EXODUS__________ THE SECOND BOOK OF MOSES(εְ ?ΰֵ ?μֶּ ?δωְׁ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ; Ἐξοδος: Exodus) —————————— THE - —OR THE GENESIS, AND OF THE PEOPLE__________ FIRST : MOSES AND PHARAOHThe typically significant redemption of israel out of his servitude in egypt as preliminary condition of and preparation for the establishment of the typical kingdom of god (the theocracy) by means of the mosaic legislation—or the theocratic foundation for the legislation of all the three books.Exodus 1-18______________ FIRST SECTIONThe Genesis of the Covenant People of Israel, of their Servitude, and of the Foretokens of their Redemption as one people. An analogue of the Development of Mankind as a unit, of their Corruption and the Preparation for their Salvation. The calling of Moses and his twofold Mission to his people and to PharaohChaps. 1–7:7A.—growth and servitude of the israelites in egypt—and pharaoh’s purpose to destroy themChap. Exodus 1:1-221 Now these are the names of the children of Israel which [who] came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob: 2Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; 3Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4Dan, and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls; for [and] Joseph was in Egypt already. 6And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. 7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty, and the land was filled 8with them. Now [And] there arose a new king over Egypt which [who] knew not Joseph. 9And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel 10 are more and mightier than we. Come on [Come], let us deal wisely [prudently] with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass that, when there falleth out any war [when a war occurreth], they join also [they also join themselves] unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up [and go up] out of the land. 11Therefore they did set [And they appointed] over them taskmasters, to afflict them with their burdens; and they built treasure-cities [store-cities] for Pharaoh, Pithom and Raemses. 12But the more [lit., And as] they afflicted them the more [lit., so] they multiplied and grew [spread]. And they were grieved because of [horrified in view of] the children of Israel. 13And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor. 14And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage [service] in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; all their service wherein they made them serve was [which they laid on them] with rigor. 15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives (of which [whom] the name of one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah), 16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to [When ye deliver] the Hebrew women, and see them [then look] upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but, if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded, but [and] saved the men-children alive. 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? 19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian, for they are lively [vigorous], and are delivered ere the midwives come in 20unto them [before the midwife cometh in unto them, they are delivered]. Therefore [And] God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied, and waxed 21[grew] very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses [households]. 22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 1:10. πִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?λְּ ?ξָ ?δ. Lange, Gesenius, Arnheim, and Philippson, translate this όberlisten, “outwit.” But the Hithp. form occurs, besides here, only in Ecclesiastes 7:16, and there has the signification proper to the Hithpel, viz., to deem one’s-self wise, to act the part of a wise man. Here, therefore, it is better to render it in nearly the same way.—ϊִּ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?ΰπָ ?δ, a plural verb with a singular subject. Knobel, following the Samaritan version (ϊχψΰπε), translates wird uns treffen, “shall befall us.” But there is no need of this assumption of a corrupt text. See Ewald, Ausf. Gram., § 191 c.—Tr.]. [Exodus 1:14. Lange, with many others, takes ΰֵ ?ϊ here as a preposition, meaning “together with,” “besides.” and supplies “other” before “service.” Grammatically this is perhaps easier than to take it (as we have done as the sign of the Acc. But it requires us to supply the word on which the whole force of the clause depends.—Tr.]. [Exodus 1:19. Lange translates, unaccountably, ΰֶ ?μΞτַּ ?ψςֹ ?δ as being equivalent to a genitive: die Hebammen des Pharaoh, “Pharaoh’s midwives.”—Tr.]. AND Exo_1:1-7. Fulfillment of the promise, Genesis 46:3. Also fulfillment of the prediction of suffering for the descendants of Abraham, Genesis 15:13. Exodus 1:2-4. The names of the children are given according to the rank of the mothers. So Genesis 35:23-26. Exodus 1:5. The small number of seventy souls (vid. Genesis 46:27) who entered Egypt, illustrates the wonderful increase. At the Exodus 600,000 men, besides children, etc. Vid. Exodus 12:37. On the terms denoting increase, ιִ ?ψְ ?αּ ?εּ τָּ ?ψεּ ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ψְ ?φεּ see Genesis 1:28; Genesis 8:17. Exodus 1:8. A new king.—εַ ?ιָּ ?χָ ?ν has a special significance. He rose up, as a man opposed to the previous policy. The LXX. translate ηָ ?γָ ?ωׁ by ἔτερος. Josephus and others inferred the rise of a new dynasty.—Who knew not Joseph, i.e., cared nothing for his services and the results of them, the high regard in which his people had been held. Exodus 1:9-10. “They are greater and stronger than we,” says despotic fear. “Come, let us be more prudent (more cunning) than they,” is the language of despotic craftiness and malice. Despotic policy adds, that in case of a war the people might join the enemy. A danger to the country might indeed grow out of the fact that the Israelites did not become Egyptianized. The power of Israelitish traditions is shown especially in the circumstance that even the descendants of Joseph, though they had an Egyptian mother, certainly became Jews. Perhaps it was dislike of Egyptian manners which led the sons of Ephraim early to migrate towards Palestine, 1 Chronicles 7:22. An honorable policy would, however, have provided means to help the Jews to secure a foreign dwelling-place. Exodus 1:11. Taskmasters.—The organs of oppression and enslavement. “That foreigners were employed in these labors, is illustrated by a sepulchral monument, discovered in the ruins of Thebes, and copied in the Egyptological works of Rosellini and Wilkinson, which represents laborers, who are not Egyptians, as employed in making brick, and by them two Egyptians with rods, as overseers; even though these laborers may not be designed to represent Israelites, as their Jewish features would indicate” (Keil). See also Keil’s reference to Aristotle and Livy, (p. 422) on the despotic method of enfeebling a people physically and mentally by enforced labor. Store-cities.—For the harvests. See Keil (p. 422) on Pithom (Gr. Πάτουμος, Egypt. Thou, Thoum), situated on the canal which connects the Nile with the Arabian gulf. Raemses, the same as Heroopolis. Exodus 1:12. Horror is the appropriate designation of the feeling with which bad men see the opposite of their plans wonderfully brought about. Hengstenberg: Sie hatten Elcel vor ihnen. “They were disgusted at them.” But this was the case before. On χεּ ?υ see the lexicons. Exodus 1:13-14. Aggravation of the servitude. Two principal forms of service. Brickmaking for other buildings, and field labor. The bricks were hardened in the hot Egyptian sun; the field labor consisted especially in the hard work of irrigating the soil. Exodus 1:15-18. Second measure. Resort to brutal violence, but still concealed under demoniacal artifice. Probably there was an organized order of midwives, and the two midwives mentioned were at their head.—He said unto them.—And again: he said. He tried to persuade them, and at last the devilish command came out—probably secret instructions like those of Herod, to kill the children in Bethlehem.—Over the bathing-tub. [So Lange.—Tr.]. Knobel and Keil assume a figurative designation of the vagina in the phrase δָ ?ΰָ ?αְ ?πַ ?ιν, referring to Jeremiah 18:3. Since the child is generally born head first, there is only a moment from the time when the sex can be recognized to the use of the bathing-tub. On the various interpretations, comp. the lexicons and the Studien und Kritiken, 1834, S. 81ff.,etc. A heathenish way, all over the world, of killing the males and forcing the women and girls to accommodate themselves to the mode of life of the murderers. Exodus 1:19. “With this answer they could deceive the king, since the Arab women bear children with extraordinary ease and rapidity. See Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabis, I., p. 96; Tischendorf, Reise I., p. 108.” (Keil). Exodus 1:20-21. God built them houses—He blessed them with abundant prosperity. According to Keil, the expression is figurative: because they labored for the upbuilding of the families of Israel, their families also were built up by God. Their lie, which Augustine excuses on the ground that their fear of God outweighed the sinfulness of the falsehood, seems, like similar things in the life of Abraham, to be the wild utterance of a state of extreme moral exigency, and is here palliated by a real fact, the ease of parturition. Exodus 1:22. Now at last open brutality follows the failure of the scheme intervening between artifice and violence. On similar occurrences in profane history, see Keil. Probably also this command was paralyzed, and the deliverance of Moses by the daughter of Pharaoh might well have had the effect of nullifying the king’s command; for even the worst of the heathen were often terrified by unexpected divine manifestations. Footnotes: [The Authorized Version is followed in the translation from the Hebrew, except that “Jehovah” is everywhere substituted for “the Lord.” In other cases, where a change in the translation is thought to be desirable, the proposed emendation is inserted in brackets.—Tr] [Exodus 1:10. πִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?λְּ ?ξָ ?δ. Lange, Gesenius, Arnheim, and Philippson, translate this όberlisten, “outwit.” But the Hithp. form occurs, besides here, only in Ecclesiastes 7:16, and there has the signification proper to the Hithpel, viz., to deem one’s-self wise, to act the part of a wise man. Here, therefore, it is better to render it in nearly the same way.—ϊִּ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?ΰπָ ?δ, a plural verb with a singular subject. Knobel, following the Samaritan version (ϊχψΰπε), translates wird uns treffen, “shall befall us.” But there is no need of this assumption of a corrupt text. See Ewald, Ausf. Gram., § 191 c.—Tr.]. [Exodus 1:14. Lange, with many others, takes ΰֵ ?ϊ here as a preposition, meaning “together with,” “besides.” and supplies “other” before “service.” Grammatically this is perhaps easier than to take it (as we have done as the sign of the Acc. But it requires us to supply the word on which the whole force of the clause depends.—Tr.]. [Exodus 1:19. Lange translates, unaccountably, ΰֶ ?μΞτַּ ?ψςֹ ?δ as being equivalent to a genitive: die Hebammen des Pharaoh, “Pharaoh’s midwives.”—Tr.]. [Aristotle, Polit. v. 9; Livy, Hist. i. 56, 59. The references to Keil conform to the translation published by the Clarks. Edinburgh. But the translations, when given here, are made directly from the original, and from a later edition than that from which the Edinburgh translation was made.—Tr.]. [An article by Prof. Rettig. There is, however, still another article on the same subject in the same volume of this periodical, p. 641 sqq., by Redslob. The principal views on this vexed phrase are these: (1) That ΰָ ?αְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν being the same word as is ued (and elsewhere only used) in Jeremiah 18:3, of a potter’s wheel, must denote the same thing; or, rather, the seat on which the potter sits, this being adapted to the use of a parturient woman. (2) That it means bathing-tub, the dual form being accounted for by the supposition that a cover belonged to it. (3) That it is derived from ΰָ ?τַ ?ο in the sense of turn, and refers to the pudenda of the parturient, from which the child is, as it were, turned forth, like the vessel from the potter’s wheel. (4) That the word, being radically the same as ΰֶ ?αֶ ?ο, and being in the dual, may be used for the testiculi of the male child. (5) That ΰָ ?αְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, from ΰָ ?τַ ?ο, may mean Kinds, sexes. (6) That being derived from ΰָ ?αַ ?ο in the sense of to separate (and so a stone is that which is separated from a rock), it means the two distinctions (so Meier, Studien und Krttiken, 1842, p. 1050). It is obvious to remark that, in order to determine the sex of the child, the thing to be looked at is not the bathing-tub, or the stool, or any part of the mother. This consideration is almost, if not quite, conclusive against the first three interpretations. But it is perhaps useless to hope for a complete solution of the meaning of the phrase.—Tr.]. [Probably a slip of the pen for Knobel. See his commentary on Exodus, p. 9, in the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum alten Testament.—Tr.]. B.—The birth and miraculous preservation of Moses. his elevation and fidelity to the israelites. His typical act of deliverance and apparently final disappearance. God’s continued purpose to release IsraelExo_2:1-251 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a [the] daughter of Levi. 2And the woman conceived and bare a son; and when she [and sheM] saw him, that he was a goodly child [was goodly, and] she hid him three months. 3And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime [bitumen] and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags [sedge] by the river’s brink. 4And his sister stood afar off, to wit [in order to learn] what would be done to him. 5And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself [bathe] at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she [and she] saw the ark among the flags [sedge, and] she sent her maid to fetch it [maid, and she fetched it]. 6And when she had opened it she [And she opened it, and] saw the child, and behold, the babe [a boy] wept [weeping]. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews’ children. 7Then said his sister [And his sister said] to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? 8And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother. 9And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child and nursed it. 10And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. 11And it came to pass in those days when Moses was grown [that Moses grew up], that [and] he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he spied [saw] an Egyptian smiting an [a] Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12And he looked [turned] this way and that way, and when he [and he] saw that there was no man [man, and] he slew the Egyptian and hid [buried] him in the sand. 13And when he [And he] went out the second day [day, and] behold, two men of the Hebrews [two Hebrew men] strove together [were quarreling]; and he said to him that did the wrong [to the guilty one], Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? 14And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And 15Moses feared, and said, Surely this [the] thing is known. Now when [And] Pharaoh heard this thing, [thing, and] he sought to slay Moses. But [And] Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down 16[dwelt] by a [the] well. Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17And the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. 18And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are [Wherefore have ye] come so soon to-day? 19And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for [drew water for] us, and watered the flock. 20And he said unto his daughters, And where is ?Hebrews 4 why is it that ye have [why then have ye] left the man? call him, that he may eat bread. 21And Moses was content [consented] to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. 22And she bare him a [bare a] sod, and he called his name Gershom, for he said, I have been a stranger [A sojourner have I been] in a strange land. 23And it came to pass in process of time [lit. in those many days], that the king of Egypt died; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage [service], and they cried; and their cry came up to God by reason of the bondage [service]. 24And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them [lit. knew them]. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 2:1. ΰֶ ?ϊ, disregarded by the most of the commentators, is noticed by Glaire, who remarks that it “may imply that this daughter, named Jochebed (Exodus 6:20) was the only one of the family of Levi still living, or the only one of that house who was then marriageable.” According to Exodus 6:20, and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed was Levi’s own daughter; she may have been an only daughter. Sill it is possible that ΰֵ ?ϊ, though almost always used only before a definite object, is here used as in Exodus 21:28. “If an ox gore a man (ΰֵ ?ϊΞΰִ ?ιωׁ) or woman (ΰֶ ?ϊΞΰִ ?ωָׁ ?δ).” Comp. Ewald’s Kritische Grammatik, § 318, Note (9).—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:15. Whether the second εָ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?α means “and ho sat down,” or “and he dwelt,” is not easily determined. It seems unnatural that the word should have two meanings in the two consecutive sentences, although undoubtedly it is elsewhere freely used in both senses. If, moreover, the writer meant to say that Moses, while dwelling in Midian, once happened to be sitting by the well, and so became acquainted with Reuel’s daughters, he would probably not have used the Future with the Vav consecutive, but rather the Perfect, or the Participle. Comp. Ewald, Autfόhrt. Gr., § 341 a.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:19. εְ ?βַ ?ρΞγָּ ?μֹ ?δγָ ?μָ ?δ. Lange translates: Auch hat er anhaltend geschφpft, “Also he kept drawing,” as if the Inf. Abs. followed, instead of preceding γָ ?μָ ?δ. There is no reason for assigning to the Inf. Abs. here any other than its common use, viz., to emphasize the meaning of the finite verb. Nor does the rendering of the A.V., “drew water enough,” quite reproduce its force. The daughters of Reuel evidently thought it would have been a remarkable occurrence if Moses had only defended them from the shepherds. But more than this: “he even drew for us.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:20. εְ ?ΰַ ?ιּ ?εֹ. Kalisch renders, “Where then is he?” Correctly enough, so far as the sense is concerned; but unnecessarily deviating from the more literal rendering in the A. V., which exactly expresses the force of the original.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:21. εַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ΰֵ ?μ. Glaire insists that in all the passages where ιָ ?ΰַ ?μ occurs, even where it has the meaning “to be foolish,” the radical meaning is “to venture.” Most lexicograhpers assume a separate root for the signification, which it has in Niph., “to be foolish.” Meier (Wurzelwφrterbuch), however, reduces all the significations to that of “opening” or “being open,” from the root ηָ ?μַ ?μ = ΰεּ ?μ. But better, with Fόrst, to assumo two roots, and make the radical signification of this one to be “to resolve, determine.” This covers all cases. e.g. Genesis 18:27, “I have resolved.” i.e., undertaken. Judges 1:27, “The Canaanites determined to dwell.” In cases like the one before us, and 2 Kings 5:23; Judges 19:6, the resolution, being the result of persuasion, is a consent.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:23. ωַׁ ?εְ ?ςָ ?ϊָ ?ν. “cry for help”—a different root from that of the verb εַ ?ιִּ ?ζְ ?ςָ ?χεּ.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:25. Lange translates: Und Gott sah an die Kinder Israels, und als der Gottheit war’s ihm bewusst (er durchschaute, sie und ihre Situation). “And God looked on the children of Israel, and it was known by Him as the Godhead (e saw through them and their situation).” This translation seems to be suggested by the emphatic repetition of ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν. But better to find the emphatic word in εַ ?ιֵ ?γַ ?ς “God knew (them),” i.e., had a tender regard for them—a frequent use of ιָ ?γַ ?ς Comp. Psalms 144:3. Or, simply, “God knew,” leaving the object indefinite, as in the Hebrew.—Tr.]. AND Exo_2:1. And there went.—δָ ?μָ ?κְ, according to Keil, serves to give a pictorial description. Inasmuch as the woman had already borne Miriam and Aaron, it would mislead us to take the word in this sense. The expression properly means that he had gone; he had, in these dangerous times which, to be sure, at Aaron’s birth had not yet reached the climax (he was three years older than Moses) taken the step of entering the married state.—The descent of these parents from the tribe of Levi is remarked. Energetic boldness had distinguished it even in the ancestor (Genesis 49:5; Exodus 32:26; Deuteronomy 33:8). Although originally not without fanaticism, this boldness yet indicated the qualities needed for the future priesthood. Exodus 2:2. She recognized it as a good omen, that the child was so fair (θεֹ ?αἀστεῖος LXX.; vid., Hebrews 11:23), Josephus traces this intuition of faith, which harmonized with the maternal feeling of complacency and desire to preserve his life, to a special revelation. But this was here not needed. Exodus 2:3. The means of preservation chosen by the parents is especially attributed to the daughter of Levi. It is all the more daring, since in the use of it she had, or seemed to have, from the outset, the daughter of the child-murderer in mind. The phrase ϊֵּ ?αָ ?δ designates the box as a miniature ark, a ship of deliverance. On the paper-reed, vid. Winer, Real-wφrterbuch, II., p. 411. The box, cemented and made water-tight by means of asphalt and pitch, was made fast by the same reed out of which it had been constructed. This extraordinarily useful kind of reed seems by excessive use to have become extirpated. Exodus 2:4. And his sister.—Miriam (Exodus 15:20). The sagacious child, certainly older than Aaron, early showed that she was qualified to become a prophetess (Exodus 15:20) of such distinction that she could afterwards be puffed up by it. Exodus 2:5. “The daughter of Pharaoh is called Θέρμουθις (Josephus et al.) or Μέῤῥις.… The bathing of the king’s daughter in the open stream is contrary indeed to the custom of the modern Mohammedan Orient, where this is done only by women of low rank in retired places (Lane, Manners and Customs, p. 336, 5th ed.), but accords with the customs of ancient Egypt (comp. the copy of a bathing-scene of a noble Egyptian woman, with four female attendants, in Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, Vol. III., Plate 417), and besides is perhaps connected with the notion held by the ancient Egyptians concerning the sacredness of the Nile, to which even divine honors were paid (vid. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 113), and with the fructifying, life-preserving power of its waters.” (Keil). Exodus 2:6. The compassion of Pharaoh’s daughter towards the beautiful child led her to adopt him; and when she did so, making him, therefore, prospectively an Egyptian, she did not need, we may suppose, to educate him “behind the king’s back” [as Keil thinks.—Tr.]. We might rather assume that this event more or less neutralized the cruel edict of the king. Exodus 2:9. Nor is it to be assumed that the daughter of Pharaoh had no suspicion of the Hebrew nationality of the mother. How often, in cases of such national hostilities, the feelings of individual women are those of general humanity in contradistinction to those of the great mass of fanatical women. Exodus 2:10. She brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter.—The boy in the meantime had drunk in not only his mother’s milk, but also the Hebrew spirit, and had been intrusted with the secret of his descent and deliverance. Legally and formally he became her son, whilst he inwardly had become the son of another mother; and though she gave him the Egyptian name, “Mousheh,” i.e., saved from the water (Josephus II., 9, 6), yet it was at once changed in the mind of Divine Providence into the name “Mosheh;” the one taken out became the one taking out. (Kurtz). For other explanations of the name, vid. Gesenius, Knobel, Keil. Thus the Egyptian princess herself had to bring up the deliverer and avenger of Israel, and, by instructing him in all the wisdom of Egypt, prepare him both negatively and positively for his vocation. Exodus 2:11. When Moses was grown.—Had become a man. According to Acts 7:23, and therefore according to Jewish tradition, he was then forty years old. He had remained true to his destination (Hebrews 11:24), but had also learned, like William of Orange, the Silent, to restrain himself, until finally a special occasion caused the flame hidden in him to burst forth. An Egyptian smote one of his brethren.—This phrase suggests the ebullient emotion with which he now decided upon his future career. Exodus 2:12. That Moses looked this way and that way before committing the deed, marks, on the one hand, the mature man who knew how to control his heated feeling, but, on the other hand, the man not yet mature in faith; since by this act, which was neither simple murder nor simple self-defence, and which was not sustained by a pure peace of conscience, he anticipated Divine Providence. It cannot be attributed to “a carnal thirst for achievement” [Kurtz]; but as little can it be called a pure act of faith; although the illegal deed, in which he was even strengthened by the consciousness of being an Egyptian prince (as David in his sin and fall might have been misled by feeling himself to be an oriental despot) was a display of his faith, in view of which Stephen (Acts 7) could justly rebuke the unbelief of the Jews. Vid. more in Keil, p. 431. Exodus 2:14. The Jew who thus spoke wag a representative of the unbelieving spirit of which Stephen speaks in Acts 7. Exodus 2:15. The Midianites had made a settlement not only beyond the Elanitic Gulf near Moab, but also, a nomadic branch of them, on the peninsula of Sinai. These seem to have remained more faithful to Shemitic traditions than the trading Midianites on the other side, who joined in the voluptuous worship of Baal. “Reuel” means: Friend of God. He does not seem, by virtue of his priesthood, to have had princely authority. Exodus 2:16. By the well.—A case similar to that in which Jacob helped Rachel at the well, Genesis 29. Exodus 2:18. On the relation of the three names, Reuel, Jethro (Exodus 3:1) and Hobab (Numbers 10:29) vid. the commentaries and Winer. The assumption that ηֹ ?ϊֵ ?ο, used of Hobab, means brother-in-law, but used of Jethro (“preference,” like Reuel’s name of dignity “friend of God”) means father-in-law, seems to be the most plausible. Jethro in years and experience is above Moses; but Hobab becomes a guide of the Hebrew caravan through the wilderness, and his descendants remain among the Israelites. Vid. also Judges 4:11 and the commentary on it. Exodus 2:22. Gershom.—Always a sojourner. So he lived at the court of Pharaoh, so with the priest in Midian. Zipporah hardly understood him (vid. iv. 24). As sojourner he passed through the wilderness, and stood almost among his own people. Yet the view of Canaan from Nebo became a pledge to him of entrance to a higher fatherland. Exodus 2:23. Also the successor of the child-murdering king continued the oppression. But God heard the cry of the children of Israel. He remembered his covenant, and looked into it, and saw through the case as God. Footnotes: [Exodus 2:1. ΰֶ ?ϊ, disregarded by the most of the commentators, is noticed by Glaire, who remarks that it “may imply that this daughter, named Jochebed (Exodus 6:20) was the only one of the family of Levi still living, or the only one of that house who was then marriageable.” According to Exodus 6:20, and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed was Levi’s own daughter; she may have been an only daughter. Sill it is possible that ΰֵ ?ϊ, though almost always used only before a definite object, is here used as in Exodus 21:28. “If an ox gore a man (ΰֵ ?ϊΞΰִ ?ιωׁ) or woman (ΰֶ ?ϊΞΰִ ?ωָׁ ?δ).” Comp. Ewald’s Kritische Grammatik, § 318, Note (9).—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:15. Whether the second εָ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?α means “and ho sat down,” or “and he dwelt,” is not easily determined. It seems unnatural that the word should have two meanings in the two consecutive sentences, although undoubtedly it is elsewhere freely used in both senses. If, moreover, the writer meant to say that Moses, while dwelling in Midian, once happened to be sitting by the well, and so became acquainted with Reuel’s daughters, he would probably not have used the Future with the Vav consecutive, but rather the Perfect, or the Participle. Comp. Ewald, Autfόhrt. Gr., § 341 a.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:19. εְ ?βַ ?ρΞγָּ ?μֹ ?δγָ ?μָ ?δ. Lange translates: Auch hat er anhaltend geschφpft, “Also he kept drawing,” as if the Inf. Abs. followed, instead of preceding γָ ?μָ ?δ. There is no reason for assigning to the Inf. Abs. here any other than its common use, viz., to emphasize the meaning of the finite verb. Nor does the rendering of the A.V., “drew water enough,” quite reproduce its force. The daughters of Reuel evidently thought it would have been a remarkable occurrence if Moses had only defended them from the shepherds. But more than this: “he even drew for us.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:20. εְ ?ΰַ ?ιּ ?εֹ. Kalisch renders, “Where then is he?” Correctly enough, so far as the sense is concerned; but unnecessarily deviating from the more literal rendering in the A. V., which exactly expresses the force of the original.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:21. εַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ΰֵ ?μ. Glaire insists that in all the passages where ιָ ?ΰַ ?μ occurs, even where it has the meaning “to be foolish,” the radical meaning is “to venture.” Most lexicograhpers assume a separate root for the signification, which it has in Niph., “to be foolish.” Meier (Wurzelwφrterbuch), however, reduces all the significations to that of “opening” or “being open,” from the root ηָ ?μַ ?μ = ΰεּ ?μ. But better, with Fόrst, to assumo two roots, and make the radical signification of this one to be “to resolve, determine.” This covers all cases. e.g. Genesis 18:27, “I have resolved.” i.e., undertaken. Judges 1:27, “The Canaanites determined to dwell.” In cases like the one before us, and 2 Kings 5:23; Judges 19:6, the resolution, being the result of persuasion, is a consent.—Tr.]. Exodus 2:23. ωַׁ ?εְ ?ςָ ?ϊָ ?ν. “cry for help”—a different root from that of the verb εַ ?ιִּ ?ζְ ?ςָ ?χεּ.—Tr.]. [Exodus 2:25. Lange translates: Und Gott sah an die Kinder Israels, und als der Gottheit war’s ihm bewusst (er durchschaute, sie und ihre Situation). “And God looked on the children of Israel, and it was known by Him as the Godhead (e saw through them and their situation).” This translation seems to be suggested by the emphatic repetition of ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν. But better to find the emphatic word in εַ ?ιֵ ?γַ ?ς “God knew (them),” i.e., had a tender regard for them—a frequent use of ιָ ?γַ ?ς Comp. Psalms 144:3. Or, simply, “God knew,” leaving the object indefinite, as in the Hebrew.—Tr.]. C.—The call of Moses. His refusal and obedience. His association with Aaron and their first mission to the people of IsraelExodus 3, 41Now Moses kept [was pasturing] the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the back side of [behind] the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a [the] bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3And Moses said, I will now turn aside [Let me turn aside] and see this great sight, why the bush Isaiah 4 not burnt. And when Jehovah saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses! And he said, Here am I. 5And he said, Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off [from] thy feet, 6for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover [And] he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 7Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. And Jehovah said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which [who] are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land, and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey, unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the 9Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Now therefore behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me, and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. 10Come now therefore and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth [and bring thou forth] my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt, 11And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? 12And he said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be a [the] token unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought [bringest] forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. 13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I am that I am. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, God [the God] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations [lit. to generation16 of generation]. Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah, God [the God] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob hath appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited [looked upon] you, and seen that [and that] which is done to you in Egypt. 17And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. 18And they shall [will] hearken to thy voice; and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, Jehovah, God [the God] of the Hebrews, hath met with us, and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to Jehovah our God. 19And I am sure [know] that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no [even] not by a mighty hand. 20And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in he midst thereof; and after that he will let you go. 21And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall come to pass that, when ye go, ye shall not 22go empty. But [And] every woman shall borrow [ask] of her neighbor and of her that sojourneth in her house jewels [articles] of silver and jewels [articles] of gold and raiment [garments]; and ye shall put them upon your sons and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 3:7. ξִ ?τְּ ?πִ ?ιִ may be rendered more literally “from before,” the people being represented as followed up in their work by the taskmasters.—Tr.]. �[Exodus 3:18. πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ is taken by Rosenmόller, after same of the older versions, as = πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ vocatur super nos. But, as Winer remarks, ita tamen intolerabilis tautologia inest in verbis ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ιδָ ?ςִ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιν.” The LXX. translate προσκέκληταιἡμᾶς—which makes better sense, but is grammatically still more inadmissible, as πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ is thus made = χָ ?ψָ ?ΰ.—Tr.]. [Exodus 3:19. εְ ?μֹ ?ΰ is rendered by the LXX., Vulg., Luther, and others, “unless.” But this is incorrect. The more obvious translation may indeed seem to be inconsistent with the statement in the next verse, “after that he will let you go.” But the difficulty is not serious. We need only to supply in thought “at first” in this verse.—Tr.]. AND Exo_3:1. “Jethro’s residence therefore was separated from Horeb by a wilderness, and is to be sought not north-east, but south-east of it. For only by this assumption can we easily account for the two-fold fact that (1) Moses, in his return from Midian to Egypt, again touches Horeb, where Aaron, coming from Egypt, meets him (Exodus 4:27), and that (2) the Israelites, in their journey through the wilderness, nowhere come upon Midianites, and in leaving Sinai the ways of Israel and of the Midianite Hobab separate” (Keil). Horeb here is used in the wider sense, embracing the whole range, including Sinai, so that the two names are often identical, although Horeb, strictly so called, lay further north.—Mountain of God.—According to Knobel, it was a sacred place even before the call of Moses; according to Keil, not till afterwards, and is here named according to its later importance. But there must have been something which led the shepherd Moses to drive his flock so far as to this mountain, and afterwards to select Sinai as the place from which to give the law. The more general ground for the special regard in which this majestic mountain-range is held is without doubt the reverence felt for the mountains of God in general. The word δַ ?ξִּ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ might be taken as = pasture, and the passage understood to mean that Moses, in profound meditation, forgetting himself as shepherd, drove the flock far out beyond the ordinary pasture-ground. Yet Rosenmόller observes: “On this highest region of the peninsula are to be found the most fruitful valleys, in which also fruit trees grow. Water in abundance is found in this district, and therefore it is the refuge of all the Bedouins, when the lower regions are dried up.” Tradition fixes upon the Monastery of Sinai as the place of the thorn-bush and the calling of Moses. Exodus 3:2. The Angel of Jehovah.—According to Exodus 3:4, it is Jehovah Himself, or even God Himself, Elohim.—The Bush.—Representing the poor Israelites in their low estate in contrast with the people that resemble lofty trees, Judges 9:15. According to Kurtz, the flame of fire is a symbol of the holiness of God; according to Keil, who observes that God’s holiness is denoted by light (e.g. Isaiah 10:17), the fire is rather, in its capacity of burning and consuming, a symbol of purifying affliction and annihilating punishment, or of the chastening and punitive justice of God. But this is certainly not the signification of the sacrificial fire on the altar of burnt-offering, the “holy” fire, or of the fiery chariot of Elijah, or of the tongues of fire over the heads of the apostles on the day of Pentecost. Fire, as an emblem of the divine life, of the life which through death destroys death, of God’s jealous love and authority, has two opposite sides: it is a fire of the jealous love which visits, brings home, purifies, and rejuvenates, as well as a fire of consuming wrath and judgment. This double signification of fire manifests itself especially also in the northern mythology. That light has the priority over fire, Keil justly observes. While then the fire here may symbolize the Egyptian affliction in which Israel is burning, yet the presence of Jehovah in the fire signifies not something contrasted with it, meaning that he controls the fire, so that it purifies, without consuming, the Israelites; but rather the fire represents Jehovah himself in His government, and so the oppression of the Egyptians is lifted up into the light of the divine government. This holds also prophetically of all the future afflictions of the theocracy and of the Christian Church itself. The Church of God is to appear at the end of the world as the last burning thorn-bush which yet is not consumed. “The ΰֵ ?μχַ ?πָּ ?ΰ is ΰֵ ?ωׁ ΰֹ ?λְ ?μָ ?δ (Deuteronomy 4:24) in the midst of Israel (Deuteronomy 6:15).” Keil. Exodus 3:3-5. Turn aside.—Comp. Genesis 19:2.—Moses, Moses.—Comp. Genesis 22:11. An expression of the most earnest warning and of the deepest sense of the sacredness and danger of the moment. The address involves a two-fold element. First, Moses must not approach any nearer to Jehovah; and, secondly, he must regard the place itself on which he is standing as holy ground, on which he must not stand in his dusty shoes. The putting off of the shoes must in general have the same character as the washing of the feet, and is therefore not only a general expression of reverence for the sacred place and for the presence of God, like the taking off of the hat with us, but also a reminder of the moral dust which through one’s walk in life clings to the shoes or feet, i.e. of the venial sins on account of which one must humble himself in the sacred moment. On the custom of taking off the shoes in the East upon entering pagodas, mosques, etc., see Keil, p. 439. Exodus 3:6. Of thy father.—The singular doubtless comprehends the three patriarchs as first existing in Abraham. Moses, in his religion of the second revelation, everywhere refers to the first revelation, which begins with Abraham; and thus the name of Jehovah first acquires its new specific meaning. The revelation of the law presupposes the revelation of promise (Romans 4; Galatians 3).—And Moses covered his face.—In addition to the two commands: draw not nigh, put off thy shoes, comes this act, as a voluntary expression of the heart. Vid. 1 Kings 19:13. “Sinful man cannot endure the sight of the holy God” (Keil). Also the eye of sense is overcome by the splendor of the manifestation which is inwardly seen, somewhat as by the splendor of the sun. Vid. Revelation 1. Exodus 3:8. I am come down.—Comp. Genesis 11:5. A good land, i.e. a fruitful. A large land, i.e. not hemmed in like the Nile Valley. Flowing, i.e. overflowing with milk and honey; rich, therefore, in flowers and flowery pastures. On the fruitfulness of Canaan, comp. the geographical works.—Into the place.—More particular description of the land. Vid. Genesis 10:19; Genesis 15:18. Exodus 3:11. And Moses said unto God.—He who once would, when as yet he ought not, now will no longer, when he ought. Both faults, the rashness and the subsequent slowness, correspond to each other. Moses has indeed “learned humility in the school of Midian” [Keil]; but this humility cannot be conceived as without a mixture of dejection, since humility of itself does not stand in the way of a bold faith, but is rather the source of it. After being forty years an unknown shepherd, he has, as he thinks, given up, with his rancor, also his hope. Moreover, he feels, no doubt, otherwise than formerly about the momentous deed which seems to have done his people no good, and himself only mischief, and which in Egypt is probably not forgotten. As in the Egyptian bondage, the old guilt, of Joseph’s brethren manifested itself even up to the third and fourth generation, so a shadow of that former rashness seems to manifest itself in the embarrassment of his spirit. Exodus 3:12. The promise that God will go with him and give success to his mission is to be sealed by his delivering the Israelites, bringing them to Sinai, and there engaging with them in divine service, i.e., as the expression in its fullness probably means, entering formally into the relation of worshipper of Jehovah. The central point of this worship consisted, it is true, afterwards in the sacrificial offerings, particularly the burnt offering, which sealed the covenant. This first and greatest sign involves all that follow, and is designed for Moses himself; with it God gives his pledge of the successful issue of the whole. It must not be overlooked that this great promise stands in close relation to the great hope which is reviving in his soul. Exodus 3:13. It is very significant, that Moses, first of all, desires, in behalf of his mission, and, we may say, in behalf of his whole future religious system, to know definitely the name of God. The name, God, even in the form of El Shaddai, was too general for the new relation into which the Israelites were to enter, as a people alongside of the other nations which all had their own deities. Though he was the only God, yet it was necessary for him to have a name of specific significance for Israel; and though the name Jehovah was already known by them, still it had not yet its unique significance, as the paternal name of God first acquired its meaning in the New Testament, and the word “justification,” at the Reformation. Moses, therefore, implies that he can liberate the people only in the name of God; that he must bring to them the religion of their fathers in a new phase. ωֵׁ ?ν expresses not solely “the objective manifestation of the divine essence” [Keil], but rather the human apprehension of it. The objective manifestation cannot in itself be desecrated, as the name of God can be. Exodus 3:14. Can it be that ΰδιδΰωψΰδιδ means only “I am He who I am?” that it designates only the absoluteness of God, or God as the Eternal One? We suppose that the two ΰδιδ’s do not denote an identical form of existence, but the same existence in two different future times. From future to future I will be the same—the same in visiting and delivering the people of God, the faithful covenant-God, and, as such, radically different from the constant variation in the representations of God among the heathen. This his consciousness is the immediate form of his name; transposed to the third person, it is Jehovah. Hence also the expression: “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” is equivalent in meaning. When the repetition of this name in Exodus 6 is taken for another account of the same fact, it is overlooked that in that case the point was to get an assurance that the name “Jehovah” would surpass that of “Almighty God”—an assurance of which Moses, momentarily discouraged, was just then in need.Exodus 3:15. My name forever.—Forward into all the future, and backward into all the past (ζֶ ?λֶ ?ψ). Exodus 3:16-18. Moses is to execute his commission to Pharaoh not only in the name of Jehovah, but also in connection with the elders of Israel, in the name of the people. The expression “elders” denotes, it is true, primarily the heads of tribes and families, but also a simple, patriarchal, legal organization based upon that system.—Now let us go three days’ journey. The phrase πֵ ?μְ ?λָ ?δΞπָּ ?ΰ. is diplomatically exactly suited to the situation. Strictly, they have a perfect right to go; but it is conditioned on Pharaoh’s consent. Knobel says: “The delegates, therefore, were to practice deception on the king.” This is a rather clumsy judgment of the psychological process. If Pharaoh granted the request, he would be seen to be in a benevolent mood, and they might gradually ask for more. If he denied it, it would be well for them not at once, by an open proposal of emancipation, to have exposed themselves to ruin, and introduced the contest with his hardness of heart, which the guiding thought of Jehovah already foresaw. Moses knew better how to deal with a despot. Accordingly he soon increases his demand, till he demands emancipation, Exodus 6:10; Exodus 7:16; Exodus 8:25; Exodus 9:1; Exodus 9:13; Exodus 10:3. From the outset it must, moreover, have greatly impressed the king, that the people should wish to go out to engage in an act of divine service; still more, that they should, in making their offering, desire to avoid offending the Egyptians, Exodus 8:26. But gradually Jehovah, as the legitimate king of the people of Israel, comes out in opposition to the usurper of His rights, Exodus 9:1 sq. Moses, to be sure, even during the hardening process, does not let his whole purpose distinctly appear; but he nevertheless gives intimations of it, when, after Pharaoh concedes to them the privilege of making an offering in the country, he stipulates for a three days’ journey, and, in an obscure additional remark, hints that he then will still wait for Jehovah to give further directions. Exodus 3:19. Even not by a mighty hand.—Although God really frees Israel by a mighty hand. Pharaoh does not, even after the ten plagues, permanently submit to Jehovah; therefore he perishes in the Red Sea. Exodus 3:20. Announcement of the miracles by which Jehovah will glorify Himself. Exodus 3:21. Announcement of the terror of the Egyptians, in which they will give to the Israelites, upon a modest request for a loan, the most costly vessels (Keil: “jewels”). The announcement becomes a command in Exodus 11:2 sq. On the ancient misunderstanding of this fact, vid. Keil, p. 445 sq., and the references to Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Reinke; also Commentary on Genesis, p. 29. “Egypt had robbed Israel by the unwarranted and unjust exactions imposed upon him; now Israel carries off the prey of Egypt. A prelude of the victory which the people of God will always gain in the contest with the powers of the world. Comp. Zechariah 14:14” (Keil).Footnotes: [Exodus 3:7. ξִ ?τְּ ?πִ ?ιִ may be rendered more literally “from before,” the people being represented as followed up in their work by the taskmasters.—Tr.]. �[Exodus 3:18. πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ is taken by Rosenmόller, after same of the older versions, as = πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ vocatur super nos. But, as Winer remarks, ita tamen intolerabilis tautologia inest in verbis ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ιδָ ?ςִ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιν.” The LXX. translate προσκέκληταιἡμᾶς—which makes better sense, but is grammatically still more inadmissible, as πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ is thus made = χָ ?ψָ ?ΰ.—Tr.]. [Exodus 3:19. εְ ?μֹ ?ΰ is rendered by the LXX., Vulg., Luther, and others, “unless.” But this is incorrect. The more obvious translation may indeed seem to be inconsistent with the statement in the next verse, “after that he will let you go.” But the difficulty is not serious. We need only to supply in thought “at first” in this verse.—Tr.]. [Footnotes 4-8 are incorporated in Exodus 4] [See a full discussion on the Angel of Jehovah in the Commentary on Genesis, p. 386 sqq., where the view is maintained that this Angel is Christ himself. This is perhaps the current opinion among Protestants. But the arguments for it, plausible as they are, are insufficient to establish it. The one fatal objection to it is that the New Testament nowhere endorses it. When we consider how the New Testament writers seem almost to go to an extreme in finding traces of Christ in the Old Testament writings and history, it is marvellous (if the theory in question is correct) that this striking feature of the self-manifestation of God in the Angel of Jehovah should not once have been used in this way. Hengstenberg indeed quotes John 12:41, where Isaiah is said to have seen Christ. But the reference is to Isaiah 6:1, where not the Angel of Jehovah, but Jehovah himself, is said to have been seen. But, what is still more significant, when Stephen (Acts 7:30) refers to this very appearance of the angel in the bush, he not only does not insinuate that the angel was Christ, but calls him simply “an angel of the Lord.” Moreover, just afterwards he quotes Deuteronomy 18:15 as Moses’ prophecy of Christ, showing that he was disposed to find Christ in the Mosaic history. Other objections to the identification of the Angel of Jehovah with Christ might be urged; but they are superfluous, so long as this one remains unanswered.—Tr.] [More naturally, Moses’ own father, or his ancestors in general. So Keil, Knobel, Murphy, Kalisch.—Tr.] [Comp. Introduction to Genesis, p. 111 sqq. From so bald a term as “He is” or “He will be” (the exact translation of ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, or rather of ιַ ?δְ ?εֶ ?δ), one can hardly be expected to gather the precise notion intended to be conveyed. We doubt, however, whether, if we are to confine the conception to any one of those which are suggested by the sentence: “I am He who I am,” we should be right in understanding, with Lange, immutability as the one. This requires the second verb to refer to a different time from the first, for which there is no warrant in the Hebrew. Quite as little ground is there for singling out the notion of eternity as the distinctive one belonging to the name. Self-existence might seem more directly suggested by the phrase; but even this is not expressed unequivocahy. Certainly those are wrong who translate ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ uniformly “the Eternal.” The word has become strictly a proper name. We might as well (and even with more correctness) always read “the supplanter” instead of “Jacob,” and “the ewe” instead of “Rachel.”—There can be little doubt, we think, that Von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis I., p. 86) has furnished the clue to the true explanation. The comparison of other passages in which there is the same seemingly pleonastic repetition of a verb as in our verse ought to serve as a guide. Especially Exodus 33:19 : “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” It is true that Lange attempts to interpret this expression in accordance with his interpretation of the phrase now before us; but he stands in opposition to the other commentators and to the obvious sense of the passage, which evidently expresses the sovereignty of God in the exercise of his compassion. Comp. Exodus 4:13; 2 Kings 8:1, and perhaps Ezekiel 12:25. By this pleonastic expression, and then by the emphatic single term, “He is,” is denoted existence κατ’ ἐξοχήν; or rather, since the verb δָ ?ιָ ?δ is not used to denote existence in the abstract, so much as to serve as a copula between subject and predicate, the phrase is an elliptical one, and signifies that God is sovereign and absolute in the possesion and manifestation of his attributes. Self-existence, eternity and immutability are implied, but not directly affirmed. Personality is perhaps still more clearly involved as one of the elements. As contrasted with Elohim (whose radical meaning is probably power, and does not necessarily involve personality), it contains in itself (whether we take the form ΰֶ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δ or ιַ ?δְ ?εֶ ?δ), as being a verbal form including a pronominal element, an expression of personality: I am—He is. Jehovah is the living God, the God who reveals Himself to His people, and holds a personal relation to them.—Tr.] [The various explanations of this transaction are given by Hengstenberg, Dissertations on the Pentateuch, p. 419 sqq. Briefly they are the following: (1) That God, being the sovereign disposer of all things, had a right thus to transfer the property of the Egyptians to the Israelites. (2) That the Israelites received no more than their just due in taking these articles, in view of the oppressive treatment they had undergone. (3) That, though the Israelites in form asked for a loan, it was understood by the Egyptians as a gift, there being no expectation that the Israelites would return. (4) That the Israelites borrowed with the intention of returning, being ignorant of the Divine plan of removing them from the country so suddenly that a restoration of the borrowed articles to their proper owners would be impossible.—These explanations, unsatisfactory as they are, are as good as the case would admit, were the terms “borrow” and “lend,” derived from the LXX. and reproduced in almost all the translations, the quivalents of the Hebrew words. But the simple fact is that the Israelites are said to have asked for the things, and the Egyptians to have given them. The circumstances (Exodus 12:33 sqq.) also under which the Israelites went away makes it seem every way probable that the Egyptians never expected a restoration of the things bestowed on the Israelites.—Tr.]. Exodus 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, Jehovah hath not appeared unto 2thee. And Jehovah said unto him, What is that [this] in thine [thy] hand? And he said, A rod. 3And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, 4and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: 5That they may believe that Jehovah, God [the God] of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 6the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. And Jehovah said furthermore unto him, Put now thine [thy] hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. 7And he said, Put thine [thy] hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again, and plucked [took] it out of his bosom, and behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither [nor] hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. 9And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also [even] these two signs, neither [nor] hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land. 10And Moses said unto Jehovah, O my Lord, [O Lord], I am not eloquent [lit. a man of words], neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but [for] I am slow of speech [mouth] 11and of a slow [slow of] tongue. And Jehovah said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the [maketh] dumb, or deaf, or the seeing [or seeing], or the blind? [or blind?] Have [Do] not I, Jehovah? 12Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. 13And he said, O my Lord [O Lord], send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. 14And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron, the Levite, thy brother? I know [Do I not know Aaron, thy brother, the Levite,] that he can speak well? And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee, and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. 15And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words [the words] in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. 16And he shall be thy spokesman [shall speak for thee] unto the people, and he [it] shall be, even [that] he shall be to thee instead of 17[for] a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of [for a] God. And thou shalt take this rod in thine [thy] hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs [the signs]. 18And Moses went, and returned to Jethro [Jether] his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which [who] are in Egypt, and see whether they be [are] yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace. 19And Jehovah said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which [who] sought thy life. 20And Moses took his wife, and his sons, and set them [made them ride] upon an [the] ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt. 21And Moses took the rod of God in his hand. And Jehovah said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in thy hand [consider all the wonders which I have put in thy hand, and do them before Pharaoh]; but I will harden his heart that he shall [and he will] not let the people go. 22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my first-born. 23And I say [said] unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me; and if thou refuse [and thou didst refuse]6 to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born. 24And it came 25to pass by the way in the inn, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then [And] Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband [a bridegroom of blood] 26 art thou to me. So [And] lie [i.e., Jehovah] let him go [desisted from him]; then she 27said, A bloody husband [A bridegroom of blood] thou art, because of the circumcision. And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into [to] the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him. 28And Moses told Aaron all the words of Jehovah who had sent him [with which he had charged him], and all the signs which he had commanded him. 29And Moses and Aaron went, and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel. 30And Aaron spake all the words which Jehovah had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. 31And the people believed, and when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads [bowed down], and worshipped. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 4:14. We have ventured to follow the Vulg., Luther, Cranmer, the Geneva Version, De Wette, Glaire, and Kalisch, in this rendering; for, though grammatically the reading of the A. V. in more natural, yet it is difficult to see the force of the question, “Is not Aaron thy brother?” Fόrst, Arnheim, and Murphy, try to avoid the difficulty by rendering, “Is there not Aaron, thy brother, the Levite?” etc. This, however, is putting in what is not in the original. Bush, following Rashi, translates, “Is not Aaron thy brother, the Levite?” and understands the question to intimate that, in consequence of Moses’ reluctance to obey the divine commission, the priesthood, which otherwise would have been conferred on him, will be given to Aaron. As nothing is said about the priesthood, it is hard to see how the phrase “the Levite,” at this time, before any priesthood bad been established, could have been understood in this way. Knobel, translating in the same way, understands it as pointing forward to the duty of the priests to give public instruction. But the same objection lies against this, as against the previous explanation; Moses was a Levite as much as Aaron was. Lange, translating also the same way, understands the meaning to be: Aaron is a more genuine Levite than Moses. But in this case the definite article is quite out of place; and even without it such a thought would be very obscurely expressed. Keil, following Baumgarten, finds the significance of the question in the etymological meaning of μֵ ?εִ ?ι, viz., to join, associate one’s-self to. This certainly has the advantage of suggesting a reason for the use of the phrase “the Levite,” which on other theories seems to be superfluous. But the definite article is out of place on this hypothesis also. Besides, as the special point here is Aaron’s ability to talk, the notion of association is not just the one needed to be suggested by the term, to say nothing of the subtlety of the mode of conveying either conception.—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:18. ΰֵ ?μְ ?λָ ?δΞπָ ?ΰ is not to be understood as a request, as the A. V. seems to imply, especially by the phrase, “I pray thee,” which corresponds to πָ ?ΰ. We have exactly the same form in Exodus 3:3, where Moses said ΰָ ?ρֻ ?ψָ ?δΞπָ ?ΰ “I will turn aside,” or, “Let me turn aside.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:23. εָ ?ΰֹ ?ξַ ?ψ and εַ ?ϊְּ ?ξָ ?ΰֵ ?ο are most naturally to be rendered as preterites. It is very doubtful whether εַ ?ϊְּ ?ξָ ?ΰֵ ?ο can be taken as protasis to the following clause. The translation of the A. V. and of others, seems to have been prompted by the idea that this is the opening message to Pharaoh. But the threat to kill the first-born was in reality the last one made. The declaration, Exodus 4:21, covers all the first part of the efforts of Moses to secure the deliverance of the people. In spite of all the plagues and signs, Pharaoh “will not let the people go.” Therefore (Exodus 4:22) Moses is to make his final appearance, and threaten the death of the first-born because of Pharaoh’s past refusal to obey.—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:28. ωָׁ ?μַ ?η may take a double accusative, as e.g. in 2 Samuel 11:22; 1 Kings 14:6. As Kalisch observes, “the usual translation, who had sent him, is languid in the extreme.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:31. Knobel, following the reading ἐχάρη, of the LXX., would change εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ into εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξְ ?ηεּ. There seems to be strong reason for the change. The people, according to the present text, seem to believe, before hearing. Moreover, we have, as Knobel points out, another almost unmistakable instance of the same error. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:13 is identical with that in Isaiah 39:2, with the exception that the first passage has εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ς where the second has εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξַ ?η. The LXX. has here, too ἐχάρη in both cases. In reference to 2 Kings 20:13, Keil says that “εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ς seems to be an error of transcription for εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξַ ?η,” though he says of Knobel’s conjecture concerning the verse before us, that it is “without ground.” If we adopt the amended reading, we translate, “and they rejoiced because Jehovah had visited,” etc.—Tr.]. AND Chap. Exodus 4:1. Four hundred years of natural development had succeeded the era of patriarchal revelations, and the people were no longer accustomed to prophetic voices. The more ground therefore did Moses seem to have for his anxiety lest the people would not believe him. Jehovah, moreover, does not blame him for his doubts, but gives him three marks of authentication. The symbolical nature of these miraculous signs is noticed also by Keil. Exodus 4:2-5. The casting down of the shepherd’s rod may signify the giving up of his previous pastoral occupation. As a seemingly impotent shepherd’s rod he becomes a serpent, he excites all the hostile craft and power of the Egyptians. Pharaoh especially appears in the whole process also as a serpent-like liar. But as to the serpent, it is enough to understand by it the dark, hostile power of the Egyptians which now at first frightened him. It is true, the enemy of the woman’s seed, the old serpent, constitutes the background of the Egyptian hostility; but here the symbol of the Egyptian snake kind is sufficient. When Moses, however, seizes the serpent by the tail, by its weaponless natural part, as is illustrated in the Egyptian plagues, it becomes a rod again, and now a divine rod of the shepherd of the people. Exodus 4:6-8. The white leprosy is here meant. Comp. Leviticus 13:3. “As to the significance of this sign, it is quite arbitrary, with Theodoret and others, down to Kurtz, to understand the hand to represent the people of Israel; and still more arbitrary, with Kurtz, to make the bosom represent first Egypt, and then Canaan, as the hiding-place of Israel. If the shepherd’s rod symbolizes Moses’ vocation, it is the hand which bears the rod, and governs. In his bosom the attendant carries the babe,” etc. (Keil). The leprosy has been explained, now as signifying the miserable condition of the Jews, now as the contagious influence upon them of Egyptian impurity. Through the sympathy of his bosom with the leprosy of his people Moses’ hand itself becomes in his bosom leprous; but through the same sympathy his hand becomes clean again. The actions of his sympathy cause him to appear as an accomplice in the guilt of Israel; and he really is not free from guilt; but the same actions have a sort of propitiatory power, which also inures to the benefit of the people. Jehohovah raises the voice of this second, sacerdotal sign above the voice of the first. Exodus 4:9. As the first miraculous sign symbolized a predominantly prophetic action, the second a sacerdotal, so the third a kingly kind. It gives him the power to turn into blood the water of the Nile, which is for Egypt a source of life, a sort of deity; i.e., out of the very life-force to evoke the doom of death. Let us not forget that a whole succession of Egyptian plagues proceeds from the first one, the corruption of the Nile water. As these miraculous signs are throughout symbolical, so, in their first application, they are probably conditioned by a state of ecstasy. Yet the first miracle is also literally performed before Pharaoh, and in its natural basis is allied with the Egyptian serpent charming. Vid. Hengst. [Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 100 sqq.]. The third sign, however, is expanded in the result into the transformation of the water of the Nile into blood. This, too, has its connection with Egypt; therefore there must doubtless have been some mysterious fact involved in the second sign, inasmuch moreover as the text reports that Moses did the signs before the people, and thus authenticated his mission before them (Exodus 4:30-31), although indeed in Exodus 4:17 the signs seem to be reduced to signs done with the staff. Exodus 4:10-12. There were wanted no more signs, but, as Moses’ modesty led him to feel, more oratorical ability. How could Moses have exercised his slow tongue in his long isolation in the desert, associating with few men, and those who could but little understand him? This difficulty Jehovah also regards. He will impart to him the divine eloquence, which from that time through the history of the whole kingdom of God remains different from that of the natural man. He ordained for him his peculiar organs, and the organic defect of a heavy tongue, as all organs and organic defects in general, and will know how to make of his tongue his divine organ, as the history of the kingdom of God has so richly proved. Exodus 4:13-14. It cannot be said (with Keil) that now the secret depth of his heart becomes open, in the sense that he will not undertake the mission. If this were the case, Jehovah would no longer deal with him. But the last sigh of his ill-humor, of his despondency, finds vent in these words, which are indeed sinful enough to excite the anger of Jehovah, and so also to make him feel as if death were about to overtake him. We are reminded here of similar utterances of Isaiah (Exodus 6), of Jeremiah, (Exodus 1), of the detention of Calvin in Geneva by the adjurations of Farel, and similar scenes. The anger of Jehovah is not of a sort which leads him to break with Moses; and in the further expression of it it appears that the hesitation on account of the slow tongue is still not yet overcome.—Is not Aaron thy brother?—“The Levite” means probably a genuine Levite, a model of a Levite, more than Moses. With the cautious genius a more lively talent was to be associated. Also he seems, in reference to the affairs of the Israelites, to be more prompt than Moses; for he is already on the way to look for Moses (doubtless in consequence of divine instigation). Vid. Exodus 4:27, where the sense is pluperfect. Moses, then, has two things to encourage him: he is to have a spokesman, and the spokesman is already coming in the form of his own brother. For a similar mysterious connection of spirits, vid. Acts 10. Exodus 4:15-16. The fixing of the relation between Moses and God, and between Moses and Aaron, must have entirely quieted the doubter. The relation between Moses and Aaron is to be analogous to that between God and his prophet. This assignment does not favor the notion of a literal verbal inspiration, but all the more decidedly that of a real one. It accords with the spirit of Judaistic caution, when the Targums tone down μֵ ?ΰμֹ ?δִ ?ιν into μְ ?ιַ ?α “for a master or teacher.”Exodus 4:17. And this staff.—Out of the rustic shepherd’s staff was to be made a divine shepherd’s staff, the symbolic organ of the divine signs. This ordinance, too, must have elevated his soul. Here there was to be no occasion to say, “ gentle staff, would I had ne’er exchanged thee for the sword!” Exodus 4:18. This request for a leave of absence is truthful, but does not express the whole truth. This Jethro could not have borne. His brethren are the Israelites, and his investigating whether they are yet alive has a higher significance. Exodus 4:19. All the men are dead.—This disclosure is introduced with eminent fitness. Among the motives which made Moses willing to undertake the mission, this assurance should not be one. He had first to form his resolution at the risk of finding them still living. Moreover, he has on account of these men at least expressed no hesitation. Exodus 4:20-26. What is here related belongs to Moses’ journey from Jethro’s residence to the Mount Horeb, i.e., from the south-eastern part of the desert. Exodus 4:20. His sons.—Only the one, Gershom, has been named, and that because his name served to express Moses’ feeling of expatriation in Midian. The other, Eliezer, is named afterwards (Exodus 18:3-4). But his name is introduced here by the Vulgate (according to some MSS., by the LXX.), and by Luther. Moses went on foot by the side of those riding on asses, but bears the staff of God in his hand. “Poor as his outward appearance is, yet he has in his hand the staff before which Pharaoh’s pride and all his power must bow” [Keil]. Exodus 4:21. On the way from Midian to Horeb, towards Egypt, Jehovah repeats and expands the first commission, as it was in accordance with Moses’ disposition to become absorbed in meditations on his vocation. All the wonders.—λָּ ?μΞδַ ?ξֹּ ?τְ ?ϊִ ?ιν. The τέρατα, or the terrible signs which are committed to him constitute a whole; and accordingly he is to unfold the whole series in order (on miracles vid. the Comm. on Matt., p. 153). And why? Because this is made necessary in order to meet the successive displays of obduracy with which Pharaoh is to resist these terrific signs. But, that he may not on this account become discouraged in his work, he is told thus early that God himself will harden the heart of Pharaoh with his judgments, for the purpose of bringing about the final glorious issue (Vid. the Comm. on Rom., Exodus 9). The three terms expressive of hardening, ηζχ, to make firm (Exodus 4:21), χωδ, to make hard (Exodus 7:3), and λαּ ?γ, to make heavy or blunt (Exodus 10:1), denote a gradual progress. The first term occurs, it is true, as the designation of the fundamental notion, when the hardening has an entirely new beginning, and a new scope (Exodus 14:4; Exodus 14:17). It is rightly brought forward as a significant circumstance by Hengstenberg, Keil, and others, that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is ten times ascribed to God, and ten times to himself. Pharaoh’s self-determination has the priority throughout. The hardening influence of God presupposes the self-obduration of the sinner. But God hardens him who thus hardens himself, by furthering the process of self-obduration through the same influences which would awaken a pious spirit. This he does as an act not merely of permission, but of judicial sovereignty. Vid. Keil, p. 453 sqq. Exodus 4:23. Israel is my son, my first-born. Comp. Deuteronomy 14:1-2; Hosea 11:1. The doctrine of the Son of God here first appears in its typical germinal form. Keil makes the choosing of Israel begin with Abraham, and excludes from it the fact of creation, as well as the spiritual generation, so that there remains only an election of unconditional adoption and of subsequent education, or ethical creation. But the application of these abstractions to the Christology of the N. T. would perhaps be difficult. Vid. Com. on Romans 8. The expression, first-born son, suggests the future adoption of other nations. I will slay thy son.—This threat looks forward to the close of the Egyptian plagues. Exodus 4:24. Seemingly sudden turn of affairs. Yet it is occasioned by a previous moral inconsistency, which now for the first time is brought close to the prophet’s conscience. He who is on his way to liberate the people of the circumcision, has in Midian even neglected to circumcise his second son Eliezer. The wrath of God comes upon him in an attack of mortal weakness, in a distressing deathly feeling (Psalms 90). Probably Zipporah had opposed the circumcision of Eliezer; hence she now interposes to save her husband. She circumcises the child with a stone-knife (more sacred than a metallic knife, on account of tradition); but she is still unable to conceal her ill-humor, and lays the foreskin at his feet with the words: “A bridegroom of blood art thou to me.”Exodus 4:26. Zipporah seems to be surly about the whole train of circumcisions. Probably Moses is thereby led to send her with the children back to her father to remain during the remainder of his undertaking. For not until his return to the peninsula of Sinai does his father-in-law bring his family to him. Exodus 4:27. On the one hand, Moses is freed from a hindrance, which is only obscurely hinted at, by the return of Zipporah; on the other hand, a great comfort awaits him in the coming of his brother Aaron to meet him. Exodus 4:29. They went.—This is the journey from Horeb to Egypt. Exodus 4:30-31. The elders of the people, after hearing Aaron’s message, and seeing his signs, believingly accept the fact of Jehovah’s commission, and bow adoringly before His messengers. Thereby the people organized themselves. They accepted the vocation of being the people of Jehovah. Footnotes: [On this point comp. under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.]. [The A. V. also softens the expression by using the phrase “instead of,” whereas the Hebrew would more exactly be rendered, “He shall be a mouth to thee, and thou shalt be a God to him.” We have here language similar to, and illustrated by, that in Exodus 7:1, “See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” As the prophet (προφήτης one who speaks for another) is the spokesman (mouth) of God, so Aaron is to receive and communicate messages from Moses.—Tr.]. [Lange’s language is: “Keil lδsst die Erwδhlung Israels mit Abraham anfangen, und schliesst von ihr aus auf die Thatsache der Schφpfung,” etc. In translating we have ignored the preposition “auf,” which, if recognized, would require the sentence to read: “Keil … infers from it [the choosing of Israel] the fact of creation,” etc. But this would certainly be a misrepresentation of Keil, even if it would convey any clear sense in itself. We conclude that “auf” is inserted by a typographical error.—Tr.]. [The text and the commentary both leave it somewhat doubtful whether these words are addressed to Moses or the child; but there can be little doubt that Moses is the one. The meaning is that Moses had been well-nigh lost to her by disease. She regains him by circumcising the son; but the bloody effect excites her displeasure, and by the saying, “A bridegroom of blood art thou to me,” she means that she has, as it were, regained him as a husband by the blood of her child.—Tr.]. [Chap.4. Exodus 4:14. We have ventured to follow the Vulg., Luther, Cranmer, the Geneva Version, De Wette, Glaire, and Kalisch, in this rendering; for, though grammatically the reading of the A. V. in more natural, yet it is difficult to see the force of the question, “Is not Aaron thy brother?” Fόrst, Arnheim, and Murphy, try to avoid the difficulty by rendering, “Is there not Aaron, thy brother, the Levite?” etc. This, however, is putting in what is not in the original. Bush, following Rashi, translates, “Is not Aaron thy brother, the Levite?” and understands the question to intimate that, in consequence of Moses’ reluctance to obey the divine commission, the priesthood, which otherwise would have been conferred on him, will be given to Aaron. As nothing is said about the priesthood, it is hard to see how the phrase “the Levite,” at this time, before any priesthood bad been established, could have been understood in this way. Knobel, translating in the same way, understands it as pointing forward to the duty of the priests to give public instruction. But the same objection lies against this, as against the previous explanation; Moses was a Levite as much as Aaron was. Lange, translating also the same way, understands the meaning to be: Aaron is a more genuine Levite than Moses. But in this case the definite article is quite out of place; and even without it such a thought would be very obscurely expressed. Keil, following Baumgarten, finds the significance of the question in the etymological meaning of μֵ ?εִ ?ι, viz., to join, associate one’s-self to. This certainly has the advantage of suggesting a reason for the use of the phrase “the Levite,” which on other theories seems to be superfluous. But the definite article is out of place on this hypothesis also. Besides, as the special point here is Aaron’s ability to talk, the notion of association is not just the one needed to be suggested by the term, to say nothing of the subtlety of the mode of conveying either conception.—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:18. ΰֵ ?μְ ?λָ ?δΞπָ ?ΰ is not to be understood as a request, as the A. V. seems to imply, especially by the phrase, “I pray thee,” which corresponds to πָ ?ΰ. We have exactly the same form in Exodus 3:3, where Moses said ΰָ ?ρֻ ?ψָ ?δΞπָ ?ΰ “I will turn aside,” or, “Let me turn aside.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:23. εָ ?ΰֹ ?ξַ ?ψ and εַ ?ϊְּ ?ξָ ?ΰֵ ?ο are most naturally to be rendered as preterites. It is very doubtful whether εַ ?ϊְּ ?ξָ ?ΰֵ ?ο can be taken as protasis to the following clause. The translation of the A. V. and of others, seems to have been prompted by the idea that this is the opening message to Pharaoh. But the threat to kill the first-born was in reality the last one made. The declaration, Exodus 4:21, covers all the first part of the efforts of Moses to secure the deliverance of the people. In spite of all the plagues and signs, Pharaoh “will not let the people go.” Therefore (Exodus 4:22) Moses is to make his final appearance, and threaten the death of the first-born because of Pharaoh’s past refusal to obey.—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:28. ωָׁ ?μַ ?η may take a double accusative, as e.g. in 2 Samuel 11:22; 1 Kings 14:6. As Kalisch observes, “the usual translation, who had sent him, is languid in the extreme.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 4:31. Knobel, following the reading ἐχάρη, of the LXX., would change εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ into εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξְ ?ηεּ. There seems to be strong reason for the change. The people, according to the present text, seem to believe, before hearing. Moreover, we have, as Knobel points out, another almost unmistakable instance of the same error. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:13 is identical with that in Isaiah 39:2, with the exception that the first passage has εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ς where the second has εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξַ ?η. The LXX. has here, too ἐχάρη in both cases. In reference to 2 Kings 20:13, Keil says that “εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ς seems to be an error of transcription for εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׂ ?ξַ ?η,” though he says of Knobel’s conjecture concerning the verse before us, that it is “without ground.” If we adopt the amended reading, we translate, “and they rejoiced because Jehovah had visited,” etc.—Tr.]. D.—Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh. The seemingly mischievouas effect of their divine message, and the discouragment of the people and the messengers themselves. God reverses this effect nu solemnly promising deliverance, revealing his name Jehovah, summoning the heads of the tribes to unite with Moses and Aaron, raising Moses’ faith above Pharaoh’s defiance, and declaring the glorious object and issue of Pharaoh’s obduracyExo_5:1 to Exodus 7:71 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in [came] and told [said unto] Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, God [the God] of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. 2And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah, neither will I [and moreoverI will not] let Israel go. 3And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with [met] us: let us go, we pray thee, three days journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto Jehovah our God, lest he fall upon us with the pestilence, or with the sword. 4And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let 5[release] the people from their works? get you unto your burdens [tasks]. And Pharaoh said. Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens [tasks]. 6And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers [overseers], saying, 7Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves. 8And the tale of the bricks which they did make [have been making] heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish aught thereof: for they be [are] idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God. 9Let there more work be laid upon the men [let the work be heavy for the men], that they may labor therein [be busied with it]; and let them not regard vain [lying] words. 10 And the taskmasters of the people went out, and their officers [overseers], and they spake unto the people, saying, Thus saith Pharaoh, I will not give you straw. 11Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it; yet [for] not aught 12of your work shall be diminished. So [And] the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of [for] straw. 13And the taskmasters hasted [urged] them, saying, Fulfil your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw. 14And the officers [overseers] of the children of Israel, which [whom] Pharaoh had set over them, were beaten, and demanded [were asked], Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday 15and to-day as heretofore? Then [And] the officers [overseers] of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants? 16There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say unto us, Make brick; and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people 17[thy people are in fault]. But he said, Ye are idle, ye are idle [Id’e are ye, idle]; therefore ye say, Let us go and do sacrifice [and sacrifice] to Jehovah. 18Go therefore now [And now go], and work; for [and] there shall no straw be given you; yet shall ye [and ye shall] deliver the tale of bricks. 19And the officers [overseers] of the children of Israel did see that they were in [saw themselves in] evil case [trouble], after it was said, Ye shall not minish [diminish] aught from your bricks of [bricks,] your daily task. 20And they met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way [who were standing to meet them], as they came forth from Pharaoh: 21And they said unto them, Jehovah look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savor to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us. 22And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and said, Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated [thou done evil to] this people? why is it that thou hast [why hast thou] sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all. Chap. Exodus 6:1 Then [And] Jehovah said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with [through] a strong hand shall he let them go, and with 2[through] a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah. 3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of [as] God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. 4And I have also [I also] established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage 5[sojourn], wherein they were strangers [sojourners]. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid [deliver] you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm and with great judgments. 7And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, which 8[who] bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land concerning the which [the land which] I did swear to give it [to give] to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage [a possession]: I am Jehovah. 9And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish [vexation] of spirit and 10for cruel bondage. And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 11Go in, speak unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. 12And Moses spake before Jehovah, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then [and how] shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised 13lips [uncircumcised of lips]? And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel and unto Pharaoh king 14of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. These be [are] the heads of their fathers’ houses (their ancestral houses): The sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi; these be [are] the families of Reuben. 15And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Thad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul, the son of a [the] Canaanitish woman; these are16the families of Simeon. And these are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations [genealogies]; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari: and the years of the life of Levi were an [a] hundred thirty and seven years. 17The sons of Gershon: Libni, and Shimi, according to their families. 18And the sons of Kohath: Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel; and the years of the life of Kohath were an [a] hundred thirty and three years. 19And the sons of Merari: Mahali, and Mushi: These are the families of Levi according to their generations [genealogies].20And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an [a] hundred and thirty and seven years. 21And the sons of Izhar: Korah, and Nephez, and Zichri. 22And the sons of Uzziel: Mishael, and Elzaphan, and Zithri [Sithri]. 23And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 24And the sons of Korah: Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph: these are the families of the Korhites. 25And Eleazar, Aaron’s son, took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bare him Phinehas: these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites 26according to their families. These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom Jehovah said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their 27armies [hosts]. These are they which [who] spake unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: these are that Moses and Aaron. 28And it came to pass on the day when Jehovah spake unto Moses in the land of 29Egypt, That Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, I am Jehovah: speak thou unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, all that I say unto thee. 30And Moses said before Jehovah, Behold I am of uncircumcised lips [uncircumcised of lips], and how shall [will] Pharaoh hearken unto me? Chap. Exodus 7:1 And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [God] to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and 4 multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall [will] not hearken unto you, that I may [and I will] lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people [my hosts, my people], the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I stretch forth mine [my] hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them. 6And Moses and Aaron did as 7[did so; as] Jehovah commanded them, so did they. And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spake unto Pharaoh. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 5:3. This expression is the same as the one in Exodus 3:18 (on which Bee the note), except that here we have πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ, instead of πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ. But the interchange of these forms is so frequent that it is most natural to understand the two words as equivalent in sense.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:9. Literally “upon,” the work being represented as a burden imposed upon the Israelites.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:9. Literally, “do in it,” i.e. have enough to do in the work given.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:16. If we retain the order of the words as they stand in the original, we get a much more forcible translation of the first part of this verse: “Straw, none is given to thy servants; and ‘Brick,’ they say to us, ‘make ye.’ ” This brings out forcibly the antithesis between “straw” and “brick.”—Tr.] [Chap. 6. Exodus 6:1. I.e. by virtue, or in consequence, of Jehovah’s strong hand, not Pharaoh’s, as one might imagine.—Tr.] [Exodus 6:3. Literally, “I appeared … in God Almighty”—a case of α essential, meaning “in the capacity of.” Vid Ewald, Ausf. Gr. § 299, b; Ges. Heb. Gr. § 154, 3 a (y).—Tr.] [Exodus 6:3. The original has no preposition. Literally: “My name Jehovah, I was not known.”—Tr.] AND Exo_5:1. Afterward Moses and Aaron went.—Their message is quite in accordance with the philosophical notions of the ancients, and especially with the Israelitish faith. Having accepted the message from Horeb, Israel became Jehovah’s people, Jehovah Israel’s God; and as Israel’s God, He through His ambassadors meets Pharaoh, and demands that the people be released, in order to render Him service in a religious festival. The message accords with the situation. Jehovah, the God of Israel, may seem to Pharaoh chiefly the national deity of Israel; but there is an intimation in the words that He is also the Lord of Pharaoh, of Egypt, and of its worship. Under the petition for a furlough lurks the command to set free; under the recognition of the power of Pharaoh over the people, the declaration that Israel is Jehovah’s free people; under the duty of celebrating a feast of Jehovah in the wilderness, the thought of separating from Egypt and of celebrating the Exodus. The words seemed like a petition which had an echo like a thunder-tone. Perhaps the instinct of the tyrant detected something of this thunder-tone. But even if not, the modest petition was enough to enrage him. Exodus 5:2.Who is Jehovah?—As the heathen had the notion that the gods governed territorially, the Jews seemed to fall under the dominion of the Egyptian gods. They had no land, had moreover in Pharaoh’s eyes no right to be called a nation; therefore, even if they had a deity, it must have been, in his opinion, an anonymous one. This seemed to him to be proved by the new name, Jehovah (which therefore could not have been of Egyptian origin). But even disregard of a known foreign deity was impiety; still more, disregard of the unknown God who, as such, was the very object towards which all his higher aspirations and conscientious compunctions pointed. Thus his obduracy began with an act of impiety, which was at the same time inhumanity, inasmuch as he denied to the people freedom of worship. He was the prototype of all religious tyrants. Exodus 5:3. He is glorified by us.—[This is Lange’s translation of πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰςָ ?μֵ ?ιπεּ ?]. The correction : “He hath met us” (χָ ?ψָ ?δ), weakens the force of a significant word. They appeal to the fact that Jehovah from of old has been their fathers’ God; and also in their calling themselves Hebrews is disclosed the recollection of ancient dignities and the love of freedom growing out of it.—Three days’ journey.—Keil says: “In Egypt offerings may be made to the gods of Egypt, but not to the God of the Hebrews.” But see Exodus 8:26. In the “three days’ journey” also is expressed the hope of freedom.—With the pestilence.—A reference to the power of Jehovah, as able to inflict pestilence and war, and to His jealousy, as able so severely to punish the neglect of the worship due Him. Not without truth, but also not without subtileness, did they say, “lest He fall upon us;” in the background was the thought: “lest He fall upon thee.” Clericus remarks that, according to the belief of the heathen, the gods punish the neglect of their worship. Exodus 5:4. Wherefore, Moses and Aaron.—He thus declares their allegation about a message from Jehovah to be fictitious. He conceives himself to have to do only with two serfs.—Release the people.—And so introduce anarchy and barbarism. The same objection has been made against propositions to introduce freedom of evangelical religion.—Get you to your burdens.—To all the other traits of the tyrant this trait of ignorance must also be added. As he thinks that Moses and Aaron belong among the serfs, so he also thinks that servile labor is the proper employment of the people. Exodus 5:5.The people of the land (peasants). The simple notion of countrymen can, according to the parallel passages, Jeremiah 52:25 and Ezekiel 7:27, denote neither bondmen nor Egyptian countrymen as a caste, although both ideas are alluded to in the expression, a people of peasants, who as such must be kept at work, especially as there are becoming too many of them. The perfect sense, “Ye have made them rest,” is to be ascribed to the fancy of the tyrant. Exodus 5:6.The same day.—Restlessness of the persecuting spirit. The πֹ ?βְ ?ωִׂ ?ιναָּ ?ςָ ?ν, or the “drivers over them,” are the Egyptian overseers who were appointed over them; the ωֹׁ ?θְ ?ψִ ?ιν, or the scribes belonging to them, were taken from the Jewish people, officers subordinate to the others, in themselves leaders of the people. Exodus 5:7. “The bricks in the old monuments of Egypt, also in many pyramids, are not burnt, but only dried in the sun, as Herodotus (II. 136) mentions of a pyramid” (Keil). The bricks were made firm by means of the chopped straw, generally gathered from the stubble of the harvested fields, which was mixed with the clay. This too is confirmed by ancient monuments. Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 80 sq.—Heretofore.—Heb.: “yesterday and the day before yesterday.” The usual Hebrew method of designating past time. Exodus 5:9. Regard lying words.—γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ.—Thus he calls the words of Moses concerning Jehovah’s revelation. Exodus 5:10. Even the Jewish scribes yield without opposition. They have become slavish tools of the foreign heathen despotism. Exodus 5:16. Thy people is in fault (orsinneth).—According to Knobel, the phrase “thy people” refers to Israel; according to Keil, to the Egyptians. The latter view is preferable; it is an indirect complaint concerning the conduct of the king himself, against whom they do not dare to make direct reproaches. “ηָ ?θָ ?ΰϊ is a rare feminine form for ηָ ?θְ ?ΰָ ?δ (see on Genesis 33:11) and ςַ ?ν is construed as feminine, as in Judges 18:7; Jeremiah 8:5” (Keil).Exodus 5:21. Ye have made our savor to be abhorred (Heb. to stink) in the eyes.—The strong figurativeness of the expression is seen in the incongruity between odor and eyes. The meaning is: ye have brought us into ill-repute. Exodus 5:22. Augustine’s interpretation: Hζc non contumacyiζ verba sunt, vel indignationis sed inquisitionis et orationis, is not a sufficient explanation of the mood in which Moses speaks. It is the mark of the genuineness of the personal relation between the believers and Jehovah, that they may give expression even to their vexation in view of Jehovah’s unsearchable dealings. Expressions of this sort run through the book of Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, and over into the New Testament, and prove that the ideal religion is not that in which souls stand related to God as selfless creatures to an absolute destiny. Exodus 6:1-3. Knobel finds here a new account of the call of Moses, and that, by the Elohist. A correct understanding of the connection destroys this hypothesis. Moses is in need of new encouragement. Therefore Jehovah, first, repeats His promise, by vigorous measures to compel Pharaoh to release Israel, in a stronger form (comp. Exodus 3:19; Exodus 4:21); and then follows the declaration that this result is pledged in the name Jehovah, that the name Jehovah, in its significance as the source of promise, surpasses even the name God Almighty. If the fathers, in the experience of His miraculous help, have become acquainted with Him as God Almighty, they are now to get a true knowledge of Him as the God of helpful covenant faithfulness. This is the reason why he recurs to the name Jehohovah. Comp. Keil, p. 467.Exodus 6:4. Vid. the promises, Genesis 17:7-8; Genesis 26:3; Genesis 35:11-12. Exodus 6:6.I am Jehovah. With this name He begins and ends (Exodus 6:8) His promise. With the name Jehovah, then, He pledges Himself to the threefold promise: (1) To deliver the people from bondage; (2) to adopt them as His people; (3) to lead them to Canaan, their future possession.—With a stretched-out arm. A stronger expression than ιָ ?γηֲ ?ζָ ?χָ ?δ. Comp. Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 7:19. Exodus 6:9.For vexation of spirit. Gesenius: Impatience. Keil: Shortness of breath, i.e., anguish, distress. Exodus 6:10-11. While Moses’ courage quite gives way, Jehovah intensifies the language descriptive of his mission. Exodus 6:12. On the other hand, Moses intensifies the expression with which he made (Exodus 4:10) his want of eloquence an excuse for declining the commission.—Of uncircumcised lips. Since circumcision was symbolic of renewal or regeneration, this expression involved a new phase of thought. If he was of uncircumcised or unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5), then even Aaron’s eloquence could not help him, because in that case Moses could not transmit in its purity the pure word of God. In his strict conscientiousness he sincerely assumes that there must be a moral hinderance in his manner of speaking itself. Exodus 6:13. This time Jehovah answers with an express command to Moses and Aaron together, and to the children of Israel and Pharaoh together. This comprehensive command alone can beat down Moses’ last feeling of hesitation. Exodus 6:14-27. But as a sign that the mission of Moses is now determined, that Moses and Aaron, therefore, are constituted these prominent men of God, their genealogy is now inserted, the form of which shows that it is to be regarded as an extract from a genealogy of the twelve tribes, since the genealogy begins with Reuben, but does not go beyond Levi. Exodus 6:14. αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ. “Father-houses, not father-house” [Keil]. The compound form has become a simple word. See Keil, p. 469. The father-houses are the ramifications of the tribes. The tribes branch off first into families, or clans, or heads of the father-houses; these again branch off into the father-houses themselves. The Amram of Exo 6:20 is to be distinguished from the Amram of Exo 6:18. See the proof of this in Tiele, Chronologie des A. T.; Keil, p. 469. The text, to be sure, does not clearly indicate the distinction. “The enumeration of only four generations—Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses—points unmistakably to Genesis 15:16” (Keil). Exodus 6:20.His father’s sister—That was before the giving of the law in Leviticus 18:12. The LXX. and Vulg. understand the word γּ ?εֹ ?γָ ?δ of the daughter of the father’s brother. According to Exodus 7:7, Aaron was three years older than Moses; that Miriam was older than either is seen from the history. Exodus 6:23. Aaron’s wife was from the tribe of Judah. Vid. Numbers 2:3. Exodus 6:25.ώώώώώώώψָ ?ΰωֵׁ ?ιΰָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ. Abbreviation of αֵ ?ιϊΰָ ?αεֹ ?ϊψָ ?ΰωֵׁ ?ι [“heads of the father-houses”]. Exodus 6:26.These are that Aaron and Moses.—Thus the reason is given for inserting this piece of genealogy in this place. Exodus 6:28. Resumption of the narrative interrupted at Exodus 6:12. What is there said is here and afterward repeated more fully. In the land of Egypt.—This addition is not a sign of another account, but only gives emphasis to the fact that Jehovah represented Himself in the very midst of Egypt as the Lord of the country, and gave Moses, for the furtherance of his aim, a sort of divine dominion, namely, a theocratic dominion over Pharaoh. Exodus 7:1. What Moses at first was to be for Aaron as the inspiring Spirit of God, that he is now to be for Aaron as representative of God in His almighty miraculous sway. So far Aaron’s position also is raised. It must not be overlooked that, with this word of divine revelation, Moses’ growing feeling of lofty confidence and assurance of victory corresponds; it was developed in Egypt itself, and from out of his feeling of inability. “For Aaron Moses is God as the revealer, for Pharaoh as the executor, of the divine will” (Keil). Exodus 7:2.That he send.—Keil’s translation, “and so he will let go,” does not accord with the following verse. Exodus 7:4.My hosts.—Israel becomes a host of Jehovah. Vid. Exodus 13:18, and the book of Numbers. This is the first definite germ of the later name, God, or Jehovah, of hosts; although the name in that form chiefly refers to heavenly hosts; these under another name have been mentioned in Genesis 32:2. Footnotes: [Exodus 5:3. This expression is the same as the one in Exodus 3:18 (on which Bee the note), except that here we have πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ, instead of πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ. But the interchange of these forms is so frequent that it is most natural to understand the two words as equivalent in sense.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:9. Literally “upon,” the work being represented as a burden imposed upon the Israelites.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:9. Literally, “do in it,” i.e. have enough to do in the work given.—Tr.] [Exodus 5:16. If we retain the order of the words as they stand in the original, we get a much more forcible translation of the first part of this verse: “Straw, none is given to thy servants; and ‘Brick,’ they say to us, ‘make ye.’ ” This brings out forcibly the antithesis between “straw” and “brick.”—Tr.] [Chap. 6. Exodus 6:1. I.e. by virtue, or in consequence, of Jehovah’s strong hand, not Pharaoh’s, as one might imagine.—Tr.] [Exodus 6:3. Literally, “I appeared … in God Almighty”—a case of α essential, meaning “in the capacity of.” Vid Ewald, Ausf. Gr. § 299, b; Ges. Heb. Gr. § 154, 3 a (y).—Tr.] [Exodus 6:3. The original has no preposition. Literally: “My name Jehovah, I was not known.”—Tr.] [This is putting a rather fine point on Pharaoh’s wickedness. A bad man cannot, as such, be required to have aspirations towards any hitherto unknown god of whom he may chance to hear, and to have such aspirations just because he has never before heard of him. It is enough to say that, as a polytheist, ho ought to have respected the religion of the Hebrews.—Tr.] [See under “Textual and Grammatical.” It is true that πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?δ would be the usual form for the meaning “has met;” but on the other hand it is certain that χָ ?ψָ ?ΰ sometimes is = χָ ?ψָ ?δ, and the analogy of Exo 3:18 points almost unmistakably to such a use. Moreover, even if this were not the case, it is hard to see how the Hebrew can be rendered: “He is glorified by us.” For πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ does not mean “is glorified,” and ςָ ?μֵ ?ιπεּ does not mean “by us.” If the verb is to be taken in its ordinary sense, the whole expression would read: “He is called upon us,” i.e. we bear his name, though even this would be only imperfectly expressed.—Tr.] [The opinion of Knobel, here rejected, is held also by Glaire, Arnheim, Fόrst and others. The meaning, according to this, is: “Thy people (i.e. the Israelites) are treated as if guilty.” The LXX. understood ηθΰϊ as a verb in the second person, and rendered ἀδικήσειςτὸνλαόνσου, “thou doest wrong to thy people.” Still other explanations have been resorted to; but the one given by Lange is the most natural, and is quite satisfactory.—Tr.] [Notice should be taken of the fact that from Exodus 6:3 it has been inferred by many that the name Jehovah had actually (or, at least, in the opinion of the writer of this passage) never been known or used before this time; consequently that wherever the name occurs in Genesis or Exodus 1-5, it is a proof that the passage containing it was written after the time here indicated. This is an important element in the theories concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch. Certainly if we press the literal meaning of the last clause of Exo 6:3, it would seem to follow that the name Jehovah (Yahveh) was now for the first time made known. But, to say nothing of the fact that the name Jehovah is not only familiarly used by the author of the book of Genesis, but is also put into the mouths of the earliest patriarchs (all which might be regarded as a proleptic use of the word, or a careless anachronism), it is perhaps sufficient to reply, that such an inference from the passage before us betrays a very superficial view of the significance of the word “name,” as used in the Bible, and especially in the Hebrew Scriptures. The name of a person was conceived as representing his character, his personality. When Jacob’s name was changed, it was said: “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel;” and the reason given for the change is that he has now entered into a new relation with God. Yet, notwithstanding the new appellation, the name Jacob continued to be used, and even more frequently than Israel. In the case before us, then, the statement respecting the names amounts simply to this, that God had not been understood in the character represented by the name Jehovah. The use of the phrase “my name” instead of “the name,” itself points to the previous use of the name.—Tr.] [The proof, as given by Tiele, is this: “According to Numbers 3:27 sq., the Kohathites were divided (at the time of Moses) into the four branches: Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites; these together constituted 8,600 men and boys (women and girls not being reckoned). Of these the Amramites would include about one fourth, or 2,150. Moses himself, according to Exodus 18:3-4, had only two sons. If, therefore, Amram, the son of Kohath, the ancestor of the Amramites, were identical with Amram the father of Moses, then Moses must have had 2,147 brothers and brothers’ sons (the brothers’ daughters, the sisters and sisters’ children not being reckoned). But this being quite an impossible supposition, it must be conceded that it is demonstrated that Amram the son of Kohath is not Moses’ father, but that between the former and his descendant of the same name an indefinitely long list of generations has fallen out.”—Tr.]. SECOND SECTIONThe miracles of Moses, or the result of the nine Egyptian Plagues, preliminary to the last. Pharaoh’s alternate repentance and obduracyExo_7:8 to Exodus 10:29A.—Moses’ miraculous rod and the Egyptian magicians. The first plague inflicted with the rod: change of the water into blood Exodus 7:8-258 And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you [yourselves]: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become [let it become] a serpent. 10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as Jehovah had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and 11before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then [And] Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now [and] the magicians of Egypt, they also did in 12like manner with their enchantments [secret arts]. For [And] they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. 13And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart [Pharaoh’s heart was hardened], that 14[and] he hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had said. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened [hard], he refuseth to let the people go. 15Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river’s brink against he come [to meet him]; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thine [thy] hand. 16And thou shalt say unto him, Jehovah, God [the God] of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto 17thou wouldest not hear [hast not heard, i.e., obeyed]. Thus saith Jehovah, In this thou shalt know that I am Jehovah: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine [my] hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. 18And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and 19the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of [drink] the water of [from] the river. And Jehovah spake [said] unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine [thy] hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers [canals], upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may [and there shall] be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone. 20And Moses and Aaron did so, as Jehovah commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. 21And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank; and the Egyptians could not drink of [drink] the water of [from] the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. 22And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments [secret arts]: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, neither did he [and he did not] hearken unto them; as Jehovah had said. 23And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he [and he did not] set his heart to this also [even to this]. 24And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the riExo Exodus 7:25 And seven days were fulfilled, after that Jehovah had smitten the river. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 7:13. The same form here, ιֶ ?ηֱ ?ζַ ?χ, as in Exodus 7:22, where the A. V. correctly renders it intransitively. Literally, “was firm, or strong,” i.e., unyielding, unimpressible.—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:14. The Hebrew has here a different word, λָּ ?αֵ ?γ. Literally, ‘heavy’—the same word which Moses used respecting his tongue, Exodus 4:10.—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:19. ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, plural of the word which is used almost exclusively of the Nile. Here probably it signifies the artificial canals leading from the Nile—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:23. Or, according to the English idiom: “nor did he lay even this to heart.”—Tr.]. AND On the whole series of Egyptian plagues, see the Introduction. But we reckon not nine plagues (with Keil), but ten, as a complete number symbolizing the history of the visitation. Moses’ miraculous rod forms the prologue to it; the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, the epilogue. 1. Moses’ miraculous rod in contest with the divining rods of the Egyptian wise men, Exodus 7:8-13. Exodus 7:8-9. Shew a miracle for yourselves.—It is a general assumption, shared also by the Egyptians, that an ambassador of God must attest his mission by signs, miraculous signs. Take thy rod.—Aaron’s rod is Moses’ rod, which, however, passes over into his hand, as Moses’ word into his mouth.—A serpent. The Hebrew is ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιο. LXX. δράκων. According to Keil the expression is selected with reference to the Egyptian snake-charmers. He says, “Comp. Bochart, Hieroz. III., p. 162 sqq., ed. Rosenmόler; and Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books, etc., p. 100 sqq. Probably the Israelites in Egypt designated by ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ιο, which occurs in Deuteronomy 32:33; Psalms 91:13, in parallelism with τֶּ ?ϊֶ ?ο, the snake with which the Egyptian serpent-charmers chiefly carry on their business, the Hayeh of the Arabs.” Of the so-called Psylli it is only known that they are able to put serpents into a rigid state, and in this sense to transform them into sticks. This then is the natural fact in relation and opposition to which the sign, by which Moses attested his mission, stands. The relation between the mysterious miracle of Moses and the symbolical development of it is rather difficult to define. Exodus 7:11. “These sorcerers (ξְ ?λַ ?ωְּׁ ?τִ ?ιν), whom the Apostle Paul, according to the Jewish legend, names Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:8), were not common jugglers, but ηֲ ?λָ ?ξִ ?ιν, wise men,… and ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ινἱερογραμματεῖς, belonging to the caste of priests, Genesis 41:8” (Keil). Exodus 7:12-13. Exodus 7:13 does not stand in direct relation to the close of Exo 7:12. The hardening of Pharaoh cannot well relate to the fact that Aaron’s rod swallowed up the rods of the sorcerers, although this is probably to be understood metaphorically, but to the fact that the Egyptian sorcerers do the same thing as Aaron does. The essential difference between the acts of God and the demoniacal false miracles is not obvious to the world and the worldly tyrants. 2. The transformation of the water of the Nile into blood, Exodus 7:14-25. Exodus 7:15. Lo, he goeth out unto the water. To worship the Nile. Exodus 7:17. “The transformation of the water into blood is, according to Joe 3:4 [2:31], according to which the moon is changed into blood, to be conceived as a blood-red coloring by which it acquired the appearance of blood (2 Kings 3:22), not as a chemical transformation into real blood. According to the reports of many travellers, the Nile water, when lowest, changes its color, becomes greenish and almost undrinkable, whereas, when rising, it becomes red, of an ochre hue, and then begins to be more wholesome. The causes of this change have not yet been properly investigated” (Keil). Two causes are alleged: the red earth in Sennaar, or, according to Ehrenberg, microscopic infusoria. Even the Rhine furnishes a feeble analogue. The heightening of the natural event into a miraculous one lies in the prediction of its sudden occurrence and in its magnitude, so that the red Nile water instead of becoming more wholesome assumes deadly or injurious properties. Exodus 7:19. That blood should come into all the ramifications of the water, even to the stone and woodeu vessels, is evidently the result of the previous reddening of the Nile. Kurtz exaggerates the miracle by inverting the order of the reddening of the water. His notion is refuted by Keil, p. 479.Exodus 7:22. How could the Egyptian sorcerers do the like, when the water had already been all changed to blood? Kurtz says, they took well-water. But see Keil in reply. According to the scriptural representation of such miracles of darkness, they knew how, by means of lying tricks, to produce the appearance of having made the water. In this case it was not difficult, if they also used incantations, and the reddening of the water subsequently increased. Exodus 7:25. Seven days were fulfilled. The duration of the plague. The beginning of the plague is by many placed in June or July, “according to which view all the plagues up to the killing of the first-born, which occurred in the night of the 14th of Abib, i.e., about the middle of April, must have occurred in the course of about nine months. Yet this assumption is very insecure, and only so much is tolerably certain, that the seventh plague (of the hail) took place in February (see on Exodus 9:31 sq.)” (Keil). Clearly, however, the natural basis of the miraculous plagues is a chain of causes and effects. Footnotes: [Exodus 7:13. The same form here, ιֶ ?ηֱ ?ζַ ?χ, as in Exodus 7:22, where the A. V. correctly renders it intransitively. Literally, “was firm, or strong,” i.e., unyielding, unimpressible.—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:14. The Hebrew has here a different word, λָּ ?αֵ ?γ. Literally, ‘heavy’—the same word which Moses used respecting his tongue, Exodus 4:10.—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:19. ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, plural of the word which is used almost exclusively of the Nile. Here probably it signifies the artificial canals leading from the Nile—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:23. Or, according to the English idiom: “nor did he lay even this to heart.”—Tr.]. [The point made by Keil is that, according to Kurtz’s theory, the vessels of wood and of stone ought to have been mentioned immediately after the “pools of water.”—Tr.]. [The reply made by Keil (and a very pertinent one) is that if the Egyptians already had well water there would have been no need of their digging wells (Exodus 7:24) in order to obtain drinkable water. Keil understands that the phrases in Exodus 7:19 are not to be interpreted so strictly as to imply that absolutely all water, even what had already been taken from the Nile before the miracle, was turned into blood. Murphy and Kalisch prefer to assume that the magicians dug wells, and practiced their arts on the water drawn from them.—Tr.]. B.—The frogsExodus 7:26–8:11 [in the English Bible, Exodus 8:1-15]26 [Exodus 8:1]And Jehovah spake [said] unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, 27 [2]Thus saith Jehovah, Let my people go, that they may serve me. And if thou 28 [3]refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs. And the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly [swarm with frogs], which [and they] shall go up and come into thy house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the houses of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine 29 [4]ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs: And the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants.Chap. Exodus 8:1 [Exodus 8:5].And Jehovah spake [said] unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine [thy] hand with thy rod over the streams, and over the rivers [canals], and over the ponds, and cause frogs [the frogs] to come up upon the land 2 [6]of Egypt. And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and 3 [7]the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments [secret arts], and brought up frogs [the frogs] upon 4 [8]the land of Egypt. Then [And] Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat Jehovah, that he may take away the frogs from me and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice [may sacrifice] 5 [9]unto Jehovah. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory [Have thou honor] over me: when [against what time] shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that 6 [10]they may remain in the river only? And he said, To-morrow [Against tomorrow]. And he said, Be it according to thy word; that thou mayest know 7 [11]that there is none like unto Jehovah our God. And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; 8 [12]they shall remain in the river only. And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried unto Jehovah because of the frogs which he had 9 [13]brought against Pharaoh. And Jehovah did according to the word of Moses: and the frogs died out of the hoses, out of the villages [courts], and out of 10 [14]the fields. And they gathered them together upon heaps [piled them up in heaps]: 11 [15]and the land stank. But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had said. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 7:27 (Exodus 8:2). βְּ ?αεּ ?μ here, as often, has a wider meaning than border; it is equivalent to our “territory.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:29 (Exodus 8:4). This sounds more pleonastic than the original, where the order of the words is reversed: “Upon thee, and upon thy people,… shall the frogs come up.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:5 (Exodus 8:9). δִ ?ϊְ ?τָּ ?ΰֵ ?γ is variously rendered. Gesenius and Fόrst assume a root distinct from the one the Hithp. of which means to boast, and render it “prescribe,” “declare.” “Prescribe for me when I shall intreat,” etc. The LXX. and Vulg. give it the same meaning. Others understand the meaning to be: “Take to thyself honor; for when shall I intreat” etc. i.e., I will give thee the honor of fixing the time when the plague shall cease. These two explanations yield nearly the same sense. Others have been resorted to (e.g., “Give glory over me,” i.e., I will run the risk of a failure, by allowing thee to fix the time), but are less plausible.—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:11 (Exodus 8:15). δָ ?ψְ ?εָ ?ηָ ?δ has the article, and the sentence reads, “saw that the respite (literally, breathing-space) came,” i.e., the hoped for respite.—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:11 (Exodus 8:15). εְ ?δַ ?λְ ?αֵּ ?γ “And he made heavy.” Comp. note on Genesis 7:14. The Inf. Abs. is used for the finite verb. AND Exodus 7:26 [Exodus 8:1] sqq. The second plague; the frogs. They come up out of the mire of the Nile when the water falls, especially from the marshes of the Nile. On the small Nile-frog called rana Mosaica or Nilotica by Seetzen, see Keil. How did the natural event become a miracle? (1) By the announcement of the extraordinary enhancement of it to the extent of making it a plague; vid. Exodus 8:28-29 [Exodus 8:3-4]; (2) by the equally confident promise of the sudden death of the frogs. The imitation of this miracle by the sorcerers may here too have consisted in their seeming, during the continuance of the plague, to have increased it by their incantations. Exodus 8:10 [Exodus 8:14]. ηֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ, the largest dry measure of the Hebrews. Footnotes: [Exodus 7:27 (Exodus 8:2). βְּ ?αεּ ?μ here, as often, has a wider meaning than border; it is equivalent to our “territory.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 7:29 (Exodus 8:4). This sounds more pleonastic than the original, where the order of the words is reversed: “Upon thee, and upon thy people,… shall the frogs come up.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:5 (Exodus 8:9). δִ ?ϊְ ?τָּ ?ΰֵ ?γ is variously rendered. Gesenius and Fόrst assume a root distinct from the one the Hithp. of which means to boast, and render it “prescribe,” “declare.” “Prescribe for me when I shall intreat,” etc. The LXX. and Vulg. give it the same meaning. Others understand the meaning to be: “Take to thyself honor; for when shall I intreat” etc. i.e., I will give thee the honor of fixing the time when the plague shall cease. These two explanations yield nearly the same sense. Others have been resorted to (e.g., “Give glory over me,” i.e., I will run the risk of a failure, by allowing thee to fix the time), but are less plausible.—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:11 (Exodus 8:15). δָ ?ψְ ?εָ ?ηָ ?δ has the article, and the sentence reads, “saw that the respite (literally, breathing-space) came,” i.e., the hoped for respite.—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:11 (Exodus 8:15). εְ ?δַ ?λְ ?αֵּ ?γ “And he made heavy.” Comp. note on Exodus 7:14. The Inf. Abs. is used for the finite verb. [Keil gives no information except by referring to Seetzen. Seetzen distinguishes the rana Nilotica from the rana Mosaica, the latter being the most abundant. Frogs of this kind creep rather than jump, and are called toads by Seetzen, though they are found in water until after the inundation (which continues three months, beginning about June 25). The Egyptian name for this frog is defda.—Tr.]. C.—The gnats Exodus 8:12-15 [Exodus 8:16-19]12 [Exodus 8:16]And Jehovah said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice [gnats] throughout all the 13 [17]land of Egypt. And they did so; for [and] Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth [land], and it became lice [gnats] in [on] man, and in [on] beast; all the dust of the land became lice [gnats] 14 [18]throughout all the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments [secret arts] to bring forth lice [the gnats], but they could not: 15 [19]so [and] there were lice [gnats] upon man, and upon beast. Then [And] the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had said. AND Exo_8:12 [Exodus 8:16] seq. Gnats. λִּ ?πִּ ?ν or λִּ ?πִּ ?ιν. Josephus, the Rabbins, [the A. V.], and Luther render: “lice.” The LXX., σκνῖφες; the Vulg., sciniphes. Very small, painfully stinging gnats, crawling on the skin, and even in the nose and ears. They are very abundant in Egypt. The dust marks the transition from the mire to the time of drought. The transformation of the dust into gnats is a symbolic act, like the transformation of water into blood. They come out of the dust, and fly around like the dust, too small to measure or to seize. Keil says: “The gnats come out of the eggs laid in the dust or ground by the preceding generation.… The miracle consists in both cases not in an immediate creation, but in the pre-announcement, and the corresponding sudden creative (?) generation and supernatural (?) increase of these animals.” Out of the eggs, and at the same time supernatural—this is discordant. Exodus 8:14 [Exodus 8:18]. The scribes.ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ιν. Of the three forms of designation, ξְ ?αַ ?ωְּׁ ?τִ ?ιν sorcerers, ηֲ ?λָ ?ξִ ?ιν wise men, and ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ινἱερογραμματεῖς, Egyptian scribes, attached to the court, interpreters of hieroglyphic writings, the chief one is here selected, making the expression of their impotence the stronger. They cannot imitate this miracle. Why not? Knobel says: Because, according to the writer’s view, this was a case involving the production of creatures. Keil: Because God’s omnipotence in the case of this miracle put a check upon the demoniacal forces which the sorcerers had employed. Strange that the characteristic mark of magic wonders is again continually overlooked. The agency of Satan consists in lying forces and signs and miracles. Satan, in all that he says (Matthew 4) is the liar. If we take Exodus 8:13 literally, we might say that Moses had already transformed all the dust of Egypt into gnats, and that hence there was no dust left for them to work miracles on. But it is more obvious to assume that in this case they found the deception harder, or rather, that they were seized with a religious terror, and now declared to Pharaoh that they could go with him no further, in order to induce him to retrace his steps. This seems to be implied in their declaration: “This is the finger of God.” According to Bochart this means: nos non cohibent Moses et Aaron, sed divina vis, ulrisque major. Keil adds: “If they had meant the God of Israel, ιδεδ would be used.” But did they know Jehovah? And did they not also, as Egyptian priests, refer all their doings to the influence of the Godhead? According to Kurtz, by “finger” they meant an indication [Fingerzeig], a warning of the Egyptian gods themselves. Keil, on the other hand, finds in the finger of God simply an expression of creative omnipotence, as in Psalms 8:4 [3]; Luke 11:20; Exodus 31:18. Yet the educating wisdom of God is emphasized, especially in Exodus 31:18. The recognition of the fact that God’s finger displayed itself is the prelude of the perception of His strong hand and His outstretched arm. Therefore the phrase cannot be intended to designate either the gods of Egypt, who could not possibly, in the mind of the priests, take part with Moses and Aaron, or the God of Israel according to the Egyptian notion of Him, but only the deity, as conceived by a general overpowering religious feeling. Exodus 8:15 [Exodus 8:19]. Was hardened. Keil’s inference, “This punitive miracle, therefore, made on Pharaoh no impression,” obliterates the antithesis which the text brings out [viz., that although the magicians saw a divine hand in the miracle, yet Pharaoh remained obdurate]. D.—The blood-sucking gad-fly Exodus 8:16-28 [Exodus 8:20-32]16 [20] And Jehovah said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh: lo, he cometh forth to the water; and say unto him, Thus 17 [21]saith Jehovah, Let my people go, that they may serve me. Else [For] if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies [send the flies] upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies [full of the flies], 18 [22]and also the ground whereon they are. And I will sever [separate] in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies [no flies] shall be there: to the end thou mayest know that I 19 [23] am Jehovah in the midst of the earth [land]. And I will put a division between 20 [24]my people and thy people: tomorrow shall this sign be. And Jehovah did so; and there came a grievous swarm of flies [came grievous flies] into the house of Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt; the land was corrupted [was like to be destroyed] by reason of the swarm of flies [the flies]. 21 [25]And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to 22 [26]your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall [should] sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to Jehovah our God; lo, shall we [if we should] sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their 23 [27]eyes, and will they [eyes, would they] not stone us? We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to Jehovah our God, as he shall 24 [28]command us. And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to Jehovah your God in the wilderness: only ye shall not go very far away: 25 [29]entreat for me. And Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will entreat Jehovah that the swarms of flies may [and the flies will] depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people, to-morrow; but [only] let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice 26 [30]to Jehovah. And Moses went out from Pharaoh and entreated Jehovah. 27 [31]And Jehovah did according to the word of Moses; and he removed the swarms of flies [the flies] from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; there 28 [32]remained not one. And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this [heart this] time also, neither would he [and he did not] let the people go. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 8:20 [Exodus 8:24]. The Hebrew is ϊִּ ?ωָּׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊ. There is no propriety in rendering the future verb here, as is commonly done, by the Preterite. Besides, from the nature of the case, the Preterite is too strong; the land was not wholly destroyed; there was a danger that it would be, and therefore Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in order to avert the prospective ruin of the land. The future tense expresses an action as strictly future, or as future with reference to another past event, or as customary, or as going on either at a past or present time. Here we must understand that the devastation was going on, and total ruin was impending. Hence we may render: “was being destroyed,” or (as we have done) “was like to be destroyed.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:22 [Exodus 8:26]. The particle δֵ ?ο, commonly meaning, “behold,” seems to have here, as occasionally elsewhere, the force of a conditional particle. There is no mark of interrogation in the sentence, and apparently Moses says: “Lo, we shall sacrifice … and they will not stone us.” But the sense seems to require the last clause to be taken interrogatively.—Tr.] AND Exo_8:16 [Exodus 8:20] sqq. The gnats are followed by a worse plague, called ςָ ?ψֹ ?α. This definite phrase cannot signify “all kind of vermin” (Luther, πάμμυια, Sym.). The LXX. render κυνόμυια, “dog-fly,” by which is to be understood the larger species of flies, the blood-sucking gad-fly, as is especially to be seen in the plague of the cattle (vid. Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 116). Raphael Hirsch: “beast of the desert.” There is no reason why the adjective λָּ ?αֵ ?γ, Exodus 8:20, should not be rendered literally, the heavy (grievous) dog-fly. If λָּ ?αֵ ?γ is to convey the notion of multitude, this must also be indicated by the substantive. Moreover, the attributive “numerous” would rather weaken than strengthen the thought. Numerous flies!—In this plague two new factors enter: (1) It is expressly noticed that the laud of Goshen, i.e., Israel, shall be exempt from this plague. (2) This time, without the symbolic use of Moses’ rod, the visitation is announced only, and announced by Jehovah as His own act. Moses and Aaron are already sufficiently accredited as messengers of God; now their God will manifest Himself more definitely as the God of Israel, Jehovah, as He is also at the same time the God (Elohim) absolutely, and, therefore, also in the midst of Egypt. Exodus 8:17-18 [Exodus 8:21-22]. Notice the sententious form of the antithesis, ξְ ?ωַׁ ?μֵ ?ηַ and ξַ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιηַ.—[Literally: “If thou will not send my people away, I will send the flies upon thee,” etc.—Tr.] Exodus 8:19 [Exodus 8:23]. “τְּ ?γεּ ?ϊ,” says Keil, “does not signify διαστολή, divisio (LXX., Vulg.), but ransom, redemption.” At all events, however, it would be obscure to translate: “I will put a redemption between my people and thy people.” We understand: a quarantine.Exodus 8:21 [Exodus 8:25]. Pharaoh’s first concession. He is willing to grant to the people a sacrificial festival, accompanied by cessation from labor, but not to let them go out of the land, because he forebodes the consequence of a conditional emancipation, whereas he is unwilling to relax his despotic power over them. Exodus 8:22 [Exodus 8:26]. It is not meet [Lange: safe]. De Wette translates πָ ?λεο by “fitting,” Keil by “established.” The first expresses too little, the second too much.—The abomination of the Egyptians.—Knobel says: “The Egyptians sacrificed only bulls, calves and geese (Herod. II. 45), but no cows, as being sacred to Isis (Herod. II. 41; Porphyr. Abstin. 2, 11); also no turtle-doves (Porphyr. 4, 7). Also no sheep and goats, at least, not generally; in the worship of Isis at Thiborna in Phocis none could be offered (Pausan. 10, 32, 9), and in Egypt those who belonged to the temple and district of Mendes offered no she-goats or he-goats, though they did offer sheep; whereas the opposite was the case in Upper Egypt (Herod. II. 42, 46). The Egyptians were greatly scandalized when sacred animals were sacrificed or eaten (Josephus, Apion I. 26). The Hebrews, on the other hand, sacrificed sheep, goats and rams, and cows no less, e.g. for peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:1), burnt-offerings (1 Samuel 6:14), sin-offerings (Numbers 19), and others (Genesis 15:9).” It is singular that Keil can suppose the meaning to be only that the ceremonial rules and ordinances [of the Egyptians] were so painfully minute that the Jewish method of offering sacrifices might well scandalize the Egyptians. The sacrifice of cows would of itself be to them abominable enough. The more sacred the animal was, the more abominable did the sacrifice of it seem to be. But the chief point in the matter seems to be overlooked. It was the offering in Egypt of sacrifices to Jehovah, a god foreign to the Egyptians, which must have been an abomination. Even after the Reformation many Catholic princes thought that each land could have but one religion. Exodus 8:24 [Exodus 8:28]. Pharaoh permits them to go out a little distance on condition that they will intercede for him. Moses assents, without repeating the demand for a three days’ journey, but requires that Pharaoh shall not deceive him, but keep his word. Exodus 8:28 [Exodus 8:32]. The fourth hardening of the heart. Footnotes:[Exodus 8:20 [Exodus 8:24]. The Hebrew is ϊִּ ?ωָּׁ ?ηֵ ?ϊ. There is no propriety in rendering the future verb here, as is commonly done, by the Preterite. Besides, from the nature of the case, the Preterite is too strong; the land was not wholly destroyed; there was a danger that it would be, and therefore Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in order to avert the prospective ruin of the land. The future tense expresses an action as strictly future, or as future with reference to another past event, or as customary, or as going on either at a past or present time. Here we must understand that the devastation was going on, and total ruin was impending. Hence we may render: “was being destroyed,” or (as we have done) “was like to be destroyed.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 8:22 [Exodus 8:26]. The particle δֵ ?ο, commonly meaning, “behold,” seems to have here, as occasionally elsewhere, the force of a conditional particle. There is no mark of interrogation in the sentence, and apparently Moses says: “Lo, we shall sacrifice … and they will not stone us.” But the sense seems to require the last clause to be taken interrogatively.—Tr.] [Lange apparently has here in mind Keil’s interpretation, schwere Menge, “grievous multitude,” a meaning borne out by Exodus 10:14; Genesis 1:9, etc.—Tr.] [Lange s translation agrees with that of A. V. Knobel conjectures that instead of τְּ ?γεּ ?ϊ, we should road τֶּ ?μֶ ?ϊ, “separation,” from the verb τָּ ?μָ ?δ, which is used in the preceding verse. But such a noun nowhere occurs, though it would be an allowable formation. Better assume, with Gesenius, Fόrst, and the most, that the noun has here a rare, though perhaps its original, meaning, that of redemption being derived from it.—Tr.] [Lange’s rendering “sicher” is without analogy, except as “sicher” may mean “certain,” “sure,” which can hardly be Lange’s intention here. Keil’s explanation is the usual one: “festgestellt,” defined by statutum, rectum, “right.” The more common meaning is “fixed;” but this cannot be the force of the word here.—Tr.] E.—The pestilence of the beasts Exodus 9:1-71 Then [And] Jehovah said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell [speak unto] him, Thus saith Jehovah, God [the God] of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. 2For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still [and still hold them], 3Behold, the hand of Jehovah Isaiah 1 upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, 4and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain [pestilence]. And Jehovah shall sever [will make a distinction], between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children’s of Israel. 5And Jehovah appointed a set time, saying, To-morrow Jehovah shall [will] do this 6thing in the land. And Jehovah did that [this] thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. 7And Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not [behold, not even] one of the cattle of the Israelites dead [was dead]. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened [hard], and he did not let the people go. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 9:3. δεֹ ?ιָ ?δ. This is a solitary instance of the participial form of δָ ?ιָ ?δ, though in Nehemiah 6:6 and Ecclesiastes 2:22 the participle of the archaic and Aramaic form of the verb, δָ ?εָ ?δ, occurs. It might be rendered: “Behold, the hand of Jehovah will come upon,” etc.—Tr.] AND Exo_9:1. Categorical demand of Jehovah as the God of the Hebrews. Exodus 9:2. A more definite assumption, in view of past experience, that Pharaoh may defiantly harden himself. Exodus 9:3. A very grievous pestilence.—The more general term γֶּ ?αֶ ?ψ is used. The pestilence is to come upon cattle of all sorts found in the field. Exodus 9:4. The separation of Israel is more marked here than in Exodus 8:18 [22]. Exodus 9:5. Besides the foregoing sign, this fixing of the near time for the infliction of the plague is the most miraculous circumstance, since, as Keil says, “pestilences among the cattle of Egypt are wont to occur from time to time (comp. Pruner, Die Krankheiten des Orients, pp. 108, 112 sq.).” Exodus 9:6. All the cattle.—The word all is not to be taken absolutely, but only in opposition to the cattle of the Israelites. Comp. vers 9 and 10. Exodus 9:7. It is another characteristic of the tyrant that he cares the least for this calamity, which affects chiefly his poor subject, though he has become convinced of the miraculous sparing of the Israelites. Footnotes: [Exodus 9:3. δεֹ ?ιָ ?δ. This is a solitary instance of the participial form of δָ ?ιָ ?δ, though in Nehemiah 6:6 and Ecclesiastes 2:22 the participle of the archaic and Aramaic form of the verb, δָ ?εָ ?δ, occurs. It might be rendered: “Behold, the hand of Jehovah will come upon,” etc.—Tr.] F.—The boils and blains Exodus 9:8-128 And Jehovah said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven [toward heaven] in the sight of Pharaoh. 9And it shall become small [fine] dust in [upon] all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil [become boils] breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast throughout all the land of Egypt. 10And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood before Pharaoh, and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven; and it became a boil [became boils] breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast. 11And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for 12the boil was [boils were] upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians. And Jehovah hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken unto Moses. AND Exo_9:8. “That the sixth plague, that of the boils, was extraordinary only in its extent, is shown by comparing Deuteronomy 28:27, where the same disease occurs with the name ‘boils [A. V. botch] of Egypt,’ as a common one in Egypt” (Hengstenberg). Rosenmόller (on Deuteronomy 28:27) understands it of the elephantiasis, which is peculiar (?) to Egypt. But between diseases which chiefly work inward and boils there is a radical difference. Also “the elephantiasis does not affect cattle” [Hengstenberg]. See other interpretations in Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses. His own explanation is; inflammatory pustules—not merely heat-pimples. ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιο from ωָׁ ?ηַ ?ο, to be hot. LXX. ἔλκηφλυκτίδες. Vulg. ulcera et vesicζ turgentes. Keil (following Seetzen): the so-called Nile-pox. Leyrer (in Herzog’s Real- Encyclopδdie): Anthrax, a black inflammatory ulcer, “whose occurrence has been frequently observed after pestilences among beasts, especially after the inflammation of the spleen among cattle.” Exodus 9:9. The symbolic element in the transactions is here especially prominent. The shower of ashes which Moses made before Pharaoh’s eyes was only the symbolic cause of the boils which Jehovah inflicted. Kurtz and others associate this with a propitiatory rite of the Egyptians, the sprinkling of the ashes of sacrifices, especially of human sacrifices. But here no propitiatory act is performed, but a curse inflicted; and it is a far-fetched explanation to say that the Egyptian religious purification was thus to be designated as defilement. Keil lays stress on the fact that the furnace (λִּ ?αְ ?ωָׁ ?ο), according to Kimchi, was a smelting furnace or lime-kiln, and not a cooking-stove, and since the great buildings of the cities and pyramids came from the lime-kilns, “the sixth plague was to show the proud king that Jehovah was even able to produce ruin for him out of the workshops of his splendid buildings in which he was using the strength of the Israelites, and was so cruelly oppressing them with burdensome labors that they found themselves in Egypt as it were in a furnace heated for the melting of iron (Deuteronomy 4:20).” This view he would confirm by the consideration that “in the first three plagues the natural resources of the land were transformed into sources of misery.” The thought might be further expanded thus: All the glories of Egypt were one after another turned into judgments: the divine Nile was changed into filthy blood and brought forth frogs and gnats; the fruitful soil produced the land-plagues, dog-flies, pestilences, boils and hail; Egypt, so much praised for its situation, was smitten with the curse of the locusts and of the desert wind which darkened the day; finally, the pride of the people was changed into grief by the infliction of death on the first-born; and, to conclude all, Jehovah sat in judgment on the Egyptian military power, Pharaoh’s chariots and horsemen in the Red Sea. But with all this the boils are not shown to be a judgment upon Pharaoh’s splendor. Also the alleged symbol would be not easily understood. The ashes without doubt in a pictorial and symbolic way by their color and fiery nature point to the inflammatory boils and their color. With reason, however, does Keil call attention to the fact that this plague is the first one which attacked the lives of men, and thus it constituted a premonition of death for Pharaoh in his continued resistance. G.—The plague of the hail Exodus 9:13-3513 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith Jehovah, God [the God] of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. 14For I will at [will] this time send all my plagues upon thine [into thy] heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 15For now I will stretch [I would have stretched] out my hand, that I may smite [and smitten] thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be [wouldst have been] cut off from the earth. 16And in very deed [But] for this cause [for this] have I raised thee up [established thee] for to shew in thee [to shew thee] my power, and that my name may be declared [to declare my name] throughout all the earth. 17As yet exaltest thou [Thou art still exalting] thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let 18them go? [not to let them go]. Behold, to-morrow about [at] this time 1 will cause it to rain [I will rain] a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since the foundation thereof even until now. 19Send therefore now [And now send], and gather [save] thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for upon [as for] every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought [gathered] home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. 20He that feared the word of Jehovah among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: 21And he that regarded not the word of Jehovah left his 22servants and his cattle in the field. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine [thy] hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field throughout the land of Egypt. 23And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and Jehovah sent thunder and hail; and the fire [and fire] ran along upon the ground [came to the earth]; and Jehovah rained hail upon the land of Egypt. 24So there was hail, and fire mingled with [continuous fire in the midst of] the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it [had not been] in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field. 26Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, was there no hail. 27And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: Jehovah is righteous [is the righteous one], 28and I and my people are wicked [the wicked]. Entreat Jehovah (for it is enough) that there be no more [for it is too much that there should be] mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer. 29And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone [When I go] out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto Jehovah: and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how [know] that the earth is Jehovah’s. 30But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will [do] not yet fear Jehovah God. 31And the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled [in the blossom]. 32But the wheat and the rye [spelt] were not smitten; for they were not grown up [for they are late]. 33And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto Jehovah: and the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth. 34And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more 35[again], and hardened his heart, he and his servants. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as Jehovah had spoken by Moses. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 9:15-16. The Perf. ωָׁ ?μַ ?ηְ ?ϊִּ ?ι and the following Imperfects with the Vav Consecutive certainly cannot be rendered (with the A. V.) by the Future. It is simply a case of apodosis with the protasis omitted. Precisely similar is the construction in 1 Samuel 13:13, λִּ ?ιςַ ?̈ϊָּ ?δֵ δֵ ?λιοιְ ?δεָ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΞξַ ?ξְ ?μַ ?λְ ?ϊְּ ?κָ, which the A. V. correctly renders: “For now would the Lord have established thy kingdom.” Comp. Ewald, Ausfuhrl. Gr. § 358 a. Our translators seem in both these verses to have followed the LXX., the Vulg., and older versions, to the neglect of the Hebrew. Especially does this appear in Exodus 9:16, where αַּ ?ςֲ ?αεּ ?ψδַ ?ψְ ?ΰֹ ?ϊְ ?κָ is rendered: “for to show in thee.” Literally; “in order to cause thee to see.” There is no possible ambiguity in the Hebrew. God’s power was to be shown to Pharaoh, not in him. Probably our translators were also influenced by the quotation of this verse in Romans 9:17, where Paul follows the LXX. In the translation of δֶ ?ςֱ ?ξַ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ, however, the LXX. are more exact than Paul. In Exodus 9:15 Jehovah says: “I might have smitten thee,” etc. “But,” he adds, “for this I have preserved thee (literally, caused thee to stand) in order to show thee,” etc. The LXX. have διετηρήθης, in Romans 9:17 εξήγειράσε.—εְ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν means simply “but,” “nevertheless,” and not “in very deed.”—Tr.] [Exodus 9:17. There is no interrogative particle here, and no need of translating the verse as a question. It might be translated as a conditional clause: “If thou yet exalt thyself,” etc., Exodus 9:18 giving the conclusion.—Tr.] [Exodus 9:24. The Hithp. of μָ ?χַ ?η occurs, besides here, only in Ezekiel 1:4, where it is also used of lightning, and is rendered in the A. V.: “infolding itself” (marg. “catching itself”). The idea seems to be that of different flashes of lightning coming so thickly that the one seemed to take hold of the other; or, perhaps, it is descriptive of chain-lightning. Lange, following De Wette, and others understand it to mean balls of fire. This seems hardly to be borne out by the phrase.—Tr.] [Exodus 9:28. Lange renders: “Pray to Jehovah, that it may be enough of God’s voices of thunder.” So, substantially, Murphy, Keil, Knobel, Arnheim, Herxheimer, De Wette, Fόrst, Philippson, Rosenmuller, following LXX., Vulg. But it is hard to see what right we have to give the expression this turn, whereas the original simply says: “and much.” If we must supply a verb, we are hardly justified in making it Jussive. And if we were, by what right can the expression: “let there be much of there being thunder and hail,” be made to mean, “let there be no more thunder and hail?” for this is what “enough” is assumed to mean. But while ψַ ?α sometimes does mean “enough,” that is a very different conception from “ no more.” If one prays: “let there be enough of thunder,” the presumption is that he wants more rather than less. Furthermore, ξִ ?ο with the Inf., though often employed to denote the negation of a resul., yet is perhaps never used elsewhere to denote an object negatively, and is certainly no where else used after verbs of entreaty to denote the thing deprecated. There is also no analogy for the use of ξִ ?ο with the Inf. in a partitive sense, as Keil and others would here understand it. And even if ξִ ?ο did have the partitive sense (though even in the multitude of instances in which it is connected with nouns after ψַ ?α it only once—Ezekiel 44:6—has a partitive sense), the use of the Inf. would be pleonastic. In view of these considerations, there seems hardly to be any other way than to follow Kalisch, Glaire, and Ewald (Gram. § 217 b, § 285 d), and render: “It is too much that there should be.” Literally, “much from being,” or, this being the Hebrew method of expressing a comparison, “more than being.” But our idiom frequently requires “more than” to be rendered by “too much for.” E.g. Rth 1:12, ζָ ?χַ ?πְ ?ϊִּ ?ιξִ ?διεϊμְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ, “I am old from belonging to a husband,” i.e. “older than to belong to,” or rather, “too old to belong to.” So here: “it is much from [more than] there being thunder,” etc. That is, “It is too much that there be.” A still more apposite case is to be found in 1 Kings 12:28, ψַ ?αμָ ?λֶ ?νξֵ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊιְ ?ψεּ ?ωָׁ ?μַ ?νִ, “it is much to you from going up to Jerusalem,” i.e. (as Luther, A. V., and Keil render it), “it is too much for you to go up.” A still more indisputable analogy is found in Isaiah 49:6, πָ ?χַ ?μξִ ?δְ ?ιεֹ ?ϊְ ?κָ μִ ?ιςֶ ?αֶ ?γ, “It is light from thy being a servant,” i.e. “It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be a servant.” So Ezekiel 8:17. With this construction we get a clear and appropriate sense without forcing the original.—Tr.] AND Exo_9:13. The Seventh Plague. Hail and Thunder-storms.—Rise up early in the morning.—Even in reference to he forms of politeness there seems to be an intentional letting down. According to Exodus 8:16 [20] Moses was to avail himself of that time in the morning when Pharaoh was going to the Nile. This consideration here disappears. The demand is more imperative; the threat more fearful. Exodus 9:14. This time all the plagues are to be directed, in a concentrated form, primarily to the heart of Pharaoh, to his own personal interests, affecting first himself, then his servants, then his people, beginning at the top, and going down. “From the plural ξַ ?βֵ ?τεֹ ?ϊ it appears that this threat relates not merely to the seventh plague, the hail, but to all the remaining ones” (Keil). It appears also that now Pharaoh’s obduracy is to be regarded as quite determined. This is still more evident from the two following verses (see Comm. on Romans 9). From this time forward, therefore, ensue Jehovah’s acts of hardening Pharaoh’s heart in the narrower sense of the term.—That there is none like me.—Comp. Exodus 9:16. The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, following the last act of divine judgment upon Egypt, may be designated as the specific date of the victory of monotheism over the heathen gods, or of the theocratic faith over the heathen religions. Exodus 9:15. For now I would have stretched out my hand.—If Pharaoh’s person and surroundings alone had been in question, Jehovah would have already destroyed him with the pestilence. We do not, with Keil, render: If I had stretched out my hand … thou wouldest have been destroyed; for this would present a tautological sentence, obscuring the connection and fundamental thought. Jehovah’s declaration means: Thou, considered by thyself alone, art already doomed to condemnation; but I establish thee, as it were, anew, in order to judge thee more completely and to glorify my name in thee. Vid. Comm. on Romans 9. This is the gift of divine forbearance which the godless enjoy on account of the pious.—δֶ ?ςֱ ?ξַ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ accordingly does not mean merely cause to stand; and Paul, quite in accordance with the sense of the text, chose a stronger expression, whereas the LXX. had weakened it, employing διετηρήθης. The first spread of the news of Jehovah’s victory is recorded in Exodus 15:14. Exodus 9:17. A fine antithesis, analogous to that of Exo 8:17 [21]. The form of the thought likewise intimates that man, by the change of his disposition, may become different, and that then Jehovah may, as it were, present Himself to him as a different being.—Exalting thyself.—Properly, setting thyself up as a dam, ξִ ?ρְ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?μֵ ?μ. Israel, as the people of the future, is like a stream whose current the hostile powers of the world, like dams and dykes, are checking. First, it breaks through the power of Pharaoh with theocratic impetuosity amidst psalms of triumph. Something like this was true of the Reformation; in the highest sense, it was true of Apostolic Christianity; and it was no mere play of the fancy, when the great Egyptian plagues were associated with the great Christian martyrdoms. Exodus 9:19. And now send.—Had Pharaoh done so, he would at the last moment have acknowledged Jehovah’s power. But the word, which he himself without doubt disregarded, served to warn and preserve other God-fearing Egyptians. Exodus 9:22. Stretch forth thy hand toward heaven.—Still another symbolic form, and that of the finest appropriateness. Here the outstretched hand is more important than the symbolic rod, though the latter serves for a sign this time also. Exodus 9:23. Sublime description of the hail and thunder-storm, like Psalms 18, 29; Job 37, 38. “Thunder-storms are not frequent in Lower and Central Egypt, yet occasionally occur between December and April, and in connection with them hail sometimes falls, but seldom in considerable quantity. Comp. Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 121 sq.” (Keil.) In Egypt the cattle are driven to the pastures from January to April. Vid. Hengstenberg, l. c., p. 123, where he quotes from Niebuhr and others. Exodus 9:25. λָּ ?μ in Exodus 9:25, like the preceding “balls of fire” (for lightning), harmonizes with the hyperbolic style of the description. Exodus 9:26-27. In such a heavy storm the exceptional condition of Goshen must have been the more striking. Now even Pharaoh has recognized in the thunder the voice of Jehovah. The first declaration, that Jehovah is righteous, comes, remarkably enough, from his mouth. His repentance, however, soon shows itself to be a mere attritio, a transitory, slavish terror. The contritio is wanting; this was at once seen by Moses. The same is indicated in the characteristic utterance: I have sinned this time. Exodus 9:31-32. This specification gives a clue to the season of the year. It was towards the end of January. Vid. Hengstenberg. p. 124, and Keil, p. 492. The barley was an important article of food for men and cattle, although spelt and wheat furnished finer bread. The flax furnished the light linen which the hot climate made a necessity; “according to Herodotus II. 81, 105, a very important product of Egypt” (Keil).  Footnotes: [Exodus 9:15-16. The Perf. ωָׁ ?μַ ?ηְ ?ϊִּ ?ι and the following Imperfects with the Vav Consecutive certainly cannot be rendered (with the A. V.) by the Future. It is simply a case of apodosis with the protasis omitted. Precisely similar is the construction in 1 Samuel 13:13, λִּ ?ιςַ ?̈ϊָּ ?δֵ δֵ ?λιοιְ ?δεָ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΞξַ ?ξְ ?μַ ?λְ ?ϊְּ ?κָ, which the A. V. correctly renders: “For now would the Lord have established thy kingdom.” Comp. With this construction we get a clear and appropriate sense without forcing the original.—Tr.] H.—The locustsExo_10:1-201 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I might shew [may do] these my signs before him [in the midst of them]; 2And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt [what I have done with the Egyptians], and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how [may know] that I am Jehovah. 3And Moses and Aaron came [went] in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, Thus saith. Jehovah, God [the God] of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? let my people 4go, that they may serve me. Else [For] if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to-morrow will I bring the [bring] locusts into thy coast [borders]: 5And they shall cover the face of the earth, that [so that] one cannot [shall not] be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth [is left] unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field; 6And they shall fill thy houses, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians, which [as] neither thy fathers, nor thy fathers’ fathers have seen, since the day that they were upon the earth unto this day. And he turned himself [turned], and went out from Pharaoh. 7And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him; How long shall this man be a snare unto us? Let the men go, that they may serve Jehovah their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed? 8And Moses and Aaron were brought again [back] unto Pharaoh: and he said unto them, Go, serve Jehovah, your God: but who are they that shall go [are going]? 9And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old; with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold [wehave] a feast unto [of] Jehovah. 10And he said unto them, Let [May] Jehovah be so with you, as I will let you go and your little ones! Look to it [See]; for evil is before you. 11Not so: go now, ye that are men [ye men], and serve Jehovah; for that ye did desire [that is what ye are seeking]. And they were driven out from Pharaoh’s 12presence. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Stretch out thine [thy] hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail hath left. 13And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and Jehovah brought [drove] an east wind upon the land all that day and all that [the] night: and when it was morning the east wind brought the locusts. 14And the locusts went [came] up over [upon] all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts [borders] of Egypt; very grievous were they: before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after 15them shall be such. For [And] they covered the face of the whole earth [land], so that [and] the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through [in] all the land of Egypt. 16Then [And] Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have 17sinned against Jehovah your God, and against you. Now therefore [And now] forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat Jehovah your God that he may take away from me this death only. 18And he went out from Pharaoh, and 19entreated Jehovah. And Jehovah turned a mighty [very] strong west wind, which [and] took away the locusts, and cast [thrust] them into the Red Sea: there remained 20not one locust in all the coasts [borders] of Egypt. But Jehovah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not [and he did not] let the children of Israel go. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 10:2. That ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν here means “Egyptians,” and not “Egypt,” is evident from the plural pronoun which follows. And the whole phrase δִ ?ϊְ ?ςַ ?μַּ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιαְּ ?ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν is poorly reproduced in the A. V. This verb in the Hithpael is always followed by αְ with the name of a person. The meaning of it is, “to do one’s pleasure with.” Except here, and 1 Samuel 6:6, the phrase is used in a bad sense, e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4, “lost these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me.” Comp. Judges 19:25. Here, therefore, the meaning is, “how I did my pleasure with the Egyptians.”—Tr.]. AND Exo_10:1. I have hardened his heart.—According to shallow rationalistic views, this betrays a low state of intelligence; viewed from the ethical relations of life, it indicates a very high one. Pharaoh’s acts of self-hardening preceded this; but after the seventh one, his sentence was determined; the following plagues, therefore, must complete his obduracy. Moses must know this beforehand, in order that he may not be discouraged respecting his mission. But that, under divine revelation, he can foreknow it, is characteristic of the man who, being eminent in religious conscientiousness, has a wonderfully profound insight into the justice and judgments of God. The general prediction of Exo 7:3-5 is now for the first time completely fulfilled; hence it is here repeated. Exodus 10:2. That thou mayest tell.—“How Israel related these miraculous signs to children and children’s children, is shown in Psalms 78, 105 (Keil). Exodus 10:3. To humble thyself.—Jehovah speaks now in a severer tone. After so many apparent failures, this is a proof that Moses has his confidence and his word from God. Analogous is the heathen legend of the Sibyl who, for the prophetical books twice reduced in number, kept asking the same price. Exodus 10:4. The antithesis is sharp. Similar forms in Exodus 9:17 and Exodus 8:17 [21]. It is not merely the antithesis between a divine and a human action; the almighty personality of Jehovah confronts the defiant personality of Pharaoh. The assurance with which the locusts are predicted for the morrow marks the miracle, as also afterwards the sudden removal of them at Moses’ intercession. Exodus 10:5. The face [lit. eye] of the land.—“This phraseology, peculiar to the Pentateuch, and occurring elsewhere only Exodus 10:15 and Numbers 22:5; Numbers 22:11, rests on the ancient and genuinely poetic conception, that the earth with its floral ornamentation looks upon man” (Keil). Exodus 10:6. Fill thy houses.—Vid. Joe 2:9. On locusts finding their way into houses, vid. the quotations in Keil. Exodus 10:7. Pharaoh’s servants.—The courtiers begin to tremble. But they are governed by no noble motive to intercede for Israel, but by the fear that by resistance Egypt may go to ruin.—A snare.—In whose fatal toils they are becoming entangled to their destruction. Exodus 10:8. For the first time Pharaoh enters upon negotiations before the plague; yet without consistency.—Who are they? (lit. who and who) ξִ ?ιεָ ?ξִ ?ι. Immediately the timorous policy of the tyrant withdraws more than half of the concession. Exodus 10:9. To make a festival are needed not only the whole assembly, old and young, but also the cattle and possessions in general, on account of the offerings. Pharaoh suspects that freedom also is involved in the plan. According to Keil, the women, who are seemingly omitted, are designed to be included in the “we.” They are also included in the phrase “young and old.” Exodus 10:10. The thought, “Jehovah be with you on your journey,” is transformed by Pharaoh into mockery: As little as I will let you go with your children, so little shall ye go on your journey, so little shall Jehovah be with you. Inasmuch as he has been obliged to refer the preceding experiences to Jehovah, his audacity here passes over into blasphemy. Exodus 10:11. Go now, ye men.—δַ ?βְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν. The expression forms an antithesis to the δָ ?ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, in the use of which the servants proposed the release of the Israelites in general. But that he is not even willing to let only the men go is shown by the fact that the messengers of God were at once driven out. The expression “ye men,” “ye heroes,” may involve a scornful allusion to the power with which they have risen up against him. Also in the form μְ ?λεּ πָ ?ΰ the irony (according to Keil) is continued.—They were driven out.—As we should say, they were turned out of doors. “The restriction of the right of departure to the men was pure caprice, inasmuch as according to Herodotus II. 60 the Egyptians also had religious festivals in which the women were accustomed to go out with the men” (Keil). Exodus 10:12. Stretch out thy hand.—According to Exodus 10:13, with the rod in it. Was it in order that they might rise up like a hostile military force? More probably the idea is that they are to rise up in the distance like clouds carried by the wind. With the wind, brought by it, locusts are wont to come. Vid. the citations in Keil. Exodus 10:13. And Jehovah drove.—Jehovah Himself is the real performer of miracles. When He seems in His government to follow Moses’ suggestion, while, on the other hand, the action of Moses is only a symbolical one resting on prophetic foresight, this all signifies that God’s dominion in nature answers to God’s dominion in His kingdom, therefore, also, in the mind of Moses. It is a pre-established harmony, in which the outward things of nature are made serviceable to the inward necessities of the spiritual life. Vid. Matthew 28:18.—An east wind,ψεּ ?ηַ ?Ξχָ ?γִ ?ιν. “Not νότος (LXX.), south wind, as even Bochart (Hierozoicon III., p. 287) thought. For although the swarms of locusts come to Egypt generally from Ethiopia or Libya, yet they are sometimes brought by the east wind from Arabia, as has been observed, among others, by Denon, quoted by Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 125” (Keil). Exodus 10:13-15. Further miraculous features: (a) that the locusts come from so far (the wind blew twenty-four hours); (b) that they cover the whole land, whereas they generally attack only particular regions. Among the various forms of the preludes of the final judgment, (blood, fire, war, pestilence, darkness), the plagues of locusts are also especially prominent. According to Joel, the fundamental significance of them is the incessant destruction of the flesh on all sides.Exodus 10:16-17. And Pharaoh called in haste.—This is his second confession of sin, more distinct than the first, Exodus 9:27. For the third time he implores Moses’ intercession; Exodus 8:24 (28), Exodus 9:28, and here. His penitence, however, again exhibits the character of an insincere submission, attritio; he begs Moses’ forgiveness, but wishes him to intercede with God to avert this death, this deadly ruin, which he sees in the plague of locusts. He condemns himself, however, for what follows, inasmuch as he asks for exemption only this once. Exodus 10:18. Moses’ intercession has a twofold significance: It is, first, an expression of divine forbearance; secondly, the attestation of the miracle displayed in the plague of locusts. Exodus 10:19. The east wind is changed to a west wind, or, more probably, to a northwest wind. “That the locusts perish in the sea is variously attested. Gregatim sublatζ vento in maria aut stagna decidunt, says Pliny” (Keil). For Pharaoh the help may have been ominous, as he himself afterwards with his host was to perish, like the locusts, in the Red Sea. Footnotes: [Exodus 10:2. That ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν here means “Egyptians,” and not “Egypt,” is evident from the plural pronoun which follows. And the whole phrase δִ ?ϊְ ?ςַ ?μַּ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιαְּ ?ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν is poorly reproduced in the A. V. This verb in the Hithpael is always followed by αְ with the name of a person. The meaning of it is, “to do one’s pleasure with.” Except here, and 1 Samuel 6:6, the phrase is used in a bad sense, e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4, “lost these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me.” Comp. Judges 19:25. Here, therefore, the meaning is, “how I did my pleasure with the Egyptians.”—Tr.]. [This is obscure. It is true that the invasion of the locusts is described by Joel as the precursor of “the day of Jehovah” (Exodus 1:15; Exodus 2:1); but where or in what sense he represents them as destroying the flesh, it is impossible to see. Certainly if the literal language of Joel is referred to, there is nothing of the sort. And no more is there any indication that Joel means to intimate that locusts symbolize the destruction of the flesh. Lange moreover leaves us in doubt whether he uses the word “flesh” in the literal or figurative sense.—Tr.]. I.—The darkness Exodus 10:21-2921 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Stretch out thine [thy] hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. 22And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. 23They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings. 24And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye, serve Jehovah; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed [kept back]; let your little ones also [also your little ones shall] go with you. 25And Moses said, Thou must give us also [Thou shalt also put into our hands] sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice unto Jehovah our God. 26Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an [a] hoof be left behind; for thereof [from them] must we [shall we] take to serve Jehovah our God; and we know not with what we must 27serve Jehovah until we come thither. But Jehovah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go. 28And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that [the] day thou seest my face thou shalt die. 29And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face again no more. AND Exo_10:21-23. The natural phenomenon underlying this miraculous infliction of Egyptian darkness is generally taken to be the Chamsin, the scorching hot south wind (in Italy the Sirocco, in Switzerland the Fφhn), “referred to apparently by the LXX., where they render ηωֶׁ ?κְ ?Ξΰֲ ?τֵ ?μָ ?δ by σκότοςκαὶγνόφος, καὶθύελλα. This wind, which in Egypt is accustomed to blow before and after the vernal equinox, and generally lasts two or three days, usually rises very suddenly and fills the air with such a mass of fine dust and coarser sand, that the sun ceases to shine, the sky is covered with a thick veil, and the obscuration becomes so nocturnal that the darkness of the thickest fog of our late autumn or winter days is not to be compared with it (vid. Schubert’s Reise, II., p. 409). (Keil). See further citations in Keil. Hengstenberg interprets the darkness in Egypt as the image of the divine anger, the light in Goshen as image of the divine grace. But the preceding plagues also were at least signs of the divine anger. The judgment of darkness doubtless expresses more specifically the fact, that the wisdom of Egypt has become transformed into a spiritual night, in which the night of death soon to follow is pre-announced, whereas the light in Goshen in contrast with it may signify the dawn of a higher wisdom which finally brings freedom. The miraculousness of it consisted, first, in its following the symbolic action and prediction of Moses; secondly, in its intensity and the exceptional condition of Goshen.—In their dwellings.—Keil correctly refers this, in opposition to Kurtz, to the country; whereas the latter understands that the Egyptians were even unable to illumine their houses. But one might as readily infer that the Israelites obtained light only by artificial means.—Darkness which may be felt.—Beautiful hyperbolic expression; yet the dust brought by the tornado could indeed be felt by the hand. Exodus 10:24. Pharaoh, frightened, makes a new concession, but again with a shrewd reservation. The concession consists, strictly speaking, of two parts, and the reservation is very furtively inserted between the two.—Go ye, he says at first, this time not only the strong men; and at last, as if with the intention of entrapping Moses by the excitement of his emotions: Also your little ones shall go with you.—Nevertheless all their cattle were to be left in the hands of the Egyptians as a pledge of their return.“ιֻ ?φָּ ?β, sistatur, be stopped, kept in certain places under the charge of the Egyptians as a pledge of your return” (Keil). Exodus 10:25. Moses invalidates Pharaoh’s demand by reference to the religious duty of his people. They must make an offering, must therefore have their cattle with them. But, together with the claims of religious feeling, those of justice are also insisted on, in the utterance which has even become parabolical: “There shall not a hoof be left behind.” This bold utterance, on the other hand, is softened by the declaration that they did not know what offerings (and how many) they would have to bring to Jehovah. Exodus 10:28. The negotiation becomes more and more unequivocal. The one intention has struggled with the other in carefully chosen terms up to the point of decision. The tyrant’s defiance now flames up, and Moses, with a calm consciousness of superiority, tinged with irony, assents to the decree that he shall not again, on penalty of death, appear before Pharaoh. It is an indirect announcement of the last plague. But its first consequence will be that Pharaoh must take back his threat, Exodus 12:31. THIRD SECTIONAnnouncement of the last or tenth plague, the immediate miraculous interposition of God. The commands respecting the indemnification of the Israelites, and the Passover, as the festival preliminary to their deliverance. The midnight of terror and of the festival of deliverance. The release and the exodus. The legal consequences of the liberation: the Passover, the consecration of the first-born, the feast of unleavened breadExo_11:1 to Exodus 13:16A.—Announcement of the last plague Exodus 11:1-101 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more [One more plague will I bring] upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you go, he shall [will] surely thrust you out hence altogether. 2Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow [ask] of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels [articles] of silver, and 3jewels [articles] of gold. And Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people. 4And Moses said, Thus saith Jehovah, About [At] midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: 5And all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even [throne], unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill; and all the first-born of beasts. 6And there shall be a great cry throughout [in] all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it [the like of which hath not been], nor shall be like it [nor shall be] any more. 7But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move [sharpen] his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how [know] that Jehovah doth put a difference [doth distinguish] between the Egyptians and Israel. 8And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down themselves [bow down] unto me, saying, Get thee out, and all the people that follow thee: and after that I will go out. And he went out from Pharaoh in a great [burning] anger. 9And Jehovah said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall [will] not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. 10And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and Jehovah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not [and he did not] let the children of Israel go out of his land. AND Exo_11:1. And Jehovah said.—According to Keil, Jehovah’s address to Moses here reported was made before the interview with Pharaoh recorded in Exodus 10:24-29, but is given here by the narrator because it explains Moses’ confident answer in Exodus 10:29. But we cannot suppose that Moses would have preännounced the tenth plague before Pharaoh’s obduracy in reference to the ninth had showed itself. Also, it is clear from Exodus 11:8 that the announcement made in Exodus 11:4-8 immediately follows Moses’ declaration in Exodus 10:29. The difference between this announcement and the former ones consists in the fact that this last one is made immediately after Pharaoh’s obdurate answer. By a sort of attraction other particulars are added to this central part of the section: Exodus 11:9-10 as a recollection which the theocratic spirit loves to repeat. Exodus 11:1-3, however, are put before Exodus 11:4-8, evidently from pragmatic considerations; in historical order they form the immediate consequence of what is there related. Only the matter of the silver and gold articles seems to have been often talked of: the idea is advanced as early as Exodus 3:21. Exodus 11:8. That follow thee.—Here for the first time the thought appears, that the people are to form a military host.—In a burning anger.—Patience is exhausted, and the prophet’s anger breaking forth is a foretoken of judgment. Exodus 11:9-10. What Jehovah has predicted (Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3) has thus far all been fulfilled. The pause before the last thunder-bolt has intervened, and occasions a review. Exodus 11:4-5. At midnight.—The day is not fixed, only the dreadful hour of the night. Keil correctly observes, in opposition to Baumgarten, that the institution of the feast of the Passover does not come till after the announcement of the last plague, and in accordance with this direction at least nine days, according to Exodus 12:3, must have preceded the Passover. Also the indefinitely protracted expectation of the stroke must have heightened the fear in Egypt, and made the stroke the more effectual. At midnight will I go out.—The servant with his symbolic action retires; Jehovah will Himself step forth from His hidden throne, and march through the whole of hostile Egypt in judicial majesty. The judgment will be so severe that even Moses with his rod must reverently retire, all the more, as in this last scene there is to be made manifest on Israel’s part also a relative complicity in guilt, which can be expiated only by the blood of the paschal lamb. Moses must here retire on account also of the infliction of death on the first-born children of Egypt.—The maid-servant that is behind the mill.—From the king’s son down to the lowest female slave. A still stronger expression is used for the latter extreme in Exodus 12:29.—All the first-born.—The firstborn are the natural heads, representatives, priests, and chief sufferers, of families; and to the first-born as priests correspond the first-born of beasts as offerings (vid. Exodus 13:2). Here, it is true, the offering spoken of is the curse-offering, çֶ ?øֶ ?í. According to Keil, the beasts also are mentioned because Pharaoh was going to keep back the men and the cattle of the Israelites. But this judgment goes so deep that the firstborn Israelitish children must likewise be atoned for; therefore also faultless lambs must be offered. The first-born among lambs cannot have been meant. Exodus 11:7. Not a dog sharpen his tongue.—A proverbial expression, signifying that not the slightest trouble could be experienced. Hence, too, not even the cattle of the Jews were to suffer the least disturbance (vid. Jdt 11:19). The proverbial expression may seem strange in this connection; but the thought readily occurs, that the Egyptians, in this great calamity which they had to experience on account of the Israelites, might come against them with revengeful purpose. But even this will so little be the case that rather all of Pharaoh’s servants will fall at Moses’ feet and beg him to go out together with his people. Footnotes: [Probably a misprint for “four,” i.e., the four days intervening between the 10th and the 14th of the month. Murphy agrees with Baumgarten that the midnight here spoken of is the one following the announcement of the plague, which, therefore, according to Exodus 12:6; Exodus 12:29, must have taken place on the 14th. This of course requires us to assume that the injunction of Exo 12:1-3 preceded this announcement. In itself considered, however, there is certainly no more difficulty in this than in the view held by Keil respecting Exodus 11:1-3, viz., that chronologically it belongs before Exodus 10:24-29.—Tr.]. [Where prisoners are substituted for grinders. But, as Keil remarks, according to Judges 16:21; Isaiah 47:2, it was not uncommon to employ prisoners as grinders.—Tr.]. B.—The divine ordinance of the passover Exodus 12:1-201, 2And Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In [On] the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers [according to households], a lamb for a house: 4And if the household be too little for the [a] lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating, shall [shall ye] make your count for the lamb. 5Your lamb shall be [ye shall have a lamb] without blemish, a male of the first year [one year old]: ye shall take it out [take it] from the sheep, or from the goats. 6And ye shall keep it up [keep it] until the fourteenth day of the same [this] month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7And they shall take of the blood, and strike [put] it on the two side-posts and on the upper door-post 8[the lintel] of the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night roast [roasted] with fire, and unleavened bread; and [bread]: with 9bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not [nothing] of it raw, nor sodden at all [boiled] with water, but roast [roasted] with fire; his [its] head with his [its] legs, and with the purtenance [inwards] thereof. 10And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. 11And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s 12passover [a passover unto Jehovah]. For [And] I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Jehovah. 13And the blood shall be to you for a token [sign] upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you [there shall be no destroying plague upon you], when I smite the land of Egypt. 14And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep [celebrate] it a feast to Jehovah; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever [celebrate it as a perpetual ordinance]. 15Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even [yea, on] the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16And in the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you [on the first day ye shall have a holy convocation, and on the seventh day a holy convocation]; no manner of work [no work] shall be done in them; save [only] that which every man must eat [is eaten by every man], that only may be done of you. 17And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in [on] this self-same day have I brought your armies [hosts] out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall ye [and ye shall] observe this day in [throughout] your generations by [as] an ordinance foreExo Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. 19Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even [leavened], that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger [sojourner] or born in the land. 20Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 12:11. αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο. Lange translates: in Flucht-bereitschaft, “in readiness for flight,” condemning De Wette’s rendering, Eilfertigkeit, “haste,” “precipitation.” But in the only other two passages where the word occurs, Lange’s translation is hardly admissible. Deuteronomy 16:3, “Thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste, αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο.” It could not be said, “Thou camest forth in readiness for flight.” So Isaiah 52:12, “Ye shall not go out with haste (αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο), nor go by flight.” Here the word also denotes anxious haste. The verb ηָ ?τַ ?ζ likewise everywhere conveys the notion of hurriedness, or anxiety connected with haste.—Tr.]. AND Exo_12:1 sqq. Institution of the Passover. As Christendom reckons its years according to the salvation in Christ, so the Israelites were to reckon the months of the year from the first month of their redemption. The first month, in which the redemption took place, Abib (month of green ears) or Nisan, was to become the first month of their year. Hereby likewise the feast of the Passover was to be made the foundation of all the Jewish feasts, and the Passover sacrifice the foundation of all the various kinds of offering. The feast, however, becomes a double one. The Passover, as the feast of redemption, lasts, together with the day of preparation, only one night; the least of unleavened bread (including the Passover) seven days. Since the feast of the great day of atonement also coalesces with the feast of tabernacles which follows close upon it, it would seem that the feast of Pentecost also, as the feast of ingathering, requires to be coupled with something. The institution of the feast of the Passover, connected with the announcement of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, is narrated in Exodus 12:1-14; in 15–20 the institution of the feast of unleavened bread. The two feasts, however, are so thoroughly blended into one, that the whole feast may be called either the Passover, or the feast of unleavened bread. The festival as a whole signifies separation from the corruption of Egypt, this being a symbol of the corruption of the world. The foundation of the whole consists in the divine act of redemption celebrated by the Passover. The result consists in the act of the Israelites, the removal of the leaven, which denotes community with Egyptian principles (Vid. Comm. on Matthew, pp. 245, 289). We have here, therefore, a typical purification based on a typical redemption. Exodus 12:1-2. In the land of Egypt.—It is a mark of the dominion of Jehovah in the midst of His enemies, that He established the Jewish community in the land of Egypt, as also the Christian community in the midst of Judaism, and the Evangelical community under the dominion of the Papacy. To the triumphant assurance in regard to the place corresponds the triumphant assurance in regard to the time: the Passover, as a typical festival of redemption, was celebrated before the typical redemption itself; the Lord’s Supper before the real redemption; and in the constant repetition of its celebration it points forward to the final redemption which is to take place when the Lord comes. Keil calls attention to this legislation in the land of Egypt, as the first, in distinction from the legislation on Mt. Sinai and the fields of Moab.—The beginning of months.—It does not definitely follow from this ordinance that the Jews before had a different beginning of the year; but this is probable, inasmuch as the Egyptians had a different one. Vid. Keil, Vol. 11., p. 10. Nisan nearly corresponds to our April. Exodus 12:3. Unto all the congregation of Israel.—As heretofore, through the elders.—A lamb.—A lamb or kid.—According to households.—The companies were not to be formed arbitrarily, but were to be formed according to families. Vid. Exodus 12:21.—On the tenth day of this month.—Vid. Exodus 12:6. Exodus 12:4. Of course more than two families might unite, if some of them were childless. Also perhaps the gaps in smaller families might be filled by members from excessively large ones. Later tradition fixed upon ten as the normal number of participants. Exodus 12:5. Quality of the lamb: without blemish, male, one year old. For divergent opinions, see Keil, Vol. II., p. 11. That the lamb, as free from blemish, was designed to represent the moral integrity of the offerer (Keil), is a very doubtful proposition, since moral integrity needs no expiatory blood; it might, with more propriety, be taken to represent theocratic integrity. Also the requirement that the lamb be a male can hardly [as Keil assumes] have exclusive reference to the first-born sons [for whom the lambs were substituted]. The requirement of one year as the age probably is connected with the necessity that the lamb be weaned; furthermore, it was for a meal which was to suffice for an ordinary family. The first-born of beasts which were sacrificed on other occasions than at the Passover needed only to be eight days old. As the lamb was of more value than the kid, it is natural that for this occasion it became more and more predominantly used. Exodus 12:6. Ye shall keep it.—Does this mean simply: ye shall keep it in store? Probably it is intimated that the lamb was designed either to represent the persons, or to be held in custody for them. Why did this keeping of the animal last from the 10th to the 14th of Nisan? “Which regulation, however, Jonathan and Raschi regarded as applicable only to the passover slain in Egypt” (Keil). According to Hofmann, the four days refer to the four generations spent by the Israelites in Egypt. In that case the whole analogy would lie in the number four. If the 10th day of Nisan was near the day of the command, and Moses foresaw that the last plague would not come till after four days, it was natural for him not to leave so important a preparation to the last day; the four days, moreover, were by the ordinance itself devoted entirely to wholesome suspense and preparation; in another form Fagius refers to this when he says: “ut occasionem haberent inter se colloquendi et disputandi,” etc. Vid. Keil.—The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel.—Although every head of a family killed his lamb, yet the individual acts were a common act of the people in the view of the author of the rite. Israel was the household enlarged; the separate household was the community in miniature. Hence later the lambs were slain in the court.—In the evening (literally “between the two evenings”). This regulation, which distinguishes two evenings in one day, is explained in three ways: (1) between sunset and dark (Aben-Ezra, the Karaites and Samaritans, Keil and others); (2) just before and just after sunset (Kimchi, Raschi, Hitzig); (3) between the decline of the day and sunset (Josephus, the Mishna, and the practice of the Jews). Without doubt this is the correct explanation; in favor of it may be adduced Exodus 16:12; Deuteronomy 16:6; John 13:2. According to this passage, preparation for the Passover was begun before the sun was fully set. Considerable time was needed for the removal of the leaven and the killing of the lamb. According to the Jewish conception of the day as reckoned from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M., there was in fact a double evening: first, the decline of the day of twelve hours; secondly, the night-time, beginning at 6 P. M., which, according to Genesis 1:5 and Matthew 28:1, was always evening in the wider sense—the evening of the day of twenty-four hours—which preceded the morning, the day in the narrower sense.Exodus 12:7. Take of the blood.—The two door-posts, as well as the lintel of the door, denote the whole door; the threshold is excepted because the atoning blood should not be trodden under foot. “The door,” says Keil, “through which one goes into the house, stands for the house itself; as is shown by the frequent expression: ‘in thy gates,’ for ‘in thy cities,’ Exodus 20:10, etc.” It is here assumed that every house or tent had a door properly so called. “Expiation was made for the house, and it was consecrated as an altar” (Keil). This is a confused conception. It was the household that was atoned for; the building did thus indeed become a sort of sanctuary; but in what sense was it to be an altar? For here all kinds of offerings were united in one central offering: the ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ν, or the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn; the expiatory offering, or the blood sprinkled by the hyssop-branch on the door-posts (Leviticus 14:49; Numbers 19:18), which, therefore, as such represent the several parts of the altar; the thank-offering, or the Passover-meal; the burnt-offering, or the burning of the parts left over. Because the door-posts themselves stand for the altar, the smearing of them was afterwards given up, and, instead, the lamb was killed in the court; and this change must have been made as soon as there was a court. Exodus 12:8. On that night.—The one following the 14th of Nisan. Why only on the same night? Otherwise it would not have been a festive meal. Why roasted? The fire (itself symbolically significant) concentrates the strength of the meat; by boiling a part of it passes into the water. The unleavened bread has a two-fold significance. When eaten at the Passover, it denotes separation from the leaven of Egypt (Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:12; 2 Corinthians 5:8); as a feast by itself, the feast of unleavened bread, called bread of affliction, denotes remembrance of the afflictions which were connected with the flight from Egypt (Deuteronomy 16:3). This is overlooked, when it is inferred from Exodus 12:17 that the ordinance of the feast of unleavened bread was made at a later time (as Keil does, II., p. 20).—With bitter herbs.—ξְ ?ψֹ ?ψִ ?ιν, πικρίδες (LXX.), lactucζ agrestes (Vulg.), the wild lettuce, the endive, etc. Vid. Keil II., p. 15, Knobel, p. 99. “According to Russell,” says Knobel, “there are endives in Syria from the beginning of the winter months to the end of March; then comes lettuce in April and May.” According to Keil, “the bitter herbs are not called accompaniments of the meal, but are represented as the principal part of the meal, here and in Numbers 9:11.” For ςַ ?μ, he says, does not mean along with, together with, but retains its fundamental meaning, upon, over. In this way the following strange symbolic meaning is deduced: “The bitter herbs are to call to mind the bitterness of life experienced by Israel in Egypt, and this bitterness is to be overcome by the sweet flesh of the lamb.” If only the bitter herbs did not taste pleasant! If only the lamb did not form a meal of thank-offering, and in this meal were not the chief thing! May not the lamb, according to the usual custom, have lain upon a setting of bitter herbs? In the passage before us only the unleavened bread is said to be put upon the bitter herbs. The modification of the arrangement in Numbers 9:11 is unimportant. It is a strange notion that the bitter herbs and the sweet bread formed “the basis of the Passover-meal” (Keil). In that case the “sweet” bread ought to have made the “sweet” flesh of the lamb superfluous. Moreover, the opposite of sweet is not bitter, but sour. According to Knobel, the bitter herbs correspond to the frankincense which used to accompany many offerings of grain, inasmuch as they had, for the most part, a pleasant odor. But frankincense has a special reference to prayer. If the bitter herbs are to be interpreted as symbolic, we may understand that they supplement the negative significance of the unleavened bread by something positive, as being health-giving, vitalizing, consecratory herbs. Exodus 12:9. Its head with its legs. [“From the head to the thighs,” is Lange’s translation.] “I.e., as Raschi correctly explains, whole, not cut in pieces, so that the head and legs are not separated from the animal, no bone of him is broken (Exodus 12:46), and the inward parts together with the (nobler?) entrails, these of course first cleansed, are roasted in and with the body.” The unity of the lamb was to remain intact; on which point comp. Bδhr, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus II., p. 635, Keil, and others. The symbolic significance of the lamb thus tended towards the notion of personality and inviolability, that on which rested also the fact and continuance of the unity of the family which partook of it. Exodus 12:10. Let nothing of it remain. “But what nevertheless does remain till morning is to be burnt with fire” (Keil). But was any of it allowed to remain till morning? Vid. my hypothesis, Life of Christ, Vol. IV., p. 262.Exodus 12:11. And thus. The preparation for the journey is here at once real and symbolic. The readiness to start is expressed by three marks: the loins girded (tucked up); the travelling shoes on the feet; the walking-stick in the hand. That even the O. T. ritual was no rigid ordinance is proved by the remarkable fact that at the time of Christ they ate the passover lying on couches.—In haste. [“In readiness for flight,” Lange.] A meal could hardly have been taken in “anxious flight” (Keil), or in “anxious haste” (Knobel).—It is Jehovah’s Passover. Not the Passover unto Jehovah, as Keil takes it, referring to Exodus 20:10, Exodus 32:5. For the Passover designates Jehovah’s own going through, going by, passing over (sparing), as symbolically represented and appropriated by the Passover festival. The feast, it is true, is celebrated to Jehovah; but it celebrates Jehovah’s act, and in the place where the rite is first instituted, it cannot appear as already instituted. The LXX say: πάσχαἐστὶκυρίῳ. The Vulg. “est enim Phase (id est transitus) domini. On the meaning of τָ ?ρַ ?ηvid. the lexicons, and Keil II., p. 17. The pesach is primarily the divine act of “passing over;” next the lamb with the killing of which this exemption is connected; finally, the whole eight days’ festival, including that of unleavened bread (Deuteronomy 16:1-6), as, on the other hand, the latter feast also included that of the Passover. That this first Passover was really a sacrificial feast, Keil proves, in opposition to Hofmann, II., p. 17. Comp. Hofmann’s Schriftbeweis II., p. 271.Exodus 12:12-13. Explanation of the Passover. And I. The counterpart and prototype of the Passover festival are historic facts. First, Jehovah, as judge, passes through all Egypt. Secondly, He visits upon the young life in the land a plague whose miraculousness consists especially in the fact that the first-born fall, the infliction beginning with the house of Pharaoh. The result is that all the gods of Egypt are judged by Jehovah. What does that mean? Keil says: the gods of Egypt were spiritual powers, δαιμόνια. Pseudo-Jonathan: idols. Knobel compares Numbers 33:4, and says: “We are to think especially of the death of the first-born beasts, since the Egyptians worshipped beasts as gods,” (!) etc. The essential thing in the subjective notion of gods are the religious conceptions and traditions of the heathen, in so far as they, as real powers, inhere in national ideals and sympathies. Legends in point, vid. in Knobel, p. 100. Thirdly, Jehovah spares the first-born of the Israelites.—The blood shall be to you for a sign. The expression is of psychological importance, even for the notion of atonement. It does not read: it shall be to me for a sign. The Israelites were to have in the blood the sacramental sign that by the offering of blood the guilt of Israel in connection with Egypt was expiated, in that Jehovah had seen the same blood. This looking on the blood which warded off the pestilence reminds us of the looking up to the brazen serpent, and of the believer’s contemplation of the perfect atonement on the cross. Keil says, “In the meal the sacrificium becomes a sacramentum.” Exodus 12:14. The solemn sanction of the Passover.—As an ordinance for ever. The institution of the Passover continues still in its completed form in the new institution of the Lord’s Supper. Exodus 12:15. The solemn institution of the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread. It was contemporaneous with the Passover; not afterwards appended to it, for this is not implied by Exodus 12:17. (See above on Exodus 12:8). The real motive was the uniform removal of the Egyptian leaven, a symbol of entire separation from everything Egyptian. Hence the clearing away of the leaven had to be done on the first day, even before the incoming of the 15th of Nisan, on the evening of the 14th. Vid. Exodus 12:18. Hence also every one who during this time ate anything leavened was to be punished with death. He showed symbolically that he wished to side with Egypt, not with Israel. The explanation, “The unleavened bread is the symbol of the new life, cleansed from the leaven of sin,” (Keil), is founded on the fundamentally false assumption, revived again especially by Hengstenberg, that the leaven is in itself a symbol of the sinful life. If this were the case, the Israelites would have had to eat unleavened bread all the time, and certainly would not have been commanded on the day of Pentecost to put leavened bread on the altar (Leviticus 23:17). The leaven is symbol only of transmission and fellowship, hence, in some cases, of the old or of the corrupt life. “Leaven of the Egyptian character,” says Keil himself, II., p. 21. Exodus 12:16. On the first day. This is the day following the holy night, the second half of the 15th of Nisan. Like the seventh day it is appointed a festival, but to be observed less rigidly than the Sabbath. According to Leviticus 23:7, the only employments forbidden are the regular labors of one’s vocation or service, and food may be prepared according to the necessities of the day; this was not allowed on the Sabbath. Exodus 12:17. For on this self-same day. Strictly speaking then, the days of unleavened bread began with the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, and in commemoration of the exodus itself, whereas the Passover was devoted to the commemoration of the preceding dreadful night of judgment and deliverance, the real adoption or birth of God’s people Israel. Exodus 12:18. On the fourteenth day of the month. This is the feast of unleavened bread in the wider sense, including the Passover. The Passover, according to the very idea of it, could not be celebrated with leavened bread, i.e., in connection with any thing Egyptian, for it represented a separation, in principle, from what was Egyptian. Exodus 12:19. Also the foreigner, who wishes to live among the Israelites, must submit to this ordinance, even though he has continued to be a foreigner, i.e., has not been circumcised. The one born in the land is the Israelite himself, so called either in anticipation of his destined place of settlement, or in the wider sense of nationality. Keil approves Leclerc’s interpretation: quia oriundi erant ex Isaaco et Jacobo, [“because they were to take their origin from Isaac and Jacob.”] Exodus 12:20. Eat nothing leavened. Again and again is this most sacred symbolic ceremony enjoined, for it symbolizes the consecration of God’s people, a consecration based on their redemption. Footnotes: [Exodus 12:11. αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο. Lange translates: in Flucht-bereitschaft, “in readiness for flight,” condemning De Wette’s rendering, Eilfertigkeit, “haste,” “precipitation.” But in the only other two passages where the word occurs, Lange’s translation is hardly admissible. Deuteronomy 16:3, “Thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste, αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο.” It could not be said, “Thou camest forth in readiness for flight.” So Isaiah 52:12, “Ye shall not go out with haste (αְּ ?ηִ ?τָּ ?ζεֹ ?ο), nor go by flight.” Here the word also denotes anxious haste. The verb ηָ ?τַ ?ζ likewise everywhere conveys the notion of hurriedness, or anxiety connected with haste.—Tr.]. [The age of the lamb is expressed in Hebrew by the phrase: “son of a year.” The Rabbinical interpretation is that this means a year old or less, and in practice it has been applied to lambs from the age of eight days to that of one year. Apparently our translators had that interpretation in mind in rendering: “of the first year.” But notwithstanding the wide currency of this view (adopted even by Rosenmόller, Baumgarten, Murphy and other modern commeutators), it seems to be almost stupidly incorrect, as Knobel very clearly shows. Murphy says: “The phrase ‘son of a year’ means of any age from a month to a full year,” and refers to Genesis 7:6; Genesis 7:11. But why “from a month?” Why not “eight days” as well? Why not one day, or one second, from the time of birth? Isaac, we are told in Genesis 21:4, was circumcised when he was the “son of eight days.” How old was he? In Leviticus 27:6 we read: “If it be from the son of a month unto the son of five years,” where the A. V. reads correctly “a month old,” and “five years old.” It would be a singular way of fixing two limits, if both expressions are so indeterminate as the Rabbinical interpretation would make them. If the “son of a year” may be as young as eight days, and the “son of a month” may be twenty-nine days old, what is the use of the phrase “son of a month” at all? Or what is the sense of using the latter phrase as the early limit? Why not say simply: “If it be the son of five years?” which, according to the Rabbinical interpretation, ought to cover the whole period.—Tr.] [Ginsburg in Alexander’s Kitto’s Cyclopζdia, Art. Passover, has shown that the second of the three views about “the two evenings” was not held by Kimchi and Raschi (otherwise called Jarchi), but that they agreed with the great mass of Jewish commentators in adopting the third view. The phrase itself is so vague that from it alone the meaning cannot with certainty be gathered. Most modern Christian commentators, it should be said, adopt the first view. Deuteronomy 16:6, where the time for sacrificing the Passover is fixed “at the going down of the sun,” is quoted as favoring that view, while Lange quotes it on the other side. Whatever may have been the exact meaning of the phrase originally, it is probable that the very early Jewish practice corresponded with the Rabbinical interpretation. The transactions recorded in 1 Kings 18 indicate this. There we read (Exodus 12:26) that the prophets of Baal called on Baal from morning till noon, and afterwards (Exodus 12:29) from mid-day “until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice” (more exactly, “until towards the time”). According to Exodus 29:39 the evening sacrifice also was offered “between the two evenings.” If the meaning were “from mid-day till sunset,” there would seem to be no reason why it should not have been so expressed. Besides, it is intrinsically improbable that the howlings of the false prophets continued through the whole day. Especially is it difficult, if not impossible, to find time enough in the evening of that day for the events which are narrated to have followed, viz. Elijah’s prayer, the consumption of the burnt-offering, the slaying of the false prophets, the return from the Kishon, the prayer for rain, the servant’s going seven times to look, Elijah’s going to Jezreel.—Tr.] [This sentence is marked as a quotation by Lange, but the source, as very often in the German original, is not indicated; and in this case I have not been able to trace it out.—Tr.]. [Bδhr, l. c. says on this point: “This had no other object than that all who received a part of that one intact Iamb, i.e., who ate of it, should regard themselves as a unit and a whole, as a community, just like those who eat the New Testament Passover, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7), of which the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 10:17, says, ‘For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.’ ”—Tr.]. [The hypothesis is that the remains of the paschal lamb, if there were any, were burnt up the same night, and therefore were not allowed to remain till the next day. But this seems to conflict with the plain language of the verse.—Tr.]. [Why not in “anxious haste?” A man can surely eat in haste as well as do anything else in haste. That there was to be a “readiness for flight” is sufficiently indicated by the precept concerning the girdles, sandals, and staves. Vid. under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.]. [We have let the A. V. reading stand: nevertheless it is by no means so clear that Keil is not right. He certainly is supported not only by many of the best versions and commentators, but by the Hebrew, which literally rendered can read only, “It is a Passover to Jehovah,” or “It is a Passover of Jehovah.” The latter differs from Lange’s translation as making “Passover” indefinite, whereas “Jehovah’s Passover” is equivalent to “the Passover of Jehovah.” Furthermore, the subject of the sentence naturally, if not necessarily, refers to the lamb; but the lamb cannot be called Jehovah’s passing over. The last point made in opposition to Keil is not just, inasmuch as Keil does not render (as Lange makes him) “the Passover unto Jehovah,” but distinctly leaves the noun indefinite, so that there is no implication that it was an already existent institution.—Tr.]. [Hofmann takes ζֶ ?αַ ?δ in Exodus 12:27 in the general sense of slaughter, instead of the ceremonial sense of sacrifice, and argues that, as the lamb was killed in order to be eaten, it was in no proper sense an offering to Jehovah, although the killing and eating of it was divinely commanded. He distinguishes also between the original ordinance and the later celebration of it. Keil, on the contrary, lays stress on the fact that ζָ ?αַ ?δ and ζֶ ?αַ ?δ everywhere, except Proverbs 17:1, and 1 Samuel 28:24, denote sacrifice in the narrow ceremonial sense, and that the Passover in Numbers 9:7 is called χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ο�, offering. Knobel likewise says, “Without doubt the Passover was a sort of offering.” But he contends that it was not (as Keil and others hold) a sin-offering, for the reasons: (1) that the O. T. gives no indication of such a character; (2) that the mode of observing the rite differed from that belonging to the sin-offering, particularly in that the lamb was eaten, whereas none of the animal constituting the sin-offering was eaten; and (3) that it was a joyous festival, whereas everything connected with the sin-offering was solemn. He classes it, therefore, rather with the burnt-offering. But the latter was not eaten, and had (though not exclusively, yet partially) an explatory character. Vid. Leviticus 1:4.—Tr.]. C.—The institution of the first passover. The last plague. The release and the preparation for departure Exodus 12:21-3621 Then [And] Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw [Go] out, and take you a lamb [take you lambs] according to your families, and kill the passoExo Exodus 12:22 And ye shall [And] take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts [two posts] with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out at the door of his 23house until the morning. For [And] Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel and on the two side posts [two posts], Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto [come into] your houses to smite you 24And ye shall observe this thing for [as] an ordinance to [for] thee and to [for] thy sons for eExo Exodus 12:25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be [are] come to the land which Jehovah will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jehovah’s passover [the passover of Jehovah], who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head [bowed down] and worshipped. 28And the children of Israel went away [went], and did 29[did so;] as Jehovah had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. And it came to pass that at midnight [at midnight that] Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of cattle. 30And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. 31And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve Jehovah, as ye have said. 32Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. 33And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be [are] all dead men. 34And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders. 35And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed [asked] of the Egyptians jewels [articles] of 36silver, and jewels [articles] of gold, and raiment. And Jehovah gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that [and] they lent unto them such things as they required [they gave unto them]: and they spoiled [despoiled] the Egyptians. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 12:21. “Draw out,” as the rendering of ξִ ?ωְׁ ?λεּ, is acquiesced in by Lange, De Wette, “Wordsworth, Murphy, and Canon Cook (in the Speaker’s Commentary), and is defended by Kalisch and Bush. The latter, in a note on Judges 4:6, affirms that ξָ ?ωַ ?κְ never means “to approach.” He assigns to it there the meaning “to draft,” or “enlist,” sc. soldiers for his army—a meaning which certainly is no where else (therefore not “frequently,” as Bush says) to be found. That ξָ ?ωַׁ ?κְ may be used intransitively, Bush does not deny; and indeed in Judges 20:37 he himself follows the rendering “drew themselves along,” and explains it as descriptive of a mass of men “stretching themselves out in a long train and rapidly urging their way to the city.” This certainly is not far from the meaning which he denies to the word. What significance could be attached to the phrase “draw out,” as here used of the paschal lamb, is not clear. Not “draw out,” in the sense of “pull out,”—a meaning which the word has in such cases as that of Jeremiah, who was drawn up with cords out of the dungeon, Jeremiah 38:13. Not “draw out” in the sense of “draw by lot;” for the word no where has this meaning, and the lambs were not drawn by lot. It could mean only “take”—a meaning which, though assigned to it here by Kalisch, the word no where else has, and which, if it had it, would be the same as that of the following word. There is therefore little doubt that we are to understand the word, with the LXX., Vulg., Gesenius, Fόrst, Bunsen, Arnheim, Alford, Keil, Knobel, and others, as used intransitively.—Tr.] AND The narrative evidently transports us to the 14th day of Nisan, the days of preparation being passed over. Exodus 12:21. For this reason we do not translate ξִ ?ωְׁ ?λεּ intransitively, “go hence,” etc. The paschal lambs have been for four days in a special enclosure; now they are to be drawn out, seized and slaughtered. Hence also the injunction proceeds at once to the further directions concerning the transaction. Exodus 12:22. A bunch of hyssop.—A handful, says Maimonides. Hyssop “designates probably not the plant which we call hyssop, not the hyssopus officinalis, it being doubtful whether this is found in Syria and Arabia (vid. Ritter, Erdkunde, XVII., p. 686), but a species of the origanum similar to the hyssop” (Keil).—That is in the basin—i.e., in which the blood was caught. None of you shall go out.—They are protected only in the house, behind the propitiatory blood. Exodus 12:23. The destroyer to come in—Comp. the ὀλοθρεύων of Hebrews 11:28 with 2 Samuel 24:16; Isaiah 37:36. So Keil and others, whereas Knobel and others take ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ as abstract=destruction. Knobel’s reasons (p. 105) are easily refuted; e.g., though Jehovah Himself goes through Egypt, yet it does not thence follow that He might not make use of an angel of judgment in the judicial inflictions (to be understood symbolically, vid. Psalms 78:49); He Himself, however, distinguishes between His people and the Egyptians. Exodus 12:24-26. The establishment of the Passover festival is again enjoined, and at the same time there is connected with it an injunction to instruct children concerning it. The Israelitish child will not unthinkingly practice a dead worship; he will ask: What does it mean? And the Israelitish fathers must not suppress the questions of the growing mind, but answer them, and thus begin the spiritualizing of the paschal rite. Exodus 12:27. Worshipped.—Expression of faith, allegiance, joy, and gratitude. Exodus 12:28. Brief reference to the festive meal of faith in contrast with the dreadful judgment now beginning. At midnight.—According to Keil, we have no occasion here to look for any natural force as underlying the punishment, but to regard it as a purely supernatural operation of divine omnipotence, inasmuch as here the pestilence is not named, as in 2 Samuel 24:15. Also (he says) Jehovah administers the last plague without Moses’ mediation. But here too Moses’ prophetic prediction has a place; and also the teleological design of the facts. And this was the main feature of all these punitive miracles, provided we do not conceive Moses’ rod as having itself wrought them. According to Knobel, the miracle consisted in the pestilence “which from the oldest time to the present day has had its chief seat in Egypt.” He gives a series of examples, p. 106. Also statements concerning the season in which the pestilence is accustomed to appear in Egypt: December, February, March. “It is most destructive from March to May.” “Quite in accordance with the facts, the series of plagues ends with the pestilence, which generally lasts till the Nile inundation.” “The pestilence spares many region, e.g., the deserts (Pruner, p. 419).” On the death of the cattle: “According to Hartmann (Erdbeschreibung) von Afrika, I., p. 68), the dogs in Cairo almost constantly have the pestilence; and when it rages among them, it ceases to prevail among men.” According to Knobel, the occurrence was expanded by legendary tradition into a miracle. But miraculous are: (1) The prediction of the fact, its object, and its results; (2) the sudden spread of the plague over the younger generation, the first-born, especially the first-born of the king, being singled out; (3) the fact that both beasts and men suffered; (4) the liberation of Israel. That the religious expression of this great event has its peculiarity, that it makes generalizations, and leaves out subordinate features in accordance with its idealizing tendency and symbolic design—on this point one must shape his views by means of a thorough hermeneutical apprehension of the religious style. Even Keil cannot quite adopt the assumption of Cornelius a Lapide, that in many houses grandfathers, fathers, sons, and wives, in case they were all first-born, were killed. But literally understood, the narrative warrants this. But the perfect realization of the object aimed at lifts the event above the character of a legend. Exodus 12:30-31. The great lamentation which in the night of terror resounds through Egypt becomes the immediate motive for releasing Israel. And he called for Moses.—We need not, with Calvin, lay any stress on the fact that Pharaoh, Exodus 10:28, had commanded the men not to show themselves again to him, as if a humiliating inconsistency of the tyrant with himself were not characteristic, and as if in the history of despotism it were not a frequent feature. This crushing humiliation Pharaoh could not escape. Moses and Aaron had to receive the permission from his own month. And we cannot call it mere permission. He drives him out by a mandate which boars unmistakable marks of excitement. Serve Jehovah, as ye have said.—These words involve the promise of complete liberation, and at the same time the intention to require the Israelites to return. As ye have said—he repeats—and finally he even begs for their intercession: “bless me also.” According to Keil, every thing, even the request for their blessing, looks to a manifest and quite unconditional dismissal and emancipation. But this thought is expressed more positively in the behavior of the Egyptians, who were the most terrified.” Exodus 12:33. At all events the Israelites had a right to understand the dismission as an emancipation, although formally this right was not complete until Pharaoh hostilely pursued them. Keil refers to Exodus 14:4-5. The report brought to the king, that the people had fled, seems, however, to imply that in the mind of the Egyptians there had been no thought of unconditional emancipation, but only of an unconditional furlough. And when Pharaoh was disposed violently to take back even this promise, that was a new instance of hardness of heart, the last and the fatal one. We are all dead men: as it were, already dead. Expression of the greatest consternation. Exodus 12:34. And the people took their dough, before it was leavened. That is (according to Keil): “The Israelites intended to leaven the dough, because the command to eat unleavened bread for seven days had not yet been made known to them.” But the text evidently means to say just the opposite of this: they carried, in accordance with the command, dough which was entirely free from leaven. They had already put enough for seven days into the baking-pans, and carried these on their shoulders, wrapped up in their outer garments, or rather in wrapping cloths, such as might be used for mantles or wallets. Exodus 12:35-36. Vid. Exodus 3:21 and Comm. on Genesis, p. 83. Footnotes: [Exodus 12:21. “Draw out,” as the rendering of ξִ ?ωְׁ ?λεּ, is acquiesced in by Lange, De Wette, “Wordsworth, Murphy, and Canon Cook (in the Speaker’s Commentary), and is defended by Kalisch and Bush. The latter, in a note on Judges 4:6, affirms that ξָ ?ωַ ?κְ never means “to approach.” He assigns to it there the meaning “to draft,” or “enlist,” sc. soldiers for his army—a meaning which certainly is no where else (therefore not “frequently,” as Bush says) to be found. That ξָ ?ωַׁ ?κְ may be used intransitively, Bush does not deny; and indeed in Judges 20:37 he himself follows the rendering “drew themselves along,” and explains it as descriptive of a mass of men “stretching themselves out in a long train and rapidly urging their way to the city.” This certainly is not far from the meaning which he denies to the word. What significance could be attached to the phrase “draw out,” as here used of the paschal lamb, is not clear. Not “draw out,” in the sense of “pull out,”—a meaning which the word has in such cases as that of Jeremiah, who was drawn up with cords out of the dungeon, Jeremiah 38:13. Not “draw out” in the sense of “draw by lot;” for the word no where has this meaning, and the lambs were not drawn by lot. It could mean only “take”—a meaning which, though assigned to it here by Kalisch, the word no where else has, and which, if it had it, would be the same as that of the following word. There is therefore little doubt that we are to understand the word, with the LXX., Vulg., Gesenius, Fόrst, Bunsen, Arnheim, Alford, Keil, Knobel, and others, as used intransitively.—Tr.] D.—The exodus from Egypt. Legal enactments consequent on liberation Exodus 12:37 to Exodus 13:1637 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men [the men] beside [besides] children. 38And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. 39And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual. 40Now the sojourning [dwelling, i.e. time of dwelling] of the children of Israel, who dwelt 41[which they dwelt] in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the [end of] four hundred and thirty years, even [on] the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of Jehovah went out from the land of 42Egypt. It is a night to be much observed [of solemnities] unto Jehovah for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of Jehovah to be observed of [night of solemnities unto Jehovah for] all the children of Israel in [throughout] 43their generations. And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no stranger [foreigner] eat thereof: 44But every man’s servant [every servant] that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised 45him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner [stranger] and an [a] hired servant shall not eat thereof. 46In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 47All the congregation of Israel shall keep [sacrifice] it. 48And when a stranger [sojourner] shall sojourn with thee and will keep the [sacrifice a] passover to Jehovah, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep [sacrifice] it: and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for [but] no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49One law shall be to [shall there be for] him that is home-born, and unto [for] the stranger that sojourneth among you. 50Thus did all the children of Israel]; as Jehovah commanded Moses, so did they. 51And it came to pass the self-same day, that Jehovah did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies [according to their hosts]. Chap. Exodus 13:1-2 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the [every] first-born, whatsoever openeth the [any] womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. 3And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage: for by strength of hand Jehovah brought you out from this place [thence]: there shall no leavened bread be eaten. 4This day came [come] ye out in the month Abib. 5And it shall be, when Jehovah shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month. 6Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; and in the seventh day shall be a feast to Jehovah. 7Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven [the seven] days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters 8[borders]. And thou shalt show [tell] thy son in that day, saying, This is done [It is] because of that which Jehovah did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. 9And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine [thy] hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that Jehovah’s law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath Jehovah brought thee out of Egypt. 10Thou shalt therefore [And thou shalt] keep this ordinance in his [its] season from year to year. 11And it shall be, when Jehovah shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee. 12That thou shalt set apart unto Jehovah all that openeth the matrix [womb], and every firstling that cometh [every first-born] of a beast [of beasts] which thou hast; the males shall be Jehovah’s. 13And every firstling [first-born] of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the first-born of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. 14And it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand Jehovah brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: 15And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that Jehovah slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast: therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah all that openeth the matrix [womb], being 16[the] males; but all the first-born of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine [thy] hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand Jehovah brought us forth out of Egypt. AND Exo_12:37. And the children of Israel journeyed.—On the journey see the Introduction, Keil II., p. 26, the literature above quoted, and Keil II., p. 28, Note, Knobel, p. 111 sq.—About 600,000 on foot.—“ψַ ?βְ ?μִ ?ι, as in Numbers 11:21, the infantry of an army, is added, because they went out as a warlike host (Exodus 12:41), and in the number given only the men able to bear arms, those over twenty years of age, are reckoned; δַ ?βְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν is added because of the following μְ ?αַ ?γξִ ?θַּ ?σ: ‘besides the little ones.’ θַ ?σ is used here in the wider significance of the dependent part of the family, including wife and children, as in Genesis 47:12; Numbers 32:16; Numbers 32:24, and often, those who did not travel on foot, but on beasts of burden or in wagons” (Keil). On the round number, as well as the increase of Israel in Egypt, comp, Knobel, p. 121, Keil, l. c, and the Introduction. On the fruitfulness of the land of Goshen, see Keil II., p. 29. Kurtz and Bertheau have suggested as an explanation of the great number, that we may assume that the seventy Israelites who emigrated to Egypt had several thousand men-servants and maid-servants. Keil insists that only the posterity of the seventy souls is spoken of. But compare the antithesis in Genesis 32:10 : “one staff” and “two bands.” In Israel the faith constituted the nationality, as well as the nationality the faith, as is shown by so many examples (Rahab, Ruth, the Gibeonites, etc.), and Israel had in its religion a great attractive power. Exodus 12:38. And a mixed multitude.—ςֵ ?ψֶ ?αψַ ?α. Vulg.: vulgus promiscuum; Luther: viel Pφbelvolk, “a great rabble”—“In typical fulfillment of the promise, Genesis 12:3, without doubt stimulated by the signs and wonders of the Lord in Egypt (comp. Exodus 9:20; Exodus 10:7; Exodus 11:3) to seek their salvation with Israel, a great multitude of mixed people joined themselves to the departing Israelites; and, according to the governing idea of the Jewish commonwealth, they could not be repelled, although these people afterwards became a snare to them. Vid. Numbers 11:4, where they are called ΰֲ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ρֻ ?σ, medley” (Keil). Literally, a collection. Comp. Deuteronomy 29:11. Exodus 12:39. Vid. Exodus 12:34. It does not mean that, they had no time to leaven their dough, but that they had no time to prepare themselves other provisions besides. The deliverance came upon them like a storm; they were even thrust out of Egypt. Exodus 12:40. Vid. the Introduction, Keil II., p. 30. Knobel, p. 121. Exodus 12:41. On the self-same day.—Knobel says very strangely, that the meaning is that Jacob entered Egypt on the same day, the 14th of Abib. Keil understands the day before designated, Exodus 12:11-14. We assume that “day” here denotes “time” in the more general sense. Exodus 12:42. Keil renders: night of preservation. Knobel: a festival. Both ideas are involved in ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ψ, and evidently the text aims to express the antithesis indicated in our translation [Lange renders: festliche Wacht, “festive vigil.”—TR.] Exodus 12:43-45. The ordinance of the Passover.—ηֻ ?χָּ ?δ, i q.ηֹ ?χ, law, statute. As Israel now begins to become a people and a popular congregation, the main features of their legal constitution are at once defined. It all starts with the Passover as the religious communion of the people, for which now circumcision is prescribed as a prerequisite. As circumcision constitutes the incipient boundary-line and separation between Israel and the life of secular people, so the paschal communion is the characteristic feature of the completed separation. First, the congregation is instituted; then follows the preliminary institution of the priesthood in the sanctification of the first-born; then the first, trace of the fixed line of distinction, in the ordinance of the feast of unleavened bread; then the first provision for the permanent sacrificial service, in Jehovah’s claiming for Himself the first-born of beasts, Exodus 13:12, while a distinction is at the same time made between clean and unclean beasts, Exodus 12:13; and finally the intimation is made that the natural sacerdotal duty of the first born shall be redeemed and transferred to a positive priesthood. The circumstance that Israel thereby came into a new relation to foreigners, “that a crowd of strangers joined themselves to the departing Israelites” (Keil), can only be regarded as one of the occasions for that fixing of the first features of the law which was here quite in place.—No stranger.—What is said of the αֶּ ?οΞπֵ ?λָ ?ψ, or non-Israelite, in general, is more particularly said of the sojourner (ϊּ ?εֹ ?ωָׁ ?α) and of the hireling, day-laborer (ωָׁ ?λִ ?ιψ). The latter, if not an Israelite, is a βֵּ ?ψ who resides a longer or shorter time among the Israelites. Yet the exclusion is not absolute, except as regards the uncircumcised; every servant, on the other hand, who submits to circumcision (for no one could be circumcised by force, although circumcision was within the option of all) assumes the privileges and obligations of the communion. Thus, therefore, the distinction of classes, as related to the communion of the people of God, is here excluded. Exodus 12:46. In one house shall it be eaten.—A new enforcement of the law that the communion, as such, must be maintained. The significance of the words: “Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad,” the mediζval Church had little conception of.Exodus 12:50-51. The next to the last verse declares that this became a fixed custom in Israel; and the last one recurs again to the identity of the festive day with the day of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Exodus 13:1. Sanctify unto me every first-born.—“The sanctification of the first-born is closely connected with the Passover. The Passover effects (?) the exemption of the first-born of Israel, and the exemption has as its aim their sanctification” (Keil). But the thing meant is sanctification in the narrower sense, the preparation of the sacerdotal order and of the offerings; for the general sanctification comprised the whole people. Here we have to do with sanctification for the specific service of Jehovah. It is assumed that the first-born are representatives and sureties of the whole race, and that therefore, without the intervention of grace and forbearance, the first-born of Israel also would have been slain. Accordingly, the phrase: “it is mine,” refers certainly not only to the fact that Jehovah created the first-born, as Kurtz maintains, but still more to the right of possession which this gracious favor establishes. Keil denies this. It refers, he says, according to Numbers 3:13; Numbers 8:17, to the fact that Jehovah, on the day when he slew the first-born of Egypt, sanctified the first-born of Israel, and therefore spared them. An ultra-Calvinistic disposition of things, which seems to ground the exemption on Jehovah’s caprice. While the sanctification cannot be dissociated from the exemption, as little can the exemption be dissociated from the creation. The election of Israel is indeed the prerequisite of the exemption of the Israelitish first-born; but this exemption again, as an act of grace, is a condition of the special sanctification of the first-born. Exodus 13:3. Remember this day. “In Exodus 13:3-10, the ordinance respecting the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread (Exodus 12:15-20), is made known by Moses to the people on the day of the exodus at the station Succoth” (Keil). We have already above (on Exodus 12:8) pointed out the incorrectness of this view. It is all the more incorrect, if, with Keil and others, we find in the leaven a symbol of sinfulness. The leaven which the Jews had heretofore had was connected with the leaven of Egypt, and was thus fitted to serve as a symbol of the fact that they were connected with the sinfulness of Egypt, and that this connection must be broken off. If now they had not been, driven out so hastily, they would have had time to produce for themselves a pure and specifically Jewish leaven, and this perhaps seemed the more desirable thing, as the unleavened bread was not very palatable. But for this there was no time. With this understanding of the case, we render the last clause of Exo 13:3, “so that nothing leavened was eaten.” [This translation, however, is hardly possible.—Tr.].—The house of servants. Servants of private persons they were not, it is true, but all Egypt was made for them by Pharaoh one house of slaves. Exodus 13:4-5. The urgency in the enforcement of this feast is doubtless owing to the fact that there was no pleasure in eating the unleavened bread. Hence the festival is represented as chiefly a service rendered to God. The meals accompanying thank-offerings preserved the equilibrium. Exodus 13:6. On the seventh day. In the line of the feast-days the seventh day is specially mentioned as the festive termination; on it work ceased, and the people assembled together. Exodus 13:9. For a sign upon thy hand. According to Spencer, allusion is made to the heathen custom of branding marks on the forehead or hand of soldiers and slaves. Keil, referring to Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18, assumes that we are probably to understand bracelets or frontlets. But in the passages quoted a much more general inculcation of Moses’ words is meant. Inasmuch as the Jews were to observe several great festivals, it is not to be assumed that they were to be required to wear the signs only on the feast of unleavened bread; all the less, as the day was so definitely fixed. We therefore regard the expression both here and in Deuteronomy as symbolic, but suggested by a proverbial phrase borrowed from the nations of antiquity. Our language has a similar proverbial, but less elegant, expression. That the Pharisaic Jews afterwards actually made themselves such phylacteries grew out of their slavery to the letter of the law. See more in detail in Keil, II. p. 37. Exodus 13:12. Every first-born of beasts. First, the text recurs to the common statute respecting the first-born of men and beasts; hence: “all that openeth the womb.” According to Keil, the term δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιψ, to set apart, offer, is used to point, a contrast to the Canaanitish custom of consecrating the first-born to Moloch; he quotes Leviticus 18:21. But the verb seems to express a more original and general separation of what is offered from what is not offered; or it means to let depart.—The males. With this matter, therefore, the female first-born have nothing to do. The first-born son is the head of the young house, the heir of the old house. As the heir of the old house he also assumes its guilt; as the head of the young house he must represent it. More particular specifications concerning the first-born male clean beast are given in Exodus 22:29 (30), Deuteronomy 15:21. Exodus 13:13. The germ of the distinction between clean and unclean beasts. The substitution of a sheep or kid for the ass is a proof that the unclean beast signifies not the evil, but the profane, that which is not fitted to serve as a religious symbol. Exodus 13:14. When thy son asketh thee. Even in the theocracy the ceremonial worship is to be not a dumb one, repressing, or even suppressing, questions and instruction, but is to be spiritualized by questions and instruction. Exodus 13:15. All the first-born of my children. Keil opposes the view, very prevalent of old, that the sanctification of the first-born is to be derived from the destination of the first-born to be priests. But he afterwards (II., p. 36) himself brings forwards reasons which refute his own view, founded on that of Outram and Vitringa, especially by citing Numbers 3. Nothing can be clearer than Numbers 3:12.Exodus 13:16. Also in reference to the phylacteries we hold to the symbolical interpretation of the Caraites in opposition to the literal one of the Talmudists; so Keil II., p. 37. Footnotes: [The reference is to the Corpus-Christi festival, characterized by the public processions which are held in honor of the host.—Tr.] FOURTH SECTIONDirection of the Exodus. The Pursuit. The Distress. The Red Sea. The Song of TriumphExo_13:17 to Exodus 15:21A.—Direction of the march. The distress. Passage through the Red Sea. Judgment and deliveranceExo_13:17 to Exodus 14:3117 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through [by] the way of the land of the Philistines, although [for] that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the [Lest the] people repent, when they see war, and they return to Egypt: 18But God led the people about through [by] the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. And the children of Israel went up harnessed 19[armed] out of the land of Egypt. And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had straitly [strictly] sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you. 20And they took their journey [they journeyed] from Succoth, and encamped in Etham in 21[on] the edge of the wilderness. And Jehovah went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud [of cloud], to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night. 22He took not away the pillar of the cloud [of cloud] by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people. Chap. Exodus 14:1-2 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn [turn back] and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against [before] Baal-zephon; before [over against] it shall 3ye encamp by the sea. For [And] Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled [bewildered] in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. 4And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall [and he will] follow after them, and I will be honored [get me honor] upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that [and] the Egyptians may [shall] know that I am Jehovah. And they did Song of Solomon 5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this [What is this that we have done], that we have let Israel go from serving us? 6And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him. 7And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every 8one [all] of them. And Jehovah hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, 9and he pursued after the children of Israel, and the children of Israel went out with an [a] high hand. But [And] the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots [chariot-horses] of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon. 10And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians [Egypt] marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto Jehovah. 11And they said unto Moses, Because [Is it because] there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou [that thou hast] taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with [what is this that thou hast done to] 12us, to carry [in bringing] us forth out of Egypt? Is not this the word that we did tell [spake unto] thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been [is] better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness. 13And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of Jehovah, which he will shew to [work for] you to-day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall 14see them again no more forever. Jehovah shall fight for you, and ye shall hold 15your peace. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? Speak 16unto the children of Israel, that they go forward: But [And] lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine [thy] hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. 17And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. 18And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have gotten [get] me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. 19And the angel of God, which [who] went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud [of cloud] went [removed] from before their face 20[before them], and stood behind them: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them [and darkness], but it gave light by night to these [it lightened the night]: so that [and] the one came not near the other all the night. 21And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and Jehovah caused the sea to go back [flow] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land [bare ground], and the waters were divided. 22And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 23And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24And it came to pass that in the morning watch Jehovah looked unto [looked down at] the host of the Egyptians through [in] the pillar of fire and of the cloud [of cloud], and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 25And took off [turned aside] their chariot wheels, that they drave them [and made them drive] heavily: so that [and] the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for Jehovah fighteth for them against the Egyptians. 26And Jehovah said unto Moses, Stretch out thine [thy] hand over the sea, that the waters may come again [back] upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. 27And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength [to its course] when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and Jehovah overthrew [shook] the Egyptians in [into] the midst of the sea. 28And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen and [of] all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them [of them not even one]. 29But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a 30wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Thus [And] Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 31And Israel saw that [the] great work which Jehovah did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared Jehovah, and believed in Jehovah and his servant Moses. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 13:17. “For that was near.” A. V., Murphy, Kalisch, Gesenius, Glaire, Alford retain the rendering “although” for λִּ ?ι in this sentence. But such a meaning for λִּ ?ι cannot be well substantiated. Psalms 49:10, adduced by Fόrst, is certainly not an instance of such use. Psalms 116:10 is more plausible. The A. V. rendering: “I believed, therefore [λִּ ?ι] have I spoken,” is incorrect. But it is not necessary, with some, to translate: “I believed, although I speak.” The particle here probably has the meaning “when.” In Psalms 49:19, adduced by Gesenius (Thesaurus), it means “because,” the apodosis following in Exodus 13:20. The same may be said of Gen 8:21; Job 15:27-29; Zechariah 8:6. The rendering “when” suffices in Jeremiah 4:30; Jeremiah 30:11; Jeremiah 49:16; Jeremiah 50:11; Jeremiah 51:53; Micah 7:8; Psalms 27:10; Psalms 21:12. The rendering “for” suffices in Hosea 13:15; Nahum 1:10; Deuteronomy 18:14; Deuteronomy 29:19; Jeremiah 46:23; Psalms 71:10; 1 Chronicles 28:5. The rendering “ where as,” or “while,” may be adopted in Malachi 1:4; Ecclesiastes 4:14. Probably these comprise all the passages in which the meaning “though” can with any plausibility be maintained. λִּ ?ι can be assumed to have the meaning “although” only as being equivalent to βַּ ?νλִּ ?ι, “even when.” Even though this should be assumed sometimes to occur, still the case before us is not of that sort. The true explanation of such constructions is to assume a slight ellipsis in the expression: “God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, [as might have been expected], seeing that was near.” Or: “for that was near [and return to Egypt in case of danger would be more readily resorted to].”—Tr.] [Exodus 14:20. εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιδֶ ?ςָ ?πָ ?οεְ ?δַ ?ηωֶׁ ?κְ εַ ?ιָּ ?ΰֶ ?ψΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?μָּ ?ιְ ?μָ ?δ. The construction is difficult. The only literal rendering is: “And it was (or, became) the cloud and the darkness, and it illumined the night.” The difficulty is gotten over by Knobel and Ewald by altering εְ ?δַ ?ηωֶׁ ?κְ into εְ ?δֶ ?ηֱ ?ωִׁ ?ικְ, reading: “And it came to pass us to the cloud, that it made darkness.” But even with this conjectural change, it is no less necessary to assume an ellipsis of “to the one” and “to the other,” or “on the one side” and “on the other,” as is done by A. V. and the great majority of versions and commentators. The article may be explained as pointing back to Exodus 13:21 : “And it was the cloud and the darkness which have been already described.” Or it is even possible to take ξַ ?μΰַ ?κְ (Exodus 14:19) as the subject of the verb: “And he became the cloud and darkness; but he illumined the night.”—Tr.] [Exodus 14:21. The Hebrew word here used, ηָ ?ψָ ?αָ ?δ, is different from the one rendered “dry ground” in the next verse; and there is a clear distinction in the meaning, as is quite apparent from a comparison of Gen 8:13, where it is said, that on the first day of the first month the ground was ηָ ?ψֵ ?α, with Exodus 14:14, where it is said, that on the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was ιָ ?αֵ ?ωׁ. The first means: free from water, drained; the second means: free from moisture, dry. The distinction is generally clear, though sometimes not exactly observed.—Tr.] [Exodus 14:28. The preposition μְ certainly cannot here be rendered “and;” but it may have a sort of resumptive force, equivalent to “even,” “namely,” “in short.”—Tr.] AND Exo_13:17. Not by the way of the land of the Philistines. Decidedly wise, theocratic policy on the part of Moses, rightly ascribed to God. The people, disheartened by servitude, could not at once maintain a conflict with the warlike Philistines, without being driven back to Egypt. They must first acquire in the wilderness the qualities of heroes. And that, according to Goethe, was accomplished in a few years! On the exodus, comp. Introduction; Keil, II. p. 42; Knobel, p. 131. Exodus 13:18. Led the people about. It is a question whether the round-about way spoken of has reference simply to the absolutely direct route through the Philistine country, or to another more direct one which they had already begun to take, but which they were to give up. According to Exodus 14:2, the latter is to be assumed. Moreover, reference is made not only to the small distance to the Red Sea, but to the whole distance through the wilderness along the Red Sea, first southward along the Gulf of Suez, then along the Elanitic Gulf northwards, (see Knobel, p. 131). For we have here to do with an introductory and summary account. It was natural that nothing but the prophetic divine word of Moses should have the control of the march, inasmuch as the people would have rushed impetuously towards the old caravan road of their fathers. Moses himself was further influenced by his former journey to Sinai and the revelation there made to him. “From Raemses to the head of the Gulf would be a distance of some 35 miles, which might easily have been passed over by the Israelites in three days” (Robinson I., 80). The deviation from the direct way must, however, be taken into consideration, even though it may have added little to the distance. On the three routes from Cairo to Suez, see Robinson, p. 73.—Of the Red Sea. See the Lexicons, Travels, Knobel, p. 131, sqq.—Especially as the children of Israel went up armed for battle. So we understand the force of the ε before ηֲ ?ξֻ ?ωִׁ ?ιν. A march in order of battle would have looked like a challenge to the Philistines. Moreover, ηָ ?ξַ ?ωׁ signifies, among other things, to provoke to anger.Exodus 13:19. The bones of Joseph. Another testimony to the tenacity with which the Israelites retained moral impressions and old traditions. The vow, 480 years old, and the oath which sealed it, were still fresh. Vid. Genesis 1:25. On the fruitfulness of the land of Goshen, see Robinson, p. 76. “From the Land of Goshen to the Red Sea the direct and only route was along the valley of the ancient canal” (Ibid. p. 79). Exodus 13:20. From Succoth. Inasmuch as they had already, according to Exodus 12:37, gone from Raemses to Succoth in battle array, Succoth (Tent-town, or Booths) would seem to designate not the first gathering-place of the people (Keil), but the point at which the first instinctive movement towards the Philistine border was checked by the oracle of Moses, and by the appearance of the pillar of fire and of smoke. While they at first wished to go from Succoth (say, by the northern extremity of the Bitter Lakes, or even farther on), directly to Palestine, they now had to go along on the west side of the Bitter Lakes towards the Red Sea. Thus they come from Succoth to Etham. “Etham lay at the end of the wilderness, which in Numbers 33:8 is called the wilderness of Etham; but in Exodus 15:22, the wilderness of Shur, that is, where Egypt ends and the desert of Arabia begins” (Keil). “Etham is to be looked for either on the isthmus of Arbek, in the region of the later Serapeum, or the south end of the Bitter Lakes. Against the first view (that of Stickel, Kurtz, Knobel), and for the second, a decisive consideration is the distance, which, although Seetzen went from Suez to Arbek in eight hours, yet according to the statement of the French scholar, Du Bois Aymι, amounts to 60,000 metres (16 hours, about 37 miles), a distance such that the people of Israel could not in one day have traveled from Etham to Hahiroth. We must therefore look for Etham at the south end of the basin of the Bitter Lakes, whither Israel may have come in two days from Abu Keisheib, and then on the third day have reached the plain of Suez between Ajrud and the sea” (Keil). Abu Keisheib is Heroopolis near Raemses; Ajrud is thought to be identical with Pi-Hahiroth. Vid. Numbers 33:5 sqq.Exodus 13:21. And Jehovah went before them. According to Keil this first took place at Etham; but it is to be observed that the decisive movement began at Succoth. Keil says indeed that in verse 17 it reads that Elohim [God] led them, not till here that Jehovah went before them. But Jehovah and Elohim are not two different Gods. Jehovah, as Elohim, knew the Philistines well, and knew that Israel must avoid a contest with them. God, as Jehovah, was the miracle-working leader of His people.—By day in a pillar of cloud.—“This sign of the divine presence and guidance has a natural analogue in the caravan fire, viz. small iron vessels or stoves containing a wood fire, which, fastened on the tops of long poles, are carried as way-marks before caravans, and according to Curtius (de gestis Alex. mag. Exodus 5:2; Exodus 5:7), in trackless regions, are also carried before armies on the march, the smoke indicating to the soldiers the direction by day, the flame, by night. Comp. Harmar, Observations II., p. 278, Pococke, Description of the East, II., p. 33. Still more analogous is the custom (mentioned by Curtius III. 3, 9) of the ancient Persians, who carried before the marching army on silver altars a fire quem ipsi sacrum et ζternum vocant. Yet one must not identify the cloudy and fiery pillar of the Israelitish exodus with such caravan or army fires, and regard it as only a mythical conception or embellishment of this natural fact” (Keil). He opposes Kφster’s view, that the cloud was produced by an ordinary caravan fire, and became a symbol of the divine presence, thus setting aside also Knobel’s theory (Comm., p. 134) of a legend which was derived from this usage. Here too Keil is concerned about supernaturalism in the abstract, and about something purely outward, so that we do not need here to move in the sphere of faith, of vision, of symbol, and of mystery. The internal world is left out of consideration, while the inspired letter has to serve as evidence for the miraculous appearance. According to him the phenomenon was a cloud which inclosed a fire, and which, when the Israelites were on the march, assumed the form of motion [“a dark pillar of smoke rising towards heaven,” Keil], but, when the tabernacle rested, “perhaps more the form of a round ball of cloud.” It was the same fire, he says further, in which the Lord revealed Himself to Moses out of the bush (Exodus 3:2), and afterwards descended upon Sinai amidst thunder and lightning. He calls it the symbol of the divine fiery jealousy. Even the Prophets and Psalms are made to share in this literalness (Isaiah 4:5 sq.; Isaiah 49:10; Psalms 91:5 sq.; Psalms 121:6). A sort of solution is cited from Sartorius in his Meditations, to the effect that God, by special action on the earthly element, formed out of its sphere and atmosphere a body, which He then assumed and permeated, in order in it to reveal His real presence. But is not that Indian mythology as much as is the modern theological doctrine of the κένωσιζ? We leave the mystery in its uniqueness suspended between this world and the other, only observing that the problem will have to be solved, how, in later times, the smoke of the offering which rose up from the tabernacle was related to the pillar of cloud. Likewise the question arises: What was the relation between the light of the perpetual lamp, or the late expiring and early kindling fire of the burnt-offering, and the pillar of fire? Vid. Exodus 29:39; Numbers 28:4. The burnt-offering derives its name from the notion of rising; comp. especially Judges 13:20. The ark, as the central object in the tabernacle, which generally preceded the host, retired in decisive moments behind the host, according to Joshua 4:11; so the pillar of cloud here, Exodus 14:19. Rationalism finds nothing but a popular legend in the religious and symbolic contemplation of the guidance of the living God; literalism seeks to paint the letters with fantastic, golden arabesques. Assumption (ascension) of a cloud in the form of a ball whose interior consists of fire! Exodus 14:2. Turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth.—In Numbers 33:8 Hahiroth; Pi is the Egyptian article. This camping-place is identified by many with the place named Ajrud or Agirud, “now a fortress with a well two hundred and fifty feet deep, which, however, contains such bitter water that camels can hardly drink it, on the pilgrims’ road from Cairo to Mecca, four hours’ distance northwest of Suez, comp. Niebuhr, Reise I., p. 216; Burckhardt, Syria, p. 626, and Robinson, Researches I, p. 68. From Ajrud there stretches out a plain, ten miles long and as many broad, towards the sea west of Suez, and from the foot of the Atakah to the arm of the sea north of Suez (Robinson I., p. 65). This plain very probably served the Israelites as a camping-place, so that they encamped before, i.e. east of Ajrud towards the sea. In the neighborhood of Hahiroth (Ajrud) must be sought also the other places, of which thus far no trace has been discovered” (Keil). On Migdol and Baal-zephon, vid. Keil II., p. 43. Since the names Migdol and Baalzephon are without doubt designed to mark the line of travel, it is natural to assume that they indicate the whence and the whither of the route. According to Robinson (I., p. 64) a rocky defile called Muntula leads to the region of Ajrud (Pi-hahiroth) on the left, and Suez on the right, on the Red Sea. Strauss (Sinai und Golgotha, p. 122) called the defile Muktala, and identifies Baal-zephon with Suez. The question about the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea is obscured by theological bias in both directions. It is regarded as a natural event, raised by legendary tradition into a miracle, by Knobel, p. 135 sq., where the historical remarks on the Red Sea and the analogies of the passage are very noteworthy. Karl von Raumer, on the contrary (Palδstina, p. 478, under the head, Zug der Israeliten aus Egypten nach Kanaan). regards as rationalistic even the view of Niebuhr, Robinson and others, that the passage took place at Suez or north of Suez, quoting the opinion of Wilson and other Americans (p. 480). He adopts the view of Schubert, Wilson and others, that the Israelites marched south of Suez by Bessantin to the Red Sea. Robinson’s remark, that the hypothesis that the Israelites passed over from the plain of Bede (Wady Tawarik) is overthrown by the circumstance that there the sea is twelve miles wide, and that the people did not have but two hours for the passage, Von Raumer overthrows by means of a dictum of Luther s concerning the miraculous power of God. Von Raumer also will not hear to any natural event as the substratum of the miracle. “The Holy Scriptures,” he says, “know nothing of a N. N. E. wind, but say that an east wind divided the waters, that they stood up on the right and the left like walls; there is nothing said about an ebb, hence the duration of the ebb is not to be taken into account.” He seems even to be embarrassed by the fact that there is an alternation of ebb and flood in the Red Sea; and in places where others also, in individual cases, at the ebb-tide have ridden through, he holds that the passage could not have take place, e.g. where Napoleon in 1799 crossed the ford near Suez, and thus endangered his life (Robinson I., p. 85). Even the co-operation of the wind, he holds, can be taken into account only in the interest of the magnified miracle, although it is designated not only in Exodus 14:21 as the cause of the drying of the sea, but the like fact is also referred to in Moses’ song of praise (Exodus 15:8; comp. Psalms 106:9 and other passages). Hence, too, he holds, the east wind must not be understood as being, more exactly, a north-east wind. Similar biblical passages are given by Knobel, p. 139. The objection that north of Suez there is not water enough to have overwhelmed Pharaoh’s host, is removed by the observation of Stickel and Kurtz, that, according to travellers, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended much farther north than now, and in course of time through the blowing in of sand has become shorter, and hence also more shallow (Knobel, p. 140). Also Strauss (Sinai und Golgotha, p. 123) regards the hypothesis that the passage took place as far south as below the mountain Atakah, where the sea is nearly twelve miles wide, as inadmissible, although he insists, on the other hand, that natural forces are insufficient to explain the event. While the subject has been very carefully examined in this aspect, two principal factors of the miracle have been too little regarded: (1) the assurance and foresight of the prophet that in the moment of the greatest need a miracle of deliverance would be performed; (2) the miraculously intensified natural phenomenon, corresponding to the harmonia prζstabilita between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of nature, such that an extraordinary ebb, by the aid of a continuous night-storm which blew against the current, laid bare the whole ford for the entire passage of all the people of Israel with their flocks, and that an equally violent wind from the opposite direction might have made the flood, hitherto restrained, a high tide, which must have buried Pharaoh. He who in all this sees only a natural occurrence will of course even press the letter of the symbolic expression, that the water stood up on both sides like a wall.Exodus 14:3. For Pharaoh will say.—We must here remember the law regulating the writing of theocratic history, according to which, as the record of religious history, it puts foremost the divine purpose, and passes over the human motives and calculations, by means of which this purpose was effected, yet without leaving, in the spirit of an abstract supernaturalism, such motives out of the account. Here, accordingly, Moses cannot from the first have had the intention, in marching to the Red Sea, of alluring Pharaoh to the extreme of obduracy, and thereby into destruction. But he may well have anticipated that Pharaoh, pursuing him on the highway around the sea, might be quite as dangerous to him as a collision with the Philistines. As one long acquainted with the Red Sea, he saw only a single means of deliverance, viz., the taking advantage of the ebb for his people, who then by means of the returning flood could get a long distance ahead of Pharaoh, in case he should follow them. So far human calculation could reach; but it received a splendid transformation through the Spirit of revelation, who disclosed to the prophet, together with the certainty of deliverance, the ultimate object of this form of deliverance, viz, the final judgment on Pharaoh, which was yet to be inflicted.—They are bewildered in the land.—The round-about way from Etham to the sea might seem like an uncertain marching hither and thither.—The wilderness hath shut them in.—They cannot go through, and are held fast. The section Exodus 14:1-4 is a comprehensive summary. Exodus 14:5. That the people fled.—This statement probably preceded Pharaoh’s judgment, that the people wished to flee, but were arrested. So much seemed to be proved, that they were not thinking only of a three days’ journey in the wilderness in order to hold a festival.—The heart of Pharaoh … was turned.—Pharaoh may have been stirred up alike by the thought of a fleeing host, and by that of one wandering about helplessly. For they seemed to be no longer a people of God protected by God’s servants, but smitten at the outset, and doomed to slavery. But the king and his courtiers needed to use an imposing military force in order to bring them back, seeing they were at least concentrated and armed. All the more, inasmuch as his pledge, their right, and the consciousness of perjury, determined the tyrant to assume the appearance of carrying on war against them. Whatever distinction may in other cases be made between camping places and days’ journeys, the three stations, Succoth, Etham and Pi-hahiroth, doubtless designate both, that there may be also no doubt concerning Pharaoh’s injustice. Useless trouble has been taken to determine when Pharaoh received the news, and pursued after the Israelites; also where he received the news, whether in Tanis or elsewhere. According to Numbers 33:7 they pitched in Pihahiroth; but this was probably not limited to an encampment for a night. Here then after three days’ journey they were to celebrate a feast of Jehovah in the wilderness in a much higher sense than they could before have imagined. Exodus 14:6-7. And he made ready his chariot.—The grotesque preparations made by heathen powers are described in detail, as if with a sort of irony. So the arming of Goliath, 1 Samuel 17, comp. also 2 Chronicles 32; Daniel 4, 5. Knobel, in a droll manner, puts together Pharaoh’s army, from the several narratives of the Elohist and the Jehovist—ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωִ ?ιν, “Three men.” “On the Assyrian chariots one and two persons are represented, but sometimes three (Layard, Nineveh, Fig. 19, 51)” [Knobel]. Exodus 14:8. And Jehovah hardened.—Not a repetition of Exo 14:4. There we have the summary pre-announcement, here the history itself. Over against Pharaoh’s obduracy (which here also is represented as effected by Jehovah, because occasioned by Israel’s seemingly bewildered flight, because Jehovah by the appearance of the impotence of Israel brought this judgment of blindness upon him) is raised the high hand of Jehovah; the divine sovereignty, which Pharaoh, to his own destruction, failed to recognize, has decided in favor of Israel’s deliverance. Exodus 14:10-12. The children of Israel lifted up their eyes.—Their condition seemed to be desperate. On the east, the sea; on the south, the mountains; on the north-west, the host of Pharaoh. True, they cried unto the Lord; but the reproaches which they heap upon Moses show that the confidence of genuine prayer is wanting, or at least is disappearing.—No graves in Egypt.—As Egypt was so rich in sepulchral monuments and worship of the dead, this expression has a certain piquancy; it also expresses the thought that they saw death before their eyes.—Is not this the word?—Here he has the foretoken of all similar experiences which he is to encounter in leading the people. The exaggeration of their recollection of a doubt formerly expressed reaches the pitch of falsehood. Exodus 14:13-14. Over against the despondent people Moses appears in all the heroic courage of his confidence. Exodus 14:15. Wherefore criest thou unto me?—The Israelites cried to Jehovah, and Jehovah did not hear them. Moses outwardly was silent; but Jehovah heard how he inwardly cried to Him. The confidence, therefore, which he displayed to the people was founded on a fervent inward struggle of spirit. While therefore Jehovah’s word is no reproof, there is something of a contrast in what follows: Speak unto the children of Israel, etc. That is: No further continuance of the spiritual struggle; forward into the Red Sea! Exodus 14:16. And lift thou up thy rod.—The miraculous rod is for the present still the banner of the people. It marks the foresight of Moses, his confidence, and the sacramental union of the divine help with this sign. Or shall we take this also literally: “while Moses divides the water with his rod” (Keil)? Exodus 14:17. I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians.—The obduracy which spread from Pharaoh over the whole host was brought on by the strong fascination of overtaking a fugitive people and by the miraculous condition of things on the sea.—I will get me honor.—God’s miraculous sway was to become manifest as His just judgment. Exodus 14:19. The angel of God.—He is the angel of Elohim for the Egyptian heathen. The invisible movement of the angel was recognized in the visible motion of the pillar of cloud. Exodus 14:20. Darkness, but it lightened the night.—What the pillar of cloud at other times was alternately, it was this time simultaneously: darkness for the one, light for the other. The direction of the smoke under the north-east wind is not sufficient to explain the symbolically highly-significant phenomenon. That which gives light to the believers constitutes nocturnal darkness for the unbelievers; and that is the irremovable barrier between the two. The Egyptians are unable for the whole night to find the Israelites; all night long the east wind blows, and dries the sea, and in the same night the passage of the Israelites through the sea began, and was finished in the morning. Exodus 14:21. East wind.—The east wind, χָ ?γִ ?ιν, under which term the south-east and north-east wind may be included, inasmuch as the Hebrew language has developed special terms only for the four cardinal points. The notion that a simple east wind could have divided the waters to the right and left, as Von Raumer and Keil hold, implies that the wind itself was a simple product of miraculous power. A mere natural east wind would have driven the water which remained against the Israelites. And this all the more, the more the wind operated, as Keil says, “with omnipotent power;” but, apart from that, it would, merely as an opposite wind, alone have made it almost impossible for the Israelites to proceed. The notion of such a wind enables us to hold fast the literal assertion that the water stood up on the north side also like a wall, although in regard to the phrase “like a wall” religious poetry and symbolism must be allowed to have a word. Keil’s quotations from Tischendorf and Schubert point to the natural substratum of the miracle. See also Knobel, p. 149. “How wide the gulf was in the places made bare, cannot be exactly determined. At the narrowest place above Suez it is now only two-thirds of a mile wide, or according to Niebuhr 3450 [German] feet, but was probably formerly wider, and is also at present wider farther up, opposite Tell Kolzum (Robinson, p. 81 and 71). The place where the Israelites crossed must have been wider, since otherwise the Egyptian army with more than six hundred chariots and many horsemen could not have been overtaken and destroyed by the return of the water” (Keil). According to Tischendorf (Reise I., p. 183), it is the north-east wind which still serves to increase the ebb-tide. When a strong north-west wind drives the floods southward, one can cross the gulf; but if the wind changes to the south-east, it drives the water northward, so that it then rises to a height of from six to nine feet (see Schubert, Reise II., p. 269; Dφbel, Wanderungen II., p. 12; Knobel, p. 149). Exodus 14:24-25. Out of the pillar of cloud and fire.—Without this addition, we should have to understand the effect to be purely supernatural. But since it is said: out of the pillar of cloud and fire, this must in some way have been made by Jehovah a token of terror to the Egyptians. It may be conjectured that, instead of cloudy darkness, the pillar of fire, when the further shore was reached, appeared to the Egyptians as a lofty body of light, and brought confusion into the Egyptian ranks, especially by its movement. So Keil. Josephus (Ant. II. 16, 3) and Rosenmόller understand thunder and lightning to be meant, according to Psalms 77:18. Keil regards a thunder-shower as something too slight in comparison with the fiery glance of Jehovah. But compare Psalms 18 and Psalms 29. Here, however, only the pillar of smoke and fire is spoken of. Fear now arises with the confusion, and with the fear new confusion, as so often happened in the history of the enemies of Israel. Comp. Judges 7:21 sqq.; 1 Samuel 14:20; 2 Kings 3:20 sqq. Exodus 14:26. Stretch out thy hand.—Again the prophetico-symbolic action, with an opposite result. And again is the wind in league with Israel, this time to destroy the Egyptians. Vid. Exodus 15:10. That can only mean that the wind, in accordance with God’s sovereign control, changed to the south, in order miraculously to increase the flood now released. According to Keil, the wind now blew from the west. But if the east wind made a dry path for the Jews, without reference to the ebb, we should expect that the west wind would have made a path for the Egyptians. According to Keil, we are also to assume that the host perished “to the last man.” But generally in this sphere of dynamic relations the important point is not that of absolute universality, but that of thorough effectiveness. On the traces of the passage through the Red Sea in heathen legends and secular history, especially in Diodorus of Sicily (III. 39), in Justinus (Exodus 36:2), in Artapanus, quoted by Eusebius, see the monograph of K. H. Sack, “Die Lieder in den historischen Bόchern des Alten Testaments,” p. 51.Footnotes: [Keil says: “ In what way they were to consecrate their life to the Lord depended on the Lord's direction, which prescribed that they should perform the non-sacerdotal labors connected with the sanctuary, and so be the priests’ servants in the sacred service. Yet even this service was afterwards transferred to the Levites (Numbers 3); but in place of it the people were required to redeem their first-born sons from the service which was incumbent on them, and which had been transferred to the Levites who were substituted for them, i.e., to ransom them by the payment to the priests of five shekels of silver for every person, Numbers 3:47; Numbers 18:16.” Numbers 3:12, above referred to as confuting keil's view, says simply that the Levites were substituted for the firstborn, but does not say that the first-born were originally destined to be priests. Lange's statement, therefore, seems to be unwarranted.—Tr.]. [Exodus 13:17. “For that was near.” A. V., Murphy, Kalisch, Gesenius, Glaire, Alford retain the rendering “although” for λִּ ?ι in this sentence. But such a meaning for λִּ ?ι cannot be well substantiated. Psalms 49:10, adduced by Fόrst, is certainly not an instance of such use. Psalms 116:10 is more plausible. The A. Probably these comprise all the passages in which the meaning “though” can with any plausibility be maintained. λִּ ?ι can be assumed to have the meaning “although” only as being equivalent to βַּ ?νλִּ ?ι, “even when.” Even though this should be assumed sometimes to occur, still the case before us is not of that sort. The true explanation of such constructions is to assume a slight ellipsis in the expression: “God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, [as might have been expected], seeing that was near.” Or: “for that was near [and return to Egypt in case of danger would be more readily resorted to].”—Tr.] [Exodus 14:20. εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιδֶ ?ςָ ?πָ ?οεְ ?δַ ?ηωֶׁ ?κְ εַ ?ιָּ ?ΰֶ ?ψΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?μָּ ?ιְ ?μָ ?δ. The construction is difficult. The only literal rendering is: “And it was (or, became) the cloud and the darkness, and it illumined the night.” The difficulty is gotten over by Knobel and Ewald by altering εְ ?δַ ?ηωֶׁ ?κְ into εְ ?δֶ ?ηֱ ?ωִׁ ?ικְ, reading: “And it came to pass us to the cloud, that it made darkness.” But even with this conjectural change, it is no less necessary to assume an ellipsis of “to the one” and “to the other,” or “on the one side” and “on the other,” as is done by A. V. and the great majority of versions and commentators. The article may be explained as pointing back to Exodus 13:21 : “And it was the cloud and the darkness which have been already described.” Or it is even possible to take ξַ ?μΰַ ?κְ (Exodus 14:19) as the subject of the verb: “And he became the cloud and darkness; but he illumined the night.”—Tr.] [Exodus 14:21. The Hebrew word here used, ηָ ?ψָ ?αָ ?δ, is different from the one rendered “dry ground” in the next verse; and there is a clear distinction in the meaning, as is quite apparent from a comparison of Gen 8:13, where it is said, that on the first day of the first month the ground was ηָ ?ψֵ ?α, with Exodus 14:14, where it is said, that on the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was ιָ ?αֵ ?ωׁ. The first means: free from water, drained; the second means: free from moisture, dry. The distinction is generally clear, though sometimes not exactly observed.—Tr.] [Exodus 14:28. The preposition μְ certainly cannot here be rendered “and;” but it may have a sort of resumptive force, equivalent to “even,” “namely,” “in short.”—Tr.] [Knobel after a learned discussion comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew name for the Red Sea, ιַ ?ρΞρεּ ?σ (literally “sea of sedge”) was probably derived from some town on the sea, named from the abundance of sedge growing near it. He takes this view in preference to the one which derives the name of the sea directly from the sedge, for the reason that the sedge is not a general feature of the sea, and from the uniform omission of the article before ρεּ ?τ.—Tr.]. [It is hardly possible to translate the simple conjunction ε by “especially as.” If any such connection of thought had been intended λִּ ?ι would more probably have been used. Besides, such a statement would be almost contradictory of that in the preceding verse. The fact that they were armed, would make them less likely to be afraid of war than if they were unarmed. The remark that ηָ ?ξַ ?ωׁ signifies, among other things, to provoke to anger, has little force in this connection, for the reasons: (1) that it is doubtful whether that is its etymological significance; (2) that, even if this were its etymological significance, it is a meaning nowhere found in actual use; (3) that this meaning cannot possibly have any application here, since the participle is passive, and we should have to translate, “went up provoked to anger.”—Tr.]. [Notice may here be taken of a theory of the Exodus propounded by Brugsch at the International Congress of Orientalists in London, Sept. 1874, also published at Alexandria in French (“La Sartie des Hebreux d’ Egypte et les monuments Egyptiens”). The theory is stated and criticised by Dr. J. P. Thompson in the Bibliotheca Sacra for Jan. 1875. In brief it is as follows: Rameses he identifies with Zan, the Zoan of the Scriptures, situated near the moath of the Tanitic branch of the Nile. Succoth is identified with Thukut, a place mentioned on the Egyptian monuments as lying to the right of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. Etham is found in the place known by the Egyptians as Khatom, east of Lake Menzaleh. Migdol is identified with the town called Magdolos by the Greeks, a fortress on the edge of the desert, not far from the Mediterranean. Thus Brugsch holds that the line of the journey lay much farther north than is commonly assumed. And the sea which the Israelites crossed was, according to him, not the Red Sea, but Lake Serbonis, between which and the Mediterranean the Israelites marched in their flight from Pharaoh, and in which the latter with his host was destroyed. The principal objections to this theory are stated by Dr. Thompson: (1) In order to reach their rendezvous, the Israelites, according to Brugsch, must have travelled nearly twenty miles north, crossing the Pelusiac branch of the Nile; and then on the next day must have recrossed it—a great improbability. (2) It would have been a blunder in strategy for Moses to have led the people into the treacherous Serbonian bog. (3) The sacred narrative plainly declares that the Israelites were commanded not to go by the way towards the Philistine country (Exodus 13:17), whereas this way led directly towards it. (4) The Scriptures declare that it was by the way of the Red Sea that the Israelites were to go (Exodus 13:18). and that it wast the Red Sea through which they passed (Exodus 15:4).—Tr.]. [The significance of the term ωׁ ?εּ ?α, used here and in Numbers 33:7, is generally overlooked or unwarrantably modified by the commentators. Knobel (on Exodus 5:22 and here) argues that it means here only to turn; but the passages he adduces (among them one, Psalms 35:11 (Psalms 35:13?), in which the word does not occur at all) are none of them in point. The word uniformly means to turn back, return, especially when physical motion is intended. If merely turning aside had been meant, ρεּ ?ψ or τָּ ?πָ ?δ would have been used. The use of this word is conclusive against the hypothesis, that Etham lay on the west of the Bitter Lakes. Ewald (Hist. of the People of Israel, II. p. 68) argues that the use of it also disproves the more current view of Robinson and others, that it lay south of the basin of these lakes. Possibly, however, this is not necessary; for Etham, being in the “edge of the wilderness,” may have been just east of the line of the Gulf or canal (as Robinson suggests); and if Pi-hahiroth is to be found in the present Ajrud, the people may, indeed, in going from Etham thither, have had to turn “back.” Still there is no conclusive evidence that Etham may not have been north or north-east of the Bitter Lakes, and that, in stead of passing down on the east side of the basin, they turned back, and went along the west side. So, among others, Canon Cook (in the Speaker’s Commentary).—Tr.] [Hengstenberg also, History of the Kingdom of God, II. p. 292, while agreeing with Robinson, against Wilson, Von Baumer, etc., in regard to the place of the passage, rejects the theory of an. ebb tide, aided by a northeast wind, assenting that χַ ?γִ ?ιν never denotes anything but an east wind.—Tr.] [This seems at first sight almost self-contradictory. Those who see in the events described only natural occurrences would seem to be just those who, disbelieving in anything supernatural, would not press, or would reject, the Biblical statement, that the water stood up as a wall on both sides. But probably Lange means that the literal, prosaic cast of mind which could not discern the supernatural element in the apparently natural phenomena, would also be unable to discern in the Biblical style the poetico-symbolic element, and so, whether accepting the Biblical statements or not, would understand them only in their most literal, prosaic sense.—Tr.]. [I.e. Pharaoh must be supposed to have set out within the three days through which the furlough extended. But this is an unsafe and inconclusive mode of reasoning. Moreover, Pharaoh may in any case have begun to make his preperations for pursuit before the three days had expired, even though it may have been longer than that before he actually pursued the fugitives.—Tr.]. [“Diodorus of Sicily, who had been in Egypt shortly before the birth of Christ, tells of a saying prevalent among the Ichthyophagi, a people on the east of the Arabian Gulf, to the effect that the whole gulf once became dry, and that there then followed a violent flood. Justinus, the Roman historian, who drew from an older source, relates that the Egyptians pursued Moses and the Israelites, but were forced to return by a violent thunder-shower. Eusebius, the Christian Church historian, in his Preparatio Evangelica ix. 27, quotes from Artapanus, a Greek writer, who flourished some time before the birth of Christ, who reports that the priests at Memphis had a saying about Moses being acquainted with the ebbs and floods, and that the priests at Heliopolis had one about Moses miraculously smiting the waters with his rod, and the consequent destruction of the Egyptians.” Sack, l. c.—Tr.] B.—The song of triumph Exodus 15:1-21 1Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto Jehovah, and said: I will sing unto Jehovah, for he is highly exalted;The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2My strength and my song is Jah, and he hath become my salvation. He is my God, and I will glorify him, My father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3Jehovah is a man of war, Jehovah is his name. 4Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea; And his choicest captains were plunged into the Red Sea. 5The floods cover them, they went down into the depths like a stone. 6Thy right hand, Jehovah, glorious in strength, Thy right hand, Jehovah, dasheth enemies in pieces. 7And in the greatness of thy majesty thou overthrowest thy foes; Thou sendest out thy wrath, it consumeth them as stubble. 8And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were heaped up; Fixed like a dam were the waters, The floods were congealed in the heart of the sea. 9Said the enemy: I will pursue, overtake, divide spoil; My lust shall be sated with them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them. 10Thou blewest with thy breath, the sea covered them; They sank like lead into the mighty waters. 11Who is like unto thee, Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like unto the, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders? 12Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swalloweth them. 13Thou leddest forth in thy mercy the people that thou hast redeemed; Thou guidedst them by thy power unto thy holy habitation. 14Peoples heard, they tremble; Anguish took hold of the inhabitants of Philistia. 15Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed; The mighty ones of Moab—trembling taketh hold of them; All the inhabitants of Canaan melted away. 16Fear and dread fall upon them; By the greatness of thine arm they are still as a stone; Till thy people pass over, Jehovah, Till the people pass over whom thou hast purchased. 17Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, The place which thou hast made for thy dwelling, Jehovah, The sanctuary, Lord, which thy hands have established. 18Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever. 19For the horse [horses] of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and Jehovah brought again [back] the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea. 20And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a [the] timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. 21And Miriam answered [responded to] them, Sing ye to Jehovah, for he hath triumphed gloriously [is highly exalted]; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 15:1. There seems to be no warrant for the rendering of the A. V.: “He hath triumphed gloriously.” πָּ ?ΰָ ?δ, in the other three passages (Job 8:11; Job 10:16; Ezekiel 47:5) in which it is used, has clearly the meaning “rise,” “grow large.” The adjective βֵּ ?ΰֶ ?δ means “high,” or “high-minded,” “proud.” The renderings of the LXX. and Vulg., are better than that of the A. V., viz., ἐνδόξωςγὰρἐνδόξασται, and “gloriose enim magnificatus est.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 15:5. ιְ ?λַ ?ρְ ?ιֻ ?ξεּ is a peculiar form, ξεּ for ξεֹ (only here), and ιְ ?λַ ?ρְ ?ιεּ for ιְ ?λַ ?ρּ ?εּ, as not unfrequently in pause. The A. V. here as in several cases afterwards in this chapter, quite neglects the alternation of tenses. The Imperfect is best rendered by our present.—Tr.]. [Exodus 15:6. Here too the force and life of the original require the present tense; the statement is general rather than specific. ΰεֹ ?ιֵ ?α, being without the article, may be understood collectively.—Tr.]. AND list of treatises on this theme is given by Knobel, p. 152. To it may be added the exhaustive monograph of K. H. Sack, Die Lieder in den historischen Bόchern des Alten Testaments, p. 41–64. The passage through the Red Sea, as a fundamental fact of the typical kingdom of God, reaches in its relations through all the Holy Scriptures, referring backwards to the deluge, and forwards to Christian baptism, and finally to the last judgment; and so the echoes of this song of Moses extend through all the Scriptures. Preliminary to it are the poetic passages of Genesis and the blessing of Jacob; following it, after some epic passages, comes the parting song of Moses with his blessings, Deuteronomy 32, 33. Two grand companion-pieces, following this, Deborah’s song of triumph, and David’s song of deliverance (2 Samuel 22; Psalms 18), introduce the poetry of the Psalms, in which the key-note, struck by Moses’ song, is heard again. Comp. Psalms 77, 78, 105, 106, 114. Finally mention is made again of the song of Moses at the close of the New Testament; its notes resound forward as the typical song of triumph of the people of God even into the next world, Revelation 15:3. As to the historical originality of the song in this place, three opinions may be specified. According to the older view, represented especially by Kurtz and Sack, the song is wholly Mosaic. According to the modern, critical view, represented especially by Knobel (Bunsen regards the song of Moses and Miriam as including Exodus 15:1-3; V. 2, p. 147), the song belongs to a later period. He says that, according to Exodus 15:17, it cannot have originated before the times of David and Solomon, for which view he adduces also the phrase ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωׁ, Exodus 15:4; but adds that in its peculiarity it certainly belongs to an old period. This statement involves a rather distinct contradiction. Heek (Introd. I. p. 303) assumes that the song in its original form was genuinely Mosaic, i.e., “that a genuinely Mosaic song lies at the foundation, but later, as used by the people, received some addition, or was in general somewhat worked over.” This assumption does not contradict in principle the spirit of biblical theology; for the collection of the Psalms shows that within the sphere of revelation such reconstructions have taken place. Vid.Psalms 14; Psalms 53. Yet as to the facts in the case before us, we need to look more carefully. Even Exodus 15:13, considered as a triumphant prophetic anticipation, may be regarded as original. The holy dwelling-place stands in Moses’ mind all complete, after the further shore of the Red Sea has been happily reached; whilst the scholastic spirit cannot see the holy dwelling-place till the tabernacle or even the temple is a finished fact. But letting this verse pass, without challenge, as an interpolation, and even also the second half of Exo 15:17, which as a whole seems even to contain contradictory elements, yet the following verses correspond excellently to the occasion. For fear of the Philistines the circuitous way through the Sinaitic desert was commanded; consequently it would accord with psychological laws that the Philistines next to the Egyptians should be first in the thoughts of the people. With this is connected the second thought. The direction now taken would bring them into collision with Edom and Moab, and finally with Canaan: to this fact corresponds the joyous presentiment that Jehovah, by this great fact, has prepared the way for the deliverance of His people to the end. It is characteristic that the scholastic spirit throws into the scale the questionable use of an archζological term (ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιωׁ), in opposition to the internal leading features of the song, which every way suits the Mosaic period. Thus, here nothing is said of Jehovah’s righteousness, but the idea of His holiness here for the first time comes distinctly out, Exodus 15:11. This accords with the demands of internal biblical sequence: first, the El-elyon [Most High God] of the primeval times and of Melchizedek; then the El-shaddai [God Almighty], the miracle-working God of Abraham; then Jehovah the Holy One in the age of Moses. Also the prayer in Exodus 15:16 and, in part, Exodus 15:17 [rendered by Lange jussively, “Let fear … fall,” etc.], prove that Israel was still on the journey. Analysis of the Song.—“The song may be divided into three strophes increasing successively in length, of which each one begins with the praise of Jehovah and ends with a description of the overthrow of the Egyptian host, Exodus 15:2-18” (Keil). Knobel, however, makes the first strophe consist of Exo 15:1-3 (Jehovah as the lofty hero); the second, Exodus 15:4-11 (as the highest God); the third, Exodus 15:12-18 (as the King of Israel). Sack divides still differently. The festive, subjective mood which produces the song (the introduction or foundation) is properly set off by itself in Exodus 15:2. Also Exodus 15:3-8 may be taken together as a magnifying of Jehovah’s heroism (which here makes up for Israel’s unfitness for warfare) as displayed against Pharaoh. Then comes the contrast presented in the enemy’s defiance and defeat, Exodus 15:9-10. Thence follows the conclusion, that Jehovah is Israel’s God, exalted above all the gods (religions) of the heathen, Exodus 15:11-13. To this is appended the celebration of the terrifying effect of this achievement of Jehovah on the heathen people; according to Sack, from Exodus 15:14 to Exodus 15:18. We regard Exodus 15:17-18 as a concluding prayer belonging by itself. Especially is to be noticed here the relation of the following words. Evidently Miriam here institutes the antiphony, and that in the simplest and most natural form. This moment might be called the birth of the theocratic antiphony. It corresponds to the position of females, that the song is very short, the refrain of the song of Moses, but ennobled by the sound of timbrel and by the dance, in which Miriam is the representative of the women, as Moses of the men. Exodus 15:1-2. Jehovah’s exploit; Israel’s song. ςֹ ?ζ, “Strength, might; not praise and glory” (Keil). But that strength which the poet experiences, that which becomes in him a fountain of song, is his inspiration. Jah, concentration of the name Jehovah, perhaps a more familiar form of the awe-inspiring name. Exodus 15:3-8. Jehovah as a warlike hero in contrast with Pharaoh.—A man of war.—As such he had become Israel’s consolation and reliance by his annihilation of Egypt’s dreadful military power, which Israel alone could not have resisted. Thy right hand, Jehovah (Exodus 15:6) does not form a contrast with what is said of Jehovah as a man of war, but is a further celebration of the warlike power of Jehovah as displayed against his foes. Exodus 15:9-10. Pharaoh, Jehovah’s enemy, as the persecutor of His people, in his arrogance, in contrast with Jehovah.—I will pursue.—The spirit of the eager enemy is pictured in a masterly way by the incomplete sentences following one another without the copula.—They sank (plunged). φָ ?μֲ ?μεּ is translated by Knobel: “they whirled.” But lead falling upon water does anything but whirl around. Keil translates φָ ?μַ ?μ here “sank into the depths,” referring to φεּ ?μָ ?δ and ξְ ?ςεּ ?μָ ?δ, the abyss of the sea, and alleging that lead cast into water can neither whir nor whirl. Yet it might cause the peculiar sound of water designated by the words dash, splash, etc. The question might be asked, whether a new picturesque expression would not be preferable to the repetition of the thought of Exo 15:5. But this is decided by the consideration that they did not fall upon the water, but the water came over them. Exodus 15:11-13. Jehovah therefore has shown Himself to be the God of His people Israel.—Who is like unto thee.—The germ of the name Michael. Jehovah appears here as the exalted God of God’s people, before whom the gods (the heathen—and anti-Christian—forms of religion) cannot stand.—Who is like unto thee, again in fine repetition, for now Jehovah is celebrated as He who glorifies Himself (or is glorified) in holiness. He is made glorious by His holiness, by the august distinction of His personality from all hostile elements, of His people from the Egyptians by the waters of the Red Sea, of His light from darkness. The passage through the Red Sea has made manifest the holiness of Jehovah, who henceforward through His revelation will sanctify His people, as was first typically promised by the deluge; comp. Psalms 77:14 [13].—Fearful in praises.—The obscure expression πεֹ ?ψָ ?ΰϊְ ?δִ ?μֹּ ?ϊ means not only summe venerandus, but also that “man, because God performs fearful miracles, can sing to Him praises worthy of his wonderful deeds only with fear and trembling” (Keil). But can one sing praises with fear and trembling? Yet songs of praise themselves may disseminate fear and terror in the kingdom of darkness; at any rate, Jehovah can reveal His dreadfulness so as to call forth songs of praise from His people.—Doing wonders.—The notion of the miraculous likewise here first appears more marked, as that of something new and extraordinary, which through God’s creative power transcends the extraordinary phenomena of the ancient natural world.—Only a stretching out of His hand, and the earth swallows them up. The words, says Keil, have nothing more to do with the Egyptians, but with the enemies of the Lord in general, since the Egyptians were swallowed by the sea. But the contrast is between God’s outstretched hand in heaven and the absolute subordination of the whole earth, which certainly includes the sea.—In thy mercy.—Here the notion of grace becomes more definite in connection with the typical deliverance.—Unto thy holy habitation.——See above. According to Knobel, this expression indicates that the song was composed at a later period. Noticeable is the expression πְ ?εֵ ?δχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ. The Red Sea being the boundary-line between Egypt and God’s people, the region or pasture (πָ ?εֶ ?δ) of holiness began on the other shore of the sea. Keil refers the phrase to Canaan, the leading of the people into that land being now pledged to them, so that the expression, like many others, would have to be understood in a prophetic sense. Exodus 15:14-16. The terrifying effect of this exploit of Jehovah among the heathen.—Even the singers at the Red Sea could proclaim this effect as an accomplished fact. Rumors of wars and victories even in the East circulate rapidly, and the facts, through the reports, assume an imposing form. Vid.Joshua 2:9; Joshua 9:9. The ramification of this effect is entirely in accordance with the plan of the journey, comp. Numbers 20:18 sqq.; Exodus 21:4; Deuteronomy 2:3; Deuteronomy 2:8. See above.—Still asa stone.—γָּ ?ξַ ?ν may mean either to stand still, or to be rigid and silent. We regard the first sense as the more probable. As Israel must march among the stones of the wilderness, so he wishes also to march through the nations clean to his goal. To this refers also the two-fold ςַ ?γΞιַ ?ςֲ ?αֹ ?ψ [“pass over”], which Knobel refers to the crossing of the Jordan—a proof of the degree of senselessness to which modern criticism can attain in its prejudices. Exodus 15:17-18. Concluding prayer and doxology.—A part of Exo 15:17, as an original conclusion, could not be at all dispensed with.—Thou shalt bring them in.—According to Knobel, the futures are preterites (!); according to Keil, they should not be read as wishes, but as simple predictions. Predictions in reference to Jehovah’s actions!—In the mountain of thine inheritance.—According to Knobel, this is the mountain-region of Canaan; according to Keil, the mountain which Jehovah had chosen, by the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22), as his dwelling-place, his sanctuary, Psalms 78:54. There is no ground for regarding this expression as a vaticinium post eventum; it seems, however, also very one-sided to refer the prophecy directly to the definite locality of the sanctuary on Moriah. How long the tabernacle first stood in Shiloh, how often the ark changed its place! In symbolical language a mountain is a secure height on which the people of Israel, Jehovah’s possession, gained a firm lodgment. The centre of this mountain is, on the one hand, the dwelling-place of Jehovah; on the other, the sanctuary of the Lord (ΰָ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι) for His people. The brief concluding sentence forms a worthy close; a simple expression of unlimited confidence: Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever.Exodus 15:19-20. Transition to the antiphony of Miriam.—The horses of Pharaoh.—Keil understands that Pharaoh rode on his horse in front of the army. But this is neither ancient nor modern custom. Moreover, ρεּ ?ν evidently refers to chariots and horsemen.—The prophetess.—“Not ob poeticam et musicam facultatem (Rosenmόller), but on account of her prophetic gifts” (Keil). It is not well to distinguish the two kinds of endowment within the theocracy so sharply, in so far, that is, as the question of endowment is concerned.—The sister of Aaron.—So in Numbers 12:1-6, where, together with Aaron, she takes sides against Moses. According to Kurtz, she is so called because she was co-ordinate with Aaron, but subordinate to Moses. She stood, as the leader of Jewish women, appropriately by the side of the future conductor of the religious service. According to the New Testament, it was also customary to name younger children after the older ones (e.g. Judas of James).—The timbrel in her hand.—The taber, tambourine.—And with dances.—Here first appears the religious dance, introduced by Miriam with religious festivities, but probably not without Aaron’s influence. The frequent occurrence of this dance is seen from a concordance.Exodus 15:21. Sing ye to Jehovah.—From this derives the antiphony in the Old Testament and New Testament, e.g.Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6; 1 Samuel 21:11; 1 Samuel 29:5. Is not the occasion great enough in itself, that the orgin of the antiphony should have been looked for in Egypt? For the rest, vid. on the ancient Egyptian female dancers with tambourines, Keil, Archδologie, § 137, Note 8. Footnotes: [For convenience sake the translation of this song is given without indicating in what particulars it differs from that of the A. V.—Tr.]. [Exodus 15:1. There seems to be no warrant for the rendering of the A. V.: “He hath triumphed gloriously.” πָּ ?ΰָ ?δ, in the other three passages (Job 8:11; Job 10:16; Ezekiel 47:5) in which it is used, has clearly the meaning “rise,” “grow large.” The adjective βֵּ ?ΰֶ ?δ means “high,” or “high-minded,” “proud.” The renderings of the LXX. and Vulg., are better than that of the A. V., viz., ἐνδόξωςγὰρἐνδόξασται, and “gloriose enim magnificatus est.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 15:5. ιְ ?λַ ?ρְ ?ιֻ ?ξεּ is a peculiar form, ξεּ for ξεֹ (only here), and ιְ ?λַ ?ρְ ?ιεּ for ιְ ?λַ ?ρּ ?εּ, as not unfrequently in pause. The A. V. here as in several cases afterwards in this chapter, quite neglects the alternation of tenses. The Imperfect is best rendered by our present.—Tr.]. [Exodus 15:6. Here too the force and life of the original require the present tense; the statement is general rather than specific. ΰεֹ ?ιֵ ?α, being without the article, may be understood collectively.—Tr.]. [Where αַּ ?χֹּ ?γֶ ?ωׁ, the same expression which in Exodus 15:11 is rendered “in holiness.” is in the A. V. incorrectly rendered “in the sanctuary.”—Tr.]. [According to some, the word here, rendered “dances” really denotes a musical instrument used in connection with dunces. So, e.g., Prof. Marks in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Am. Ed., p. 538.—Tr.]. FIFTH SECTIONThe journey through the wilderness to Sinai. Want of water. Marah. Elim. The Wilderness of Sin. Quails. Manna. Rephidim (Massah and Meribah). The Amalekites. Jethro and his advice, a human prelude of the divine legislationExo_15:22 to Exodus 18:27 The stations as far as Sinai1. Marah Exodus 15:22-2622 So [And] Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. 23And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the [drink the] waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it was called Marah. 24And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? 25And he cried unto Jehovah, and Jehovah showed him a tree, which, when he had cast [and he cast it] into the waters, the [and the] waters were made sweet: there he 26made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved [tried] them, And said, If thou wilt diligently [indeed] hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these [the] diseases upon thee, which I have brought [put] upon the Egyptians: for I am Jehovah that healeth thee. 2. Elim. Exodus 15:2727 And they came to Elim, where were twelve wells [fountains] of water, and threescore and ten palm trees: and they encamped there by the waters. 3. The Wilderness of Sin. (The Manna and the Quails.) Exodus 16:1-361 And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt. 2And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. 3And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God [Would that] we had died by the hand of Jehovah in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots, and [flesh-pots,] when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with 4hunger. Then said Jehovah [And Jehovah said] unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate [a daily portion] every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no [not]. 5And it shall come to pass that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily. 6And Moses and Aaron said unto all the children of Israel, At even, then shall ye know that Jehovah hath brought you out from the land of Egypt. 7And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of Jehovah; [since] he heareth your murmurings against Jehovah: and what are we, that ye murmur against us? 8And Moses said, This shall be, when [And Moses said, Since] Jehovah shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that [since] Jehovah heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him, and [against him,] what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against Jehovah. 9And Moses spake [said] unto Aaron, Say unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, Come near before Jehovah: for he hath heard your murmurings. 10And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the 11glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud. And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 12I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God. 13And it came to pass that at even [at even that] the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host [camp]. 14And when the dew that lay [the layer of dew] was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay [the wilderness] a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. 15And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna [What is this?], for they wist [knew] not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the 16bread which Jehovah hath given you to eat [for food]. This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man [a head], according to the number of your persons; take ye every man for them which [that] are in his tents [tent]. 17And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less. 18And when they did mete [And they measured] it with an [the] omer, he [and he] that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating. 19And Moses said [said unto them], Let no man leave of 20it till the morning. Notwithstanding [But] they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them [and some] left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wroth with them. 21And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. 22And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man [each man]: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23And he said unto them, This is that which Jehovah hath spoken, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath [is a day of rest, a holy sabbath] unto Jehovah: bake that which ye will bake to-day [bake], and seethe [boil] that [that which] ye will seethe [boil]; and that which [all that] remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. 25And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto Jehovah: to-day ye shall [will] not find it in the field. 26Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the [onthe seventh day is a] sabbath, in [on] it there shall be none. 27And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to [day to] gather, 28and they found none. And Jehovah said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 29See, for that Jehovah hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. 30So the people rested on the seventh day. 31And the house of Israel called the name thereof Manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made [like cake] with honey. 32And Moses said, This is the thing which Jehovah commandeth, Fill an omer of it [An omer full of it] to be kept for [throughout] your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt. 33And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot [basket], and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay 34it up before Jehovah, to be kept for [throughout] your generations. As Jehovah commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. 35And the children of Israel did eat manna [the manna] forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna [the manna], until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan. 36Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah. 4. Rephidim. The place called Massah and Meribah Exodus 17:1-7 Exodus 17:1 And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys [journey by journey], according to the commandment of Jehovah, and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the 2people to drink. Wherefore [And] the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water, that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt Jehovah? 3And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast [Wherefore hast thou] brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? 4And Moses cried unto Jehovah, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to [a little more, and they will] 5stone me. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go on [Pass on] before the people, and take with thee of the elders of the people; and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine [thy] hand, and go. 6Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that [and] the people may [shall] drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah among us, or not? 5. Amalek. The dark side of heathenism Exodus 17:8-168 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. 9And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to-morrow I will 10stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine [my] hand. So [And] Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. 12But Moses’ hands were heavy: and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. 13And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge 14of the sword. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a [the] book, and rehearse [lit. put] it in the ears of Joshua: for [that] I will utterly put 15[blot] out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an 16altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi: For [And] he said, Because Jehovah hath sworn that [For a hand is upon the throne of Jah;] Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. 6. Rephidim and Jethro. The bright side of heathenism Exodus 18:1-271 When [Now] Jethro, the priest of Midian, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and [how] that Jehovah had brought Israel out 2of Egypt; Then [And] Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back [after she had been sent away], 3And her two sons; of which [whom] the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien 4[a sojourner] in a strange land: And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine [my] help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh: 5And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness, where he encamped [was encamped] at the mount of God: 6And he said unto Moses, I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee, and thy wife, and her two sons with her. 7And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. 8And Moses told his father-in-law all that Jehovah had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, and [sake] all the travail [trouble] that had come upon them by the way, and how Jehovah delivered them. 9And Jethro rejoiced for [over] all the goodness [good] which Jehovah had done to Israel whom he had delivered [in that he had delivered them] out of the hand of the Egyptians. 10And Jethro said, Blessed be Jehovah, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all [all the] gods: for [yea], in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above [dealt proudly against] them. 12And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God. 13And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. 14And when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God: 16When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make 17[I make] them know the statutes of God, and his laws. And Moses’ father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. 18Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this [the] thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself [able to do it] alone. 19Hearken now unto my voice. I will give thee counsel, and God shall be [God be] with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward [before God], that thou mayest bring [and bring thou] the causes [matters] unto God: 20And thou shalt teach [And teach] them ordinances and laws [the statutes and the laws], and shalt shew [and shew] them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. 21Moreover [But] thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness [unjust gain]; and place such over them, to be [as] rulers of thousands, and [thousands,] rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: 22And let them judge the people at all seasons [times]: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they [they themselves] shall judge: so shall it be [so make it] easier for thyself, and they shall [let them] bear the burden with thee. 23If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt [wilt] be able to endure, and all this 24people shall also [people also will] go to their place in peace. So [And] Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in-law, and did all that he had said. 25And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26And they judged the people at all seasons [times]: the hard causes [matters] they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves. 27And Moses let his father-in-law depart; and he went his way into his own land. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 16:15 ξַ ?οδεּ ?ΰ. Gesenius and Knobel derive ξַ ?ο from ξָ ?πַ ?ο, to apportion; Fόrst (Concordance) from the Sanscrit mani. But most scholars, following the evident implication of the narrative itself, regard ξַ ?ο as the Aramaic equivalent of ξַ ?δ. Even Fόrst so renders it in his “Illustrirte Pracht-Bibel.” Comp. Michaelis, Supplementa ad Lexica Hebraica.—Tr.]. [Exodus 16:20. “And it bred worms:” εַ ?ιָ ?ψֻ ?νϊּ ?εֹ ?μְ ?ςִ ?ιν. The Heb. word seems to be the Fut. of ψεּ ?ν defectively written, and therefore to mean: “rose up into (or with) worms.” Kalisch says, that the form εַ ?ιָ ?ψֻ ?ν is used instead of εַ ?ιָ ?εָ ?ν to show that it comes from ψָ ?ξָ ?δ (ψָ ?ξַ ?ν?) in the sense of putrefy. So Maurer and Ewald (Gr., § 281, d). But it is doubtful whether ψָ ?ξַ ?ν (assumed as the root from which comes ψִ ?ξָּ ?δ “worm”) really means putrefy at all. Fόrst defines it by “crawl.” Moreover, it would be inverting the natural order of things to say, that the manna became putrid with worms; the worms are the consequence, not the cause, of the putridness. Rosenmόller, Fόrst, Arnheim and others render by “swarm,” “abound,” but probably as a free rendering for “rose up.” De Wette: da wuchsen Wόrmer. The A. V. rendering may stand as a substantially correct reproduction of the sense.—Tr.]. [Exodus 17:16. We have given the most literal rendering of this difficult passage. But possibly λִּ ?ι, instead of meaning “for” (or “because”), may (as ὅτι often in Greek) be the mere mark of a quotation, to be omitted in the translation. The meaning of the expression itself is very doubtful. The A. V., following some ancient authorities, takes it as an oath; but for this there is little ground. Keil interprets: “The hand raised to the throne of Jehovah in heaven; Jehovah’s war against Amalek,” i.e. the hands of the Israelites, like those of Moses, must be raised heavenward towards Jehovah’s throne, while they wage war against Amalek. Others interpret: “Because a hand (viz. the hand of the Amalekites) is against the throne of Jah, therefore Jehovah will forever have war with Amalek.” This interpretation has the advantage over Keil’s of giving a more natural rendering to ςַ ?μ, which indeed in a few cases does mean “up to,” but only when it is (as it is not here) connected with a verb which requires the preposition to be so rendered. Others (perhaps the majority of modern exegetes) would read πֵ ?ν (“banner”), instead of λֵּ ?ν (“throne”), and interpret: “The hand upon Jehovah’s banner; Jehovah has war,” etc. This conjecture is less objectionable than many attempted improvements of the text, inasmuch as the name of the altar, “Jehovah-nissi” (“Jehovah, my banner”), seems to require an explanation, and would receive it if the reading were πֵ ?ν, instead of λֵּ ?ν—Tr.]. AND General Survey of the Section. Israel’s journey from the shore of the Red Sea to Mt. Sinai. The host enters the wilderness of Shur (the same as the wilderness of Etham), and its first camping-place is by the bitter waters of Marah. The second is Elim. Next comes the encampment on the Red Sea recorded in Numbers 33. Still later the entrance into the wilderness of Sin, and the encampment in it. With this is connected the sending of the manna and of the quails. Then follows the stay in Rephidim with three leading events: the water from the rock, the victory over Amalek, and Jethro’s advice concerning an orderly judicial system. According to Numbers 33 it must be assumed that the people encamped on the Red Sea just as they touched the wilderness of Sin; for it was not till after this that they entered the wilderness (Exodus 16:11), as they also at the first entered the wilderderness of Shur, on the borders of which they found themselves at the very outset. Between the encampment on the Red Sea and that in Rephidim we find in the Book of Numbers Dophkah and Alush; and it is said that they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin to Dophkah. Knobel observes that these two stations, not mentioned in Exodus, are omitted because nothing of historical importance is connected with them. Also about this journey from Ayun Musa to Sinai there has been an immense deal of discussion, as well as about the journey from Raemses to the Red Sea. Vid. Robinson I., p. 90, Brδm, Israel’s Wanderung von Gosen bis zum Sinai (Elberfeld, 1859); Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha, p. 124; von Raumer, Palδstina, p. 480; Tischendorf, Aus dem heiligen Lande, p. 23; Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant III., p. 15 sqq.; Bunsen V., 2, p. 155; and the commentaries. There is general agreement as to the locality of the first stations. It is assumed that Israel, after the passage of the sea, encamped at Ayun Musa (the Wells of Moses), opposite the high mountain Atakah, on the other side of the Red Sea. The next camping-place, Marah (Bitterness), is found about sixteen and a half hours, or a three days’ journey beyond, by the well Howara or Hawara, of which Robinson says: “The basin is six or eight feet in diameter, and the water about two feet deep. Its taste is unpleasant, saltish, and somewhat bitter.… The Arabs … consider it as the worst water in all these regions” (Pal. II., p. 96). Cf. Seetzen III., p. 117, and Keil II., p. 58, who quotes divergent opinions of Ewald and Lepsius.—The next camping-place, Elim, is two and a half hours further south, in what is now the Wady Ghurundel, with a beautiful vegetation consisting in palms, tamarisks, acacias, and tall grass,—a prominent stopping-place on the way from Suez to Sinai. “The way from Howara to this place is short, but the camping-places of an army in march, like that of the Israelites, are always determined by the supply of water” (Keil). The fourth stopping-place, called in Numbers 33:10 the one on the Red Sea, is found at the mouth of Wady Taiyibeh (Robinson I., p. 105), eight hours beyond Wady Ghurundel. From this point the route becomes less easy to fix. In Numbers 33:11 we read: “They removed from the Red Sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin.” Here in Exodus it is said that the wilderness lies between Elim and Sinai. This addition seems designed not only to give the general direction (since that would be quite superfluous), but to designate the middle point between Elim and Sinai. The chief question here is, whether the wilderness of Sin as traversed by the Israelites, is to be located further south on a sea coast, where the plain is for the most part a good hour wide, as is assumed by many (not all, as Brδm says), or whether the high table land el Debbe, or Debbet en Nasb, with its red sand and sand-stones, is to be taken for the Wilderness of Sin (Knobel). Accordingly, there are two principal routes, of which the first again branches into two. By the coast route one can go along the coast as far as Tur (Ewald), and from that in a northeast direction come to Sinai; or more directly (i.e., at first in an inland direction from the fountain Murkha) enter through the wadies Shellal and Badireh (Butera) into the wadies Mukatteb and Feiran, and reach Mt. Horeb (de la Borde, von Raumer, and others). The other route, the mountain or highland route (Burckhardt and others) turns from Taiyibeh “southeast through Wady Shubeikah over a high table-land, with the mountain Sarbut el Jemel, then through Wady Humr upon the wide sandy plain el Debbe, or Debbet en Nasb” (Keil), and on through several wadies directly to Horeb. For and against each of these routes much may be said. Cf. Knobel, p. 162 sqq.; Keil II. p. 61. According to the latter view, advocated by Knobel and Keil, the camping-place in the wilderness of Sin is to be sought in Wady Nasb, where among date-palms a well of ample and excellent water is to be found. The second seacoast route was taken by Strauss and Krafft (Sinai und Golgotha, p. 127). Also the last time by Tischendorf (Aus dim heiligen Lande, p. 35). The same way is preferred by Brδm in his work “Israel’s Wanderung,” etc. Likewise Robinson regards this as the course taken by the Israelites, though he himself took the one on the table-land. To decide is not easy, and is of little importance for our purpose. But the following observations may serve as guides: (1) If, as is most probable, the names Sin and Sinai are connected etymologically, this is an argument for the table-land route, especially as it also seems to lie more nearly midway between Elim and Sinai; (2) the water seems here to be, though less abundant, yet better, than in most of the salty fountains on the seacoast, whose turbidness also is easily to be explained by its situation on the coast (vid. Robinson, p. 110); (3) on the table-land, in the depressions of which vegetation was everywhere found, there was certainly better provision for the cattle than on the seacoast, where they were often entirely separated from pasture land by mountain barriers; (4) if the encampment in the wilderness of Sin was also an encampment on the Red Sea, the preceding encampment could not, without causing confusion, be designated by the term “on the Red Sea.” So much for the mountain route. Ritter has argued against the view that the journey was made on the table-land through Wady Nasb, in the Evangelischer Kalender. Vid. Kurtz III., p. 61. For the rest, each way had its peculiar attractions as well as its peculiar difficulties. The mountain route allowed the host to spread itself, as there was much occasion for doing; it presented grand views, and prepared the people for a long time beforehand for its destination, Sinai. It is distinguished by “the singular and mysterious monuments of Surabit el-Khadim” (Robinson I., p. 113; Niebuhr, p. 235). By the way which runs half on the seacoast, half through the mountains, we pass through the remarkable valley of inscriptions, Mukatteb, and through the grand valley Feiran, rich in tamarisks, in whose vicinity lies the lofty Serbal, regarded by Lepsius as the mountain on which the law was given. On the inscriptions on the rocks and cliffs in the valley Mukatteb, see Tischendorf, “Aus dem h. Lande,” p. 39 sqq.; Kurtz III., p. 64. By these they are ascribed for the most part to Nabatζan emigrants and to pilgrims going to attend heathen festivals. On the “rock of inscriptions” see also Ritter’s reference to Wellsted and von Schubert, Vol. XIV., p 459. On the former city Faran in Feiran, see Tischendorf, p. 46. The camping-place in the wilderness of Sin is, as follows from the above, variously fixed; according to some it is the plain on the sea south of Taiyibeh, which, however, must then be called the wilderness of Sin up to the mountain range, if the camping-place is to be distinguished from the one on the Red Sea; according to Bunsen and others, the camping-place was in the place called el Munkhah. According to others, it is the large table-land el Debbe or Debbet en Nasb. The camping-places in the wilderness of Sin being indeterminate, so are also the two following ones at Dophkah and Alush (Numbers 33:12). Conjectures respecting the two stations beyond the wilderness of Sin are made by Knobel, p. 174, and Bunsen, p. 156. The last station before the host arrives at Sinai is Rephidim. This must have been at he foot of Horeb, for “Jehovah stood on the rock on Horeb, when He gave water to the people encamped in Rephidim (Exodus 17:6), and at the same place Moses was visited by Jethro, who came to him at the mount of God” (Knobel). This is a very important point fixed, inasmuch as it seems to result from it, that Serbal is to be looked for north of, or behind, Rephidim and Horeb, but the Mt. Sinai of the Horeb range in the south. The great plain at the foot of Horeb, where the camp of the Israelites is sought, is called the plain er-Raha (Knobel derives ψְ ?τִ ?ιγִ ?ιν, “breadth,” “surface,” “plain,” from ψָ ?τַ ?γ, to be spread). For a refutation of Lepsius. who finds Rephidim in Wady Feiran, and Sinai in Serbal, see Knobel, p. 174. On Serbal itself (Palm grove of Baal) vid. Kurtz III., p. 67. Between Serbal and the Horeb group lies Wady es-Sheikh. From the mouth of this wady towards Horeb the plain of Rephidim is thought to begin. Other assumptions: The defile with Moses’ seat, Mokad Seidna Musa, or the plain of Suweiri. Perhaps not very different from the last mentioned (vid. Keil II., p. 79; Strauss, p. 131). The most improbable hypothesis identifies Rephidim with Wady Feiran (Lepsius).1. Marah. Exodus 15:22-26 On the wilderness of Shur, vid. Keil II., p. 57. Particulars about Howara [Hawara (Robinson), Hawwara (Palmer)], Knobel, p. 160.—The bitter salt water at Marah. The miracle here consists in great part in the fact that Jehovah showed Moses a tree by which the water was made drinkable. That the tree itself was a natural tree is not denied by the strictest advocates of a literal interpretation. A part of the miracle is to be charged to the assurance of the prophetic act, and the trustful acceptance of it on the part of the people. Various explanations: The well was half emptied, so that pure water flowed in (Josephus); the berries of the ghurlud shrub were thrown in (Burckhardt). According to Robinson, the Beduins of the desert know no means of changing bitter salt water to sweet. “In Egypt,” as Josephus relates, “bad water was once purified by throwing in certain split sticks of wood” (Brδm). This leads to the question, how far the salt water might have been made more drinkable by Moses’ dipping into it a crisp, branchy shrub, as a sort of distilling agent. For this the numerous clumps of the ghurkud shrub which stand around the well, and whose berries Burckhardt wished to make use of, are very well suited. The distillation consists in the art of separating, in one way or another, salt, from water, especially by means of brushwood; generally, for the purpose of getting salt; but it might be done for the opposite purpose of getting water. In proportion as a bunch of brushwood should become incrusted with the salt, the water would become more free from the salt. For the rest, Robinson observes, concerning the water of the fountain Hawara, “Its taste is unpleasant, saltish, and somewhat bitter; but we could not perceive that it was very much worse than that of Ayun Musa.” It must further be considered that the Jews had the soft, agreeable Nile water in recollection. Kurtz has even found an antithesis in the fact that Moses made the undrinkable water at Marah drinkable, as he had made the sweet water of the Nile un-drinkable. We are here also to notice that the effect of Moses’ act was not permanent, but consisted only in the act itself, the same as is true of the saving effect of the sacraments in relation to faith. Here, too, is another proof that Moses had a quite peculiar sense for the life of nature, a sense which Jehovah made an organ of His Spirit. With the curing of the well Jehovah connected a fundamental law, stating on what condition He would be the Saviour of the people. Brδm (p. 114) points out, with reason, that the Israelites, in drinking salty water, which has a laxative effect, might well apprehend that the much-dreaded sicknesses of Egypt, the pestilence, the small-pox, the leprosy, and the inflammation of the eyes, caused by the heat and the fine dry sand, together with the intense reflection of light, might attack them here also in the wilderness, the atmosphere of which otherwise has a healing effect on many diseased constitutions. Therefore, in curing that well, Jehovah established the chief sanitary law for Israel. It is very definite, as if from the mouth of a very careful physician well acquainted with his case. General rule: perfect compliance with Jehovah’s direction! Explanation of it: if thou doest what is right in His eyes, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes (in reference to the means of spiritual recovery, dietetics), then I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians, for I am Jehovah, thy physician.—But how can it be added, “and there he proved them?” The whole history has been a test of the question, whether the people would obey the directions of Jehovah given through Moses, and particularly whether, after the singular means employed by Moses, they would drink in faith. Every test of faith is a temptation for sinful man, because in his habituation to the common order of things lies an incitement not to believe in any extraordinary remedy, such as seems to contradict nature. But out of the actual temptation which the people had now passed through, proceeded this theocratic sanitary law, as a temptation perpetually repeating itself. There is even still a temptation in the principle of the theocratic therapeutics, that absolute certainty of life lies in absolute obedience to God’s commands and directions. According to Keil, the statute here spoken of does not consist in the divine utterance recorded in Exodus 15:26, but in an allegorical significance of the fact itself: the leading of the Israelites to bitter water which the natural man cannot and will not drink, together with the making of this water sweet and wholesome, is to be a δֹ ?χ, that is, a statute and a law, showing how God at all times will lead and govern His people, and a ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ, that is, an ordinance, inasmuch as Israel may continually depend on the divine help, etc. If this is so, then the text must receive an allegorical interpretation not obviously required. Furthermore, it is a question whether, after the tremendous excitements through which the people had passed, bitter and salty water like that at Marah, might not have been more beneficial than hurtful to them. Salt water restores the digestion when it has been disturbed by excitement. Notice, moreover, the stiff-neckedness or stubbornness peculiar to the disposition of slaves just made free, as it gradually makes its appearance and increases. It was in their distress at Pi-hahiroth that they first gave utterance to their moroseness; true, they cried to Jehovah, but quarrelled with Moses. They seemed to have forgotten the miracle of deliverance wrought in the night of Egypt’s terror. Here they even murmur over water that is somewhat poorer than usual. The passage through the Red Sea and the song of praise seem to be forgotten. In the wilderness of Sin the whole congregation murmurs against Moses and Aaron, i.e., their divinely appointed leaders, from fear of impending famine, probably because the supplies brought from Egypt were running low;—the ample refreshment enjoyed at Elim seems to be forgotten. In Rephidim they murmur on account of want of water;—the miraculous supply of manna and quails seems to be forgotten. On the other hand, however, the wise augmentation of severity in the divine discipline becomes prominent. At Marah nothing is said of any rebuke uttered by Jehovah, as is done later, Numbers 11:14; Numbers 11:20. Especially noticeable is the great difference between the altercation at Marah, in the wilderness of Sin, and the mutiny at Kadesh, Numbers 20. The altercation there is expressly called a striving with Jehovah, Exodus 15:13. 2. Elim. Exodus 15:27A fine contrast with Marah is afforded here, both in nature, and in the guidance of the people of God, and in the history of the inner life. In Elim, Baumgarten and Kurtz find a place expressly prepared for Israel, inasmuch as by the number of its wells and palm trees it bears in itself the seal of this people: every tribe having a well for man and beast, and the tent of each one of the elders of the people (Exodus 24:9) having the shade (according to Baumgarten, the dates) of a palm-tree. Even Keil finds this too supernaturalistic; at least, he observes that, while the number of the wells corresponds to the twelve tribes of Israel, yet the number of the palm trees does not correspond to that of the elders, which, according to Exodus 24:9, was much (?) greater. On neither side is the possibility of a symbolical significance in the numbering thought of; without doubt, however, the emphasis given to the number seventy is as significant as that given to the number twelve. Keil’s allusion to the 23d Psalm is appropriate. See particulars about Elim in Knobel, p. 161; Tischendorf, p. 36.3. The Wilderness of Sin. Chap. Exodus 16:1-36 Notice first the aggravated character of the murmuring. Now the whole congregation murmurs. And not against Moses alone, but against Moses and Aaron, so that the murmuring is more definitely directed against the divine commission of the two men, and so against the divine act of bringing them out of Egypt, that is, against Jehovah Himself. Moreover, the expression of a longing after Egypt becomes more passionate and sensual. At first they longed resignedly for the graves of Egypt, in view of the danger of death in the desert. The next time, too, they say nothing about their hankering after the Nile water in view of the bitter water of Marah. But now the flesh-pots of Egypt and the Egyptian bread become prominent in their imagination, because they conceive themselves to be threatened with famine. Corresponding to the aggravation of the murmuring are the beginnings of rebuke. Says Knobel, “What the congregation had brought with them from Egypt had been consumed in the thirty days which had elapsed since their exodus (Exodus 16:1), although the cattle brought from Egypt (Exodus 12:38) had not yet all been slaughtered or killed by thirst (?), since after their departure from the wilderness of Sin they still possessed cattle at Rephidim, which they wished to save from thirsting to death (Exodus 17:3). For the herds had not been taken merely to be at once slaughtered; and meat could not take the place of bread. In their vexation the people wish that they had died in Egypt, while filling themselves from the flesh-pots, ‘by the hand of Jehovah,’ i.e., in the last plague inflicted by Jehovah upon Egypt, rather than gradually to starve to death here in the wilderness.” In the verb used (μεּ ?ο Niph.) is expressed a murmuring just passing over into contumacy. Yet here too Jehovah looks with compassion upon the hard situation of the people, and hence regards their weakness with indulgence. The natural substratum of the double miracle of feeding, now announced and brought to pass, is found in the food furnished by the desert to nomadic emigrants. The manna is the miraculous representative of all vegetable food; the quails denote the choicest of animal prey furnished by the desert. The first element, in the miracle is here too the prophetic foresight and assurance of Moses. The second is the actual miraculous enhancement of natural phenomena; the third is here also the trustful acceptance of it: the miracle of faith and the religious manifestation answering to it. The ultra-supernaturalistic view, it is true, is not satisfied with this. It holds to a different manna from that provided by God in nature, and ought, in consistency, to distinguish the quails miraculously given from ordinary quails. In this case, too, the trial of faith was to be a temptation (Exodus 16:4), to determine whether the people would appropriate the miraculous blessing to themselves in accordance with the divine precept, and so recognize Jehovah as the giver, or whether they would go out without restraint I and on their own responsibility to seize it, as if in a wild chase. Here, therefore, comes in the establishment of the fundamental law concerning the healing of life; and this is done by the ordaining of the seventh day as a day of rest, the Sabbath. As man, when given over to a merely natural life, is inclined to seek health and recuperation without regarding the inner life and the commandments of God, so he is also inclined to yield himself passionately and without restraint to the indulgence of the natural appetite for food, and, in his collection of the means of nourishment, to lose self-collection, the self-possession of an interior life. As a token of this the Sabbath here comes in at the right point, and therefore points at once from the earthly manna to the heavenly manna, (vid.John 6).The announcement of the miracle. I will rain. The first fundamental condition of the feeding: recognition of the Giver, comp. James 1:17.—From heaven. Though this in general might also be said of bread “from the earth,” yet here a contrast is intended. From the sky above, i.e., as a direct gift.—The people shall go out and gather. A perpetual harvest, but limited by divine ordinance.—A daily portion every day. Reminding one of the petition, “Give us this day,” etc. An injunction of contentment.—On the sixth day. They will find, on making their preparation of the food, that the blessing of this day is sufficient also for the seventh.—At even. A gift of flesh was to precede the gift of manna. Thereby they are to understand that Jehovah has led them out of Egypt, that He has provided for them a substitute for the flesh-pots of Egypt. But on the next morning they shall see the glory of Jehovah, i.e., they shall recognize the glorious presence of Jehovah in the fact that He has heard their murmuring against Moses and Aaron, and has applied it to Himself, in that He presents them the manna—For what are we? Thus do the holy men retire and disappear behind Jehovah.—But the people also must come to this same conviction, must repent of their murmurings, and feel that they have murmured against Jehovah, not against His servants. Thus with perfect propriety is a sanction of the sacred office interwoven into the same history into which the history of the Sabbath is interwoven. Hence it follows also that the true sacred office must authenticate itself by miraculous blessings. Both are sealed by a specially mysterious revelation. It is significant that in this connection Aaron must be the speaker (Exodus 16:9), that he must summon the people before Jehovah to humble themselves before His face on account of their murmuring. Equally significant is it, that the congregation, while Aaron speaks, sees the manifestation of Jehovah’s glory in the cloud. Especially significant, however, is it, that they see this glory rest over the wide wilderness, as they turn and look towards it. A most beautiful touch! With the wilderness itself the way through the wilderness is transfigured at this moment. If we assume (with Keil) that the summons to appear before Jehovah is equivalent to a summons to come out of the tents to the place where the cloud stood, then it must be further assumed, that the cloud suddenly changed its position, and removed to the wilderness, or else appeared in a double form. Neither thing can be admitted. Hereupon follows the last solemn announcement of the miraculous feeding, as the immediate announcement of Jehovah Himself. The double miracle itself.—The quails came up.—This narrative has its counterpart in the narrative of the quails in Numbers 11:4 sqq., just as the chiding on account of want of water at Rephidim has its counterpart in the story of the water of strife (Meribah), distinctively so-called in Numbers 20. The relation of the narratives to one another is important. The murmuring of the people in the beginning of their journey through the wilderness is treated with the greatest mildness, almost as a child’s sickness; but their murmuring towards the end of the journey is regarded as a severe offence, and is severely punished; it is like the offence of a mature man, committed in view of many years’ experience of God’s miraculous help. At the water of strife even Moses himself is involved in the guilt, through his impatience; and the gift of quails in abundance is made a judgment on the people for their immoderate indulgence. Another difference corresponds to the natural features of the desert: the quails do not keep coming; but the people find themselves accompanied by the manna till they are tired of eating it.—Came up.—ςָ ?μָ ?δ. The coming on of a host of locusts or birds has the optical appearance of a coming up.—δַ ?ωְּׂ ?μָ ?ε, “with the article of a word used collectively of a class” (Keil). LXX. ορτυγομήτρα, Vulg. coturnices. Large quails, whose name in Arabic comes from their fatness—ωְׂ ?μָ ?ε, fat. Says Knobel: “They become very fat, increase enormously, and in the spring migrate northward, in the autumn southward. Here we are to conceive of a spring migration. For the events described took place in the second month, i.e. about our May (Exodus 16:1; Numbers 10:11), and the quails came to the Israelites from the south-east, from the Arabian Gulf (Psalms 78:26 sq.; Numbers 11:31). In his journey from Sinai to Edomitis in March, Schubert (II., p. 360 sq.) saw whole clouds of migratory birds, of such extent and denseness as never before; they came from their southern winter-quarters, and were hastening toward the sea-coast (?). Probably they were quails, at least in part.” Further particulars on the abundance of quails in those regions, see in Knobel (p. 166) and Keil (II., p. 66). “They are sometimes so exhausted that they can be caught with the hand” (Keil). Some identify the fowl with the kata of the Arabs [a sort of partridge]. Of course it must be assumed that the Israelites in the wilderness were no more confined to the quails for meat than to the manna for bread. The manna. Exodus 16:13-14. A layer of dew. A deposit or fall of dew.—A dust, i.e. an abundance of small kernels. If the ἅπαξλεγ. ξְ ?ηֻ ?νְ ?τָ ?ν is explained simply according to the verb ηָ ?ρַ ?σ, to peal off, scale off, we get the notion of scaly or leaf-shaped kernels, but not that of coagulated kernels. But perhaps the notion of shelled kernels of grain is transferred, in accordance with appearance, to these kernels. “According to Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7,” says Knobel, “the manna resembled in appearance the white coriander seeds (small, round kernels of dull white or yellowish green color) and the bdellium (resin).” Again he says: “According to the Old Testament, the dew comes from heaven (Deuteronomy 33:13; Deuteronomy 33:28; Proverbs 3:20; Zechariah 8:12; Haggai 1:10); with it the manna descended (Numbers 11:9); this seems therefore like bread rained down from heaven, and is called ‘corn of heaven,’ ‘bread of heaven’ (Psalms 78:24; Psalms 105:40).” Further on Knobel relates that the ancients also supposed, that honey rained down from the air; hence he should more exactly distinguish between the notions of atmosphere and of heaven as the dwelling-place of God, comp. John 6:31-32.—Man hu.—The explanation that ξָ ?ο is to be derived from ξָ ?πַ ?ο, to apportion, and that this expression therefore means: “a present is that” (Kimchi, Luther, Gesenius, Knobel. Kurtz), does not suit the context, which would make Moses repeat what the people had said before him, to say nothing of the fact that the derivation of the notion “present” from the verb is disputed. On the contrary, the interpretation of the LXX., Keil and others, τίἐστιτοῦτο, perfectly accords with the connection. They said: “What is that?” because they did not know what it was. “ξָ ?ο for ξָ ?δ belongs to the popular language, and is preserved in Chaldee and Ethiopic, so that it is indisputably to be regarded as an old Shemitic form” (Keil). The natural manna and the miraculous manna.—Comp. the articles in the Bible Dictionaries. Keil says: “This bread of heaven was given by Jehovah to His people for the first time at a season and in a place where natural manna is still found. The natural manna is now found in the peninsula of Sinai usually in June and July, often even as early as in May, most abundantly in the vicinity of Mt. Sinai, in Wady Feiran and Es-sheikh, but also in Wady Ghurundel and Tayibeh (Seetzen, Reisen, III., p. 76, 129), and some valleys south-east of Mt. Sinai (Ritter, XIV., p. 676), where it in warm weather oozes by night out of the branches of the tarfa-tree, a sort of tamarisk, and in the form of small globules falls down upon the dry leaves, branches, and thorns which lie under the trees, and is gathered before sunrise, but melts in the heat of the sun. In years when rain is abundant, it falls more plentifully for six weeks; in many years it is entirely wanting. It has the appearance of gum, and has a sweet, honey-like taste, and when copiously used, is said to be a gentle laxative (Burckhardt, Syria, p. 600; Wellsted in Ritter, p. 674). There are thus presented some striking points of resemblance between the manna of the Bible and the tamarisk manna. Not only is the place where the Israelites first received manna the same as that in which it is obtained now, but the time of the year is the same, inasmuch as the 15th day of the second month (Exodus 16:1) falls in the middle of our May, or even still later. Also in color, form and appearance the resemblance is unmistakable, since the tamarisk manna, though of a dull yellow color, yet when it falls upon stones is described as white; the resemblance is likewise seen in the fact, that it falls in kernels upon the earth, is gathered in the morning, melts in the sun, and tastes like honey. While these points of agreement indubitably point to a connection between the natural and the Biblical manna, yet the differences which run parallel with all of the resemblances indicate no less clearly the miraculous character of the heavenly bread.” Thus Keil leaves the matter, without reconciling the two positions. The miraculous manna, he says, was enjoyed by the Israelites forty years long everywhere in the wilderness and at all seasons of the year in quantity equal to the wants of the very numerous people. Hengstenberg’s theory (Geschichle des Bileam, p. 280) that the natural manna which is formed on the leaves of the tarfa-bush by the sting of an insect (according to a discovery of Ehrenberg’s), is the natural substratum of the miraculous abundance of manna, is combated by Kurtz III., p. 34. Kurtz can conceive that the people lived at Kadesh thirty-seven years in apostasy, and that nevertheless during all this time they received regularly their portion of manna for every man. By this method of distinguishing the miraculous from the natural manna, we come to the hypothesis, that the people of Israel were fed with two kinds of manna; for it will certainly not be assumed that the natural fall of manna during all this time was supernaturally suspended, as in a similar manner Keil on Exodus 16:10 makes out two pillars of cloud. Von Raumer and Kurtz, we may remark, go as much beyond Keil, as Keil does beyond Hengstenberg. Vid. Keil, p. 72, and the note on the same page. Between the baldly literal interpretation and the embellishments of wonder-loving legends the view above described recognizes nothing higher; it does not understand the symbolic language of the theocratic religion, nor see how an understanding of this lifts us as much above the mythical as the literal interpretation. The defect of the latter consists, as to substance, in the circumstance that it identifies the conception of nature with that of the common external world raised by a Providential government only a little above a material system; as to form, it is defective in that it identifies the word and the letter, and cannot understand and appreciate the specific difference between the heathen myth and the symbolical expression of the theocratic spirit as it blends together ideas and facts. Kurtz refers to the miracle in John 2, without clearly apprehending that this miracle would be the merest trifle, if his notion of the miracle of the manna is the correct one, to say nothing of the evident conflict of this with John 6:32. Knobel, whose learned disquisition on the manna (p. 171 sqq.) should be consulted, thus states the distinctive features of the miraculous manna, which he regards as a legendary thing: (a) The manna, according to the Biblical account, “comes with the mist and dew from heaven (Exodus 16:14);”—so Kurtz III., p. 28. But since the mist does not come down from the throne of God, the meaning is simply that it comes from above, not from below. (b) “It falls in such immense abundance that every person of the very numerous people daily receives an omer (Exodus 16:16; Exodus 16:36).” The omer, however, is a very moderate hand measure, the tenth part of an ephah, originally hardly a definite quantity, vid. Keil II., p. 74. (c) Furthermore, “those who gather the manna collect always only just what they need, no more and no less.” This is clearly to be symbolically explained of contentedness and community. (d) “The manna falls only on the six working-days, not on the seventh day, it being the Sabbath (Exodus 16:26 sq.).” On this is to be observed that this extraordinary fact was needed only once, in order to sanction the Sabbath; the fact may also be explained by the circumstance that on the day before an extraordinary, double fall of manna took place. (e) “The manna which is kept over from one working-day to another becomes wormy and offensive (Exodus 16:20), whilst that preserved from the sixth day to the seventh keeps good (Exodus 16:24), for which reason, except on the sixth day, the manna must always be eaten on the day when it is gathered.” This too is a singular, enigmatical fact; but it is cleared up by looking at it in its rich ideal light. The supply which heathen providence heaps up breeds worms, decays, and smells offensively: not so the supply required by the Sabbath rest, sacred festivities, and divine service. (f) “It is ground in the hand-mill, crushed in the mortar, and cooked by baking or boiling, made e.g. into cakes (Exodus 16:23, Numbers 11:8). (g) It appears in general as a sort of bread, tasting like baked food (Exodus 16:31, Numbers 11:8), and is always called μֶ ?ηֶ ?ν, even γָּ ?βָ ?ο (vid. Exodus 16:15), to say nothing of the miraculous doubling of the quantity (Exodus 16:5; Exodus 16:22).” This latter feature comes at once to nothing, if we assume that on the sixth day there was a double fall of manna. How far the manna, which contains no farinaceous elements, but only glucose, was mingled with farinaceous elements, in order to be used after the manner of farinaceous food, we need not inquire; at all events the Israelites could not afterwards have said, of a properly farinaceous substance, and that too of a superior kind, “Our soul loatheth this light food.” The splendor with which faith, wonder, and gratitude had invested the enjoyment of the miraculous food had vanished. According to Keil, the connection of the natural manna with the miraculous manna is not to be denied, but we are also not to conceive of a mere augmentation, but the omnipotence of God created from the natural substance a new one, “which in quality and quantity as far transcends the products of nature as the kingdom of grace and glory outshines the kingdoms of nature.” But Christ, in John 6, speaks of a manna in the kingdom of grace and glory, in contrast with the Mosaic manna.—According to Kurtz, who, especially in opposition to Karl Ritter, follows the opinion of Schubert, the manna was prepared by a miracle of omnipotence in the atmosphere; according to Schubert, that “tendency to the production of manna which at the right time permeated the vitalizing air, and with it all the vital forces of the land, has propagated itself still, at least in the living thickets of the manna-tamarisks.” The natural manna, then, is a descendant of the Biblical manna, but a degenerate sort, developed by the puncture made by the cochineal insect in the branches of the tarfa-shrub ! We are specially to consider further (1) the preservation of a pot, containing an omer of manna, in the sanctuary; (2) the specification of the time during which the use of manna by the Israelites lasted. As to the first point, the object was to preserve the manna as a religious memorial; hence the expression of the LLX., στάμνοςχρυσοῦς, is exegetical. “The historian here evidently anticipates the later execution of the charge now given. Comp. Hengstenberg, Pentateuch II., p. 169 sqq.” (Kurtz). As to the second point, it is expressively said that Israel had no lack of the miraculous manna so long as they were going through the wilderness; but Kurtz infers from Joshua 5:11-12, that the Jews did not cease to eat manna till after the passover in Gilgal, though they had other food besides. The correct view is presented in the Commentary on Joshua, Exodus 5:12, where stress is laid on the contrast between Jehovah’s immediate preservation of the food of the wilderness, on the one hand, and the historical development that took the place of this, on the other hand, i.e., the natural order of things which belongs to civilized life; corresponding to the fact that the ark took the place of the pillar of cloud and fire, as leader of the people. The question whether in this narrative the Sabbath is instituted for the first time (Hengstenberg), or again renewed (Liebetrut), is thus decided by Kurtz (III., p. 42): The observance of the Sabbath was instituted before the law, may even in Paradise, but “the law of the Sabbath first received a legal character through the revelation on Sinai, and lost it again through the love which is the fulfilling of the law, in the new covenant (Colossians 2:16-17).” In the fulfilment nothing indeed is lost, but every law becomes a liberating principle. It is noticeable how in the history of Moses, patriarchal customs, to which also probably the Sabbath belonged, are sanctioned by miraculous events and receive a legal character; as has already been seen in various instances (festivals, worship, sanitary laws, official rank, the Sabbath). 4. Rephidima. Rephidim and the place called Temptation and Strife. Following the route of the mountain road the Israelites now came out of the region of the red sandstone into that of porphyry and granite (Knobel, p. 174). They came thither “according to their day’s journeys,” i.e., after several day’s journeys. In Numbers 33:12 the two stations Dophkah and Alush are mentioned. On the conjecture of Knobel (p. 174) concerning these places, vid. Keil II., p. 76. According to Knobel (p. 176), “popular tradition transfers the occurrence here mentioned to Kadesh, therefore to a later time, (Numbers 20:8).” It is a universal characteristic of modern scientists that, not being free from the propensity to give predominant weight to sensible things, they are easily carried away with external resemblances, hence with allegories, and so may disregard the greatest internal differences of things. Thus as the external resemblance of man to the monkey is more impressive to the naturalist than the immense inward contrast, so Biblical criticism often becomes entangled in this modern allegorizing; even Hengstenberg pays tribute to it in identifying the Simon of Bethany with the Pharisee Simon on the Lake of Galilee, and so, the Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman who anointed Jesus. As the sending of the quails in Numbers 11:5 sqq., forms a companion-piece to that in Exodus 16, so the water of strife in Numbers 20:2 sqq., to the water of strife in Rephidim. There is a resemblance even in the sounds of the names of the deserts Sin (ρִ ?ιο thorn?), and Zin (φִ ?ο low palm). So also the want of water and the murmurs of the people, and in consequence of this the seemingly identical designation of the place; also the giving of water out of the rock. Aside from the difference of time and place, the internal features of the two histories are also very different; even the difference in the designations is to be observed, the place Massah and Meribah (temptation and strife), and the water Meribah, over which the children of Israel strove with Jehovah, and He was sanctified (shown to be holy) among them. In the first account Jehovah is only tempted by the people; in the second, He is almost denied. In the one, Moses is said to smite the rock, away from the people, in the presence of the elders; in the other, he and Aaron are said to speak with the rock before all the people. Also the summary description of the journey in Deuteronomy 1:37, leaves no doubt that the second incident is entirely different from the first. Likewise in Deuteronomy 33:8, two different things are mentioned, and the temptation at Massah is distinguished from the strife at the water of strife, (comp. Psalms 95:8). It lies in the nature of the case that the religious mind would celebrate in a comprehensive way its recollection of the most essential thing in the two events, viz., the miraculous help of Jehovah, Deuteronomy 8:15, Isaiah 48:21, Psalms 78:15; Psalms 78:20; Psalms 105:41; Psalms 114:8, Nehemiah 9:15. Why chide ye with me?—The true significance of this chiding with him Moses at once characterizes: it is a tempting of Jehovah. This he could do after what he had affirmed in Exodus 16:8-9. After the giving of the quails and the manna, designed to confirm the divine mission of Moses and Aaron, they had now to do with Jehovah, when they quarrelled with Moses. But how far did they tempt Jehovah? Not simply “by unbelieving doubt of the gracious presence of the Lord” (Keil). They sinfully tested the question whether Jehovah would again stand by Moses, or would this time forsake him. Hence their reproach against Moses reaches the point of complaining that he is to blame for their impending ruin—a complaint which might well have been followed by stoning. Jehovah’s command corresponds with this state of things. Moses is to go confidently away from the people to the still distant Horeb, but to take with him the elders of the people as witnesses, and there to smite the rock with his rod. But Jehovah is to stand there before him on the rock. Does this mean, as Keil represents, that God humbles Himself like a servant before his master? He rather appears as Moses’ visible representative, who rent the rock and produced the miraculous spring. The rock that followed them, says Paul, was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Thence again is seen the divine human nature of the miracle, a mysterious synthesis of natural feeling and prophecy of grace. On Tacitus’ invidious narrative of Moses’ having discovered a spring of water by means of a drove of wild asses, see Kurtz III., p. 48. b. Rephidim and Amalek. Hostile Heathendom. As in the account of Amalek we see typically presented the relation of the people of God to the irreconcilably hostile heathendom; so in that of Jethro their relation to heathendom as manifesting a kindly disposition towards the theocracy. Exhaustive treatises on the Amalekites may be found in the dictionaries and commentaries, especially also in Hengstenberg (Pentateuch II., p. 247 sqq., and Kurtz III., p. 48). In the way nations used to be formed, Amalek, a grandson of Esau, might quite well have become a nation by Moses’ time (vid. Genesis 36), Edomite leaders forming a nucleus around which a conglomerate multitude gathered. The Edomite tendency to barbarism was perpetuated in Amalek, and so in his descendants was developed a nation of Bedouin robbers, who might have spread from Idumea to Sinai, and perhaps in their capacity as waylayers had come to give name to a mountion of the Amalekites in the tribe of Ephraim (Judges 12:15). Thus might a little people, which was kindred to Israel in the same way as Edom was, after Israel was regenerated to be the people of God, be the first to throw themselves hostilely in their way, and thus become the representative of all hostile heathendom, as opposed to the people and kingdom of God. In accordance with this was shaped the theocratic method of warfare against Amalek. and the typical law of war (see Keil II., p. 77). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND : MOSES AND SINAI.______________ IN THE LARGER SENSE Exodus 19-31FIRST SECTIONThe Arrival at Sinai and the Preparation for the Giving of the Law. The Covenant People and Covenant Kingdom. Institution of the CovenantExo_19:1-251 In the third month when [after] the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. 2For they were departed [And they journeyed] from Rephidim, and were come [and came] to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched [and encamped] in the wilderness, and there Israel camped [was encamped] before the mount. 3And Moses went up unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of [from] the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people [peoples]: for all the earth is mine: 6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an [a] holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces 8[before them] all these words which Jehovah commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do. And Moses 9returned [brought back] the words of the people unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe [trust] thee for ever. And Moses told the 10words of the people unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11And be ready against the third day: for [for on] the third day Jehovah will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. 12And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up [Beware of going up] into the mount, or touch [touching] the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely [surely be] put to death. 13There shall not an [no] hand touch it [him], but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it [he] shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. 14And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. 15And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives [near a woman]. 16And it came to pass on the third day, in the morning [when morning came], that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the [a] trumpet exceeding loud; so that [and] all the people that was17[were] in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with [to meet] God; and they stood at the nether part [the foot] of the mount. 18And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke [all mount Sinai smoked], because Jehovah descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 19And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder [And the voice of the trumpet waxed louder and louder], Moses spake [speaking] and God answered [answering] 20him by a voice. And Jehovah came down upon mount Sinai, on [to] the top of the mount; and Jehovah called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went 21up. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto Jehovah to gaze [behold], and many of them perish. 22And let the priests also, which [who] come near to Jehovah, sanctify themselves, lest Jehovah break forth upon them. 23And Moses said unto Jehovah, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst [hast charged] us, saying, Set bounds about 24the mount, and sanctify it. And Jehovah said unto him, A way [Go], get thee down; and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto Jehovah, lest he break forth upon them. 25So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto [told] them. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 19:13. The repetition of the word “touch” (πָ ?βַ ?ς) naturally suggests the thought that the object is the same as in the preceding verse, viz., “mount.” But this cannot be the case. For (1) if this were so, it is not probable that the word “hand” would be used, especially after the more general prohibition. The second prohibition would be weaker than the first, for one would most naturally touch the mountain with the foot, not the hand. But (2) more decisive still is the consideration that the conjunction λִּ ?ι does not admit of this construction. It can here only have the meaning “but” in the sense of the German “sondern,” i.e, “but on the contrary.” As the verse stands in A. V., a reader would most naturally understand “but” to be equivalent to “but that,” and the meaning to be, “No hand shall touch it wilhout his being stoned,” etc., which, however, cannot have been the meaning of the translators, and certainly not of the Hebrew author. On the other hand, it makes no sense to say, “No hand shall touch the mountain, but on the contrary he shell be stoned.” The meaning must be: “No hand shall touch him,” i.e., the offender; “but he shall be killed without such contact by being stoned or shot.”—Tr.] [The last two verbs in this verse are in the Imperfect tense, and hence express continued action. The Hebrew does not say, “when the voice.… waxed louder and londer, [then] Moses spake,” etc., especially not, if “when” is understood to be equivalent to “atter.” We have endeavored to give the true sense by the participial rendering.—Tr.] AND 1. Sinai and the Arrival there.A full geographical treatise on the whole Horeb group, and especially Sinai, is given by Ritter VIII. 2, p. 527 sqq.; Robinson, 1., p. 140 sqq.; Tischendorf, Aus dem heiligen Lande, p. 61 sqq.; Strauss, p. 133 sqq. See also the lexicons and commentaries. We quote from Zeller’s Biblisches Wφrterbuch, II., p. Exodus 482: “A few remarks on the question respecting the scene of the giving of the law. There are two different localities which have their advocates. Some find the place in Sinai proper, Jebel Musa and the plain es-Sebaiyeh lying south of it; others, in the northern terrace of Sinai, that which is now called Horeb, especially the peak of Ras es-Safsafeh, with the plain er-Rahah, which stretches out before it in the north. Both plains would be in themselves suitable for the purpose; for they are about equally large, and furnish room for the marshalling of a large multitude. Each is so sharply distinguished from the mountain rising up from it that the latter might in the most literal sense be said to be touched by one in the plain;—which gives an excellent illustration of the expression used by Moses (Exodus 19:12): ‘whosoever toucheth the mount,’ etc. Yet perhaps the weight of the evidence is in favor of the southern plain, es-Sebaiyeh. For (1) the mountains within which the plain reposes, like a secluded asylum, rise up from it in an amphitheatrical form and very gradually, and therefore its slopes could have been used for the marshalling of the people if at any time there was not quite space enough in the plain itself; whereas the mountains bordering on the plain er-Rahah are so abrupt and steep that they could not have been used for this purpose. (2) The plain er-Rahah has a water-shed from which the ground to the north falls away more and more, so that to the view of those standing there, Ras es-Safsafeh must have become less and less prominent, whereas the plain es-Sebaiyeh rises higher and higher towards the south, and Jebel Musa or Sinai becomes more and more majestic in appearance. (3) The view on the south side of Sinai, where this mountain towers up perpendicularly nearly 2000 feet, like an immense altar, is decidedly more grand. (4) In Exodus 19:17 it is said that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God. Now we can hardly conceive a place better fitted for a camping-place than the plain er-Rahah with the valleys and pastures of the environs, especially the wady es-Sheikh closely adjoining it. But if this was the camping place, and at the same time the place where the people were drawn up at the time of the giving of the law, how are we to conceive of that bringing forth out of the camp? This expression would have no meaning. Whereas this expression becomes full of appositeness, if we assume the plain er-Rahah on the north of Horeb to be the camping-place, but the plain es-Sebaiyeh south of Jebel Musa to be the standing-place of the people when the law was given. From that northern plain 600,000 men (for children and minors, as well as women and old men doubtless remained behind in the camp) might well have gone in the course of a day through the short wadies es-Sebaiyeh and Shoeib into the southern plain, and back again into the camp; for the distance is only a short hour’s journey.”—On the difficulties attending the combination of both places, see Keil, II., p. 94. The expression, “Israel camped before the mount” (Exodus 19:2), is certainly opposed to the assumption of two camps over against two mountains. Comp. the graphic description in Strauss. On the relation between the names Sinai and Horeb, comp. Knobel, p. 188. Note: (1) that the whole region is named, after the mountain where the law was given, sometimes Sinai, sometimes Horeb; (2) that Horeb, being reached while the people were in Rephidim, may include Sinai; (3) that Horeb, as a separate mountain, lies to the north of Sinai, and therefore was first reached by the Israelites. See also Keil, p. 90, and Philippson, p. 403.—This group of lofty granite mountains cannot primarily be designed to serve as a terror to sinners; it rather represents the majesty and immovable fixedness of God’s moral revelation, of His law, in a physical form; it is therefore a positive, imposing fact, which disseminates no life, yet on which the sinner’s false life may be dashed to destruction.—“Lepsius’ hypothesis, that Sinai or Horeb is to be looked for in Mt. Serbal, has rightly met no approval. In opposition to it consult Dieterici, Reisebilder, II., p. 53 sqq.; Ritter, Erdkunde, XIV., p. 738 sqq.; and Kurtz, History, etc., III., p. 93” (Keil). The Arrival at Sinai.—In the third month. Two months then have passed thus far, of which probably the greater part belongs to the encampment in Elim and Rephidim. The same day.—According to the Jewish tradition this means on the first day of the third month, but grammatically it may be taken more indefinitely = “at this time.” 2. Jehovah’s Proposal of a Covenant, and the Assent of the People. Exodus 19:3-8. And Moses went up.—On Sinai Moses received his commission from Jehovah to lead out the people. Therefore he must now again appear before Jehovah on Sinai, to complete his first mission, and receive Jehovah’s further commands. It is a characteristic feature of the following transaction concerning the covenant, that Jehovah calls out to Moses as he goes up. A covenant is a coming together of two parties. It has been said indeed, that αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, διαθήκη, testamentum, means, not covenant, but institution. It is true, the divine institution is the starting-point and foundation, but the product of this institution is the covenant. This is true of all the covenants throughout the Bible. They everywhere presuppose personal relations, reciprocity, freedom; i.e., free self-determination. So here the people are induced by Jehovah’s proposal to declare their voluntary adoption of the covenant (Exodus 19:8). After this general adoption of the covenant, there follows a special adoption of the covenant law, Exodus 24:3. Not till after this does the solemn covenant transaction take place, in which the people again avow their assent, their free subjection to the law of Jehovah (Exodus 24:7). This relation is so far from being an absolute enslavement of the human individuality by the majesty of the divine personality, as Hegel imagines (Vol. xi. 2, 46), that on the basis of this relation the notion of a bridal and conjugal relation between Jehovah and His people gradually comes to view. But the characteristic feature of the law is, that it rests, in general, on a germ of ideality, of knowledge, of redemption, but, in particular, everywhere requires an unconditional, and even blind, obedience. Hence it may be said: In general it is doctrine (Thorah), in particular it is statute. The ideal and empirical basis is the typical redemption: I am Jehovah, thy God, that have brought thee out of Egypt, etc., as a fact of divine goodness and grace; and the spirit of it is expressed in the rhythmically solemn form in which the covenant is proclaimed in Exodus 19:3-6. The parallel phrases, “House of Jacob,” and “Children of Israel,” present in conjunction the natural descent of the people, and the spiritual blessings allotted to them. Ye have seen.—A certain degree of religious experience is essential in order to be able to enter into covenant relations with Jehovah. This experience is specifically an experience of the sway of His justice over His enemies, and of His grace over His chosen people. Eagles’ wings.—“The eagle’s wings are an image of the strong and affectionate care of God; for the eagle cherishes and fosters her young very carefully; she flies under them, when she takes them out of the nest, in order that they may not fall down upon rocks and injure themselves or perish. Comp. Deuteronomy 32:11, and illustrations from profane writers, in Bochart, Hieroz. II., pp. 762, 765 sqq.” (Keil).—And brought you unto myself.—Knobel: to the dwelling-place on Sinai. Keil: unto my protection and care. It probably means: to the revelation of myself in the form of law, symbolized indeed by the sanctuary of the lawgiver, viz., Sinai. But that is a very outward conception of Keil’s, that the pillar of cloud probably retired to mount Sinai. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed.—According to Keil the promise precedes the requirement, “for God’s grace always anticipates man’s action; it demands nothing before it has given.” But here evidently the requirement precedes the promise; and this is appropriate to the legal religion of Moses in the narrower sense. In the patriarchal religion of Abraham the promise precedes the requirement; under Moses the requirement precedes the promise, but not till after the fulfilment of a former patriarchal promise, an act of redemption, had preceded the requirement. The requirement is very definite and decided, accordant with the law.—The promise is, first: Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me.—Keil says: ρְ ?βֻ ?μָּ ?δ signifies not possession in general, but a precious possession, which one saves, lays up (ρָ ?βַ ?μ), hence treasure of gold and silver, 1 Chronicles 29:3, etc. (λαὸςπεριούσιος, etc.Malachi 3:17; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9). “We translate, “above all people,” not, “out of all people,” in accordance with the following words: for all the earth is mine.—“This reason for choosing Israel at once guards against the exclusiveness which would regard Jehovah as merely a national God” (Keil). It may be observed that the people are to be as distinctively the lot (κλῆρος) of Jehovah, as Jehovah desires to be the lot of His people.—In the second place, the first promise, or the ρְ ?βֻ ?μָּ ?δ, is explained: Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.—The LXX. translate, βασίλειονἱεράτευμα; so Peter, 1 Peter 2:9. Onkelos: “kings, priests.” Jonathan: “crowned kings, ministering priests.” According to the Hebrew text, the kingdom as a unit, or the realm as a body of citizens, is a nation of priests. The individuals are priests; the unity of their commonwealth is a kingdom, whose king is Jehovah. It is therefore a kingdom whose royal authority operates every way to liberate and ennoble, to sanctify and dignify; the priests are related to the king; in their totality under the king they constitute the priesthood, but only under the condition that they offer sacrifice as priests. The N. T. term, “a royal priesthood,” derived from the LXX., merges the several priests in the higher unity of a single priesthood, whose attribute, “royal,” expresses the truth that the king, through his royal spirit, has incorporated himself into the midst of his people. All this, now, the Israelites are to be, in their general attitude, first in the typical sense, which points forward to the actual fulfilment, and prophetically includes it. Keil, therefore, is wrong in saying that “the notion of theocracy or divine rule (referring to the preceding explanations, II., p. 97), as founded by the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, does not at all lie in the phrase ξַ ?ξְ ?μֶ ?λֶ ?ϊλֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ιν [‘kingdom of priests’]. The theocracy established by the formation of the covenant (chap. 24) is only the means by which Jehovah designs to make His chosen people a kingdom of priests.” Whilst here the theocracy is made not even a type, but only the medium of a type, of the New Testament kingdom of heaven, the people of Israel are raised high above their typical significance (p. 98), much as is done in the Judaizing theories of Hofmann and others. The relations are rather quite homogeneous: a typical people, a typical kingdom of God, a typical law, a typical sacrifice, etc. On the other hand, Keil’s sentiment, that Israel, as a nation of priests, has a part to act in behalf of other people, is every way accordant with the Old Testament prophecy and with the New Testament. (Isaiah 42; Romans 11:15; Romans 15:16.) And a holy nation.—The notion of the holiness of Jehovah first appears in chap. 15. Here the notion of a holy people. The holiness of Jehovah is the originating cause of the creation of a holy people. On the various explanations of the notion of holiness, vid. Keil, p. 99. Neither the notion of newness or brilliancy, nor that of purity or clearness satisfies the concrete import of holiness. Jehovah keeps Himself pure in His personality, He protects His glory by His purity, His universality by His particularity—thus is He the Holy One. And so He creates for Himself a holy people that in a peculiar sense exist for Him, separated from the ungodly world, as He in a peculiar sense exists for them, and keeps Himself aloof from notions and forms of worship that conflict with true views of His personality. The opposite of χָ ?γεֹ ?ωׁ is ηֹ ?μ, κοινός, profanus” (Keil). See the passages 1 Peter 1:15; comp. Leviticus 11:44; Leviticus 19:2.—And all the people answered together. Thus a historical, positive, conscious obligation is entered into, resting, it is true, on an obligation inherent in the nature of things. 3. Provisions for the Negotiation of the Covenant. Exodus 19:9-13. First: Jehovah will reveal Himself to Moses in the thick cloud. The people are to listen while He talks with Moses. Keil seems to assume that the people also are to hear with their own ears the words of the fundamental law. But Exodus 19:16-19 show what is meant by the people’s hearing. The sound of thunder and of the trumpet which the people hear sanctions the words which Moses hears. In consequence of this the people are to believe him for ever. The perpetual belief in Moses is the perpetual belief in the revelation and authority of the law. What follows shows that mediately the people did hear the words. Secondly: The people, in order to receive the law, are to be sanctified for three days, i.e., are to dispose themselves to give exclusive attention to it. The symbolical expression for this consists in their washing their garments, ceremonially purifying them. It shows a want of appreciation of propriety to include, as Keil does, the explanatory precept of Exo 19:15 among the immediate requirements of Jehovah. Thirdly: The people are to be kept back by a fence enclosing the mountain. That is, the restraining of the people from profaning the mountain as the throne of legislation serves to protect them; comp. the significance of the parables in Matthew 13. The transgressor is exposed to capital punishment; but inasmuch as his transgression finds him on the other side of the limit, no one could seize him without himself becoming guilty of the transgression; hence the direction that he should be killed from a distance with stones or darts. Consistency requires that the same should be done with beasts that break through. Reverence for the law is thus to be cultivated by the most terrifying and rigorous means. When the trumpet.ωׁ ?εֹ ?τָ ?ψ = χֶ ?ψֶ ?οηַֹ ?ιּ ?αֵ ?μ ,ηַֹ ?ιּ ?αֵ ?μ. “To draw out the horn [as the Hebrew expresses it] is the same as to blow the horn in prolonged notes” (Keil). Vid. Winer, Realwφrterbuch, Art. Musikalische Instrumente. It is a question when the prohibition to come near the mountain was to be terminated. According to Keil, a signal was to be given summoning the people to approach, and that then the people, as represented by the elders, were to ascend the mountain. But nothing is anywhere said of such a signal. It is simpler, with Knobel, thus to understand the direction: “When at the close of the divine appearances and communications an alarm is sounded, and so the people are summoned to start, to separate.” When the tabernacle was finished, this became the sacred meeting-place of the people, to which they were called. Soon afterwards the trumpets summoned them to set forth, perhaps re-enforced, on account of the importance of the occasion, by the jubilee horn, or itself identified with it. 4. The Preparation of the People. Exodus 19:14-15. The direction given by Jehovah respecting the sanctification of the people is further explained by Moses. The distinction between the divine revelation and the human expansion of it appears here as in 1 Corinthians 7. 5. The Signs accompanying the Appearance of Jehovah, the Lawgiver, on Sinai. Exodus 19:16-19. And it came to pass on the third day. Here is another prominent element in the miracle of Sinai, that is generally overlooked, viz., the fact that Moses through divine illumination so definitely predicted that the miraculous occurrence would take place in three days. By identifying him all along with God’s revelation the miraculous mystery of his inner life is obliterated. That there were thunders and lightnings.—All this animated description of the miraculous event Keil takes literally, and following Deuteronomy 4:11; Deuteronomy 5:20 (23), expands the account, although if the mountain was burning in the literal sense of the word so that its flame ascended up to heaven, there would be no place for clouds and cloudy darkness. In a thunder-storm are united both nocturnal darkness and flaming light. Keil quotes various conjectures concerning the trumpet sound. No reference is had to the trumpet sound made by the voice of God in the ghostly sphere of the remorseful conscience of a whole people. But comp. John 12:29. That the darkness indicates the invisibility and unapproachableness of the holy God who veils Himself from mortals even when He discloses Himself, is evident from all the analogies of clouds up to the sacred one in which Christ ascended. Fire has a twofold side, according to man’s attitude towards the divine government; it is therefore, as Keil says, at once the fire of the zeal of anger and the zeal of love. To unite both ideas in one, it is the fire of the power that sanctifies, which therefore purges, transforms, vivifies, and draws upward, as is shown by the ascension of Elijah and the phenomena of the day of Pentecost. The same is true of thunder. Since the law is now given for the first time, this can have nothing to do with the thunder of the last judgment. Vid. on Revelation, p. 197.—All the people trembled. While in this mood they are led by Moses out of the camp to the foot of the mountain. It is, to be sure, hardly to be supposed that this denotes a march from the plain of Rahah into that of Sebaiyeh. “The people, i.e., the men,” says Keil,—a limitation for which there is little reason.—And all mount Sinai smoked.—The view of the scene is renewed and intensified, the nearer the people come to the foot of the mountain. Moses speaking, and God answering.—Glorious definition of the nature of law! All of God’s commands are, so to speak, answers to the commands and questions of God’s chosen servant; they grow out of a reciprocal action of God and the inmost heart of humanity. 6. The Calling of Moses alone up to the Mount, etc. Exodus 19:20-25. And Jehovah said unto Moses.—There must be some significance in the fact that Moses is required again to descend from Sinai, in order repeatedly to charge the people not to cross the limit in order to gaze, because by this sin many might perish. This direction is now even extended to the priests; and in accordance with their position they are exposed to the sentence of death even in the camp unless they sanctify themselves; only Aaron is permitted to go up in company with Moses. So sharp a distinction is made between the theocratic life of the people, between the sphere of sacerdotal ordinances (which, therefore, already exist), and the sphere of revelation, of which Moses is the organ. That Aaron is allowed to accompany him when the first oral revelation of the law is made, indicates that in and with him the priests, and gradually also the whole priestly nation, which begins to assume a priestly relation to mankind in the near presence of the law, are to be lifted up into the light of revelation. Various views of this passage, especially a discussion of Kurtz’s opinion, are to be found in Keil. Knobel finds here “an interpolation of the Jehovist.” Inasmuch now as the narrative makes the law of the ten commandments follow immediately, whilst Moses seems to be standing below with the people, a literal interpretation concludes that Jehovah communicated the ten commandments down from Mt. Sinai immediately to the people, and so “the fundamental law of the theocracy has a precedence over all others” (Knobel; see also Keil, p. 106). The fact that Jehovah has already given answer to Moses on the mountain, is overlooked; as also the passages Exodus 24:15 sqq.; 34; Deuteronomy 5:5; Deuteronomy 33:4, to say nothing of Galatians 3 and other passages. It is true, the representation here is designed to make the impression that the law of the ten commandments, although mediated by Moses, has yet the same authority as if Jehovah had spoken it directly to the people from Sinai; and no less does it express the pre-eminent importance of the ten commandments. The following distinctions are marked: As oral (or spiritual) words Moses receives the divine answers on the mountain (Exodus 19:19). Then God addresses the same words from Sinai in the voices of thunder to the people at the foot of the mountain; and Moses, who stands below with the people, is the interpreter of these voices, as is clearly shown by Deuteronomy 5:5. This oral, spiritual law of principles, which is echoed in the conscience of all the people, as if Jehovah were directly talking with them, is the foundation for the establishment and enforcement of the written law engraved on the stone tablets. Footnotes: [Exodus 19:13. The repetition of the word “touch” (πָ ?βַ ?ς) naturally suggests the thought that the object is the same as in the preceding verse, viz., “mount.” But this cannot be the case. For (1) if this were so, it is not probable that the word “hand” would be used, especially after the more general prohibition. The second prohibition would be weaker than the first, for one would most naturally touch the mountain with the foot, not the hand. But (2) more decisive still is the consideration that the conjunction λִּ ?ι does not admit of this construction. It can here only have the meaning “but” in the sense of the German “sondern,” i.e, “but on the contrary.” As the verse stands in A. V., a reader would most naturally understand “but” to be equivalent to “but that,” and the meaning to be, “No hand shall touch it wilhout his being stoned,” etc., which, however, cannot have been the meaning of the translators, and certainly not of the Hebrew author. On the other hand, it makes no sense to say, “No hand shall touch the mountain, but on the contrary he shell be stoned.” The meaning must be: “No hand shall touch him,” i.e., the offender; “but he shall be killed without such contact by being stoned or shot.”—Tr.] [The last two verbs in this verse are in the Imperfect tense, and hence express continued action. The Hebrew does not say, “when the voice.… waxed louder and londer, [then] Moses spake,” etc., especially not, if “when” is understood to be equivalent to “atter.” We have endeavored to give the true sense by the participial rendering.—Tr.] This is perhaps in general the reason for stoning. [There seems to be no inconsistency between Knobel’s view and that of Keil. The latter understands the sound of the trumpet (Exodus 19:13) to be the signal, and so does Knobel. And both assume that the signal was to follow the promulgation of the law.—Tr.]. SECOND SECTIONThe Threefold Law of the Covenant for the Covenant People on the Basis of the Prophetic, Ethico-religious Divine Law of the Ten Commandments. Historical ProphecyExodus 20-31a.—The ten words, or the ethical law; and the terrified people, or the rise of the need of sacrificial rites Exodus 20:1-211, 2And God spake all these words, saying, I am Jehovah thy God, which [who] have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me [over against me]. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto [upon] 6the third and [and upon the] fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 7Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of [a sabbath unto] Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, 11nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee. 13Thou shalt not kill. 14Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. 18And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed [reeled backward], and stood afar off. 19And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20And Moses said unto the people, Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces [upon you], that ye sin not. 21And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. TEXTUAL AND [The exact meaning of ςַ ?μΞτָּ ?πַ ?ι here and in Deuteronomy 5:7 is disputed. The rendering “before me” was doubtless meant by our Translators to convey the notion, “in my presence” = μְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ι. Perhaps the ordinary reader is apt to understand it to mean, “in preference to me.” Luther, Kalisch, Geddes, Keil, Knobel, Bunsen, and Riggs (Suggested Emendations), following the LXX. (πλὴνἐμοῦ), translate, “besides me.” De Wette, Rosenmόller, Maurer, Philippson, Fόrst, Arnheim, Bush, Murphy, Cook (in Speaker’s Commentary), and Lange, following the Vulgate (“coram me”), translate “before me,” i.e., in my presence. In order to a satisfactory settlement of the question, it is necessary to investigate the use of the phrase ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in general. An examination of all the passages in which it occurs yields the following result: The phrase, followed by a Genitive or a Pronominal Suffix, occurs 210 times. In 125 of these cases, it has its literal sense of “upon the face (or surface) of;” as, e.g., 2 Samuel 17:19, “The woman took and spread a covering over the well’s mouth;” Genesis 50:1, “Joseph fell upon his father’s face;” or it is merely a longer form for the simpler ςַ ?μ (upon); as, e.g., Job 5:10, “Who … sendeth waters upon the fields.” The remaining 85 cases are divided as follows: (1) 28 times ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used in describing the relation of localities to each other. E.g., Judges 16:3, “Samson … carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.” Sometimes (and more properly) in such cases the phrase is rendered “over against” in the A. V. The other passages in which ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?βֵ ?ι is thus used are Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:9; Genesis 25:18; Genesis 49:30; Genesis 50:13; Numbers 21:11; Numbers 33:7; Deuteronomy 32:49; Deuteronomy 34:1; Joshua 13:3; Joshua 13:25; Joshua 15:8; Joshua 17:7; Joshua 18:14; Joshua 18:16; Joshua 19:11; 1 Samuel 15:7; 1 Samuel 26:1; 1 Samuel 26:3; 2 Samuel 2:24; 1 Kings 11:7; 1 Kings 17:3; 1 Kings 17:15; 2 Kings 23:13; Ezekiel 48:15; Ezekiel 48:21; Zechariah 14:4. It is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that in these connections ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι means “to the east of,” according to the Hebrew mode of conceiving of the cardinal points. For in Joshua 18:14 we read of “the hill that lieth before (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) Beth-horon southward;” and in Joshua 15:8, of “the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward.” We are rather to suppose that the phrase indicates such a relation of two places as is expressed by “over against,” the physical conformation of the localities naturally suggesting such a description.—(2) We observe, next, that 13 times ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used of the position of things in relation to buildings. E.g., 1 Kings 6:3, “the porch before the temple.” In the same verse ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι occurs twice more in the same sense. The other passages are 1 Kings 7:6 (bis); Exodus 8:8; 2 Chronicles 3:4 (bis), 8, 17; Exodus 5:9; Ezekiel 40:15; Ezekiel 42:8. In these cases the meaning is obvious: “on the front of,” “confronting.”—(3) Six times ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used in the sense of “towards” or “down upon” after verbs of looking, or (once) of going. E.g., Genesis 18:16, “The men ……… looked toward (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι, down upon) Sodom.” So Genesis 19:28 (bis), Numbers 21:20; Numbers 23:28; 2 Samuel 15:23. Here ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι may be regarded as a fuller form of ςַ ?μ as sometimes used after verbs of motion.—(4) Five times it is used after verbs signifying “pass by,” and is rendered “before.” E. g, Exodus 33:19, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee.” So Exodus 34:6; Genesis 32:22 (21); 2 Samuel 15:18; Job 4:15. In these passages ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι differs from μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι as used, e.g., in 2 Kings 4:31, “Gehazi passed on before them;” where μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι indicates that Gehazi went on in advance of the others; whereas, e.g., in 2 Samuel 15:18, the meaning is that the king stopped, and the others went by him.—(5) In 12 passages ξֵ ?ςַ ?μִ ?Ξτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used after verbs meaning to “cast out,” and is usually rendered “from the presence (or sight) of.” They are 1 Kings 9:7; 2 Kings 13:23; 2 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 24:3; 2 Kings 24:20; 2 Chronicles 7:20; Jeremiah 7:15; Jeremiah 15:1; Jeremiah 23:39; Jeremiah 32:31; Jeremiah 52:3. Possibly also Genesis 23:3, “Abraham stood up from before his dead,” i.e., went away from the presence of; but we may understand it more literally, viz., “stood up from upon the face of.” There is a manifest difference between ξֵ ?ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι and ξִ ?μִּ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι. The former is used of a removal from a state of juxtaposition or opposition. The latter is used in the stricter sense of “from before.” E.g., in Deuteronomy 9:4, “For the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee (ξִ ?μְּ ?τָ ?πֶ ?ικָ).” Here it is not meant that the relation between the Jews and the other nations was to be broken up, but rather that it was never to be formed; whereas, e.g., in Jeremiah 7:15, “I will cast you out of my sight,” the implication is that the people had been near Jehovah, but were now to be banished.—(6) Four times ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used with the meaning, “to the face of.” E.g., Isaiah 45:3, “A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face.” So Job 1:11 (parallel with Exodus 2:5, where ΰֶ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used); Exodus 6:28 (as correctly rendered); Exodus 21:31. Here the notion of hostility, often expressed by the simple ςַ ?μ, is involved.—Similar to these are (7) the three passages, Ezekiel 32:10, Nahum 2:2 (1), and Psalms 21:13 (12), where ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used after verbs descriptive of hostile demonstrations, and means either, literally, “against the face of,” or “over against,” in defiance.—(8) In Exodus 20:20, where the A. V. renders, “that his fear may be before your faces,” the meaning clearly is the same as in such expressions as Exodus 15:16, where the simple ςַ ?μ is used. So Deuteronomy 2:25.—(9) In one case, Psalms 18:43 (42), ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used of tho dust “before” the wind, just as μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι is used in Job 21:18, “They are as stubble before the wind.”—(10) Tho passage, Job 16:14, “He breaketh me with breach upon (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) breach,” has no precise parallel. But here, too, it is most natural to understand ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι as a fuller, poetic form for ςַ ?μ. Comp. Genesis 32:12 (11), “the mother with (ςַ ?μ) the children;” Amos 3:15, “I will smite the winter-house with (ςַ ?μ, i.e., together with, in addition to) the summer-house.”—(11) There are three passages (possibly four), in which ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι has a peculiar meaning, as denoting the relation of two persons to each other. Haran, we are told, Genesis 11:28, “died before (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) his father Terah.” This seems to mean, “died before his father did.” But though such a priority is implied, it is not directly expressed. μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι is sometimes used to denote such priority in time, e.g., Genesis 30:30; Exodus 10:14; Joshua 10:14; but ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is nowhere clearly used in this sense, so that it is more natural to understand it (as the commentators do) here to mean either “in the presence of,” or “during the life-time of.” The next passage, Numbers 3:4, illustrates the meaning: “Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest’s office in the sight of (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) Aaron their father.” It is hardly possible that pains would be taken to lay stress on the fact that Aaron saw them acting the part of priests, especially as the verb λִּ ?δֵ ?ο hardly means anything more than “to be priest.” Not more admissible is the interpretation of Gesenius and others, who here translate ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?βֵ ?ι “under the supervision of.” There is not the faintest analogy for such a meaning of the phrase. At the same time, it is hardly supposable that it can be literally translated, “during the life-time of.” The notion of physical presence, or nearness, is so uniformly involved in ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι that we must, in strictness, here understand it to mean, “over against,” “in view of,” the point of the expression, however, not consisting in the circumstance that Aaron watched them in their ministrations, but that they performed them over against him, i.e., as coupled with him, together with him, (and so) during his life-time. Here belongs also probably Deuteronomy 21:16, “He may not make the son of the beloved first-born before (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) the son of the hated.” One might naturally understand “before” here to mean, “in preference to;” and this certainly would yield an appropriate sense—a sense certainly involved, yet probably not directly expressed. At least there is no clear analogy for such a meaning, unless we find it in the passages now under consideration, viz., Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7. The best commentators understand ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in Deuteronomy 21:16, to mean “during the life-time of.” An analogous use of μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι is found in Psalms 72:5, where it is said of the king, “They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure,” literally “before (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι) the sun and moon.” Similarly Exodus 20:17.—The other of the four passages above mentioned is Genesis 25:18. There we read: “He (i.e., Ishmael) died (literally, fell) in the presence of (ςַ ?μΞτּ ?πֵ ?ι) his brethren.” There is now, however, general unanimity in translating πָ ?τָ ?μ here “settled” rather than “died,” so that the passage is to be reckoned in the following class, in which also the relation of persons to each other is expressed, but in a somewhat different sense.—(12) Knobel explains ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in Genesis 25:18 as = “to the east of.” So Del., Lange, Keil, Maurer, De W., and others. But, as we have already seen, ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι does not have this meaning. This passage is to be explained by the parallel one, Genesis 16:12, where it is also said of Ishmael, “He shall dwell in the presence of (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) all his brethren.” Here the context is, “His hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι all his brethren.” Keil and Lange are unable to satisfy themselves with the interpretation “east of” here; and it is clear that that would not be a statement at all in place here, even if ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι ordinarily had the meaning “east of.” Evidently the angel expresses the fact that the Ishmaelites were to dwell over against their brethren as an independent, defiant, nation. If so, then Exodus 25:18 is to be understood in the same way, as a statement of the fulfilment of the prophecy here made. In addition to these two passages there are three others in which the relation of persons to each other is expressed. They are Leviticus 10:3, Psalms 9:20 (19), and Jeremiah 6:7. In the first we read that Jehovah said, “Before (ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι) all the people I will be glorified;” this is preceded by the statement, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.” The verse follows the account of the destruction of Nadah and Abihu. To render “in view of,” or “in the presence of,” would make good and appropriate sense; and certainly it is implied that by the summary punishment of the presumptuous priests Jehovah intended to glorify Himself in the sight of His people. Yet, while men are frequently represented as being or acting before (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι) Jehovah, it is extremely unusual to speak of Jehovah as being or doing anything before (in the sight of) men. And since, if that were here meant, μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι would probably have been used, it is much better here to understand the meaning to be “over against,” implying separation and contrast. Likewise Psalms 9:20 (19): “Let the heathen be judged in thy sight (ςַ ?μΞτָּ ?πֶ ?ικָ).” Certainly the meaning cannot simply be: Let the heathen be judged, while God looks on as a spectator. God is Himself the judge; and the heathen are to be judged over against Him; i.e., in such a way as to exhibit the contrast between them and Him. There remains only Jeremiah 6:7, “Before me (ςָ ?μΞτָּ ?πַ ?ι) continually is grief and wounds.” The context describes the prospective destruction of Jerusalem. Her wickedness is described in Exodus 20:7 : “As a fountain casteth out her waters, so she casteth out her wickedness; violence and spoil is heard in her; before me continually is grief and wounds (sickness and blows).” Undoubtedly this implies that the manifestations of the wickedness of the people were in Jehovah’s sight; but here, too, there is implied the notion that these things are over against Him: on the one side, Jehovah in His holiness: on the other, Jerusalem in her wickedness. This conception is naturally suggested by the representation that Jehovah is about to make war upon her. Having now given a complete exhibition of the use of ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in all the other passages, we are prepared to consider what it means in the first commandment. Several things may be regarded as established: (i) ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is far from being synonymous with μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι. The latter is used hundreds of times in the simple sense of “before” in reference to persons; the former is used most frequently of places, and in all cases ςַ ?μ has more or less of its ordinary meaning, “upon,” or “against” (over against), (ii) The phrase has nowhere unequivocally the meaning “besides.” The nearest approach to this is in Job 16:14, under (10), where ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι may be rendered “in addition to.” But this is not quite the same as “besides,” and the phrase has there evidently a poetic use. A solitary case like this, where too not persons, but things, are spoken of, is altogether insufficient to establish the hypothesis that ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in the first commandment means “besides.” (iii) The most general notion conveyed by the phrase in question is that of one object confronting another. Leaving out of account, as of no special pertinency, those instances in which it verges upon the literal sense of “upon (or against) the face of,” and those in which the meaning of ςַ ?μ predominates, (viz., classes (3), (6), (7), (8), (10), we find that all others are sufficiently explained by this generic notion of confronting. Thus, in all the cases where places are spoken of as ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι one another, class (1); where objects are described as in front of buildings, class (2); and where persons are spoken of as passing in front of others, class (4).—So, too, in the cases in which ξֵ ?ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used, class (5), in every instance it follows a verb which implies a previous state of hostility; men are to be removed from being over against Jehovah, from confronting Him with their offensive deeds.—So the instance in Psalms 18:43 (42), class (9); the dust before the wind is compared with God’s enemies destroyed by Him; the dust confronting the wind illustrates the powerlessness of men confronting an angry God.—So the examples under (12). The translation “over against” satisfies all of the cases. A relation of contrast and opposition is implied.—Likewise, also, the three passages under (11). The son of the beloved wife (Deuteronomy 21:16) is not to bo invested with the rights of primogeniture over against the son of the hated one, i.e., in contrast with, distinction from, the other one, while yet by natural right the latter is entitled to the privilege. The phrase ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι may here, therefore, be understood to mean “in preference to,” or “in the life-time of,” but neither one nor the other literally and directly, yet both one and the other by implication. In Numbers 3:4 Aaron’s sons are represented as being priests over against their father, i.e., not succeeding him, but together with him, as two hills, instead of being distant from one another, are, as it were, companions, confronting each other. So in Genesis 11:28 Haran is said to have died over against his father. In his death he confronted his father, i.e., did not, as most naturally happens, die after him, when his father would have been taken away from being with him. By thus anticipating his father in his decease he, as it were, passed in front of him, confronted him, so that this case is quite analogous to those under class (4). In this case, therefore, as in some others, tho meaning of ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι closely borders upon that of μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι, yet is not the same. The application of this discussion to Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 is obvious. Israel is to have no other gods “over against” Jehovah. The simple meaning “before,” i.e., in the presence of, would have little point and force, and besides would have been expressed by μְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ι. The meaning “besides” would have been expressed by ζεּ ?μָ ?ϊִ ?ι ,αִּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?γַ ?ι, or some other of the phrases having that meaning. The meaning “over against,” the usual meaning of the phrase, is perfectly appropriate here. All false gods are opposed to tho true God. The worship of them is incompatible with the worship of Jehovah. The command therefore is, “Thou shalt have no other gods to confront me,” to be set up as rival objects of service and adoration. All that is pertinent in the other two renderings is involved hero. Gods that are set up over against Jehovah may be said to be before Him, in His sight; that they are gods besides, in addition to, Him, is a matter of course: but, more than this, they are gods opposed to Him.—Tr.]. AND Analysis.—The whole Mosaic legislation is typical and Messianic. Typical, as is, evident from the existence of Deuteronomy, inasmuch as this presents the first instance of an interpretation which gives to the law a more profound and spiritual meaning. Messianic, for the ten commandments contain a description of Christ’s active obedience, whilst the sacrificial rites contain the leading features of His passive obedience. Everywhere in the three books are shadowed forth the three offices of the Messiah. The first book comprises, together with the prophetico-ethical covenant law of the ten commandments, also the outlines of the ceremonial and social (civil) law, because those two subjects of legislation flow as consequences out of the ethical law. The priesthood (or the church) and the state depend, in their unity as well as in their diversity, on the ethico-religious legislation of the life of the God-man. The first form of elemental ethico-religious, but therefore all-embracing legislation, comprises the law, the festivals, and the house, of the covenant (chaps. 20–31). It is different from the second form of the legislation (chaps. 32–34 sqq) on account of the breaking of the covenant. This first legislation, the law or book of the covenant in the narrower sense, is evidently the outline of the whole legislation. The presentation of the prophetico-ethical law is found in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:1-17); the outline of the ceremonial law and the reasons for it follow on (Exodus 20:18-26); in conclusion comes the third part, the outline of the social laws of the Israelites (21–23). Three questions are here to be settled: (1) How are the several acts of legislation related to the history? (2) How are the several groups of laws related to each other? (3) How is there indicated in this relation a gradual development of legislation? As to the ten commandments in particular, we are to consider: (1) the form of the promulgation; (2) the relation of the law in Exodus to the phase it presents in Deuteronomy; (3) the analysis of the ten commandments themselves. That the laws are not artificially introduced into the history of Israel, as e.g. Bertheau assumes, is shown by their definite connection with the historical occasions of them. Thus, e.g., the law of the ten commandments is occasioned by the vow of covenant obedience made beforehand by the people. The ceremonial law as a law of atonement is occasioned by the fright and flight of the people at the thunders of Sinai (Exodus 20:21). Thus the holy nation is established; and not till now is there occasion for the theocratico-social legislation, according to which every individual is to be recognised as a worthy member of this nation. The setting up of the golden calf furnished historical occasion for special precepts. The gradually progressive legislation recorded in the Book of Numbers most markedly illustrates the influence of historical events. We have before become acquainted with similar instances. This is true in a general way of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The commands concerning the sanctification of the firstborn and concerning the reckoning of time refer to the exodus from Egypt. The hallowing of the seventh day is connected with the gift of manna; the bitter water occasions the fundamental law of hygienics, Exodus 15. The attack of Amalek is the actual foundation of the ordinance concerning holy wars. So in earlier times the Noachian command (Genesis 9) was a law which looked back to the godless violence of the perished generation; it connected the command to reverence God with the precept to hold human life sacred. So the fundamental command of the covenant with Abraham, the command of circumcision, as a symbol of generation consecrated with reference to regeneration, appears after the history of the expulsion of Ishmael, who was born according to the flesh (comp. Genesis 17 with Genesis 16). But that the book of Deuteronomy—according to the memorabilia on which it is founded—grew out of the danger that Israel might be led by the giving of the law to decline into observance of the mere letter, we have already elsewhere noticed. It may be remarked by the way that the Song of Moses and Moses’ Blessing at the close of Deuteronomy seem like the heart’s blood of the whole book, a song of cursing, and a song of blessing; in the Psalter and prophetic books scarcely anything similar can be found. How are the individual groups of laws related to one another? That they essentially and unconditionally require one another, and that accordingly they could not have appeared separately, is not hard to show. The decalogue, taken by itself, would lead into scholastic casuistry; the system of sacrifice, taken by itself, into magic rites; the political marshalling of the host, into despotism or greed of conquest. Compare Schleiermacher’s argument in his “Dogmatik,” to show that the three offices of Christ require each other. From what has been said it follows also that the development of the legislation was gradual. We may distinguish four stages in the Mosaic period: (1) The Passover as the foundation of the whole legislation, and the several special laws up to the arrival at Sinai (primogeniture, reckoning of time, sanitary regulation, Sabbath); (2) the covenant law, or book of the covenant, before the covenant was broken by the erecting of the golden calf; (3) the expansion and modification of the law, on account of the breach of the covenant, in the direction of the hierarchy, the ritual, and the beginning of the proclamation of grace in the name of Jehovah; (4) the deeper and more inward meaning given to the law in Deuteronomy, as an introduction to the age of the Psalms and Prophets. The Form of the Promulgation of the DecalogueWe assume that this form is indicated in Exodus 19:19. The passage, Deuteronomy 5:4, “Jehovah talked with you face to face in the mount,” is defined by Exodus 20:5, “I stood between Jehovah and you at that time, to show you the word of Jehovah.” In spite of this declaration and the mysterious passages, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2, the notion has arisen, not only among the Jews, but also within the sphere of Christian scholastic theology, that God spoke audibly from Mt. Sinai to the whole people. Vid. Keil, II. p. 106 sqq. Buxt.: “Hebrζorum interpretes ad unum pζne omnes: deum verba decalogi per se immediate locutum esse, dei nempe potentia, non autem angelorum opera ac ministerio voces in aλre formatas fuisse.” The interpolation of spirits of nature by von Hofmann (vid. Keil, p. 108) must be as far from the reality as from the literal meaning of the language. It must not be forgotten that Moses, at the head of his people in the breadless and waterless desert, moves, as it were, on the border region of this world. A sort of symbolical element is without doubt to be found even in the Rabbinical tradition, that God spoke from Sinai in a language which divided itself into all the languages of the seventy nations, and extended audibly over all the earth;—evidently a symbol of the fact that the language of the ten commandments gave expression to the language of the conscience of all mankind. The Relation of the Law in Exodus to the Form of it in DeuteronomyFirst of all is to be noticed that in the most literal part of the Holy Scriptures, where everything seems to depend on the most exact phraseology, viz., in the statement of the law, there is yet not a perfect agreement between the two statements; just as is the case in the N.T. with the Lord’s Prayer, and in church history with the ecumenical symbols, which, moreover, have failed to agree on a seven-fold division of it. Keil rightly makes the text in Exodus the original one; whilst Kurtz, in a manner hazardous for his standpoint, inverts the relation, making the form in Deuteronomy the original one. Both of them overlook the fact that according to the spirit of the letter the one edition is as original as the other. We have already (Genesis, p. 92) attempted to explain the reason of the discrepancies which Keil in note 1, II., p. 105, has cited. In the repetition of the Sabbath law the ethical and humane bearing of it is unmistakably made prominent (Deuteronomy 5:15), as in relation to the tenth commandment the wife is put before the house. In the form of the command to honor father and mother, the blessing of prosperity is made more emphatic. The expressions ςֵ ?γωָׁ ?εְ ?ΰ for ϊִּ ?ϊְ ?ΰַ ?εֶּ ?δ ,ςֵ ?γωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ for the repetition of ϊַּ ?ηְ ?ξֹ ?γ (in the second part of the tenth commandment) savor also of a spiritualizing tendency. By the copula ε, moreover, the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” and the following ones are, so to speak, united into one commandment. Furthermore is to be noticed the difference between the first oral proclamation of the law through the mediation of Moses and the engraved inscription of it on two tablets. This begins after the solemn ratification of the covenant, Exodus 24:15, Exodus 31:18 Exodus 32:19, Exodus 34:1. Thus at this point also in the giving of the law the oral revelation precedes the written, although at the same point the revealed word and the written word blend intimately together, in order typically to exhibit the intimate relation between the two throughout the Holy Scriptures. A positive command of Holy Scripture has already been made, Exodus 17:14 : eternal war against Amalek, in a typical sense. The fact also is of permanent significance, that Aaron the priest was making the golden calf for the people at the same time that Moses on the mount was receiving the tables of the law. That the ten commandments were written on the two tables, that therefore the ethico-religious law of the covenant is divided into ten commandments, is affirmed in Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy 10:4. But on the question, how they are to be counted, and how divided between the two tables, opinions differ. Says Keil: “The words of the covenant, or the ten commandments, were written by God on two tables of stone (Exodus 31:18), and, as being the sum and kernel of the law, are called as early as in Exodus 24:12 δַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δεְ ?δַ ?ξִּ ?φְ ?εֹ ?δֹ [the law and the commandment]. But as to their number, and their twofold division, the Biblical text furnishes neither positive statements nor certain indications—a clear proof that these points are of less importance than dogmatic zeal has often attached to them. In the course of the centuries two leading views have been developed. Some divide the commandments into two divisions of five each, and assign to the first table the commandments respecting (1) other gods, (2) images, (3) the name of God, (4) the Sabbath, and (5) parents; to the second those concerning (1) murder, (2) adultery, (3) stealing, (4) false witness, and (5) covetousness. Others assign to the first table three commandments, and to the second, seven. They specify, as the first three, the commandments concerning (1) other gods, (2) the name of God, (3) the Sabbath; which three comprise the duties owed to God: and, as the seven of the second table, those concerning (1) parents, (2) murder, (3) adultery, (4) stealing, (5) false witness, (6) coveting one’s neighbor’s house, (7) coveting a neighbor’s wife, servants, cattle, and other possessions; as comprising the duties owed to one’s neighbor.—The first opinion, with the division into two tables of five commandments each, is found in Josephus (Ant. III., 5, 8) and Philo (Quis rer. divin. hζr. § 35, De Decal. § 12 et al.). It is unanimously approved by the church fathers of the first four centuries, and has been retained by the Oriental and Reformed churches to this day. The later Jews also agree with this, so far as that they assume only one commandment respecting covetousness, but dissent from it in that they unite the prohibition of images with the prohibition of strange gods, but regard the introductory sentence, “I am Jehovah, thy God,” as the first commandment. This method of enumeration, of which the first traces are found in Julian, the Apostate, quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julianum, Lib. V. init., and in a casual remark of Jerome on Hosea 10:10, is certainly of later origin, and perhaps propounded only from opposition to the Christians; but it still prevails among the modern Jews. The second leading view was brought into favor by Augustine; and before him no one is known to have advocated it. In Quζst. 71 in Exod., Augustine expresses himself on the question how the ten commandments are to be divided: (“Utrum quatuor sint usque ad prζceptum de Sabbatho, quζ ad ipsum Deum pertinent, sex autem reliqua quorum primum: Honor a patrem et matrem, quζ ad hominem pertinent: an potius illa tria sint et ista septem”) after a further presentation of the two views, as follows: “Mihi tamen videntur congruentius accipi illa tria et ista septem, quoniam Trinitatem videntur illa quζ ad Deum pertinent, insinuare diligentius intuentibus;” and he then aims to show, further, that by the prohibition of images the prohibition of other gods is only explained “perfectius,” while the prohibition of covetousness, although “concupiscentia uxoris alienζ et concupiscentia domus alienζ tantum in peccando differant,” is divided by the repetition of the “non concupisces” into two commandments. In this division Augustine, following the text of Deuteronomy, generally reckoned the command not to covet one’s neighbor’s wife as the ninth, though in individual passages, following the text of Exodus, he puts the one concerning the neighbor’s house first (vid. Geffken, Ueber die verschiedene Eintheilung des Dekalogs, Hamburg, 1838, p. 174). Through Augustine’s great influence this division of the commandments became the prevalent one in the Western church, and was also adopted by Luther and the Lutheran church, with the difference, however, that the Catholic and Lutheran churches, following Exodus, made the ninth commandment refer to the house, while only a few, with Augustine, gave the preference to the order as found in Deuteronomy 2 We have the more readily borrowed the language of a decided Lutheran on this question, inasmuch as he, in distinction from some others who seem to regard adherence to the mediζval division as essential to Lutheran orthodoxy, displays a commendable impartiality. The leading reasons for the ancient, theocratic division are the following: (1) The transposition of the first object of covetousness in Exodus and Deuteronomy, “thy neighbor’s house,” “thy neighbor’s wife.” The advocates of the ecclesiastical view would here rather assume a corruption of the text, even in the tables of the law, than see in this transposition a weaving of the two precepts into one commandment. (2) The difference, amply established by sacred history, as well as by the history of religion in general, between the worship of symbolic images, and the worship of mythological deities: in accordance with which distinction the two prohibitions are not to be blended into one commandment. (3) Of very special importance is the brief explanation of the law given by Paul in Romans 7:7 with the words, “Thou shalt not covet.” According to this explanation, the emphasis rests on the prohibition of covetousness, and the expansion “thy neighbor’s house,” etc., serves merely to exemplify it. But when the commandment is divided into two, the chief force of the prohibition rests on the several objects of desire, so that these two last commandments would lead one to make the law consist in the vague prohibition of external things, and need to be supplemented by a great “etc.;” whereas the emphasizing of covetousness as an important point leads one to refer the law to the inward life, and, so understood, looks back to the spiritual foundation of the whole law in the first commandment, whilst a kindred element of spirituality is found in the middle of the law, connected with the precept to honor father and mother.—As to the distribution of the law into two ideal tables, the division into two groups of five commandments each is favored especially by the fact that all the commandments of the second table from the sixth commandment on are connected by the conjunction ε [“and;” in the A. V. rendered, together with the negative, “neither”] in Deuteronomy (Exodus 20:17, etc.). Moreover, in favor of the same division is the consideration that parents in the fifth commandment stand as representatives of the Deity and of the divine rule. As the first commandment expresses the law of true religion, and the second, the requirement to make one’s religious conceptions spiritual and to keep them pure; so the three following commandments evidently designate ramifications of religious conduct: the duty of maintaining the sanctity of religious knowledge and doctrine; of religious humanity (or of worship), and of the most original nursery of religion, the household, and of its most original form, piety. Nevertheless, when one would divide the ten commandments between the two actual tables of Moses, he fails to find distinct indications; hardly, however, can the assumption be established that only the precepts themselves stood on the tables, but not the reasons that are given for some of them. As to the whole system of the Mosaic legislation, we are to consider the arrangement which Bertheau has made in his work “Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Bόchern des Pentateuchs” (Gφttingen, 1840). According to him, the number 7, multiplied by 10, taken seven times, lies at the foundation of the arrangement. We have already observed that we do not regard as well grounded the dissolution of the Mosaic code of laws from history as its basis. Moreover, a clear carrying out of the system would show that we could regard the origin of it only as instinctive, not as the conscious work of Rabbinic design. The ten commandments, Exodus 20:1-17, form the introduction of this arrangement. But the ritual law follows immediately, beginning with a group, not of ten, but of four laws, Exodus 20:28 sqq. 1. The Lawgiver. That Jehovah is the lawgiver does not exclude the mediation mentioned Galatians 3:19 and elsewhere. Comp. Comm. on Genesis 6:1-8. Quite as little, however, does this mediation obscure the name of the lawgiver, Jehovah. Keil (II. p. 114) inconclusively opposes the view of Knobel, who takes the first words, “I am Jehovah,” as a confession, or as the foundation of the whole theocratic law. Just because the words have this force, are they also the foundation of the obligation of the people to keep the theocratic commandments. For the lawgiver puts the people under the highest obligation by their recognising him as benefactor and liberator. An absolute despot as such is no lawgiver. Israel’s law is based on his typical liberation, and his obedience to the law on faith in that liberation. The law itself is the objective form in which for educational purposes the obligations are expressed, which are involved in its foundation. 2. The first Commandment. The absolute negation μֹ ?ΰ stands significantly at the beginning. So further on. Antithetic to it is the absolute ΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ι [“I”] of Jehovah at the opening of His commandments.—ιִ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, the gods become, spring up gradually in the conceptions of the sinful people, hence ΰֲ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιν ּ ?μְ ?κָ in connection with ΰֱ ?μֹ ?διν is to be explained as = ἕτεροι (according to Galatians 1:6) with the LXX. and the Vulgate (alieni, foreign), not = alii, other. ςַ ?μΞλָּ ?πָ ?ι may mean before my face, over against my face, against my face, besides my face, beyond it. The central feature of the thought may be: beyond my personal, revealed form, and in opposition to it—recognizing, together with the error a remnant of religiosity in the worship of the gods.—The “coram me” of the Vulgate expresses one factor of the notion, as Luther’s “neben mir” [“by my side”] does another. [vid. under “Textual and Grammatical”]. 3. The Prohibition of Image Worship, Exodus 20:4-6. Image, τֶּ ?ρֶ ?μ, from τָּ ?ρַ ?μ, to hew wood or stone. It therefore denotes primarily a plastic image. ϊְּ ?ξεּ ?πָ ?δ does not signify an image made by man, but only a form which appears to him, Numbers 12:8, Deuteronomy 4:12; Deuteronomy 4:15 sqq., Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15. In Deuteronomy 5:8 (comp. Exodus 4:16) we find τֶּ ?ρֶ ?μλָּ ?μΞϊְּ ?ξεּ ?πָ ?δ, “image of any form.” Accordingly εְ ?λָ ?μΞϊְּ ?ξεּ ?πָ ?δ is here to be taken as explanatory of ‬ ?τֶּ ?ρֶ ?μ, and ε as explicative, “even any form” (Keil). “Image” is therefore used absolutely in the sense of religious representation of the Deity, and the various forms are conceived as the forms of the image. Comp. Deuteronomy 4:15, “for ye saw no manner of similitude [no form] on the day that Jehovah spake unto you in Horeb.” The medium of legislation therefore continued to be a miracle of hearing; it became a miracle of sight only in the accompanying phenomena given for the purpose of perpetually preventing every kind of image-worship.—In heaven. Keil says: “on the heaven,” explaining it as referring to the birds, and not the angels, at the most, according to Deuteronomy 4:19, as perhaps including the stars. The angels proper could not possibly have been meant as copies of Jehovah, since they themselves appear only in visions; and even if the constellations were specially meant, yet they too were for the most part pictorially represented [and in this sense only is the worship of them here prohibited]. The worship of stars as such is covered by the first commandment. Comp. Romans 1.—Under the earth. Beneath, under the level of the solid land, lower than it. Marine creatures are therefore meant. This commandment deals throughout only with religious conduct. The bowing down designates the act of adoration; the serving denotes the system of worship. Keil quotes from Calvin: “quod stulte quidam putarunt, hic damnari sculpturas et picturas quaslibet, refutatione non indiget.” Still it is clear from Romans 1 that the gradual transition from the over-estimate of the symbolical image to the superstitious reverence for it is included. According to Keil the threat and promise following the second commandment refer to the two first as being embraced in a higher unity. But this higher unity is resolvable in this way, that the sin against the second commandment is to be regarded as the source of the sin against the first. With image worship, or the deification of symbols, idolatry begins. Hence image worship is condemned as being the germ of the whole succeeding development of sin. That which in the classical writings of the Greeks and Romans is signified by ὕβρις, the fatal beginning of a connected series of crimes which come to a conclusion only in one or more tragic catastrophes, is signified in the theocratic sphere by ςָ ?εֹ ?ο, perversion, perverseness. The evil-doing of the fathers has a genealogical succession which cannot be broken till the third or fourth generations (grandchildren and great-grandchildren) are visited. This is shown also by the Greek tragedy, and the third and fourth generation is still to be traced in the five acts of the modern tragedy. Now the image-worshipper is worse than the idolater in that he makes this fatal beginning. But as the ὕβρις proceeds from an insolence towards the gods which may be called hatred, so also image-worship arises out of an insolent apostasy from the active control of the pure conception of God, from the control of the Spirit. In the Old Testament, it is the golden calves of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba which are followed by such catastrophes in Israel. It may also be asked: What has the mediζval image-worship cost certain European nations in particular? That the hereditary guilt thus contracted forms no absolute fatality, is shown by the addition, “of them that hate me.” This is a condition, or limitation, which is echoed in the ἐφ’ ᾦπάντεςἥμαρτον of Romans 5:12. But the condition cannot be made the foundation, as is done by Keil, who says that by the words μְ ?ωׂ ?πְ ?ΰַ ?ι and μְ ?ΰֹ ?δֲ ?αַ ?ι [“of them that hate me” and “of them that love me”] the punishment and the grace are traced back to their ultimate ground. This would vitiate the force of what he afterwards says of the organic relations of humanity. The organic hereditary conditions of guilt, of which even the heathen know how to speak (vid. Keil, p. 117), are limited by morally guilty actions. Because reference is here made to organic consequences, the fathers themselves are not mentioned. Because the transmission of the curse is hindered by the counter influence of ethical forces and natures, checks grow up as early as between the third and fourth generations. The sovereignty of grace is concerned in this, as also in the opposite parallel, “unto the thousands,” i.e., unto a thousand generations. This wonderfully subtle and profound doctrine of original sin is not Augustinian, inasmuch as it assumes special cases of sin and individual and generic counteracting influences within the sphere of the general condition of sin. It is, however, still less Pelagian; yet, as compared with the notion of guilt embodied in the Greek tragedians, it is exceedingly mild. The hereditary descendants of such a guilty parentage fill up the measure of the guilt of their fathers, Matthew 23:32. In this passage also the notion of guilt, as distinguished from that of sin, is brought out. Guilt is the organic side of sin; sin is the ethical side of guilt. The whole judicial economy, moreover, is founded on the jealousy of God; i.e., as being the absolute personality, He insists that persons shall not dissolve the bond of personal communion with Him, that they shall not descend from the sphere of love into that of sensuous conceptions. 4. The third commandment. The sin against the first commandment banishes the name of Jehovah by means of idol names; the sin against the second obscures and disfigures it; the sin against this third one abuses it. Here then the name, the right apprehension, or at least knowledge and confession, of the name, are presupposed; but the correctness of the apprehension is hypocritically employed by the transgressor of this commandment in the interest of selfishness and vice. According to Keil πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰωֵׁ ?ν does not mean “to utter the name,” and ωָׁ ?εְ ?ΰ does not mean “lie.” But to lift up a name must surely mean to lift it up by uttering it, though doubtless in a solemn way; and though ωָׁ ?εְ ?ΰ signifies wasteness and emptiness, yet it is here to be understood of wasteness and emptiness in speech. The moral culmination of this sin is perjury, Leviticus 19:12 : hypocrisy in the application of sacred things to criminal uses, especially also sorcery in all forms.—Here the punitive retribution is put immediately upon the person who sins, as an unavoidable one which surely finds its object, and whose law rests on the nature of Jehovah Himself. 5. Exodus 20:9-11. Here is to be considered: (1) The significance of the law of the Sabbath; (2) the institution of the Sabbath; (3) the ordinance of the Sabbath; (4) the reason for the Sabbath. The idea of the Sabbath will never be rightly apprehended, unless it is seen to be a union of two laws. The first is the ethical law of humanity, which here predominates; the second is the strictly religious law, which is made prominent in Leviticus 23. The law of the Sabbath would not stand in the decalogue, if it did not have a moral principle to establish as much as the commandments not to kill, commit adultery, or steal. The physical nature shall not be worn out, dishonored, and slowly murdered by restless occupation. Hence the specification: “No kind of work or business;” and that, not only in reference to son and daughter, man-servant and maid-servant, but also in reference to the beasts themselves and the stranger within the gates of Israel (i.e., in their cities and villages, not in the houses of the stranger), as the foreigner might imagine that he could publicly emancipate himself from this sacred humane ordinance. This point is brought out in Deuteronomy 5:14-15; Exodus 23:12. It is seen further on, in the sabbatical year and in the great year of jubilee, Reference is made to it in Deuteronomy 16:11.—That there existed already a tradition of the Sabbath rest, may be inferred from the tradition of the days of creation; so also circumcision as a custom prevailed before the institution of it as a sacrament. But that circumcision, as a patriarchal law, symbolically comprehending all the ten commandments, continued to outrank the Mosaic law of the Sabbath, which was not till now raised to the rank of one of the chief ethical commandments, is shown by the Jewish custom as indicated in Christ’s declaration, John 7:22-23.—The ordinance of the Sabbath first specifies the subjects of the command: “Those who are to rest are divided into two classes by the omission of the conjunction ε before ςַ ?αְ ?γְּ ?κָ ?” (Keil). Next, the degree of rest: “ξְ ?μָ ?ΰλָ ?δ, business (comp. Genesis 2:2), in distinction from ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ, labor, means not so much the lighter work (Schultz) as rather, in general, the accomplishment of any task, whether hard or easy; ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ is the execution of a particular work, whether agricultural (Psalms 104:23), or mechanical (Exodus 39:32), or sacerdotal, including both the priestly service and the labor necessary for the performance of the ritual (Exodus 12:25 sq., Numbers 4:47). On the Sabbath, as also on the day of atonement (Leviticus 23:28; Leviticus 23:31) every employment was to cease; on the other feast-days, only laborious occupations, ξְ ?μֶ ?ΰλֶ ?ϊςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ (Leviticus 23:7 sqq.), i.e., occupations which come under the head of toilsome labor, civil business, and the prosecution of one’s trade” (Keil).—The reason: “for in six days,” etc. “This implies that God blessed and hallowed the seventh day because He rested on it” (Keil). According to Schultz man should, in a degree, make the pulsations of the divine life his own. So much is certainly true, that the rhythmical antithesis between labor and rest in the divine creation should be not only the prototype, but also the rule for human activity. All the more, inasmuch as not only human nature, but nature in general, needs intervals of rest to keep it from being consumed with disquietude. Hence the commandment contains an ethical principle, a law designed to secure vigor of life, as the sixth commandment protects life itself, Exodus 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:14 sq. Furthermore is to be considered that the seventh day of God has a beginning, but no end; accordingly man’s day of rest should have its issue, not in time, but in eternity (vid. Hebrews 4:10, Revelation 14:13). Keil would here make a distinction between the labor of Paradise and labor after the fall; but the typical days of creation preceded the fall. The positive side of the day of rest, the solemn celebration, first appears in the form of the ritual law of the Sabbath. The ritual makes the day of rest a festival. And, inasmuch as the festival is the soul of the day of rest, a day in which man should rest, and keep holy day in God, as on that day God rests and keeps holy day in man, it could also be transformed from the Jewish Sabbath into the Christian Sunday. 6. Exodus 20:12. The fifth commandment. This concludes the first table, and forms at the same time a transition to the second. “In the requisition of honor to parents it lays the foundation for the sanctification of all social life, in that it teaches us to recognise a divine authority in it” (Oehler, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopδdie, under “Dekalog”). In the parental house the distinction between the dynamical majority that is to train and govern, and the numerical majority which is to be subject to the other, becomes conspicuous: one pair of parents, and perhaps two, three, or four times as many children. Here the government of an absolute majority would be an absolute absurdity. On the fifth commandment vid. Keil, p. 122. 7. The sixth commandment. The protection of life in its existence. It is at the same time the basis of all the following commandments. Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Hence killing, when permitted or even commanded, is to be regarded as in principle a consequence of the duty of the preservation of life in the higher sense. So the seventh commandment serves to protect marriage as the source of life and the means of keeping it pure; the eighth commandment, to protect property and equity, as the condition of the dignity of life; the ninth commandment, to protect truth and the judiciary against falsehood and slander, as being the spiritual vitiation of life; the tenth commandment, to guard the issues of life from within outwards. The progress from violence to seduction, and thence on to fraud, prepares the way for the transition to the chief sin of the tongue and the chief sin of the thought, primarily as related to one’s neighbor. On this “mirum et aptum ordinem,” as Luther calls it, see Keil II., p. 123. Thus the circle is formed; the law returns to the beginning: only by the sanctification of the heart according to the tenth commandment can the worship of God according to the first commandment be secured.—Not kill. Every thing belonging here is taught in the catechism; vid. also Keil, p. 123 (comp. Genesis 9:6). In the exposition, suicide, the killing of beasts, etc., are to be considered. By the omission of the object the emphasis lying on the notion of killing is strengthened. In so far as the beast has no complete life, it cannot be killed in the same sense as a man can be. But every form of cruelty to beasts is an offence against the image of human life. 8. Not commit adultery. This commandment holds the same relation to the sixth as the second to the first. Idolatry proper corresponds with the murder of one’s neighbor, the latter being an offence against the divine in man. Image-worship, however, corresponds with adultery, as this too rests on a subtle deification of the image of man; it is spiritual idolatry, as image-worship is spiritual adultery, Leviticus 20:10. Here observe also the expansion of the thought in the catechism, according to which simple whoredom too in all its forms, as well as unchastity, is included. 9. Not steal.Vid. the expansion, Exodus 21:33; Exodus 22:13; Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 22:1-4. The correspondence between this commandment and the misuse of the name of God, which robs God of His honor, is also not to be overlooked. In the case of false oaths in business the two offences coalesce. 10. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. ςֵ ?γωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ, Deut. ςֵ ?γωָׁ ?εְ ?ΰ, an intensification of the expression. “Not only every lying, but in general every untrue and unfounded, testimony is forbidden; also not only testimony before the judge, but in general every untrue testimony” (Keil). Aside from the fact that the judicial oaths in court form a sort of religious ceremony, which reminds one of the law of the Sabbath, it is also the office of the Sabbath to suppress the false excitements of the week of labor, out of which sins of the tongue, especially also false testimony, proceed. 11. Thou shalt not covet. The emphasis lies on coveting, not on the several objects of coveting. This emphasis of the inward state is made secure by reckoning the commandment as one. “The repetition of μֹ ?ΰϊηֲ ?ξֹ ?γ [‘thou shalt not covet’] no more proves that the words form two distinct commandments than the substitution of ϊִּ ?ϊְ ?ΰַ ?εּ ?δ [‘desire’] for ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?ξֹ ?γ [‘covet’] in Deuteronomy 5:18 (21)” (Keil). The repetition in Exodus gives prominence to the thought that the house, the sum total of domestic life, as a unit, is superior to the individual; in Deut., that the wife, ideally considered, is superior to the house (Proverbs 12:4; Proverbs 31:10). Vid. Keil’s note in reply to Kurtz, who regards the text in Exodus as corrupt. The relation between the fifth and the tenth commandment is less marked, yet it may be said: a genuine pupil of a pious house will not covet his neighbor’s house. The house of God in the pious family keeps peace with the house of the neighbor. Every house is to the pious man a house consecrated by justice, like a house of God. The EffectExo_20:18-21; Deuteronomy 5:23-33. According to Keil, the frightful phenomena under which the Lord manifested His majesty made the designed impression on the people. It was indeed designed that the people should be penetrated with the fear of God, in order that they might not sin; but not that in their fear they should stand off and beg Moses as their mediator to talk with God. Hence it is said, “God is come to try you.” A trial is always a test, which, through the influence of false notions, may occasion a twofold view of it. That the Jews as sinners should be startled by the phenomena of the majesty of God, was the intent of this revelation; but that they should retire trembling and desire a mediator, was a misunderstanding occasioned by their carnal fear and spiritual sluggishness. Here, therefore, is the key to the understanding of the hierarchy. The lay feeling of the people desired a mediating priesthood, which the person of Moses first had to represent. For the priest is the man who can dare to approach God without being overwhelmed with the fear of death (Jeremiah 30:21). The people now, although they have found out by experience that men can hear God speak without dying, yet yield to the fear that they will be destroyed by fire when in immediate intercourse with God (Deuteronomy 5:24-25). And because this is now their attitude of soul, Jehovah complies with it (Deuteronomy 5:28), just as He afterwards gave to the people a king. This origin of the Old Testament hierarchy explains why immediately afterwards mention is made of altars. In consequence of that arrangement, therefore, the people now stood henceforth afar off: Moses had for the present assumed the whole mediatorship. Footnotes: [The exact meaning of ςַ ?μΞτָּ ?πַ ?ι here and in Deuteronomy 5:7 is disputed. The rendering “before me” was doubtless meant by our Translators to convey the notion, “in my presence” = μְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ι. Perhaps the ordinary reader is apt to understand it to mean, “in preference to me.” Luther, Kalisch, Geddes, Keil, Knobel, Bunsen, and Riggs (Suggested Emendations), following the LXX. (πλὴνἐμοῦ), translate, “besides me.” De Wette, Rosenmόller, Maurer, Philippson, Fόrst, Arnheim, Bush, Murphy, Cook (in Speaker’s Commentary), and Lange, following the Vulgate (“coram me”), translate “before me,” i.e., in my presence. In order to a satisfactory settlement of the question, it is necessary to investigate the use of the phrase ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι in general. An examination of all the passages in which it occurs yields the following result: The phrase, followed by a Genitive or a Pronominal Suffix, occurs 210 times. In 125 of these cases, it has its literal sense of “upon the face (or surface) of;” as, e.g., 2 Samuel 17:19, “The woman took and spread a covering over the well’s mouth;” Genesis 50:1, “Joseph fell upon his father’s face;” or it is merely a longer form for the simpler ςַ ?μ (upon); as, e.g., Job 5:10, “Who … sendeth waters upon the fields.” The remaining 85 cases are divided as follows: (1) 28 times ςַ ?μΞτְּ ?πֵ ?ι is used in describing the relation of localities to each other. The worship of them is incompatible with the worship of Jehovah. The command therefore is, “Thou shalt have no other gods to confront me,” to be set up as rival objects of service and adoration. All that is pertinent in the other two renderings is involved hero. Gods that are set up over against Jehovah may be said to be before Him, in His sight; that they are gods besides, in addition to, Him, is a matter of course: but, more than this, they are gods opposed to Him.—Tr.]. In modern discussions of this subject, the Augustinian division is defended by Sonntag, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 61 sqq. and 1837, p. 243 sqq., and by Kurtz in his History of the Old Covenant, III., p. 123 sqq., and in the Kirchl. Zeitschrift of Kliefoth and Meier, 1835, parts 4–6. The Lutheran view, by C. W. Otto, Dekalog. Untersuchungen, Halle, 1857. The Reformed view, as the original one, and the one borne out by the text, by Zόllig, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1837, p. 47 sqq.; J. Geffken, in the above-mentioned treatise, which fully treats the historical testimony; Berthean, Die 7 Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze, Gφttingen, 1840, p. 10 sqq.; Oehler, in Herzog’s Realencyklopδdie, Art. Dekalog; by anonymous writers in the Evang. Kirchenzeitung, 1857, No. 62 sq., and in the Erlanger Zeitschrift fόr Protestantismus, Vol. 33, parts 1 and 2; finally, by F. W. Schultz, in a full, thorough, and candid treatment, of the question in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschrift, 1858, part 1, and in his Comm. on Deuteronomy 5:6 sqq.—E. in the Erlanger Zeitschrift, Vol. 36, part 4, p. 298 sqq.; and Knobel on Exodus 20., enter the lists for the Rabbinical view. Finally, E. Meier, Die ursprόngliche Form des Dekalogs (Mannheim, 1836) launches out into arbitrary conjectures” (Keil). See more on Rabbini al and Catholic divisions in Keil II., p. 111, and Bertheau, p. 13. [Comp. also Stanley, Jewish Church, Lect. VII., and the Article Ten Commandments in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and Decalogue in Kitto’s Cyclopedia.—Tr.] [The note is not given in the English edition. Kurtz argues that lusting after one’s neighbor’s wife, and coveting his possessions, are two quite distinct sins; hence he regards the use of two distinct verbs for the two sins in Deuteronomy as the most accurate form of the commandments, and therefore conjectures that through some copyist the text of Exodus has been changed. He confesses, however, that there is no external evidence of any weight in favor of the conjecture.—Tr.] b.—The first compendious law of sacrifice Exodus 20:22-2622 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23Ye shall not make with 24me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. Ah altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make [thou make] me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 20:23. If we follow the Masoretic punctuation, the literal translation would be: “Ye shall not make with me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye shall not make unto you.” With this division of the verse, an object must be supplied in the first clause, e.g., “Ye shall not make anything,” i.e., any gods, “with me,” i.e., to be objects of worship together with me. In favor of this construction also is the consideration that in the rendering of the A. V. an unwarranted distinction seems to be made between “gods of silver” and “gods of gold.” On the other hand, however, the parallelism of the clauses favors the rendering of the A. V. The latter is adopted by LXX. (where, however, we find ὑμῖν instead of σὺνἐμοί) and Vulg. (where ΰϊּ ?ι is left entirely untranslated). But the majority of scholars prefer the other division.—Tr.] AND We have to do here with an altogether peculiar section, the germ of all Leviticus, or even of the whole ritual law. This is too little recognized when Keil gives as one division: chaps. Exodus 20:22 to Exodus 24:2, under the title, “Leading Features in the Covenant Constitution,” and then makes the subdivision: (1) The general form of Israel’s worship of God; (2) The laws of Israel. Knobel has observed the turning-point in one respect at all events: “The frightful phenomena amidst which Jehovah announces the fundamental law of the theocracy, fill the people with terror; hence another mode of revelation is employed for the further divine disclosures. They beg that Moses rather than God should speak with them, inasmuch as they are filled with mortal dread, and fear for their lives. In this way the author explains why Jehovah revealed the other laws to Moses, and through him brought them to the people, whereas He had addressed the ten commandments immediately to the people.” How little more was needed in order to discern the genesis of the hierarchical mediatorship. Exodus 20:22-23. Have talked with you from heaven.—This is the basis for the negative part of the theocratic ritual, and at the same time the explanation of the worship of images and idols. This rests on the fancy that Jehovah cannot approach men from heaven, and that man cannot hear the word of Jehovah from heaven; that therefore images of gods and heavenly objects are necessary as media between the Deity and mankind. It is to be inferred from the foregoing that this prohibition does not exclude the mediatorship of Moses, still less the mediatorship of Christ in the New Covenant, for it is through this real mediation that heaven is to be brought to earth, and humanity united in the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that this prohibition is given here as a law respecting worship, whereas in the decalogue it has a fundamental ethical significance. Hence we read here: “Ye shall not make ΰִ ?ϊִּ ?ι, with me,” by which is designated the adoration of images in religious services, as involving the germ of idolatry. It is here incidentally suggested that images are prohibited because Jehovah was veiled in a cloud, and, “as a heavenly being, can be pictured by no earthly material.” (Keil.) Exodus 20:24. The positive law of worship. Regarding it as certain that there had been already a traditional service of God, connected with sacrificial rites, we cannot fail to discern here a design to counteract extravagances, and to present in the simplest possible form this ritual devoted to theocratic worship. It may be taken as significant for the service of the Church also, that this fundamental, simple regulation did not exclude further developments, or even modifications. Of course the modifications of this outward manifestation of piety must have an inward ground. How then did the altar of the tabernacle grow out of the low altar of earth or of unhewn stones? First, it is to be considered that the altar of the tabernacle was threefold: the altar of burnt-offering in the court (Exodus 27:1); the altar of incense in the sanctuary (Exodus 30:1); and the mercy-seat in the Holy of holies (Exodus 26:34; Exodus 25:21). The altar of burnt-offering was of acacia wood, overlaid with copper, and three cubits high. The altar of incense, also of acacia wood, was overlaid with gold; finally, the mercy-seat was of pure gold. This gradation points back from the gold through the gilding and the copper to the starting-point, the altar of earth or of stone. This primitive form continued to be the normal type for the altars which, notwithstanding the fixed centre in the exclusive place of worship, were always prescribed for extraordinary places of revelation (Deuteronomy 27:5; Joshua 8:30; Judges 6:26). Not only the right, but also the duty, of marking by altars real places of revelations, was therefore reserved; the worship in high places easily followed as an abuse. Only in opposition to this abuse was the central sanctuary the exclusive place of worship; but it was to be expected that a permanent altar in the sanctuary could not continue to be so much like a natural growth, but had to be symbolically conformed to its surroundings in the sanctuary. An altar of earth.—“The altar, as an elevation built of earth or unhewn stones, symbolizes the elevation of man to the God who is enthroned on high, in heaven” (Keil). Most especially it is a monument of the place where God is revealed; then a symbol of the response of a human soul yielding to the divine call, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 22:9; Genesis 28:18; Exodus 3:12, etc. Hence it is said: “In all places where I cause my name to be remembered.” “Generally,” says Knobel, “the passage is referred to the altar of the tabernacle, which subsequently was to stand now hers, now there. But this will not do. For (1) The author in no way points to this single, particular altar, but speaks quite generally of any sacrificial worship of Jehovah, and gives no occasion to bring in the tabernacle here contrary to the connection. (2) The altar of burnt-offering in the tabernacle was not made of earth, but consisted of boards overlaid with copper (Exodus 27:1 sq). (3) Jehovah could not say that He would come to Israel at every place where the tabernacle stood, because He dwelt in the tabernacle, and in it went with Israel (Exodus 13:21 sq., etc.).” But though the tabernacle denotes the legal and symbolical residence of Jehovah, yet that does not mean that Jehovah in a human way and perpetually dwells in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was only the place where He was generally to be found, more than elsewhere, and for the whole people; but Jehovah was not confined to the tabernacle. The designation of the altar of burnt-offering as one of copper shows that a rising scale was formed: from the earth to stone, and from stone to copper, and from this still higher to gold plate and to solid gold. So in the way of self-surrender, of offerings under the fire of God’s self-revelation, out of the man of earth is formed the second man, the child of golden light. On the original form of altars, earth enclosed with turf, vid. Knobel, p. 211. As simple as the original form of the altar are the original forms of offerings: burnt-offerings and thank-offerings. Both constitute the first ramification of the Passover, which in the Levitical ritual branches out still further. Exodus 20:25. An altar of stone.—The aspiration of religious men after more imposing forms of worship is not prohibited by Jehovah, but it is restricted. The stone altar was to be no splendid structure. By any sharp iron (ηֶ ?ψֶ ?α, generally sword) the stone is desecrated—i.e., under these circumstances; for how can the worshipper, when receiving a new revelation from God, be thinking of decking the altar? “The precept occurs again in Deuteronomy 27:5 sq.; and altars of unhewn stone are mentioned in Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 18:32; 1Ma 4:47. They were found also elsewhere, e.g., in Trebizond.” (Knobel.) The opinion that hewn stone was looked on as spurious can hardly be maintained, considering the recognition of culture and art in other relations. But vid. Knobel, p. 212. Connected with the first restriction in regard to the splendor of the stone altar is the second: Neither … by steps.—The more steps, the more imposing the altar; therefore no steps! The reason is: “that thy nakedness be not uncovered before it.” Before it, as being the symbol of God’s presence. [But the Hebrew says: “on it.”—Tr.] As the sacrifice symbolically covers the sin of man before God, so the nakedness of the offerer should remain covered, as a reminder of his sinfulness before God and before His altar. The ethical side of the thought is this: that a knowledge of this exposure might disturb the reverence of the offerer. But inasmuch as the later altar of the ritual service in the tabernacle was three cubits high, and therefore probably needed steps (Leviticus 9:22), the priests had to put on trowsers (Exodus 28:42). Footnotes:[Exodus 20:23. If we follow the Masoretic punctuation, the literal translation would be: “Ye shall not make with me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye shall not make unto you.” With this division of the verse, an object must be supplied in the first clause, e.g., “Ye shall not make anything,” i.e., any gods, “with me,” i.e., to be objects of worship together with me. In favor of this construction also is the consideration that in the rendering of the A. V. an unwarranted distinction seems to be made between “gods of silver” and “gods of gold.” On the other hand, however, the parallelism of the clauses favors the rendering of the A. V. The latter is adopted by LXX. (where, however, we find ὑμῖν instead of σὺνἐμοί) and Vulg. (where ΰϊּ ?ι is left entirely untranslated). But the majority of scholars prefer the other division.—Tr.] [“It would seem that the stone which was unhewn, therefore uninjured and unfashioned, found in the condition in which the Creator left it, was regarded as unadulterated and pure, and was therefore required to be used. Similar are the reasons for the commands not to offer castrated animals (Leviticus 22:24), to receive into the congregation a mutilated man (Deuteronomy 23:1), to propagate mongrel beasts and grain (Leviticus 19:19), nor to put on the clothes of the opposite sex (Deuteronomy 22:5).” Knobel, l.c.—Tr.] c.—First form of the law of the political commonwealth Exodus 21:1 to Exodus 23:33a. Right of Personal Freedom (according to Bertheau, ten in number)1Now these are the judgments [ordinances] which thou shalt set before them. 2If [when] thou buy [buyest] an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came [come] in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were [be] married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given [give] him a wife, and she have borne [bear] him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6then his master shall bring him unto the judges [God]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him foreExo Exodus 21:7 And if [when] a man sell [selleth] his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. 8If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he have betrothed [betroth] her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage [marriage due] shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free [for nothing], without money. b. On Murder and Bodily Injuries. Sins against the Life of one’s Neighbor. (Ten in number, according to Bertheau.)12He that smiteth a man, so that he die [dieth], shall be surely put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand [make it happen14to his hand]; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But [And] if [when] a man come [cometh] presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17And he that curseth [revileth] his father, or his mother, shall surely be 18put to death. And if [when] men strive together, and one smite [smiteth] another [the other] with a stone, or with his fist, and he die [dieth] not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be 20thoroughly healed. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die [dieth] under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he Isaiah 22 his money. If [And when] men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [depart], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished [fined], according as the woman’s husband will [shall] lay upon him: 23and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25, 26Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if [when] a man smite [smiteth] the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish 27[and destroyeth it]: he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his man-servant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. c. Injuries resulting from Relations of Property. Through Property and of Property. Acts of Carelessness and Theft. (Ten, according to Bertheau.)28If [And when] an ox gore [goreth] a man or a woman, that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29But if the ox were [hath been] wont to push with his horn [to gore] in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in [keepeth him not in], but that he hath killed [and he killeth] a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30If there be laid on him a sum of money [ransom], then he shall give for the ransom [redemption] of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32If the ox shall push [gore] a man-servant or maid-servant, he shall give unto their master 33thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. And if [when] a man shall open a pit, or if [when] a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34The owner of the pit shall make it good, and [good; he shall] give 35money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. And if [when] one man’s ox hurt [hurteth] another’s, that he die [dieth]; then they shall sell the live ox, 36and divide the money [price] of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push [hath been wont to gore] in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own. Chap. Exodus 22:1 If [When] a man shall steal [stealeth] an ox, or a sheep, and kill [killeth] it, or sell [selleth] it; he shall restore [pay] fiveoxen for an ox, and four sheep 2for a sheep. If a [the] thief be found breaking up [in], and be smitten that he die 3[so that he dieth], there shall no blood be shed [no blood-guiltiness] for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed [blood-guiltiness] for him; for he [him; he] should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, 5or ass, or sheep; he shall restore [pay] double. If [When] a man shall cause [causeth] a field or vineyard to be eaten [fed upon], and shall put in his beast [letteth his beast loose], and shall feed [and it feedeth] in another man’s field; of the best 6of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If [When] fire break [breaketh] out, and catch [catcheth] in thorns, so that the stacks of corn [grain], or the standing corn [grain], or the field, be [is] consumed therewith; he [consumed; he] that kindled the fire shall surely make [make full] restitution. d. Things Entrusted and Things Lost7If [When] a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it be [is] stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges [unto God], to see whether he have put [have not put] his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9For all manner of trespass [In every case of trespass], whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost [any lost] thing, which another challengeth to be his [of which one saith, This is it], the cause of both parties shall come before the judges [God]; and [he] whom the Judges 10[God] shall condemn, he [condemn] shall pay double unto his neighbor. If [When] a man deliver [delivereth] unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die [dieth], or be [is] hurt, or driven away, no man seeing 11it: Then shall an [the] oath of Jehovah be between them both, that [whether] he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof [it], and he shall not make it good [make restitution]. 12And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness; and [witness;] he shall not make good that which was 14torn. And if [when] a man borrow [borroweth] aught of his neighbor, and it be [is] hurt, or die [dieth], the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make 15it good [shall make full restitution]. But if [If] the owner thereof be with it, he 16shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his [its] hire. And if [when] a man entice [enticeth] a maid [virgin] that is not betrothed, and lie [lieth] with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. e. Unnatural Crimes. Religious and Inhumane Abominations. (Arranged according to Bertheau.)(1) 18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (2) 19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (3) 20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jehovah only, he [only,] shall be utterly destroyed [devoted to destruction]. (4) 21Thou shalt neither vex [wrong] a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (5) 22Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (6) 25If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee [with thee that is poor], thou shalt not be to him as an usurer; neither shalt thou [shall ye] lay upon him usury [interest]. (7) 26If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver [restore] 27it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only [only covering], it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. (8) 28Thou shalt not revile the gods [God], nor curse the [a] ruler of [among] thy people. (9) 29Thou shalt not delay to offer [not keep back] the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors [the first-fruits of thy threshing-floor and of thy press]: the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his [its] dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. (10) 31And ye shall be holy men unto me; neither shall ye [and ye shall not] eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. f. Judicial ProceedingsExo_23:1(1) Thou shalt raise [carry] a false report: (2) put not thine [thy] hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. (3) 2Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline [turn aside] after many [a multitude] to wrest judgment: (4) 3Neither shalt thou countenance [be4partial to] a poor man in his cause. (5) If [When] thou meet [meetest] thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again 5[to him]. (6) If [When] thou see [seest] the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him [thou shalt forbear to leavehim], thou shalt surely help [release it] with him. (7) 6Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (8) 7Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay them not: for I will not justify the wicked. (9) 8And thou shalt take no gift [bribe]: for the gift [a bribe] blindeth the wise [theseeing], and perverteth the words of the righteous. (10) 9Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. g. Rules for Holidays and Festivals(1) 10And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: 11But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still [fallow]; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive-yard. (2) 12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed. 13And in [unto] all things that I have said unto you be circumspect [take heed]: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard [gods; let itnot be heard] out of thy mouth. (3) 14Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. (4) 15Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed [at the set time] of [in] the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty: (5) 16And the feast of harvest, the [of the] first fruits of thy labors, which thou hast sown [sowest] in the field: (6) and the feast of ingathering, which is in [ingathering, at] the end of the year, when thou hast gathered [thou gatherest] in thy labors out of the field. (7) 17Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God [Jehovah]. (8) 18Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice [feast] remain until the morning. (9) 19The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of Jehovah, thy God. (10) Thou shalt not seethe [boil] a kid in his [its] mother’s milk. h. The Promises(1) 20Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee, in [by] the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your trangressions: for my name 22is in him. But [For] if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. (2) 23For mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. 24Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. (3) 25And ye shall serve Jehovah your God, and he shall [will] bless thy bread and thy water; (4) and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. (5) 26There shall nothing [no one] cast their [her] young, nor be barren, in thy land; (6) the number of thy days I will fulfil. (7) 27I will send my fear [terror] before thee, and will destroy [discomfit] all the people to whom thou shalt come, 28and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. (8) And I will send [send the] hornets before thee, which [and they] shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. (9) 29I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. (10) 31And I will set thy bounds from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. 32Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 21:8. The Hebrew here, according to the K’thibh, is μֹ ?ΰ, and if this were followed, we should have to translate with Geddes, Rosenmόller and others: “so that he hath not betrothed (or will not betroth) her.” The K’ri reads μεֹ, “unto him” or “unto himself.” This yields much the easiest sense, and is especially confirmed by the consideration that ιָ ?ςַ ?γ of itself means, not “betroth,” but “appoint,” “destine.” Followed by the Dative, it may in the connection convey the notion of betrothal; but used absolutely, it cannot convey it.—Tr.] [Exodus 21:13. ΰִ ?πָּ ?δ cannot mean “deliver,” and no object is expressed. It is therefore unwarrantable to render, with A. V., “deliver him,” or even with Lange, “let him accidentally fall into his hand.” The object to be supplied is the indefinite one suggested by the preceding sentence, viz. homicide.—Tr.] [Exodus 21:17. χִ ?μֵּ ?μ, though generally rendered “curse” in A. V., yet differs unmistakably from ΰָ ?ψַ ?ψ in being used not merely of cursing, but of evil speaking in general, e.g. Judges 9:27 and 2 Samuel 16:9. The LXX. render it correctly by κακολογέω. And this word, where the passage is quoted in the New Testament, is rendered by the same Greek word, viz. Matthew 15:4.—Tr.] [Exodus 21:23. The Heb. reads αִּ ?τְ ?μִ ?μִ ?ιν, lit. “with judges” or “among judges.” Some render “unto the judges;” others “before the judges;” but the preposition does not naturally convey either of these senses. The A. V. probably expresses the true meaning: “with judges,” i.e. the line being judicially imposed.—Tr.] [Exodus 22:29. Literally: “thy fullness and thy tear.” The phrase “ripe fruits” is objectionable as including too much; “liquors” as suggesting a wrong conception. The first refers to the crops generally, exclusive of the olive and the grape, from which oil and wine, the liquid products (“tear”), were derived. Cranmer’s Bible renders, not inaptly: “thy fruits, whether they be dry or moist.”—Tr.] [Exodus 23:5. The rendering of A. V.: “and wouldest forbear,” is utterly untenable. Not less so is the rendering of ςֲ ?ζֹ ?α by “help.” The simplest explanation assumes a double meaning of ςָ ?ζַ ?α, viz. to “loose,” and to “leave.” We might borrow a vulgar phrase, and read: “Thou shalt forbear to cut loose from him, thou shalt cut loose with him.” De Wette and Murphy attempt to avoid the double meaning by emphasizing “with.” Thus: “Thou shalt forbear to leave it to him: thou shalt leave it with him.” But this is a nicety quite alien from the Hebrew.—Tr.] AND This section is very clearly to be distinguished from the two preceding, so that after the purely religious and ethical legislation, and after the ritual, now the social and political legislation is instituted. The genuinely theocratic character of this legislation here at once appears. It is not a criminal law in the first instance, but a system of legal regulations for a people that is to be trained for freedom. Hence these ordinances begin at once very significantly with the regulating of the laws concerning emancipation; and indirectly all the main points of this law point to the rights of freedom. Just as the sacrificial usages were found already existing, and were thenceforth theocratically regulated, so now the relations of slavery, found as an existing fact, were regulated in the spirit of the typical people of God. So Keil entitles the section: “The fundamental rights of the Israelites in their civil and social relations.” Less satisfactorily Knobel: “The further rights, i.e. laws,” etc. But the parallels which he draws between the Jewish legislation and that of other ancient people, and of heathen people in general, as also of the modern Mohammedan Arabs, are excellent. We divide thus: (a) The law of personal freedom. That this may correspond with the first commandment of the decalogue, the duty of holding sacred the divine personality, is obvious. (b) The second division, on murder and bodily injuries, quite as unmistakably aims to secure the human form from abuse or disfigurement, as the second commandment to keep the divine image from being deformed; but it is also connected with the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, (c) The third division, on injuries which result from the relations of property, points to the commandment: Thou shalt not steal, (d) Akin to the foregoing, and yet different, are the regulations concerning goods put in another’s care, and goods lost, (e) The regulations concerning unnatural crimes, offences against religion and humanity are more specially connected with the first and with the fifth and tenth commandments. (f) The section on judicial processes reminds us of the prohibition of false witness. (g) The division relating to holidays and feast-days reminds us of the third commandment, but is more especially an unfolding of the law of the Sabbath. (h) Also the promises which are annexed to the fifth and second commandments are in the last division expanded into a fuller form. Here must be noticed one more circumstance. When regulations of similar import are found in different sections of the law, this is not to be regarded as mere repetition, still less as confusion. The moral law of the Sabbath, e.g., comes here (Exodus 23:12) under consideration again, from a social point of view; in Leviticus still again as connected with the ceremonial law. For the Sabbath, there are moral and ritual reasons, and likewise social or civil reasons, the latter uniting the two former. In like manner the great festivals of the Israelites are here regarded from a national, or civil, point of view: in Leviticus they are associated with the idea of worship. The occasional precepts concerning purification and sacrifice in the book of Numbers relate to the keeping pure of the social commonwealth of Jehovah, and are therefore not primarily ceremonial. The tabernacle is found in Exodus, not in Leviticus, because it is primarily the house of the theocratic lawgiver, and is the repository of the decalogue; only secondarily the place of worship, the place where the lawgiver meets his people. a. Law of Personal Freedom(1) The Hebrew man-servant, Exodus 21:1-6; (2) The Hebrew maid-servant, Exodus 21:7-11. The further development of, and reasons for, the law of emancipation, vid. in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. “The Hebrew man-servant after six years of service is to receive his freedom gratis. According to Deuteronomy 15:12 this holds also of the Hebrew maidservant. The attributive ςִ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ι designates the servant as an Israelite (comp. ΰָ ?ηִ ?ικָ in Deut.) in distinction from the slaves derived from non-Israelitish foreign nations, to whom this law does not apply” (Keil). The law evidently tends towards securing the universality of personal freedom. But it also knows that within the theocracy, in the servitude which is mitigated by it, there is an element susceptible of education. Therefore the servant is not compelled to become free in the seventh year. We are to consider that the sons of the household also then stood in the relation of strict subjection, so that a dutiful servant became more and more like them. Vid. Exodus 23:12, Leviticus 25:6, etc. The servant might also be led by devotion to his wife, given to him by his master during his servitude, and to her children, to remain a servant. With reference to this the three cases in Exodus 21:3-4 were to be distinguished. The fixing of the seventh year as the year of emancipation is connected with the sabbatical year, but does not coincide with it. How one could become a slave among the Israelites is told in Exodus 22:3, Leviticus 25:39. But how the emancipation was to be beautified and enriched is seen in the parallel passage in Deuteronomy [Exodus 15:12-15]. On the manner of emancipation vid. Keil p. 130. Unto God.—Not to the priests, but to the court of the assembly, which passed judgment in the name of God, and whose sentence was a divine dispensation. Similar expressions vid. in Knobel, p. 214. There had therefore to be a public declaration that the servant voluntarily remained a servant. “The boring of the ears was among the Orientals a sign of slavery” (Knobel). The ear-rings among the Carthaginians from being a symbol of slavery came to be an ornament, like the cross among Christians. The case mentioned in Leviticus 25:39 is probably a modification, but according to Knobel is a contradiction, of the law before us. Exodus 21:7-11 : The Israelitish daughter as servant and concubine. Knobel makes no distinction between concubinage as it is found among the patriarchs, and the usual custom of the Jews. But in reply see the Commentary on Genesis, p. 80. She shall not go out as the men-servants do.—It follows from the nature of her position that it is a benefit to her if she can remain in the house of her master, provided that the rights of the concubine are respected. It is therefore presupposed either that he takes her for himself, or gives her to his son, or maintains her honor by the side of his son’s wife. In the first case, he must let her be redeemed; in the second case, he must accord to her the domestic rights of an associate wife. If he is not willing to give her this protection, he must let her go free for nothing. In this connection the precepts of Deu 15:12 are also to be considered. Exodus 21:8-9. Who hath betrothed her to himself.—“The μֹ ?ΰ before ιְ ?ςָ ?γָ ?δּ belongs to the 15 passages designated by the Massorah in which μֹ ?ΰ stands for μεֹ ?” (Keil; compare Knobel). To sell her unto a strange people.—Knobel: “The Greek, too, did not sell a Greek slave to go beyond the boundary of the land.” Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.—It would certainly create a difficulty to translate, “on account of his infidelity towards her,” as if this unfaithfulness were the only reason why an Israelitess might not be sold to heathen. Therefore the emphasis probably lies on the thought that his injustice would be doubly great if even in this case, in which he has gone so far as to send her away, he should also in his treachery to her violate the theocratic law. That the word αָּ ?βַ ?γ has a specially important meaning, is seen from Psalms 73:15. Comp. Deuteronomy 21:14, and the account of the Arabian customs in Knobel, p. 216. If he betroth her unto his son.—Comp. Knobel also on a Persian or Arabian custom of a similar sort. As his son’s concubine she is to be regarded by him as a daughter. Exodus 21:9. If he take him another wife.—That is, the father for his son. So Keil; but Knobel understands it to mean: If he takes another for himself. Keil well disposes of the views, according to which either the son is the subject, or the father takes for himself. Her food, etc.—All of her domestic rights are to remain secure. ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?ψ, meat, as the chief article of food, “because the lawgiver has men of wealth in mind.” (Keil). To understand ςεֹ ?πָ ?δ, which properly means lying, of cohabitation, yields no tolerable sense. How could the father in this thing control the son? Or how could the son be obliged to conduct himself towards several wives in the same way as towards one. Either, therefore, the expression has in it something figurative, meaning: She must not as wife be neglected; or it refers to a seat, a resting-place (see the meaning of ςεּ ?ο), which would well harmonize with the reference to food and raiment. It is therefore assumed that under the conditions imposed she has in the house of her servitude a much better position than if she should be dismissed, especially if she has borne children who belong to the permanent members of the household. b. On Murder, Homicide, and Bodily Injuries(1) Homicide proper, Exodus 21:12-14. (a) Simple homicide in consequence of beating; (b) unintentional, resulting from misfortune and mistake; (c) murder proper. (2) Spiritual homicide, (a) Smiting of parents; (b) deprivation of freedom (as spiritual fratricide); (c) cursing of parents (spiritual suicide). (3) Bodily injuries, (a) Of uncertain, perhaps fatal result; (i) to a free man; (ii) a man-servant or maid-servant; (iii) a pregnant woman, in which connection is to be noticed that the jus talionis is laid down in close connection with an extremely humane law of protection, Exodus 21:22-25; (b) local injuries to men-servants or maid-servants. Exodus 21:12. He that smiteth a man.—Says Keil: “Higher than personal freedom stands life.” It may then be asked, why is capital punishment prescribed (Exodus 21:16) for the violent taking away of freedom? The slavery treated of in the preceding section was no innovation, but as a traditional custom it was restricted, and moreover in great part was based on guilt or voluntary assent; it had besides an educational end. It is true, the law of retaliation, as instituted in Genesis 9:6, underlies all this section; but it is noticeable that this law is expressly prescribed just where the protection of a pregnant woman is involved. It is repeated (Leviticus 24:17) in connection with the ordinance that the blasphemer shall be stoned. The reason for the repetition is the principle that in respect to these points perfect equality of rights should be accorded to the stranger and the Israelite; and it was occasioned by the fact that the blasphemer was a Jew on his mother’s side, but an Egyptian on his father’s side. So that he dieth.—Three cases are specified: first, the severe blow which in fact, but not in intention, proves mortal; secondly, the unfortunate killing through mistake, a providential homicide; thirdly, intentional, and hence criminal and guileful, murder. Exodus 21:13. And if a man lie not in wait.—When, therefore not only the murderous blow, but any blow, was unintentional, so that the case is one of severe divine dispensation. I will appoint thee a place.—A place of refuge, with reference to the avengers of blood who pursue him. A check, therefore, upon the custom, prevalent in the East, of avenging murder. It is worthy of notice, from a critical point of view, that no place is now fixed; this was done later, vid. Numbers 35:11; Deuteronomy 19:1-10. Here too the innocent homicide is expressly distinguished from the violent one, Numbers 35:22 sqq. Together with the prescribed place of refuge for the one who kills by mistake is found the stern provision that a real murderer, who has committed his murder with criminal and guileful intent, cannot be protected even by fleeing to the altar of the sanctuary, as it was customary in ancient times for those to do whom vengeance rightly or wrongly pursued, because, as some would say, the altar was a place of expiation. Even from the altar of God he is to be torn away. The expression ιָ ?ζִ ?γ is not adequately represented by “behave viciously, or arrogantly.” It denotes the act of breaking through, in ebullient rage, the sacred restraints which protect one’s neighbor as God’s image. Particular cases, Numbers 35:16, Deuteronomy 19:11. Murder could be expiated only with death, Numbers 35:31. Examples of fleeing to the altar, 1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28. This was also customary among the Greeks. Exodus 21:15. Smiteth his father.—The simple act of smiting, committed on a father or mother, is made equivalent to man-slaughter committed on one’s neighbor. “Parricide, as not occurring and not conceivable, is not at all mentioned” (Keil). Similar ordinances among the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians are mentioned by Knobel, p. 217. The two following provisions rest on the same ground. The parents are God’s vicegerents for the children; the neighbor is God’s image; hence a violent abuse of his person is equivalent to murder, vid. Deuteronomy 24:7. We explain the insertion of the prohibition of man-stealing between verses 15 and 17 by the fact that in cursing his parents the curser morally destroys himself, vid. Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 27:16. The order is: undutifulness, man-stealing, self-destruction. See various views of Exo 21:16 in Keil, p. 133. Exodus 21:18 sq. And when men strive.—The section concerning bodily injuries as such is distiuguished from the section beginning with Exodus 21:12 in that there injuries are spoken of which result in death. The injuries here mentioned would accordingly also be punished with death if they resulted in death. This is shown especially by Exodus 21:20. Here, then, an injury is contemplated which only confines the injured one to his bed. The penalty is twofold: First, the offender must make good his sitting still, i.e. what he might have earned during this time; secondly, he must pay the expenses of his cure, Exodus 21:19. In the case of a man-servant or maidservant a different custom prevailed. If manslaughter took place, the manhood of the slain one is fully recognized, i.e. the penal retribution takes place. Probably sentence was to be rendered by the court, which was to decide according to the circumstances. According to Jewish interpretations capital punishment was to be inflicted with the sword; but vid. Knobel for a different view. On the one hand, the danger of a fatal blow was greater than in other relations, for it was lawful for a master to smite his slave (vid. Proverbs 10:13; the rod was also used on children); but on the other hand an intention to kill could not easily be assumed, because the slave had a pecuniary value. Furthermore, the owner is exempted from punishment, if the beaten one survives a day or two; and the punishment then consists in the fact that the slave was his money, i.e. that in injuring the slave he has lost his own money. The Rabbins hold that this applied only to slaves of a foreign race, according to Leviticus 25:44. This is not likely, if at the same time, in case of death, execution by the sword was to be prescribed; also according to this view there would have been a great gap in the law as regards Hebrew slaves. It is true, reference is here had only to injuries inflicted by the rod. When one was killed with an iron instrument, an intention to kill was assumed, and then capital punishment was inflicted unconditionally, Numbers 35:16, Leviticus 24:17; Leviticus 24:21, Deuteronomy 19:11 sqq. On the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman legislation, see Knobel, p. 219.Exodus 21:22-25. Special legal protection of pregnant women. It might often happen that in quarrelling men would injure a pregnant woman, since wives on such occasions instinctively interpose, Deuteronomy 25:11. In the latter passage the rudenesses which the woman, protected by law, might indulge in are guarded against.—So that her fruit depart. Literally: so that her children come out; i.e., so that abortion takes place. According to Keil, the expression designates only the case of her bearing real children, not a fetus imperfectly developed; i.e., a premature birth, not an abortion, is meant. “The expression ιְ ?μָ ?γֶ ?ιδָ is used for the sake of indefiniteness, since possibly there might be more than one child in her body.” Strange interpretation of the precept, according to which the plural in individual cases denotes indefiniteness! According to this view, the most, and perhaps the worst cases, would not be provided for, since women far advanced in pregnancy are most apt to guard against the danger of such injuries. The plural may also indicate that the capacity for bearing was injured. “If no other injury results from the quarrel, reparation is to be made, according as the husband of the woman imposes it on the perpetrator, and the latter is to give it ‘with judges,’ i.e., in company with, on application to them, in order that excessive demands may be suitably reduced. The amount of indemnity demanded doubtless was determined by the consideration, whether the injured man had many or few children, was poor or rich, etc. The law stands appropriately at the end of the cases which relate to life and the inviolability of the person. The unborn child is reckoned as belonging to, and, as it were, a part of, the mother” (Knobel). Exodus 21:23. And if any mischief follow. It is to the credit of the legislation that the law of retaliation (vid. Leviticus 24:19, Deuteronomy 19:21) is here so particularly laid down. In its connection it reads: The injury of such a woman must be most sternly expiated according to the degree of it. But even this explication of the law of retaliation must be guarded from a lifeless literalism, as is shown by the provisions in Exodus 21:26-27. It would surely have been contrary to nature to put out the eye of a master who had put out his servant’s eye, or to make him lose tooth for tooth. Keil says, “ The principle of retaliation, however, is good only for the free Israelite, not for the slave.” In the latter case, he adds, emancipation takes place. Emancipation, even on account of a tooth knocked out, has nevertheless the force of retaliation, which, even in the relations of free Israelites, could not have been everywhere literally applied, e.g., in the case of burns. On the jus talionis in the ancient heathen world, and generally in the Orient, vid. Knobel, p. 220. c. Injuries resulting from Property relations. Specially from acts of Carelessness. Chs. Exodus 21:28 to Exodus 22:6.We follow in general Bertheau’s classification, which makes property the determining thought. Keil and Knobel divide otherwise. Keil with the words, “Also against danger from cattle is man’s life secured.” The conflict between life and property, and the subordination of property is here certainly everywhere observed. In a critical respect it may not be without significance that there is here no trace of horses; also the dog is not mentioned. At the time of Solomon and Ahab the case was quite different. First are to be considered the accidents occasioned by oxen that hook, Exodus 21:28-32. But this list is connected with the following one, which treats of the misfortunes which men may suffer in respect to their oxen or asses through the fault of neighbors, in which case a distinction is made between the injuries resulting from carelessness and those resulting from theft, Exodus 21:33 to Exodus 22:4. Then follow injuries done to fields or estates through carelessness in the use of cattle or of fire, Exodus 21:5-6. Then the criminal misuse of goods held in trust constitute a separate section, Exodus 21:7-17, which we do not, like Bertheau, make a subdivision of the division (c), but must distinguish from it. Exodus 21:28. First case. And if an ox.—The instinct of oxen to hook is so general that every accident of this sort could not be foreseen and prevented. Therefore when an ox has not been described to the owner as properly a goring ox, the owner is essentially innocent. Yet for a possible want of carefulness he is punished by the loss of his animal. But the ox is stoned to death. Legally it would involve physical un-cleanness to eat of the flesh. But the stoning of the ox does not mean that the ox is “tainted with capital crime” (Keil), but that he has become the symbol of a homicide, and so the victim of a curse (ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ν). It is therefore an application of Gen 9:6 in a symbolical sense, on account of the connection of cattle with men. Comp. also Leviticus 20:15. Similar provisions among the Persians and Greeks vid. in Knobel, p. 220. Exodus 21:29. Second case. The owner has been cautioned that his ox is given to hooking. In this case he himself is put to death as well as his ox. This is the rule. But as there may be mitigating considerations, especially in the case of the injured family; as in general the guilt was only that of carelessness, not of evil intention, the owner might save his life by means of a ransom imposed on him by the relatives of the man that had been killed. Probably with the mediation of the judges, as in Exodus 21:22. Reference to the Salic law made by Knobel. Ransom.—λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ, covering, expiation. Exodus 21:31. Third case. The son or the daughter of a freeman are treated in the same manner as, according to the foregoing, he himself is treated. Exodus 21:32. Fourth case. The ox gores a manservant or a maid-servant to death. The stoning of the ox is still enjoined, but the owner in this case is not doomed to death. He must pay the master of the slave 30 shekels of silver. “Probably the usual market price of a slave, since the ransom money of a free Israelite amounted to 50 shekels, Leviticus 27:3.” (Keil). On the value of the shekel (ωֶּׁ ?χֶ ?μσίκλος) vid. Winer, Realwφrterbuch, p. 433 sqq. The result of the perplexing investigation is that its value Isaiah 25 or 26 silver groschen. The shekel afterwards used for the revenue of the temple and of the king was different from that used in common life. This legal inequality [between the slave and the freeman] is to be explained by the consideration that the capital punishment inflicted on the owner formed an offset, to the revenge to which otherwise the relatives of the murdered man might resort. But this revenge for bloodshed was in no danger of being exercised in the case of a murdered slave, since he was removed from the circle of his relations. The seemingly great difference in the penalty amounts finally to this, that the ransom money for a free man was 50 shekels, and that for a slave 30 shekels. On the estimate of the Attic slave, vid. Knobel; but the great difference in the period of time must be taken into account. “In the legal codes of other ancient nations also are found laws concerning the punishment of beasts that have killed or injured a man. Coop. Clericus and Knobel on this passage. But no nation had a law which made the owner of such a beast responsible, because none of them had recognized the divine image in human life” (Keil). The responsibility of the owner could certainly be grounded only on the mysterious solidarity of the Hebrew household (“thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle”), a unity which was not taken into account where a more atomistic view of liberty prevailed. Exodus 21:33-34. Fifth case. And when a man shall open a pit (cistern). This is connected with the foregoing cases as coming under the head of punishable carelessness. The ox or ass are named as examples of domestic animals in general. In this case only property is destroyed; and the careless man has to pay for it, but receives the dead beast, of which he could only use the skin and other such parts, since the flesh was unclean. Exodus 21:35. Sixth case. A specially fine provision. In the ox that has killed another ox there is nothing abominable, but yet a stain; the sight of him is obnoxious. He is therefore sold and comes into another place where his fault is not known. But the two owners share the price of sale and the dead animal. This is an alleviation of a misfortune that is common to both parties. Without doubt the dead ox also must have hooked. Exodus 21:36. Seventh case. But here too is to be considered the special circumstance that the ox may have been a notorious hooker. In this case the owner must make full compensation for the loss with a live ox, in return for which he receives the dead beast. Exodus 22:1-4. Eighth case. The cattle-thief. Five-fold indemnity for the stolen ox; four-fold for the stolen sheep or goat. In the case of the five-fold indemnity any kind of large animal may be delivered over. The difference of five-fold and four-fold points to the greater guilt of the greater theft. “The four-fold restitution is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 12:6 : the seven-fold, Proverbs 6:31, is not to be understood literally, but only in a general way as manifold” (Knobel). From the five-fold and four-fold restitution is distinguished the two-fold, which is prescribed in case the thief has not yet slaughtered or sold the animal, but is able to return it alive. The reasons for this distinction are differently given; vid. Keil; also his note, II. p. 137. In the latter case the thief had not carried out his purpose to the full extent, especially as he has not put the object of his theft out of the way. The case differed therefore materially from the other. Vid. Knobel on the Roman laws. Others indicating the value set on ploughing oxen, Knobel. p. 222. Exodus 22:2-3. If the thief be found breaking in.—This is obviously an incidental interpolation, which properly belongs to the class (b). There shall be no blood to him; i.e. no blood-guiltiness is incurred by the homicide; vid. Numbers 35:27; Deuteronomy 19:10; Job 24:16. One might understand this chiefly of an attack on the fold, since the topic is the stealing of cattle; at all events a nocturnal irruption is meant, vid. Exodus 22:3. Accordingly the watchman, or the one who is awaked, is in a condition of defense. He must protect his property, and therefore fight; and the thief is liable to become a robber and murderer. If the sun be risen upon him.—It might be thought that this refers to the early dawn or early day, when he might recognize the thief, or frighten him away unrecognized, or with the help of others capture him. But inasmuch as further on it is assumed that the thief has really accomplished his theft, the expression probably means: If some time has elapsed. If in this case the owner kills the thief, he incurs blood-guiltiness; but on account of the great variety in the cases the sentence of death is not here immediately pronounced upon him. Since the life of the thief is under the protection of the law, the case comes before the criminal court, vid. Exodus 21:20. For Calvin on the “ratio disparitatis inter furem nocturnum et diurnum,” vid. Keil, p. 137. The real punishment for the thief is determined by the law concerning restitution, Exodus 22:1; Exodus 22:3. But in case the thief can restore nothing, he is sold for the theft, for that which is stolen, i.e. for the value of it. “This can mean only a sale for a period of time. The buyer reckoned the restitution which the thief was to render, and used the thief as a slave until the whole loss was made good” (Knobel). Similar arrangements among the Romans vid. in Knobel, p. 223. Likewise laws concerning theft, p. 224. The thief could not be sold to a foreigner, according to Josephus, Ant. XVI. 1, 1. Exodus 22:5. Ninth case. A field or a vineyard to be fed upon.—There are various views of this. (1) Si lζserit quispiam agrum vel vineam, etc. (Vulg.). Luther: “When any one injures a field or vineyard, so that he lets his cattle do damage.” (2) Knobel: “When one pastures a field or a vineyard by sending his cattle to it.” (3) Keil: “When any one pastures a field or a vineyard, and lets his cattle loose.” ωָׁ ?μַ ?η bears either meaning, to send away, or to let go free; but according to the connection only the latter can be meant here. The sense given to it by the Vulgate might accordingly be accepted: he injures the field or vineyard of his neighbor so that, (in that) etc. But it is more obvious to assume an incidental carelessness to be meant. The beast feeds on his field (perhaps also on the grass between the grape-vines); from this pasture ground he lets him pass over so that he does damage to his neighbor. Knobel even affirms that an intentional damage is meant. And yet only a simple, though ample, indemnity is to be rendered from the best of his field and of his vineyard. Keil rightly contends against Knobel’s theory. Talmudic provisions on this point are found in Saalschόtz, Mosaisches Recht, p. 875 sq. Exodus 22:6. Tenth case. This is about, a fire in a field, which might the more readily sweep over into the neighbor’s field, inasmuch as it was likely to be kindled at the edge of the field, in the thorn-hedge. Clearly an act of carelessness is meant; comp. Isaiah 5:5. He that hath kindled the fire.—The carelessness is imputed to him as a virtual incendiary, because he did not guard the fire. d. Things entrusted and lost.Exodus 22:7. First case. The money or articles or stuff (on λֵ ?μִ ?ιν see Deuteronomy 22:5) left for safe keeping are stolen from the keeper, but the thief is discovered. The affair is settled by the thief being required to pay back double, vid. Exodus 22:4. Exodus 22:8. Second case. The thief is not discovered. In this case suspicion falls on the keeper; he may have embezzled the property entrusted to him. Therefore such a case must come before the court, which was esteemed a divine court, hence the expression, ΰֶ ?μΞδָ ?ΰֱ ?μδִ ?ιν. The penalty is paid according to the decision of the case. The man under suspicion must approach unto God. Such an approach produced an excitement of conscience. The true high-priest is the one who may approach unto God. In case the keeper is adjudged guilty, he has to pay double. Exodus 22:9. The foregoing provision is designated as an example for a general rule. The cleansing of the suspected man was probably often effected by an oath of purification. The LXX. and Vulgate interpolate καὶὸμεῖται, et jurabit. In all cases in which the concealer made a confession, an oath was unnecessary. Also dishonesty respecting objects found is placed under this rule. On the oath among the Arabs and Egyptians, see Knobel, p. 225. Knobel seems to assume without reason that the plaintiff also is meant in the words, “whom God shall condemn,” etc.Exodus 22:10-11. Third case. This is about beasts put in others’ care, which die in their possession, or are mutilated in the pasture, or injure themselves, or are driven away by robbers. Here the oath is positively required, in case the guardian alone has seen the thing; but it is also decisive. On a similar Indian law vid. Knobel. Exodus 22:12. Fourth case. Stolen from him.—It is assumed that the thief is not found. “Here,” says Knobel, “restitution is prescribed, but not in Exodus 22:8, because he who has an animal in charge is the guardian of it, whereas he who has things in charge cannot be regarded as exactly a watchman.” But according to Exodus 22:9 the judges could even adjudge a double restitution, while here only simple restitution is spoken of. There a complication was referred to, in which the approach of the master of the household to God and the attitude of his conscience formed the main ground for the judicial sentence. In the case described in Exodus 22:10-11 the oath determines the main decision; in the present case the simple restitution is prescribed upon the simple declaration: “stolen.” Exodus 22:13. Fifth case. The production of the animal torn by a beast of prey (not, “or a part of it,” as Keil says) proved not only the fact itself, but also that the guardian had watched, and had driven off the beast of prey by a violent exertion. From this we see the severity of Laban who, according to Genesis 31:39, required his son-in-law in such cases to make the loss good. Comp. 1 Samuel 17:34, Amos 3:12. On the Indian law, vid. Knobel, p. 227. Exodus 22:14. Sixth case. A hired beast is injured, or dies, when the owner is not present. The sentence requires restitution, because neglect may be presumed. Exodus 22:15. Seventh case. The owner is present when the accident occurs. In that case it belonged especially to himself to prevent the accident, if prevention was possible. Eighth case. The borrower is in the hired service of the owner of the beast. In this case he gets the dead beast instead of his pay; it is subtracted from his pay. For the owner as a hired laborer would have had to do only with himself; and a hired servant with a hired beast cannot be meant. It is therefore a day-laborer to whom the animal of the owner has been entrusted. ωָׂ ?λִ ?ιψ can hardly (with Stier and Keil) be referred to the hired beast. Knobel has a forced explanation, in which the hired servant becomes the one who lets the beast.Exodus 22:16. Ninth case. The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin (the case is different with the seduction of a betrothed one (Deuteronomy 22:23), who has entrusted to him the wealth of her virginity, valuable not only in a moral, but in a civil point of view, must make restitution to her by marrying her, and to her father by giving a dowry. Exodus 22:17. Tenth case. The seducer himself cannot refuse the settlement; but the father of the seduced maiden may have reasons for refusing it. In this case the seducer must pay him the dowry (vid. Genesis 34:12), with which she is, in a sort, reinstated as a virgin, and as afterwards a legally divorced woman. The case is not differently provided for in Deuteronomy 22:28, as Knobel affirms. There only the price of sale is fixed, viz., at 50 shekels; the right of the father to refuse his daughter to the seducer is simply not repeated. The dowry was not properly a price of sale. “The precepts in Exodus 22:18 and onwards,” says Keil, “differ in form and contents from the foregoing laws; in form, by the omission of λִּ ?ι [when], with which the foregoing are almost without exception introduced; in substance, by the fact that they impose on the Israelites, on the ground of their election to be the holy people of Jehovah, requirements which transcend the sphere of natural law.” Yet the two divisions are not to be distinguished as natural and supernatural. But Keil has correctly found a new section here, whilst Knobel begins a new section, poorly defined, with Exodus 22:16. e. Unnatural Crimes. Abominations committed against Religion and Humanity.Exodus 22:18. First offence. The sorceress is condemned to death. This term is not to be made synonymous with witch, as Knobel makes it. The mediζval witch may practice, or wish to practice, sorcery; but she may also be a calumniated woman. She gets her name from the popular conception, whereas the sorceress gets her name from the real practice of a lying, dark art. She operates on the assumption that demoniacal powers co-operate with her, and so she promotes radical irreligion. She injures her neighbor in body and life, as being the instrument of hostile passions, which she nourishes; or, when she enters into the mood of the questioner, she nourishes ruinous hopes (Macbeth) or despair (the soothsayer of Endor), and often from being a mixer of herbs becomes a mixer of poisons (Gesina). “The sorceress is named instead of the sorcerer, as Calovius says, not because the same thing is not punishable in men, but because the female sex is more addicted to this crime” (Keil). According to Knobel the expression, “not suffer to live,” intimates that perhaps a foreign sorceress might be punished with banishment; but Keil supposes that she may have been allowed to live, if she gave up her occupation. Sorcery was connected not only with simple idolatry, but in many ways with the worship of demons, and the sorceress was regarded as seducing to such things. Exodus 22:19. Second offence. Sexual intercourse with a beast. Comp. Leviticus 18:23; Leviticus 20:15; Deuteronomy 27:21. This unnatural thing also was punished with death, like the kindred one of sodomy, a prominent vice of the Canaanites, Leviticus 20:13. Exodus 22:20. Third offence. Idolatry. Keil’s explanation, “Israel must not sacrifice to foreign gods, but must not only tolerate foreigners in the midst of them,” etc., almost seems intended to intimate that the heathen in Israel had an edict of tolerance for their offerings. Opposed to this conception is the Sabbath law, and the ordinance in Exodus 23:24. In both cases, however, the explanation is that a public worship of strange gods was not tolerated in Israel; but an inquisition to ferret out such worship secretly carried on is not countenanced by the Mosaic law. The words are: “whosoever sacrificeth unto any god.” The addition, “save unto Jehovah only” (as likewise Exodus 20:24), is a mild expression also as regards the theocratic offerings, and also secures a right understanding of the word “Elohim.”—He is to be devoted, i.e., to the judgment of Jehovah sentencing him to death. Here the notion of ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ν (hherem, ban) comes out distinctly. Every capital punishment was essentially a hherem; but here is found the root of the notion: an idolater by his offering has withdrawn from Jehovah the offering due to Him alone; he has, so to speak, removed the offering away from the true divine idea, and perverted it into its opposite. “He is to be devoted by death to the Lord, to whom in life he would not devote himself” (Keil). It may be that a sort of irony lies in the notion of the hherem; as being consecration reversed, it secures to God the glory belonging to Him alone; but it does this also as being consecration to the judging God in His judgment. “No living thing,” says Knobel, “devoted to Jehovah could be redeemed, but had to be destroyed. Leviticus 27:28 sq.; 1 Samuel 15:3.” But only when it was a case of hherem, vid. Deuteronomy 13:12 sqq. Exodus 22:21. Fourth offence. A beautiful contrast to the foregoing is formed by the statement, of offences against humanity. Maltreatment of the foreigner is put first of all. He must not be wronged, “for ye were strangers,” etc. A moral principle which re-appears in the N. T. (Matthew 7:12). as also in Kant. The particular rules concerning the treatment of aliens are given by Knobel. p. 228, who also gives the appropriate references to Michaelis and Saalschόtz. Vid. Exodus 3:9, Deuteronomy 26:7. Knobel says, “The persons meant are the Canaanitish and non-Canaanitish strangers who staid as individuals among the Israelites; the Canaanites as a whole are, according to this lawgiver also, to be extirpated (vid. Exodus 23:33).” It belongs to the definition of the “stranger,” that he is dissociated from his own nationality, and has become subject to another, i.e. here, to the national laws of the Israelites. The failure to affix a penalty to this law implies that the noble emotion of gratitude was probably depended on to secure its fulfilment. Exodus 22:22-24. Fifth offence. Against widows and orphans. On this point see Knobel’s collection of the various passages, p. 229. God takes the place of the deceased fathers and husbands by His special protection; whence follows that they on their part when living are to exercise a divine protection in the house over wife and children. And because, through the selfishness of the strong, widows and orphans were so liable to be oppressed, being easily despoiled on account of their impotence, chief prominence is given to the significance of their crying. This need not always be a conscious prayer uttered in one’s extremity, for crying, on the part of living things and before God, has a special meaning, even down to the crying of the young ravens. The threatened punishment, in the first place, is connected with the guilt, and in the second place corresponds with it. Despotism begins with the oppression of the weak (widows and orphans), and reaches its consummation in unrighteous wars and military catastrophes, out of which again widows and orphans are made. Vid. Isaiah 9:17. Exodus 22:25. Sixth offence. Prohibition of usury, by which the exigency of the poor is abused, Leviticus 25:36. Two grounds: the poor man belongs to the people of God as a free man, and has lost his freedom through his troubles. By usury he is burdened. Exodus 22:26-27. Seventh offence. Excessive taking of pawn. The lender may require a pledge of the creditor, but his covering (outer garment) he must return to him before sunset, lest he suffer from the nocturnal cold. The mantle marks the extreme of poverty in general, vid. Deuteronomy 24:6 sqq. The compassion which Jehovah here promises to the helpless ones that cry has an obverse side for the pitiless. The expression in Exodus 22:27 becomes even a rhetorical plea for the poor. Matthew 5:7, James 2:13. “The indigent Oriental covers himself at night in his outer garment. Shaw, Travels, p. 224, Niebuhr, Arabien, p. 64” (Knobel). On the pawning of clothes, see Amos 2:8, Job 22:6, Proverbs 20:16; Proverbs 27:13. Exodus 22:28. Eighth offence. Contempt, of the Deity and of princely magistrates. Keil says, “Elohim means neither the gods of the other nations, as Josephus (Ant. IV. 8, 10, contra Apionem II. 33), Philo (vita Mos. III. 864) and others explain the word in their dead and Pharisaic monotheism; nor the magistrates, as Onkelos, Jonathan, Aben Ezra and others think; but God, the Deity in general, whose majesty is despised in every transgression of Jehovah’s commands, and should be honored in the person of the prince. Comp. Proverbs 24:21; 1 Peter 2:17,” etc. So Knobel. This explanation is certainly favored by the context, particularly the following; especially also by the fact that the prince (the exalted, the high one) is mentioned next to God. Yet this is to be observed in the line of Josephus and Philo’s opinion, that the theocracy does not reject the divine element in the religions themselves, but the false ideal images of the gods (Elilim), and the actual idols, and that even in this sphere there are reservations in reference to Satan (Epistle of Jude). There are two reasons for it: first, the element of truth which underlies the errors; secondly, the moral injury of the religious feelings of the neighbor who is in error. We prefer to render, “the Deity;” at all events the reviling of the Deity, which may have many degrees, is sharply distinguished from the positive reviling of Jehovah (Leviticus 24:15-16). The world of to-day would perhaps invert the order of guilt in this relation. Luther’s translation transposes the meanings of the verbs [“Den Gφttern. … nicht fluchen, und den Obersten … nicht lδstern,” “not curse the gods, and not revile the magistrates”]. The princes are under God as His vicegerents. Passages relative to the defamation of princes are given by Knobel. The word χִ ?μֵּ ?μ comprehends all forms of evil-speaking of God. Exodus 22:29-30. Ninth offence. Holding back of the natural products due to the sanctuary. “ξְ ?μֵ ?ΰָ ?δ means the produce of grain (Deuteronomy 22:9), and the word γֶּ ?ξַ ?ς, which occurs only here, properly ‘tear,’ something flowing, liquor stillans, is a poetic designation of the produce of the wine-vat, the wine and the oil, comp. δάκρυοντῶνδένδρων. Theoph.: arborum lacrymζ; Pliny XI. 6.” (Keil.) Vid. Exodus 23:19; Deuteronomy 26:2-11; Numbers 18:12. These gifts to the temple retained their festal character and their value only as they were freely and joyfully presented. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ d.—The feast of the covenant commandedExo_24:1-21 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto Jehovah, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. 2And Moses alone shall [let Moses alone] come near Jehovah: but they shall not [let them not] come nigh; neither shall [and let not] the people go up with him. AND The connection of this passage with the foregoing is correctly stated by Keil in opposition to Knobel. In Exodus 20:22 God spoke through Moses to the people. What He now speaks at the end of the giving of the law is for Moses himself, although he must communicate with the people about it. After Jehovah has proclaimed the law of the covenant to the people, the feast of the covenant must be celebrated. It is presupposed, first, that God has spoken from Sinai the ten commandments to Moses and the people at the foot of the mountain (Exodus 19:25). Then that He gave the ceremonial laws and the civil laws for the people, while the latter had removed from the mountain, but Moses was standing in the darkness of the mountain; by which, however, is not exactly meant that he was on the mountain (Exodus 20:21). It is therefore not to be supposed (with Keil and Knobel) that Moses, according to Exodus 20:21, had again betaken himself to the mountain; for in this case it would have to be assumed that the descent had been forgotten. But now an ascending to Jehovah takes place, with most significant distinctions. Moses, the prophet, alone is permitted to go to the top of the mountain, and approach Jehovah. At the declivity of the mountain the priests must stop, represented by Aaron and his sons, Nadab and Abihu; and with a like limitation, but also with a like right, the state, the popular assembly, represented by the seventy elders. They occupy a middle position between the prophet above and the people below. On Nadab and Abihu vid.Leviticus 10:1 sqq. ______________ e.—Ratification of the covenantExo_24:3-83 And Moses came and told the people all the words of Jehovah, and all the judgments 4[ordinances]: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Jehovah hath said [spoken] will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill [mountain], and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5And he sent young [the young] men of the children of Israel, which [and they] offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen [bullocks] unto Jehovah. 6And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience [hearing] of the people: and they said, All that Jehovah hath said [spoken] will we do, and be obedient. 8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant which Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words. AND Exo_24:3. And Moses came.—That is, out of the darkness of the mountain, not exactly from the mountain itself. And told the people.—“Not the decalogue (as Delitzsch holds, Hebrδerbrief, p. 414), for the people had heard this immediately from the mouth of God, but the words of Exo 20:22-26, and all the laws” (Keil). But evidently the report must have included the whole threefold law (therefore not only the decalogue), because the covenant now to be concluded was to relate to the whole law. But it is also self-evident that Moses was a better hearer of the ten commandments than the people were, and had to be for them a mediator of the law which they themselves had heard. Once more the assent of the people is given to the law of the covenant unanimously—with one voice; practically, the third expression of compliance (vid.Exodus 20:19 and Exodus 19:8). How then can there be any more thought of despotic subjection of the people? Thus far everything has been done orally; and for the first time Moses makes a provisional copy of the law. Exodus 24:4. The covenant is concluded, and now it is sealed by the feast of the covenant. Moses builds early on the following morning an altar (for Jehovah), and in addition twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. “As the altar,” says Keil, “being the place where the Lord comes to bless His people (Exodus 20:24), indicates the presence of Jehovah, so the twelve pillars, or signal stones, were not to serve as mere memorial signs of the ratification of the covenant, but, as the dwelling-place of the twelve tribes, to represent their presence.” Vid.Genesis 28:18; Genesis 31:45 (Knobel on Genesis 21:31), Joshua 4 (memorial stones), Joshua 22:11 sqq. (the altar a symbol of unity). Exodus 24:5. And he sent the young men. The young men must officiate in offering the sacrifices of ratification. Why? Different views: (1) As first-born children, who constitute the natural basis for the priesthood (Onkelos), or even the sons of Aaron (Augustine). (2) Vigorous men, as Moses’ assistants in making the offering (Knobel: first-born youths). (3) As representatives of the youthful people (Kurtz III., p. 143). The young men of the nation stand midway between the children and the men; they share with the first their innocence, and with the latter their strength, and, as being the bloom of the national life, are the fittest representatives of an incipient national life. When the national life is to be restored by wars of liberation or defence, the young men enter the lists. Thus Israel concludes its covenant with Jehovah through the bloom of its national life, the young men—according to a general law of the life of nations, which Kurtz has at least suggested (but criticised by Keil, note 1, p. 157). It is, however, an observation needed only by the high-churchly, when Kurtz lays stress on the fact that the bringing and slaying of the victims was not a sacerdotal function. For as yet “the universal priesthood” officiates, although Moses alone as yet exercises the function of high-priest. Archζological notes on the young men offering, vid. in Knobel, p. 242.—Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The burnt-offerings symbolize Jehovah’s part of the festive solemnities; the peace-offerings that of the people.—Bullocks. The great covenant cannot be ratified by the sacrifice of sheep or goats.—Half of the blood. On the division of the blood, vid. Keil, p. 158. We have no hesitation, in spite of superstitious interpretations of the Lord’s Supper and of the ritual, to conceive of the one-half of this blood as a sacrifice, and the other as a sacrament typically foreshadowed. In accordance with this reference the sacrificial element is traceable in the burnt-offering, the sacrament in the ωְׁ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, peace-offerings, or thank-offerings. Keil, referring to Bδhr and Knobel, rightly opposes the adducing of the analogy of heathen usages, in so far as thereby an identification of the usage is intended (vid. Knobel, p. 243); but an affinity of the profane with the theocratic sacrificial usages cannot be denied. Keil is also incorrect, when, in reference to these offerings, he speaks of expiation in the proper sense of the word. This could least of all be applied to the peace-offerings, or festive-offerings. The offerings in general, it is true, rest on the consciousness of the sinfulness which leads man, with his good will, and in symbolic form, to bring to God, as confession, prayer, and vow, what in his real condition as sinful in his spiritual life he cannot bring Him—in the burnt-offering the sinless consecration of his whole life, in the peace-offering the sinless consecration of all his prosperity and enjoyment. It is quite in accordance with the legal stand-point that Moses at first pours out the blood designed for God at the altar of God; thereby he symbolically effects a general and complete surrender of the people to God. But not till after he has read the book of the covenant, the laws of chs. 20–23, and the people have given their fullest assent (vid. the translation), does he sprinkle the people with the other half of the blood of the offering, which till then was kept in the basin, while he calls it the blood of the covenant that has been completed. It can hardly be correct, with Keil, to understand the blood to have been halved only because the blood sprinkled on the altar could not be again taken from it and sprinkled on the people; but he is right in assuming that the halves belong together. Clearly there is formed out of the identity of the blood a contrast in actu. In this contrast, however, the thought comes out that surrender in general, in accordance with the conditions of grace, must precede obedience in particular, according to the law. This is the patriarchal and evangelical seal impressed on the law, such as also introduces the decalogue—the language about the redeeming God. The expression, “blood of the covenant,” is, it is true, a marked one, denoting an ideally symbolical exchange of blood, as a foundation for blood relationship. But no human blood is here used, and still less can there be any thought of real blood of God, although, as sacrificial blood, it comes from God (and so far forth is a typical mystery), and is sprinkled upon men, symbolically expiating them and devoting them to sanctification, vid.Exodus 29:21, Leviticus 8:30. f.—Feast of the covenantExo_24:9-119 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 10And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone [as it were work of bright sapphire], and as it were the body of heaven [the very heaven] in his clearness [for clearness]. 11And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also [and] they saw God, and did eat and drink. AND wonderfully beautiful, sublime, but also mysterious feature of the history of the giving of the law. In it we see the significance of the sprinkling of the blood further carried out. It is the communion festival of the law—a communion of the Israelites, in the persons of their noblest representatives, with Jehovah,—the other side of the picture presented by the communion of Moses, his brother Aaron, and the elders, with Jethro, Moses’ heathen father-in-law, after the latter offered burnt-offerings and sacrifices, and doubtless also, as here, peace-offerings, Exodus 18:12.—A prophetic form of the communion feast is given by Isaiah, Exodus 25:6-8. The first realization of it, the celebration of the Lord’s supper, frequently made to point figuratively to the last supper of the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 19:28), finds its last fulfilment in the marriage of the Lamb, Revelation 19:7-9. Exodus 24:9. Therefore the representatives of Israel went up, according to the prophetic, ceremonial, and political elements of the community. Aaron’s sons mark the genealogical succession of the Levitical priesthood; the prophets have no genealogical succession; the elders must grow up to attain their dignity, and from the whole of them seventy are chosen as representatives, according to the sacred number seventy. Vid.Genesis 46:27. Exodus 24:10. And they saw the God of Israel. It is not said that they saw Jehovah, though He is meant; for Jehovah is the God of Israel. Therefore not λְּ ?αεֹ ?γιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ, as Knobel conceives, referring to Exodus 16:10. He says, “According to the chief narrator this favor was shown only to Moses, and that too later than this, and at his special request.” Two discrepancies are said to be found here: (1) That Moses “does not see the glory of Jehovah till afterwards, Exodus 33:18; ” (2) That “according to the chief narrator the people themselves at the proclamation of the ten commandments perceived only thunder, lightning, clouds, noise of trumpets, and the voice of Jehovah;” but here also the λְּ ?αεֹ ?γεְ ?δεָֹ ?δ [glory of Jehovah], according to Exodus 24:17! The narrative evidently brings out two marked contrasts. The first is the seeing of Elohim, and the seeing of Jehovah; the second is the heavenly clearness above the mountain during the feast of the covenant, and the subsequent darkening of the mountain by cloud and fire which took place when the law was drawn up. The vision of Jehovah in its several stages of development is marked by Isaiah 6:1 and Ezekiel 1:26, Daniel 7:9-13 (comp. Numbers 12:8). During the feast of the covenant at the declivity of the mountain (according to Exodus 24:1 prescribed before the covenant was formed) the representatives of Israel saw the God of Israel. It was a vision, for which no objective image is furnished. But the sign of the objective image is called the image of a work or footstool under God’s feet, of brilliant sapphire, of sky blue therefore, like the heaven in its full brightness, as is added by way of further explanation. This ethereally delicate picture of the vision of the covenant God of Israel in His grace and covenant faithfulness has been coarsened and obscured in two directions. According to Knobel, the figure under God’s feet is “like a work of sapphire slabs;” and he refers to Ezekiel 1:26, and reads μְ ?αֵ ?πָ ?δ. vid. p. 244. According to Baumgarten there was no image of God, because the vision of the men was imperfect. According to Hofmann the fire was separated from the cloud and turned into a form. According to Keil they saw also a form of God, which, however, is not described, “inasmuch as Moses, according to Numbers 12:8, saw the form of Jehovah.” But here we are told of a vision of the supermundane God as the God of Israel, not of a vision of Jehovah becoming incarnate. This is the first contrast. The second is the fact that at the feast of the covenant the cloud and the darkness are entirely gone, that the heavens open themselves, as it were, to the transported gazers in the full splendor of the heavenly blue, as at the baptism of Jesus; whereas immediately afterwards, at the beginning of the drawing up of the law, the mountain was obscured again, even more than before, as was the case when the ten commandments were first proclaimed. This is now again a phenomenal image of the glory of Jehovah as a law-giver, the same one who also in Exodus 33 does not show Moses, the law-giver, the face of His glory, but only its reflected splendor. The exegetical assumption that an external image must correspond to a vision of God, or that the sight must always be an external seeing, has no Biblical basis, although even here the inward vision is connected with the sight of an outward corresponding sign. Exodus 24:11. He laid not his hand. It is dangerous for sinful man to approach God, because the holiness and justice of God repel him; hence the true priest is he who can summon courage to approach God (Jeremiah 30:21). But the view of the countenance of Jehovah annihilates, as it were, the sinful man (slays the old man); hence the Jewish popular saying, that no one can see God without dying, vid.Judges 13:22. At that very place the error in the popular notion is corrected by Manoah’s wife; yet the full revelation of Jehovah is still dangerous and agitating even for one who sacerdotally approaches and sees Him (vid.Revelation 1). Hence to the legal mind of the narrator it is an astonishing and joyous wonder of grace that the God of Israel did not punish the nobles of Israel for their temerity. In the enjoyment of this theocratic peace of God “the nobles of the children of Israel” received a pledge that the people of Israel themselves were also called to this dignity. They received this peace for the benefit of Israel. And they saw God.—Luther’s translation makes the sentence describe two successive events: “and when they had seen God, they ate and drank.” But the two are simultaneous; the seeing of God and the eating and drinking are intimately connected, forming a prelude of sacramental enjoyments. Fear might report: “they saw God and died;” but instead of that faith reports: “they saw God, and ate and drank.” In Exodus 24:14 is found an indication that the nobles of Israel were on a declivity of the mountain, which, as contrasted with the summit, might be regarded as in the valley, and from which they could keep up their connection with the people. According to Keil, Moses also had first left the mountain with them, and afterwards ascended it again. This assumption may be favored by the fact that Joshua now comes into company with Moses. Moses needed his servant, since there was now to be a longer stay on the mountain. Knobel also understands the command, “Tarry here,” of the stay at the foot of Sinai. ______________ g.—The summons to commit the law to writingExo_24:12-1812 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee [thee the] tables of stone, and a [the] law, and commandments [the commandment] which I have written, that thou mayest teach [written, to teach] them. 13And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God. 14And he said unto the elders, Tarry ye here for us, until we come again [back] unto you: and behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do [whosoever hath a suit], let him come unto them. 15And Moses went up into the mount, and a [the] cloud covered the mount. 16And the glory of Jehovah abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the [on the] seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 17And the sight [appearance] of the glory of Jehovah was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. 18And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. AND Exo_24:12. And Jehovah said. The particular legislative relation of Jehovah here becomes again prominent, whereas heretofore the seventy elders of Israel may have represented Israel’s vocation to become a shepherd of the nations in their relation to Elohim. Moses is now summoned to a longer stay on the summit of the mountain. The mere reception of the tables is related in Exodus 31:18. No very long stay was needed for that. What Moses as mediator of the law did upon the mountain, Jehovah did indeed do through him. But besides this there was added a new, grand task: the construction of the tabernacle. The law (or, the instruction) and the commandment. Not as two parts, but as two fundamental forms of the legislation. The law is originally oral instruction (thorah), but is written down as commandment only by Jehovah as the proper author, and is again to be transferred into living instruction for the people by the mouth of the prophet. Exodus 24:13. And Joshua.Vid.Exodus 17:9, Exodus 32:17, Exodus 33:11. Mount of God.Vid.Exodus 3:1. Exodus 24:14. Tarry ye here for us. At the foot of the mountain? That they were not to go any further with the people must have been quite self-evident. Moses goes now through the flame and the darkness as it were to death; he therefore institutes for the interim a government, which, standing between the mountain and the people, represents the outward sanctuary which was still wanting, and at the same time governs the people. Aaron and Hur (vid.Exodus 17:12) are nominated as chief magistrates to settle suits that might arise. Exodus 24:15 sqq. Moses ascends the mountain, and is concealed by the cloud for six days. It is the cloud which at once reveals and conceals the glory of Jehovah, identical in significance with the pillar of cloud, but different from it in form, since it covers the mountain. On the seventh day Jehovah calls Moses to Himself out of the cloud, and the cloud is now transformed, to the people at the foot of the mountain, in its outward appearance, into the radiance of a consuming fire. Into this fiery radiance Moses enters, through the fiery flame, as it were, of the unapproachable justice of God (Hebrews 12:18; Hebrews 12:29), as it were, through the lightnings of the flaming sword of the cherubim (Genesis 3), in order to receive the fiery law (Deuteronomy 33:2) which goes through the world’s history under the protection of the cloudy darkness and of the fire (Psalms 18:8-13; Psalms 104:4, Isaiah 6:2-4, Zephaniah 1:15, Zechariah 14:7, Malachi 4:1, Matthew 24:29, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 18), in order to sanctify the people of God by means of judgment and deliverance, and to prepare for the reconstruction of the old world. The lawgiver had to be familiar with this design of the sacred fire, whose typical significance reaches its climax and turning-point in the life of Elijah. So then he seemed to the people to have disappeared; and after his stay of forty days and nights on the mountain where he had a vision of the tabernacle, the image of the kingdom of God, the people might imagine that he had perished in the terrors of the mountain. Knobel confounds the first stay of forty days on the mountain with the second. The origin of the idea of the tabernacle on the mountain coincides in time with the origin of the golden calf, and so there arises a contrast, in which nevertheless the tabernacle outweighs the golden calf. On the significance of the forty days, vid. the Introduction, as also the Introduction to Revelation. Footnotes:The English edition omits the note. Keil argues that there is nowhere any indication that a nation in general approaches Jehovah through an offering. These young men officiated, he thinks, merely as Moses’ assistants, as is indicated by the circumstance that he sent them (Exodus 24:5).—Tr. [Keil, l. c. says: “The halving of the blood has nothing in common with the heathen customs cited by Bδhr (Symbolik, II., p. 421) and Knobel (on this passage) according to which the contracting parties mingled their own blood. For it is not two different kinds of blood that are mixed together, but one blood, and that, sacrificial blood, in which animal life is taken away instead of human life..… Inasmuch as the blood is divided only because what is sprinkled on the altar cannot be taken up again from the altar and sprinkled on the people, the two halves of the blood are to be regarded as belonging together and so forming one blood, which is first sprinkled on the altar and then on the people, as was really done at the consecration of the priests, Exodus 29:21, Leviticus 8:30.”—Tr.] [In representing the commandments as committed to Writing by Moses, and not by Jehovah, Lange certainly has to strain the language of the text. It is true that God may be said to do what He commands Moses to do. But that would not justify the narrator in declaring with such particularity that the two tables were “written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), and that “the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God” (Exodus 32:16). A man may be said to write what an amanuensis writes at his dictation; but if he expressly states that certain things are written with his own hand, it is unreasonable to suppose that they are written by the hand of another.—Tr.] H.—The vision or the ideal of the tabernacle. The ordering of the ark and of the house of the covenant; of the living presence of the law and of the dwelling-place of the law-giverExodus 25-31I. Contributions for the Building. Preliminary Condition 1And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart 3[whose heart maketh him willing] ye shall take my offering. And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, 4And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, 5And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ [seals’] skins, and shittim [acacia] wood, 6Oil for the light, spices for anointing [the anointing] oil, and for sweet [the sweet] incense, 7Onyx stones, and stones to be set in [set, for] the ephod, and in [for] the breast-plate. 8And let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them. 9According to all that I shew thee, after [thee,] the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments [furniture] thereof, even so shall ye make it. II. The Structure itself. The Place of Worship 1. The Ark10And they shall make an ark of shittim [acacia] wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. 11And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown [moulding] of gold round about. 12And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners [feet] thereof; and two rings shall be in [on] the one side of it, and two rings in [on] the other side of it. 13And thou shalt make staves of shittim 14[acacia] wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them [to bear the ark with]. 15The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it. 16And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. 17And thou shalt make a mercy-seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. 18And thou shalt make two cherubims [cherubim] of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them in [at] the two ends of the mercy-seat. 19And make one cherub on [at] the one end, and the other cherub on [at] the other end: even of [of one piece with] the mercy-seat shall ye make the cherubims [cherubim] on [at] the two ends thereof. 20And the cherubims [cherubim] shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy-seat with their wings, and their faces shall look [with their faces] one to another: toward the mercy-seat shall the faces of the cherubims [cherubim] be. 21And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 22And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubims [cherubim] which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. 2. The Table23Thou shalt also make a table of shittim [acacia] wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. 24And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown [moulding] of gold round about. 25And thou shalt make unto it a border of an [a] hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown [moulding] to the border thereof round about. 26And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in [on] the four 27corners that are on [belong to] the four feet thereof. Over against [Close by] the border shall the rings be for places of [for] the staves to bear the table. 28And thou shalt make the staves of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them. 29And thou shalt make the dishes [plates] thereof, and spoons [the cups] thereof, and covers [the flagons] thereof, and bowls [the bowls] thereof, to cover [pour out] withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them. 30And thou shalt set upon the table shew-bread before me alway. 3. The Candlestick31And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers shall be of the same [of beaten work shall be made the candlestick, its base and its shaft: its cups, its knobs, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it]. 32And six branches shall come out [coming out] of the sides of it: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side [one side of it], and three branches of the candlestick 33out of the other side [side of it]: Three bowls [cups] made like unto almonds [almond-blossoms] with a knop and a flower in one branch [in one branch, a knob and a flower]; and three bowls [cups] made like almonds [almond-blossoms] in the other branch, with [branch,] a knop [knob] and a flower: so in 34[for] the six branches that come out of the candlestick. And in the candlestick shall be four bowls [cups] made like unto almonds, with [almond-blossoms,] their 35[its] knops [knobs] and their [its] flowers. And there shall be a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], and a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], and a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], according to [for] the six branches that proceed 36[come] out of the candlestick. Their knops [knobs] and their branches shall be of the same [of one piece with it]: all it [all of it] shall be one beaten work of pure gold. 37And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof; and they shall light [set up] the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against it. 38And the tongs [snuffers] 39thereof, and the snuff-dishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. Of a talent of pure 40gold shall he make it [shall it be made], with all these vessels [instruments]. And look [see] that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. 4. The Dwelling (the Tent) Exodus 26:1. Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of [curtains: of] fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with [scarlet, with] cherubims [cherubim] of cunning work [the work of a skilful weaver] shalt thou make them. 2The length of one [each] curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one [each] curtain four cubits: and every one of the 3[all the] curtains shall have one measure. The five [Five of the] curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and other [the other] five curtains shall be coupled one to another. 4And thou shalt make loops of blue upon the edge of the one [first] curtain from the selvedge [at the border] in the coupling [the set of curtains]; and likewise shalt thou make in [so shalt thou do with] the uttermost edge of another curtain [the edge of the outmost curtain] in the coupling of the second [in the second set of curtains]. 5Fifty loops shalt thou make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shalt thou make in the edge of the curtain that is in the coupling of the second [in the second set of curtains]; that the loops may take hold one of [the loops shall be opposite one to] another. 6And thou shalt make fifty taches [clasps] of gold, and couple the curtains together [one to another] with the taches [clasps]; and it shall be one tabernacle [the tabernacle shall be one]. 7And thou shalt make curtains of goat’s hair to be a [for a] covering [tent] upon [over] the tabernacle: eleven curtains shalt thou make. 8The length of one [each] curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of one [each] curtain four cubits: and [cubits:] the eleven curtains shall be all of [shall have] one measure. 9And thou shalt couple five curtains by themselves and six curtains by themselves, and shalt double [fold together] the sixth curtain in the forefront [front] of the tabernacle [tent]. 10And thou shalt make fifty loops on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling [first set of curtains], and fifty loops in the edge of the curtain which coupleth the second 11[is the second set]. And thou shalt make fifty taches [clasps] of brass, and put the taches [clasps] into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may [and it shall] be one. 12And the remnant [excess] that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang over the back-side [back] of the 13tabernacle. And a [the] cubit on the one side, and a [the] cubit on the other side of that which remaineth in the length of the curtains of the tent, it [tent,] shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it. 14And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers’ skins [of seal-skins above]. 15And thou shalt make boards 16[the boards] for the tabernacle of shittim [acacia] wood standing up. Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and a cubit and a half shall be the breadth of one 17[each] board. Two tenons shall there be in one [each] board, set in order one against [equally distant from one] another: thus shalt thou make for [do unto] all the boards of the tabernacle. 18And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards on [for] the south side southward. 19And thou shalt make forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his [its] two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his [its] two tenons. 20And for the second side of the tabernacle on [for] the north side there shall be twenty boards: 21And their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board. 22And for the sides [rear] of the tabernacle westward thou shalt make six boards. 23And two boards shalt thou make for the corners of the tabernacle in the two sides [in the rear]. 24And they shall be coupled together [be double] beneath, and they shall be coupled together above the head of it unto one ring [and together they shall be whole up to the top of it, unto the first ring]: 25thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two corners. And they [there] shall be eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; two sockets under one board and two sockets under another board. 26And thou shalt make bars of shittim [acacia] wood; five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle, 27And five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the side of the tabernacle, for the two sides [the rear] westward. 28And the middle bar in the midst [middle] of the boards shall reach [pass through] from end to end. 29And thou shalt overlay the boards with gold, and make their rings of gold for places for the bars: 30and thou shalt overlay the bars with gold. And thou shalt rear [set] up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was [hath been] shewed thee in the mount. 5. The Veil31And thou shalt make a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims [linen: with cherubim, the work of a skilful workman] shall it be made. 32And thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim [acacia] wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of gold, upon four sockets of silExo Exodus 25:33 And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches [clasps], that thou mayest bring [and shalt bring] in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy [the holy of holies]. 34And thou shalt put the mercy-seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place [holy of holies]. 35And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side. 36And thou shalt make an hanging [a screen] for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, wrought with needle-work 37[the work of the embroiderer]. And thou shalt make for the hanging [screen] five pillars of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlay them with gold; and their hooks shall be of gold: and thou shalt cast five sockets of brass for them. 6. The Altar of Burnt-offeringChap. Exodus 27:1 And thou shalt make an [the] altar of shittim [acacia] wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be four-square: and the height thereof shall be three cubits. 2And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his [its] horns shall be of the same [of one piece with it]: 3and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make his [its] pans [pots] to receive his [to take away its] ashes, and his [its] shovels, and his [its] basins, and his [its] fleshhooks, and his [its] firepans: all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass [copper]. 4And thou shalt make for it a grate [grating] of network of brass [copper]; and upon the net shalt thou make four brazen [copper] rings in 5[on] the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the compass of the altar beneath [below, under the ledge of the altar], that the net may be even to the midst [and the net shall reach up to the middle] of the altar. 6And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlay them with brass [copper]. 7And the staves [staves thereof] shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, to bear it [in bearing it]. 8Hollow with boards shalt thou make it: as it was [hath been] shewed thee in the mount; so shall they make it. 7. The Court9And thou shalt make the court of the tabernacle: for the south side southward there shall be hangings for the court of fine-twined linen of an hundred [linen a hundred] cubits long for one side: 10And the twenty pillars thereof and their twenty sockets shall be of brass [copper]; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets [rods] shall be of silExo Exodus 25:11 And likewise for the north side in length there shall be hangings of an hundred [hangings a hundred] cubits long, and his [its] twenty pillars and their twenty sockets of brass 12[copper]; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets [rods] of silver. And for the breadth of the court on the west side shall be hangings of fifty cubits [hangings fiftycubits long]: their pillars ten, and their sockets ten. 13And the breadth of the court on the east side eastward shall be fifty cubits. 14The hangings of one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits [Fifteen cubits of hangings shall be on one side of the gate]: their pillars three, and their sockets three. 15And on the other side shall be hangings fifteen cubits [fifteen cubits of hangings]: their pillars three, and their sockets three. 16And for the gate of the court shall be an hanging [a screen] of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen, wrought with needle-work [linen, embroidered work]: and their pillars shall be four, and their sockets four. 17All the pillars round about the court [of the court round about] shall be filleted with silver [joined with rods of silver]; their hooks shall be of silver, and their sockets of brass [copper]. 18The length of the court shall be an [a] hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits, of fine-twined linen, and their sockets of brass [copper]. 19All the vessels [furniture] of the tabernacle in all the service thereof, and all the pins thereof, and all the pins of the court shall be of brass [copper]. III. The Persons and Things occupying the Building. The Ritual Worship 1. The Oil for the Lamp20And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten [beaten olive oil] for the light, to cause the [a] lamp to burn always [continually]. 21In the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting] without the veil, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order [trim] it from evening to morning before Jehovah: it shall be a statute forever unto [throughout] their generations on the behalf of [on the part of] the children of Israel. 2. The Clothing of the Priest and of his Sacerdotal AssistantsExo_28:1 And take thou [bring thou near] unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office [that he may be a priest unto me], even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons. 2And thou shalt make holy [sacred] garments for Aaron thy brother for glory [honor] and for beauty. 3And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted [all the skilful-hearted], whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom [skill], that they may make Aaron’s garments to consecrate [sanctify] him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office [that Hebrews 4 may be a priest unto me]. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered [checkered] coat, a mitre [turban], and a girdle: and they shall make holy [sacred] garments for Aaron thy brother, and [and for] his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office 5[that he may be a priest unto me]. And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. 6And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine-twined linen, with cunning work [linen, the work of askilful weaver]. 7It shall have the two shoulder-pieces thereof joined at [have two shoulder-pieces joined to] the two edges thereof: and so it [and it] shall be joined together. 8And the curious girdle of the ephod [the embroidered belt for girding it], which is upon it, shall be of the same [same piece], according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen. 9And thou shalt take two onyx stones and grave [engrave] on them the names of the children of Israel: 10Six of their names on one stone, and the other six names of the rest [and thenames of the six remaining ones] on the other stone, according to their birth. 11With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones with [according to] the names of the children of Israel: thou shalt make them to be set [inclosed] in ouches [settings] of gold. 12And thou shalt put the two stones upon the shoulders [shoulder-pieces] of the ephod for stones of memorial unto [as memorial stones for] the children of Israel: and Aaron shall bear their names before Jehovah upon his two shoulders for a memorial. 13And thou shalt make ouches [settings] of gold; 14And two chains of pure gold at the ends; of wreathen work shalt thou make them [pure gold; like cords shalt thou make them, of wreathen work]: and fasten [and thou shalt put] the wreathen chains to the ouches 15[on the settings]. And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment, with cunning work [the work of a skilful weaver]; after [like] the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt 16 thou make it. Four square it shall be being doubled [It shall be square and double]; a span shall be the length thereof, and a span shall be the breadth thereof. 17And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be [stones: a row of sardius, topaz, and emerald shall be] the first row. 18And the second row shall be an emerald, [carbuncle], a sapphire, and a diamond. 19And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. 20And the fourth row a beryl [chrysolite], and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall set in gold in their inclosings. 21And the stones shall be with [according to] the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like [names: like] the engravings of a signet; every [signet, every] one with [accordingto] his name shall they be according to [be for] the twelve tribes. 22And thou shalt make upon the breast-plate chains at the ends [like cords] of wreathen work of pure gold. 23And thou shalt make upon the breast-plate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breast-plate. 24And thou shalt put the two wreathen 25chains of gold in [on] the two rings which are on the ends of the breast-plate. And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two ouches [put on the two settings], and put them on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod before it [onthe front of it]. 26And thou shalt make two rings of gold, and thou shalt put them upon the two ends of the breast-plate, in [on] the border thereof which is in [toward] 27the side of the ephod inward. And two other rings of gold thou shalt make, and shalt put them on the two sides [shoulder-pieces] of the ephod underneath, toward [on] the fore-part thereof, over against [close by] the other coupling [the coupling] thereof, above the curious girdle of the ephod [the embroidered belt of theephod]. 28And they shall bind the breast-plate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace [cord] of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle [the embroidered belt] of the ephod, and that the breast-plate be not loosed from the ephod. 29And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breast-plate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before Jehovah continually. 30And thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before Jehovah: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before Jehovah continually. 31And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. 32And there shall be an hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof [And its opening for the head shall be in the middle of it]: it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it [its opening], as it were the hole 33of an habergeon [like the opening of a coat of mail], that it be not rent. And beneath upon [And upon] the hem of it [its skirts] thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem [skirts] thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: 34A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem [skirts] of the robe round about. 35And it shall be upon Aaron to minister [for ministering]: and his sound [the sound thereof] shall be heard when he goeth in unto [goeth into] the holy place before Jehovah, and when he cometh out, that he die not. 36And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave [engrave] upon it, like the engravings of a signet, TO JEHOVAH. 37And thou shalt put it on a blue lace [cord], that it may be [and it shall be] upon the mitre [turban]; upon the forefront [front] of the mitre 38[turban] it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may [and Aaron shall] bear the iniquity of the holy [sacred] things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy [sacred] gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before Jehovah. 39And thou shalt embroider [weave] the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre [turban] of fine linen, and thou shalt make the [a] girdle of needle-work [embroidered work]. 40And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets [caps] shalt thou make for them, for glory [honor] and for beauty. 41And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate [ordain] them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office [and they shall be priests unto me]. 42And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their [the flesh of their] nakedness; from the loins even unto [loins unto] the thighs they shall reach: 43And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto [come into] the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his [and unto his] seed after him. 3. The Consecration of the PriestsExo_29:1 And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priests’ office [to be priests unto me]: Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish, 2and unleavened bread, and cakes unleavened tempered [mingled] with oil, and wafers unleavened anointed with oil: of wheaten flour shalt thou make them. 3And thou shalt put them into one basket, and bring them in the basket, with the bullock and the two rams. 4And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and shalt wash them with water. 5And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breast-plate, and gird him with the curious girdle [embroidered belt] of the ephod. 6And thou shalt put the mitre [turban] upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre [turban]. 7Then shalt thou [And thou shalt] take the anointing oil, and pour itupon his head, and anoint him. 8And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them. 9And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets [bind caps] on them: and the priests’ office [priesthood] shall be theirs for [by] a perpetual statute: 10and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought [bring the bullock] before the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting]: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. 11And thou shalt kill the bullock before Jehovah, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting]. 12And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom [at the base] of the altar. 13And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above [lobe above] the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is upon them, and burn themupon the altar. 14But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin-offering. 15Thou shalt also take one [the one] ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put [lay] their hands upon the head of the ram. 16And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar. 17And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him [his inwards], and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head. 18And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt-offering unto Jehovah: it is a sweet savor, an offering made by fire [a fire-offering] unto Jehovah. 19And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put [lay] their hands upon the head of the ram. 20Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. 21And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons’ garments with him. 22Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump [the fat tail], and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above [lobe of] the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration: 23And one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of the unleavened bread that is before Jehovah: 24And thou shalt put all [the whole] in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave-offering before Jehovah. 25And thou shalt receive [take] them of [from] their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a [upon the] burnt-offering, for a sweet savor before Jehovah: it is an offering made by fire [a fire-offering] unto Jehovah. 26And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron’s consecration [of Aaron’s ram of consecration], and wave it for [as] a wave-offering before Jehovah: and it shall be thy part. 27And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave-offering, and the shoulder of the heave-offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the [of] consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons: 28And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’ by a statute for ever from the children of Israel; for it is an [a] heave-offering: and it shall be an [a] heave-offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their [Israel of their] peace-offerings,even their heave-offering unto Jehovah. 29And the holy garments of Aaron shall be 30his sons’ after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them. And that son that is priest in his stead shall put them on seven days [Seven days shall he of his sons who is priest in his stead put them on], when he cometh into the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting] to minister in the holy place. 31And thou shalt take the ram of the [of] consecration, and seethe [boil] his flesh in the 32[a] holy place. And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tentof meeting]. 33And they shall eat those things wherewith the [wherewith] atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, 34because they are holy. And if aught of the flesh of the consecrations [consecration], or of the bread, remain unto [until] the morning, then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire: it shall not be eaten, because it is holy. 35And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron and to his sons, according to all things which [all that] I have commanded thee: seven days shalt thou consecrate them. 4. Consecration and Design of the Altar of Burnt-offering36And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an [by making] atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. 37Seven days thou shalt make an [make] atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever 38toucheth the altar shall be holy. Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar: two lambs of the first year [a year old] day by day continually. 39The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: 40And with the one lamb a tenth deal [part] of flour mingled with the fourth part of an [a] hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an [a] hin of wine for a drink-offering. 41And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat-offering of [shalt offer with it the same meal-offering as in] the morning, and according to the drink-offering thereof [and the same drink-offering], for a sweet savor, an offering made by fire [a fire-offering] unto Jehovah. 42This shall be a continual burnt-offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting] before Jehovah; where I will meet [meet with] you, to speak there unto thee. 43And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle [and it] shall be sanctified by my glory. 44And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office 45[to be priests unto me]. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. 46And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may [might] dwell among them: I am Jehovah their God. 5. The Altar of IncenseExo_30:1 And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim 2[acacia] wood shalt thou make it. A cubit shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; four-square shall it be: and two cubits shall be the height thereof: the horns thereof shall be of the same [of one piece with it]. 3And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, the top thereof, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns thereof; and thou shalt make unto [for] it a crown of gold round about. 4And two golden rings shalt thou make to [for] it under the crown of it, by the two corners [upon the two flanks] thereof, upon the two sides of it shalt thou make it; and they shall be for places for the staves to bear it withal [with]. 5And thou shalt make the staves of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlay them with gold. 6And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee. 7And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth [trimmeth] the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. 8And when Aaron lighteth [setteth up] the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it [burn it], a perpetual incense before Jehovah throughout your generations. 9Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt-sacrifice [burnt-offering], nor meat-offering [meal-offering]; neither shall ye pour [and ye shall pour no] drink-offering thereon. 10And Aaron shall make an [make] atonement upon [for] the horns of it once in a [the] year with the blood of the sin-offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon [for] it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto Jehovah. 6. The Contributions for the Sanctuary (Poll-tax) 11And Jehovah spake unto Moses saying, 12When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after [according to] their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto Jehovah, when thou numberest them; that there be [maybe] no plague among them, when thou numberest them. 13This they shall give, every one that passeth among [over unto] them that are numbered, half a shekel after [according to] the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs): an [a] half shekel shall be the offering of [unto] Jehovah. 14Every one that passeth among [over unto] them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto Jehovah [Jehovah’s offering]. 15The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a [the half] shekel, when they give an offering unto Jehovah [give Jehovah’s offering], to make an [make] atonement for your souls. 16And thou shalt take the atonement money of [from] the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting]; that it may be [and it shall be] a memorial unto [for] the children of Israel before Jehovah, to make an [make] atonement for your souls. 7. The Laver17And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 18Thou shalt also make a laver of brass [copper], and his foot also of brass [its base of copper], to wash withal [in]: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting] and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. 19For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat [from it]: 20When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire [afire-offering] unto Jehovah: 21So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations. 8. The holy Anointing Oil22Moreover Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 23Take thou also unto thee principal spices [the chief spices], of pure [flowing] myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, 24And of cassia five hundred shekels, after [accordingto] the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive an [olive oil a] hin: 25And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment [a holy anointing oil], an ointment compound [compounded] after the art of the apothecary [a perfumed ointment, the work of theperfumer]: it shall be an [a] holy anointing oil. 26And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith [therewith the tent of meeting], and the ark of the testimony, 27And the table and all his vessels [its furniture], and the candlestick and his vessels [its furniture] and the altar of incense, 28And the altar of burnt-offering with all his vessels [its furniture], and the laver and his foot [its base]. 29And thou shalt sanctify them, that they may be most holy: whatsoever [whosoever] toucheth them shall be holy. 30And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office [to be priests unto me]. 31And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, This shall be an [a] holy anointing oil unto me throughout your generations. 32Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it [and ye shall make none like it with its33proportions]: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you. Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even [he shall] be cut off from his people. 9. The Incense34And Jehovah said unto Moses, Take unto thee sweet spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; these sweet spices with pure frankincense: of each shall there be a like weight [an equal part]: 35And thou shalt make it a perfume, a confection, after the art of the apothecary, tempered together [make of it an incense, a perfume, thework of the perfumer, salted], pure, and holy: 36And thou shalt beat some of it very small [it fine], and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], where I will meet with thee: it shall be unto you most holy. 37And as for the perfume [And the incense] which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to [for] yourselves according to the composition [with its proportions]: it shall be unto thee holy for [unto] Jehovah. 38Whosoever shall make [make any] like unto that, to smell thereto [thereof], shall even [he shall] be cut off from his people. IV. The Architects. The Master-workman Bezaleel and his Vocation. Sacred Art Exodus 31:1, And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner [kinds] of workmanship, 4To devise cunning [skilful] works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass [copper], 5And in cutting of stones, to set them [stones for setting], and in carving of timber, to work in all manner [kinds] of workmanship. 6And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom, that they make all that I have commanded thee: 7The tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy-seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle [tent], 8And the table and his [its] furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his [its] furniture, and the altar of incense, 9And the altar of burnt-offering with all his [its] furniture, and the laver and his foot [its base], 10And the cloths [garments] of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office [aspriests], 11And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do. V. The Condition of the Vitality of the Ritual. The Sabbath 12And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah that doth sanctify you. 14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore [And ye shall keep the sabbath]; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth [profaneth] it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15Six days may work be done; but in [on] the seventh is the [a] sabbath of rest, holy to Jehovah: whosoever doeth any work in [on] the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations for [as] a perpetual 17covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing [speaking] with him upon mount Sinai, two [the two] tables of [of the] testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 25:19. ξִ ?οΞδַ ?λַּ ?τֹ ?ψֶ ?ϊ, etc. Literally, “From the mercy-seat shall ye make the cherubim.” This is understood by some to mean: “rising up from the mercy-seat.” But the simple ξִ ?ο hardly conveys that notion; it has, perhaps, somewhat of its original import, “part,” so that the direction is to make the cherubim a part of the mercy-seat, i.e., of one piece with it.—Tr.] [Exodus 25:31. The change proposed in the punctuation is one required by the Masoretic accentuation, as well as by the sense, though adopted by only a few commentators (Knobel, Do Wette, Bunsen). When it is said, “its base and its shaft, etc., shall be made of the same,” the question arises, the same with what? For the several specifications include the whole of the candlestick. The direction thus would be to make all the several parts of the candlestick of the same piece with the candlestick—which is senseless.—Tr.] [Exodus 26:24. The A. V. rendering (favored also by Kalisch, Gesenius, Glaire, De Wette, Fόrst, and Canon Cook) assumes ϊִּ ?ξִּ ?ιν to be a contracted form of ϊֹּ ?ΰֲ ?ξִ ?ιν. But it is singular (if this is the case) that both forms should occur in the same verse, and more singular still that there should be the same conjunction of the two forms in the parallel passage Exodus 36:29. So long as at the best the obscurity of the description is not relieved by such an assumption, it seems much more reasonable to take ϊַּ ?ξִּ ?ιν in its natural sense of “perfect,” “whole,” and elucidate the meaning, if possible, on that assumption.—Tr.] AND The origin of the tabernacle is twice recorded in Exodus: first, (considered from its divine side) as a command of God, or (considered from its human side) as a vision or ideal (the tabernacle which God showed Moses on the mount), 25–31; secondly, as the historical fact of the execution of the building of the work commanded by Jehovah, but interrupted by the history of the golden calf, 35–40. The tabernacle is not merely a place of worship; but, as being the house of the ark of the covenant or of the tables of the law, and as being the house of the Lord of the covenant who manifests Himself in the Holy of holies, it is first of all the centre of the whole legislation and the residence of the lawgiver Himself, who holds sway between the cherubim over His law, and will not let it become a dead ordinance, but makes sure that from out of the Holy of holies it shall grow into a living power. Hence, therefore, the history of this institution properly stands in Exodus, not in Leviticus. Jehovah has redeemed His people out of the house of bondage, and brought them to His holy house, which is at once palace, temple, and court-house, or public gathering-place—the house in which Jehovah meets with His people. The tabernacle has been called a nomadic temple. It is indeed the preliminary form of the temple, but itself continued, after the people ceased their wanderings, for a long time to change its location in Israel until Solomon’s temple was built. As the prototype and opposite of garish heathen temples; as the historical model of the Israelitish temple in its three principal historical forms (temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod); as the religious model, or outline, the type of Christian places of worship; and as the symbol of the proportions of the kingdom of God, both outwardly and inwardly considered; accordingly, as the fundamental form of every real sanctuary, the tabernacle preserves an imperishable significance—almost more significant in its naked simplicity than with its ornamentation and wealth. When the outward glory of the temple is gone, God will rebuild the tabernacle of David (Amos 9:11-12). The tabernacle as Moses’ idea, which indeed he owes to divine revelation, characterizes Moses as also a great and original man in Hebrew art. Bezaleel was only the artist or master-workman who carried out the idea, working according to Moses’ plan; and even Michel Angelo, who chiselled the figure of Moses, worked, as architect, according to the theocratic outline which had been introduced into the world through Moses. Of the numerous treatises on this sanctuary comp. besides Bδhr (Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus I. p. 53 sqq.) and Keil (Bibl. Archδologie 1, § 17 sqq.), especially Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopδdie, Art. Stiftshόtte, which gives a condensed view of all the opinions and conjectures which have been propounded respecting its structure and significance. The latest monograms are: Wilh. Neumann, Die Stiftshόtte in Bild und Wort gezeichnet, Gotha, 1861 (rich in fantastic hypotheses derived from the discoveries at Nineveh), and C. J. Riggenbach, Die mosaische Stiftshόtte mit drei lithogr. Tafeln. (Basel, 1862–4). Vid. Knobel, Commentary, pp. 249–257. Popper, Der biblische Bericht όber die Stiftshόtte, etc. (Leipzig, 1862). Wangemann, Die Bedeutung der Stiftshόtte. Wissenschaftlicher Vortrag, etc. (Berlin, 1866). Also Winer’s Reallexicon and Zeller’s Biblisches Wφrterbuch. [To these may be added, besides Smith’s Bible Dictionary and Kitto’s Cyclopedia, Kurtz, Sacrificial Offerings of the O. T.; Haneberg, Die religiφsen Alterthόmer der Bibel (Munich, 1869); T. O. Paine, Solomon’s Temple (Boston, H. H. &T. W. Carter, 1870); and E. E. Atwater, History and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews (Dodd &Mead, New York, 1875).—Tr.] I. General view of the ideal plan of the building. Exodus 25:1 to Exodus 31:11 External Prerequisites. Building Materials. Assessments for the Building. Exodus 25:1-9. a. The Divine Side of the Dwelling1. The Ark of the Covenant, with the Mercy-seat and the Cherubim, as the chief thing in the whole Building, Exodus 25:10-22. Object of it: the continual, living Revelation of God. Exodus 25:22. The Holy of Holies. 2. The Table of Shew-bread (of Communion with God, consecrated to God, Exodus 25:30), and the Candlestick with its Appurtenances (the Divine Illumination in accordance with the Ideal, Exodus 25:40), Exodus 25:23-40. 3. The Sanctuary. Divine and Human. The Tent, or the Dwelling itself, Exodus 26:1-30. Conformed to the Ideal, Exodus 26:30. 4. The Veil to distinguish and divide the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, Exodus 26:31-37. b. The Human Side of the Dwelling1. The Altar of Burnt-offering. Chap. Exodus 27:1-8. Conformed to the Ideal, Exodus 27:8. 2. The Court, Exodus 27:9-19. c. Functions Connected with the Building1. Bringing of the holy Oil, and the Preparation of the Candlestick, Exodus 27:20-21. 2. Equipment of the Priest, the High priest and his Assistants, Exodus 28:1-43. Object of it, Exodus 28:35; Exodus 28:43. 3. Consecration of the Priests and the Sacrificial Functions of the Priest, Exodus 29:1-46. Object, Exodus 29:43-46. 4. Altar of Incense, and its Use, Exodus 30:1-10. 5. Assessment for the Sanctuary as a Continual Memorial for the People, Exodus 30:11-16. 6. The Brazen Laver in the Court for the Priests to wash from, Exodus 30:17-21. 7. The Anointing of the Holy Things. The most holy Ointment, Exodus 30:22-33. 8. The Most Holy Incense, Exodus 30:34-38. d. The Master-workmenExo_31:1-11. *Conclusion.—The fundamental condition on which the meeting between Jehovah and His people ideally rests: the Sabbath, Exodus 31:12-17. The addition of the Directions concerning the Tabernacle to the completed written Law, Exodus 31:18. II. General view of the actual construction of the buildingFoundation: The Sabbath as Prerequisite to the Tabernacle. Exodus 35:1-3 (Exodus 31:14-17). 1. The Assessments for the Building, and the Preparation of the Material made under the direction of the Master-workmen, Exodus 35:4 to Exodus 36:7 (Exodus 25:1-9; Exodus 31:1-11). 2. The Work on the Dwelling, Exodus 36:8-38 (Exodus 26:1-37). 3. The Ark of the Covenant, the Mercy-seat, and the Cherubim, Exodus 37:1-9 (Exodus 25:10-22). 4. The Table, with its Appurtenances, Exodus 37:10-16 (Exodus 25:23-30). 5. The Candlestick, Exodus 37:17-24 (Exodus 25:31-40). 6. The Altar of Incense, the Incense, and the Anointing Oil, Exodus 37:25-29 (Exodus 30:1-10; Exodus 30:23-38). 7. The Altar of Burnt-offering, Exodus 38:1-7 (Exodus 27:1-8). 8. The Brazen Laver, and the Court, Exodus 38:8-20 (Exodus 27:9-19). 9. The Reckoning of the Material used, Exodus 38:21-31. 10. The official Garments of the Priests, Exodus 39:1-31 (Exodus 28:1-43). The Consecration of the Priests, and the Ordinance of the Sacrifices, Exodus 29:1-46. 11. The Presentation of the Constituent Parts of the Dwelling, Exodus 39:32-43. 12. The Erection of the Dwelling, and the Heavenly Consecration of it by means of the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, the Sign of the Veiled Presence of the Glory of the Lord, chap. 40. Knobel calls attention “to the exact reckoning in Exodus 38:21 sqq. and the extraordinary circumstantiality and diffuseness which is found in no other narrator to the same degree. So extended a repetition does not occur elsewhere in all the Old Testament.” As to the diffuseness, the O. T. everywhere gives details when the sanctuary is concerned, as becomes the symbolical significance of the sanctuary and the religious spirit of the Israelites, vid. 1 Samuel 4-7; 1 Kings 5:1 to 1 Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 12; 2 Chronicles 2-7; Ezekiel 40-47; the whole of Haggai; Zechariah 3, 4. It is taken for granted that here in every individual feature there is to be recognized the reflection of a religious thought. As to the repetition, however, stress is to be laid on the general consciousness of connection between ideal and real worship, as well as the special consciousness that the real tabernacle was built exactly according to the idea of it. Moreover, the second account is not a mere repetition of the first. In the presentation of the idea, the master-workmen come at the end; in the narrative of the actual erection of the building, at the beginning,—quite in accordance with the relations of real life. In the execution of the work of the tabernacle the sacerdotal garments are described, and even the calculation of the cost of the building—the church account, so to speak. So the denunciation of a severe penalty on the manufacture, for private use, of the holy anointing oil and of the incense, is one of the means used to prevent the profanation of a legally prescribed system of worship. Even the hinderance in the execution of the work prescribed in the mount, occasioned by the golden calf, is not without meaning. How often it is a golden calf which hinders the execution of pure ideal ecclesiastical conceptions! Here, however, is everywhere manifested this feature of revelation, that the idea must become fact, and that the fact must answer to the idea. We make five general divisions in the things commanded: I. The Prerequisite—the Materials. II. The Precept concerning the Structure itself. III. The Persons and Things occupying the Building. IV. The Architects and their Work. V. The Condition of the Vitality of the Institution—the Sabbath. Footnotes: [Exodus 25:19. ξִ ?οΞδַ ?λַּ ?τֹ ?ψֶ ?ϊ, etc. Literally, “From the mercy-seat shall ye make the cherubim.” This is understood by some to mean: “rising up from the mercy-seat.” But the simple ξִ ?ο hardly conveys that notion; it has, perhaps, somewhat of its original import, “part,” so that the direction is to make the cherubim a part of the mercy-seat, i.e., of one piece with it.—Tr.] [Exodus 25:31. The change proposed in the punctuation is one required by the Masoretic accentuation, as well as by the sense, though adopted by only a few commentators (Knobel, Do Wette, Bunsen). When it is said, “its base and its shaft, etc., shall be made of the same,” the question arises, the same with what? For the several specifications include the whole of the candlestick. The direction thus would be to make all the several parts of the candlestick of the same piece with the candlestick—which is senseless.—Tr.] [Exodus 26:24. The A. V. rendering (favored also by Kalisch, Gesenius, Glaire, De Wette, Fόrst, and Canon Cook) assumes ϊִּ ?ξִּ ?ιν to be a contracted form of ϊֹּ ?ΰֲ ?ξִ ?ιν. But it is singular (if this is the case) that both forms should occur in the same verse, and more singular still that there should be the same conjunction of the two forms in the parallel passage Exodus 36:29. So long as at the best the obscurity of the description is not relieved by such an assumption, it seems much more reasonable to take ϊַּ ?ξִּ ?ιν in its natural sense of “perfect,” “whole,” and elucidate the meaning, if possible, on that assumption.—Tr.] 4. The Tent, or the Dwelling itself. Exodus 26:1-30I. The Component Parts of the Tent as to Form. a. The tent itself. (1) Ten curtains of byssus each 28 cubits long, and 4 cubits wide. (2) Fifty loops to each curtain, to connect together five curtains. (3) Five times fifty golden clasps, to connect the loopsb. The covering of the tent. First covering, of goats’ hair: eleven curtains, each 30 cubits long, and 4 cubits wide, divided into sets of 5 and 6. For them 50 [or rather, 100] loops and 50 copper clasps. One curtain is folded double on the front side of the tent. The surplus cubits hang over on the two sides. A similar excess hangs over on the back end of the tent.—Second covering, rams’ skins dyed red.—Third covering, the outer one, seal-skins. c. The supports of the tent. The boards of acacia wood. Each board 10 cubits long, 1½ cubits wide. Two tenons in each board. Twenty boards on the south side resting on forty silver sockets (feet).—Twenty boards on the north side with the same number of sockets. Six boards for the rear. Two boards for the corners of the rear. In addition, the bars (cross-bars or connecting bars), 5 for each side, the middle one passing the whole length of the framework. The bars and boards gilt. Also the rings for the bars.II. The Component Parts as to material. Byssus, linen, goats’-hair, and the two kinds of skin. Acacia wood, gold, silver, copper. III. The Colors. Especially significant. The covering proper of the tent contains the four colors: white, purplish-blue, purplish-red, crimson. IV. The Work of the Curtains. The work of skilful weavers, i.e., with figures interwoven, viz., with figures of cherubim. V. The different kinds of woven work. 5. The Veil. Exodus 26:31-37 The division between the holy place and the Holy of holies. According to modern notions there is no difference between the wide, savage world and the court, no difference between the court and the holy place, none, in fine, between the holy place and the most holy. The Biblical notions are infinitely purer and finer. Even between the holy place and the most holy hangs a thick curtain, as between the Old and New Testament. The passage from the holy place into the Holy of holies has been made free to His people by Christ. As the heaven of heavens is to be conceived as a high heaven consisting of individual heavens, the age (ζon) of ages (ζons) as an age which consists of individual ages, the Sabbath of Sabbaths as one whose several week days are seven Sabbaths; so the Holy of holies is a sanctuary of sanctuaries, χֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ χֳ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, and so, most holy. Especially is it to be observed that the three principal features of the holy place, viz., the table of shew-bread, the candlestick, and the altar of incense, here coalesce into one. As there were three altars, so three curtains. The first screened the court; the second, the holy place; the third, the Holy of holies. The latter was the principal one. Keil and Knobel give details about the construction and arrangement of the curtain, as also about the Arab tents and Egyptian temples.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 6. The Altar of Burnt-offering. Exodus 27:1-8 The fact that the altar of burnt-offering was separated not only from the Holy of holies, but also from the holy place, and stood in the court, serves to express this religious idea: that faith begins with the first approach to God, with obedience to His law and surrender to His judgment; but that it does not for that reason entitle one to an entrance into the interior communion with God in the sanctuary, still less to a complete union with God in the Holy of holies; although it has this as its aim, and is a preparation for it, and also through religious fellowship with the high-priest gives to him who makes the offering a conditional participation in the blessing of the Holy of holies, and gives him a hope of future entrance into the Holy of holies itself. This distance between the holy place and the Holy of holies is also represented by the gradations in the value of the metallic ornamentations. The altar of burnt-offering was overlaid with copper: the seven-branched candlestick in the holy place consisted of fine or hollow vessels; the table of shew-bread was gilt; the ark of the covenant was gilt inside and outside, while its lid and the cherubim on it, as also the rim of the ark, were of solid gold. A similar relation exists between the curtains. The veil of the Holy of holies was the work of a skilled weaver, adorned with figures of cherubim in which the reflection of the cherubim in the Holy of holies appears. The second curtain, which screened the holy place, was simply woven in variegated colors, striped, or perhaps checkered; so also the screen at the entrance of the court. Significant special features in the altar of burnt-offering are particularly its horns, the points of the corners, the permanent power of the altar, so to speak, in contrast with the fire which now appears and now disappears; “hence,” as Keil says, “the blood of the sin-offering was put upon them (Leviticus 4:7), and also those who sought the protection of their lives at the altar seized hold of them (vid. Exodus 21:14).” Among the vessels bowls appear again, but here to be used for sprinkling the blood. Special mention, moreover, is made of the grating of the altar under the ledge or rim (λַּ ?ψְ ?λֹּ ?α), and of this ledge itself. “Upon the karkob, the ledge or rim, the priest stepped when an offering was made, or when he wished to add more wood, or do anything else on the altar” (Keil). Knobel has a different view, holding [that the rim was only an ornament, that such a ledge to step on would have disfigured the altar, and moreover] that the altar was so high that it could not have been served without steps; which is contrary to Exodus 20:26. Keil, on the contrary, supposes that the earth was slightly heaped up, so that the priest could step from it to the ledge. Neither does the height of the altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chronicles 4:1) exclude the assumption of such a gradual ascent. The grating was an enclosure to protect the altar; the rings by which the altar was carried were also fastened to it. The altar itself was a wooden structure consisting of four plane sides overlaid with copper, forming a hollow square, which was probably filled with earth, gravel, or stones (vid. Exodus 20:24). The place for the fire had to be adequately separated from the wooden border. 7. The Court. Exodus 27:9-19 The hangings which enclosed the court were not wrought in the four sacred colors, like the covering of the tabernacle itself, but were simply white. Moreover, they formed no roof, as that did, but only a boundary, an enclosure. The pillars here, moreover, have copper sockets, not silver ones; only the hooks of the pillars and the rods connecting them were of silver, the latter perhaps only overlaid with silver, as the pillars at the entrance of the tabernacle were gilt. It is to be further observed, that the court properly unites the notions of a porch and of a quadrangular wall of enclosure, since it passed around the tabernacle from east to west. iii. the persons and things occupying the building. the ritual worship. Exodus 27:20 to Exodus 30:38.In speaking now exclusively of the features of the ritual worship, it is to be observed that we must distinguish the general worship of the house of God from the specific, Levitical worship, the sacrificial ritual described in Leviticus. 1. The Oil for the Light. The Lamps. Exodus 27:20-21 The first condition of life, in the house of the Lord as well as elsewhere, is light; and the prerequisite of that is oil. Light is the spirit in action, symbolized by oil, which is a symbol of the spiritual life itself. The first business of the priest was to be to prepare and produce light—even in the Old Testament. How is it in this respect with the sacrificial priesthood of the present time? The text says that this is to be a perpetual statute. On the oil vid Knobel.2. The Sacerdotal Vocation. The Priest—his Assistants and Apparel. Exodus 28 The consecration of the priests is not treated of here, as Knobel thinks, but the priestly calling and its symbolic representation by means of the clothing; the consecration is not distinctly spoken of till the next chapter. First, then, the vocation of the Priest, Exodus 28:1-5. That Aaron is to be the priest (i.e., high priest), is presupposed; or, rather, it is Jehovah’s commandment which is fulfilled by his coming before Moses, the prophet of God. The prophetic order is therefore perpetually the medium through which, and the condition on which, the priestly order officiates. But the priest is essentially only one—a truth which in the N. T. is fulfilled in the high-priesthood of Christ. His sons therefore must approach with him, as being his descendants and legal successors, and as being his actual assistants. So they are first publicly presented to the congregation, and the latter take part in their appointment by furnishing men of sacred skill able to prepare the sacred garments which are to portray the symbolic phenomenon of the sacerdotal vocation, and by furnishing the materials for them (all of which is shadowed forth in Christianity, but not in the least in the “infallible” Pope). The main particulars are given in a significant order. As in the house of Jehovah the chief thing is the ark, so in the service of Jehovah is the breast-plate of the high-priest, with which, however, the shoulder-piece or ephod is immediately connected; for the priest is not only as a sympathizing intercessor to bear his people on his heart, but also, as a fellow-sufferer and laborer, on his shoulders. The shoulder-piece and the breast-plate form substantially one whole, whose most important part is the breast-plate; just as the mercy-seat is connected with the ark of the law, and yet forms in itself the principal thing in the Holy of holies, being, so to speak, the New Testament in the Old. So also in the breast-plate the eternal intercession of the eternal High Priest is adumbrated. Then follow the robe, the coat, the turban, and the girdle. Next, therefore, is described the shoulder-piece or ephod, this being designed to underlie the breast-plate, Exodus 28:6-14. From the whole cast of the precept it is evident that the culminating feature was its serving to bear the breast-plate. The material of the shoulder-piece is of as costly work, in all the four colors of the covenant, as the veil of the Holy of holies, “except that instead of the figures of cherubim woven into the veil, this is to be artistically inwrought with gold, i.e., gold threads” (Keil). According to Knobel, the ephod consisted of one piece, which had holes slit in it for the arms. But this leaves us no clear conception of it, for in this case there must have been another slit for the head too; and moreover in that case the symbolic reference to the two shoulders would be lost. According to Keil’s representation, the two shoulder-pieces seem to be too much separated; but they are not “connecting” so much as connected. The Rabbinical conception which he accepts seems quite untenable. It seems almost necessary to suppose that there was a connection not only on the front side, but also on the back; for only on this condition could the girdle, of like material and color, fasten the ephod. The girdle itself also is of one piece with the ephod; for firmness and collectedness are necessary in order to bear the burden of the people on the shoulders. That this was to be done by the high-priest, is expressed by the onyx (shoham) stones which were fastened on the right and left shoulder pieces and had engraved on them the names of the sons of Israel in the order of age—a foreshadowing of the names on the breast-plate, as the cherubim in the veil foreshadow the cherubim in the Holy of holies itself, and the altar of burnt-offering (used also for sin and trespass-offerings, and for the great sin-offering) foreshadows the propitiatory lid or mercy-seat. Finally in the ephod are to be considered the golden settings or rings, with their golden chains, by means of which the breast-plate is to be fastened to the ephod. Now follows the most important article—the breast-plateExo_28:15-30 : the breast-plate of judicial sentence. By this phrase would we represent the meaning of ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ, because it comprises both factors, light and right [Urim and Thummim], the sentence of salvation or of righteousness, and the sentence of judgment. The source and combination of both elements is found in the sympathy of the high-priest with the people of God. The material of the breast-plate is like that of the shoulder-pieces. Its form is square; for the people of God signify symbolically God’s perfect world; they are eventually to dwell in the Holy of holies (Revelation 21:24). The doubling of it, aside from any other reference (e.g., to make it a pocket for the stones used in drawing lots), may have this meaning: that the inner fold represents the divine justice; the outer one, the people. The people are laid upon the heart of the high-priest, with the twelve precious stones set in four rows: four, the mundane number [the four points of the compass], multiplied by three, the number of the spirit [intellect, feelings, will], thus pointing to the world as made complete in and by the people of God. The twelve precious stones denote the variety, manifoldness, and totality of the natural and gracious gifts bestowed on the people of God, and united in the one spirit of heavenly preciousness. This wonderful idea goes from the twelve sons of Jacob through the whole Bible, and at last, proceeding from the number of the twelve apostles, attains its complete expression in the Apocalypse, vid. Comm. on Revelation, p. 385. The rows are as follows: SARDIUS.(Flesh Color.)TOPAZ.(Golden-Yellow.)EMERALD.(Brilliant Green.).(Red.).(Sky-Blue)DIAMOND.(Transparent or Reddish-Yellow.)LIGURE (?)(Pale—Variegated.)AGATE.(Glistening—Variegated.).(Mostly Violet.)BERYL (.)(Yellow-Green.)ONYX (BERYL.)(Greenish.)JASPER.(Dull-Red—Cloudy.)For archζological and other details, see Knobel, p. 283, and my Vermischte Schriften, I. p. 18. The fastening of the breast-plate to the ephod was an important task; no part was to be injured in the process. The description is hard to understand. We find a clue by the use of two suggestions. First, by determining that two golden chains hang down from the ephod towards the breast-plate. Secondly, by determining that the breast-plate must be loose at the top, as a pocket, for which reason also only two corners, viz., those at the bottom, are spoken of. On these corners two golden rings are fixed, into which the golden chains of the ephod are inserted, they themselves passing down by the breast plate and then returning into the connecting hooks of the ephod. Thus the breast-plate is held secure from falling, but may still become displaced. Hence two more golden rings have to be put upon the corners of the edge of the pocket, towards the inner part, i.e., on the inside part of the pocket, in order that the pocket itself may be left open. These rings correspond to two golden rings on the ephod which are fixed upon the breast side of it above where the two parts are joined together. These corresponding rings are tied fast together with a purplish-blue cord. So much importance and particularity belong to the business of fastening the breast-plate to the high-priest’s breast; and this fact has doubtless its significance. Knobel has a different conception. The ordinance that Aaron must appear with the breast-plate before Jehovah (Exodus 28:29) is designed to be a symbolical reference to the high-priestly intercession; and so the opposite of this is quite appropriate, viz., the direction that he shall proclaim light and right to the people in the name of Jehovah, with royal authority, as it were, after he has consecrated this commission in Jehovah’s presence, Exodus 28:30. Vid. Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8. Comp. Comm. on John 11:51. On the various explanations of ΰεּ ?ψִ ?ιν and ϊֻּ ?ξִּ ?ιν [Urim and Thummim] see the Dictionaries and Commentaries. Luther’s translation, “Licht und Recht” [“light and right (justice)”] is much better than that of the LXX., δήλωσιςκαὶἀλήθεια, or that of the Vulg., doctrina et veritas. We translate: “Lights and decision,” connecting ϊֹּ ?ν with the meaning “to be finished,” “to be at an end,” which ϊָּ ?ξַ ?ν has in Kal; and “to finish,” “to terminate,” in Hiphil. So also Symmachus and Theodotion translate φωτισμοὶκαὶτελειώσεις. As to the question what the object of them was, as stated in Numbers 27:21, the Urim and Thummim mark a kind of permanent judgment-hall where prophetico-royal decisions were rendered. There were not always prophets in Israel, and also not always kings; but the priest was always to be found, and so also the living God, who was the King of Israel, and after whose will Israel was always to inquire. Hence it was the high-priest’s duty, when the prophetic voice was wanting, always to give answer when the people asked what was to be done. Herein the priest was the vicar of the prophet, as in other cases the reverse happened. But because the priest was a hereditary one, he was as such neither prophet nor king, and could therefore give answer only through a special medium, the oracle of the Urim and Thummim. In many cases the answer of Jehovah was at once light and right; in favorable cases, when the inquirers were pious, as is assumed in the case mentioned in Numbers 27:21, it was Urim; also in the worst case, such as is implied in John 11:51, the decision, necessary in all cases, took the form of Thummim in bringing on judgment. It was regarded as a condition of peculiar distress when, there was at hand neither a prophet, nor a king, nor the priest with Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65), or when the oracle Urim gave no answer—a circumstance which might grow out of the institution itself (1 Samuel 14:37), or out of a variance between the high-priest and the inquirer. As to the question what the Urim and Thummim were, they could not have consisted in the stones of the breast-plate themselves, which, as Josephus and Saalschόtz suppose, inspired the high-priest as he looked down upon them; still less in two small oracular images, teraphim, which, as Philo probably or perhaps conceives, were inserted in the orifice of the breastplate. The Urim and Thummim must certainly have been an object distinct from the breast-plate itself, and something which Moses was to put into it. The Rabbins conceived that in the inside of the breast-plate was the sacred tetragrammaton (Jehovah), and that this illuminated the names on the breast-plate; the Cabbalists assumed, instead of this, two similarly efficacious names of God. Zόllig understands the object to have been two diamond dice to be used in drawing lots (Apokalypse, I. p. 408). So much is established, that the phrase “to ask of Jehovah” may be explained both by the phrase “ask of the Urim and Thummim,” and by the notion of decision by lot (1 Samuel 10:20; 1 Samuel 14:36). It is noticeable that in 1 Samuel 28:6 the lot is not mentioned in connection with Urim. Comp. on the lot Winer, Realwφrterbuch, II. p. 31. On the derivation of the Urim and Thummim from an Egyptian judicial symbol, vid. Winer, II. p. 644 [and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Urim and Thummim]. Reference can only be assumed to something analogous in the Egyptian institution. The main point is that the resolute spirit of the Holy Scriptures regarded hesitation as the evil of evils—e.g., in the life of Saul and of Judas. Hence the lot, hence the need of decision. In accordance with his coarse anthropopathic conceptions, Knobel holds that the precious stones were in the proper sense to remind Jehovah of Israel, p. 287. The directions concerning the Urim and Thummim seem to have been intentionally made very brief and kept mysterious. Vid. more in Knobel. The outer robe, Exodus 28:31. Luther’s translation is here very arbitrary, but was probably occasioned by the desire to leave the breast-plate uncovered: “Thou shalt also make the silk robe under the coat all of yellow silk.” For if a ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ, a covering (not to be absolutely confounded with the ordinary ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ), was made for the ephod, such an over-garment must necessarily have covered the breast-plate also, if it was a long robe closely fitting (according to Keil), reaching to the knees, and, according to the Alexandrians, even reaching, as ποδήρης, to the feet. Against both assumptions is not only the fact that in that case the breast-plate would have been covered, but also the manner in which the robe was put on, viz., over the head, by means of an opening (as in the case of a coat of mail)—which also implies the absence of sleeves. Besides, there would then come two girdles at nearly the same place, since the coat had its own girdle, vid. Exodus 28:39. The representation in Leviticus 8:7 seems, it is true, somewhat inexact. The significance of this hyacinth-colored, dark-blue, purple ornament may be sought in this, that the burden of the high-priest symbolized by the ephod was not to be made a spectacle to the world, but was to be hidden by a symbol of the royal splendor of his vocation. Two questions are raised by this conception of the covering for the ephod. First: If the robe was so short, what was the case with the rest of the garments? This is answered by Exodus 28:39 and the parallel description, Exodus 39:27. They made the coats (δַ ?λָּ ?ϊְ ?πֹ ?ϊ) of white byssus. Secondly: How could the bells ring, if they lay so high up that even the breast-plate was to be exposed? This question is solved if we take ‍ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?μָ ?ι‍ ?ε [“its skirts”] in its original sense, i.e., not as its hem, but its train, and assume that the robe was so cut that it left the breast-plate free, while it flowed out sidewise in trains. On the various interpretations of the bells and pomegranates, vid. Keil. According to Keil or Bδhr, the pomegranates are symbols of the word and testimony of God; the bells, with their ringing, symbols of the sound of this word. But in this case Moses the prophet would have abdicated his functions to Aaron the priest. The symbolic meaning of the pomegranate is very hard to fix (vid. Friedrich, Symbolik und Mythologie der Natur); perhaps the most natural assumption is that in the alternation of pomegranates and bells is to be discerned the connection of nature, as represented in its abundance and beauty by the pomegranate, with the theocracy as designed to manifest, itself in the sacrificial vocation of the high-priest through holy time, and through the awakening voice of the thunder, the trumpet, and the bells. The gifts of nature and of grace are the offerings which the high-priest brings to Jehovah over his shoulders. The clause, “that he die not,” can hardly mean that sudden death would follow the neglect of the precept, but that this would be an official misdemeanor worthy of death, an offence consisting chiefly in contempt of Jehovah and of the customs of the sanctuary, but also particularly in the fact that the connection between Jehovah and the congregation is not only effected in general by means of these bells, but is also enlivened by the sacred moment [the advent of which they announce]. From the farthest distance, as it were, the sound of the bells is heard, indicating holy time (as the organ indicates the holy place), although the large bell is not immediately derived from an enlargement of these small ones. The plate of gold for the forehead, Exodus 28:36. A plate of gold fastened to the turban by a dark-blue purple string, with the inscription, “Holiness (or holy) to Jehovah,” and designated in Exodus 39:30 as the holy crown. The meaning is that Aaron is to bear the expiation (ςֲ ?εֹ ?ο, i.e., expiation of the guilt) of the gifts of the sanctuary, which the children of Israel shall hallow, etc. That is, the high-priest has to effect the expiation of the expiations before Jehovah. The children of Israel also bring expiatory offerings of all kinds before Jehovah; but guilt cleaves even to their offerings; the high-priest, however, is symbolically to accomplish the expiation of all these guilt-stained expiations. Thus, then, the high-priest’s plate of gold points to the chief function which he was to discharge on the great day of atonement, on which day, even on his entrance into the Holy of holies, he had, if not exactly to supplement, yet to complete, the whole abundance of the expiatory offerings of the children of Israel, to cleanse them from the stain of guilt (the negative guilt of deficiency, and the positive guilt of wrong-doing) which cleaves to them. How rich in instruction this symbol is in its relation to the high-priesthood and sacrifice of Christ! From the instituting of this plate to the fulfilment of the prophecy in Zechariah 14:20 is a great distance. The general fulfilment is announced in John 17.; the eschatological fulfilment is pictured in Revelation, Exodus 21. Knobel, referring to ancient heathen customs, resolves the thing itself wholly into sensuous conceptions, speaking of “external lapses of the children of Israel in connection with their offering of gifts—the conciliatory appearance of the high-priest,” and referring to a custom of the ancients, in offering sacrifices to put garlands on themselves and on the victims. But vid. the quotation from Calvin in a note in Keil, II. p. Exodus 204: [“The iniquity of the sacred offerings was to be borne and cleansed by the priest. It is a frigid explanation to say that whatever error crept into the ceremonies was remitted through the prayers of the priest. For we must look further back, and see that the iniquity of the offerings was obliterated by the priest for the reason that no offering, so far as it is man’s, is wholly free from defect. It sounds harsh and almost paradoxical to say that holy things themselves are unclean, so as to need pardon; but it is to be held that there is absolutely nothing so pure but that it contracts some stain from us… Nothing is more excellent than the worship of God; and yet the people could offer nothing, even when it was prescribed by law, without the intervention of pardon, which they could obtain only through the priest.”] Aaron’s coat, Exodus 28:39. The tunic proper, with which also his sons were clothed. It reached to the ankles, and was also provided with sleeves. It was made of white byssus; but Aaron’s coat was, distinguished by being more artistically wrought. The girdle of his coat was also of variegated work. According to Josephus (Ant. III. 7, 2) purple and crimson flowers were woven into the linen girdles of the priests. The clothing of the sons, Exodus 28:40. Of Aaron’s assistants, or the ordinary priests. It consisted in the coat of white byssus, the girdle, and the cap. These articles are not included in the description of Aaron’s clothing, because there were differences. The sons do not receive the prerogatives of the high-priest; and Aaron’s head-gear is the turban with the gold plate, while the sons receive caps. “ξִ ?βְ ?αָּ ?ςָ ?δ is only used of the headdress of the common priests, Exodus 29:9; Exodus 39:28; Leviticus 8:13. The word is related to βָ ?αִ ?ιςַ, goblet, cup (Exodus 25:31), so that these head-tires seem to have had a conical form. This was also customary in reference to other sacerdotal persons of antiquity” (Knobel). The passage, 1 Samuel 22:18, seems to merge the whole family of priests into one, as inheriting in that capacity the high-priesthood, and therefore the ephod. A different point of view would lead critics to make a sharp distinction between the time of the original giving of the law and the time of Samuel. The investment, anointing, and consecration of the priests, Exodus 28:41. This equipment is common to all, but conferred wholly by Moses, not even in part by Aaron after he himself has been equipped. Nor does Aaron anoint even his sons, but the prophet does it. That which was genealogically transmitted from Aaron to his descendants must therefore be continually supplemented by the transmission of spiritual life in the theocracy. The clothes denote the dignity and burden of the office; the anointment is a symbol of the Spirit; the hands filled are the signs of the sacrificial gifts furnished by the congregation,—of the emoluments which they themselves first of all have to bring as an offering to Jehovah. With this investment is completed the potential sanctification or consecration; the strict, actual consecration of the priests is yet to follow. The breeches and the object of them, Exodus 28:42-43. This ordinance forms a transition to the actual consecration of the priests. It is significant that it follows the official investment. The official clothing in the narrow sense conferred dignity and ornament; these, on the other hand, were only to avert dishonor and disgrace. The reason for this covering, according to Baumgarten, lay in the fact that “the sins of nature have their principal seat in the ‘flesh of nakedness!’ ” According to Keil the physical members mentioned, “which subserve the natural secretions, are pudenda, or objects of shame, because in these secretions is made evident the mortality and corruptibility of the body which through sin has permeated human nature.” Neither the first, theosophic explanation, nor the latter, most peculiarly orthodox one, can be derived from Genesis 3. The organs of the strongest impulses, those which through sin have been morbidly deranged, belong, even physiologically, to the dark side of life, and are therefore to be kept mysterious, like births themselves, in connection with which there can be no thought of lust; but in an ethical respect, affecting the whole human race, they are not objects of a dispassionate ζsthetic contemplation, but confusing to the senses, for which reason also there is a difference between naked children and naked adults: religiously considered, finally, they are indeed signs of the moral nakedness of man, of his natural and hereditary guilt. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. The Consecration of the Priests. Exodus 29:1-36 The direction here given for the actual consecration of the priests is not carried out till Leviticus 8-10. This raises two questions: First, why does not the execution of the precept, as of all the preceding ones, follow in Exodus, where it might be regarded as simply omitted in Exodus 39? Secondly, why nevertheless are the calling and investment of the priests, which have been heretofore considered, described in Exodus? As to the first question, we see from Exodus 40 that even the sanctuary had to be erected and arranged, and consecrated by the first-fruits of the offerings, not by Aaron, but by Moses, the royal prophet himself, just as he had also called and invested, or prepared, the priests. For the tabernacle was designed in a universal sense for Jehovah as presiding over all three forms of revelation, the prophetic, the ritual or Levitical, and the princely or royal, i.e., Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; but the initiative belonged to the prophetic office. This relation would have been wholly altered if the actual consecration of the priests had preceded the erection of the tabernacle. Thus is answered also the second question, why the actual consecration of the priests is prescribed so early? The answer lies in the fact that the priesthood has a more universal significance than the merely ritual one. In relation to the prophetic office the priesthood has to represent symbolically religious ideas in itself, in its clothing, and in its functions; in relation to the ritual worship, however, it has not only to symbolize the ethical ideas of sacrifice, but also to conduct the educational training of the people of Israel—in the Middle Ages of the Old Testament—by means of the sacrificial service and the administration of the laws of purification; but in relation to the politico-theocratic side of the theocracy, the high-priest carries on his breast, for times of exigency, the oracular Urim and Thummim, which make good the temporary failure of the prophetic word and the royal government; and the Levites as bearers of the ark of the covenant have to attend to the banners of the host of the Lord. But since nevertheless the sacrificial worship is the chief vocation of the priests, the actual consecration of the priests serves to introduce the sacrificial system as developed in Leviticus.—Keil finds it most suitable to his purpose not to explain the consecration of the priests till Leviticus 8. On this point, however, Knobel has yielded to the requirements of the text. The preparation of the offerings which Aaron and his sons are to bring, Exodus 29:1-3. The three fundamental forms of offering, already involved in the Paschal rites, are here indicated by the animals specified in the command: (1) The bullock is appointed for a sin-offering, the great sin-offering such as the guilty priest has to bring according to Leviticus 4; in this sin-offering the more specific sin-offering, the trespass-offering and the sin-offering of a lower grade, are implicitly included. The first ram is then made the centre of all the offerings. (2) The burnt-offering has likewise its ramifications, viz., in the morning and evening sacrifices, in daily offerings, in offerings for the Sabbath and feast-days, according to Numbers 28. The other ram is designed for an offering of abundance or heave-offering of the priests from the peace-offerings of the children of Israel, i.e., it is the peace- or thank-offering of the priest, who has no property or means of earning it, and whose hands must therefore be filled by the congregation with a heave-offering or sacred tribute which is regarded as a surplus from the peace-offerings of the people. (3) The peace-offering also is subdivided into three parts: the thank-offering, the vow, and the free-will offering (Leviticus 7). A basket holds the three principal forms of the meal-offering or bloodless offering, as originally connected with the burnt-offering. The principal material of the three kinds of baked articles is wheat flour, prepared in three ways, but always unleavened. The bread and the cake are mixed with oil; but the wafer or flat cake is to be smeared with oil (on the preparation of them vid. Leviticus 2:4 sqq.). The meal-offering is subdivided still further into the meal-offering in the narrow sense, the drink-offering, and the offering of baken flour and of roasted fruits, and is to be as scrupulously supplemented with salt, oil, and frankincense, as it is to be kept free from honey and leaven, the last being excepted in case of the feast of harvest; on which point more hereafter. The washing and the investment. Moses has to bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent, i.e., into the court, and there administer to them a symbolic ablution. It is an interpolated notion of Keil’s, that Moses had them wash themselves; and he also misconceives the symbolic nature of the initiatory act, when he says: “without doubt the whole body, not only the hands and feet.” Were they to bathe themselves, or at any rate exhibit themselves naked, in the presence of the assembled congregation in the court? The washing is the symbolic expression of purification from the stains and defilement incurred in real life, whilst the sacrifices removed not only the daily weaknesses, but also the guilt of life down to its foundation in the sinful nature; vid. John 13:10. In the description of the investment every article is specially mentioned, and its import emphasized. The unction. As the clothes symbolize the burden and the dignity of office, so the anointing with oil, profusely poured out on the high-priest’s head, symbolizes the promises of official grace, of endowment with the Spirit of God. The anointing of Aaron’s sons is not here treated of, as Keil assumes. Nor in Leviticus 8:10, where yet further on reference is made to a sprinkling of the sons of Aaron with the blood of the ram of consecration and with anointing oil, in connection with the sprinkling of their father, Exodus 29:30. It is also a strange notion of Keil’s (II. p. 337) that the vessels of the sanctuary were by the sprinkling made media and vessels of the blessings of grace and salvation. Still harsher seems Keil’s explanation of the notion of sanctifying. Even of the altar of burnt-offering, he says: “To sanctify means not merely to set apart to sacred uses, but to endow or fill with powers from God’s sanctifying Spirit.” Here is not only all distinction between the O. and N. Testaments obliterated, but also all distinction between the altar and the priest, to say nothing of the distinction between the different altars. The investiture of Aaron and his sons as priests, Exodus 29:8-9. The characteristic garment of the common priest is the white wrought coat, and with it the girdle of the coat, of embroidered work ornamented with the four colors of the sanctuary, and the white cap of the priest. In the girdle is exhibited the likeness of the common priest to the high-priest; in the white coat and the conical cap is exhibited the likeness of the high-priest to the common priest. The dress in which, according to Leviticus 16:4, the high-priest is to enter the Holy of holies is even inferior to that of the common priest. And though Aaron is distinguished by having the high-priestly unction, yet at the sacrifice by which lie is purified and consecrated he must be associated with his sons. Also his hands must be filled together with those of his sons. [“Fill the hands of”—the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase rendered in A. V. “consecrate,” e. g., Exodus 28:41]. For the poor priest has nothing of his own; the congregation must provide for him, and, first of all, even the sacrificial gifts which he needs to offer. Thus then the hands of him and his sons are filled, they being declared to be the owners of the objects of sacrifice. And so Aaron does not make himself a priest. Moses, the servant of God, commissioned by Jehovah, must consecrate him to the office. The prophet stands as high priest over against the candidate for the priesthood; the future high-priest stands over against the prophetical Levite almost in the attitude of a layman. The bullock for the sin-offering, Exodus 29:10-14. Not every sacrifice is a confession of mortal guilt; but every sacrifice is a confession of such a culpability of the life as makes it unable, in real spirituality, to satisfy the righteousness of God; for which reason the symbolic representation of satisfaction by means of sacrifice is introduced,—sacrifice as a confession of guilt, as a longing after willingness to surrender one’s self to the divine judgment, as a prayer for pardon, and as a vow. But as soon as the congregation of God is organized as symbolically holy, sacrifices assume a threefold purpose. (1) As national offerings, they assume the form of the discharge of a legal obligation, the expiation of a violated national law; and in this sense they may also be said to work justification. (2) As Mosaic offerings, they become a symbolic expression of moral offences against the law, and of the need of expiatory surrender. (3) As the continuation and symbolic expression of the Abrahamic faith, they become a typical adumbration of the absolute realization of the sacrificial idea in the future kingdom of the Messiah. vid. Comm. on Genesis, pp. 256, 470. In the act of laying his hand on the victim the offerer confesses as his own the debt of guilt which the animal pays for him as his symbolic substitute. The loss of the animal, the animal’s innocence, its dying pain, form in their union an emphatic expression of his condition; the animal symbolically takes the place of his life. In all cases he lays symbolically his guilt and his deficiencies upon the animal—even in the case of the peace-offering. The hand in this connection is the symbolic and mystical conductor of the soul’s life; as in other cases, of its spiritual fulness, so here, of its defects and need of expiation. The killing of the animal is done by Moses before the Lord, i. e., before the door of the tabernacle. But even the sin-offering is not the symbol of a death-sentence, but the expiation of a guilt which would have led to death if it had not been atoned for before the gracious Jehovah. For a known mortal sin (Numbers 15:30) is not expiated by offerings, but is punished with death; it makes the sinner a hherem. The system of sacrificial expiation in general is instituted only for sins committed in weakness (Leviticus 4:2; Leviticus 4:27). Hence the sin-offering is composed of different elements. First, the offering of blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no expiation (Hebrews 9:22); it designates the deathly earnestness, the death-defying courage, by means of which all the disorders of the religious and moral nature are rectified. A part of the blood of the sin-offering is put on the horns of the altar, thus perfecting the sinner’s refuge: the greater part of it is poured out at the base of the altar; i. e., submission to the judgment of God constitutes expiation. It is an incorrect representation of Keil’s that, “whereas, according to the general rule for the sin-offerings whose flesh was burned outside of the camp, the blood was brought into the holy place itself (Leviticus 6:23 [30]), it is here only put on the altar of burnt-offering, in order to give this sin-offering the character of a consecratory offering.” This is contradicted by Leviticus 4:7; Leviticus 4:18; Leviticus 4:25; Leviticus 4:30. The blood was always poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, while only a little of it comes into the holy place, especially upon the horns of the altar of incense, vid. Leviticus 4:7 sqq. The difference, therefore, can be only that here the blood of sprinkling was put upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and it is to be remarked that nothing has yet been said of the altar of incense.—And the fat. The bloom of life, even in the case of the tragically guilty,—that which is deposited on his entrails, his physical nature, on his liver or on his nobler affections, on his reins, which through their effects might symbolize the conscience (Psalms 16:7),—this falls to Jehovah as His part; that it has ministered to Him in His actual government of men, is expressed by their being offered to Him in fire on the altar. Thus one feature of the burnt-offering belongs also to the sin-offering. The fat of the offering, or the bloom of life, all falls to Jehovah as His part (Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus 4:35). But the sin-offering has also one feature that belongs to the hherem: the flesh, skin, and dung of the sin-offering are burnt outside before the camp; they are given back to the old earth of the old man as a symbol of the sinner’s outward mode of life.—It is a burnt-offering, Exodus 29:15-18. The first ram denotes the offering up to Jehovah of the whole conduct of life, not through death, but in life itself (Romans 12:1). Here the blood is sprinkled round about on the altar: this expresses one’s complete, voluntary surrender, and readiness to die while yet living. The whole ram (after the removal of the skin and the unclean parts) is cut in pieces and burnt upon the altar together with the inwards and thighs; it all goes up in the fire of that gracious sovereignty which saves while it judges; and surely such an offering of life is a sweet savor, a fire-offering to Jehovah. The other ram, designed as an offering of consecration, or as Aaron’s peace-offering, or as a welfare offering (Exodus 29:19-28), is likewise offered in accordance with its design. The blood, or the readiness for death, is first of all put upon the ear-lap of Aaron and his sons: obedience, as spiritual hearing, is the first duty, especially of the priests. Next, the hand, as symbolizing human activity, is specially consecrated by being sprinkled with blood; finally, the great toe of the right foot, as symbolizing the walk of life in general. After this the blood, which in this case also is sprinkled around the altar, in order to express the most complete surrender, is taken again in part from the altar, and together with some of the anointing oil is sprinkled upon Aaron and his clothes, and on his sons and their clothes. Devotion to God and to a spiritual life is to consecrate, first of all, the priests’ character, but also their official life. Next follows the burnt-offering as a factor in the consecratory offering of the priests. Together with the fat already specified, the ram’s tail also and the kidneys themselves are devoted to the fire; i.e., the vigor of life, comfort, and conscientiousness are consecrated to God, being united with a part of the meal-offering, closely related as it is to the peace-offering, viz., with three different articles from the basket. These sacrificial gifts, however, are not at once burnt up. It must be made evident that they are offerings of the priests; hence they are laid upon their hands. But, together with their hands, they are waved, i.e., moved to and fro. What does that mean? It costs labor, a struggle, a shaking loose, before the priests are ready voluntarily to give back their emoluments, their fulness, to Jehovah; as history teaches. All the more then what is really offered is a sweet savor before the Lord, a fire-offering to Him. But now Moses himself gets his part of the priestly offering, the breast of the ram. History also amply proves that this part of the fulness of the sacerdotal revenue that is given back to the prophet and prince, to the spiritual and political life in the theocracy, must be waved, must be shaken loose. The thigh, however, falls to Aaron and his sons; in this connection the waving is less prominent than the heaving, or is altogether given up. As nothing is said of the disposition of other parts of the ram, it is probable that the neck and head were joined with the breast for Moses, and that all the rest of the body went with the thigh. In this sense the heave-offerings were to revert to Jehovah; they are taken away from the peace-offerings and heave-offerings of the children of Israel, and He gives them to His priests. vid. also Exodus 29:32. The prerogatives of the priests, Exodus 29:29-35 (vid. also Exodus 29:28.) In the foregoing verse the reversion of the greater part of the consecratory offering to the priest is designated as also belonging to the sacerdotal prerogatives. It is the central item in his revenue, the particulars of which are specified afterwards. In what now follows the hereditary prerogatives of the priests are first named. The sacerdotal dignity of Aaron passes over, with its symbol, the sacred garments, to his sons, according to the right of primogeniture of course, and gives them a right to the anointing and to the filling of the hands. The rite of consecration is to last seven days. During this time Aaron and his sons live on the offering of consecration in the court; their food is exclusively sacred food belonging to priests and to festivals; hence what is left over is burnt. Furthermore one bullock a day is slaughtered as a sinoffering. 4. The Sanctification of the Altar. Exodus 29:36-46 The consecration of the priests is accompanied by that of the altar. When Moses brings the sin-offering for the priests, he at the same time makes atonement for the altar, which, although holy in itself, was built by sinful men, and in a symbolic sense is to be cleansed from defilement. (vid. Keil on Leviticus 8:15) [who explains the ceremonial uncleanness of the altar as caused by the sinfulness of the officiating priests]. But as yet there can be no reference to this source of impurity; for in that case how could the priests ever make atonement for the altar? It was to be consecrated by two acts: negatively, by the atonement, positively, by the anointment. The anointment of the altar can signify only that it is to be dedicated exclusively to the spiritual life, to the spiritual object of the altar service. At the same time the altar is declared to be designed for permanent use. Two yearling lambs are offered each day, one in the morning, the other at evening, i.e., in their tender youth the people of God are to dedicate themselves to Jehovah, not only for the life of the day, but also for that of the night. The meal-offering, like the sacrifice, is the same for the morning as for the evening. The tenth part (of an ephah), or the issaron (an omer), as a measure of grain or flour is variously reckoned (vid. Knobel, p. 295): probably, according to Knobel, somewhat more than a Dresden measure, or 2Ό Dresden pounds. The oil with which the flour is mingled is to be obtained by pounding. “In the case of no other offering is beaten oil prescribed” (Knobel). The hin, as a liquid measure, is the sixth part of a bath, and contains 12 logs, reckoned by Thenius (Studien und Kritiken, 1846) as equivalent to 3 Dresden cans [such a can containing about 71 cubic inches, or about 1 English quart]. The wheat symbolizes vital force, or even fat; the wine always symbolizes joy. This burnt-offering is the whole-offering, signifying that the life all goes up in self-surrender to Jehovah; hence also this will be responded to by a complete self-communication of Jehovah, a revelation of His glory, this itself having been in fact the cause of Israel’s self-surrender or holiness (Exodus 29:43-44). The text plainly distinguishes a higher kind of sanctification from the symbolic one of the law, which proceeds from man. That higher sanctification is to proceed from Jehovah Himself. The place of the offering is to be sanctified by the glory of Jehovah; in particular, the tent, the altar, the high-priest and his sons. The aim of this institution points on into the N. T. and the Apocalypse: Jehovah desires to dwell in the midst of Israel and to be the God of His people. Footnotes: [This can refer only to the material of the cap, not its form. At least, the head-gear of the high-priest is always called by a different name (ξִ ?φְ ?πֶ ?τֶ ?ϊ) from that of the common priest (ξִ ?βְ ?λָּ ?ςָ ?δ). The former is commonly (also by Lange) called a turban, and therefore can hardly be conceived as conical.—Tr.] [According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Weights and Measures, probably a little less than two quarts. But Josephus makes it about twice as much.—Tr.]. 5. The Altar of Incense. Exodus 30:1-10 The reason why the directions concerning the altar of incense are given so late is seen in the design of it, which puts it among the things directly connected with the ritual worship; also in the fact that it marks the last point in the movement of the priest towards the Holy of holies, the highest point in the ritual before the entrance into the Holy of holies. This eminent position is even indicated in the circumstance that, being slender in form, gilt all over, adorned besides with a golden rim, furnished with golden rings, even with golden staves to carry it with, it stands at the middle of the veil of the Holy of holies, bearing a direct relation to the mercy-seat. For this reason we would rather find a theological idea than an archζological error in that passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:4) which puts it in the Holy of holies. For this is the altar which by its incense symbolizes the prayer of the high-priest (Revelation 5:8; Hebrews 5:7). On the day of atonement (according to Leviticus 16:13) the incense is to be carried into the Holy of holies and fill the whole room. The morning and evening sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering are here to find their higher expression in the fragrant incense which Aaron has to offer morning and evening in the holy place; and it is not without significance that this incense is intimately connected with those sacrifices. In the morning he is to burn incense when he trims the lamps, and in the evening when he lights them; for without illumination and the light of knowledge even his prayer does not attain its higher form of sacerdotal intercession. The incense, moreover, is to be a perpetual one before Jehovah, and so to continue throughout the future generations. This implies the exclusion, in the first place, of common incense, for not all prayers are true prayers, e. g. those of selfishness and fanaticism; secondly, of the burnt-offering, for here the material point is the offering of the heart, not mortifications of the body; finally, of meal-offerings and drink-offerings, for prayer requires abstemiousness. Finally, the altar of prayer is to have its horns sprinkled once a year with the blood of the sin-offering as an atonement. This doubtless was simultaneous with the sprinkling of the mercy-seat, but had not the same meaning. The expiation is offered to the mercy-seat; the altar of incense is covered with the expiation newly dedicated by it. 6. The Assessments for the Temple. Exodus 30:11-16 It should be here observed that in this section there is no reference to the temporary work of building the tabernacle, but to those things which enter into the regular ritual service which is to continue through future time. It is therefore certainly an error when Keil and Knobel start out with the notion that the shekel or half-shekel of the sanctuary is to be expended once for all on the erection of the tabernacle. The tabernacle itself was to be built from voluntary contributions (Exodus 35:5), not from legally imposed taxes, and in this voluntary way more was given than was needed (Exodus 36:5 sqq.). Moreover, the designation of the use of the money, ςַ ?μΞςֲ ?αֹ ?γַ ?ϊΰֹ ?δֶ ?μξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ [“for the service of the tent of meeting,” Exodus 30:16], does not mean: for the work of the building, but: for the perpetual service of God in the building. This is implied also in Luther’s translation [and in the A. V.]. Moreover, it is said, that this tax is to be collected from the Israelites when the census of the adult males is taken. But such an enumeration did not take place till after the tabernacle was erected (Numbers 1:1-18). These enumerations, too, had to be repeated from time to time. The question is easily solved when we reflect on the continuous pecuniary demands made by the sacrificial service. Besides the personal occasions for special offerings (Leviticus 1 sqq.), a perpetual sacrificial service was ordained. For this service (Exodus 29:38 and in this place.), which is to be distinguished from the great offering at the dedication of the tabernacle (Numbers 7), and not less from the consecratory offerings or heave-offerings for the priests (Exodus 29:9 sqq.). a legally-imposed tax for the temple was necessary; for the priests had themselves no means for it. This explains also how this contribution serves for expiation (Exodus 30:12); it did not do this directly, but because it served for the permanent expiation of the people by means of the offerings. In this connection it is important to observe the directions, that only adult men make the contribution for this expiation, and that every man, as representative of the whole congregation of the people, without distinction of poor and rich, contributed the same amount, viz. half a shekel. As a consequence of the census this tax had also to be paid by the Levites. The sacred shekel, different from the common one, is afterwards more exactly defined; and as the half-shekel amounted to 13 groschen [i. e., 31 cents, or 1 shilling and 3 pence; but vid. note on p. 91], the tax could not fall heavily on any man able to bear arms. Only it is to be remarked, that the taxation—as well as the census itself—is imposed on the adult members of the political congregation of the people. By this payment the consecrated congregation of the people is distinguished from a people in the unconsecrated state of nature.—λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ is the term applied to the payment on account of the use for which it was designed. So also the enumeration is indirectly an enumeration, or review, which Jehovah institutes with His people. It is true that in the voluntary gifts of silver for the building of the sanctuary the precept concerning the half-shekel was taken as a standard.7. The Laver. Exodus 30:17-21 (Exodus 38:8) The command concerning the copper laver is not, as some would think, to be regarded as a supplementary direction: it is connected with the foregoing as being the last thing through the medium of which the regular services of the tabernacle were carried on. The expiation which the Israelites have to pay for with the half-shekel applies to the Levites and priests (comp. Matthew 17:25, where no exception seems to be made). Besides this there were special expiations for the priests, when they were consecrated, and on the day of atonement. But all this was not sufficient to make them appear as pure men in reference to their daily deportment. They were obliged on penalty of death to wash their hands and feet, when they were about to enter the inner sanctuary, or even only to approach the altar of burnt-offering to minister. This washing symbolizes a purification from the daily (even unconscious) defilements. Later the Pharisees applied the practice of washing the hands also to preparation for the daily meals (Mark 7:3 sqq.); and little as Christ sanctioned this ordinance, He yet made the washing of the feet a highly significant transaction before the Passover meal and the first Lord’s supper.—As to the base (λֵּ ?ο) of the laver in particular, the passage Exodus 38:8 has led to extended discussions. The expression αְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֹ ?ϊ, etc., may mean “from [of] the mirrors,” as the LXX. and Vulg. translate. This explanation is reduced to an ascetic or pietistic form by Heng-stenberg, who says that what heretofore had served as a means of gaining the good-will of the world was henceforth to become a means of gaining the good-will of God. According to this, then, there ought to be no mirrors in pious households, and especially none in a pastor’s robing-room. We would confidently [with Bδhr] render: “[provided] with women’s mirrors,” were it not that brass itself had been used for metal mirrors, and that αְּ might also mean “as,” “in the character of,” according to which the passage would mean: “to serve as mirrors for women.”—Observing here again the general connection, we see that the topic is not the erection of the tabernacle, but life in the tabernacle as marked by the sacred utensils permanently belonging to it. Furthermore, it is clear that reference is made to crowds of women who were to come into the court. Keil, it is true, observes with regard to the character of these women: “The φֹ ?αְ ?ΰֹ ?ϊ are indeed, according to 1 Samuel 1:22, women; not washer-women, however, but women who devoted their lives to pious exercises,” etc. But, it may be asked, might not the pious exercises consist just in the washing of the sanctuary and keeping it clean? Or could not the women who did the washing be pious women? Luther, it is well known, thought otherwise. Knobel remarks, with entire correctness, that before the erection of the tabernacle there could be nothing said of women coming into the court of the tabernacle; but he adds a most singular explanation of the passage. Furthermore, we must ask, what could here be the use of the expression, “out of the mirrors of the women,” since it is related beforehand that all the materials for the building and its furniture were furnished voluntarily and in the mass? The LXX. seem first to have invented this ascetic notion—one which in the connection has no sense at all. As to this connection, however, we are to observe that this base sustained the laver of the priests. If now they had to cleanse themselves in preparation for their service, is it not to be expected that a similar command was imposed on the women who kept the court in order? To be sure, they could not wash themselves in the court, at least not their feet, from considerations of modesty; and they did not need to do it, since they did not have to touch the altar. But they were quite fittingly reminded of their duty to appear comely by the mirrors of the base, on which the laver rested, and in which the priests were to cleanse themselves. It is easy to see that this use of the base was for the purposes of symbolic admonition rather than of the toilette. We also find it more natural that the mirror, at its first appearance in the Scriptures, should receive this higher symbolic significance, according to which the law is also called a mirror, than that it should at the outset be proscribed with the remark, that henceforth the pious women used no more mirrors. In its spiritual sense the washing of the priests is also a perpetual ordinance. 8. The Holy Anointing Oil. Exodus 30:22-33 In the case of the anointing oil, it is at once obvious that it is not designed to be used simply at the erection of the tabernacle. In the first place, direction is given of what materials and in what proportions it shall be compounded; next, the use of the oil is stated, i. e., to anoint the several parts of the sanctuary; finally, there is enunciated the sternest prohibition against any imitation of this sacred anointing oil for common use. The number four being the mundane number [the four points of the compass], the union of four fragrant spices with olive oil indicates that the sanctuary is to be dedicated with the noblest of the world’s products, as combined with the oil of unction, the spirit of the sanctuary. If one were to look for pairs of opposites, myrrh and cinnamon might be taken as related to one another; so calamus and cassia. It might be said of the myrrh, that it denotes that fine, higher kind of pain which enables one to overcome natural pain; cinnamon denotes the warmest feeling of light and life; the bitterness of calamus might also be noticed; but the significance of the cassia is difficult to determine. With this ointment everything in the sanctuary is anointed, Aaron not excepted. But it is pronounced to be a most severe and punishable offence for common men to aspire to make this composition (this reconciliation) of the spiritual perfumes of the world and the spiritual oil of the sanctuary. On the anointing oil vid. Bδhr, Symbolik II., p. 173. The correct method of preparing it is called a sacred art. 9. The Holy Incense. Exodus 30:34-38 As in the anointing oil four kinds of spices are combined with oil as the base of the ointment and are subsidiary to it, so it is here the pure frankincense which constitutes the base; but the spices combined with it are three in number. Inasmuch as the incense certainly symbolizes prayer (Psalms 141:2), we may naturally look for three principal occasions of prayer. The first and noblest resembles the spontaneous exudation of trees, suggesting the breathings of prayer prompted by the higher life. The second substance is a pulverized shell of a mollusk—something obtained by crushing; the meaning of this is readily understood, vid. Psalms 51:19 [17]. “According to modern authorities, when burnt alone it (the onycha) has a bad odor; but everywhere, e. g., in India, it is made the fundamental ingredient of incense, and imparts to the materials of the incense their real strength” (Knobel). The third substance, galbanum, being used as an antidote to the most diverse injurious forces, seems fitted to denote the divine remedial force in the soul, as being liable to be irritated by the most manifold injurious influences. Says Knobel: “I had the sacred incense of the Hebrews prepared in the laboratory of Prof. Mettenheimer in Giessen; I tested it, and found its odor strong, refreshing, and very agreeable.” In this case the ingredients are of equal weight; the rigorous prohibition of imitation for common use is the same. This may symbolize that prayer is not to be used for selfish or worldly purposes. It is incorrect, with Knobel, to say that the incense consists of the same number of ingredients as the anointing oil. Footnotes: [Keil and Knobel infer from Exodus 38:26 that a census was taken before the tabernacle was finished, and that the one mentioned in Numbers 1 is the same thing more formally executed and recorded. The identity of the numbers in Exodus 38:26 and Numbers 1:46 seems to favour this supposition.—Tr.][This refers to the above-mentioned correspondence between Exodus 38:26 and Numbers 1:46. Lange apparently makes the former describe the voluntary contributions of the people for the construction of the tabernacle. But if it was, it is singular that a purely voluntary contribution, when summed up, should have proved to amount to exactly one-half a shekel for each adult male.—Tr.][This certainly is not a satisfactory explanation. Not to mention that grammatically it is the least probably, it is almost inconceivable that it should be said, that the laver was made of brass in order that it might serve as a mirror for the women who ministered at the tabernacle! If Hengstenberg’s interpretation partakes of a pietistic spirit, surely this is the opposite extreme. Knobel renders ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֹ ?ϊ, etc., by “Anblicken,” i.e., views, or figures, “of women marching up to the door of the tabernacle.” He adds: “Probably they were Levite women who at particular times presented themselves in a sort of procession at the sanctuary, in order there to wash, to clean, to furbish.” But we can hardly agree with him that “such figures were appropriate on the vessel which was for the priests to wash from.” Grammatically too this rendering is open to the same objection as that of Bδhr’s viz. that αְּ cannot naturally to rendedred “with,” in the sense of “accompanied by” or “furnished with.” Keil’s statement, that αְּ “never signifies with in the sense of outward addition,” is too strong (comp. Psalms 66:13); but certainly that is a rare use of the preposition. The translation, “made the laver of brass.…of the mirros” etc., is the easiest; but it is not necessary in adopting it to adopt Hengstenberg’s theory of the significance of the thing.—Tr.][The use of the observation was to state a fact. And this supposition is in no way interfered with by the circumstance that the contributions for the tabernacle were made voluntarily.—Tr.][Lange understands that only the base, not the whole laver, was made to serve for this purpose. The attempt made in what follows to meet the obvious objection to his theory, viz. that the use attributed to this copper base is quite out of keeping with the tenor of the narrative, is rather strained. The symbolic use certainly cannot exclude the literal use. The declaration, therefore, must stand that the base (or the whole laver) was made in order to serve for the purpose of mirrors for the attendant women. But if the symbolic use was the chief or only one, why confine it to the women? Did not the priests need such admonition as Well as they?—Tr.] IV. The Architects. Exodus 31:1-11 The summoning of Bezaleel and his assistants, Aholiab and other master-workmen, is at once a definition of sacred art and a recognition of natural artistic talent. The idea of the sanctuary is indeed a gift of Jehovah, transmitted by Moses to Bezaleel. Yet even in the wider sense the fact respecting art is that the artist exhibits himself more purely, the more he follows objective images, found in actual life, and formed by God. This limitation does not exclude the originality of the wise-hearted; but it shows itself in four ways: (1) In the plastic impulse, or the talent of construction, such as was shown by Wisdom, as artist, at the formation of the earth (Genesis 1; Proverbs 8). Wisdom effects the execution of the impulse in beautiful phenomenal forms. (2) But what she creates in general, must be realized in particular by perception, or good sense, in its patient studies. Then (3) in order to true creation there is needed furthermore, on the one hand, knowledge, in the form of ideal reflection, standing over the plastic impulse, and, on the other hand, (4) practical understanding, such as enables one to work up the material. But the artistic talent of the “wise-hearted” becomes sacred art only through the Spirit of God. Keil understands by this a supernatural endowment. It is not to be denied that there is something supernatural in every sanctification of a natural endowment. But it is a question whether he so meant it. As to the names Bezaleel and Aholiab, vid. the Encyclopedias. On the obscure expression αִּ ?βְ ?γֵ ?ιδַ ?ωְּׂ ?ψָ ?ψ, comp. Keil. The context confirms his assumption, that this phrase denotes those garments which belonged to the high-priest alone, while the other garments belonged to him and his sons alike. See other very divergent explanations in Keil. Gesenius refers the word to the curtains of the tabernacle—an interpretation which does not accord with the explanatory expression. “to do service in the holy place” [Exodus 35:19]. Perhaps, in accordance with the meaning of ωָׂ ?ψַ ?γ II. [in Gesenius], the phrase may designate an exceptional kind of clothing, to be distinguished from all other garments. V. The Condition of Vitality in the Ritual Worship, the Sabbath, Exodus 31:12-17. Conclusion, Exodus 31:18 The reason why the observance of the Sabbath is here again so strictly inculcated, Keil finds in the fact that one might easily regard the neglect of the observance as permissible in the construction of a great work designed for the worship of Jehovah. Similarly Knobel. But the perpetual observance of the Sabbath is here enjoined—a fact which Keil himself afterwards notices, but which does not accord with this merely outward reason for the injunction. It should also be observed that in Exodus 35:1 sqq. the command respecting the Sabbath recurs again, and this time precedes the order concerning the erection of the tabernacle. The Sabbath belonged as essentially to the tabernacle and the temple as the Christian Sunday to Christian worship.—A sign between me and you. i. e., so to speak, the public symbol of the relation between Jehovah and Israel. Hence breaking the Sabbath is punished as a capital crime. This doom is twice denounced, and the Sabbath itself is called by the emphatic name ωַׁ ?αַּ ?ϊωַׁ ?αָּ ?ϊεֹ ?ο. “Properly,” says Knobel, “rest of restfulness [Ruhe der Ruhigkeit] i.e., entire rest, complete abandonment of business, the combination of synonyms (?) enhancing the notion (vid. x. 22). This term is applied only to the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Leviticus 23:3), the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:31; Leviticus 23:32), and to the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4).”—Keil feels constrained to take the words of Exo 31:18 literally. According to Exodus 32:16 the tables also are a work of God. Only, he says, we are not to think of a bodily finger of God as implied in the statement about the tables being written with His finger. It is true that Moses’ co-operation with Jehovah (for he did not need to be on the mountain forty days merely in order to receive the tables) is to be conceived as absolutely merged in God’s authority and authorship. Conjectures on the size of the tables vid. in Keil. Alleged contradictions vid. in Knobel, p. 310. Footnotes: [The tables, Keil remarks, could hardly have been as long and wide as the interior of the ark (into which they were put); for two stone tablets, each four feet long and over two feet wide, and thick enough not to break with their own weight, must have been too heavy for any one but a Samson to carry down the mountain. As they were written on both sid s, and had to contain only one hundred and seventy-two words, a length of about two feet and a width of one and a half feet would have been ample.—Tr.] THIRD The legislation as modified by the lapse of the people, and the intensified distinction between Jehovah and Israel as expressed in the more hierarchical constitution of the theocracyExodus 32-34FIRST SECTIONThe Erection and worship of the golden calf. god’s judgment and moses’ intercession. his anger. the sentence of destruction on the golden calf, and of punishment on the people. the conditional pardonExo_32:1-35A.—The golden calfExo_32:1-61 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of [down from] the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot [know] not what is become of him. 2And Aaron said unto them, Break [Pluck] off the golden ear-rings [rings], which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 3And all the people brake [plucked] off the golden ear-rings [rings] which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 4And he received them at [took them from] their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made [and he made] it a molten calf: and they said, These be [are] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah. 6And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. B.—God’s judgment, and Moses’ intercessionExo_32:7-147 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Go, get thee down, for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves [behaved corruptly]: 8They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be [are] thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out 9of the land of Egypt. And Jehovah said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people: 10Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11And Moses besought Jehovah his God, and said, Jehovah, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief [evil] did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I 14have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And Jehovah repented of the evil which he thought [threatened] to do unto his people. C.—The trial and punishment of AaronExo_32:15-2415 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. 16And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. 17And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery [noise of the cry of victory], neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome [the noise of the cry of defeat]: but the noise of them that sing [of singing] do I hear. 19And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 20And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the [with] fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed [scattered] it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. 21And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people [hath this people done] unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a [a great] sin upon them? 22And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, 23that they are set on mischief [evil]. For [And] they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot [know] not what is become of him. 24And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break [pluck] it off. So they gave it me: then [and] I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. D.—The punishment of the peopleExo_32:25-2925 And when Moses saw that the people were naked [unrestrained], (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame [had left them unrestrained for a hissing] among their enemies:) 26Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? [Whoso is for Jehovah,] let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 27And he said unto them, Thus saith Jehovah, God [the God] of Israel, Put [Put ye] every man his sword by his side, and go in and out [go to and fro] from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. 28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. 29For Moses had [And Moses] said, Consecrate yourselves to day to Jehovah, even every man upon [against] his son, and upon [against] his brother; that he may bestow upon you [so as to bring upon yourselves] a blessing this day. E.—Moses’ intercession, and Jehovah’s conditional pardon of the peopleExo_32:30-3530 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto Jehovah; peradventure I shall make an [make] atonement for your sin. 31And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin;—and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book 33which thou hast written. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 34Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine angel shall go before 35thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And Jehovah plagued [smote] the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 32:1. ΰֱ ?μ ֹ ?δִ ?ιν is here connected with a plural verb, and in Exodus 32:4 with a plural pronoun, so that the A. V. certainly seems to be correct. Yet the term is used only of the golden calf, and there is no indication that it referred to anything else. Probably the plural verb and pronoun are used for the very purpose of distinguishing the calf as a false god—one of the many gods of polytheism. Yet in other cases, e. g., Judges 11:24; Judges 16:23-24, the singular verb is used of a heathen god.—Tr.][We leave the A. V. rendering, only substituting “and he” for “after he had;” but it must be confessed that the passage is obscure. Fόrst, Gesemus, Knobel, Maurer, Glaire, Rosenmόller, Cook, Kurtz, and others understand ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ to be = ηָ ?ψִ ?ιθ (vid. 2 Kings 5:23), meaning “a bag.” It occurs only once more, viz., Isaiah 8:1, where it means “a pen” (metal style). If the word here means “bag,” then εַ ?ιָּ ?φַ ?ψ must mean “bound up,” as indeed it most naturally does (coming from φεּ ?ψ, not ιָ ?φַ ?ψ), though it is also used (but rarely) in the sense of “form” or “fashion.” We are therefore compelled to decide mainly according to the sense. Against the A. V. rendering is to be urged that a molten image would not be made with a graving tool. The reply, that the tool was used only to polish the image after it was cast, is a mere assumption, and moreover requires us to resort to the device, adopted by the A. V., but unwarranted by the grammatical construction, of inverting the natural relation of time between the two clauses, “fashioned it with a graving tool,” and, “made it a molten Gulf.” The other rendering would be: “Ho took it from their hands, and bound it up in a bag,” etc.—Tr.] AND One of the grandest contrasts contained in the Scriptures is presented in the fact that Moses on the top of the mountain was having his vision of the tabernacle, i. e., was receiving the revelation of the true system of worship, and, as the central feature of it, the tables of the law, whilst the people at the foot of the mountain in their impatience resorted to the worship of the golden calf, and in this lapse even secured the services of the man just called to be high-priest. The Bible, it is true, is rich in kindred contrasts, e. g., the transfiguration of Christ on the mount contrasted with the scene of the impotence of the disciples in relation to the demoniac in the valley; or the institution of the Lord’s Supper contrasted with Judas’s treason. But this Old Testament contrast is distinguished above others by its scenic and artistic grandeur. For all periods of the history of the kingdom of God and of the church the fact is here set forth, that every individual period of time has a double history—the one above on the mount, the other beneath in the valley: whenever the popular rabble, with the connivance of high-priests, are dancing around the golden calf, there is taking place above upon the mountain of light. of terror, and of salvation something new and mysterious, which also in due time manifests itself in judgment and deliverance. a. The Golden Calf. Exodus 32:1-6 Knobel calls the account of the tables of the law and of the golden calf a Jehovistic interpolation, p. 310. The manner in which he unfolds his thought strikingly illustrates the dulness in apprehending the spirit of the text which characterizes the theory that the text is a patchwork of two heterogeneous elements. According to him, Exodus 33:7-11 presents an account of the tabernacle, whereas the Elohist does not narrate the erection of it till as late as chap. 35. This style of criticism seems not to have the faintest conception of the reason why, in Exodus 33:7, Moses is said to have removed the tent (by which undoubtedly is meant the chief or central tent which as a matter of course any army must have had before the building of a tabernacle) far away outside of the camp, and erected it at a distance from the camp; although the reason is unfolded throughout chaps, 33 and 34 in the thought of a conditional separation between Jehovah and the camp of the sinful people, or of an intensified unapproachableness of Jehovah, expressed in a stricter form of the hierarchy. As the people at first (Exodus 20:18-19) gave provocation for the hierarchical mediatorship which Moses still provisionally administers, so now by their guilt they have made it stricter. Here belongs the circumstance that they could not endure the splendor on Moses’ face. That the real tabernacle is not here treated of, is evident from the fact that Moses at once applied to this tent the name “tent (or tabernacle) of the testimony” in the sense that Jehovah was to be accessible to the people only at a distance from the camp. According to the familiar style of criticism the idea of a sanctuary arises only in connection with the actual building, whereas, on the contrary, in fact the idea of the sanctuary long preceded the erection of the symbolic building, and might well have been all along provisionally represented. See further conclusions in Knobel, p. 310 sqq. It is to be considered, in reference to this theory of a combination of different documents, that each part by itself would yield only a caricature, though one may admit the thought of editorial changes to accord with further developments of the same institution. On the tables of the law vid. archζological observations in Knobel, p. 314. Exodus 32:1. When the people saw.—Moses’ long absence made the people feel like a swarm of bees that have lost their queen. We must consider that they were waiting, idle, and in suspense, at the foot of the mountain; that they were accustomed to see in Moses a representative of the Deity that was now wanting; that all the way from Egypt they had in their memory visible signs from God, and were conscious that they were required to go onward from Sinai. Moreover, they had seen how Moses went into the darkness and fiery flames of the mountain, so that it was natural to imagine that he had perished. Furthermore, Aaron, on account of his personal weakness, could not satisfy them as Moses’ representative. Therefore impatience, tear, sensuous religious conceptions, vexation at Moses’ audacious marching into the terrors of Jehovah and into invisible regions,—these things, and in addition Aaron’s weakness as a substitute for Moses, worked together to transform the trial of faith which was laid on the people into a great temptation, to which they succumbed. Their vexation is directed against Aaron, the second leader, whom they now wish violently to make their chief, but on condition that he yields to them and supplements himself by means of an idol. That they are not asking for foreign gods (plural), is shown by the connection. For the theocracy, therefore, they wish to substitute a hierarchical democracy and a superstitious worship. This is not strictly an apostasy from Jehovah; they only want an image of Him to symbolize His leadership. The image of the golden calf, the young bull (ΰֵ ?βֶ ?μ), borrowed from the Egyptian Apis, but designed symbolically to represent Jehovah, is not expressly named in their request, but was doubtless from the first in their minds. This image is to go before them, an ill-chosen symbol for them, since the ox, which afterwards again appears in the vision of the cherubim, acquires a significance in the theocratic system only as supplemented by the lion or the eagle; by itself alone it represented the Egyptian conception of death (or the generative power of nature). Nevertheless the Israelites are not conscious that their demand implies an apostasy, just as Jeroboam also thought, that he could preserve the Israelitish faith in the form of the calf-worship. They intend to associate Jehovah with the image, and to go on under His guidance. But how hopeless they are respecting Moses’ leadership, as if he had brought them out of Egypt to leave them in the wilderness (a mood of mind which Protestants often cherish and express in reference to the Reformers), is to be seen in their utterance concerning Moses; and how far advanced they are on the downward road to apostasy, is shown at once by the jovial festival which is connected with the now worship, in imitation of heathen rites. Exodus 32:2. And Aaron said unto them.—With a mistaken cunning, such as is apt to grow up with a hierarchy, he hopes to deter them from their desire by bruskly demanding a great sacrifice; but he deceived himself. Religions that are the outgrowth of sensuous and selfish passions generally produce a fanatical readiness to make sacrifices. Exodus 32:3. And fashioned [Lange: sketched] it. It seems to us more natural to refer ΰֹ ?ϊεֹ [it] forwards to the golden calf than backwards to the ear-rings, instead of which “gold” must be understood as the object. Moreover it would be an inversion of the natural order to speak first of the polishing of the cast with a chisel, and then of the casting itself. We therefore translate with Luther, “he sketched it with a pen (style)”—a more probable meaning of ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ than “chisel.” On Aaron’s excuse, see Exodus 32:24. That the golden calf consisted of a wooden figure overlaid with gold plate, is urged by Keil [especially from Isaiah 40:19; Isaiah 30:22, where such images are described and in the latter passage are called even “molten images,” and] from the circumstance that the manner of its destruction implies the existence of wooden [combustible] elements. And they said.—The god is proclaimed. Aaron thinks he can relieve the matter by building an altar and proclaiming a feast to Jehovah for the morrow. Exodus 32:6. And offered burnt-offerings.—There is nothing about sin-offerings in connection with this new worship. The chief feature consists in the peace-offerings and the sacrificial meal, followed by the merry festive games. b. God’s Judgment and Moses’ Intercession. Exodus 32:7-14 Exodus 32:7. And Jehovah said.—It is not known below what is taking place upon the mountain; but on the mountain it is well known what is going on below.—Go, get thee down. Lively expression of indignation, affecting even Moses. Under such a condition of God’s people, His work on the mountain is interrupted. “Thy” people, it is significantly said, though Keil questions this [explaining the phrase as merely meaning that Moses, as mediator of the people, must represent them.] The covenant is broken. Thus the people practically deny that Jehovah has brought them up out of Egypt. Exodus 32:8. Turned aside quickly.—As if they had been in a hurry about it. Hence the guilt was all the greater, comp. Galatians 1.—And have worshipped it. So Jehovah judges concerning the image-worship of the people; that they intend to worship Him in their service, He does not acknowledge. Hence we translate here too, “These are thy gods;” in the pretended image of God He sees the germ of idolatry, a deviation from the way of revelation which He had commanded. Exodus 32:9. A stiff-necked people.—vid. Exodus 33:3; Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6. Literally, “hard of neck.” The expression seems to have been borrowed from the trait of an unruly draught-animal. The self-will of the people has shown itself to be an obstinate repugnance to Jehovah’s guidance, hard to overcome. Exodus 32:10. Let me alone.—That which delays the destruction of the people is even now Moses’ mediatorial connection with his people, as expressed in his mood of mind even before he made any utterance. Yet the promise given to Abraham cannot fail—a fact continually re-appearing in the prophetic writings, and, in all its grandeur, in the New Testament (vid. Romans 4:11). The remnant of Israelitish fidelity is now concentrated in Moses; hence God says, “I will make of thee a great nation.” The judgment is a κρίσις, distinction and separation. It was natural to think that Moses might separate himself from his people, and that then the people would fall a prey to destruction in the wilderness. The motives contend with one another in Moses’ soul, as if between God and Moses. The phrase “let me alone,” according to Gregory the Great and Keil, was designed only to give to Moses an opportunity to utter deprecations. But this neat remark of theirs obliterates the sentiment of righteousness expressed in the phrase. Exodus 32:11-12. And Moses besought Jehovah—Here appears the original, real priest. He contends in a most fervent prayer with the face of Jehovah, with His revealed form now present to him; not, however, chiefly for himself, but for his people, even with a renunciation of self and of the grand prospect opened to him. He appeals to Jehovah’s self-consistency, and, in contrast with Jehovah’s expression “thy people, Moses,” he says, “thy people, Jehovah, which thou hast brought out of Egypt.” His appeal to Jehovah’s honor, as not enduring that the Egyptians should scoff at His word and revile Him. expresses the genuinely religious sentiment, which pervades the whole Bible, that the ruin of God’s people, merited as it is on account of their sins, would also plunge the heathen nations into complete destruction. According to Keil the expression, “I will make of thee a great nation,” was only a great temptation. vid. Numbers 14:12; Deuteronomy 9:14.—Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil. This strong anthropopathic expression conveys the correct sentiment, that Jehovah may assume another attitude towards the people, when He sees that Moses’ compassion for, and adherence to, his people opens to them a different and better prospect. Exodus 32:13. Remember Abraham.—This calling to Jehovah’s mind the great promises which He had made to the patriarchs is seen in its full importance, when we consider that Moses not only has declined the splendid offer of becoming the patriarch of God’s people, but also in his humility is not conscious of the fact that his own intercession for the people has any weight. Exodus 32:14. And Jehovah repented of the evil.—In the sphere of personal life, of the theocratic world, of the kingdom of God, the believer may talk,—may even reason, with his God. It is not here man’s part to be absolutely silent before the silent infliction, and give way to rancor and despair, but as a personal being to talk with the personal God, as a child with his mother. Of course headstrong selfishness is in this case entirely forbidden; but to make inquiry of Jehovah is not only allowable, but is in accordance with the spiritual nature; and it is only by way of inquiry, wrestling inquiry, that man obtains the answer which brings at once tranquillity and knowledge, and whose consummate result is that lofty absence of will which consists in surrender to, and union with, the will of God. Thus then Moses asks, “Wherefore?” as afterwards so many saints, and as at last Christ did in Gethsemane and on the cross. With man’s attitude towards God, however, God’s attitude towards man is changed; and He repents of the threatened evil, because He is the unchangeable one, not in fatalistic caprice, but in truth and grace. On Exodus 32:14 Keil remarks, by way of correction, “This is a remark which anticipates the history. God dismissed Moses without any such assurance, in order that He might disclose to the people the full severity of the divine wrath.” This explanation destroys the fine contrast between the two facts that, on the one hand, Moses in the mountain presents nothing but intercessions to God, and also receives the assurance that the people are pardoned; while, on the other hand, at the foot of the mountain he denounces a stern judgment on the sin of the people with an anger which is heightened especially by the sight of the apostasy. The full severity of the divine anger would have been the destruction of the people. Moses’ intercession in Exodus 32:32 does not refer to the existence of the people, but their covenant relations. Peter, too, needed a twofold assurance of pardon, vid. John 20:21. c. The Trial and Punishment of Aaron. Exodus 32:15-24. Exodus 32:15-16. And Moses turned. Special mention is made of the fact that he was carrying in his hand an invaluable treasure, the two tables of the testimony. The tables themselves had been prepared by God, the writing also by God; and the tables were written all over. It was therefore all the more frightful, that the people at the foot of the mountain had so entirely destroyed the value of the heavenly treasure, had so decidedly annulled the covenant writing by their breach of the covenant, that Moses felt moved to dash the tables to pieces. Exodus 32:17-18. When Joshua heard.—It is a very characteristic feature, that the young hero (vid. chap. 17) imagines that in the noise he hears the tumult of war. Keil, referring to Exodus 24:13, conceives that Moses, as he was “going away from God,” met Joshua on the mountain. The text clearly represents Joshua as having gone upon the mountain in company with Moses. As a servant he belongs to his master, and in so far he has the precedence over Aaron. But Moses correctly detects the antiphonies of the new worship amidst the tumult. That which was common to the two in their apprehension seems to have been the perception of two kinds of sound.—We are to distinguish between the Kal and the Piel of the verb ςָ ?πָ ?δ. Keil renders: “It is not the sound of the answer of power, and not the sound of the answer of weakness, i.e., they are not sounds such as the strong (the victorious) and the weak (the conquered) utter.” The antiphonal songs were sung for the round dance.—Knobel thinks there is a contradiction between this and Exodus 32:7 [where it is said that Moses was informed of what was going on below. But it is not said that Joshua had been informed, and there is no evidence that Moses had mistaken the sound.—Tr.] Exodus 32:19. Moses’ anger waxed hot.—And yet he is the same one who by his intercession has saved Israel. His anger and his compassion have a common source. But he is excited by the actual sight. Of this power of physical perception the Scriptures mention many instances, e.g., “when Jacob saw the wagons,” etc. (Genesis 45:27). The breaking of the tables is nowhere rebuked; therefore his emotion was justifiable. The tables as representing the enactment of the covenant had been annulled by the people; the breaking of them symbolizes the breach of the covenant. Moreover this act of breaking the tables shows that Moses did not regard the law as a law of curses, but as a great gift from Jehovah of which the people had made themselves unworthy; otherwise he would just at this time have been inclined to hold the tables aloft. But could he not have concealed them? This question suggests another point. The tables of the law, in case the people repented, might have become to them an object of superstitious adoration. Hence afterwards the new tables lay covered in the ark in the obscurity of the Holy of holies. So also at a later time Hezekiah had to destroy the brazen serpent in order to keep it from superstitious regard. The temple had to be twice consumed with fire. God’s people often had to be driven by the terrors of God from the outward to the inward; for it is only as one looks within that he looks up. Exodus 32:20. And he took the calf.—First of all the object of their adoration, the idol, had to be destroyed. A calf of solid gold could not be burned, but it might have been put into the fire. The wooden image was thus burned. The golden plate was melted, and this was then in particular beaten to pieces. The whole powdered mass was thrown upon the water, the gold sinking and serving then only a symbolic purpose, whilst the ashes of the wood might have been served up to the people as a drink of penance or of cursing—all which is doubtless to be conceived as a symbolic act enforced chiefly on the most guilty, especially as the brook into which the dust had been thrown was a flowing one (Deuteronomy 9:21). Knobel says, “He shames them by making clear to them the nothingness of their god, and humbles them by such a treatment of it: they are obliged even to devour their own god—a severe punishment for the idolaters. The Egyptians had a very lively horror of consuming the animals revered as deities, and would sooner have eaten human flesh (Diod. I., 84).” This is intelligible. But what Keil says is unintelligible: “This making the people drink was certainly (!) not for the purpose of shaming them by making manifest to them the nothingness of their god ……, but was designed symbolically to incorporate (?) for them sin with its consequences, to pour it, as it were, with the water, into their inwards, as a symbolic sign that they would have to bear it and suffer for it, just as the woman suspected of adultery was obliged to drink the water of cursing (Numbers 5:24).” The cases here made parallel are entirely different. In the precept in Numbers 5 no guilt is to be “incorporated” by the water of cursing, but it is to be determined whether there is any guilt. But in the present case there was no occasion for any process of detecting guilt; the Jews themselves certainly had an immediate consciousness of it in consequence of Moses’ denunciation, whereas they would hardly have understood Moses’ obscure symbol. If we consider the analogy of the red heifer, whose ashes were sprinkled as a hherem, it would be more natural to assume that the people by drinking the ashes of this hherem were themselves marked as involved in the hherem, and so were prepared for a sentence which was soon afterwards executed. Anxiety to maintain the letter of the narrative has led some to speak of a chemical calcination of the gold, as being necessary in order to its being ground fine (Rosenmόller and others). Knobel imputes this meaning to the writer in order to convict him of error, while Keil seems inclined to suppose that the gold for the most part disappeared in the melting process. Exodus 32:21 sqq. And Moses said unto Aaron. The question is sharp.—It makes Aaron morally the chief author of the sin, even though in reference to the motive it admits some excuse. The word ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ (“hath done”) maybe understood in two ways. Keil explains it to mean, “What have they done unto thee?” so that the question implies that the people have compelled Aaron by some act of great violence. But it is more obvious to find in the question the sharper rebuke: “Has this people committed an offence against thee, that thou couldst let them fall into such a sin?” Aaron’s excuse is an expression of his weakness of character. The best thing about him is, that he submits entirely to Moses’ authority; the worst, that he throws the blame entirely on the people, and that he represents the golden calf as an almost accidental image produced by the fire, while he pretends that he himself threw the gold into the fire with a feeling of contempt, and for the purpose of destroying it. Deuteronomy 9:20 supplements the narrative. That Moses makes no reply, must mean something more than “that he deems him not worthy of an answer” (Keil); his answer is involved in the ensuing judgment, in which it must be made manifest that there is a difference between Aaron’s sin of weakness and the wickedness of the apostates. d. The Punishment of the People. Exodus 32:25-29 The ground for the severe procedure now following is given in Exodus 32:25. A real distinction is made between the principal sin, that of the apostate people, and the sin of Aaron (or the Levites). The cure of the evil is quite analogous to the cure effected for the people by the campaign against the Midianites (Numbers 31) In this case the Midianites were the tempters, the Jews the tempted. But they were to be healed of their moral torpor by being required to inflict punitive judgment on the Midianites. So here it is the Levites, involved in the guilty weakness, whose approach in response to his call Moses seems from the first to have expected. Knobel can understand the procedure only by assuming contradictions: “The narrative,” he says, “is entirely improbable; such a bloody command one cannot believe Moses to have made.” Of course he has no conception of the significance of an army of God, nor of the fact that the decimations which still take place in the modern military history of Christendom are not yet recorded in archζological statistics, although they date from antiquity.—For a hissing among their enemies. Keil understands this of the punishment of the people; but by this very punishment the hissing of the adversaries was suppressed. Exodus 32:26. Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp.—The camp is unclean and lies under sentence (Hebrews 13:13); from without the camp new purity must be procured. With this circumstance is connected the subsequent removal of the provisional tabernacle from the camp, as well as Jehovah’s refusal to go with the people in the midst of the camp. Knobel says, “He takes his stand at. the head-quarters of the camp” (!). Moses’ heroic decision, expressed in the most energetic language, has the effect of bringing all the Levites to his side. But since the other tribes, although terrified, did not come to him, a division, a contest, and condemnation became necessary. Why the Levites? Keil quotes, in answer to this, Cornelius a Lapide: [“Because the most of the Levites did not join in the sin of the people and the worship of the calf, and because this displeased them.”] Why not the other tribes? Keil quotes Calvin’s answer: [“They were not held back by contempt or obstinacy, but only by shame, and all of them were so smitten with terror that they waited in astonishment to see what Moses’ intention was, and how far he would proceed.”] In this matter one must guard against such a view of historic causes as deals with merely outward motives. A peculiar religious energy was inherited by the tribe of Levi from their ancestor (Genesis 34); and though it was liable to lead astray, yet here it followed a higher summons, as it also atoned for the wrong done at the water of strife, Deuteronomy 33:8 sqq. Exodus 32:27-28. Put ye every man his sword by his side.—The frightful command clearly does not contemplate a slaughter as great as possible. They are to pass twice through the length of the camp, going and returning. In this course every one is to kill his brother, friend, neighbor. Does that mean, simply, without any regard to existing relations of friendship? Chiefly this, no doubt. But when we consider that the Levite had no longer any literal brother in the camp, the Levites having all joined Moses, it follows that reference is made to figurative brotherhood and friendship, such as had just acted as a snare to the Levite. That only three thousand men fell indicates that a selection was made according to special considerations. And in this way also the fact is explained, that the terified people could let this punitive infliction take place. Various solutions of the difficulty involved in this event are given by Keil. Exodus 32:29. Consecrate yourselves [Lit. Fill your hands].—According to the context it is necessary to suppose that Moses uttered these words before the execution of the offenders, and in order to explain that it was like an offering for Jehovah, an offering of the hardest kind of self-denial and self-renunciation; furthermore we must suppose that he did not mean this in the literal sense, but comparatively, in order in the strongest manner to express the truth that their obedience and self-denial were pleasing to God. The slain were indeed made a hherem, or curse-offering, because after their great wickedness they had defiantly remained in the camp; but the hherem was nevertheless not properly an offering for Jehovah. The addition, so that a blessing may be given to you, also presents the execution in the light of the removal of a curse. On the untenable explanation, that they were obliged, after the slaughter, to make atonement by means of an offering (Jonathan, Kurtz), see Keil [who says, “To fill the hands for Jehovah does not mean to bring Him an offering, but to provide one’s self with something to bring to God …… Moreover it is incomprehensible how the execution of a divine command, or an act of obedience towards the expressed will of God, can be imputed to one as blood-guiltiness or as an offence needing expiation.”] e. Moses’ Intercession and Jehovah’s Conditional Pardon of the People. Exodus 32:30-35 Exodus 32:30. As in the history of the fallen Peter we must distinguish between the pardon which he received as a Christian (John 20) and that which he received as an apostle (John 21), so in reference to Israel we must distinguish between the first abrogation of the sentence of destruction and the renewal of the people’s calling. The first pardon is expressed in Exodus 32:14; the other is first introduced by the judgment upon the people, and in this section it is conditionally secured through Moses’ powerful intercession and mediation. Keil makes so little distinction between the two things that he even says that Moses after his first petition (Exodus 32:11-13) received no assurance of favor—which is inconsistent with Exodus 32:14. But we have here nothing to do, as Keil represents, with “an anger that threatens destruction.” Israel might now indeed continue to exist as a people, but yet have forfeited their vocation. This is just the point here treated of. Hence Moses does not say to the people, The offence is expiated; but he also does not speak of a crime which is still to be expiated with a hherem. He speaks of a great sin which, however, may perhaps be covered by means of an expiation. In what this expiation is to consist, he does not tell the people—for therein, too, his nobleness appears—but he says to Jehovah that he will surrender himself to the judgment of God in behalf of the people. Since now the question is here not one of existence, but one of vocation, Moses’ offer to sacrifice himself is also modified accordingly. It is true, this intercession is vastly more intense than the former one (Exodus 32:11). He would rather be blotted, with the people, out of the book of life, of theocratic citizenship, than without the people to stand in the book alone. As mediating priest he has come as far as to the thought of going to destruction with the people, but not for them. Moreover he offers to submit to the sentence only hypothetically—in case Jehovah will not pardon the people. But he is primarily seeking for the pardon of only this one great sin. Thus we see expiation germinant in the form of suffering loss; it is not yet seen in its bloom and fruitage: else the condition would not be, “Grace or judgment,” but, “Through judgment the highest grace.” Nevertheless this is the moment when Moses comes into closest contact with the priesthood of the New Testament. Abraham’s intercession for Sodom is one precursor of it; stronger still is Judah’s intercession for Benjamin (vid. Comm. on Genesis 44:18 sqq.); and, as a N. T. analogy, Paul’s language in Romans 9:3 has been adduced (vid. Comm. on Romans). In Paul’s words appears indeed the phrase “for the Jewish people;” but it is a question what the exact meaning is. In intercession there are indeed degrees of self-denial and ecstasy in which human logic seems almost to be swallowed up in a sort of divine folly.—Jehovah brings Moses back to the legal stand-point, and all the more, as he has not yet attained the full expression and full act of expiation, and the realization of it is conditioned on an antecedent visitation of the people (Exodus 32:34). This visitation, however, can be realized only as the people are conducted further on their way. So then there is involved a conditional re-adoption of the people in the words, “Go, lead the people,” etc. It is conditioned, in the first place, by the bscure expression, “My angel shall go before thee,” the stern meaning of which is afterwards explained; secondly, by the proviso of a future visitation which was to be at once a gracious and a judicial visitation. Thus the people are smitten doubly: first, by Moses’ judicial punishment (Exodus 32:27); secondly, by the above-mentioned conditions connected with their re-adoption. And this is done because, as Exodus 32:35 declares, the people, strictly speaking, had made the calf which they had induced Aaron to make. “The book which Jehovah has written is the book of life, or of the living, Psalms 69:29 (28); Daniel 12:1. This conception is derived from the custom of making a list of the names of the citizens of a kingdom or of a city” (Keil).—From this it appears that the book is primarily the roll of citizens of the kingdom of God, in the theocratic sense; and the notion becomes more and more profound as we advance through the Scriptures, comp. Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 12:1; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5. Keil finds the day of visitation in the judicial infliction at Kadesh (Numbers 14:26 sqq.), according to which that generation was to die in the wilderness. But the text allows a distinction to be made between the day of visitation in the more general sense and the special retributive visitation. It designates the whole perspective of punitive judgments as seen in the light of grace. Footnotes: [Exodus 32:1. ΰֱ ?μ ֹ ?δִ ?ιν is here connected with a plural verb, and in Exodus 32:4 with a plural pronoun, so that the A. V. certainly seems to be correct. Yet the term is used only of the golden calf, and there is no indication that it referred to anything else. Probably the plural verb and pronoun are used for the very purpose of distinguishing the calf as a false god—one of the many gods of polytheism. Yet in other cases, e. g., Judges 11:24; Judges 16:23-24, the singular verb is used of a heathen god.—Tr.][We leave the A. V. rendering, only substituting “and he” for “after he had;” but it must be confessed that the passage is obscure. Fόrst, Gesemus, Knobel, Maurer, Glaire, Rosenmόller, Cook, Kurtz, and others understand ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ to be = ηָ ?ψִ ?ιθ (vid. 2 Kings 5:23), meaning “a bag.” It occurs only once more, viz., Isaiah 8:1, where it means “a pen” (metal style). If the word here means “bag,” then εַ ?ιָּ ?φַ ?ψ must mean “bound up,” as indeed it most naturally does (coming from φεּ ?ψ, not ιָ ?φַ ?ψ), though it is also used (but rarely) in the sense of “form” or “fashion.” We are therefore compelled to decide mainly according to the sense. Against the A. V. rendering is to be urged that a molten image would not be made with a graving tool. The reply, that the tool was used only to polish the image after it was cast, is a mere assumption, and moreover requires us to resort to the device, adopted by the A. V., but unwarranted by the grammatical construction, of inverting the natural relation of time between the two clauses, “fashioned it with a graving tool,” and, “made it a molten Gulf.” The other rendering would be: “Ho took it from their hands, and bound it up in a bag,” etc.—Tr.][This is obscure. If the reference is (as apparently it is) to the tent spoken of in Exodus 33:7 sqq., then it is incorrect to say that Moses called it “the tent of the testimony.” And even if he had so called it, it is not clear how that name would indicate that Jehovah was to be found only outside the camp.—Tr.][See under “Textual and Grammatical.” Lange’s interpretation is plausible; but εַ ?ιָּ ?φַ ?ψ can hardly be made to mean “sketched”—all the less, inasmuch as the supposed object, the calf, has not yet been hinted at.—Tr.][It should be said that Keil regards neither of these answers as satisfactory. On the first point he says that the reason assigned is not the only or the chief one, but that it is to be found partly in the fact that “the Levites came mole promptly to a recognition of their offence and to a resolution of penitence and conversion, partly in their regard for Moses, who belonged to their tribe.”—Tr. SECOND SECTIONStricter Separation between Jehovah and the People. Removal of Moses’ Tent—the Provisional Tabernacle—out of the Camp. The Gracious Token Exodus 33:1-23A.—appointment of an angel to be israel’s leader, instead of jehovah’s immediate guidanceExo_33:1-61 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Depart and go up [Away, go up] hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which [of which] I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: 2And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: 3Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiff-necked people: lest I consume thee in the way. 4And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned, and no man did put 5on him his ornaments. For Jehovah had said [And Jehovah said] unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee [were I to go up in the midst of thee one moment, I should consume thee]: therefore now pu off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. 6And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, by the mount Horeb [from Mount Horeb onward]. b.—removal of moses’ tent, as a sort of traditional tabernacle, before the camp. The theocratic disciplinary chastisementExo_33:7-117 And Moses took the tabernacle [tent], and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting]. And it came to pass, that every one which [who] sought Jehovah went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], which was without the camp. 8And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle [tent], that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, untilhe was gone into the tabernacle [tent]. 9And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle [tent], the cloudy pillar [pillar of cloud] descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle [tent], and Jehovah talked with Moses. 10And all the people saw the cloudy pillar [pillar of cloud] stand [standing] at the tabernacle door [door of the tent]: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in [at] his tent 11door. And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle [tent].C—jehovah’s determination modified in consequence of moses’ intercession. the people have a share in the grace shown to mosesExo_33:12-2312 And Moses said unto Jehovah, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom [him whom] thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight. Now, therefore, I pray thee, if [13Now therefore, if indeed] I have found grace in thy sight, show me now [I pray thee] thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. 14And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. 15And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry [take] us not up hence. 16For wherein shall it be known here [whereby now shall it be known] that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be [with us, and that we shall be] separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon 17the face of the earth? And Jehovah said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18And he said, I beseech thee, shew me [said, Shew me, I pray thee] thy glory. 19And he said, I will make all my goodness [excellence] pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before thee: and will [I will] be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face, for there shallnoman [forman shall not] see me, and live. 21And Jehovah said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a [the] rock: 22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine [my] hand, and thou shalt see my back parts [back]: but my face shall not be seen. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 33:7-11. We have left the A. V. substantially unchanged out of deference to the uniform translation of the versions and commentators. But the fact ought to be noticed that the verbs in this section are Future verbs throughout. This fact has an important bearing on the exegesis of the passage. There are three opinions about this tent: (1) That it is Moses’ own tent. (2) That it is some old sacred tent used provisionally as a sanctuary. (3) That it is the real tabernacle, but that the passage is out of place. The latter hypothesis, of course, should be adopted only as a last resort. Against both the others it is to be said: (a) The phrase “the tent” is not easily to be accounted for. If it was Moses’ tent, why not ΰָ ?δֳ ?μεֹ, “his tent?” If another, nowhere else hinted at, why so indefinite a designation of it? As Rosenmόller pertinently observes, it cannot well be Moses’ own tent, since he is represented as going into it only for the special purpose of communing with God. (b) Even on either of these two hypotheses there is an interruption in the narrative as real, if not as strange, as on the theory that we have here an account of what was done with the real tabernacle before it was built. Exodus 33:12 is clearly a resumption of Exo 33:3—Moses’ intercession with Jehovah. That Exodus 33:7-11 should here intervene, not by way of an announcement on Jehovah’s part of His purpose, but as a historical account of the ordinary subsequent fact, is extremely unnatural, especially as at the close of it, the same tone of entreaty and personal intercourse is resumed. (c) It seems improbable that anything but the real Tent of meeting should have been called such before the real one was built. (d) The fact that the verbs in this section are future furnishes a natural solution of the whole difficulty. So far as I have observed, no one has noticed this fact at all except Knobel and Bφttcher (Lehrbuch der Heb. Sprache, II., p. 162). Knobel simply refers to the case in Exodus 15:5 as a parallel. But there, he says correctly, the future is used as a graphic form for the Present. This is an explanation not satisfactory here, where there is no poetry, and where the very uniformity and frequency of the Future verbs are sufficient to overthrow any such theory. Bφttcher more plausibly classes this among the instances in which customary past actions are described by the use of the Future. But even on this assumption we get no relief from the various perplexities above described. Now by simply translating the Futures as Futures we at once see light. We thus make it a continuation of Exo 33:5 (Exodus 33:6 being parenthetical). The reasons for so translating are simple and cogent: (1) It is the most natural and obvious way to render the verbs. The burden of proof rests with those who render them otherwise. (2) It relieves us of the necessity of supposing that the section is out of place. (3) It relieves us of the necessity of drawing on our imagination for “the tent” so mysteriously introduced. It is neither “his (Moses’) tent,” nor some unheard-of old tent with sacred associations, but simply “the tent” which has been so minutely described and which is soon to be built. (4) The section thus translated is in excellent ha mony with the context. In Exodus 33:5 God says to the people, “Put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee.” What follows in Exodus 33:7-11 is a description of what God will do unto them. It contains a general direction concerning the way in which God is to lead the people. This is the question considered in Exodus 32:34 to Exodus 33:3. In what now follows (Exodus 33:12 sqq.) the same theme is still discussed. Moses’ language, “See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people,” obviously points back to Exodus 33:1-3. What intervenes is only an expansion of the statement of Exo 33:3, “I will not go up in the midst of thee.” The antithesis is between going in the midst of, and going far off from. According to Exodus 33:7 the tent was to be pitched “afar off from the camp;” there Jehovah might be sought and found: and there (Exodus 33:9) Jehovah talked with Moses. We thus see that the angel spoken of in Exodus 32:34 and Exodus 33:2 is not set over against Jehovah as a substitute for Him: the angel himself is not to go “in the midst of,” but “before” the people. It remains to notice some objections: (1) Joshua was to remain in the tent, whereas, according to Numbers 3:10; Numbers 3:38; Numbers 18:7, only the priests besides Moses could enter it.—But to this it may be replied that, if Joshua, as Moses, confidential servant, could go with him to the mountain top when the law was to be given, he might accompany him into the sanctuary; and this fact would need no special mention in the passages just referred to.—(2) The object of this tent seems to be different from that of the sanctuary; no mention is made of Aaron and the sacrifices, but only of Moses and the people going to it to meet with God.—But this is all that it is necessary or proper to mention in this connection. And the same thing is also said of the real Tent of meeting; e. g., Exodus 25:22, “There [by the mercy-seat] I will meet, with thee [Moses”]; Exodus 29:43, “And there [at the tabernacle] I will meet with the children of Israel.”—(3) These verses do not seem to be the language of Jehovah, being immediately preceded by the historical statement (Exodus 33:6), “the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments.”—This difficulty is easily removed by regarding Exodus 33:6 as parenthetical, thus making Exodus 33:7 sqq. a continuation of the directions begun in Exodus 33:5. Examples of such a construction, in which a historical statement immediately connected with the topic treated of is interpolated in the midst of language quoted from another, are abundant. An exact parallel is found in Exodus 4:4-5, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. (And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:) That they may believe that the Lord hath..… appeared unto thee.” Precisely so, Exodus 4:7-8; Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24. In the passage before us the statement of Exo 33:6 is naturally introduced in immediate connection with the corresponding command of Exo 33:5.—(4) The preceding objection seems to be strengthened by the consideration, that if Exodus 33:7-11 are the words of Jehovah it is unnatural that both Jehovah and Moses should be spoken of here in the third person.—But such changes of person are too numerous in Hebrew to occasion any serious perplexity. In Exodus 33:5 itself we have an instance of a looseness of this sort. We read: “Jehovah said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people: were I [i. e., Moses is to say to the people, ‘were I’] to go up in the midst of thee,” etc. The prophetical writings are full of similar instances of interchange of persons. In Exodus 34, as frequently elsewhere, we have also instances of Jehovah speaking of Himself in the third person, vid. Exodus 33:10; Exodus 33:14, Exodus 33:23.—(5). The real tabernacle was not in fact set up at a distance from the camp, but in the centre of it, according to Numbers 2:2 sqq. But if we assume, as we must, that the sternness of Jehovah’s regulations was relaxed in consequence of Moses’ importunate petition in Exodus 33:12 sqq., there is no difficulty in the case.—Tr.] AND This is one of the most mysterious chapters in all the three books of the covenant. It characterizes the Mosaic Middle Ages in the Old Testament as essentially a theocratic conflict of the pure law with the guilt incurred by the people through their idolatry. The people are pardoned; but their pardon is hierarchically conditioned. The first limitation consists in the fact that Jehovah will not go in the midst of the people to Canaan, because in that case they would expose themselves to condemnation through their transgressions; but that He will go before them by sending, or in the form of, an angel. The second limitation consists in the fact that Moses removes the provisional tabernacle out of the camp, by which act even the camp of the people of God, as being a place needing purification, is distinguished from the sanctuary. The third limitation consists in the fact that Moses himself, needing on account of his vocation a more distinct revelation, is to behold, in the angel, the face of Jehovah—the gracious form in which Jehovah reveals Himself; yet only in such a way that he is to see the glory of Jehovah in this apocalyptic form not in a front view, as the face of the face, but from behind, i.e., in the after-splendor of the sudden phenomenal effects produced by Jehovah, and rapidly passing by the prophet’s covered eyes. The first of these limitations marks the veiled revelation; the second, the increased difficulty of holding communion with God; the third, the fact that the knowledge of sacred things is removed from the sphere of intuition,—is to be not so much an original perception as a matter of practical experience.—In his hunt for contradictions Knobel imagines that he has discovered several contradictions in this chapter.—“According to the Elohist,” he says, “Jehovah was going to dwell in the midst of Israel in the tabernacle; otherwise this account.” According to the Elohist, he says again, the tabernacle was made from contributions; whereas here the ornaments delivered up were used in building the tabernacle (!). Here, then, the real tabernacle is implied to be in existence before the time when it was afterwards built. According to the Elohist only the priests, besides Moses, could enter the tabernacle; here Joshua is represented as dwelling in it, etc. a. Appointment of the Angel. Exodus 33:1-6 Exodus 33:1. Away, go up.—Since the tables of the law were broken, and the tabernacle was not yet built (for the erection of it presupposed the existence of the new tables), the pardon of the people appears again in this command as a very limited one. God still says, “Thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt,” etc. (as in Exodus 32:7). And because Jehovah is still determined to keep His word and to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s seed, He will also help them to conquer it. He will send an angel of terror before the marching host to drive out the Canaanites, so that they shall come into the land that flows with milk and honey (vid. iii. 8). But it is not said that this angel is to be the angel of Jehovah in the most special sense of that term, the angel of His presence, or of the covenant (the one in whom Jehovah’s name is, according to Exodus 23:21); for the revelation of God has veiled itself again. The people obtain primarily only life, the advantage over the Canaanites, and the promise of the land of Canaan “flowing with milk and honey,” to shame them for their ingratitude. On the other hand Jehovah declares, “I will not go up in the midst of thee,” etc. This, too, like the promise of the angel, is an obscure utterance. At all events, it implies the temporary suspension of legislation and of the building of the tabernacle. But after the people repent, the form of the angel becomes richer in significance, and access to the tabernacle is refused to the people only as a common matter. The reason assigned is, that the people in their stiff-neckedness cannot endure the immediate presence of Jehovah without incurring a sentence of destruction through their continual transgressions. This announcement of the obscuration of revelation—of the curtailment of the promise—falls on the people as a heavy infliction. Therein is recognized Israel’s religious temperament, as also in the first symbolic expression of the common repentance of the people, Exodus 33:4. How many heathen nations would have rejoiced, if God had declared that He would not dwell in the midst of them! This recognition of the fact that the people are in mourning and do not put on their ornaments as at other times, is not followed (in Exodus 33:5), as Keil conceives, by another threat from Jehovah. It is nearly the same language as that in Exodus 33:3, but yet is now used to give comfort. It would be the destruction of them, if He should go with them in the fullness of His revealed glory, in full fellowship, because this is simply beyond their capacity, because they are born and grown up as a stiff-necked people. Here is found a key to the understanding of the Catholic Middle Ages, and of the parables of our Lord in Matthew 13. How many a pietistic Christian, in consequence of an excess of religious fellowship and edification, in connection with a coarse nature, has fallen !—Nevertheless Jehovah gives them hope by turning into a precept their repentant act of laying off their ornaments. So then the children of Israel strip themselves of their ornaments. We translate the words ξֵ ?δַ ?ψηεֹ ?ψֵ ?α, “on account of mount Horeb,” i. e., on account of the guilt here contracted, and of the divine punishment denounced from Horeb. Horeb rests on them now as a burden. As to the explanation, “from mount Horeb onwards,” one cannot but ask, what is the terminus ad quem? The terminus a quo also would be open to misunderstanding. “They put on none of their rings, bracelets, jewels, or other ornaments, as was done on festive occasions, but went about as mourners. During the time of mourning it was customary to avoid all pomp, and not to deck one’s self again till it was over (Ezekiel 24:17; Ezekiel 26:16; Jdt 10:3 sq.)” (Knobel). b. Removal of the Tent of Revelation, or Central Text, as a sort of Traditional Tabernacle, before the Camp. The Theocratic Chastisement. Exodus 33:7-11 The people are not restored to full communion with God; but in the person of Moses this is reserved even for the people. Hence the new, provisional order of things. Moses removes his tent outside of the camp. Emphasis is laid on the fact that it was set up far from the camp, and also, that it was called by Moses the tent of meeting, showing that it was not the tabernacle itself which had been before prescribed. The same is also shown by the fact that Joshua remains permanently in this tent to keep guard, and that Moses keeps up the connection between the camp and the tent by remaining a part of the time in the camp, doubtless to maintain order, and a part of the time in the tent of meeting with Jehovah, to receive His revelations and commands. Thus Moses has secured a new stand point designed to bring the penitent people to a renewed life. The people must go out to him outside of the camp (Hebrews 13:13), and there seek Jehovah. The effect of this is shown, first, in the fact that individuals among the people go out in order to seek and consult Jehovah at the tent of meeting (Exodus 33:7); next, in the expression of reverence with which all the people accompanied Moses’ going to the tent (Exodus 33:8); but especially in the fact that all the people cast themselves on their faces, when the mysterious pillar of cloud appeared before the tent, i. e., where at a later time the altar of burnt-offering stood, and beyond the cloud Jehovah talked with Moses face to face, i. e., in the perfect intercourse of God with the friend of God, not in the full revelation of His glory (vid. Exodus 33:19). Thus the people are consecrated in preparation for the restoration of the covenant, vid. Numbers 12:8; Deuteronomy 5:4. Knobel finds here again a contradiction. He says, “Reference is made not to Moses’ tent (LXX., Syr., Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Piscator, Baumgarten), or to another sanctuary used before the completion of the tabernacle (Clericus, J. D. Michaelis, Vatablus, Rosenmόller), but the tabernacle,” etc. That the camp must from the first have had a central tent, religious head-quarters, is in this chase after contradictions never dreamed of. A strange assumption it is, too, that the people delivered up their ornaments to Moses to build the tabernacle with. c. Modification of Jehovah’s Determination in consequence of Moses’ Intercession. Exodus 33:12-23 Moses’ humble request that Jehovah would express Himself more definitely respecting the promise of angelic guidance is founded partly on the progress of repentance manifested by his people, but partly and especially on the assurance of tavor which he had personally received. As before he would not hear to a destruction of the people in which he should not be involved, so now he cannot conceive that he has found grace in Jehovah’s eyes for himself alone; rather, in this personal favor he finds a reference to his people—a hopeful prospect which he must become acquainted with. But he at once draws the inference that Jehovah must again recognize as His people those whom He has before called thy (Moses’) people [Exodus 32:7]. If I am Thine, let the people be Thine also—this is again the sacerdotal, mediatorial thought. Here [Exodus 33:13] is to be noticed the difference between βּ ?εֹ ?ι [“nation”] and ςָ ?ν [“people”]. The former term, derived from βָּ ?εָ ?δ, denotes a feature of nature, in which is involved the contrast of mountain and valley; the latter, derived from ςָ ?ξַ ?ν, denotes a commonwealth ethically gathered and bound together. In reply to this petition Moses receives the declaration, “My presence [lit. face] shall go.” The indefinite angel (Exodus 33:2), therefore, now becomes the face of Jehovah, i. e., at least, the angel by whom He reveals Himself, the one often manifested in Genesis and afterwards (angel of God, angel of Jehovah, an angel, Jehovah’s face, vid. Comm. on Genesis, p. 386 sqq.); for which reason Isaiah combines both notions and speaks of the angel of His face [ “presence” A. V.] in Isaiah 63:9. In Malachi 3:1 occurs the expression, “angel [A.V. “messenger”] of the covenant.” Moreover God here no longer says, “He shall go before thee,” but “he shall go,” go out and give thee rest. Here, then, the discourse is about something more than milk and honey. But the form of revelation is still obscure, and the promise is connected with the person of Moses, though now the people are at the same time included. But Moses is consistent with himself, and firmly seizing hold of Jehovah’s promise, he again at once gives it a turn in favor of the people. He takes it for granted that, with him, the people also have found grace with Jehovah; thereon he founds the entreaty that this may not remain concealed, that Jehovah may make it manifest by distinguishing him and his people, in His guidance of them, from all other nations on earth. To this also Jehovah assents, but explains that He does it for Moses’ sake. But Moses in his prayer grows bolder and bolder, and now prays, “Let me see thy glory!” Heretofore all of Moses’ requests have had almost more reference to the good of the people than to his own. We must therefore conjecture that there is such a reference here. But it is entirely excluded by Keil, when he says, “What Moses desires, then, is to behold the glory, i.e., the glorious essence of God.” But the two notions, glory and glorious essence, must not be confounded. The glory (λָּ ?αεֹ ?γδόξα is the apocalyptic splendor of the divine essence, and is to be distinguished from this essence itself; it is the revelation of God in the totality of His attributes, such as that of which a dim vision terrified Isaiah (Isaiah 6), and such as was manifested in its main features in Christ (John 1:14). According to Keil, Moses desires a view such as cannot be realized except in the other world; but there is nothing about that here. Yet it is true that the revelation of Jehovah in His glory is fulfilled in the N. T. in Christ. And Moses unconsciously aims at this very thing, and as much in behalf of his people as of himself. For only in the fulfilment of the promises can Jehovah’s glory be revealed. This seems indeed to be contradicted by Jehovah’s declaration, “Thou canst not see my face, for man shall not see me, and live” But we are to infer from this that the notion of the perfect revelation of God’s glory in the future life, of the great Epiphany, is to be sharply distinguished from the revelation of the glory in its original form. This distinction, nevertheless, belonged to a later time than that of Moses. But this original form of the glory, the grace revealed in the N. T., which is what Moses must have had chiefly in mind, he was to behold at least in a figure. So then his petition is granted according to the measure of his capacity, while at the same time he is made to understand that God’s glory in its perfect revelation transcends his petition and comprehension.—And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee (should we render “beauty” instead of “goodness?” The Greek includes the good in his notion of the beautiful; the Hebrew, the beautiful in the good—but not first or chiefly the beautiful). Accordingly He will expound to him Jehovah’s name, whose most essential significance is eternal fidelity in His eternal grace—a second promise, whose fulfilment is related in Exodus 34:5 sqq. When now Jehovah further says, “Thou canst not see my face,” reference is made to His face in the highest sense, as also to His glory, which means the same thing, or even to the visibility of God Himself.—“For man shall not see me, and live” That here there is an occult intimation of existence in another world, should not be overlooked. A glory which no one in this life sees, or a view which can be attained only by losing this life, certainly could not be spoken of, if it were not man’s goal in the future life to attain it. Preparation is now made for the vision which Jehovah is going to vouchsafe to Moses. Moses is to stand in a cavity of a rock. Jehovah’s glory is to pass by. But while it is coming and passing by, Jehovah is to hold His hand over his eyes until His glory has passed by, lest he be overcome by the sight, and perish. But then he may look after the glory that has passed, and see it on the back side in the lingering splendor of its effects, i. e., see all the goodness of Jehovah, the eternity of His grace. Who, moreover, could see Him in His frightfully glorious appearance and dominion without being crushed and snatched away from earth ! When Christ, uttering the words, “It is finished,” saw the full glory of God on His cross, He bowed His head and died. Over His eyes, too, was gently placed the hand of Omnipotence, as He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” So the hand of Omnipotence covers the eye of the pious man with fear and terror, with sleep and faintness, with night and darkness, whilst the heavenly day of God’s glory passes over the world’s stage in His light and in His judgments; afterwards faith discerns that everything was goodness and grace. On the realization of the vision, which took place after Moses ascended the mountain, vid., chap. 34. Probably Moses saw beforehand in images the glorious meaning of Jehovah’s proclamation. Of Jehovah’s grace in its manifestation nothing more can be said than that Moses himself saw only the after-gleam of the mysterious revelation; yet it was the after-gleam of the glory. But it is a wonderfully grand and beautiful fact, that Moses the law-giver, and Elijah the zealot for the law, both received in a cave in frightful Sinai the vision of the fulness of goodness and grace, the vision of the gentle rustling —the vision of the Gospel. Is this the same Sinai which has been so often pictured by mediζval doctors and ascetics? “How He loved the people, with His fiery law in His hand,” we read in Deuteronomy 33:3.Exodus 33:12. Thou hast said, I know thee by name.—Not every word of Jehovah to Moses needs to have been reported beforehand. According to Knobel, interpreting as usual with a literalness amounting to caricature, this means, “Thou art my near and intimate acquaintance.” The name is in God’s mind the idea of the being, and accordingly this declaration of Jehovah’s expresses a very special, personal election of Moses. But Moses knows also, according to Exodus 33:13, that his election and the grace shown to him involve a determination to promote the good of his people. Exodus 33:15. He will be led to Canaan only under the direction of the gracious countenance, or not at all. Better to die in the wilderness than to reach his goal without that guidance. Exodus 33:18. On the climax in reference to the seeing of Jehovah comp. Keil, II. p. 236; but observe the distinction between God’s glory and His essence, as also between the primary vision of His glory in the New Testament and the vision of His glory in the other world. Exodus 33:19. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious [Lange: I have been gracious, or I am gracious to whom I shall be gracious]. The LXX. invert the order of time; “I will be gracious to whom I am gracious” The Vulg. led to Luther’s translation [Wem ich gnδdig bin, dem bin ich gnδdig—“I am gracious to him to whom I am gracious”] by rendering, “miserebor cui voluero.” Paul, in Romans 9:15, follows the LXX. At all events the text, taken literally, does not involve an expression of absolute freedom of choice, still less of caprice. It distinguishes two periods of time, and thus becomes an interpretation of the name Jehovah, which comprehends the three periods of time. Accordingly the Hebrew expression affirms: “My grace is in such a sense consistent and persistent that, wherever I show it, it is based on profound reasons belonging to the past.” The expression in the LXX. implies essentially the same: “As I am gracious to one to-day, so will I show myself gracious to him continually.” Luther’s translation restores the distinction between grace and compassion, which the Vulgate has obliterated. Concerning the cave on Sinai, as well as the smaller one situated lower down, in which Moses, according to tradition, and Elijah, according to conjecture, stood, vid. Keil, II. p. 239. Footnotes: [Exodus 33:7-11. We have left the A. V. substantially unchanged out of deference to the uniform translation of the versions and commentators. But the fact ought to be noticed that the verbs in this section are Future verbs throughout. This fact has an important bearing on the exegesis of the passage. There are three opinions about this tent: (1) That it is Moses’ own tent. (2) That it is some old sacred tent used provisionally as a sanctuary. (3) That it is the real tabernacle, but that the passage is out of place. The latter hypothesis, of course, should be adopted only as a last resort. Against both the others it is to be said: (a) The phrase “the tent” is not easily to be accounted for. If it was Moses’ tent, why not ΰָ ?δֳ ?μεֹ, “his tent?” If another, nowhere else hinted at, why so indefinite a designation of it? As Rosenmόller pertinently observes, it cannot well be Moses’ own tent, since he is represented as going into it only for the special purpose of communing with God. (b) Even on either of these two hypotheses there is an interruption in the narrative as real, if not as strange, as on the theory that we have here an account of what was done with the real tabernacle before it was built. Exodus 33:12 is clearly a resumption of Exo 33:3—Moses’ intercession with Jehovah. We read: “Jehovah said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people: were I [i. e., Moses is to say to the people, ‘were I’] to go up in the midst of thee,” etc. The prophetical writings are full of similar instances of interchange of persons. In Exodus 34, as frequently elsewhere, we have also instances of Jehovah speaking of Himself in the third person, vid. Exodus 33:10; Exodus 33:14; Exodus 33:23.—(5). The real tabernacle was not in fact set up at a distance from the camp, but in the centre of it, according to Numbers 2:2 sqq. But if we assume, as we must, that the sternness of Jehovah’s regulations was relaxed in consequence of Moses’ importunate petition in Exodus 33:12 sqq., there is no difficulty in the case.—Tr.] [This seems to be an original interpretation of the phrase. Some understand it to moan: “returning from Horeb to their camp;” others (with A. V.): “by Mount Horeb;” but the most: “from Mount Horeb onwards,” i. e., the people from this time on refrained from using them. To say, “from Mount Horeb,” is certainly a very enigmatical way of saying “on account of the sin committed at Mt. Horeb.”—Tr.] [But where did he sleep and eat? Where was his proper abiding-place, if his own tent could be used only when he needed special revelations?—Tr.] [On this point vid. under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [θεּ ?α is used unquestionably in both senses; but as our word “goodness” has a limited sense, we have substituted “excellence” in the translation, as comprehending both the notion of moral goodness and that of majesty.—Tr.] [This phrase, des sanften Sausens, is from Luther’s translation of χεֹ ?μγְּ ?ξָ ?ξָ ?δγַ ?χָ ?δ in l Kings Exodus 19:12, ein stilles sanftes Sausen; in the A. V., “a still small voice;” literally, “a voice of gentle stillness.”—Tr.] [A somewhat free translation and inversion of the last part of Exo 33:2 and the first part of Exo 33:3, the former, moreover, of very doubtful meaning.—Tr.] [This discussion is singularly infelicitous. The two verbs are in the Hebrew both Future (the first made such by the Vav Consecutive), so that Lange’s statement, that the text “distinguishes two periods of time,” and his own translation, “I have been (or am) gracious to whom I shall be gracious,” convey a misrepresentation which it is yet impossible to impute either to his ignorance of Hebrew or to conscious unfairness. His comment on the analogous expression in Exodus 3:14 is open to the same criticism. Vid. the note on p. 11. Apparently Lange’s theory of the meaning of the name ιδεδ and of the nature of the divine attributes has led him unconsciously to put into the Hebrew what cannot be got out of it.—Tr.] [This makes the impression, for which Keil is not responsible, that both Moses and Elijah have been supposed to have stood in the lower cave. There is no evidence of this. Comp. Robinson, I., p. 152 Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, pp. 166, 130.—Tr.] THIRD SECTIONThe New Tables of the Law for the People prone to a Hierarchy. Clearer Revelation of God’s Grace. Sterner Prohibition of Idolatry. Stricter Commands concerning the Passover, the First-born, the Sabbath, and the Feasts. Return of Moses with the Tables. Moses’ Shining Face and his VeilExo_34:1-35.A.—The new stone tables for the divine writingExo_34:1-41 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these [the] tables the words that were in [on] the first tables, which thou brakest. 2And be ready in the morning, and come [go] up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in [on] the top of the mount. 3And no man shall come [go] up with thee, neither let any [and also let no] man be seen throughout [in] all the mount; neither let the flocks nor [also let not theflocks and the] herds feed before that mount. 4And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as Jehovah had commanded him, and took [him: and he took] in his hand the [hand] two tables of stone. B.—Jehovah’s grand proclamation of Jehovah’s grace on mount sinai—henceforth an accompaniment of the tables of the lawExo_34:5-105 And Jehovah descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed 6the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful [Jehovah, a God merciful] and gracious, long-suffering, 7and abundant in goodness [kindness] and truth, Keeping mercy [kindness] for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will [sin: but he will] by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children [of fathers upon children] and upon the [upon] children’s children, unto 8[upon] the third and to [upon] the fourth generation. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward [himself to] the earth, and worshipped. 9And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Jehovah, let my Lord [the Lord], I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance. 10And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of Jehovah: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. C.—The golden calf an occasion for a most stringent prohibition of intercourse with the heathen canaanites. The more definite establishment of the Israelitish commonwealth in its negative relationsExo_34:11-1711 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before [from before] thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for [become] a snare in the midst of thee: 13But ye shall destroy [tear down] their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves [Asherim]: 14For thou shalt worship no other God: for Jehovah whose name is Jealous, is [Jehovah—his name is Jealous;he is] a jealous God: 15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do [and] sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; 16And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. 17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. D.—Leading positive features of the religious commonwealth of Israel. Supplementary laws likewise occasioned by the newly arisen necessity of emphasizing the distinctionsExo_34:18-2418 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee in the time [set time] of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt. 19All that openeth the matrix [womb] is mine: and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male [all thy male cattle, the first-born of ox and sheep]. 20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty. 21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing [ploughing] time and in harvest thou shalt rest. 22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end. 23Thrice in the year shall all your men-children 24[thy males] appear before the Lord God [Jehovah], the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before [from before] thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go [goest] up to appear before Jehovah thy God thrice in the year. E.—The three symbolic principal rules for theocratic cultureExo_34:25-2625 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven [leavened bread]; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning. 26The first of the first-fruits of thy land [ground] thou shalt bring unto the house of Jehovah thy God. Thou shalt not seethe [boil] a kid in his [its] mother’s milk. F.—Moses’ lofty and inspired mood at the renewed giving of the law. Contrast between the present and the other descent from the mountainExo_34:27-3527 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant the ten commandments. 29And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of [of the] testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist [knew] not that the skin of his face shone while he talked 30[because of his talking] with him. And when [And] Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold [and behold], the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. 31And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with [spake unto] them. 32And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh; and he gave them in 33commandment all that Jehovah had spoken with him in mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking [And Moses left off speaking] with them, he [and he] put a veil on his face. 34But when Moses went in before Jehovah to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. And he came out and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. 35And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. TEXTUAL AND [Exodus 34:7. The A. V. here entirely neglects the accentuation, and thus almost creates a paradox out of these antithetic clauses. By translating εְ ?πַ ?χֵּ ?δ as a relative clause (and that will, etc.), it makes the impression that the same construction is continued, whereas not only does the Athnach precede it, but, instead of the participle of the preceding clause, we have here a finite verb without the Relative Pronoun. The A. V., moreover, makes the chief division of the verse before “visiting,” contrary to the Hebrew accentuation, which, quite in accordance with the sense, connects the last clause with the declaration: “he will not clear,” etc.; the confusion of thought is thus made complete.—Tr.]. [Exodus 34:13. The word ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ, here and elsewhere rendered “groves” in the A. V., always refers either to a heathen goddess or to images representing her—commonly the latter, especially when (as here and most frequently) it is used in the plural (ΰֲ ?ωֵׂ ?ψִ ?ιν). It must denote the goddess, e.g. in 1 Kings 15:13, whore it is said: “She had made an idol for Asherah” (A. V. “in a grove”). This goddess sometimes seems to be identical with Ashtaroth. For particulars vid the Lexicons and Encyclopedias. That the word cannot mean “grove” is sufficiently shown by such passages as 2 Kings 23:10, where the Asherim are said to have been set up in every high hill and under every green tree; and 2 Kings 17:6, where it is said that Josiah “brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 34:29. The verb χָ ?ψַ ?ο occurs only in this section in Kal; it is used once (Psalms 69:31) in Hiphil, where it means “to have horns,” while the noun χֶ ?ψֶ ?ο ordinarily means “horn.” Hence originated the Latin translation of the Vulgate “cornuta,” “horned;” and this accounts for the notion, incorporated in art representations of Moses, that he had horns growing out of his face. The point of resemblance is in the appearance of the rays of a luminary shooting out like horns.—Tr.]. AND This chapter contains the acme and bloom of the Mosaic revelation, and so, of the three middle books of the Pentateuch. In the first place, the renewed law is wholly removed into the light of grace by Jehovah’s grand proclamation of the significance of the name Jehovah—Jehovah’s own proclamation on Sinai itself concerning the very name Jehovah, that it means that He is “a God merciful, gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in grace and truth,” etc.:—all this most prominently; but for this very reason, next in prominence, and on account of His righteousness, that He is a punisher of all sin and guilt Next, the Israelitish community is put on its guard against the danger of wrong intercourse with the Canaanites; and everything severe that is ordained against these is founded on a religious and moral ground. In contrast with the corruptions of the heathen worship the outlines of the worship designed for Israel are then summarily given, and finally the great blessing of peace secured by this worship is proclaimed. In this attempt to give the main features of the chapter a universal application, the specific precepts inserted in Exodus 34:25-26, create a difficulty. We regard them as symbolic precepts, requiring a strict form of worship, sanctified culture, humane festivity free from luxury. The last section, however, presents unmistakably the real glory of the Mosaic covenant in Moses’ shining face (vid.2 Corinthians 3:7). a. The New Stone Tables for the Divine Writing. Exodus 34:1-4. Exodus 34:1. And Jehovah said unto Moses. Keil holds that Moses has already restored the covenant-relation through his intercession, according to Exodus 33:14. But if we refer to the first ratification of the covenant, we find that it presupposed the preparation of the tables of the law and a covenant-feast. Since now nothing is said of a new covenant-feast, Keil’s assumption may in some sense be admitted. For the covenant is not simply restored; it is at the same time modified. The law is now made to rest on pardon, and is accompanied by Jehovah’s proclamation of grace; yet nevertheless in many of its provisions it is made stricter in this chapter. The relation between the tabernacle and the camp is made more hierarchical; and in relation to His form of revelation, Jehovah distinguishes more sharply between His face and the display of His essence. But with the notion of the face is introduced also a further development of revelation, as also with the proclamation of grace. Jehovah’s command, Hew thee two tables of stone, leads Keil to express the opinion that the first tables, both as to writing and material, “originated with God,” as contrasted with any co-operation from Moses, i.e. that they were made by God in an entirely supernatural way. This literalness of interpretation is made to receive support from the distinction between “tables of stone” (Exodus 24:12; Exodus 31:18) and “tables of stones” (Exodus 34:1; Exodus 34:4 of this chapter). Hengstenberg and Baum-garten have in a similar way vexed themselves with this variation of the letter. It is barely possible that the stony hardness of the law was meant to be more strongly emphasized in the second case than in the first. Exodus 34:3. And no man.—The sharp command not to approach the mountain is, it is true, substantially a repetition of the previous one; but it is to be considered that the mountain after the conclusion of the covenant had been made accessible up to a certain height to Aaron, his two oldest sons, and the seventy elders of Israel—nay, that they had been invited by Jehovah to celebrate there a feast. This is now changed since the sin in the matter of the golden calf. Exodus 34:4. And Moses hewed two tables of stone.—Was he obliged to do it himself, because he had broken the first, as Rashi holds? Or, was he not rather obliged to do it before the eyes of the people, in order by this act to give the people another sermon? The tables were designed for the ten words (Exodus 34:1)—a truth which ought to be self-evident, though Gφthe and Hitzig have conjectured that the precepts of Exo 34:12-26 are meant; vid. Keil’s note II., p. 239. The Epistle of Barnabas (Epistola XIV.) takes quite another view, and gives an allegorical interpretation of the difference between the first tables and the second. It was not till now that the ten words of the instruction (thorah, law), the angelic words (Acts 7:53), really became words of stony ordinance. *b. The grand Proclamation of Grace on Sinai, henceforth an Accompaniment of the Tables of the Law. Exodus 34:5-10. Exodus 34:5. And Jehovah descended.—This is the heading. Then in Exodus 34:6 first follows the fulfilment of the promise that He would let all His goodness pass before him. The narrative goes beyond this in the grandly mysterious expression, “Jehovah passed by before him.” Then follows the proclamation. Here much depends on the construction. Would Jehovah Himself call out “Jehovah, Jehovah?” This is a form of expression appropriate to human adoration, but not to the mouth of Jehovah Himself. We therefore construe thus: “and Jehovah proclaimed”—a rendering favored by the fact that we are thus obliged to make a decided pause after the words, “Jehovah passed by before him.” Jehovah, then, has expounded the name Jehovah on Mount Sinai; and what is the proclamation? It is not said, Jehovah is the Eternal one, but Jehovah as the Strong one (ΰֵ ?μ) is Lord of time, in that He remains the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, in His faithfulness. His loving-kindness (ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ) branches out in compassion (He is ψַ ?ηεּ ?ν) on the miserable, grace (He is ηַ ?πּ ?εּ ?ο) towards the guilty, long-suffering towards human weakness and perverseness. But He is rich in His loving-kindness and in the reconciliation of it with His truth, or faithfulness (ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ). His kindness He keeps unto the thousands (beginning with one pardoned man); in His truth He takes away (as Judge, Expiator, and Sanctifier) guilt, unfaithfulness, and sins; but He also lets not the least offence pass unpunished, but visits, in final retribution, the guilt of the transgression of fathers upon children and children’s children, upon the third and the fourth generation—grand-children and great-grand-children, vid. Exodus 20. As Elijah afterwards covered his face with his mantle at the still small voice, Moses at these words quickly prostrates himself on the ground. Thus the presentiment and the anticipation of the Gospel casts the strongest heroes of the law upon their faces in homage, vid. Luke 9:30-31. The petition which Moses feels encouraged by this great revelation of grace to offer is also a proof that the first covenant relation is not yet quite restored. He asks that Jehovah Himself, as the Lord (ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι) may go with them. This must mean, as a mighty, stern ruler of the stiff-necked people, in distinction from the angel of Jehovah’s face; this is one point. But he then asks that God, as the Lord, may go with them in the very midst of them, not merely go before them at a distance; this is the second point, little in harmony with the first. For it is again in a more definite form, as in the petition, “let me see thy face”—a petition for New Testament relations, a petition for the presence of Jehovah as the guiding Lord in the midst of the congregation. The addition, “for it is a stiff-necked people,” would be a poor reason for the request, were it not this time an excuse for the people’s sin on the ground of their natural slavery to sin, their inborn wretchedness, which makes it necessary that the personal presence of the Lord should be vouchsafed in order to overcome and control it. The thing aimed at in his petition is perfect fellowship; hence he says, “Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and make us thine inheritance.” He has in mind an ideal servile relation bordering on the N. T. idea of adoption, but one more likely to be realized in the N. T. hierarchy, just as the Platonic ideal state is realized in monasticism. Jehovah’s answer now does not point to a complete restoration of the violated covenant, but as little does it involve an immediate promise of the new covenant; He describes rather His future rule as a constant, continuous establishment of a covenant (δִ ?πֵּ ?δΰֲ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ιλֹּ ?ψֵ ?ϊ, “behold, I am making a covenant”), a transition, therefore, from the old covenant, which already as a legal covenant has been violated, to a new covenant. And this is the means by which He will establish it: “Before all thy people I will do marvels.” The miracles are by this description put above all others that have been done in all the earth. “All the people in the midst of which thou art,” it is said in contrast with Moses’ desire that Jehovah should be in the midst of them, “shall see the work of Jehovah, how terribly great that is which I shall accomplish with thee.” Thus Moses himself is prominently elevated and appointed to be the animating soul of the people; the sublime and terrifying miracles of Jehovah are to proceed from Jehovah’s intercourse with him as the administrator of the law. Doubtless the sight which the people are to have of these miracles is designed to be a salutary one; but the strong expression indicates the decisive solemnity of the sight. Keil makes prominent among the terrible works of Jehovah the overthrow of all the powers that hostilely resist the kingdom of God. Keil says: “This ‘sermon on the name of the Lord,’ as Luther calls it, discloses to Moses the inmost essence of Jehovah. It proclaims that God is love.” But in this way the old covenant is made the perfect new one. It is true, however, that here compassion, grace, and long-suffering are combined by means of kindness and truth—not merely in addition to kindness and truth—with holiness and justice, and that grace here appears in the foreground. Keil also rightly notices the collective expression, “it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity,” etc. Keil’s remark, moreover, that “the reference made to the natural ground of the sin mitigates the wrath,” is not Augustinian. According to Knobel Jehovah is to call out His name to Moses only in order that he may by means of it recognize Jehovah’s appearance. Also he makes πַ ?χֵּ ?δμֹ ?ΰιְ ?πַ ?χֶּ ?ϊ mean, “He will not leave entirely unpunished.” Exodus 34:9-28 he calls a repetition, and therefore ascribes to the “second narrator.” *c. The Golden Calf an Occasion for a most Stringent Prohibition of Intercourse with the Heathen Canaanites. The more Definite Establishment of the Israelitish Commonwealth negatively considered. Exodus 34:11-17 To the religion of the law, supplemented by the proclamation of grace, corresponds the religious community, destined to be the upholders of this religion. A more exact fixing of their relation than that laid down in Exodus 23:23 has become necessary on account of the affair of the golden calf. In the paragraph before us this community is defined chiefly in a negative way. It has been already said, that Jehovah would drive out the Canaanites (vid. the names, Exodus 23:23), but not all at once. This may well refer to a destruction of them in war, but not to a destruction of them in so far as they have submitted themselves to the civil law. We know how, as being strangers, they are even put under the protection of the law. But inasmuch as they may tend to ruin Israel with their heathenish abominations, all intimate alliances with them are forbidden at the outset. Religion is the thing here chiefly concerned. The signs of a public heathen worship, especially the wooden pillars of the voluptuous worship, as well as the images of Asherah, they are to extirpate; they are to destroy the seductive symbols wherever found. There is here no trace of a persecution of private religious opinions and devotions. Moreover, the reason for that severity is given in Exodus 34:14 : it is to secure the adoration of the true God, who is jealous of His relation to Israel. Over against the dark, voluptuous religious worship is presented the pure image of conjugal fellowship between Jehovah and His people (vid. Keil II., p. 243)—a representation growing more and more definite all the way through the Scriptures to the Apocalypse, and introduced as early as Exodus 20:5, where Jehovah is called χַ ?πָּ ?ΰ [“jealous”] in the giving of the law—an expression which twice recurs here. As heathen idolatry is in itself to be regarded as whoredom, i.e. as apostasy from the living God, so the Canaanitish heathenism particularly has developed within itself the consequences of moral whoredom. But Israel may become involved in this double whoredom, especially in two ways. In the first place, by taking part in the seductive sacrificial meals of the heathen, to which they will be invited, as afterwards such participation became a snare to the people at Shittim (Numbers 25); but especially by intermarriages between Israelitish sons and heathen women, such as afterwards caused Solomon to fall. The dangerous influence of female bigotry on the religion of the men, the dangerousness, therefore, of mingling religions in marriage, is thus early expressed with the strongest words of warning. An impure marriage—often induced by lustful views of spiritual Asherah-images—easily works destruction to the archetype of pure marriage, the relation of Jehovah to His congregation. Therefore also the law here expressly treats of the setting up of molten gods, as being a transition to the lapse into complete idolatry. On the notion of whoredom in the religious sense, as well as on the names Asherah and Astarte, comp. especially Winer, Realwφrterbuch. That the name Asherah denotes the idol-image of Astarte, the Syrian goddess, who was worshipped with voluptuous rites, is proved by the fact that it stands together with other monuments, and can be destroyed; but whether the form of it suggests Phallic worship is not determined; at all events the name might indicate something of the sort, as containing an allusion to lust. The LXX. and Luther [so A. V.] have rendered the word by “grove” (idol-grove). d. Leading Positive Features of the Religious Commonwealth of Israel. Exodus 34:18-24 The leading features of the theocratic commonwealth are sacred feasts, resting on the facts and doctrines which have given the community an organized existence. This section insists on the three chief feasts of Israel as essential to the life of the Israelitish commonwealth. But why is the first feast, which is a double feast, called the feast of unleavened bread rather than the Passover? The unleavened bread was the symbol of separation from Egypt and heathenism—a separation combined with abstemiousness; for this reason probably this idea is here made prominent, since the thing in point is to establish a perpetual opposition to heathenism. With this there is also united the fundamental law of the sacrifice of renunciation. With the claim actually made by Jehovah on all the male firstborn is asserted His right to all that are born, as being represented by the first-born; or, conversely, the entire dependence of the people, with all their possessions, on Jehovah. This consecration of the first-born has three leading forms. The first-born son is by birth a priest; he must therefore be released by an offering from the service legally required of priests. Also the first-born ass (this code of laws knows nothing of horses) must be either ransomed or killed. The first-born of cattle is the choicest offering; the calf, moreover, as an offering from among the larger animals, forms a suggestive contrast to the calf as an idol. It is then intimated, furthermore, that other offerings, besides those of the first-born, are to be brought, in the expression: “None shall appear before me empty.” The first distinction between the people of God and heathendom involves renunciation of the world; the second, labor. In heathendom labor and holidays are confusedly blended; in the theocracy a clear contrast is made. Labor is marked by the time devoted to it, the weekdays. The Sabbath, as the seventh day, marks consecrated labor which has reached its goal in a holiday. After seven weeks, or seven times seven days, comes next the second feast, the feast of weeks, Pentecost. The grain harvest, which began after the Passover-Sabbath, is now finished; the feast of harvest is celebrated as the annual festival of the blessing of labor. The feast which embodies the highest form of theocratic enjoyment, the feast of the fruit-gathering and the vintage, or the feast of tabernacles, is here only briefly mentioned. It forms a contrast to the first feast of harvest; for Pentecost is the feast of the daily bread which is obtained by labor and at last by reaping, and two specimens of which are laid on the altar. The feast of tabernacles is the feast of the gathering up of the blessing poured out by God in gifts which contribute to joy and prosperity. This festival of joy and blessing is the real vital oil of the theocratic community. It is, however, a condition of the three feasts, that all the men (voluntary attendance of women and children not being excluded) must appear three times a year before Jehovah, i.e. at the sanctuary. There is something grand in the assurance of the security which the land will enjoy, in that no danger will accrue from the going up to the feasts. But never was the nation stronger and more warlike than when it had in this way obtained concentration and inspiration (vid. Exodus 12:15; Exodus 13:6; Exodus 13:12; Exodus 23:17; Leviticus 16, 23; Numbers 29). Knobel records only one contradiction in this section. e. The Three Symbolic Principal Rules for Theocratic Culture. Exodus 34:25-26 The first of these main rules requires first of all that the feast of unleavened bread shall be kept pure, and so stands for the duty of keeping worship in general pure; it is marked by the precept requiring all leaven to be removed before the time when the passover was slain, and not less by the requirement that the remains of the passover must be burnt, not desecrated by common use, and not allowed to pass over, as an element of desecration, into the abstemious season of unleavened bread. The second main rule requires that labor and enjoyment shall be kept sacred, and is marked by the requirement to bring, first of all, the first-fruits into the house of Jehovah. It has a special relation to the second feast. The third main rule requires that the enjoyment of food shall be kept sacred by the avoidance of inhuman and luxurious forms of it (vid. Exodus 23:19; Deuteronomy 14:21). This indicates a special relation to the third feast. f. Moses’ Lofty and Inspired Mood at the Renewed Giving of the Law. Contrast between the Present and the Former Descent from the Mountain. Exodus 34:27-35 Here is to be observed, first of all, a difference in the law which is given. The ten commandments were originally addressed directly to Israel, and through Israel designed for mankind, as the immutable fundamental laws of morality, which are now also repeated on the new tables, Exodus 34:28. But Moses received the fundamental laws of the Israelitish theocracy for Israel; before the conclusion of the covenant he received the outlines of the three-fold code of laws (Exodus 20:22-23), which, it is implied, are also written down; but after the conclusion of the covenant he received the ordinance concerning the tabernacle, 25–31. Now, however, he is commanded to write down also the more minute regulations for the theocratic community, which have been shown to be necessary by the apostasy of the people, Exodus 34:11-26. We may therefore distinguish three classes: (1) The general ethical law of the ten commandments; (2) the general legislation for the Jewish national theocracy; (3) the special regulations made necessary by the alteration of the covenant, in which connection it is not to be overlooked that the covenant is here defined as a covenant which Jehovah has made with Moses and with Israel; more positively than before, therefore, is the covenant now made dependent on the mediation of Moses. The stay of forty days and nights on the mountain is then only briefly mentioned. Observe, first, the sacred number of forty days, a repetition of the first forty days (Exodus 24:18); next, the circumstance that Moses neither ate nor drank, one that recurs in the sacred history of the Old and the New Testament (1 Kings 19:8; Matthew 4), and is to be conceived as indicating a total self-forgetfulness as regards the ordinary need of nourishment (vid. Comm. on Matthew, Exodus 4); finally, the specific statement that Moses again wrote the ten commandments on the tables—which, literally taken, may be understood as different from the first account of the writing, but, according to the spirit, as a supplementary interpretation of the first report. Keil makes “Jehovah” the subject of “he wrote” [in Exodus 34:28], referring to Exodus 34:1. When Moses now came down from the mountain, his face shone, or beamed, without his knowing it. A strongly materialistic conception (such as Keil’s) may regard this as a reflection of the outward splendor of the glory that had appeared to him; but his face was covered by God’s hand. Doubtless the resplendence is a reflection of the divine splendor, produced through the agency of the soul, this splendor, together with the law, having passed through his soul, filled it, and put it into an elevated mood. Thus Christ in a higher sense came with divine power from the mount of beatitudes (Matthew 8:1 sqq.); so, in some degree at least, preachers of the Gospel ought to come down from their pulpit eminence; but how far they fall short of it in many cases! The great difference between the lofty standpoint of the Law-giver and that of the people at the foot of the mountain becomes evident in the fact that not only the common Israelites are terrified by the splendor, and fear to approach him, but even Aaron also; and that Moses is obliged to encourage him and the rulers of the congregation to come near to talk with him, and in this way to inspire the people also with courage to approach in order to hear Jehovah’s precepts. After giving the message Moses puts a veil on his face, in order to make it possible to hold familiar intercourse with the people. This continued for a period of time not definitely stated; when Moses entered the provisional tabernacle and came out again to proclaim Jehovah’s directions, he uncovered his face, but afterwards he veiled it again. This, too, serves as a type for those who hold office in the New Testament Church. Christian people should not be frightened away by the splendor of the priest or preacher, and a separation thus effected between the officials and the congregation. This narrative, however, became a symbol of two things: first, of the glory of the Mosaic law and covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7 sqq.); secondly, of the predominantly slavish fear of the people, which makes them unable, in the exercise of an enthusiastic devotion, to understand Moses’ mood and to get a view of the spiritual nature of his law. The veil remains even to-day, as in Paul’s time, on the face of Jews proper, and, in a degree, of Judaizing Christians—even on the face of those who imagine that they are far beyond the spirit of this law. In Moses’ case we cannot, with Keil, call it “a symbol of the veiling of the saving truths revealed in the Old Testament,” for Moses always took the covering away, after he had spoken to the people; but it is a symbol of the great distance between the Old Testament revelation and the popular Judaism—between two things which modern theology loves to identify. Knobel here records again several contradictions. Footnotes: [Exodus 34:7. The A. V. here entirely neglects the accentuation, and thus almost creates a paradox out of these antithetic clauses. By translating εְ ?πַ ?χֵּ ?δ as a relative clause (and that will, etc.), it makes the impression that the same construction is continued, whereas not only does the Athnach precede it, but, instead of the participle of the preceding clause, we have here a finite verb without the Relative Pronoun. The A. V., moreover, makes the chief division of the verse before “visiting,” contrary to the Hebrew accentuation, which, quite in accordance with the sense, connects the last clause with the declaration: “he will not clear,” etc.; the confusion of thought is thus made complete.—Tr.]. [Exodus 34:13. The word ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ, here and elsewhere rendered “groves” in the A. V., always refers either to a heathen goddess or to images representing her—commonly the latter, especially when (as here and most frequently) it is used in the plural (ΰֲ ?ωֵׂ ?ψִ ?ιν). It must denote the goddess, e.g. in 1 Kings 15:13, whore it is said: “She had made an idol for Asherah” (A. V. “in a grove”). This goddess sometimes seems to be identical with Ashtaroth. For particulars vid the Lexicons and Encyclopedias. That the word cannot mean “grove” is sufficiently shown by such passages as 2 Kings 23:10, where the Asherim are said to have been set up in every high hill and under every green tree; and 2 Kings 17:6, where it is said that Josiah “brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord.”—Tr.]. [Exodus 34:29. The verb χָ ?ψַ ?ο occurs only in this section in Kal; it is used once (Psalms 69:31) in Hiphil, where it means “to have horns,” while the noun χֶ ?ψֶ ?ο ordinarily means “horn.” Hence originated the Latin translation of the Vulgate “cornuta,” “horned;” and this accounts for the notion, incorporated in art representations of Moses, that he had horns growing out of his face. The point of resemblance is in the appearance of the rays of a luminary shooting out like horns.—Tr.]. [Lange refers, in what is here said, more especially to the preceding chapter, Exodus 34:14 sqq., where τָּ ?πַ ?ι (literally “my face”) is rendered in A. V. “my presence.—Tr.]. [So according to the literal translation of the Hebrew.—Tr.]. [This change is secured by simply neglecting the Masoretic punctuation, and making the “Jehovah” following “proclaimed” the subject of the verb. But there seems to be hardly sufficient reason for the change. The repetition of the name is, on the contrary, natural and impressive, and need not in this connection be made to seem at all like an expression of mere awe.—Tr.] [This seems like a very questionable translation, since the Absolute Infinitive in a negative clause strengthens, rather than weakens the negation. But there are some cases in which the reverse seems to be the case, e.g. Jeremiah 30:11, where we have precisely the same phraseology as here in Exodus 34:7, and where the A. V. translates, “Yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct tbee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished, εְ ?πַ ?χֵ ?ημֹ ?ΰΰֲ ?πַ ?χֶּ ?κָּ.” The context makes this translation natural, but not necessary. A more plausible case is Amos 9:8, “I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy (μֹ ?ΰδַ ?ωְׁ ?ξֵ ?ιγΰַ ?ωְׁ ?ξִ ?ιγ) the house of Jacob.” Here it is necessary to give the Inf. Abs. a qualifying force; but hero the negative precedes the Inf. Abs.—Tr.] [Gesenius finds no such meaning in the root ΰָ ?ωַׁ ?ψ, or ΰֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, the radical significance of which he defines as “happiness,” “fortune.” Hence he regards ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψָ ?δ as = Fortuna. Fόrst, however, assumes as the radical meaning “to be united,” sc. by love; and Lunge probably refers to this derivation.—Tr.] FOURTH The building of the tabernacle. The house of the redeemer and lawgiver, the residence of the king of Israel; or the erection of the tent of meetingExodus 35-40FIRST SECTIONSummons to Build and to Furnish Voluntarily the Building MaterialsExo_35:1-191 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah hath commanded, that ye should do them. 2Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an [a] holy day, a sabbath of rest to Jehovah: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. 3Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations [in any of your dwellings] upon the sabbath day. 4And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which Jehovah commanded, saying, 5Take ye from among you an offering unto [for] Jehovah: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord [Jehovah’s offering]; gold, and silver, and brass, 6And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, 7And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ [seals’] skins, and shittim [acacia] wood, 8And oil for the light, and spices for [for the] anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, 9And onyx stones, and stones to be set, for the ephod, and for the breast-plate. 10And every wise-hearted [wise-hearted man] among you shall come, and make all that Jehovah hath commanded; 11The tabernacle, his [its] tent, and his [its] covering, his taches [its clasps], and his 12[its] boards, his [its] bars, his [its] pillars, and his [its] sockets, The ark, and the staves thereof, with [thereof,] the mercy-seat, and the veil of the covering [screen], 13The table, and his [its] staves, and all his [its] vessels, and the shew-bread, 14The candlestick also for the light, and his [its] furniture, and his [its] lamps, with 15[and] the oil for the light, And the incense altar, and his [its] staves, and the anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging [screen] for the door, at the entering in [door] of the tabernacle, 16The altar of burnt-offering, with his [its] brazen grate [grating], his [its] staves, and all his [its] vessels [furniture], the laver, and his foot [its base], 17The hangings of the court, his [its] pillars, and their sockets, and the hanging [screen] for the door of the court, 18The pins of the tabernacle, 19and the pins of the court, and their cords, The cloths [garments] of service, to do service [for ministering] in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office [to serve as priests]. AND In general we refer, as other commentaries do, to the previous directions concerning the tabernacle, 25–31, the execution of which is treated of here. The execution is the practical proof that the covenant-relation has been restored, with the afore-mentioned modifications designed for a religion of the covenant in process of formation Exodus 35:2. The repetition of the precept concerning the Sabbath is interpreted by Knobel and Keil as having for its object to apply the law of the Sabbath to the time of the building of the tabernacle. But though this object may be included, yet a more general object is to be inferred from the circumstance that the Sabbath law concludes the command concerning the building (Exodus 31:12 sqq.), as well as here opens the summons to carry out the command. The Sabbath, or the holy time, is the prerequisite of worship, or the coming together in the holy place. The addition, prohibiting the kindling of fire, indicates that the law of the Sabbath is made more rigorous in the matter of abstinence. Exodus 35:5-9. Summons to take the voluntary contributions, vid.Exodus 25:2-7. Exodus 35:10-19. Invitation to men of artistic talent to render voluntary assistance on the building; and specification of their duties, vid.Exodus 25:8; Exodus 31:6-11. ___________________ Second SectionThe Voluntary Consecratory Gifts, or the Holy Tributes for the BuildingExo_35:20-2920 And all the congregation of the children of Israel departed from the presence of Moses. 21And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought Jehovah’s offering to [for] the work of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and for all his [its] service, and for the holy garments. 22And they came, both men and women [the men with the women], as many as were willing-hearted, and brought bracelets [hooks], and earrings, and rings [signet-rings], and tablets [necklaces], all jewels of gold [all kinds of golden things]: and every man that offered offered an [that offered an] offering of gold unto Jehovah. 23And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and red skins of rams [rams’ skins dyed red], and badgers’ [seals’] skins, brought them. 24Every one that did offer an offering of silver and brass [copper] brought Jehovah’s offering: and every man, with whom was found shittim [acacia] wood for any work of the service, brought it. 25And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of [spun, the] blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of 26[and the purple, the scarlet, and the] fine linen. And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun [spun the] goats’ hair. 27And the rulers brought onyx [the onyx] stones, and stones to be set, for the ephod, and for the breast-plate; 28And spice [the spice], and oil [the oil;] for the light, and for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense. 29The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto Jehovah, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of [all the] work, which Jehovah had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses. AND Exo_35:20 sqq. A charming passage, illumined by the clear light of spontaneity, gladsomeness and joy; an appearance of New Testament features in the Old Testament. At the same time there is involved a fine contrast between Moses’ animated summons, issued at God’s command, together with the glad willingness of the people to build a true sanctifying sanctuary, on the one hand, and the people’s cowardly and false-hearted summons, extorted by the sensuous passions of the multitude, and followed by the tumultuous readiness to make offerings for the establishment of an equivocal, barbarizing system of worship, on the other. Exodus 35:22. The men with the women [Lange: to the women].—Keil, referring to ςַ ?μ, as used in Genesis 32:12 (11), would read: “the men together with the children.” But it is probably meant here that the women anticipated the men, as in such religious movements is often the case. In the passage in Genesis, moreover, there is probably an intimation that the enemy first attacks the children, then the mother, who is defending the children; this was suggested in our Commentary on Genesis, though the rendering “together with” is retained. Exodus 35:23. Every man with whom was found.—At first ornaments for the body are offered; then, possessions and treasures; afterwards, the products of female labor; finally also, princely jewels. “According to the Talmudists and Rabbins, followed by Braun (Vestitus sacerdotum, p. 92), Bδhr (Symbolik I., p. 265), and others, the purple and crimson cloths were of wool, the ωֵׁ ?ωׁ (byssus) of linen. But if so, the costume of the high-priest must have consisted of a diversity of materials, which conflicts with Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11, and also Ezekiel 44:17 sq., where wool is forbidden to be used in sacerdotal garments (vid. Genesis 41:42; Genesis 46:34). It is therefore safer to suppose that all the four kinds of material were flaxen yarn, the first three colored, the last bleached and white” (Knobel). But it is to be observed in reference to this, that the garments of the high-priest did not consist of a single article, and that the precept in Ezekiel relates to the symbolic aspects of a new, ideal sanctuary.___________________ Third SectionBezaleel and his Assistants Introduced to the People to Receive the Consecrated Materials for the Building Exodus 35:30 to Exodus 36:7.30And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, Jehovah hath called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; 31And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner [kinds] of workmanship; 32And to devise curious works [skilful designs], to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass [copper], 33And in the cutting of stones, to set them [stones for setting], and in carving of wood, to make any manner of cunning work [to work in all kinds of skilful work]. 34And he hath put in his heart that he may teach, both he [to teach, in him], and Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. 35Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner [to do all kinds] of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman [skilful weaver], and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work [skilful designs]. Exodus 36:1 Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab [And Bezaleel and Aholiab shall work], and every wise-hearted man, in whom Jehovah put [hath put] wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for [do all the work of] the service of the sanctuary, according to all that Jehovah had [hath] commanded. 2And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise-hearted man, in whose heart Jehovah had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it; 3And they received of [from] Moses all the offering, which the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the sanctuary, to make it withal. And they brought yet [besides] unto him free [free-will] offerings every morning. 4And all the wise men, that wrought all the work of the sanctuary, came every man from his work which they made [were doing]; 5And they spake unto Moses saying, The people bring much more [are bringing too much—more] than enough for the service of the work, which Jehovah commanded to make [tobe done]. 6And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing. 7For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make [do] it, and too much [and there was left over]. AND Exo_35:30 sqq. This is not merely a disclosure respecting the future. The skilled workmen under the master workman Bezaleel are introduced to the people as those who, in Moses’ presence, are to receive the offerings which have already been presented, and to judge of the proportion of them to the need. Two principal classes of workmen are named. The ηָ ?ψָ ?ωׁ [smith] includes at least three different occupations, according as the work is in metal, stone, or wood. The weavers are of three classes: the skilled workman, who inweaves figures (ηωֵׁ ?α); the weaver who works together the different colors (ψֹ ?χֵ ?ν); and the plain weaver (ΰֹ ?ψֵ ?β). Exodus 36:5. And they spake unto Moses.—On all sides there is a superfluity of building material, so that Moses has occasion to cause a proclamation to be made in the camp, asking the contributions to be suspended. A rare instance in the history of collections, though also mediζval and evangelical institutions have often attained an excess of prosperity. Knobel remarks on this point: “The Elohist has a more favorable opinion of Israel in Moses’ time than the later narrator has.” But his archζological knowledge ought surely to have presented him here too with examples of how a nation in great crises is lifted above its ordinary level. ___________________ Fourth SectionThe Work of the Building and the Priests’ Ornaments. The Elements of the Typical Sacred Structure Exodus 36:8 to Exodus 39:31A.—the curtains of the tent and the coveringsExo_36:8-198 And every wise-hearted man among them that wrought the work of the tabernacle made ten [work made the tabernacle with ten] curtains of [curtains: of] fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubims [cherubim] of cunning work [the work of the skilful weaver] made he them. 9The length of one [each] curtain was twenty and eight cubits, and the breadth of one [each] curtain four cubits; the curtains were all of one size [had all one measure]. 10And he coupled the five curtains one unto another: and the other five curtains he coupled one unto another. 11And he made loops of blue on the edge of one [the one] curtain from the selvedge in the coupling [at the border in the first set]: likewise he made in the uttermost side of another curtain, in the coupling of the second [the samemade he at the edge of the outmost curtain in the second set]. 12Fifty loops made he in one [the one] curtain, and fifty loops made he in the edge of the curtain which was in the coupling of the second [which was in the second set]: the loops held one curtain to another [were opposite one to another]. 13And he made fifty taches [clasps] of gold, and coupled the curtains one unto another with the taches [clasps]: so it became one tabernacle [and the tabernacle became one]. 14And he made curtains of goats’ hair for the [a] tent over the tabernacle; eleven curtains he made them. 15The length of one [each] curtain was thirty cubits, and four cubits was the breadth of one [each] curtain: the eleven curtains were of one size [had one measure]. 16And he coupled five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves. 17And he made fifty loops upon the uttermost edge of the curtain in the coupling [upon the edge of the outermost curtain in the one set], and fifty loops made he upon the edge of the curtain which coupleth the second [curtain, the second set]. 18And he made fifty taches [clasps] of brass [copper] to couple the tent together, that it might be one. 19And he made a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering of badgers’ skins above that [seals’ skins above]. B.—the frame—work of the tentExo_36:20-3420 And he made boards [the boards] for the tabernacle of shittim [acacia] wood, standing up. 21The length of a board was ten cubits, and the breadth of a [each] 22board one cubit and a half. One [each] board had two tenons, equally distant one from another: thus did he make for all the boards of the tabernacle. 23And he made boards [the boards] for the tabernacle; twenty boards for the south side southward: 24And forty sockets of silver he made under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his [its] two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his [its] two tenons. 25And for the other side of the tabernacle which is toward the north corner [tabernacle, the north side], he made twenty boards, 26And their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board. 27And for the sides [rear] of the tabernacle westward he made six boards. 28And two boards made he for the corners of the tabernacle in the two sides [the rear]. 29And they were coupled beneath, and coupled together at the head thereof, to one ring [double beneath, and they were together whole up to the top of it, unto the first ring]: thus he did to both of them in [at] both the corners. 30And there were eight boards; and their sockets were sixteen sockets of silver [sockets of silver, sixteen sockets], under every board two sockets. 31And he made bars of shittim [acacia] wood; five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle, 32And five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the tabernacle for the sides [rear] westward. 33And he made the middle bar to shoot through [pass alongat the middle of] the boards from the one end to the other. 34And he overlaid the boards with gold, and made their rings of gold to be [for] places for the bars, and overlaid the bars with gold. C.—The veil and the screenExo_36:35-3835 And he made a [the] veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning work [cherubim, the work of a skilful weavermade he it]. 36And he made thereunto [for it] four pillars of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlaid them with gold: their hooks were of gold; and he cast for them four sockets of silex Exodus 36:37 And he made an hanging [a screen] for the tabernacle door [door of the tent] of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen, of needle-work 38[linen, embroidered work]: And the five pillars of it with their hooks: and he overlaid their chapiters [capitals] and their fillets [rods] with gold; but [and] their five sockets were of brass. Footnotes: [But the ephod was a single thing, and according to Exodus 28:6 it was made out of all four of these materials. The same is true of the breast-plate (Exodus 35:15).—Tr.]. D.—the ark and the mercy—seat, and the cherubimExo_37:1-91 And Bezaleel made the ark of shittim [acacia] wood: two cubits and a half was the length of it, and a cubit and a half the breadth of it, and a cubit and a half the height of it: 2And he overlaid it with pure gold within and without, and made a crown [rim] of gold to [for] it round about. 3And he cast for it four rings of gold, to be set by [gold, on] the four corners of it [its four feet]; even two rings upon the one side of it, and two rings upon the other side of it. 4And he made staves of shittim 5[acacia] wood, and overlaid them with gold. And he put the staves into the rings by [on] the sides of the ark, to bear the ark. 6And he made the [a] mercy-seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half was the length thereof, and one cubit and a half the breadth thereof. 7And he made two cherubims [cherubim] of gold, beaten out of one piece [of beaten work] made he them, on [at] the two ends of the mercy-seat. 8One cherub on the end on this side [at the one end], and another [one] cherub on the other end on that side [at the other end]: out of [of one piece with] the mercy-seat made he the cherubims on [at] the two ends thereof. 9And the cherubims [cherubim] spread out their wings on high [upwards], and covered [covering] with their wings over [wings] the mercy-seat, with their faces one to [towards] another: even to the mercy-seatward [towards the mercy-seat] were the faces of the cherubims [cherubim]. E.—the table and its vesselsExo_37:10-1610 And he made the table of shittim [acacia] wood: two cubits was the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof: 11And he overlaid it with pure gold, and made thereunto a crown [for it a rim] of gold round 12about. Also [And] he made thereunto [for it] a border of an [a] handbreadth round about; and made a crown [rim] of gold for the border thereof round about. 13And he cast for it four rings of gold, and put the rings upon [in] the four corners 14that were in [on] the four feet thereof. Over against [Close by] the border were the rings, the places for the staves to bear the table. 15And he made the staves of shittim 16[acacia] wood, and overlaid them with gold, to bear the table. And he made the vessels which were upon the table, his dishes [its plates], and his spoons [its cups], and his [its] bowls, and his covers to cover withal [its flagons to pour out with], of pure gold. F.—the candlestick and the utensils belonging to itExo_37:17-2417 And he made the candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work made he the candlestick; his shaft, and his branch, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, were of the same [the candlestick, its base, and its shaft: its cups, its knobs, and its flowers wereof one piece with it]: 18And six branches going out of the sides thereof; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side thereof: 19Three bowls made after the fashion of almonds in [Three cups made like almond-blossoms on] one branch, a knop [knob] and a flower; and three bowls made like almonds in [almond-blossoms on] another branch, a knop [knob] and a flower: so throughout [for] the six branches 20going out of the candlestick. And in [on] the candlestick were four bowls [cups] made like almonds [almond-blossoms], his knops [its knobs], and his [its] flowers: 21And a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], and a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], and a knop [knob] under two branches of the same [of one piece with it], according to [for] 22the six branches going [that go] out of it. Their knops [knobs] and their branches were of the same [of one piece with it]: all of it was one beaten work of pure gold. 23And he made his [its] seven lamps, and his [its] snuffers, and his [its] snuff-dishes, 24of pure gold. Of a talent of pure gold made he it, and all the vessels thereof. G.—the altar of incense and its appurtenancesExo_37:25-2925 And he made the incense altar [altar of incense] of shittim [acacia] wood: the length of it was a cubit, and the breadth of it a cubit; it was foursquare; and two cubits was the height of it; the horns thereof were of the same [of one piece withit]. 26And he overlaid it with pure gold, both [gold,] the top of it, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns of it: also he made unto [for] it a crown [rim] of gold round about. 27And he made two rings of gold for it under the crown [rim] thereof, by the two corners [on the two flanks] of it, upon the two sides thereof, to be [for] places for the staves to bear it withal. 28And he made the staves of shittim 29[acacia] wood, and overlaid them with gold. And he made the holy anointing oil, and the pure incense of sweet spices, according to the work of the apothecary [spices, the work of the perfumer]. H.—the altar of burnt-offering with its utensils, and the laverExo_38:1-81 And he made the altar of burnt-offering of shittim [acacia] wood: five cubits was the length thereof, and five cubits the breadth thereof; it was foursquare; and three cubits the height thereof. 2And he made the horns thereof on the four corners of it; the horns thereof were of the same [of one piece with it]: and he overlaid it with brass [copper]. 3And he made all the vessels of the altar, the pots and the shovels, and the basins, and the fleshhooks, and the fire-pans: all the vessels thereof made he of brass [copper]. 4And he made for the altar a brazen grate of network [a grating of network of copper] under the compass [ledge] thereof beneath unto the midst of it [reaching to the middle of it]. 5And he cast four rings for the four ends [corners] of the grate of brass [copper grating], to be [for] places for the staves. 6And he made the staves of shittim [acacia] wood, and overlaid them with brass 7[copper]. And he put the staves into the rings on the sides of the altar, to bear it withal; he made the altar [made it] hollow with boards. 8And he made the laver of brass [copper], and the foot [base] of it of brass [copper], of the looking-glasses of the women assembling, which assembled [the serving women, who served] at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting]. I.—the court.Exodus 38:9-209 And he made the court: on [for] the south side southward the hangings of the 10court were of fine-twined linen, an [a] hundred cubits: Their pillars were twenty, and their brazen [copper] sockets twenty; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets 11[rods] were of silver. And for the north side the hangings were an [side a] hundred cubits, their pillars were twenty, and their sockets of brass [copper] twenty; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets [rods] of silExo Exodus 38:12 And for the west side were hangings of fifty cubits, their pillars ten, and their sockets ten; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets [rods] of silExo Exodus 38:13 And for the east side eastward fifty cubits. 14The hangings for the one side of the gate were fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three. 15And for the other side of the court gate, on this hand and that hand [So for the other side; on this hand, and on that hand, by the gate of the court], were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three. 16All the hangings of the court round about were of fine-twined linen. 17And the sockets for the pillars were of brass [copper]; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets [rods] of silver; and the overlaying of their chapiters [capitals] of silver; and all the pillars of the court were filleted with [joined with rods of] silExo Exodus 38:18 And the hanging [screen] for the gate of the court was needlework [embroidered work], of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen: and twenty cubits was the length, and the height in the breadth was five cubits, answerable [corresponding] to the hangings of the court. 19And their pillars were four, and their sockets of brass [copper] four; their hooks of silver, and the overlaying of their chapiters [capitals] and their fillets [rods] of silExo Exodus 38:20 And all the pins of the tabernacle, and of the court round about, were of brass [copper]. J.—amount of the metal UsedExo_38:21-3121 This is the sum of [These are the amounts for] the tabernacle, even the tabernacle of [of the] testimony, as it was [they were] counted, according to the commandment of Moses, for the service of the Levites, by the hand of Ithamar, son to Aaron the priest. 22And Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, made all that Jehovah commanded Moses. 23And with him was Aholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, an engraver, and a cunning workman [a skilful weaver], and an embroiderer in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen. 24All the gold that was occupied [used] for the work in all the work of the holy place [sanctuary], even the gold of the offering, was twenty and nine talents, and seven hundred and thirty shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 25And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was an [a] hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and threescore and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary: 26A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be [passed over to them that were] numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men. 27And of the hundred talents of silver were cast the sockets of the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil; an [a] hundred sockets of 28[for] the hundred talents, a talent for a socket. And of the thousand seven hundred seventy and five shekels he made hooks for the pillars, and overlaid their chapiters 29[capitals], and filleted them [joined them with rods]. And the brass [copper] of the offering was seventy talents, and two thousand and four hundred shekels. 30And therewith he made the sockets to [for] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and the brazen [copper] altar, and the brazen grate 31[copper grating] for it, and all the vessels of the altar, And the sockets of the court round about, and the sockets of the court gate [gate of the court], and all the pins of the tabernacle, and all the pins of the court round about. K.—preparation of the priests’ vestamentExo_39:1-311 And of the blue, an purple, and scarlet, they made cloths [garments] of service, to do service [for ministering] in the holy place and made the holy garments for Aaron; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 1. The Ephod2And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen. 3And they did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into wires [threads], to work it in the blue, and in the purple, and in the scarlet, and in the fine linen, 4with cunning work [linen, the work of the skilful weaver]. They made shoulder-pieces for it, to couple it together [joined together]: by [at] the two edges was it coupled [joined] together. 5And the curious girdle of his ephod [the embroidered belt for girding it], that was upon it, was of the same [of one piece with it], according to the work [like the work] thereof; of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 6And they wrought onyx stones inclosed in ouches [settings] of gold, graven as signets are graven [graven with theengravings of a signet], with the names of the children of Israel. 7And he put them on the shoulders [shoulder-pieces] of the ephod, that they should be stones for a memorial to [ephod, as memorial stones for] the children of Israel; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 2. The Breast-plate8And he made the breast-plate of cunning work [with the work of the skilful weaver], like the work of the ephod; of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 9fine-twined linen. It was four-square; they made the breast-plate double: a span was the length thereof, and a span the breadth thereof, being doubled. 10And they set in it four rows of stones: the first row was a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this was the first row: [stones: a row of sardius, topaz,and emerald was the first row]. 11And the second row, an emerald [a carbuncle], a sapphire, and a diamond. 12And the third row, a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. 13And the fourth row, a beryl [chrysolite], an onyx, and a jasper: they were inclosed in ouches [settings] of gold in their inclosings. 14And the stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet, every one with his name, according to 15[for] the twelve tribes. And they made upon the breast-plate chains at the ends 16[chains like cords] of wreathen work of pure gold. And they made two ouches [settings] of gold, and two gold rings [rings of gold]; and put the two rings in [on] the two ends of the breast-plate. 17And they put the two wreathen chains of gold in [on] the two rings on [at] the ends of the breast-plate. 18And the two ends of the two wreathen chains they fastened in [put on] the two ouches [settings], and put them on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, before it [on the front of it]. 19And they made two rings of gold, and put them on the two ends of the breast-plate, upon the border of it, which was on [toward] the side of the ephod inward. 20And they made two other [two] golden rings, and put them on the two sides [shoulder-pieces] of the ephod underneath, toward [on] the forepart of it, over against [close by] the other [the] coupling thereof, above the curious girdle [embroidered belt] of the ephod. 21And they did bind the breast-plate by his [its] rings unto the rings of the ephod with a lace [cord] of blue, that it might be above the curious girdle of [embroidered belt] the ephod, and that the breast-plate might not be loosed from the ephod; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 3. The Robe22, 23And he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of blue. And there was an hole in the midst of the robe, [And the opening of the robe in the middle of it was] as the hole of an habergeon [like the opening of a coat of mail], with a band [binding] round about the hole [opening], that it should not rend [might notbe rent]. 24And they made upon the hems [skirts] of the robe pomegranates of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and twined linen [scarlet, twined]. 25And they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates upon the hem [skirts] of the robe, round about between the pomegranates; 26A bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, round about the hem of the robe [upon the skirts of the robe round about], to minister in; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 4. The Coat, Breeches, and Girdle27And they made coats [the coats] of fine linen of woven work for Aaron and for his sons, 28And a mitre [the turban] of fine linen, and goodly bonnets [the goodly29caps] of fine linen, and linen [the linen] breeches of fine-twined linen, And a [the] girdle of fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, of needle work [scarlet, embroidered work]; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 5. The Plate of Gold30And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, TO JEHOVAH. 31And they tied unto it a lace [cord] of blue, to fasten it on high upon the mitre [turban]; as Jehovah commanded Moses. AND CRITICALa. The Curtains of the Tent and their Coverings. Exodus 36:8-19. Vid. Exodus 26:1-14. Jacobi, in his pamphlet, Die Lehre der Irvingiten (Berlin, 1853), p. 52 sqq., has told how the Irvingites interpret, in a fantastic, allegorical way, the curtains of the tabernacle as pointing to their offices; and, in general, their arbitrary trifling with Old Testament symbols. In a similar way they deal with the Apocalypse. Vid. Stockmeyer, Kurze Nachricht όber den Irvingismus, p. 13. Keil observes that the verbs ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ in Exodus 36:8, εַ ?ιַּ ?ηαֵּ ?ψ in Exodus 36:10, and εַ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?ωׂ in Exodus 36:11, etc., are in the third Pers. Sing. with an indefinite subject. But this is not borne out by Exodus 36:8, where ςωׂ ?δ first stands in the plural. It is more likely that the whole work is called Bezaleel’s. b. The Frame-work of the Tent, Exodus 36:20-34; vid. Exodus 26:15-30. c. The Veil and the Screen, Exodus 36:35-38; vid. Exodus 26:31-37. Exodus 36:38. Not the whole of the pillars of the screen was overlaid with gold, but only the tips, and the rods running across the upper ends. The other pillars of the court only had their tips and cross-rods overlaid with silver. d. The Ark, the Mercy-seat, the Cherubim, Exodus 37:1-9; vid. Exodus 25:10-22. It is called the master-workman Bezaleel’s own work. e. The Table of Shew-bread and its Vessels, Exodus 37:10-16; vid. Exodus 25:23-30. In the direction the dishes are called χְ ?ωָׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ ,λַּ ?τֹּ ?ϊ ,χְ ?ςָ ?ψֹ ?ϊ, and ξְ ?πַ ?χִ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ; the same here, except that the order of the last two is inverted. f. The Candlestick and the Utensils belonging to it, Exodus 37:17-24; vid. Exodus 25:31-40. g. The Altar of Incense with its Appurtenances, Exodus 37:25-29; vid. Exodus 30:1-10. The Anointing Od and the Incense, Exodus 30:22-28. h. The Altar of Burnt-offering, with its Implements, and the Laver, Exodus 38:1-8. On the Altar vid. Exodus 27:1-8. On the Laver vid.Exodus 30:17-21. Knobel’s notion about Exodus 38:8 is very strange [vid. above, p. 127]. He thinks that on the base there were fashioned figures of the women who, as Levite women, came into the court to wash and furbish. [But Knobel does not represent the figures as on the base.] i. The Court, Exodus 38:9-20 : vid. Exodus 27:9-19. j. Summation of the Metal used, Exodus 38:21-31. “The estimations” (Exodus 38:21). Keil, “The enumerated things.” The duty of counting the amount was committed to the Levites under the direction of Aaron’s son, Ithamar. Exodus 38:24. The Gold. Thenius and Keil reckon it at 87,730 shekels, or 877,300 Thaler,—a gold shekel being estimated as = 10 Thaler [ = 7 Dollars and 20 cents. Poole, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, makes it a little more.—Tr.] Exodus 38:25-28. The Silver. “Of the silver there is reckoned only the amount of the atonement money collected from those who were numbered, a half-shekel to every male, the voluntary gifts of silver not being mentioned” (Keil). It is not to be supposed that amidst the voluntary contributions of gold, copper, etc., a legally imposed tax would be specified. But it may well be conjectured that the standard, afterwards fixed for the tax for the sanctuary, served as a guide in the voluntary contributions, as has been already remarked [p. 126]. On the abundance of gold and silver among the ancient Orientals, as showing the possibility of the actual correctness of these accounts in opposition to modern doubts, vid. Keil, page 251; Knobel, page 333. k. Exodus 39:1-31. “The preparation of the priestly garments, to the description of which a transition is formed by a statement of the materials for them and of the design of them. The ephod, Exodus 39:2-7, corresponds to Exodus 28:6-12; the breast-plate, Exodus 39:8-21, to Exodus 28:15-29—the Urim and Thummim, which needed no special preparation, being passed over. The robe, Exodus 39:22-26, answers to Exodus 28:31-34; the coats, head-pieces, breeches, and girdles for Aaron and his sons, Exodus 39:27-29 to Exodus 28:39-40; Exodus 28:42. The head-covering of the common priests in Exodus 28:40 (ξִ ?βְ ?αָּ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ) is here (Exodus 39:28) called τַּ ?ΰֲ ?ψֵ ?ιδַ ?ξִּ ?βְ ?αָּ ?ςֹ ?ϊ ornamental caps” (Keil). Vid. Knobel for archζological notes, p. 334. ___________________ Fifth SectionThe Religious Presentation of all the Component Parts of the Sanctuary, and Moses’ BlessingExo_39:32-4332 Thus was all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation [tent of meeting] finished: and the children of Israel did according to all that Jehovah commanded Moses, so did they. 33And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses, the tent, and all his [its] furniture, his taches [its clasps], his [its] boards, his [its] bars, and his 34[its] pillars, and his [its] sockets, And the covering of rams’ skins dyed red, and the covering of badgers’ [seals’] skins, and the veil of the covering [screen], 35The ark of 36the testimony, and the staves thereof, and the mercy-seat, The table, and all the vessels thereof, and the shew-bread, 37The pure candlestick, with the lamps thereof, even with the [thereof, the] lamps to be set in order, and all the vessels [utensils]thereof, and the oil for light [the light], 38And the golden altar, and the anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging [screen] for the tabernacle-door [door39of the tent of meeting], The brazen [copper] altar, and his grate of brass [its copper grating], his [its] staves, and all his [its] vessels, the laver and his foot [itsbase], 40The hangings of the court, his [its] pillars, and his [its] sockets, and the hanging [screen] for the court-gate, his [its] cords, and his [its] pins, and all the vessels [furniture] of the service of the tabernacle, for the tent of the congregation 41[of meeting], The cloths [garments] of service to do service [for ministering] in the holy place, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and his sons’ garments, to minister in the priest’s office [to minister in as priests]. 42According to all that Jehovah commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made [did] all the work. 43And Moses did look upon [saw] all the work, and, behold, they had done it as Jehovah had commanded, even [commanded,] so had they done it: and Moses blessed them. AND Besides the minute enumeration of the several parts of the tabernacle, is especially noticeable the repeated observation that they had done everything according to Jehovah’s commandment, Exodus 39:32; Exodus 39:43. The enthusiasm and the joy in making offerings was at the same time a punctilious obedience to the law—an obedience which, being rendered primarily to Moses, shows that the new order of things, or the Old covenant, is again established. Exodus 39:33-34. “By δָ ?ΰֹ ?δֶ ?μ are meant the two tent-cloths composed of curtains, the purple one and the one made of goats’ hair, which made the tabernacle (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?λָּ ?ο) a tent (ΰֹ ?δֶ ?μ). It thence follows beyond a doubt that the variegated curtains formed the inner walls of the tabernacle, or covered the boards on the inside (? how then could they be stretched?). On the other hand, the goats’ hair curtains formed the outer covering” (Keil). The colored curtains formed the inside even if they were stretched over the boards. Exodus 39:43. “The readiness with which the people had brought in abundance the requisite gifts for this work, and the zeal with which they had accomplished the work in half a year or less (vid. xl. 17), were delightful signs of Israel’s willingness to serve the Lord; and for this the blessing of God could not fail to be given” (Keil). Footnotes: [Lange renders λַ ?τֶֹּ ?ψϊ “lid of expiation,” and remarks that the term “is as difficult to translate with one word as is the name ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ.” Luther’s rendering, Gnadenstuhl (“mercy-seat”), he commends as conveying substantially the right impression. But it is questionable whether one can properly combine the literal and the topical in a translation, as Lange does.—Tr.] Sixth SectionThe Erection of the Tabernacle and its Dedication as the Place of the Revelation of the Glory of Jehovah. (Analogies: Abraham’s Grove at Mamre; Jacob’s Bethel; Solomon’s Temple; Zerubbabel’s Temple; Temple Dedication of Judas Maccabeus; Christ in the Temple.) Exodus 40:1-38A.—The commandExo_40:1-151, And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation [of meeting]. 3And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony, and cover the ark with the veil. 4And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it [set it in order]; and thou shalt bring in the candlestick, and light 5[set up] the lamps thereof. And thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense [golden altar of incense] before the ark of the testimony, and put [set up] the hanging [screen] of the door to [of] the tabernacle. 6And thou shalt set the altar of the [of] burnt-offering before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation 7[of meeting]. And thou shalt set the laver between the tent of the congregation 8[of meeting] and the altar, and shalt put water therein. And thou shalt set up the court round about, and hang up the hanging at the court-gate [put upthe screen of the gate of the court]. 9And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels furniture] thereof: and it shall be holy. 10And thou shalt anoint the altar of the [of] burnt-offering, and all his vessels [its utensils], and sanctify the altar: and it shall be an altar most holy [and the altar shall be most holy]. 11And thou shalt anoint the laver and his foot [its base], and sanctify it. 12And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation [tent of meeting], and wash them with water. 13And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and [garments; and thou shalt] anoint him, and sanctify him: that [him, that] he may minister unto me in the priest’s office [be priest unto me]. 14And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office [be priests unto me]: for [and] their anointing shall surely be [shall be to them for] an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. B.—The Erection of the building (not the consecration of it)Exodus 40:16-3316 Thus did Moses: according to all that Jehovah commanded him, so did he. 17And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared [set] up. 18And Moses reared [set] up the tabernacle, and fastened his [its] sockets, and set up the boards thereof, and put in the bars thereof, and reared [set] up his [its] pillars. 19And he spread abroad [spread] the tent over the tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 20And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy-seat above upon the ark: 21And he brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the covering, and covered [screened] the ark of the testimony; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 22And he put the table in the tent of the congregation [of meeting], upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the veil. 23And he set the bread in order upon it before Jehovah; as Jehovah had commanded Moses. 24And he put the candlestick in the tent of the congregation [of meeting], over against the table, on the side of the tabernacle southward. 25And he lighted [set up] the lamps before Jehovah; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 26And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation 27[of meeting] before the veil: And he burnt sweet incense thereon; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 28And he set up the hanging at [put up the screen of] the door of the tabernacle. 29And he put the altar of burnt-offering by the door of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation [of meeting], and offered upon it the burnt-offering, and the meat-offering [meal-offering]; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 30And he set the laver between the tent of the congregation [of meeting] and the altar, and put water there, to wash withal. 31And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat [therefrom]: 32When they went into the tent of the congregation [of meeting], and when they came near unto the altar, they washed; as Jehovah commanded Moses. 33And he reared [set] up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging [screen] of the court-gate. So Moses finished the work. C.—The divine dedication of the tabernacle anterior to the human dedicationExo_40:34-3834 Then a [the] cloud covered the tent of the congregation [of meeting], and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle. 35And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation [of meeting], because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle. 36And when the cloud was taken up from 37over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: But if [whenever] the cloud were [was] not taken up then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. 38For the cloud of Jehovah was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on [in] it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. AND CRITICALa. The Command to Erect the BuildingExo_40:1-15 Exodus 40:1. Though Moses knows that the tabernacle is to be erected, yet he must receive Jehovah’s command in reference to the time and order of the arrangement of the parts. As to the time, the first day of the first month, Nisan (of the second year of the exodus) is selected, as if in order that it might be ready for the first Passover festival in the middle of Nisan. Exodus 40:3. The ark of the testimony is the real soul of the sanctuary. It represents the presence of Jehovah. Next to it the veil is the most important, since it expresses the unapproachableness of Jehovah, and protects the ark from profanation, but still more protects from the sentence of destruction those who approach without authority. Exodus 40:4. Next comes the table. With the table Jehovah comes, in a limited degree, out of the Holy of holies into the holy place. By this symbolic communion with the priests He discloses to the people the hope of fellowship with Him, the fellowship of His Spirit, of His blessings. Then the lamps are lighted as if for a feast; for enlightenment is dependent on the communion of the heart with God. Exodus 40:5. As Jehovah comes, with the table, in a sense into the holy place, so the priesthood of Israel on its part comes in a sense into the Holy of holies with the altar of incense which symbolizes prayer. These holy things, too, which denote and illustrate communion with Jehovah, must be screened by the curtain of the holy place. Exodus 40:6. As the altar of incense bears a relation to the door of the Holy of holies, so the altar of burnt-offering to the door of the holy place. The laver stands nearer the holy place than the altar does, because it is for the priests, and contains, in the water, the means of purification for the sacrificial service—in which circumstance is disclosed an adumbration of the N. T. baptism, which separates animal offerings from the temple. Exodus 40:8. The court also has its screen, for the court, too, is an enclosed vestibule of the holy place, as contrasted with the profane heathen world and defiled Israelites, or even such as approach with empty hands. Exodus 40:9. The anointing of the dwelling and all of its individual parts expresses the truth, that all the worship in this house depends on the life of the spirit—is from the spirit and for the spirit. But in what sense is the altar of burnt-offering, standing as it does in the court, most holy, [literally, “holy of holies”]? Because the offering of sacrifice, and the self-surrender which consists in trustful obedience, and which underlies the offering, are the fundamental condition of the genuineness of the whole ritual worship. According to Keil, the phrase designates the fact that the altar is not to be approached by the people who offer sacrifices.Exodus 40:15. Aaron’s sons also are anointed together with him, because they represent the hereditary perpetuity of the priesthood. Keil holds that the consecration of the priests was not contemporaneous with the erection of the tabernacle, but took place later. But here too only the command is first given, and then the erection of the tabernacle precedes its execution. Knobel says: The statement [of Exodus 40:16] anticipates Leviticus 8 If we distinguish between command and execution, the anticipation is only seeming, or at least only grows out of the summariness of the narrative. b. The Erection of the Building. Exodus 40:16-33 Exodus 40:17. And it came to pass.—“Inasmuch as from the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai in the third month after the exodus (Exodus 19:1) until the first day of the second year, when the work was delivered to Moses complete, not quite nine months elapsed, all the work of the building was done in less than half a year” (Keil).Exodus 40:19. He spread the tent over the tabernacle.—By the “tent” here Keil correctly understands the two principal coverings; by the “covering,” the two outer coverings. Exodus 40:20. The testimony.—The tables of the law, as records which were to bear perpetual witness to the divine will orally revealed to the people. Knobel refers it to the whole revelation so far as then existent—which Keil rightly disputes. Exodus 40:23. On the arrangement of the twelve loaves in two rows, vid. Leviticus 24:6. Exodus 40:30. Between the tent of meeting and the altar.—“Probably more to one side, so that the priests did not need to go around the altar” (Keil.). The offering of sacrifice, Exodus 40:20, and the burning of incense, Exodus 40:27, are to be regarded as extraordinary acts of Moses, the founder of the system of worship, and not belonging to the ordinary worship of the people, which presupposed the anointing of the sanctuary, and which began with a sin-offering, whereas here only burnt-offerings and meal-offerings are spoken of. Exodus 40:33. The court was not only a court; it enclosed the tabernacle. According to Josephus (Antiq. III. 6, 3) the tabernacle stood in the middle of the court. c. The Divine Dedication of the Building Anterior to the Human Dedication. Exodus 40:34-38 Exodus 40:34. If anything is fitted to exhibit the Levitical ritual as a transitory one, as an educational institution designed for the training of the people up to the time of their maturity, it is the fact that the completed tabernacle forms the conclusion of Exodus, not the beginning of Leviticus; that Moses offered sacrifices and burned incense in it before Aaron the priest did; but especially that Jehovah Himself consecrated the sanctuary by His manifestation of Himself in the sacred cloud before it was consecrated by the priesthood. In the Middle Ages it was a saying that a church was consecrated by angels in the night before it was going to be consecrated by priests. Perhaps the saying was a reminiscence of the mystery here recorded. For Jehovah’s manifestation of Himself is something very mysterious, a holy token, viewed only by the eyes of faith. Above the tabernacle the cloud appears, and covers it, in order to remove the glory of Jehovah, which fills the dwelling, from the view of all, even of Moses. It is not said that this condition became a permanent one; on the contrary, the tabernacle soon afterwards became accessible, except as regards the regulations concerning the Holy of holies. But up to that time it was unapproachable, locked up, as it were, and had to be unlocked by sacerdotal expiations according to the Levitical rites. At the close is given a general statement concerning the future of the tabernacle, which, however, also discloses the design of it. “The Future verbs designate the action as a repeated and perpetual one” (Knobel). It was designed as a divine token for the people on their march. When the cloud rose up from the tabernacle, this was the signal for starting—an expressive signal; for the divine token then visibly separated itself from the sacerdotal dwelling; Jehovah seemed to abandon it, as He in truth in the strictest sense did leave the temple in the Jewish war. It was the signal for the people to break camp and move onward. But the cloud only showed the way, in order, at a new stopping-place, to rest down again on the tabernacle, and thus to order a halt. Thus the book closes with the profoundest thought concerning the history of the kingdom of God, expressed in a symbolic form and so graphically as to be apprehensible by a child. The pillar of cloud above the tabernacle by day; the fiery brightness in it by night—before the eyes of all Israel;—thus was made sensible to the people that presence of their covenant-God which accompanied them in all their journeyings. Comp. the consecration of the temple, 1 Kings 8. and Ezekiel 43:4; Numbers 9:15. Footnotes:[I. e., as being, on account of its position, more exposed to the contact of laymen than the other sac ed objects, which were where no layman was allowed to come at all.—Tr]. [This is made out by deducting from the nine months the eighty days (Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28) spent by Moses on the mountain, the time spent in preparation for the giving of the law, and in the ratification of the covenant (Exodus 19:1 to Exodus 24:11), and the interval between Moses’ first and his second stay on the mountain (Exodus 32, 33).—Tr].