light the "Well done! good and faithful servant!"—U. BY D. YOUNG Exodus 39:42, Exodus 39:43 The commanded work completed and commended. I. THERE IS A . We know not exactly how long this work took to do. That it could not be done in a few days or even a few weeks is plain; but it is equally plain that however long the time was, the work was done with steadiness and devotion. There is no mention of any hitch or unseemly dispute; all seems to have gone on with holy industry and patience to the end. Looking, then, on this work, for which a special endowment of the Spirit’s help was given, and which was completed, we are bound also to feel that the work for which God in Christ has given his Spirit to his Church in these latter days will also be accomplished. Hindered and fragmentary is the appearance that it now presents; but it is going on. The wonderful manifestations of Pentecost are the pledge of a work that some day will have finis written upon it. Amid all the uncertainties of prophecy; amid all the hapless guesses with respect to the time of events, one thing is clear, that the prophecies point to a consummation. There is a συντέλεια to the work of the Church even as to this typical work of Bezaleel and Aholiab. II. THERE IS A . Many human observers, we may be sure, had also inspected the work of Bezaleel and Aholiab; some to praise, some also to carp. But it is not those whom men commend who are really praiseworthy, nor those whom men censure who are censurable. Moses looks, and ever as he looks there is the remembrance of his solemn sojourn in the mount. He has in his instructed mind the standard of success and excellence. Let us also, as being invited to become temples of the living God—temple and sacrifice comprised in the varied faculties of one living organism—consider the rigorous demand which is made on us. These sacred articles, fashioned from perishable materials, and by human hands, were yet such that they could be stamped with Divine approval; and thus they are meant to direct us, that we may fashion all our life, in affections, in aims, and in service, according to the pattern given in the mount—that mount in Galilee, where Jesus talked with all who were willing to admit his authority. III. THERE IS A HEARTY . "Moses blessed them." There had been so much disobedience and pursuit of selfish aims before, that when an obedience comes like the one mentioned here, it is important to note the way in which God smiles upon it. For the blessing of Moses is as the smile of God. God is as quick to show approval of all compliance with his wishes as he is to frown upon all disregard of them; only, as men will have it, there is more occasion for the frowning than for the favour. This commendation is more fully expressed in Exodus 40:34, where the wrapping of the tabernacle with the glory-cloud signifies that what God did through Moses in the well-understood formula of blessing, he could also do himself by his own miraculous manifestations. The successful work here and the immediate recognition of it serve to show, in a more condemnatory aspect, the subsequent transgression of the people. In the making of the tabernacle-furniture, they had recognised the claims of God, and God had recognized their ability to meet his claims. He knew that they could not yet be obedient in all things; he only asked that they should be obedient as far as they were able to be obedient. They had shown their ability once; and it was their great blame that they did not show it again and again.—Y. Exodus 40:1-33 THE COMMAND TO SET UP THE , AND ITS . All was now ready. Bezaleel and Aholiab had completed their task. The work for the tabernacle had been given in, and had been approved Moses did not however at once set it up. He waited for a command from God. After a short interval, the command came. He was ordered to select the first day of the ensuing year—the first day of the first year of freedom—for the operation. Directions were given him, which fixed the order in which the various parts were to be set up, and assigned to the various articles of furniture their proper places (Exodus 40:1-8). When he had arranged the whole as directed, he was to anoint the various parts (Exodus 40:9-11). He was then to wash and dress Aaron, and his sons; to invest them with their robes of office (Exodus 40:12-14), and to anoint them to be priests (Exodus 40:15). The orders given were executed, except (as it would seem) those concerning the investiture of the priests and the anointing, which were deferred. (See Le Exodus 8:6-30.) In one day the sanctuary was completely set up (Exodus 40:18-33). Exodus 40:1-8 The directions to set up the tabernacle. Exodus 40:2 On the first day of the first month. The first of Abib, or Nisan, the "New Year’s Day" of Israel, coinciding nearly with the opening of the vernal equinox, a very suitable day for the inauguration of a place of worship. The tabernacle was to be set up first of all; then the tent was to be placed over it. See Exodus 40:18, Exodus 40:19. Exodus 40:3 The first thing to be placed within the tabernacle was the ark of the testimony, as containing the foundation of the covenant between God and Israel, and being the special token of God’s presence with his people. See the comment on Exodus 25:10. The "two tables" were placed within the ark before it was brought into the tabernacle (Exodus 25:20, Exodus 25:21). Cover the ark with the veil—i.e; "hang up the veil in front of the ark, so as to cover or conceal it." Exodus 40:4 Thou shalt bring in the table—i.e; "the table of shew-bread" (Exodus 25:23-30; Exodus 37:10-16). And set in order the things, etc. It has been observed with reason that the directions of Le Exodus 24:5-7 must have been already given, though not recorded till so much later. Bread and frankincense were to be "set in order" on the table in a particular way. The candlestick. The seven. branched candelabrum (Exodus 25:31-39; Exodus 37:17-24). And thou shalt light the lamps. The lamps would have to be lighted on the first day at even (Exodus 27:21; Exodus 30:8). Exodus 40:5 The altar of gold. See Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 37:25-28. Before the ark of the testimony—i.e; "before the veil, opposite the ark of the testimony," not within the veil. See the comment on Exodus 30:6. The hanging of the door—i.e; "the curtain which closed the front or eastern end of the tabernacle." (See Exodus 26:36; Exodus 36:37.) Exodus 40:6 The altar of burnt-offering. See Exodus 27:1-8; Exodus 38:1-7. Before the door of the tabernacle. In the court, directly in front of the entrance, but not close to it, since the place of the laver was between the entrance and the altar. See the next verse. Exodus 40:7 The laver. See Exodus 30:18; Exodus 38:8. Put water therein. The water was required:— 1. For the ablution of the priests (Exodus 30:19-21; Exodus 40:12, Exodus 40:31; Le Exodus 8:6), and 2. For washing the victims (Le Exodus 8:21). Exodus 40:8 The court. See Exodus 27:9-18; Exodus 38:9-20. The hanging at the court gate—i.e; the curtain at the entrance of the court (Exodus 27:16; Exodus 38:18). Exodus 40:9-16 The directions to anoint, etc. It does not appear that these directions were carried out at this time. Probably, there would not have been time to go through all the ceremonies enjoined (Exodus 29:1-34) on the same day with the erection of the sanctuary. They were consequently deferred, either till the next day, or possibly to a later date. (See Leviticus 8:1-36.) The anointing of the tabernacle is recorded in Exodus 40:10; of the vessels in Exodus 40:11; of the altar and laver in the same. The washing of Aaron and his sons in Exodus 40:6; their investiture in Exodus 40:7-9; the anointing of Aaron in Exodus 40:12; and a further anointing of Aaron together with his sons in Exodus 40:30. Exodus 40:10 An altar most holy. Not really more holy than the rest of the tabernacle and its contents, which are all pronounced" most holy" in Exodus 30:29; but requiring more to have its holiness continually borne in mind, since "it was more exposed to contact with the people" than the tabernacle and its vessels (Keil). Exodus 40:12 Unto the door of the tabernacle—i.e; to the place where the laver was situated (Exodus 40:7). Exodus 40:14 Coats. Rather, "tunics." They were to be "of fine linen, woven work" (Exodus 39:27). Exodus 40:15 Thou shalt anoint them as thou didst anoint their father. The mode of anointing does not seem to have been identical in the two cases. The oil was first poured upon Aaron’s head (Le Exodus 8:12; Psalms 133:2), and afterwards sprinkled upon him (Le Exodus 8:30). It was, apparently, only sprinkled upon the priests (ib,). This was a lower form of anointing; and hence the high priest was sometimes called "the anointed priest" (Le Exodus 4:5, Exodus 4:16; Exodus 6:22; Exodus 16:32, etc.). Their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood. The Rabbinical commentators maintain that these words apply to the ordinary priests only, and on the strength of them establish a difference between the ordinary priests and the high priests. The latter were in every ease to be anointed to their office. A single anointing sainted for the former. It is scarcely necessary to say that there is no Scriptural ground for this distinction. The natural sense of the words is, rather, that as long as the anointing continued, the priesthood should continue. Exodus 40:17-33 The actual setting up of the tabernacle. Exodus 40:17 On the first day the tabernacle was reared up. Being constructed after the fashion of a tent, it was quite possible to rear up and also to take down, the tabernacle in less than a day. Exodus 40:18 Fastened his sockets. Rather, "placed its sockets." The "sockets" or "bases" appear to have been simply laid on the flat sand of the desert, not "fastened" to it in any way. They were heavy masses of metal and would remain where they were placed. His pillars. The pillars that supported the "veil," and also those at the east end, where the entrance was. Exodus 40:19 He spread abroad the tent over the tabernacle. The entire distinctness of the tent (’ohel) from the tabernacle (mishkan) is here very strongly marked. The "tent" was the goats’ hair covering, with the framework of wood that supported it. The covering. The outer covering of rams’ skins and seals’ skins. (See Exodus 26:14.) Exodus 40:20 The testimony—i.e; the two tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments (Exodus 25:16; Exodus 31:18). Set the staves on the ark. "Put the staves," that is, "into the rings, and left them there" (Exodus 25:14). Put the mercy seat above upon the ark. See Exodus 25:21. Exodus 40:21 Set up the veil of the covering—i.e; hung the veil on the four pillars between the holy place and the holy of holies, and thus covered—i.e; concealed from sight, the ark of the testimony. (See the comment on Exodus 40:3) Exodus 40:22 Upon the side of the tabernacle northward. Upon the right hand, as one faced the veil. No direction had been given upon this point, but Moses probably knew the right position from the pattern which he had seen upon the mount. Exodus 40:23 He set the bread in order upon it. Upon the subject of this "order," see Le Exodus 24:6-8, and compare the comment on Exodus 24:4. Exodus 40:24 Over against the table—i.e; exactly opposite to the table, on the left as one faced the veil. Exodus 40:25 When evening came, he lighted the lamps. (See the comment on Exodus 40:4) Whatever the priests ordinarily had to do was on this occasion done by Moses. Exodus 40:26 The golden altar, or "altar of incense," was placed before the veil—i.e; outside it, in the holy place, midway between the table of shew-bread and the golden candlestick. Exodus 40:28 He set up the hanging at the door. He hung on the five pillars at the entrance to the tabernacle the "hanging" or ’: curtain," which had been made for the purpose (Exodus 36:37). Exodus 40:29 He put the altar of burnt-offering by the door of the tabernacle. See the comment on Exodus 40:6. And offered upon it the burnt offering and the meat-offering—i.e; in his priestly character inaugurated the altar by offering upon it the first evening sacrifice. (See Exodus 29:38-41.) Exodus 40:30 He set the laver. As directed in Exodus 40:7. For the position of the laver, see Exodus 30:18. Exodus 40:31, Exodus 40:32 Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands. This is not a part of the narrative of what was done at this time, but a parenthetic statement of the purpose to which the laver was subsequently applied. On the importance attached to these ablutions, see Exodus 30:20, Exodus 30:21. Exodus 40:33 He reared up the court, etc; as directed in Exodus 40:8. So Moses finished the work. With the hanging of the curtain at the entrance to the court, the erection of the tabernacle was complete. It was probably not till after this that Moses performed the acts of worship mentioned in the course of the narrative—put water in the laver (Exodus 40:30), offered sacrifice (Exodus 40:29), lighted the lamps (Exodus 40:25), and burnt incense on the golden altar (Exodus 40:26). The erection of the tabernacle. At last the work of preparation was over. The work for which God had begun to give instructions more than nine months previously (Exodus 25:1) was completed. All the parts of the structure, pillars, curtains, boards, sockets, bars, taches, hooks, pins; and all the furniture, ark, altars, table, candlestick, laver, vessels, censers, tongs, ash-pans—were finished and ready. All had been inspected by Moses, and approved (Exodus 39:43); they answered to the pattern which had been shown him in the mount (Exodus 25:40). Still, however, Moses waited until he received from God:— 1. The order for erection. 2. Instructions as to details. I. THE ORDER FOR . "On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation" (Exodus 40:2). The order included:— 1. The act. "Set up the tabernacle." 2. The agent. "Thou"—i.e; Moses. 3. The time. "The first day of the first month." Concerning the act there is nothing to be said. It was implied in the first order given, and lay at the root of every subsequent direction. The tabernacle could only have been devised in order to be set up. But concerning the agent and the time there was room for doubt. As to the agent: Bezaleel, the master craftsman, might have been chosen to erect what he had constructed; or Aaron might have been deputed to arrange the temple of which he was to be chief minister; or Moses and Aaron and Bezaleel might have been constituted a commission to carry out the work conjointly. But it pleased God to appoint Moses alone. For every enterprise it is best to have one directing mind, one ultimate authority. Otherwise there will be conflicting views, waste of time and energy, and commonly an inharmonious result. And Moses, who had alone seen "the pattern on the mount," was beyond all doubt the fittest director that could have been selected. As to the time: any day that was not a Sabbath would have been fairly suitable; but there seems an especial appropriateness in the selection of the first day of a new year. "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven" (Ecclesiastes 7:1). A new year should begin with a good work. What better work for such a day than the opening of a Bethel—a house of God—a "tent of meeting," where God himself was to be met 9 God, who is the first, should have the first. First fruits of all things should be given to him. Thus, New Year’s-day is a natural holy day. It opens the year. It is thus the most appropriate for openings. II. AS TO DETAILS. A certain order had to be observed. God determined the order. First, the tabernacle itself was to be erected (Exodus 40:2); then the ark was to be brought in and placed in the holy of holies (Exodus 40:3); then the veil was to be hung up (ib,). After this the furniture of the holy place was to be brought in—the table of shewbread (Exodus 40:4), the candlestick (ib,), and the altar of incense (Exodus 40:5). Next, the hanging at the entrance to the tabernacle was to be put up (ib,) Lastly, the outer court and its furniture were to be taken in hand. The laver and altar of burnt offering were to be set in their places (Exodus 40:6, Exodus 40:7); the pillars and hangings which enclosed the court were to be arranged, and the curtain hung at the entrance to it (Exodus 40:8). The general law which pervades the whole is the precedence of the more important over the less important. We do not know what time intervened between the delivery of these instructions to Moses and "the first day of the second year"; but probably the interval was not long. Moses would employ it in selecting a site, and in preparing the artificers and others for the day’s proceedings. When the appointed day arrived, he applied himself to the work (Exodus 40:17). First, he stretched, by means of cords and tent-pins, probably on a light wooden framework, the tabernacle cloth of blue and purple and scarlet and fine twined linen (Exodus 26:1-6). Then he laid down the "sockets" of silver in their places, fitted the boards into them by means of their "tenons," put in the bars which kept the boards together, and reared up the pillars for the veil (Exodus 40:18). After this he stretched the goats’-hair covering, which constituted the tent, outside and above the tabernacle cloth, and placed over the goats’-hair covering the rams’ skins and the seals’ skins (Exodus 40:19). So much constituted the erection of the tabernacle proper. Next he proceeded to the furniture; he brought in the ark and mercy seat, and, having placed them in the holy of holies (Exodus 40:21), set up the vail; thus completing it, and isolating it from the holy place. After this, he brought in the furniture of the holy place—the table, the candlestick, and the golden altar—and arranged it (Exodus 40:22-26). He then, and not till then, according to the direction given to him (Exodus 40:5), put up the hanging which separated the tabernacle from the court (Exodus 40:28). Finally, he proceeded to set in order the court. He put the altar of burnt offering and the laver into their places (Exodus 40:29, Exodus 40:30), carried the hangings alongside the court’s four sides, and arranged the curtain at the entrance (Exodus 40:33). So, with a minute observance of the directions given, "Moses finished the work." Note the exactitude with which Moses followed all the directions given him, together with the liberty which he claimed and exercised:— 1. To determine the time of their execution. 2. To fill up particulars with respect to which no directions had been given. 1. Of the first, the deferring of the consecration by anointment of the tabernacle and its furniture, and of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 40:9-15), is the crucial instance. It has been said that these may have taken place on the same day as the erection of the tabernacle; but the mode in which the narrative of the consecration is introduced in Le Exodus 8:1-5, no less than the separation of the narrative from that of the present chapter, implies an interval between the two events. Probably, by the time of the completion of the court, the day was far advanced, and it would have been impossible to perform all the ceremonies commanded (Exodus 29:1-36) in the remaining space. 2. Of the second, the emplacement of the table and the candlestick (Exodus 8:22, Exodus 8:24), the burning of incense (Exodus 8:27), and the offering upon the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 8:29) are specimens. Evidently Moses considered that "God’s instructions were not always to be carried out with literal exactness, but sometimes with an enlightened spiritual freedom." Exodus 40:18-33 The sanctification of material things. Objections are raised to the entire idea of a holiness in things. Holiness, it is said, being a personal quality, cannot reside in things, or be communicated to them, or be rightly predicated of them. God is holy; angels are holy; some men are holy; but nothing else. To imagine a holiness in things is superstition. This is to effect a complete severance of matter from spirit—to dig an abyss between them—to regard them as asymptotes, which cannot ever touch one the other. But if God became incarnate, if "the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14), then that matter which constituted the body of Christ, most certainly became holy. And if that matter, why not other matter? Why not the food which he "blessed and brake, and gave to his disciples"? Why not the drink which he called "his blood"? If there is a contact between matter and spirit, and some spirits are holy, then it is readily intelligible that the matter which comes into contact with them may be, in a certain sense, holy also. And this is, beyond all doubt, the language of the Scriptures. We hear of "holy ground" (Exodus 3:5), "holy places" (Exodus 26:33), "holy garments" (Exodus 28:2), "holy oil" (Exodus 30:31), "a holy perfume" (Exodus 30:35), etc. Things material may become holy in various ways, e.g.— I. BY BEING TAKEN INTO GOD. Christ took our nature upon him, joined for ever the Manhood to the Eternal Godhead, and so gave to his own body an eternal sanctification of the highest possible kind, which renders it most holy. II. BY BEING BROUGHT INTO CONTACT WITH HIM. The Cross of Christ, the crown of thorns, the nails, the soldier’s spear, the raiment, the vesture, the napkin which was about his head when in the grave, became hallowed by association with him, and must ever be regarded by all Christians as holy. If the garment shown at Treves were indeed what it professes to be a garment once worn by Christ—it would well deserve the name, by which it is commonly called, of the "holy coat." As it is, we have no sufficient evidence of any existing piece of matter, that it ever came into contact with our Lord’s blessed body; but, if we had, any such piece of matter would be "holy." III. BY FOR A HOLY PURPOSE. It is in this way especially that buildings, garments, vessels, cloths, and the like, are "holy." They are intended for and serve a holy purpose—are employed in the worship or service of Almighty God. It is felt on all hands that such things ought to be set apart from secular uses, reserved for the sacred end to which they have been designated, and applied to that only. Now, in cases of this kind, it does not appear to be inappropriate that the designation should be by a material act; and certainly no more significant act than anointing with oil is possible. For oil is symbolical of the Holy Spirit; ,and as it is by the Holy Spirit that individuals are sanctified, not only personally but officially, so as to be media of grace to others, so it may well be conceived that even inanimate things may become channels of grace and blessing to men, through an effluence from the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not disdain all contact with matter. At the beginning of creation he "moved," or rather brooded, "upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2). At the baptism of Jesus, the Spirit was seen "descending like a dove, and lighting on him" (Matthew 4:16). At Pentecost he showed himself in the form of "tongues of fire" (Acts 2:3). In every consecration it is quite possible that he may bear a part, though in general he shrouds himself, and does not let his presence be perceived. BY J. I. THE TIME. 1. It reminded them of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage; "this month shall be unto you the beginning of months" (Exodus 12:2). God’s dwelling-place is ever erected amid the adoring remembrance of his redemption. "The love of Christ constraineth us." 2. It was a consecration of the year upon which they were entering. It struck the key-note of the after time. The joy of the new year was to rise into the greater joy of the new life. The joy which hallows all time is that of reconciliation to, and union with, God. II. THE ORDER OF . 1. The tabernacle was first erected in which God was to be served. The duty to serve God is confessed before the power is attained or the way understood. (1) The emblem of the law in its strength and weakness. (2) The story of all the saved. 2. The tabernacle is next furnished, and the altar and laver and outer court set up. The means are given of reconciliation and service. It is not enough to be convinced of duty. God must be waited upon for power. His way must be taken. "No other foundation can any man lay." 3. All things are anointed with the holy oil. The spirit hallows and energizes all the means of grace which God has given. 4. The priests also are anointed; we, too, must be so in order to serve, and we shall be if we come, as they did, into the midst of what God has provided and sanctified for man’s redemption. III. THE OF THE WAS BY ITS USE. So soon as the shew-bread table was placed, the bread was set in order upon it. The lamps were immediately lighted. He burnt sweet incense upon the altar before the veil. On the altar of sacrifice he offered burnt offering and meat offering. At the laver "Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their feet." Belief should follow fast upon the heels of knowledge. God has sent forth his salvation, not to be the subject of intellectual interest and theological speculation, but to touch and change the heart. The bread of life has been given to feed the perishing, not merely to be examined, weighed, analysed.—U. BY D. YOUNG The altar most holy. There is a difference at once perceptible between the words of sanctifying in Exodus 40:9, and the words of sanctifying in Exodus 40:10. Whereas the tabernacle and all therein are declared as holy, a special sanctity is somehow attached to the altar of burnt offering. "It shall be an altar most holy." The reasonable explanation of this is, not that there was any special sanctity in the altar of burnt offering itself, but that from its exterior position it was in great danger of being treated thoughtlessly, and therefore needed special attention to be called to it. Hence we are led to note the existence of a similar distinction among such things as we are bound to treat in a reverent and careful manner. Certain persons, things, and places are of such a kind as to be their own protection. Perhaps it is still true to some extent, though doubtless it was much more felt in former times, that there is a divinity which doth hedge a king. Men of coarse and scandalous tongues manage to put a check on them selves in the presence of women and children. Some are still alive who remember the horror and indignation excited by the resurrection-men of fifty or sixty years ago, and how little watch-houses were built in some churchyards, and men took it in turns to guard by night the resting-places of their beloved dead. But those who would shrink with loathing from the bare possibility that they could be guilty of such desecration are nevertheless found treating great realities of holiness with indifference, if not with contempt. Remember with what profaning hands the Holy One of God was abused; he who spake concerning the temple of his body; he who was holy, not by any mere association, not for the purposes of some temporary economy, but essentially holy. Are there not those who, thoughtless enough of all the evil they are doing, crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame? (Hebrews 6:6.) What a fearful outlook is indicated for those who tread underfoot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, and do despite unto the spirit of grace! (Hebrews 10:29.) The very same thing may in one way be hallowed, and in another be desecrated. There is a great semblance of hallowing in the huge family Bibles so often seen in English houses, rich, and not unfrequently tawdry, in their binding and gilding; but after all they may only be there as part of a reputation for respectability. The true hallowing is in the dog’s-eared, well-worn book, poorly printed it may be, and on common paper, and with that indefinable appearance about it which tells of constant use. It is only too easy a thing to put superstition in the place of an intelligent, diligent, profound, and practical reverence. Even Christians are strangely negligent concerning the holiness inherent in them if they are really born again. Very unobservant are they of the persistent references in the New Testament to the holiness of a Christian’s personality. How much is done, as a matter of course, that is inconsistent, yea, scarcely compatible with being, indeed, a living sacrifice!—Y. BY J. ORR The tabernacle set up. The sanctuary did not take long in making. When hearts are wilting, gifts liberal, and hands active, work is soon accomplished. Everything was ready by the first day of the new year after leaving Egypt. The new year was inaugurated by the setting up of the finished dwelling. How suitable an employment for the new year, to consecrate our hearts anew as dwelling-places for Jehovah! The section conveys lessons as to— I. ORDER IN THE . Every thing was done with order and deliberation. "Set the bread in order" (Exodus 40:4, Exodus 40:23). "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 15:40). II. BEAUTY IN THE . God’s house, when completed, was a beautiful house. Cf. Isaiah 9:18. III. IN THE . The place was holy. Moses consecrated it by anointing (Isaiah 9:9-12). Those who served in it were to be holy. This is signified by the wearing of "holy garments" (Isaiah 9:13), and by washing in the laver (verse 31). Holiness becomes God’s house (Psalms 93:5). His servants are to serve him in "beauties of holiness" (Psalms 110:1-7:8). IV. WORSHIP IN THE . Moses set the bread in order on the table, lighted the lamps, burnt incense, etc. He offered burnt offerings and meat offerings on the altar (verse 39). The tabernacle was a picture Gospel.—J.O. The two finishings. "So Moses finished the work." Cf. Exodus 39:32—"Thus was all the work of the tabernacle finished." View the tabernacle as a type of the spiritual house—the Church. This tabernacle is being made. A time is coming when, in a more special sense, it will be reared,—the "day of Christ"—the day of "the manifestation of the sons of God" (Romans 8:19. Cf. Revelation 21:2, Revelation 21:3). I. THE WAS NOT REARED TILL ALL THE LABOURS IN WITH THE MAKING OF IT HAD BEEN . 1. The tabernacle was made with a view to its being reared. This was the end. So the calling, saving, and perfecting of individuals for the kingdom of God has always reference to their ultimate manifestation with Christ in glory (Romans 8:17-26; 2 Corinthians 4:15-18; 2 Corinthians 5:1-11; Ephesians 5:25-28; Philippians 1:6, Philippians 1:10; Colossians 3:1-4, etc.). 2. The labours of making were entirely finished, before the rearing was begun. The rearing was but the bringing into visibility of an already finished work. (1) All the parts of the tabernacle were made. (2) All the furniture of the tabernacle was made. (3) The dress of the servants of the tabernacle was made. Not till all this was done was the command given to rear. So the day of the manifestation of believers will not arrive till all labours preparatory to the setting up of the kingdom of God in glory have been concluded. The Gospel preached through all the world (Matthew 24:14), the "elect" (Exodus 39:31) gathered in, the last soul saved, believer’s; sanctified, avery "living stone" (1 Peter 2:4) shaped and fashioned for the place it is ultimately to occupy In the heavenly building, etc. 3. These labours having been concluded, the rearing was proceeded with without delay. The rearing included (1) the putting of the parts of the tabernacle together. (2) The arrangement of its furniture. (3) The ordering of its service. So, when once the preparatory labours in connection with the kingdom of God have been finished, no time will be lost in setting it up in its final glory. Christ will appear, and his people will appear with him (Colossians 3:4). He and they will be glorified together (Romans 8:17). 4. The rearing of the tabernacle was the setting of it in visible glory before the eyes of the Israelites. So will Christ come to be "glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe" (2 Thessalonians 1:10). 5. The rearing of the tabernacle completed the preparation of it as a sanctuary for Jehovah. The same will be true of the glorification of the Church (Revelation 21:3, Revelation 21:4). II. THE , MADE BY THE PEOPLE, WAS REARED BY MOSES. 1. Christ admits us to be fellow-workers with himself in the labours of his Church. These are carried on by human agency (2 Corinthians 6:1). 2. He alone has to do with the glorification of his Church. III. WHEN THE WAS REARED, IT WAS FOUND THAT NOTHING WAS WANTING TO ITS AS A . So will the glorification of the Church make manifest the beauty, symmetry, completeness, and perfection of the spiritual structure. It will be found to be "a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (Ephesians 5:27); complete as a place of habitation for Jehovah; a unity, and a perfect one.—J.O. THE DESCENT OF THE GLORY OF GOD ON THE WORK. The work was finished the fist incense burnt (Exodus 40:27)—the first sacrifice offered (Exodus 40:29). Those who had watched the proceedings, and those who had been engaged in them, were probably about to retire to rest. Even Moses had withdrawn, and left the tabernacle to itself—when suddenly, there was a manifestation of Divine Power. The cloud, which had gone before the Israelites from Succoth onward (Exodus 13:20-22), and which had recently settled upon the extemporised "Tent of Meeting" (Exodus 33:9), left its place, and "covered" the newly-erected structure externally (Exodus 40:34), while an intensely brilliant light—here called "the glory of God"—filled the whole interior of the tabernacle (ib,). Moses, it appears, would fain have re-entered the tabernacle—to see the great sight" (Exodus 3:3); but he could not—the "glory" was too dazzling (Exodus 40:35). Thus a distinct approval was given to all that had been done. God accepted his house, and entered it. The people saw that he had foregone his wrath, and would be content henceforth to dwell among them and journey with them. Henceforth, throughout the wanderings, the cloud and tabernacle were inseparable. If the cloud was lifted a little off it and moved in front, the tabernacle had to follow (Exodus 40:36)—if it settled down on the roof, the people stopped and remained until it moved again (Exodus 40:37). The appearance was as of a cloud by day, and as of fire by night, so that all could always see where the tabernacle was, and whether it was stationary or in motion (Exodus 40:38). After the first descent, it would seem that "the glory" withdrew into the Holy of Holies, so that both Moses and the priests could enter the holy place, and minister there (Le Exodus 8:10; Exodus 10:13, etc.). Exodus 40:34 Then a cloud. In the original "the cloud," i.e. the cloud so often spoken of (Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22; Exodus 14:19, Exodus 14:20, Exodus 14:24; Exodus 19:9; Exodus 24:15-18; Exodus 33:9, Exodus 33:10). Covered the tent. Descended on the outer covering and rested there. Filled the tabernacle. Entered inside, and filled both holy place and Holy of Holies. Exodus 40:35 Moses was not able to enter. It is implied that he wished—nay, tried—to enter—but the "glory" prevented him. (Compare 1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chronicles 5:14; 2 Chronicles 7:2.) Because the cloud abode thereon. It was not the external "cloud" which prevented Moses from entering, but the internal "glory." But the two are regarded as inseparable. Exodus 40:36-38 And when—i.e. "whensoever." The last three verses describe the manner in which the cloud henceforth served the Israelites as guide—not only directing their course, but determining when they were to move, and how long they were to rest at each encampment. For a further account of the same, see Numbers 9:15-23. Exodus 40:38 The cloud … was upon the tabernacle by day and fire was on. it by night. Compare Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22; and Exodus 14:20, Exodus 14:24; Numbers 9:15, Numbers 9:16. The cloud had two aspects—one obscure, the other radiant. It was a dark column by day—a pillar of fire by night. Thus it was always visible. Exodus 40:34-35 The symbols of God’s presence. I. GOD IS SEEN BY THOSE WHO LOVE HIM AS PURE LIGHT. "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12; John 9:5). "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). "In him is no darkness at all" (1 John 2:5). With clear unclouded radiance he shines on those who tread his heavenly courts, which need no other light besides him. "The city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God doth lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof" (Revelation 21:23). With a radiance not much less bright, he looks upon his saints on earth, cheering them, illumining their paths, making them glad with the light of his countenance. He may veil himself in condescension to their infirmity; but the veil is translucent; it covers without concealing; it tempers the brightness, but only as a thin haze tempers the splendours of the lord of day. II. GOD SHOWS HIMSELF TO THE OF MEN AS MINGLED LIGHT AND CLOUD. To Abraham he appeared as "a smoking furnace and a burning lamp" (Genesis 15:17); to the Israelites at Sinai as combined smoke and fire (Exodus 19:18); to Solomon, dazzled by his glory, he was still one who "dwelt in the thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12). When Isaiah beheld him sitting in his temple "the house was filled with smoke" (Isaiah 6:1-4); when Ezekiel "saw visions of God," he "looked and behold, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself." Wherever the glory of the Lord is seen, wherever he looks upon men with. mercy and compassion, there his proper symbolism is light, though it may be a light partially obscured and mingled with darkness. For darkness symbolises his anger; and in the case of his wayward children, he cannot but be at once compassionate and angry; displeased, yet anxious to forgive. Or the darkness may be the dense cloud of human ignorance which the Divine light can only partially pierce through. Any way, the bulk of men see God as a light amid smoke. "Clouds and darkness are round about him" (Psalms 97:2)—"he makes darkness his secret place, his pavilion round about him with dark waters, and thick clouds to cover him" (Psalms 18:11). Fire flashes out of the clouds occasionally; gleams of light stream forth; "at the brightness of his presence, his clouds remove" (Psalms 12:1-8), and he is seen to be man’s "true light." III. GOD IS TO SOME MERE , A DENSE OPAQUE CLOUD. This he is:— 1. To agnostics—to them who know him not, and refuse to believe that he can be known; 2. To them who have never heard of him, but have a dim unconscious feeling that some infinite unknown being exists; 3. To them that have been taught to view him as a remorseless, revengeful being, without pity or mercy; 4. To them that, having known him aright, have cast his words behind their back, thrown off his authority, and placed themselves in determined antagonism to his will and commandments. All is dark in the future to such persons; and in the thought of God is "the blackness of darkness for ever." Because they have not chosen to retain God in their knowledge, God has given them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28). They "put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." He, in whom is no darkness at all, is to them mere darkness. The God of this world has "blinded their eyes" that they cannot see; and, like a blind man, looking at the sun, the darkness which is in their own vision they ascribe to the object which’ their dim sight, fails to distinguish.,, God is "the,, true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:9). But if the light that is within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:23.) BY J. Exodus 40:34-38 Indwelling and guidance. I. GOD OWNS THE -PLACE SET UP TO HIS . "Then the cloud," etc. "And Moses was not able to enter in," etc.; it was claimed as his own and taken possession of by the Lord. 1. The soul which comes by God’s way will be filled with God’s glory. 2. The Church which honours God he will glorify. 3. The full glory of the perfected Church, the bride of Christ. II. WHERE THE LORD DWELLS HE GUIDES. When the cloud was taken up they went onward; when it rested they rested. 1. He is our guide in our onward journey. (1) In providence. We must make sure that we follow him. It will not avail to choose our own way and then ask God to be with us. We are to follow his leading, not he ours. (2) In grace. We may be mourning departed joy. There may be no longer the freshness and power we once felt in the ministration of the word, or in prayer. We have been slumbering and loitering. We have not striven to press through our sins and into fuller light. The cloud has lifted and gone onward, and we must follow after. "This one thing I do." 2. He is our guide into patience. (1) He teaches us to bear and so to overcome. (2) By the resting of faith to possess and to grow.—U. BY J. ORR The house filled with glory. The close of the book of Exodus is worthy of the greatness of its subject. It ends where the history of the world will end, with the descent of Jehovah’s glory to dwell with men (Revelation 21:3). We have seen Israel in bondage; have beheld its redemption; have followed it through the wilderness; have heard the thunders of the law at Sinai; have been witnesses of the nation’s covenant with God; have seen its shameful apostasy; have traced the steps of its reconciliation; have heard the instructions given for the building of this tabernacle; have viewed the tabernacle itself. We see now the symbol of Jehovah’s glorious presence in the midst of the people whom he has thus in so many ways made his own. What a wondrous succession of subjects we have thus had before us in the course of our review. The intolerable anguish of oppressed Israel; the birth of the deliverer; the singular providence of his early life; his great choice; the call in Midian; the revelation of the name; the return to Egypt; first failures; the long and tragic contest with Pharaoh; the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; the exodus; the Red Sea; the miracles of the desert; the law; the covenant; the "patterns" shown to Moses in the mount; the sin of the calf; the great intercession; the name of mercy; the preparation of the sanctuary. There remains to complete the series only this final scene of the entrance of Jehovah’s glory into the house prepared for his habitation. This was the true consecration of the sanctuary, and the true consecration of the nation. "A cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (verse 14). In what is related in these verses we have:— I. A . 1. Indwelling. The filling of the tabernacle with the glory was the symbol of Jehovah’s taking up his abode in it, and so in Israel (cf. Exodus 25:8). It testified (1) to the completeness of his reconciliation with the people. Cf. Isaiah 12:1—"O Lord, 1 will praise thee, though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me." (2) To his complacency in the beautiful house they had reared for him. Cf. Psalms 132:14—"This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell; for I have desired it." (3) To his desire to dwell among them. Note— 1. The true glory of the Church is God’s residence in her midst. This was Israel’s highest distinction (Exodus 33:16). 2. We should pray that the time may come when the Church shall be, not only dwelt in by her Lord, but "filled" with the "glory" of his presence (Isaiah 60:1-22.). 2. Protection. The glory filled the tabernacle within, while the cloud spread itself above the tent as a protective covering without. So is Jehovah the protection of his Church (Isaiah 4:5, Isaiah 4:6; Zechariah 2:5). 3. Guidance (verses 36-38). See Homily on Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22. II. A HINT OF . "Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation," etc. (verse 35). Thus are we reminded that, amidst all these glorious circumstances, that which is perfect is not yet come. 1. Law, not gospel. 2. A material building, not a spiritual house. 3. Earth, not heaven. It was a glory (1) too great for man to see. Even Moses, who had seen so much of the Divine glory, was not able to look upon it. (2) Too great for such a building—a mere material structure—to contain. Man longs for nearer communion. So great a glory needs a better house to contain it—a spiritual (1 Peter 2:5). III. A OF WHAT SHALL BE. That which is perfect is not yet come, but it will come by-and-by. 1. The tabernacle of God will be with men, and he will dwell among them (Revelation 21:3, Revelation 21:4). His glory will fill it. "The glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof" (Revelation 21:23). 2. This glory will be no longer unapproachable. We shall be able to endure the sight. "His servants shall serve him, and they shall see his face" (Revelation 22:3, Revelation 22:4). We shall receive the Vision. 3. This, however, will only be when earthly conditions have been exchanged for heavenly. "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53). Till that hour arrives, we must be content to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7), seeing only "as through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12).—J.O. THE END.