INTRODUCTION
1. Title
The name “Exodus” means “exit,” “departure.” In the Hebrew, this book begins with the conjunction “and”; this emphasizes that it was thought of as a continuation of Genesis and an integral part of the five books making up the first division of the Hebrew canon, the Torah (meaning “law,” “instruction,” “teaching”; GK 9368). Since the second century A.D., these first five books have been called “the Pentateuch” (i.e., “the five books”).
2. Authorship
The several internal claims that directly ascribe authorship to Moses (17:14; 34:4, 27–29; 24:4; 20:22–23:33) are supported by a strong association of Mosaic authorship with these same materials in other OT books (cf. Jos 1:7; 8:31–32; 1Ki 2:3; 2Ki 14:6; et al.). The NT writers likewise support Mosaic authorship (cf. Mk 12:26 and Ex 3:6; Lk 2:22–23 and Ex 13:2; Mk 7:10 and Ex 20:12; 21:17).
3. Date of Writing
Since Moses first became involved with leading the Israelites after his eightieth birthday (7:7), the date for the composition of the book of Exodus must fall between his eightieth birthday and his one hundred and twentieth birthday, when he died, just as the wilderness wandering was drawing to a close (Dt 34:7). Thus the approximate date for the composition rests on the date set for the Exodus from Egypt.
4. Date of the Exodus
The book of Exodus nowhere gives us enough data to link definitively biblical events with Egyptian chronology. We only know about “a new king, who did not know about Joseph” (1:8) or an anonymous “Pharaoh” (1:11, 19, 22; 2:15), or a “king of Egypt” (1:15; 2:23). It is noteworthy that “Pharaoh,” which means “great house” and designates the king’s residence and household, became, for the first time in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, a title for the king himself. Thus, even though Ex 2:23 tells us that the king or “Pharaoh” of the oppression died and therefore could not have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus (cf. 4:19), we have no internal evidence to identify either of them specifically.
The identity of these two Pharaohs has generally centered on two views: (1) placing the Exodus under the Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty (c. 1580–1321 B.C.) and (2) placing it under Pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. 1321–1205 B.C.). For a discussion of this issue, see either EBC, 2:288–91 or ZPEB, 2:432–36. Generally, conservative scholars have held to the earlier date for the Exodus, which is the position taken here.
5. Theology
Exodus contains some of the richest theology in the OT. Preeminently, it lays the foundation for a theology of God’s revelation of his person, redemption, law, and worship. It also initiates the great institution of the priesthood and the role of the prophet, and it formalizes the covenant relationship between God and his people.
Exodus contains detailed disclosures of the nature of God and the significance of his presence (as given by his name Yahweh [“the LORD”] and his glory). His attributes of justice, truthfulness, mercy, faithfulness, and holiness are highlighted.
God is also the Lord of history, for there is no one like him, “majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders” (15:11). Thus neither the affliction of Israel nor the plagues in Egypt were outside his control. In this book God begins to fulfill the promises that he had uttered centuries ago to the patriarchs.
The theology of deliverance and salvation is a strong emphasis of the book. The heart of redemption theology, as acknowledged by the NT (see Jn 1:29; 1Co 5:7), is best seen in the Passover narrative (ch. 12) along with the sealing of the covenant (ch. 24).
Exodus also tells us how we should live. The foundation of biblical ethics and morality is laid out first in the gracious character of God and then in the Ten Commandments and the ordinances of the Book of the Covenant.
The book concludes with an elaborate discussion on the theology of worship. The tabernacle was very costly in time, effort, and monetary value; yet in its significance and function it pointed to the chief end of human beings: to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
EXPOSITION
I. Divine Redemption (1:1–18:27)
A. Fulfilled Multiplication and Forced Eradication (1:1–22)
1. The promised increase (1:1–7)
The three prominent subjects of Exodus are (1) God’s plan for deliverance, (2) God’s guidance for morality, and (3) God’s order for worship. As the book opens, another prominent fact is immediately set forth: vv.1–7 are a virtual commentary on the ancient promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob about their seed (Ge 15:5; 22:17).
1–4 In the Hebrew, the book of Exodus begins with the words “And these are the names of” (which is the Heb. name for the book; cf. Ge 46:8). This is the first example of a practice common to most of the historical books of the OT: the use of the simple copulative “and” to begin a book (cf. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, et al.), which indicates an ongoing sequence of revelation and narration. The sons of Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, are placed in order of their seniority ahead of the sons of his two concubines, except for Joseph, who is omitted because he was already in Egypt.
5 The family list in Ge 46 gives this tally: the six men of Leah had twenty-five sons and two grandsons, totaling thirty-three; the two sons of Rachel had twelve sons, totaling fourteen; Bilhah’s two sons had five sons, contributing seven to the sum; and Zilpah’s two sons had eleven sons, one daughter (apparently counted here), and two grandsons, making sixteen; therefore, thirty-three plus fourteen plus seven plus sixteen equals “seventy.” Genesis 46:26–27 starts with the figure of sixty-six (apparently dropping out Er and Onan, since they died in Canaan, as well as deleting Joseph and his two sons, since they were already in Egypt, but adding Dinah, feeling she could not be deleted). To this total of sixty-six, it added Joseph, his two sons, and Jacob himself, for a total of seventy.
6–7 With the vocabulary of God’s promised blessing of multiplication and increase as given to Adam (Ge 1:28), Noah (Ge 8:17; 9:1, 7), Abraham (Ge 17:2–6; 22:17), Isaac (Ge 26:4), and Jacob (Ge 28:3, 14; 35:11; 48:4), Moses recorded that God had been fulfilling his plan during the 430 years Israel was in Egypt.
2. The first pogrom (1:8–14)
8 The “new king” who was ignorant of Joseph’s contribution to Egypt has been variously identified. The most logical choice favors a Hyksos king. The Hyksos were foreign invaders who drove the Egyptians south and did not use Egyptian hieroglyphic writing on their scarabs. They too were Semites.
9–10 Israel was called “a people” (GK 6639) for the first time here. The situation called for an extremely delicate balance: Pharaoh needed to maintain the Israelite presence as an economic asset without thereby jeopardizing Egypt’s national security.
11 The term “masters” (sar; GK 8569) is common to both Hebrew and Egyptian. The same official Egyptian name appears on the famous wall painting from the Thebean tomb of Rekhmire, the overseer of the brickmaking slaves during the reign of Thutmose III. The painting shows such overseers armed with heavy whips. Their rank is denoted by the long staff held in their hands and by the Egyptian hieroglyphic determinative of the head and neck of a giraffe. The two storehouse cities Israel built were for the storage of provisions and perhaps armaments. The location of Pithom may be equated with Tell er-Retabeh (“Broomhill”), which some equate with Heliopolis (cf. ZPEB, 4:803–4). Rameses has most recently been located at or near Qantir (“Bridge”).
12–14 Pharaoh’s challenge—“or they will become even more numerous” (v.10)—was quite foolish in view of v.12. The result was a frightful dread that came over the Egyptians. Ironically, the God-intended instrument for the salvation of both nations (cf. Ge 12:3) became instead, through the hardness of human hearts, the source of crippling fear. Thus the Egyptians “made [Israel’s] lives bitter,” a fact later commemorated in the Passover meal’s “bitter herbs” (12:8). The emphasis of vv.8–14 falls on the “ruthlessness” of the work and servitude imposed on Israel.
3. The second pogrom (1:15–22)
15–16 The two midwives were probably representatives of or superintendents over the whole profession. The delivery stools were literally “two stones” (dual form).
17–21 The midwives “feared God” more than they feared the king of Egypt. If they were not Hebrews but Egyptians, their God-fearing ways reveal the presence of God’s common grace and the residue of earlier divine revelation that their ancestors shared but had gradually left in whole or part (cf. Ge 20:11; Dt 25:18; Mal 3:5). The midwives had respect for life, as God wanted them to have. Even though they lied to Pharaoh, they are praised for their outright refusal to take infant lives. Their reverence for life reflected a reverence for God. Thus God gave them “families.” The midwives may also have attempted to avoid answering Pharaoh’s question directly, and therefore they commented on what was true without giving all the details.
22 A single concluding and transitional verse summarizes ch. 1. Pharaoh needed to openly command by decree what had proved abortive by mere speeches. “All his people” were made agents of this crime in order to nullify the divine work of increased Hebrew children (cf. Herod’s action at the birth of Christ). Thus the third pogrom began.
B. Preparations for Deliverance (2:1–4:26)
1. Preparing a leader (2:1–10)
1–4 An unnamed couple from the family of Levi became the parents of Moses. Moses was not the firstborn, for his brother Aaron was three years older and his sister Miriam was a young girl already. That he was a “fine child” may relate to his physical appearance (cf. Ge 39:6) as well as to the qualities of his heart. When Moses’ mother could hide him no longer, she fashioned a basketlike watertight boat from papyrus reeds. Clearly, Moses’ mother had something else in mind besides child abandonment or exposure, for her actions denoted love and hope.
5 The Hebrew text does not say the royal party went “into” the river (as did Naaman in 2Ki 5:14) but that they were “at” or “by” the river, since normally royal personages did not bathe in a river. Ancient historians tell us that the waters of the Nile were regarded as sacred, and such washing was more of an ablution with its health-giving and fructifying effects.
6–9 The princess discovered the reed basket and opened it to find a beautiful Hebrew baby boy, crying. Her heart was immediately moved with compassion. Miriam emerged from her hiding place, perhaps acting as if she were just casually passing by. If her words were not according to the careful plan and instruction of her mother, then her inward prompting must have come from God—not a moment too soon or too late, with not a word too many or too few! Not only was the child returned to his own mother, but she was paid wages for nursing the child she feared she might never see alive again. Thus Moses’ mother and father had an opportunity to teach him about the God of his fathers.
10 When the Hebrew lad “grew older,” he was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, who adopted him and named him Moses. The name is generally considered to be Egyptian, but the attached phrase—“I drew him out of the water”—points to a Hebrew origin. However, since the Egyptian princess is credited with naming him, and because of the similarity of Egyptian names such as Ptahmose, Thutmose, Ahmose, and Ramose, it is now universally regarded as Egyptian. The Hebrew root “to draw out” (GK 5406) is used perhaps because of the assonance it shared with the Egyptian name.
2. Extending the time of preparation (2:11–22)
11–12 In time Moses became aware of his Hebrew descent. When he was forty years old (Ac 7:23; cf. Heb 11:24–25), he struck and killed an Egyptian for beating a fellow Hebrew. It was his impetuosity that was wrong, not his sense of justice or his defense of the downtrodden. This cost him another forty years of education before he was ready for the task of delivering Israel. Moses’ conscience revealed that he had no legal authority to do what he did, for he first looked “this way and that” and then buried the corpse in the sand. The very impulse that led Moses to avenge wrongdoing apart from due process of law was developed to do the work of God.
13–14 The champion of the oppressed and underdogs went forth the next day—this time to settle a dispute between two of his own people. But Moses was thoroughly rebuffed and his motives impugned by the one who ought to have been practicing neighborly love. He thoroughly disarmed Moses by announcing that he knew what Moses had done on the previous day—he was a murderer, and now he was meddling in someone else’s business! Moses surmised that it must have become public information, and he wisely decided to leave Egypt as quickly as possible.
15–19 Pharaoh’s wrath was not so much to avenge the death of an Egyptian as it was to deal with his discovery that Moses was acting as a friend and possible champion of his sworn enemy, the oppressed Israelites. So Moses fled to Midian, in the Arabian Peninsula along the Gulf of Aqaba, only to be aroused by another scene of injustice. The seven daughters of a Midianite priest named Reuel were being harassed and chased from watering their flocks at the troughs by unscrupulous shepherds, but Moses rescued them. Since Moses still had his Egyptian clothing on, they judged him to be Egyptian.
20–22 The offer of hospitality led to Moses’ marriage to Reuel’s daughter Zipporah (which means “bird”; i.e., “Lady Bird”). Subsequently she gave birth to a son. Moses betrayed his loneliness by naming his son Gershom; for he explained, “I have become an alien in a foreign land.”
3. Preparing a people for deliverance (2:23–25)
23 The king of Egypt who died was probably the same one who sought Moses’ life for murdering an Egyptian (2:15; 4:19). The only pharaohs who ruled for more than thirty years in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties were Thutmose III (1483–1450 B.C.), Amenhotep III (1410–1372 B.C.), Haremhab (1349–1315 B.C.), and Rameses II (1301–1234 B.C.). Thutmose III was probably the pharaoh of the oppression who had gained control after the death of his aunt-stepmother-mother-in-law.
Misery finally found a voice, and so the pain of bodily senses of the Israelites preceded their recognition of the poverty of their spiritual condition. Thus God prepared the audience and people who would be delivered while he prepared the deliverer himself. No longer did Egypt symbolize delightful foods, wealth, and fatness; instead, it now meant slave-masters, forced labor, and bondage. So Israel cried out to God.
24–25 God was pleased to respond to even those first lisps of faith, but he was also moved by his own word that he had promised to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ge 17:7, 19; 35:11–12; et al.). It was a remembrance that was more than a mental act; it also included a performance of his word (cf. Ge 8:1; 1Sa 1:19). In four consecutive verbs, the divine action is charted: God heard, God remembered, God looked (i.e., considered), and God knew (i.e., was concerned).
4. Calling a deliverer (3:1–10)
1–4 While Moses was actively engaged at one task, God called him to another—the very one he had felt himself so eminently qualified for forty years earlier, when he had struck out against the abuses of power he had witnessed in Egypt.
The valley of er-Raha lay between the three summits traditionally identified with the “mountain of God” (so named in retrospect because God had appeared there). There the Lord appeared “in the form of a flame of fire.” What took place was a “strange sight” to Moses. The burning bush was not consumed; that was the miracle.
God chose the small and the despised burning bush as his medium of revelation, and he waited to see how sensitive Moses was toward the insignificant things of life before he invested him with larger tasks. The fire symbolized God’s powerful, consuming, and preserving presence (cf. 19:18; 24:17; et al.). When Moses went over to inspect this unusual sight, God issued his call by repeating Moses’ name to express the urgency of the message (cf. 1Sa 3:10).
5–6 The presence of God demanded a holistic preparation of the one who would aspire to enter his presence. Therefore, to teach Moses this lesson, God set up admittedly arbitrary boundaries—“Do not come any closer”—and commanded that he should also remove his sandals. This was to prevent him from rashly intruding into the presence of God and to teach him that God was separate and distinct from humans (cf. 19:10–13; 2Pe 1:18). Because God was present, what had been ordinary became “holy ground” and consequently “set apart” for a distinct use. The place where sheep and goats had traveled just a short time ago was transformed into “holy ground” by God’s presence. This is the first occurrence of the noun “holy” (GK 7731) in Scripture (cf. Ge 2:3 for the verb form).
When the condition for meeting God had been satisfied, he revealed himself as the “God of your father.” The collective singular “father” had a special point in that it was through the one man of promise that the many were to receive the blessing of God. Thus God assured Moses that the God of his father had not forsaken his repeated word of promise (Ge 15:1–21; 26:2–5; 35:1–12) or his people.
7–10 The anthropomorphisms of God’s “seeing,” “hearing,” “knowing” (i.e., “be concerned about”), and “coming down” are graphic ways to describe divine realities in terms of partially analogous situations in the human realm. But these do not imply that God has limitations; rather, he is a living person who can and does follow the stream of human events and who can and does at times directly intervene in human affairs.
Three times v.8 mentions the “land.” The often-repeated promise to the patriarchs was about to become a reality after over half a millennium! Two facts described the land: it was a good land and a spacious land (cf. Dt 8:7–9)—good because it was “flowing with milk and honey,” and spacious because six nations were living there. And Israel would possess it all.
The call of Moses comes to a double conclusion in vv.9–10 with the phrase “And/so now.” Verse 9 essentially repeats v.7 by summarizing the preceding speech and by restating the grounds on which this divine call is issued: namely, Israel’s present need and God’s solution. Verse 10, however, is the bottom line to the whole incident of the burning bush: It is the formal commissioning of Moses as God’s emissary to lead Israel out of Egypt.
5. Answering inadequate objections (3:11–4:17)
a. Who am I to go to Pharaoh? (3:11–12)
The first of five protests against accepting God’s commission reflects the great change that had come over Moses after forty sobering years of reflection and development. He who had been only too eager to offer himself as a self-styled deliverer earlier was now timid, unsure of himself, and devoid of any self-assertiveness that his divine commission demanded of him.
11 Moses repeated the twofold divine commission of v.10: that he should personally go to Pharaoh and that he should bring Israel out of Egypt. He prefaced this comment with the familiar idiom of the Near East that stresses the magnitude of the inequity between the agent and the mission, “Who am I?” (cf. 6:12; 1Sa 18:18; et al.).
12 God’s response to Moses was twofold: he would personally accompany him, and he would give him a sign. As God had promised fourteen times to be “with” the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob, he now assured Moses that he would be actively present as he continued to fulfill his promised word of blessing.
This “sign” (GK 253) given to Moses is confirmatory and appeals to faith rather than to immediate evidence or to the presence of the miraculous. It is not the same as Gideon’s (Jdg 6:17), for Gideon requested the sign; Moses did not. Moses’ sign belongs in the same class as other signs about the future (1Sa 2:34; 10:2, 3, 5; 2Ki 19:29, et al.). Thus while God gave “signs” as “proofs” to the people (Ex 4:1–9), interestingly enough he gave no such “signs” to Moses himself but asked him to believe and trust in his word and promised to be present (cf. Mt 28:20). There was also more than a hint in this sign that the mission of Moses went beyond a mere deliverance of a nation from bondage; Israel was to be set free to “worship” God.
b. What if they ask what your name is? (3:13–22)
13 Moses did not anticipate being asked, “By what name is this deity called?” Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, “What is his name?” The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name. Therefore, what they needed to know was “What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?”
14–15 God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses. The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord’s name and links that name with previous and all future generations.
Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of “I AM” is that this name is connected with some form of the verb “to be” and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: “I will be with you.” What, then, was his name? The answer was that “[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am/will be [present].” While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite. Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means “I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you.”
This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK 3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb “to be” with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his “name” (GK 9005) forever. His “name” was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a “memorial”; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.
16–18a The “elders of Israel” were the heads of various families (6:14–15, 25; 12:21; Nu 2) or tribes. Moses was to deliver God’s message to this body of men and to get them to accompany him when he went to Pharaoh. The message came in the name of “the LORD,” who was the same as the God of the patriarchs. It began with a repetition of the words used by Joseph on his deathbed: lit., “I have surely visited you” (NIV, “I have watched over you”), and “I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt.” Joseph had prophesied the very deliverance announced by Moses (see Ge 50:24). Thus the repetition here was equivalent to saying that the Lord would complete and fulfill what he had begun to do as spoken by Joseph. In fact, the very word used for misery in v.17 was used in the original promise to Abraham in Ge 15:13 that the Egyptians would “mistreat” them for four hundred years. Moses was assured of a sympathetic hearing from the elders, for the hearts of human beings are in the hands of God.
18b–20 Moses and the elders were instructed first to make only a moderate and limited request of Pharaoh for a temporary leave to offer sacrifices to the Lord their God. This was not an example of a half-truth or a ruse and an attempt to deceive Pharaoh. God deliberately graded his requests of Pharaoh from easier (a three-day journey with an understood obligation to return) to more difficult (the total release of the enslaved people) in order to give him every possible aid in making an admittedly difficult political and economic decision. God certainly knew this king of Egypt well enough to know what his reactions would be. Therefore Moses was cautioned not to misconstrue any rejection he received as a sign that God had not called him or that God was not with him—all to no avail; for Moses later raised those very complaints (5:22–23).
21–22 God had promised Abram that after Israel had served for four hundred years, they would “come out with great possessions” (Ge 15:14). Thus the early chapters of Exodus systematically record the fulfillment of one patriarchal promise after another to make the connection clear. The taking of spoils from the Egyptians was to be explained by a simple request and by granting divine favor to the Israelites’ request. The Israelites themselves were to live by this same principle of providing a present to a slave who was to be released every seven years (Dt 15:13). Charges of fraud, deception, deceit, and villainy against Israel are all misplaced. The fact is that the ignominy of their slavery is reversed in this sign of the recovery of their personhood—why even the children were to be decked in the jewels and the gifts of clothing!
c. What if they will not believe me? (4:1–9)
1 Moses did not flatly contradict God’s assurance in 3:17. Both the Hebrew and the LXX make his question a hypothetical situation. But it does indicate that Moses was by no means a shining model of faith and trust in God. At the same time, neither could Moses have been certain as to the response of his fellow Israelites in Egypt. Moses stalled for time by posing further nuances to what he had already been told.
2–5 The first sign. God’s prophets were accredited by “signs and wonders” (cf. Dt 13:1–3) with the sole purpose of validating the messenger and the message—that both were truly from God. Accordingly, Moses was given a “sign” (see comment on 3:12) to perform “so that they may believe that the LORD . . . has appeared to you.”
The staff in Moses’ hand was ordinary and unspectacular, but when it was thrown on the ground, as God commanded, it became a snake. It is perhaps too much to connect this snake directly with the uraeus (or cobra) worn on the headdress of Pharaoh (as if Moses had Egypt’s king by the tail). In order to underscore its supernatural nature, Moses was instructed to grasp the serpent by its tail to further prove the divine source of this miracle; for one would normally pick up a serpent by the neck.
6–7 The second sign. The Hebrew word for leprosy covered a number of assorted diseases. Actually, leprosy, or Hansen’s disease, was known in antiquity. But leprosy in the Bible apparently also covered cases of psoriasis, vitiligo, ringworm, syphilis, mildew, and the rot—all affecting garments and houses as well as people in some cases. Which was involved here is uncertain, but the condition of the skin was such that its color resembled snow. Any small or ordinary skin annoyance would hardly be of any “sign” value. It had to pose a greater threat to the life and health of Moses if the instantaneous cure was also to reflect the greatness and majesty of God’s power. The significance of this power to take away the health of the body and then to restore it again so that the affected part was “like the rest of his flesh” was to warn Pharaoh that this God, who had sent Moses, had the power to inflict or to save whatever he wanted with just a word or a gesture from his ambassador.
8–9 The third sign. The Lord next seized the initiative by using almost identical terms to those used by Moses in v.1. What was not being heeded in each case was literally “the voice” of these two signs. But their “voices” would leave Israel just as accountable as the “voice” of the words of Moses (v.1). Israel was to be confronted by God through the “voice” of his word and the “voice” of his miracles. This indicates that an appropriate significance would attach itself to each sign.
In this third sign Moses was to take some water from the river (the first plague would later be performed in the Nile) and turn it into blood. The Nile, which flowed with the blood of innocent Hebrew victims, would itself witness to its involuntary carnage with this miracle. Would the point of the “sign” be wasted on any Hebrew—or Egyptian? Like Abel’s blood that cried out from the ground, so would the infants’ whose lives had been demanded by Pharaoh (1:22). Egypt’s mighty god, the Nile, was dominated by the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
d. What about my slow tongue? (4:10–12)
10 Moses began with yet another objection: “I have never been eloquent” (lit., “a man of words”). Then in a truly Oriental phrase, he added, literally, “not since yesterday and not since the third day,” which adds up to simply “never before.” Not even the experience at the bush had remedied this problem. Moses summed it all up: he was “slow of speech and tongue.” Scarcely could this imply that he had a natural speech impediment or that he was a stammerer (cf. Ac 7:22). Thus Moses’ complaint was not in a defective articulation but in his inability to take command of Hebrew and Egyptian with a ready and copious supply of words and thoughts to beat back all objections from his brothers and Pharaoh—though he does quite well with God!
11–12 God answered Moses with a question that takes on proverbial status (Ps 94:9). The gifts of speech, sight, and hearing are from the same Lord who was sending this hesitant leader. While God was not to be blamed for directly creating any defects, his wise providence in allowing these deprivations as well as his goodness in bestowing their ordinary functions mirror his ability to meet any emergency Moses might have suggested. So God announced, “I will help you speak” (lit., “I will be with your mouth”) “and will teach you what to say.”
e. Why can you not find someone else? (4:13–17)
13–14a Moses’ groundless opposition angered God. Moses could think of no more good objections, for God had met every one point by point. So God’s unwilling servant revealed the true nature of his heart: literally he said, “Send, I beg you, by the hand [of whom] you will send,” which is a delightful Hebraism for “choose any other man, not me!” (NIV, “please send someone else”).
14b–17 Nevertheless, God mercifully decided still to use his reluctant servant by sending his brother, Aaron, to supply any deficiency Moses might have felt. However, Moses had a price to pay for his intransigence: Aaron would receive the honor of leading the priesthood, which appears to be the reason for including this reference to “the Levite” (cf. 1Ch 23:13). Once more the omniscience of God is seen in that Aaron was “already on his way to meet [Moses],” having begun at the special prompting of God (v.27). Whether Aaron came with the news that the king who sought Moses’ life was dead (2:15) or for some other reason is not known.
The arrangement was that Moses was literally “to become God” to Aaron, and Aaron was to become Moses’ mouth (or “prophet,” according to 7:1). Nothing defines more accurately the intimate relationship between God and his prophet than 4:16 and 7:1. There were to be no more excuses or discussions: “You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth.” Further, God would teach both of them what they were to do. As for action and deeds, it would be the very humble staff in Moses’ hand that God would use to perform the miracles he already had begun to speak about (3:20) and to show to Moses (4:2–8).
6. Preparing a leader’s family (4:18–26)
18 Moses left the region of Sinai and went to Midian to ask Jethro’s permission to return to Egypt. Even the call of God did not erase the need for human courtesy and respect. Interestingly, Moses did not share the real reason for his desire to return to Egypt. The reason he gave was “to see if any of [my own people] are still alive.” So Jethro granted Moses permission to go and wished him well.
19–20 This short section informs us that Moses’ conversion took place in Midian, not in Sinai where God had appeared to him, and that Moses had made his decision to return before he heard that the Pharaoh who had sought his life had already died. The news of the passing of his enemies may have influenced him to decide to take along his wife, Zipporah, and their two sons. Up till now only one son, Gershom, has been mentioned (2:22). Eliezer, though unmentioned in this text, probably had been born (18:4); thus the plural is correct here. Moses’ family is not mentioned again until Jethro’s visit with Moses and the Israelites camped at Sinai (ch. 18).
Moses took along the “staff of God.” What had once been ordinary became extraordinary by virtue of its use in the service of God. So equipped, Moses prepared to return to Egypt.
21–23 By way of summary, the Lord rehearsed the key features of his previous directives to Moses: (1) you will perform miracles before Pharaoh; (2) Pharaoh will harden his heart and not release the people; (3) you are to inform him that since Israel is “my firstborn son,” the Israelites must be set free so that they might worship me; and (4) Pharaoh’s refusal will lead to the death of his firstborn son.
The expression “I will harden [Pharaoh’s] heart so that he will not let the people go” is used here for the first time. In all, there are ten places where “hardening” (GK 2616 & 3877) of Pharaoh is ascribed to God (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). But it must be stated just as firmly that Pharaoh hardened his own heart in another ten passages (7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; 13:15). Thus the hardening was as much Pharaoh’s own act as it was the work of God. Even more significant is the fact that Pharaoh alone was the agent of the hardening in the first sign and in all the first five plagues. Not until the sixth plague was it stated that God actually moved in and hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12), as he had warned Moses in Midian that he would have to do.
The announcement that Israel was God’s “son” (GK 1201), yes, even his “firstborn” (GK 1147), may have stunned Pharaoh; for he was accustomed to regarding himself alone as the “son of the gods.” But for a whole people to be a “son” of the deity was a little surprising. Added to this filial relationship was the declaration that Israel was God’s “firstborn,” which does not mean “first” in chronological order, because Jacob (renamed Israel) was actually born after his twin, Esau. Here God meant “first in rank,” firstborn by way of preeminence, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a “firstborn.” Thus what had previously rested on natural rights of primogeniture now rested on grace. With it went the privilege given by God to the seed of Abraham, namely, that by means of this “firstborn” all the nations of the earth would be blessed. The penalty that Pharaoh would ultimately pay for his refusal to acknowledge Israel as the Lord’s son and firstborn, however, would be aimed at his own firstborn. Just as 3:12 had included an adumbration of Moses’ return to Sinai, so vv.21–23 intend to show the future work of God, beginning with the “wonders” of the plagues and ending climactically with a threat to Pharaoh’s firstborn.
24–26 This paragraph has continued to baffle interpreters. The place to begin to solve these problems is with the explanation given in the text itself. Verse 26b explains that this whole episode—what Zipporah did, what she said, and on whom she operated—all have reference to the rite of circumcision. The link with the context must revolve around Pharaoh’s “son,” his “firstborn” (v.23), and Moses’ “son,” perhaps also his “firstborn,” along with the fact that all Israel was God’s son, his firstborn. The Lord had attacked Moses as he was en route to accomplish the mission of God in Egypt. The nature of this nearly fatal experience is not known. That Moses was the object of the divine action is clear from the fact that the otherwise unspecified son would need to be identified as belonging to someone other than Moses. The sudden introduction of Zipporah’s action leads us to believe that she instinctively connected her husband’s peril (a malady so great that it left only her hands free to act) with their failure to circumcise their son. This she immediately proceeded to do. But her words of reproach indicate that the root of the problem of not circumcising the boy earlier lay in her revulsion and disgust with this rite.
The narrative was included at this point to demonstrate that an additional factor was needed in the preparation of God’s commissioned servant: the preparation of his family. In Ge 17:10–14 God had commanded Abraham to circumcise every male on the eighth day as a sign of the covenant; any uncircumcised male was to be cut off from his people. However, in this case the father was suffering for his refusal to circumcise his son. Thus for one small neglect, apparently out of deference to his wife’s wishes, or perhaps to keep peace in the home, Moses almost forfeited his opportunity to serve God and wasted eighty years of preparation and training! To further underscore this connection between Moses’ grave condition and the circumcision of his son, Zipporah took the excised prepuce and touched Moses’ feet. The Lord let Moses go, and the grip of death was lifted.
C. First Steps in Leadership (4:27–7:5)
1. Reinforced by a brother (4:27–31)
27–28 At God’s command Aaron, now eighty-three years of age, was to meet Moses midway en route to Egypt at the “mountain of God” (i.e., Horeb; see 3:1). As predicted in v.14, Aaron “kissed” Moses. The men had much to share as to what had happened during the forty years they were apart, but Moses’ words about God’s liberating directives and miraculous signs were most prominent.
29–31 Immediately the narrative jumps ahead to the meeting with the elders that Moses had been instructed to convene when he arrived in Egypt. Evidently God wished to see duly constituted authority respected; therefore an appeal needed to be made to Israel’s existing leadership and their consent obtained before initiating any requests of Pharaoh. Aaron acted as chief spokesman in relaying all that God had said to Moses. In addition, though Moses alone had been told (v.17) to perform the signs God had given in vv.1–9, both Moses and Aaron performed the miracles.
Since the elders represented the people and subsequently reported to them what they had heard and seen from Moses and Aaron, the text quickly compresses each of these steps in v.30 by saying all this was done “before” (lit., “in the sight of”) the people. The response was just as had been predicted in 3:18—“they believed.” The pressure of physical hardship had made this people more receptive than would be their custom in later years. Whether the signs were needed, as Moses had feared in v.1, the text has no comment. Especially heartening was the fact that God cared about them and their misery. Their response was immediately to worship the Lord, for he was the One who had “visited” (NIV, “was concerned about”) them and “had seen” their trouble.
2. Rebuffed by the enemy (5:1–14)
1–2 Some time later Moses and Aaron, perhaps accompanied by the elders (cf. 3:18), went to Pharaoh and boldly demanded that he release the people. They wished to celebrate a festival to this God in whose name the demand was being made, namely, “the LORD, the God of Israel” (see comment on 3:14–15). Pharaoh’s retort to this affront to his sole right to command these slaves was crisp and cynical. Indeed, if God chose to identify himself with such a hapless and hopeless lot of slaves, and if he was so powerless to effect their deliverance, why should Pharaoh fear him or obey his voice? Pharaoh’s answer was clear: “No!”
3 Perhaps stunned by Pharaoh’s insolence and arrogance, Moses and Aaron recast their request in milder terms. Acting now as representatives of the people and in language given at the burning bush, the demand is changed to a humble request. God’s servants warned Pharaoh that should he disallow this temporary release, he could suffer untold losses; for this God might allow all sorts of pestilence to break out, or he might even send an invader across the eastern frontier where Israel lived in vulnerable exposure.
4–14 Pharaoh was unmoved by any of these requests or threats. In his judgment the people were much too lazy or too idle, and Moses and Aaron were disturbers of the peace at best and plotters of sedition against the throne at worst. His question to them was in essence, “Why are you encouraging this?” There were already too many people (another witness to God’s covenantal faithfulness), and should he give them rest from their labors to further increase their numbers?
The Egyptian slave drivers were to instruct the Israelite “foremen” that straw would no longer be provided for the bricks Israel had to produce. From then on Israel was to rummage the countryside for what stubble and straw they could find without decreasing their daily quota of bricks. Chopped straw was mixed in with the clay to make the bricks more pliable and stronger. So the people were scattered all over Egypt while the slave drivers kept beating the Israelite foremen and pressuring them to meet their daily quota of bricks.
3. Rebuffed by the enslaved (5:15–21)
15–16 The Hebrew foremen, unaware of the total deterioration of their position due to Moses and Aaron’s request of Pharaoh, personally appealed the “No straw policy.” In a courteous but bitter complaint, they asked, “Why have you treated your servants this way? We are given no straw; we are constantly pressed to keep making bricks; we are beaten—and the fault, sir, lies with your own people.” This last charge seems to deferentially use the words “your people” in a circumlocution for Pharaoh himself.
17–18 Pharaoh’s analysis of the situation has been reduced to a single word: “lazy.” He repeated the word for emphasis (cf. v.8). If their request was “Let us go . . . now,” then he was ready to render his conclusion: “Get to work.” No straw would be supplied, and no falling behind in quotas would be allowed either.
19–21 Only now did the real untenability of their position begin to come home to the foremen. Moses and Aaron had deliberately “stationed” (NIV, “waiting”) themselves so as apparently to be the first to debrief the men as they emerged from their meeting with Pharaoh; for they had had a fairly good idea of what would be the outcome of the foremen’s audience with the king of Egypt. What they may not have expected was the full venting of the foremen’s anger when they “found” them.
Instead of earning respect from these Hebrew foremen for all their efforts to alleviate their brutal condition, Moses and Aaron felt, in no uncertain terms, the heat of the foremen’s anger. They asked God to judge these two troublemakers, for they were making Israel’s reputation to stink. The words of vv.20–21 reflect those of v.3. Instead of a plague “striking” Israel and a “sword” coming, Moses and Aaron, not an enemy, had put a sword in Pharaoh’s hands. So it happened that they “struck,” or as we would say, “happened to bump into,” Moses and Aaron.
4. Revisited by old objections (5:22–23)
22–23 Even though Moses had been forewarned from the start that Pharaoh would not accede to God’s requests, he was not prepared for the effect this refusal would have on his own fellow Israelites. Filled with an “I told you so” attitude, it was Moses’ turn to ask “Why?” (cf. Pharaoh in v.4, the foremen in v.15): “Why did you ever send me [in the first place]?” (lit. tr.). Fortunately, Moses did not vent his wrath on the foremen, but he did pour out to God the keenness of his resentment. Moses did not charge God directly with authoring this evil, for the idiom only means that God allowed and permitted such trouble as Pharaoh had thus spawned.
The clincher for Moses was v.23. His prayer (in essence) was, “O Lord, why is all this happening? Why did you ever send me?” Then he concluded: “Besides, you haven’t done what you said you would anyway—deliver them! I’ve done nothing but bring/make trouble since I arrived here!” Obviously, Moses was again wrestling with some of his old objections (cf. 3:11–4:17). In his estimation things were moving too slowly, and the suffering was intensifying rather than letting up.
5. Reinforced by the Name of God (6:1–8)
1 There were no direct answers to Moses’ questions, for these were to be gathered from his experience as their leader. But Moses’ complaint about the time could now be answered, for God announced his “now”—he would delay no longer. The promised show of God’s power would commence immediately with a show of his “mighty hand” (cf. 3:19).
2–5 The heart of God’s response to Moses and the people was a fresh revelation of God’s character and nature. One phrase stands out: “I am the LORD,” which appears four times from v.2 to v.8. Once again God reminded Moses that he was the God who had promised the land of Canaan to the patriarchs and that he had also seen the affliction of his chosen people. Moreover, whereas in the past the patriarchs had known him in the character of and in his capacity as El Shaddai (“God Almighty”; cf. Ge 17:1; 28:3; et al.)—the name that disclosed his power to impart life, to increase the goods of life, and to deal with all unrighteousness—now he would be known as “the LORD” (i.e., Yahweh; GK 3378).
Moses and Israel (and even the Egyptians later) would shortly know what “I am the LORD” meant. This would not be the first instance of the use of that name, for it had already occurred some 162 times in Genesis. Significantly, people “began to call on the name of the LORD” as early as Ge 4:26. The Lord is the God who would personally, dynamically, and faithfully be present to fulfill the covenant he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The patriarchs had only the promises, not the things promised. The fullness of time had come when God was to be known in the capacity and character of his name Yahweh, as he fulfilled what he had promised and did what he had decreed. These deeds are further enumerated and spelled out in the seven promises of vv.6–8.
6–8 The contents of God’s ancient promises are brought together and arranged so as to explain what “I am the LORD” means.
1. There were three first-person verbs with God’s promise of redemption (v.6): (1) “I will bring you out”; (2) “I will free you”; (3) “I will redeem you.” God promises to “redeem” Israel with the same “mighty acts of judgment” he had alluded to in 3:20 and 4:23 and had predicted long ago to Abraham in Ge 15:14. The plagues were to be judgments for crimes as well as spectacular wonders to instill faith.
2. Two more first-person verbs detailed God’s promise to adopt Israel as his own people (v.7): (1) “I will take you as my own people”; (2) “I will be your God.” These two promises will serve as two parts of the tripartite formula to be repeated in the Old and New Testaments almost fifty times: “I will be your God, you shall be my people and I will dwell in the midst of you” (cf. Ge 17:7–8; 28:21; Ex 29:45–46; et al.).
3. The last two promises focused on God’s promise of the land (v.8): (1) “I will bring you to the land”; (2) “I will give it to you.” This he pledged with the oath of his uplifted hand (cf. Ge 22:16; 26:3) so that by two immutable things—his word of promise and his oath—Israel (and all subsequent believers; cf. Heb 6:17–18) might have a strong encouragement and a solid confidence in the future. Then, as if to remind Israel once again, God concluded with his signature: “I am the LORD.”
6. Reminders of Moses’ lowly origins (6:9–7:5)
9–12 In spite of the grandeur of what “I am the LORD” meant for Israel, the people did not listen “for shortness of breath” (NIV, “their discouragement”). It was the inward pressure caused by deep anguish that prevented proper breathing—like children sobbing and gasping for their breath. This made such an impact on Moses that he had another attack of self-distrust and despondency. How could he persuade Pharaoh when he failed so miserably to impress his own countrymen who presumably would have had a naturally deep interest in what he had to say, given their circumstances. Anyway, his lips were “faltering” (cf. NIV note, “uncircumcised”) in the job they had been given to do. Thus Moses returned to his fourth objection (4:10).
13–30 The stage has been set in 1:1–6:12 for the main action to begin. However, before that happens, it is important to know just who were “Aaron and Moses to whom the LORD” had spoken. In fact, the whole genealogy of vv.14–25 is surrounded and framed by the near verbatim repetition of vv.10–13 in vv.26–30 and v.14a in v.25b. Therefore, the genealogical list concentrates on two men and how it was that they happened to be at this precise and momentous juncture in the history of humans and nations.
Everything in the list suggests that God’s choosing of Moses had nothing to do with natural advantage or ability. The list stops after naming only three of Jacob’s sons—Reuben, Simeon, and Levi—for its object had been reached. Moses and Aaron sprang, not from the “firstborn,” Reuben, but from Levi, Jacob’s third son, and not even then from Levi’s oldest son but Kohath, his second son. And Moses was not even the oldest son of his father, for Aaron was older. Moses’ calling and election of God were a gift of grace and not based on rights and privileges of birth.
So wicked were Jacob’s three older sons that they each inherited a curse: Reuben lost his birthright as “firstborn” (Ge 49:3–4), and Simeon and Levi were denied an inheritance with the tribes and were scattered instead (vv.5–8). But while Reuben’s and Simeon’s descendants did morally follow in their fathers’ footsteps, Levi’s descendants, with devotion to God, turned what was a curse into a blessing and used their dispersion through the tribes as an avenue of blessing to all through the priesthood and service at the sanctuary of God. This honor, however, did not prevent Levi’s descendant Korah (vv.21–24) from destroying himself by his own rebellion (Nu 16); yet his descendants were not thereby forever adversely determined for evil, for they later rose to a place of high position in the temple and in composing Pss 42–49, 84–85, and 87. So the making of “this same Moses and Aaron,” as well as the uses they were put to after they were made, were totally the work of God. Nevertheless, the record also made plain that there was a congruity between the experiences and all the endowments that had accrued to Moses during these eighty years of life; thus election worked in the natural realm as well as the spiritual.
The text returns to repeat the words of vv.10–13 in vv.26–30, as if to say, “Look who is talking back to God! A man of few credentials except those given him in the providence and grace of God!” But never mind that, v.28 seems to affirm; it is now a whole new game. The hour had come, and the name of the LORD would be all the equipment Moses would need.
7:1–5 While the LORD had made Moses as “God” to Aaron and Aaron in turn as his “prophet” (GK 5566) to the people, Moses was also ordained as “God” to Pharaoh in that he would speak and act with authority and power from above and Aaron would be Moses’ “prophet” addressing Pharaoh (cf. 4:15–16). But again this team was warned that Pharaoh’s heart would be “hardened” (see comment on 4:21), even though God would graciously provide him with supporting evidence by way of signs and wonders. Nevertheless, after God had judged Egypt with his “mighty acts of judgment,” Israel would come out by its “divisions.”
Not only would Israel know what was meant by the name “LORD,” but so would the Egyptians. In addition to understanding the significance of that name (Heb. YHWH or Yahweh), these miracles would also be an invitation for the Egyptians to personally believe in Israel’s Lord. Thus the invitation was pressed repeatedly in 7:5; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 16, 29; 14:4, 18—and some apparently did believe, for there was “a mixed multitude” (12:38 KJV) that left Egypt with Israel.
D. Judgment and Salvation Through the Plagues (7:6–11:10)
1. Presenting the signs of divine authority (7:6–13)
6–9 After eighty years of preparation, Moses began his life work. He and Aaron were directed to reappear before Pharaoh, who in turn would request them to perform a miracle, presumably to assure him that they were messengers of Israel’s God.
Significantly, Scripture judges Pharaoh’s demand for validation of such claims as reasonable. The Lord informed Moses to use the first of the three signs he had drawn on to convince Israel that he was indeed an accredited messenger of God (see 4:2–9, 30–31). However, in this instance Aaron’s staff (it was the same as Moses’ staff or the staff of God; cf. 4:17; 7:15, 17, 19–20), when cast down, became a tannin (GK 9490; “great serpent,” “dragon,” or “crocodile”; in 4:3–4 it became a nahash, “snake”; GK 5729). The connection of the name tannin with the symbol of Egypt is clear from Ps 74:13 and Eze 29:3.
10–13 Moses and Aaron did exactly as God instructed them—only to learn that Pharaoh’s wise men, sorcerers, and magicians were able to imitate the same feat by their magical arts. The use of magic in Egypt is well-documented in the Westcar Papyrus, where magicians are credited with changing wax crocodiles into real ones only to be turned back to wax again after seizing their tails.
The relation between Aaron’s miracle and the magical act of the magicians, whom Paul knew by the names of Jannes and Jambres in 2Ti 3:8, is hard to define. Possibly by the use of illusion and deceptive appearances they were able to cast spells over what appeared to be their staffs but which actually were serpents rendered immobile (catalepsy) by pressure on the nape of their necks and by the use of magical spells. Or perhaps it was by demonic power. However, as evidence of God’s greater power, Pharaoh’s magicians lost their “staffs” when Aaron’s “swallowed [them] up.” But Pharaoh was unaffected. His heart “became hard.”
2. First plague: water turned to blood (7:14–24)
14–18 Moses was instructed by God to go early (so in 8:20) in the morning with his brother, Aaron, to intercept Pharaoh and his officials as they went out to the Nile (cf. v.20). Pharaoh’s purpose for going here remains unknown, perhaps to worship the Nile River god, Hapi. Moses and Aaron, however, were there to remind Pharaoh that “the LORD, the God of the Hebrews” had sent them (5:1); yet the king of Egypt remained resolute in his defiance of this Lord. Therefore God would help Pharaoh “know” who he was (cf. 5:2). God would change the water of the Nile River into blood when Moses struck the Nile with his staff.
19–21 When Aaron stretched out his staff and struck what the Egyptians regarded as sacred, the Nile and the water all over Egypt turned to blood. What was the “blood” (GK 1947)? Some scholars suggest that since all the plagues followed a natural cycle and all happened in one year, this first plague could be connected with an unusually high Nile flood in July and August. The sources for the Nile’s inundation are the equatorial rains that fill the White Nile, which originates in east-central Africa (present-day Uganda) and flows sluggishly through swamps in eastern Sudan, and the Blue Nile and the Atbara River, which both fill with melting snow from the mountains and become raging torrents filled with tons of red soil from the basins of both these rivers. The higher the inundation, the deeper the color of the red waters. In addition to this discoloration, a type of algae, known as flagellates, comes from the Sudan swamps and Lake Tana along the White Nile, which produces the stench and the deadly fluctuation in the oxygen level of the river that proves to be so fatal to the fish. Such a process, at the command of God, seems to be the case for this first plague rather than any chemical change of the water into red and white corpuscles (cf. Joel 2:31: “the moon [will be changed] to blood”; or 2Ki 3:22, where, however, the water looked “like blood”). Unlike other plagues and in agreement with this natural phenomenon, this plague did not stop suddenly. This change affected the “streams” (= seven [in Herodotus] branches of the Nile), the canals (to fertilize the fields), the ponds (left from the overflowing Nile), and the reservoirs (artificially made to store water for later use).
22–24 Once again Pharaoh’s magicians applied their “secret arts” and imitated the miracle sufficiently to blunt the force of it on Pharaoh’s conscience. The question where they found any unblemished water if the fourfold water system in “all Egypt” (vv.19, 21) was affected, is answered in v.24—from subterranean water from freshly dug wells. But Pharaoh remained unmoved and merely returned to his palace from the bloody river’s edge: his heart grew rigid and hard in spite of this evidence.
3. Second plague: frogs (7:25–8:15)
25–8:5 Seven days after the first plague had begun, Moses and Aaron were instructed by God to take their demands to the king’s palace. If he refused to grant their repeated request to go to the desert to worship the Lord, they were to announce in the set formula, “I will plague your whole country with frogs.” This was not to be a “sign” but a “plague” only. In comparison with what was to come, this was only a trivial annoyance.
6–7 On Aaron’s signal the frogs emerged from the water and “covered” the land. These pesky creatures, though regarded as sacred to the Egyptians, were God’s scourge to whip the Egyptians into facing the living God. The intensification of the nuisance by Pharaoh’s magicians was totally ignored by him. The fact was that tons of croaking, crawling, creeping intruders were everywhere.
8–15 Why should the frogs so suddenly abandon their natural habitat in August during a high Nile and invade the homes, bedrooms, ovens, kneading troughs, and even the palace itself? And why should they likewise die off so suddenly? Perhaps the frogs abandoned all the polluted and overflowing waterways (cf. 7:19) and sought cover from the sun on dry land in homes where possibly the presence of some unadulterated water attracted them. However, since they had already been exposed to spores of bacillus anthracis from the death spread along the waterways, the frogs also suddenly collapsed and died.
Pharaoh had finally been forced to acknowledge the power of the Lord, not by human armies, but by squadrons of loathsome little frogs. Now he knew who this “LORD” was (cf. 5:2), and he acceded to Moses and Aaron’s request—only to renege later on.
Moses’ response to Pharaoh’s desperate or, as some think, cynical plea was to dare Pharaoh to test his prophetic credentials and, more important, the power of God by setting the time when he wished to be rid of this plague. Pharaoh’s quick response of “tomorrow” led Moses to enter into some intensely earnest prayer. Moses’ freedom to negotiate on his own terms and then, as it were, to have God back him up is remarkable. The frogs dropped dead all over the place—in the houses, fields, and open courtyards. Frogs were piled up in heaps, and there was a firm reminder to aid Pharaoh’s wavering memory—the stench of dead frogs. Nevertheless, that faded and so did Pharaoh’s permission. This “relief” was worse than the plague for this proud king. People do not often learn the righteousness of God when he grants them his mercy and his favor (Ps 78:34–42; Isa 26:10).
4. Third plague: gnats (8:16–19)
16–17 The third plague began without warning to Pharaoh or his magicians. God again used the outstretched staff in the hand of Aaron to initiate this plague. Aaron struck the dust of the ground, just as he had struck the Nile in the first plague (7:20), and “all the dust throughout the land of Egypt became gnats.” The word “gnats” occurs five times in this passage and nowhere else except in the parallel passage of Ps 105:31. It is debatable whether this word means “lice” (so KJV et al.) or “gnats” or “mosquitoes,” as we favor (with most interpreters).
18–19 On their fourth attempt to duplicate the miracles of Moses and Aaron, the Egyptian magicians admitted defeat. In spite of what success they did or did not experience in the previous three encounters (and it could well have been through sleight of hand—given the advance notice of the nature of the plague or sign in those cases—or perhaps it was just plain demonic, supernatural empowerment to mimic God’s power), they now realized that the plague of the gnats was the “finger of God,” i.e., the result of his power. But Pharaoh was not so persuaded in his heart and mind—he remained adamant and opposed to any Israelite demands.
5. Fourth plague: flies (8:20–32)
20–21 As in the first plague, Moses was sent to intercept Pharaoh again as he went down to the Nile early in the morning. This time Pharaoh and all his people and their houses were threatened with a plague of “flies.” It seems best to say that the fly Stomoxys calcitrans best fulfills all the conditions of the text. This fly multiplies rapidly in tropical or subtropical regions (hence the delta with its Mediterranean climate would be exempt) in the fall by laying its six hundred to eight hundred eggs in dung or rotting plant debris. When it is full grown, the fly prefers to infest houses and stables, and it bites both humans and animals, usually in the lower extremities. Thus it becomes the principal transmitter of skin anthrax (see plague six), which it contracts by crawling over the carcasses of animals that have died of internal anthrax.
22–24 By inaugurating a “distinction” (GK 7151) between Moses’ people and Pharaoh’s people, God intended to aid those hardened Egyptian hearts who suspected that nothing more than chance or difficult times had been involved in the preceding three plagues. This distinction is found in the fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth plagues. The purpose of this preferential treatment to Israel was to teach Pharaoh and the Egyptians that the Lord God of Israel was in the midst of this land doing these works; it was not one of their local deities. Gods were thought by ancient Near Easterners to possess no power except on their own home ground. But not so here! The innocent were being delivered and the guilty afflicted because this God was in their midst. He would again do a “miraculous sign” designed to evoke faith in him from the Egyptians and the release of Israel.
In another innovative feature Moses announced in advance when the plague was due to strike, giving the Egyptians time to repent. This advance notice is found in the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and tenth plagues. Moreover, Pharaoh and his court were again singled out as the first victims of this plague because of the heavy responsibility they bore for their intransigence.
25–32 Moses’ claim—that if Israel sacrificed animals in Egypt, it would be extremely offensive to the Egyptians—has been challenged by some commentators as a clever ruse on Moses’ part. Thus Moses rejected Pharaoh’s counteroffer to allow Israel to sacrifice in Egypt. Finally Pharaoh conceded the long-denied permission. With a note of self-importance he pontificated, “I will let you go . . . but you must not go very far.” And as if to show what his real thoughts were all along, he quickly added, “Now pray for me.”
Moses was not to be put down, for his mission likewise had dignity; so he too began with the pronoun “I”: “I am leaving you, and I will pray” (lit. tr.). Moses, with an obvious rebuke, said in effect, “Don’t you ‘however’ me when you are in such a poor bargaining position.” But then on a courteous note, with a switch to the third-person form of address, he continued, “Only be sure that Pharaoh does not act deceitfully again.”
The plague was removed through Moses’ prayer (cf. 1Ki 18:42; Am 7:2, 5). So effective was the power of prayer and the evidence that God was in their midst that “not a fly remained.” But Pharaoh once again (cf. second plague, 8:15) returned to his hard-nosed stand once he obtained the physical relief he desired.
6. Fifth plague: cattle murrain (9:1–7)
1–4 The fifth plague was patterned after the second: Moses was to go to Pharaoh’s palace and announce the next pestilence. A “terrible plague” would be brought, not by God’s “finger,” as the Egyptian magicians had put it in 8:19, but by his “hand.” It would fall on all the cattle in the field. There is no need to press the expression “all the livestock” to mean each and every one and then find there are no Egyptian cattle left for the seventh plague (vv.19, 25), for it is already plain in v.3 that the plague affected only those cattle “in the field.” Normally the Egyptian cattle were stabled from May through December, during the flood and the drying-off periods when the pastures were waterlogged. Thus some of the cattle were already being turned out to pasture down south; so it must have been sometime in the month of January. These cattle were then affected when they came into contact with the heaps of dead frogs left from the second plague and died of bacillus anthracis, the hoof and mouth disease.
The Israelite cattle were exempted from the plague, possibly because the delta would have been slower in recovering from the effects of the flood, which was farther downstream. Also, the Israelites’ different attitude toward corpses—they took precautions to deal with the heaps of dead carcasses—may have spared their own cattle. This was the second plague where God placed a distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites.
5–7 The interval between the announcement and the morrow, when the fifth plague was to take effect, was to allow time for a believing response from Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Presumably some believed and attempted to rescue their animals by bringing them in from the fields. Others purposely delayed turning their cattle out to pasture.
When Pharaoh heard that all the Israelite cattle had miraculously escaped the cattle plague, he sent envoys to Goshen to investigate. The rumor was true. Pharaoh must have had his own explanations and rationalizations, for his position and heart again became resolute and unyielding. Meanwhile, another part of Egypt’s wide array of gods was hard hit: the Apis, or sacred bull Ptah; the calf god Ra; the cows of Hathor; the jackal-headed god Anubis; and the bull Bakis of the god Mentu. The evidence was too strong to be mere coincidence: (1) the time was set by the Lord, the God of the Hebrews; (2) a “distinction” was made between the cattle of the two peoples; and (3) the results were total: all Egyptian cattle “in the field” died; not one head of Israelite livestock perished.
7. Sixth plague: boils (9:8–12)
8–9 Like the third plague, this one was sent unannounced. For the first time human lives are attacked and endangered, and thus it was a foreshadowing of the tenth and most dreadful of all the plagues. With a touch of divine irony and poetic justice, Moses and Aaron were each to take two handfuls (the form is dual) of soot from a limekiln or brick-making furnace, the symbol of Israel’s bondage (see 1:14; 5:7–19). The soot must have been placed in a container and carried to Pharaoh’s presence, where Moses then tossed it into the air. The act was to be a symbolic action much like those of the latter prophets (Jer 19 or Eze 4–5). There was also a logical connection between the soot created by the sweat of God’s enslaved people and the judgment that was to afflict the bodies of the en-slavers.
10–12 When the soot was tossed skyward, festering boils broke out on all the Egyptians and their animals. Attempts to identify this malady have produced various suggestions: (1) small pox, (2) Nile-blisters similar to scarlet fever, (3) skin anthrax, and (4) inflammations or blains that become malignant ulcers. Skin anthrax seems the most probable, since Dt 28:35 limits this plague principally to the lower extremities of the body. Furthermore, the black soot is especially suited, for anthrax (cf. anthracite coal) is a sort of black, burning abscess often occurring with cattle murrain.
The flies of the fourth plague have generally been blamed as the carriers of the anthrax spores, but they were totally removed at the conclusion of that plague. Presumably this was another generation of flies (depending on the temperature, another batch can come in twenty-seven to thirty-seven days). After animals or humans are bitten on the legs by these flies, a small bluish-red pustule with a central depression in the middle of the swelling appears after two or three days. The center of the boil dries up only to have new boils swell up, and the skin festers as if it had been burnt and then peels off.
In a humorous aside, v.11 notes that the magicians (who bowed out in plague three and are unnoticed, though possibly present, in plagues four and five) literally (and vocationally) “could not stand” before Moses. The same could be said for all the Egyptians. Here for the first time God hardened Pharaoh’s heart—a seconding, as it were, of his own motion made in each of the preceding five plagues.
8. Seventh plague: hail (9:13–35)
13–19 As in the first (7:15) and the fourth (8:20) plagues, Moses was to begin this plague by rising early in the morning to confront Pharaoh with the Lord’s message. From these early days in February until the time of the tenth and climactic plague, Pharaoh would spend approximately eight of the most dreadful weeks he had ever known.
To further underscore the theological significance of these weeks and their events, Moses was prompted by God to preface his latest announcement of divine judgment with a long message filled with doctrinal instruction. This unprecedented message was calculated to move Pharaoh and his subjects from rebellion to belief in the God of the Hebrews. Its ominous contents included (1) an announcement that God would vent the “full force” (i.e., “all the remaining plagues”) of his plagues on Egypt so that no one would doubt that there was anyone like this God in all the earth; (2) a reminder that previous pestilences and plagues might well have swept both king and people off the face of the earth had not God deliberately and purposely spared them for one very important reason: that God’s power and name would be heralded throughout the earth by means of Pharaoh’s stupidity; (3) a declaration that in denying the release of Israel Pharaoh had acted as an obstructionist against Almighty God himself; (4) a threat that Egypt would experience the worst hailstorm it had ever seen in its history; and (5) an extraordinary feature that provided for those Egyptians who believed Moses’ words were a means of escape from the effects of the storm.
The seventh plague was to be judgment with the expectation that it might result in the blessing of belief and trust. Had not Abraham been given this mission to be a means of blessing to “all peoples on earth” (Ge 12:3)? And has not the theme “that the Egyptians might know that I am the LORD” (or slight variations) appeared frequently in the midst of these plagues (7:5; 8:10; 9:14, 16, 29–30; and later in 14:4, 18)? Moses, like his Lord, would sigh of Israel (Nu 14:11): “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?” The same words could apply just as well to Egypt.
The months of leniency were about over. Now the full blast of the ensuing plagues would penetrate directly to Pharaoh’s “heart” (v.14; NIV, “against you”). The “heart” (GK 4213) does not signify “his person” but rather his inner being, nature, and seared conscience. His pride and arrogance would be tossed to the wind as the terrors of these new plagues forced him in perplexed and desperate sorrow of soul to literally beg that the Israelites leave his presence immediately. Yet Pharaoh was no mere pawn to be toyed with at will, for the object was that he too might come to experience personally and believe (“know”) the incomparability of God’s person and greatness. The very superlative rating of his deeds—none “like it” (of the hailstorm in vv.18, 24; of the locusts in 10:6)—should have led the king and his people to the identical rating of God’s person (no one “like you” in 15:11 and “like me” in 9:14).
20–26 Rainfall comes so occasionally in Upper Egypt that the prediction of a severe hailstorm accompanied by a violent electrical storm must have been greeted with much skepticism. Only the delta receives on the average about ten inches of rainfall per year while Upper Egypt has one inch or, more often, none. But there were some who “feared the word of the LORD” and acted accordingly. Some Egyptians must have received Moses’ words as being from God himself; for they became a part of that mixed company who left Egypt with Israel (see 12:38).
Moses apparently lost his shyness and diffidence, for he was the one who now stretched forth his staff and his hand (cf. Aaron’s leading role in the first three plagues: 7:19–20; 8:6, 17). Hail joined by unannounced thunder and balls of fire that ran along the ground provided Egypt with the most spectacular display in her history. The destruction was devastating. Five times in vv.24–25 the word kol (“all,” “everything”) is used; yet it is used hyperbolically and not literally because the first two kols (“in all Egypt,” vv.24–25a; NIV, “throughout Egypt”) are immediately qualified to exempt the land of Goshen where Israel lived. Nevertheless, even though the storm did not take every single tree, herb, or creature in the field, it was tragic enough to impress the most callous individual.
27–30 Pharaoh, obviously shaken, conceded the point: “I have sinned,” though he included the face-saving qualifier “this time.” What made this plague any different from the rest—except its severity? Only when the Lord began to hurt Pharaoh did he (momentarily) seek him (cf. Ps 78:34). Like Jeremiah (Jer 12:1), Pharaoh declared that “the LORD” (i.e., Yahweh, not Elohim!) was in the right and that he and his people were in the wrong!
Moses’ reply was simple, confident, and noble. He would spread out his hands in prayer (a gesture of request and appeal to God) once he was back with his own people, and the hail and thunder would stop—to prove once again (in this repeated apologetic and evangelistic refrain) that the whole earth belongs to the Lord. “But,” Moses added, “I know that you and your officials still do not fear the LORD God.”
31–35 Since in Egypt flax is usually sown in the beginning of January and is in flower three weeks later while barley is sown in August and is harvested in February, both would be exceedingly vulnerable if this plague occurred in the beginning or middle of February (probably a little later than usual with a high Nile year). Wheat and spelt were also sown in August but were not ready for harvest until the end of March. That Goshen was unaffected by this storm matches the agricultural observations; for the Mediterranean temperate zone has these storms only in late spring and early autumn but not from November to March. Flax, of which there were several kinds, was used for linen garments. The vicinity of Tanis was ideal for producing it. Barley was used in the manufacture of beer (a common Egyptian drink), as horse feed, and by the poorer classes for bread.
After Moses’ prayer was answered, Pharaoh once again rescinded his offer and forgot all about his confession of sin and wrong.
9. Eighth plague: locusts (10:1–20)
1–2 For the first time we are told that Egypt’s officials were also as obstinate as Pharaoh; therefore the Lord had hardened all of them as well. But Moses was to find a lesson in this divine work of hardening. There follows, then, another theological preface to the eighth plague, just as Pharaoh had been served in 9:14–16 with a similar lesson prior to the seventh plague. The lesson for Israel was to be twofold: (1) to educate succeeding generations in how the Lord “dealt harshly” with the Egyptians and performed his miracles in their land, and (2) to thereby bring Israel to faith in the Lord.
3–6 Moses proceeded to the palace and announced to Pharaoh the next plague. The message began with a question: “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before the Lord?” His act of self-condemnation and abject humility in 9:27 was just that—an act. But here was the consummate question of all questions that God finally raises against all obstinate sinners: “How long?”
The demand for Israel’s release was again laid down along with a time lag that provided ample opportunity for reflection and repentance: “tomorrow.” Moses informed Pharaoh that God would “bring locusts into your country.” Joel 2:25 calls locusts God’s “great army.” They would finish off every living green thing, leaving destruction in their wake. It would exceed any locust invasion Egypt had ever known in the past. With that, Moses and Aaron turned their backs on Pharaoh (an amazing gesture for normal protocol) and stalked out.
7–11 Pharaoh’s officials picked up Moses’ “How long?” with a “How long?” of their own. Out of loyalty to their king and country, they blamed Moses; but it was obvious that they were beginning to become impatient with Pharaoh’s intransigence. Could Pharaoh not see the “snare” this man was setting for them, and did Pharaoh not realize that Egypt was about ruined? Someone had to give in. They urged Pharaoh to yield: “Let the people go.”
In another first, Pharaoh had Moses and Aaron return to the palace for some negotiations related to the imminent pestilence. Clearly as a sop to his frightened officials, Pharaoh half-heartedly gave Moses permission to take Israel to sacrifice in the desert. However, he coyly asked (as if he did not remember Moses’ original request or the advice just given him by his own officials), “Just who will be going [on this religious trip]?” Moses responded out of a position of strength: “We all are going to celebrate this festival to the LORD” (cf. v.9). “Oh no you are not,” was Pharaoh’s decisive rejoinder. “You take only your ‘men’; that will be enough for religious purposes.” It is true, of course, that later Israel required only her males to attend these three yearly festivals (23:17; 34:23; Dt 16:16), but the artificiality of this limitation at this time is evident since women normally accompanied the men at Egyptian religious festivals.
The contempt Pharaoh felt for Moses’ request and for the Lord himself can be seen in his biting sarcasm and veiled threat of v.10: “The LORD be with you [i.e., ‘May God help you’]—if I let you go, along with your women and children!” To Pharaoh it was plain that Moses and his people were up to no good. Pharaoh did not yield to this moderate first-step request for fear of what was to be (though unknown at the time to him) the ultimate request. Moses and Aaron were then insulted by being chased from the premises—another in a string of wicked firsts.
12–15 So the plague was ordered to begin as Moses again stretched out his hand and staff over Egypt. Swarms of locusts from the bumper crop produced due to the exceedingly wet summer in Ethiopia were swept away from natural breeding grounds around Port Susa and Jidda (on the west side of the Red Sea across from the Arabian Peninsula) by an east wind that blew all day and all night (cf. 14:21). Thus these locusts (now ready to migrate in February or March after hatching during the winter from the eggs laid in September) were driven into Egypt by a sirocco (a hot wind) from the Arabian Peninsula, instead of into Canaan, had the winds been from the southwest. They came in droves (lit., “exceedingly heavy”). They finished off everything the hail had left.
16–20 Hastily Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and, without any qualifications as in 9:27–28, confessed his sin against the Lord their God and against these men. But he still insisted on having the upper hand. “Now,” he added, as if to organize Moses’ conclusion, “forgive my sin once more [i.e., this one more time].” No more would he change his mind, no more tricks! Just ask your God, he pled, “to take this deadly plague away from me.”
Once again God graciously answered Moses’ prayer. He sent a strong “sea breeze,” which for people in Canaan would have been a “west wind” but for those in Egypt was a north or northwest wind, which drove the locusts into the Reed Sea. The results at the palace, however, were the same.
10. Ninth plague: darkness (10:21–29)
21–23 Unannounced, like the third and sixth plagues, the ninth plague came in the month of March, as Moses once again stretched out his hand. No doubt God used the yearly phenomenon known as the Khamsin, meaning the “fifty”-day wind that blows off the Sahara Desert from the south and southwest usually about the time of the vernal equinox. During two or three of those days, it blows with great force, picking up sand and dust. Given the unusually high Nile with the red dirt it had spilled over the fields now barren and baked after the hail and locusts had destroyed all the vegetation that would hold the soil in its place, this was no ordinary Khamsin. The polluted air got so thick—“no one could see anyone”—that the sun itself was blotted out for “three days.” Israel meanwhile was somewhat protected by the hills on the south side of the Wadi Tumilat and by the fact that the red silt would not have dried out as much since their fields were later in clearing the effects of the flood.
24–29 Pharaoh decided to compromise further: Israel could take their families to this festival celebration, but they must leave their flocks and herds. But Moses yielded nothing. “Not a hoof is to be left,” he affirmed, for they needed them in worshiping God. The festival was brand new, and it was as yet unannounced, explained Moses. But Pharaoh had had enough. Rudely he demanded they leave and never darken his presence again on penalty of death. But did he think that would prevent further disasters? Had not plagues three, six, and nine come without warning? Was it not strange for him to be threatening Moses with death when the smell of death was all over his court and Egypt?
11. Tenth plague: death of the firstborn (11:1–10)
1–3 These verses are parenthetical; for Moses had one last message to communicate to Pharaoh before he left his presence after the ninth plague in 10:29, and thus he knew that Pharaoh had “spoken correctly” (cf. 10:28) in halting any further audiences. God had informed Moses before he went in to see Pharaoh concerning the ninth plague that this contest was about to end abruptly. One more plague and he would send Israel away, “in the manner of one’s sending away a slavegirl who had been promised to be one’s daughter-in-law” (probably a better rendering of the Heb. than NIV’s “when he does”), i.e., filled with gifts on her release from slavery. This interpretation leads easily and naturally into their requests of the Egyptians for gold and silver articles. The reasons for the extraordinary generosity of the Egyptians are (1) the LORD made them “favorably disposed” toward Israel (cf. Ps 106:46), and (2) “Moses himself was highly regarded.” The greatness of the man was not because of his personal qualifications but because of the esteem he had accumulated from the magicians (8:18–19), the court officials (9:20; 10:7), and Pharaoh himself (9:27; 10:16).
4–8 Moses’ speech continues the remarks he began in 10:29. Unlike all the other plagues, this time the LORD himself would march through the land of Egypt. The firstborn of all Egyptian families—slaves and cattle—would die at midnight (the exact day was not specified). An unprecedented outpouring of grief would follow, but among the Israelites there would be such tranquility on that evening that not a dog would have occasion to bark! Moses’ final word was that the Egyptians on bent knee would beg the Israelites to leave immediately. Moses said, “After that I will leave.” But the stupidity and waste of all those lives just because of stubborn human sinfulness made Moses exceedingly angry.
9–10 Therefore, as a recapitulation of all Moses’ negotiations beginning in 7:8, we are reminded that all had taken place as God had predicted it. No amount of evidence had persuaded Pharaoh’s hard heart, and Israel was still enslaved.
E. The Passover (12:1–28)
1. Preparations for the Passover (12:1–13)
1–2 The instructions for the Passover and the Unleavened Bread feasts were the only regulations given while Israel was still in Egypt. The phrase “in Egypt” indicates that the contents of this chapter were written after the Exodus. This event was so significant that henceforth the religious or ecclesiastical year was to begin in the month of Abib (13:4), the month when “the barley had headed” (the Canaanite name for the month). Later the Babylonian month name of Nisan was substituted (Est 3:7), matching our present calendar time of late March to the beginning of April (Ne 2:1).
3–11 The following instructions, communicated through the elders (see v.21), were given to the “whole community of Israel”: (1) Preparations were to begin on the tenth day of Abib; (2) the head of each household was to select a “lamb” or “kid” according to the number of people who would be present; (3) the animal was to be a year-old male without any defects; (4) each animal was to be slaughtered at twilight on the fourteenth day; (5) the blood from the animals was to be applied to the doorframe of each house; (6) that night each family was to eat the roasted lamb or kid along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread; (7) the meat was to be roasted whole with the head and legs intact and the washed internals left inside; it was not to be eaten raw or boiled in water; (8) all leftovers were to be burnt; nothing was to be allowed to become profane by putrification or superstitious abuse (i.e., before daybreak, according to 23:18; 34:25; Dt 16:4); (9) the meal was to be eaten with an air of haste and expectancy. Therefore, the people’s robes were to be tucked in their belts, their sandals were to be worn, and their staffs were to be ready and on hand.
Thus the whole nation was to be a nation of priests (see 19:5–6; cf. 1Pe 2:5; Rev 1:6). The apparent intervention of the Levites in 2Ch 30:17–18 and 35:5–6 was contrary to the original design of the Passover. Here there were no priests, no altar, no tabernacle; families were communing in the presence of God and around the sacrificial lamb that was the substitute for each member of that family. The lamb was to be a year-old male because it was taking the place of Israel’s firstborn males who were young and fresh with the vigor of life. The bitter herbs were to recall the bitter years of servitude (1:14), and the unleavened bread was to reflect this event’s haste on that first night. This was the Lord’s Passover, and this was how Israel was to eat it.
12–13 On that same night, the fifteenth of Abib, the Lord would pass through Egypt and strike down the firstborn of all men and animals whose household had not been placed under the blood. Like the other “signs” or “miracles” Pharaoh had seen, the blood also was to be a pledge of God’s mercy. The Lord would “pass over” (GK 7173) these marked homes, and no “plague” would touch them. Indeed, even “all the gods of Egypt” would be judged by this final plague of God. Obviously, those deities whose representatives were linked with beasts were dealt direct blows—the bulls, cows, goats, jackals, etc. There could be little doubt that this would be interpreted as a direct blow to the gods of Egypt themselves.
2. Preparations for the Unleavened Bread (12:14–20)
14–16 The connection between the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread is close yet distinct. The OT uses both names to refer to the same feast: “Passover Feast” (GK 7175) in Ex 34:25; Eze 45:21; and “Feast of Unleavened Bread” (GK 5174) in Dt 16:16; 2Ch 30:13, 21; Ezr 6:22. Yet the two rites are treated separately, even if in sequence, in Lev 23:5–6; Nu 28:16–17; 2Ch 35:1, 17; Ezr 6; Eze 45:21.
“This day” refers to the same day in view in vv.1-13. The slaying of the paschal lamb “between the evenings” that divide the 14th and 15th of Abib (Nisan) looks forward to the festive celebration that night, the day of the Exodus (i.e., the night of the Passover; Abib 15). The Israelites were to “commemorate” (i.e., make it a memorial; GK 2355) that day as a “festival” and a “lasting [i.e., perpetual] ordinance.”
For seven days they were to eat “bread made without yeast” (Heb. matzo, GK 5174), in order to remember Israel’s haste in leaving Egypt (v.39) and to underscore again that impurity and corruption (which leaven sometimes symbolizes) disqualified persons from religious services. The whole household needed to be pure and clean of heart; therefore, all yeast was to be removed from the entire house (v.19). The first and the seventh days of that week beginning with the celebration of the Passover were to be holy convocations.
17–20 “I brought your divisions out” reflects a post Exodus stance. Verse 19 is not an empty repetition of v.15 but adds the important notice that Gentiles may be celebrants along with Israel even as was contemplated in the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 12:3c). The “alien” (GK 1731) must have included the “mixed multitude” (v.38, KJV) who left Egypt with Israel, the Kenites who joined them in the desert (Nu 10:29–31; Jdg 1:16), and those who were converted later, like Rahab’s family (Jos 2:10–14). Those “native-born” (GK 275) were, no doubt, Abraham’s descendants who are here regarded as the true natives to the land of Canaan, since it was assigned to them by God some six hundred years prior to the Exodus.
3. Celebration of the Passover (12:21–28)
21–23 When the instructions for the preparation of the Passover had been completed, the elders were briefed on what each Israelite family was to do. Two new items are included here: (1) Blood was to be applied to each doorframe by a “bunch of hyssop” dipped into a basin of blood, and (2) no one was to leave the house “until morning.”
The lamb or kid to be slaughtered by each family is called “the Passover” itself (NIV, “the Passover lamb”). Blood from this animal was placed in a basin and with “a bunch of hyssop” was “slapped” on the doorframe. Israel would know the grounds and means of their deliverance and redemption.
“The destroyer” (GK 5422) was not a demonic power that rivaled God but probably an angel of the Lord who expedited his will. In Ps 78:49, however, where God lets loose on the Egyptians four different words for his anger, this wrath is collectively called “a band of destroying angels.” Thus whether an angel was the mediating agent or the term was a figurative personification of the final judgment of God on Egypt, it was still God’s direct work (cf. 1Co 10:9–10; Heb 11:28).
24–28 Once again provision was made for the annual observance of this ceremony and for the parental obligation to instruct children in the meaning and significance of this reenactment. The section closes with one of those rare notices in Israel’s history: they did exactly what the Lord had commanded—and well they might after witnessing what had happened to the obstinate king and people of Egypt!
F. The Exodus From Egypt (12:29–51)
1. Death at midnight (12:29–32)
29–30 The final stroke came at midnight of Abib 15. While the previous plagues may have utilized some of the natural and secondary agencies of nature, vv.23 and 29 attribute this tenth plague solely to the LORD. The Lord went through the land of Egypt, and death touched every “family” (lit., “house”)—from Pharaoh to the prisoner (cf. 11:5).
31–32 How Pharaoh “summoned” Moses and Aaron is unknown. The release granted Israel was for more than a three-day journey to worship the Lord. Previously when Pharaoh had given permission to leave (only to immediately rescind it or place unacceptable restrictions on it), he had said: “Go, worship the LORD your God” (10:8, 24), or “Go, sacrifice to your God” (8:25); but now the command was: “Up! Leave my people!” In fact, God had predicted that the effect of this tenth blow would be so hard that Pharaoh would “drive [them] out completely” (11:1). As Moses was taking leave of the king and Egypt, Pharaoh had one final request. “Bless me,” he begged. Pharaoh, the god of Egypt, entreated Moses’ God to bless him!
2. Preparations for the Exodus (12:33–36)
33–34 The Egyptians urged the people most vehemently that they should leave immediately, for no Egyptians would be left if things continued as they were going. The Israelites wrapped the unleavened lumps of dough in sacks and slung them over their shoulders along with their kneading troughs and whatever other incidentals they planned to take with them.
35–36 On the spoiling of the Egyptians, see 3:21–22 and 11:2–3.
3. The Exodus and the mixed multitude (12:37–51)
37 The wilderness itinerary actually begins in this verse. Rameses is best identified with Qantir instead of the remoter but more popular Tanis (seventeen miles northeast), since Qantir was situated near the water—as Egyptian documents observed, on the “Waters of Ra,” the Bubastite-Pelusiac eastern arm of the Nile River. Succoth is now generally identified with Tell el Maskhuta near modern Ismailia. With the number of fighting men at 600,000, the total number of Israelites could well be 2 million.
38 The “many other people” (KJV, “mixed multitude”) were Egyptians (cf. 9:20), perhaps some of the old Semitic population left from the Hyksos era, and slaves native to other countries. Some of this group must be part of the “rabble” mentioned in Nu 11:4. Thus the promise to Abraham in Ge 12:3c received another fulfillment in this swarm of foreigners who left Egypt with Israel. Another reason for God’s display of his power was so that the Egyptians could be evangelized (7:5; 8:10, 19; 9:14, 16, 29–30; 14:4, 18).
39 As the Lord had predicted in 11:1, the Israelites “had been driven out of Egypt.” Indeed, they left so quickly that they had no time to prepare anything, much less set the yeast in the dough; so they left with unleavened bread and made unleavened cakes during those early days (see v.34).
40–42 Appropriately, now that the Exodus had begun, the narrator took a moment to reflect on the total Egyptian experience. Twice he commented that it had been 430 years, “to the very day.” That “night” was to be observed by all future generations as a “Watch-night Service,” for on that night the Lord “preserved” or “kept” the destroyer from touching them.
43–49 The question arises concerning the “mixed multitude” who came out of Egypt with Israel and all such persons who might join them thereafter. Were they to keep the Passover also? Thus it was necessary to repeat and elaborate on the instructions already given.
No male was to participate in that meal unless he was circumcised and thus was a member of the community of faith. This excluded temporary residents, hired workers, aliens, and all foreigners. Furthermore, each lamb was to remain in one house (as implied in vv.3–10). Its parts were not to be divided and eaten in separate homes; it was to be the basis of a fellowship meal stressing the unity and joy of the participants. In addition, no bones of the paschal lamb were to be broken (cf. Ps 34:20 and Jn 19:33–36). This was the LORD’s Passover and not the table of Israel; therefore, the same requirement was made of all, whether native-born or alien.
50–51 The concluding notice is that Israel “did just what the LORD had commanded” (cf. v.28); and “on that very day” (cf. vv.17, 41) the much-delayed Exodus finally took place as the LORD brought Israel out by their “divisions.” Surprisingly, the desert journey began on the Sabbath!
G. The Consecration of the Firstborn (13:1–16)
1–2 Closely linked with the account of Israel’s release from Egypt and the Passover was the consecration of all the firstborn in Israel. The sanctification of all firstborn was commanded by God probably at Succoth, the first stopping place after the Exodus (12:37); and it fell within the seven days set aside for the Feast of Unleavened Bread (12:15).
The general principle is that every “firstborn” (GK 1147) male of both humans and animals (cf. vv.12–13) belongs to the Lord and is therefore “to be set apart” from common usage for holy purposes. Thus God set aside the seventh day, the tabernacle, the tribe of Levi—and here all firstborn. The basis for God’s claim was that he had already set apart to himself the firstborn in Israel on the day he smote all the firstborn of Egypt. God’s adoption of Israel as his “firstborn” led to his delivering them. From that time onward, that spared nation would dedicate the firstborn of its people and animals in commemoration of God’s acts of love and his deeds that night.
3–10 Further directions are given relating this consecration of the firstborn to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. When Israel possessed the land promised to her, this ceremony was to be observed annually. The Israelites were to explain to their children that they ate unleavened bread and set apart the firstborn to the Lord because of what he had done personally for each subsequent Israelite (and believer)—“for me”—when he brought Israel out of Egypt. Likewise, in v.16 subsequent generations would be taught that he brought “us” out of Egypt. This festival and consecration were to be a “sign” on the people’s hands and a “reminder” (GK 2355) or “memorial” between their eyes. No doubt this injunction was a figurative and proverbial mode of speech (cf. Pr 3:3), for the law of the Lord was “to be on [their] lips.”
11–16 As the destroyer “passed over” their firstborn and Israel later “passed over” the Red Sea, so now they were “to cause to pass over” or “give over” (GK 6296) to the LORD all their firstborn when they entered the land. Only two slight modifications were made to this principle: (1) all firstborn male humans (firstborn females were exempted) were to be redeemed or “bought back at a price” (fixed at five shekels in Nu 18:16; cf. also Nu 3:46–47), and (2) donkeys were to be “bought back” or “redeemed” (GK 7009) by a lamb or kid, since donkeys were unclean animals and therefore unfit for sacrifice. To prevent any refusal to follow this command to ransom their animals, the Israelites were to kill them by breaking their necks.
The obligation of the firstborn to serve the LORD in some nonpriestly work around the sanctuary was later transferred to the Levites who became God’s authorized substitutes for each firstborn boy or man (Nu 3). When the number of Levites was exhausted, additional males could be ransomed or redeemed at the price of five shekels apiece. Verses 15–16 again reiterate the explanation: the firstborn were owned by the LORD; for he dramatically spared them in the tenth plague, and he had previously called them to be his firstborn (4:22).
H. Journey to the Red Sea (13:17–15:21)
1. Into the wilderness (13:17–22)
17–18 There were three possible routes of escape: (1) a northeast route going to Qantara through the land of the Philistines to Gaza and Canaan; (2) a middle route heading across the Negeb to Beersheba, which incorrectly assumes Mount Sinai is Jebel Halal near Kadesh-Barnea; and (3) a southeast route leading from the wilderness east of modern Ismailia to the southern extremities of the Sinai Peninsula. Israel was warned not to take the shorter route through Philistia, for the prospects of fighting the bellicose Philistines would so demoralize Israel that they would change their minds and return to the servitude in Egypt. This judgment was proven correct when Israel was threatened with war in Nu 14:4.
Thus God led Israel around by the “desert road” or the “way of the wilderness” toward the “Red Sea” or, better, “Sea of Reeds” (Yam Suph, see NIV note). Israel camped on the west coast of the Sinai Peninsula by Yam Suph on their way to Horeb/Sinai (Nu 33:10–11), and later on Yam Suph is also used to refer to the salt waters of the Gulf of Aqaba (Dt 1:1; 1Ki 9:26; et al.). Thus nothing prevents our linking Yam Suph with the Red Sea.
19 The records in this verse are a verbatim report of Joseph’s words in Ge 50:25 except for the additional words “with you.” God’s promise of the land is never far from sight in any of these passages.
20 The exact location of Etham is unknown. It is described as a region in Nu 33:6 and appears to be equated with the Desert of Shur (Ex 15:22).
21–22 How God led the Israelites (v.17) is now explained. This single “pillar” (14:24), which was a cloud by day and a fire by night, and whose width at the base was sufficiently large to provide cover for Israel from the intense heat (Ps 105:39), was a visible symbol of the presence of the Lord in their midst. The pillar of the cloud and fire was but another name for “the angel of God,” for 14:19 and 22:20–22 equate the two. In fact, God’s Name was “in” this angel who went before them to bring them into Canaan (23:20–23). He was the “angel of his presence” (Isa 63:8–9). Malachi 3:1 calls him the “messenger of the covenant,” who is equated with the Lord, the owner of the temple. Obviously, then, the Christ of the NT is the shekinah glory or the Lord of the OT (see comment on Jn 1:14). Through this cloudy pillar the Lord spoke to Moses (33:9–11) and to the people (Ps 99:6–7). Such easy movement from the pillar of cloud and fire to the angel and back to the Lord himself has already been met in the same interchange between the burning bush, the angel, and the Lord in ch. 3.
The exodus and conquest narratives form the classic historical and spiritual drama of OT times. Subsequent ages looked back to this period as one of obedient and victorious living under divine guidance.
Copyright ©1991 Zondervan Publishing House.
2. At the Red Sea (14:1–14)
1–4 The command “to turn back” (GK 8740) meant a change in direction and perhaps even a temporary setback for Israel, but which way did they go? According to Nu 33:7, Pi Hahiroth was opposite Baal Zephon and between Migdol and the sea. The site of Pi Hahiroth has not been identified as yet. A possible location for Migdol (“tower”) is either Migdol near Succoth, mentioned in a papyrus of Seti I’s time, or the ruins of a square tower on a height known as Jebel Abu Hasan overlooking the southern part of the small Bitter Lake.
Pharaoh assumed that Israel’s divine help had run out and that they were hopelessly entangled on a dead-end trail since the desert, the sea, and marshes surrounded them. God, however, had commanded Moses to take this impossible route to show the Egyptians once more that he was God (see 7:17; 9:14) and to show Israel his great power (vv.30–31). Nevertheless, God would receive glory from Pharaoh and his army. That glory would have come to God whether Pharaoh had yielded or had rebelled and said in effect, “Those Hebrews will leave this place over my dead body!”
5–12 Shortly after Israel left, Pharaoh and his officials quickly put aside the terrors of that awful night when they lost their firstborn and decided to go after the Israelites, who had marched out of Egypt “boldly.” When they saw the Egyptian troops, the Israelites cried out in despair to the Lord, but not for long. Moses was a much more immediate target than the Lord, so they complained to him. Were there “no graves at all in Egypt?” They mocked in the most satirical tone possible (since Egypt specialized in graves and had about three-fourths of its land area available for grave sites). Then followed the “I-told-you-so” pseudoprophets. Suddenly the hardships of their Egyptian bondage were forgotten.
13–14 The former quick-tempered Moses patiently answered the people’s hasty accusation with three directives: (1) “Do not be afraid”; (2) “Stand firm” and see the salvation, i.e., the “deliverance of the LORD,” for “the LORD will fight for you”; and (3) “Be still,” i.e., stop all action and become inactive, for “he LORD will fight for you.
3. Across the Red Sea (14:15–31)
15–18 If God had promised to bring Israel out of Egypt and to give them the land of Canaan, then Moses and Israel had best stop their crying and begin to move on. The contrast between v.16 and v.17 is clear: “You,” Moses (emphatic position), use the staff in your hand to “divide” or “form a valley” so that Israel may go through the sea “on dry ground”; “I” (again the emphatic position), the Lord, will harden the hearts of the (pursuing) Egyptians (cf. 9:12)
19–20 The identity of the angel of God is clarified in the second part of v.19: the pillar of cloud and fire (see 13:22). The reality of God’s promised presence may be stated in the symbol of his presence (the pillar of cloud and fire), in his messenger (the angel of the Lord), or in the Lord himself, who “went ahead of them” (13:21; cf. 14:24). But when the presence of God “withdrew,” he went behind them to protect Israel’s rearguard. What was light for Israel became darkness for the Egyptians. The double nature of the glory of God in salvation and judgment could not have been more graphically depicted.
21–22 With the single gesture of Moses’ upraised hand over the sea, the Lord “drove . . . back” the sea by means of a “strong east wind all that night” (lit. tr.; cf. 15:8). The exact location of this “Reed Sea” crossing is unknown; but it would seem best to place it somewhere between the southern end of the Bitter Lakes and the Gulf of Suez or even in the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez itself. Meanwhile the waters formed a “wall” on the right and on the left. They were piled up like a “heap.” The event, while incorporating the natural element of the wind, has the element of the exceptional (cf. Dt 4:32, 34) accompanying it, which strongly suggests the presence of God.
23–28 Sometime during the morning watch the Lord “looked down” (GK 9207) at the Egyptian army as it began to pursue Israel across the recently formed valley in the sea and “threw it into confusion.” This “look” of God took on concrete proportions, for the pillar of fire must have suddenly lit up the sky with such a flash that the chariots careened against one another.
Meanwhile a spectacular display of thunder, lightning, rain, and earthquake struck terror in the boldest and most arrogant of Egypt’s charioteers (cf. Ps 77:16–20). By this time the thoroughly distracted Egyptians had another problem: God made the chariot wheels “come off” (NIV) or “jam” (cf. NIV note) against one another. The Egyptians had enough and were willing to forget about Israel altogether, but it was too late. The Lord had begun his fight against Egypt as promised in v.14, described in vv.27, 31, and celebrated in the song of 15:3. Israel had only to stand still and watch the victory won on their behalf; for with the upraised hand of Moses, the walls of water cascaded toward each other to resume their usual place just as dawn broke.
Pharaoh lost all the men and chariots he had committed to that engagement. Ps 136:15 records that God “swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea.” The destruction of the “entire army of Pharaoh” is qualified by the clause “that had followed the Israelites into the sea.” But all involved in the chase certainly perished: “Not one of them survived.”
29–31 The Lord had “saved” (GK 3828) Israel that day, for Israel saw the corpses of the Egyptians floating by. Above all, Israel saw with what great powers the Lord had delivered them, and they feared him and believed him and his servant Moses. Their response was back to where it was in 4:31 and the goal stated in 9:29–30: “that you [in this case, Egyptians] might know that the earth is the LORD’s . . . [and] fear [him].”
4. Song at the sea (15:1–21)
The song in vv.16–18 is one of three composed by Moses (see also Dt 31:22; Ps 90). It is a victory ode that hymns the spectacular power and unrivaled supremacy of God over Pharaoh’s chariots. The focus of the song is “the LORD” himself (the divine name appears ten times). The general outline of the song is divided between two themes: vv.1b–12, a retrospective description of the overthrow of the Egyptian forces; vv.13–18, a prospective prediction of Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land.
As we see it, the song has four strophes. Each strophe is then divided into three parts.
Exodus 15: Victory at Sea
Strophe I vv.1b–5
Part A: Introit—v.1b: “I will sing to the LORD”
Part B: Confession—vv.2–3
Part C: Narration—vv.4–5
Concluding simile: “like a stone,” v.5b
Strophe II vv.6–10
Part A: Introit—v.6: “Your right hand, O LORD”
Part B: Confession—vv.7–8
Part C: Narration—vv.9–10
Concluding simile: “like lead,” v.10b
Strophe III vv.11–16a
Part A: Introit—v.11: “Who . . . is like you, O LORD?”
Part B: Confession—vv.12–13
Part C: Anticipation—vv.14–16a
Concluding simile: “as a stone,” v.16a
Strophe IV vv.16b–18
Part A: Introit—v.16b: “Until your people pass by, O LORD”
Part B: Confession—v.17
Part C: Anticipation—v.18
1 Part A: Hymnic introit. The first person—“I will sing”—is not unusual for such invocations when the whole community praises God as one collective person; yet each individual also makes such praise/confession personally his or her own. The motivating reason is given immediately: “for he is [lit.] gloriously glorious” in that “the horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea.”
2–3 Part B: Confession. The two themes of the introit’s two bicola are now treated in sequence: (1) the Lord (in vv.2–3) and (2) the overthrown enemy (the narration in vv.4–5). In this confession five attributes of the Lord) are given—all in the first person: “my strength,” “my song,” “my salvation,” “my God,” and “my father’s God.” Then v.3 continues in the third person: “The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.”
The title in v.3 has caused many Christians to ask, “How can this ‘man of war’ [cf. Isa 42:13] be related to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?” The fact that he acts at all in wars speaks only to the point of his immanence and presence in the fabric of life, but it does not tell us any more about the moral character of God than “the LORD is our rock” or “stone” or “high tower” does.
4–5 Part C: Narration (of the work of God). The concern shifts to the enemy, and the four key words focus on the water: “sea,” “Red Sea,” the “deep waters,” and the “depths.” Just as the verbs of the confession in Part B were parallel ideas—“I will praise him,” “I will exalt him” (cf. the introit: “I will sing”)—so here they are synonymous: “he has hurled into the sea . . . are drowned. . . . The deep waters have covered them . . . they sank.” Then the strophe ends with a simile: “they sank to the depths like a stone.”
6 Strophe II: Part A: Introit. With repeated use of “Your right hand, O LORD,” the song announces the beginning of the second strophe using a descriptive metaphor for the omnipotence of God (cf. Moses’ song at Dt 33:2 and numerous Psalms). In this strophe more details and the mode of the enemy’s destruction are given.
7–8 Part B: Confession. The first line of four bicola recalls the phrase “highly exalted” of the introit (v.1). In the “greatness of your majesty,” you “pulled them down” (NIV, “threw down”; usually of demolishing buildings), those “risers up against you” (NIV, “opposed you”; here of those who wanted to destroy the building of God). God, with the burning heat of his wrath and a fiery look from the pillar of cloud, “consumed them like stubble.” The “strong east wind” of 14:21 is here represented in theological terms as “the blast of your nostrils,” thus confirming the divine agency behind the wind. The result was that the “waters piled up” and the “running, surging, flowing ones” stood “like a heap” (cf. Ps 78:13). (Later on the Jordan River will also “heap” up [Jos 3:13, 16].) Meanwhile the waves “congealed,” as if turned to solid ice. This was the power of God that Israel confessed.
9–10 Part C: Narration (of the work of God). Five bicola narrate in dramatic form the staccato phrases that almost simulate the heavy, breathless heaving of the Egyptians as, with what reserve of strength is left, they vow: “I will pursue” or “I will overtake,” “I will divide the spoils,” “I will gorge myself,” “I will draw my sword,” and “my hand will destroy [lit. and ironically, ‘dispossess’] them.” But v.10 changes all that; with a mere gust of God’s “breath” or “wind” (cf. v.8a), “the sea covered them,” and they “sank.” Like the first strophe (v.5), the second strophe ends with a simile: “They sank like lead in the mighty waters.”
11 Strophe III: Part A: Introit. The song now turns to the theological interpretation and the significance of all that was done. Using the formula for incomparability—“Who is like you”—Israel proclaims that God’s exclusive uniqueness had been demonstrated and “proven powerful by his [NIV, ‘majestic in’] holiness” and his “awesome . . . wonders” or “miracles.” No other “gods” (whose reality is neither affirmed nor denied at this point; cf. 12:12) could do what the Lord had done.
12–13 Part B: Confession. The second-person address of these verses matches vv.7–8 and v.17; therefore, these verses belong together and mark the three great works of God in three bicola: the victory at sea, guidance in the wilderness, and the destination of God’s “holy dwelling” in Canaan. Thus the heroic deeds at the sea were a pledge that God would fulfill his promise of giving the land. The “earth” may here signify Sheol, the grave (cf. 1Sa 28:13; Isa 29:4), for it was actually the sea that “swallowed them.” But it was God’s “grace” or “unfailing love” that would lead those who had been “redeemed.” The alliterative sequence of the Hebrew verbs (“you stretched out,” “you will lead,” and “you will guide”) adds to the majesty of the form and unity of the thought.
“Your holy dwelling” (lit., “your holy pasture or encampment”) cannot refer to Sinai since the nations in vv.14–15 would not have been affected by that mountain. Nor is Canaan alone meant; but v.17 clearly indicates that Moses had in mind that place in Canaan where God had promised him he would “put his Name” (Dt 12:5, 11, 21; et al.) in a place he had chosen (Dt 12:14, 18, 26; et al.), i.e., his temple on Mount Zion.
14–16a Part C: Anticipation (of the work of God). Once again the song shifts from the second person to the third person (cf. vv.4 and 9). A summary statement in v.14a precedes vv.14b–15, where four of Israel’s future enemies are listed: Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan. Thus the “nations” of v.14a may be the Egyptian designation for the “Asiatics” who occupied southern Palestine. That news of Israel’s sensational deliverance from the Egyptian army got around is clearly attested by Rahab (Jos 2:10–11). Canaan is here named by its residents along the southwestern coastal strip. The “chiefs” or “princes” of Edom introduces another piece of Mosaic identification, for the term is useful in the proto-dynastic era of Edom (cf. Ge 36:15–16), as is the local term of “leaders” or “rams” of Moab. But all these peoples and leaders shared one thing in common: fear. Seven expressions for fear are climaxed with the strophe, concluding with a simile for “stone”-cold “silence.”
16b Strophe IV: Part A: Introit. Once more the repetitive parallelism introduces the past and the climactic word—this time the outcome of God’s great work at the sea: “Until your people pass by” or “cross over” into Canaan (or perhaps the Jordan), even the people who had been “bought.”
17 Part B: Confession. Based on God’s parallel handling of Pharaoh and the nations that would oppose their entrance into Canaan, Israel may now anticipate the fulfillment of the patriarchal promise that they would be given—in that future day when the Lord would reign forever—the land of Canaan as an inheritance (on the figure of “planting,” see Pss 44:2; 80:8–16). The text moves from the “mountain of [his] inheritance” to a “place . . . for [his] dwelling,” even the “sanctuary” his “hands established” (see v.13).
18 Part C: Anticipation (of the work of God). In one final burst of unbounded joy, Moses and Israel rejoice in the prospect of God’s universal rule and reign lasting forever. How temporary in comparison were the reigns of such hardened rulers as Pharaoh and the leaders of state in Canaan and its environs!
19–21 A narrative interlude separates the Song of Moses from Miriam’s song in v.21. Miriam is called a “prophetess” (cf. Nu 12:2) and a “sister” of Aaron, even though she was also Moses’ sister. But apparently she ranked only with Aaron and not with Moses. There would be other prophetesses in Israel (Jdg 4:4; 2Ki 22:14; Ne 6:14; et. al). As a prophetess and a leader in Israel (Mic 6:4), Miriam led the women perhaps in an antiphonal response, repeating the song at the conclusion of each part or strophe, accompanied by timbrels and dancing.
I. Journey to Sinai (15:22–18:27)
1. The waters of Marah (15:22–27)
22–23 The “Desert of Shur” is the whole district ranging from Egypt’s northeastern frontier eastward into the northwestern quarter of the Sinai Desert and extending southward to the mountains of Sinai. Shur, meaning “wall,” is mentioned several times in Genesis (16:7; 20:1; 25:18). In Nu 33:8 this area is called the “Desert of Etham.” Perhaps Etham reflects the old Egyptian word for “fort.”
Israel’s first stop is traditionally placed at Ain Musa, the “Springs of Moses,” a site not mentioned in any biblical text. It was a source of sweet water about sixteen to eighteen hours’ journey north of Marah (“bitter”), Israel’s first-mentioned stop. This traditional site for crossing the Red Sea is about ten miles south of the northern end of the Red Sea and about one-half mile inland from the coast. The journey from Ain Musa to Marah was about forty miles.
At first the Israelites contended with a stony desert, bounded by the deep blue waters of the Gulf of Suez on their right and the mountain chains of El Ruhat on their left. After nine more miles, they came into the desert plain called el Ati, a white, glaring stretch of sand that turned into hilly country with sand dunes rolling out to the coast. But water was nowhere to be found. Marah is usually identified with Ain Hawarah, a site several miles inland from the Gulf. Ain Hawarah’s waters are notoriously salty and brackish.
24 The people’s grumbling is strong evidence of the historical truthfulness of the wanderings narrative. As a general pattern the grumblings that preceded the golden calf incident are raised by genuine need, but those that follow are mainly illegitimate forms of murmuring. The unpalatable waters at Marah made a strong enough impression so as to obliterate all the miracles of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea—or so it appeared.
25a The Lord “showed” (GK 3723) Moses a tree. The verb “showed” is from the root that means “to teach” or “instruct” and is the same root from which we derive the word “Torah” (“instruction,” “law”; GK 9368). Israel was to learn that the instruction they needed, after being freed from Egypt, would come from heaven. This, in turn, would prepare them for the reception of the precept of the laws. The text is clear that God gave Moses special instructions in response to the despair of the people. The tree may have had little more to do with the actual temporary healing of the waters than did the salt in Elisha’s healing of the Jericho spring in 2Ki 2:19–22. In both cases it may only be the power of God and a test of obedience that are present.
25b–27 This miracle was connected with a promise: From now on obedience to commands and statutes would bring healing, both physically and morally. God allowed Israel to go three days without water to “test” them. God later tested Israel at Meribah (17:1–7), at Sinai (20:20), at Taberah (Nu 11:3; 13:26–33), and elsewhere; but it was “to humble [them] and to test [them] in order to know what was in [their] heart[s]” (Dt 8:2). On the other hand, the “diseases” God “brought on” the Egyptians would afflict Israel if they disobeyed and rebelled against God (Dt 28:27).
Israel journeyed to “Elim,” located in the large and beautiful valley of Gharandel, about seven miles south of Ain Hawarah. This tract of land lies between the wilderness of Shur and the wilderness of Sin and contains two other wadis besides the Wadi Gharandel. In the rainy season a constant torrent of water runs down to the Red Sea. The grass is thick and high, and there are many trees there.
2. The manna and the quail (16:1–36)
1–3 The “fifteenth day of the second month” was exactly one month after Israel had left Egypt (12:6, 31). Since Nu 33:5–11 mentions only seven places of encampment and only one journey of three days’ duration (Ex 15:22), it is evident that either Israel stayed at several of these places for a number of days or that they camped in a number of other unmentioned places. The Hebrew text implies that they may have left Elim in various detachments and finally assembled as a complete group when they all reached the Desert of Sin. The location of the Desert of Sin is problematic.
This time the people “grumbled” about the amount of food and the lack of meat. Suddenly Egypt seemed all peaches and cream (actually pots of meat and all you could eat) rather than bondage and slave drivers. With a twisted piety and a condescending reference to the Lord’s name, the Israelites pretended that they would have preferred being victims at God’s hand in Egypt to being the recipients of so many miracles—and all this hardship. The provisions from Egypt may have lasted these thirty days, but their supplies were undoubtedly exhausted.
4–5 God would graciously answer the Israelites’ grumbling by raining down on them “bread from heaven” (cf. Ne 9:15; Ps 78:24; Jn 6:31–51). But there was to be a “test” (GK 5814) to see whether Israel would obey and trust God by faith. Already prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments, the seventh day was to be set apart to the Lord because of the Creation ordinances in Ge 2:2–3. On the sixth day, the people were to gather twice the daily amount. It was not to be left or eaten in the form they gathered it; instead, it was to be prepared by milling and baking (cf. Nu 11:8).
6–8 The first part of v.8 explains that Israel’s lapse of memory would be restored that very evening, when God sent them food in a way yet to be announced; then they would know (here is that evangelistic word from the plagues) that it was the Lord! The second part of v.8 elaborates on the inner meaning of the words in v.7b: your grumbling is not directed at your leaders, but ultimately your complaint is against God. Hence we have the theology and abiding principles to be gained from Israel’s appreciation (and ours!), for what God did here is placed in front of the actual narration of the events.
9–12 Moses instructed Aaron to summon the congregation to “come [near] before the LORD.” Verse 10 explains that they were to look toward the desert where the Lord appeared in the cloud. The meaning of this symbol of the real presence of God connected with the splendor of this cloud and fire will be clarified in 24:15–17. Once again, as in vv.6 and 8, Israel “will know that I am the LORD your God.”
13–18 The events describing the gift of quail is similar in form but separate in time from the narrative in Nu 11:4–22, 31–33 (that event took place in the second year of the wanderings, Nu 10:11). Quail (not locusts or flying fish, but “feathered fowls” as Ps 78:27–31 makes clear) are well-known migratory birds. They usually fly in vast numbers in the spring to the northern regions and return in the fall. Because of their prolonged flight over the Red Sea, they landed exhausted on the shore of the Sinai Peninsula.
Not only did the quail “come up” from the horizon, but so did the dew “come up.” When the dew evaporated, beneath it appeared “thin flakes like frost on the ground, . . . on the desert floor.” The peoples’ question “What is it?” (Heb., man hu) shows why Israel called this bread from heaven “manna” (GK 4942; see v.31). Various natural explanations have been suggested for the origin of the manna, but they all run into trouble when trying to fully explain its miraculous occurrence. In the final analysis, it was a unique substance, miraculously created for a special purpose. Each family unit was to gather “an omer,” about two quarts or one-tenth of a bushel (v.36), for each person in their tent.
19–21 In spite of his warning that God was testing (v.4) the people by ordering them not to leave any manna until the next morning, “some . . . paid no attention to Moses.” This test was to remind Israel that they did not live by bread alone but by “every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Dt 8:3). Furthermore, it taught Israel that even their daily bread was a gift from God; therefore, they were to live in daily dependence on him.
22–30 The day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord, did not originate with the Sinaitic legislation; for even in 20:8–11 it was grounded in the ordinances of Creation (Ge 2:2–3; cf. also 29:27). This pattern of six days for gathering and one day of rest was ordered by God (v.5). The seventh day was to be a “day of” cessation or “rest”; therefore, food preparations for the morrow were to be made on the sixth day. But when some failed to obey, the Lord groaned: “How long will you [pl.] refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?” Only then did the people “rest” (lit., “stop,” “cease”) on the seventh day.
31 The name and description of manna are given also in Nu 11:6–9. Coriander seed is a small, lobular grain that is white or yellowish gray and is used for seasoning (cf. our use of caraway and sesame seeds). Numbers 11:7 adds that it “looked like resin” and, according to the older versions, that it had the color of “bdellium” (KJV; = pearl?). Its taste was like wafers made of honey or “something made with olive oil” (Nu 11:8); and it could be ground in a mill, crushed in a mortar, cooked in a pot, or made into cakes (Nu 11:8).
32–36 At some subsequent time, Moses ordered that the manna be memorialized by placing some of it into the ark of the testimony. The ark had not been revealed, much less constructed, at this time. In support of this position is the historical note in v.35, which describes the eating of manna over the next forty years; therefore, these verses were written by Moses at the end of the wanderings.
3. The waters of Meribah (17:1–7)
1–2 Before Israel came to Rephidim, the people rested at Dophkah and Alush (Nu 33:12–14). Rephidim is best identified as the large Wadi Refayid, in southwest Sinai, instead of Wadi Feiran. They had hoped to find water, but the wadi was already dry. This situation presents us with a third narrative on the Lord’s provision for Israel’s needs in the desert.
As a result of this disappointment, the people “quarreled” with Moses, demanding: “Give [pl. form] us water to drink.” The verb “to quarrel” (GK 8189; from the root rib) explains one of the names for this place, “Meribah” (v.7), which means “quarrel,” “strife,” or “argument.” What had been a gracious gift of God through Moses’ hands was demanded as a magical solution to their problem: “Give it to us.”
Significantly, Israel had traveled to Rephidim specifically “as the LORD commanded” (lit., “at the mouth of the LORD”). Thus God in his wisdom had directed his people to move from the Desert of Sin (where they hungered but afterward were satisfied) to Rephidim (where they thirsted).
Instead of submitting to the tests God was conducting for them (15:25; 16:4), Israel began to test the Lord (Pss 78:56; 106:7, 14, 25, 29)! God’s people tempt or test their Lord when they distrust his kindness and providential care and grumble against him and/or his leaders. Moses would later warn (Dt 6:16) that the people were not to put God to the test as they did at Massah.
3 Biblical narrative often leads off the story with a general statement (here, v.2) and then by means of a coordinate clause explains in more detail the theme announced in the previous verse(s). Accordingly, it might be better to translate v.3: “Since the people were thirsty for water.”
4–7 Moses took his difficulties to the Lord (15:25; 32:30; et al.). In his exasperation he pled, “What am I to do with these people?” Thus they were ready to stone Moses—an angry mob’s solution to an irritating problem.
The Lord’s response was to move directly to sending relief. Moses, with a few elders, was to go in front of the people—presumably farther down the wadi. There, where the pillar of the cloud stood as the symbol of God’s own presence, Moses was to “strike [on] the rock” just as he had “struck” the Nile River. Striking the Nile (7:17, 20) in the first plague, however, signaled an interruption in that nation’s water supply, whereas this striking would signal the commencement of the flow of waters.
This incident is not to be confused with a similar episode that comes near the conclusion of Israel’s forty years of journeying in Nu 20:1–13. In this later account, the glory of the Lord is not present; and Moses is explicitly instructed that he is not to strike the rock but only to speak to it.
Thus we have the dual name that brought out both the people’s testing of God (Massah; i.e., “test”) and their quarreling (Meribah; i.e., “contention,” “strife”). In less than six months the Israelites had witnessed ten plagues, the pillar of cloud and fire, the opening and shutting of the Red Sea, the miraculous sweetening of the water, and the sending of food and meat from heaven; yet their real question came down to this: “Is the LORD among us or not?”
4. The war with Amalek (17:8–16)
8 The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Ge 14:7), otherwise known as the northern part of the Negev (Nu 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau’s eldest boy) by a concubine named Timna (Ge 36:12) and became a “clan” or “chief” in the tribe of Esau (Ge 36:15). Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites.
Amalek’s assault on Israel drew the anger of God because they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel’s life and destiny and because the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Dt 25:17–19). Thus Amalek became the “first among the nations” (Nu 24:20)—in this case, to attack Israel. They are juxtaposed with another group of Gentiles in the next chapter (Jethro’s Midianites) who believed in Israel’s God. These two chapters illustrate two kingdoms and two responses to the grace of God from the Gentile world.
9 To direct the battle against the Amalekites, Moses commissioned a young man (perhaps about forty-five) from the tribe of Ephraim (Joseph’s son) named Hoshea (Nu 13:8) the son of Nun (1Ch 7:27), who later was renamed Joshua. He was to muster an army to fight against the Amalekites while Moses, with the staff of God in his hand, would stand on top of one of the nearby hills overlooking the plain. Both elements were to be operating: the sword in Joshua’s hand and the staff (symbol of divine intervention) in Moses’ hand.
10–13 Aaron and Hur went with Moses up the hill. Hur is again mentioned with Aaron in 24:14. Whether this is the same Hur who descended from Judah through Caleb (1Ch 2:18–20) and whose grandson Bezalel built the tabernacle (Ex 31:2) is difficult to say. Tradition says that Hur was the husband of Moses’ sister, Miriam.
“As long as” Moses held up his hands, Joshua and his men were victorious. However, “whenever he lowered his hands” through weariness, the Amalekites forged ahead in the battle. This gesture was not merely for psychological effect to inspire the troops every time they glanced up the hill. Nor does the text specifically claim that Moses prayed while his hands were raised. Rather, Moses’ outstretched arms primarily symbolized his appeal to God. Finally the lengthy battle came to an end, with Joshua as victor and with the help of Aaron and Hur in holding Moses’ hands up.
14 The account of this battle, in which the powerful presence of the Lord played an important role, was to be written down on a scroll and continually reiterated for Joshua’s benefit. Amalek would pay dearly for its awful deed. The psalmist (Ps 83:4, 7) links Amalek’s motives with those of other nations: “‘Come,’ they say, ‘let us destroy them as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more.’ ” But what they had threatened to do to Israel would be measured out to them. This sentence of total extinction was not yet carried out in Saul’s day (1Sa 15), for Saul failed to do what God had said. David continued the action (2Sa 1:1–8:12); and it may still have been going on in Esther’s day, if Haman indeed is proven to have been an Amalekite.
15–16 Whether “The LORD is my Banner” is the name of the altar (cf. Jacob in Ge 33:20) or a title for God himself cannot be known for certain. The result is the same in either case. The Hebrew word for “banner” reflects the root “to be high,” “raised,” or “conspicuous.” The allusion is to lifting up the staff as a standard and a testimony to his power. The victory, then, was the Lord’s, just as the war had been his.
The interpretation of v.16 is difficult because of the unusual spelling of the word “throne” (kes). The best solution (taking the more difficult textual reading) is to see kesyah as a shortened form of kisse’-yah (“throne of Yah[weh]”). The text would then read: “Truly, the hand is towards the throne of the Lord,” i.e., in a supplicating position. An alternative rendering is “because a hand is against the throne of the LORD” (see NIV note). This latter reading fits the context of v.14 better.
5. The wisdom of Jethro (18:1–27)
1–5 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, met Moses and the Israelites in the desert at the “mountain of God” (see 3:1). Moses must have sent his wife and children on ahead to Midian to bring Jethro back to Sinai for a visit. Zipporah, Gershom, and Eliezer may have been sent back to Midian after the family dispute in 4:20–26. But it would have been most important for Eliezer as the next high priest to be a firsthand witness of all that God had done for Israel in the Exodus.
6–8 Jethro announced his arrival by means of a messenger, and Moses went out to meet him (cf. Ge 18:2; 19:1; 32:6; 33:1) and to exchange the usual Oriental greetings. Moses then recounted “all” that “the LORD” (the personal and covenantal name of God is used instead of the generic name Elohim, which depicts God’s relationship to all creation) had done. As the psalmist exhorted (Ps 145:5–7, 12), so Moses acted, recounting the awesome work and abundant goodness of the Lord both in Israel’s rescue from Egypt and in their subsequent “hardships” along the way.
9–12 The news evoked an instinctive “Praise the LORD” from Jethro, thereby showing either that he had continued believing in the God of his fathers (cf. Ge 25:2) or that he had spiritually benefited from Moses’ forty-year stay in his house. Jethro continued, “Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods.” This confession formula is a clear statement to the Lord’s incomparable greatness above all the gods of Egypt.
Jethro then “took” or “brought” a burnt offering and fellowship offerings (NIV, “other sacrifices”) to God (Elohim). “Brought” (GK 4374) is the customary word for proffering or providing an animal for sacrifice; it is never used in the OT in the sense of “to offer.” Accordingly, he did not officiate as priest by “offering” these sacrifices, but he did worship and fellowship with Moses and Aaron “in the presence of God.”
The generic name for God (Elohim) is used instead of the covenantal, personal name (Yahweh), perhaps because God was relating to the Gentile and the Jewish world simultaneously. Clearly Jethro was an outsider, an alien (a ger) like the name Moses gave to his son—Gershom), even though he had made a strong declaration of faith in vv.10–11. “In the presence of God” may simply reflect the phrase “the glory of God,” and thus we may have a covenant meal eaten in the presence of the God who dwells in the midst of his people.
13–16 Jethro is depicted as an efficiency expert who wisely suggests a modification in Israel’s leadership structure (cf. vv.17–23), which Moses then adopted with divine permission. Prior to this the people came to Moses for instruction and judicial settlements.
17–23 Jethro’s solution to this lengthy process, which was wearing out both the people and their leader, was to give Moses that portion of the work that involved a twofold office: an advocate on behalf of the people and an interpreter on behalf of God to teach the people. Jethro warned that his plan needed to be executed only if God was pleased with this advice.
Moses’ work was to be supplemented with additional help. He was to “select capable men.” While it may seem from this passage that Moses autocratically chose his own staff, the actual election was the work of all the people, as Dt 1:9, 13 affirms. Their leadership course was to include instruction in “decrees” (i.e., specific enactments), “laws” (i.e., general enactments), the “way to live” (i.e., lifestyle and the path of duty), and the “duties” (or jobs) each was to perform.
The qualifications for these men were that they should be “capable men” (i.e., men with a native aptitude for judging), “men who fear [in reverence and belief] God,” men of truth (i.e., “trustworthy”), and men who hated all “dishonest gain.” These were to be arranged in a decimal system of a graduated series of groups in multiples of ten, with Moses being the court of final appeal.
24–27 Amazingly enough, Moses listened to his father-in-law, having been taught by a man who was not even an Israelite.
II. Divine Morality (19:1–24:18)
A. The Eagles’ Wings Speech (19:1–8)
1–2 In the third month Israel left Rephidim (see 17:1, 8) and came to the Desert of Sinai. “The desert in front of the mountain” is called er-Raha (meaning “the palm [of a hand]”) in that it is a flat plain about five thousand feet above sea level that stretches over four hundred acres. Several mountains have been associated with Sinai. Most scholars prefer Gebel Musa (7, 363 feet elevation at the southern end of er-Raha) because of its relation to the plain (20:18: “they stayed at a distance”) and because of its imposing granite formations.
3–6 The “sign” given to Moses in 3:12 is fulfilled here: he has returned to the “mountain of God” (3:1). When Moses “went up” the mountain, the Lord delivered his “eagles’ wings speech.” A twofold title is used for the people of God: “house of Jacob” (a reminder of their humble beginnings; cf. Ge 28:13; 35:11; 49:7) and “the people of Israel” (a statement as to what they had become: a nation).
The metaphor of the eagles’ wings could refer to one of the eight species of eagles found in Syria, Palestine, and Arabia in addition to the Palestinian vulture. Here it is probably the latter one. This metaphor is developed most extensively in Dt 32:11, where the loving compassion, protection, strength, and watchfulness of God are compared to the majestic bird’s attributes. As the young eagles were carried on the adult wings and brought out of their nests and taught to fly, so the Lord had lovingly carried and safely delivered Israel.
The covenant mentioned here, first given to the patriarchs, was unconditional in its transmission and bestowal, but it was indeed conditioned with regard to its enjoyment and personal participation. The presence of the “if” in v.5 did not, however, pave the way for Israel’s declension from grace into law any more than an alleged presence of a condition paved an identical fall for the patriarchs (Ge 22:16–18; 26:5) or for David (2Sa 7:14–15; 1Ki 2:4; 8:25; et al.).
Three titles summarize the divine blessings that an obedient and covenant-keeping Israel will experience: they would be a “treasured possession” (GK 6035), “a kingdom [GK 4930] of priests [GK 3913),” and “a holy [GK 7705] nation [GK 1580].” The first signified that Israel would be God’s valuable property and distinct treasure (Dt 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4; Mal 3:17; cf. Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9), set aside for a marked purpose. Furthermore, they were to be at once priest-kings and royal-priests (Isa 61:6; cf. 1Pe 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)—everyone in the whole nation. This expression was not a parallel phrase or a synonym for a “holy nation”; it was a separate entity. The whole nation was to act as mediators of God’s grace to the nations of the earth (cf. Ge 12:3c). The last title designated Israel as a separate and distinct nation because her God was holy, separate, and distinct, as were his purposes and plans (Dt 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; Isa 62:12; cf. 1Pe 2:9).
This whole synopsis of God’s suzerainty treaty with his vassal Israel is remarkably personal. It begins and concludes with “to the sons of Israel.” Its first and last clauses are introduced by an emphatic “you” along with two other references to “you” in v.4.
7–8 The people responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said.” Some commentators have criticized Israel for speaking rashly by agreeing to do all that God said; for they went off the promise, so it is alleged, and onto a law standard. On the contrary, the Lord approved of their response in glowing terms: “Everything they said was good. Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commandments always” (Dt 5:28–29).
B. The Advent of God on Sinai (19:9–25)
9 To forestall all future pretext for saying that the law Moses was about to give to Israel was of his own devising, God conferred on Moses the highest possible honor and deference ever given to mortals. The “you” in this verse is singular, but the event of the advent or coming of God in a dense, dark cloud was public. Ordinarily God dwelt with his people in a pillar of cloud and fire; but here it turned dense and pitch black, perhaps with a roar of thunder and the flash of lightning as God’s voice pierced his creation. The voice of God speaking to Moses (cf. Dt 4:32–33) would be audible in the camp so that Israel and all her true descendants would trust in Moses’ words both then and for all time.
10–15 As a token of their inward preparation for meeting with God on the third day, the people were to wash their clothes, stay off the mountain, and abstain from sexual relations. The theology of this passage is fitness for meeting with God and preparation for the worship of God (see on 3:5). This is not to say that there was intrinsic virtue in the mere act of washing clothes or abstaining from marital relations, but the outward act was to signal that the inner work of sanctification had also been sought.
Sealing off the mountain was as much a temporary and arbitrary boundary as it was in 3:5, but it was introduced as an aid for the proper worship of a holy God. The penalty for intruding on such a holy scene was death, since anyone who dared to transgress so explicit a divine precept was already a profane and sacrilegious person whose presence would pollute the rest of the worshiping community. This was tantamount to what Nu 15:30–31 calls “sinning defiantly” or what the NT regards as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:26–31). After the “ram’s horn” sounded a long, drawn-out blast, the people could once again ascend the mountain (v.13b).
16–19 The advent of God took place amid a most impressive display of cosmic disruptions: thunder and lightning (cf. Ps 77:18; Heb 12:18–19; Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19), an exceedingly loud trumpet blast (cf. Rev 1:10; 4:1), and a thick cloud (Ex 19:9; 2Ch 5:14). A deep moral impression was made on the people, for they were in the presence of the glorious majesty of the holy God who was about to reveal his person and character in his law.
20–25 Moses’ reaction to this awesome sight is not given here, but in Heb 12:21 his response is, “I am trembling with fear.” God’s response came in v.21. Moses was to warn the people not to intrude rashly on the presence of God. The triple emphasis (vv.12–13, 21–22, 25) is a standard literary practice when the text wants us to notice an important subject. Thus the boundary between the human and the divine was not to be taken lightly by mortals.
“Even” the priests who approached the Lord were to consecrate themselves. Certainly this was not the Aaronic priesthood, because that had not yet been established. It must be a reference to the “firstborn” of every family who were dedicated and consecrated to God (13:2). Only later was the tribe of Levi substituted for each firstborn male (Nu 3:45). Should the people fail to observe this request, the Lord would “break out against them.”
C. The Decalogue (20:1–17)
The purpose of the law of God was threefold: (1) to show the awful sinfulness of humans in their moral distance from God, (2) to demonstrate humanity’s need for a mediator if they were ever to approach God, and (3) to outline how humans should live more abundantly by using as their guide the unchangeable perfections of the nature of God as revealed in the moral law.
The grammatical form of these commandments needs some comment. There are only three positive statements in vv.2–17—all without a finite verb (vv.2, 8, 12). These phrases might be rendered thus:
- “I, being the LORD your God . . .” [Therefore observe commandments one to three]
- “Remembering the Sabbath day . . .” [Therefore do vv.9–11]
- “Honoring your father and your mother . . .” [Therefore observe commandments six to ten]
The resulting outline would be as follows: (1) Right Relations With God (vv.2–7), (2) Right Relations in the Worship of God (vv.8–11), and (3) Right Relations With Society (vv.12–17).
1–2 God’s commandments are simply labeled “all these words.” The title “Ten Commandments” comes from Ex 34:28 and Dt 4:13, while Heb 12:19 speaks of “a voice speaking words.” God himself is the speaker and source of these commandments (cf. Dt 5:12–13, 32–33).
The lawgiver places his law in the environment of grace, for it was his gracious act of redemption and deliverance from Egypt that revealed his name, “the LORD.” The “I” is both emphatic and the subject; “the LORD” is the predicate. The introduction of the Lord’s name at this point brackets both ends of the Exodus event: In Ex 3:14 and 6:2, God tied the promise of his deliverance of Israel from Egypt with his name. Now that that promise had become reality, the Lord proclaimed his name once again. All that the Lord is, says, and does is embodied in this one affirmation: “I am the LORD.” The rest of the statement is one of the great formulas of Scripture, used 125 times to describe the character and graciousness of the Lord.
3 In the first commandment there is only one difficult expression, the phrase “before/besides me.” Nowhere does this phrase in the Hebrew mean “except me.” It is perhaps best translated, “You shall not prefer other gods to me.” The result, however, is the same: The Lord is the only true God.
4–6 The second commandment discusses the mode rather than the object of worship. It has two parts: the precept (vv.4–5a) and the penalty (vv.5b–6).
The OT is replete with synonyms and words (there are fourteen) for idols and images. Verse 23 explains the proscribed idols as “gods of silver or gods of gold.” “Idol” also includes images carved from stone or wood and later those made from metal. Since pesel (“idol”; GK 7181) refers to statues, “resemblance” or “form” applies to real or imagined pictorial representations. None of these is to be made with the intention to worship it. This word was not meant to stifle artistic talent but only to avoid improper substitutes that, like the idols of Canaan, would steal hearts away from the true worship of God. One need only to consider the tabernacle with its ornate appointments—all under divine instruction—to see that making representations is not absolutely forbidden.
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them” is a figure of speech called hendiadys, where two expressions are used to convey a single idea, namely, “to offer religious worship.” This expression is only used with respect to giving worship to foreign deities forbidden to Israel.
The sanctions attached to this command begin with the majestic reminder that “I, the LORD [Yahweh] your God, am a jealous God.” The term “jealous” (or “zealous”; GK 7862) must not be understood in such popular misconceptions as God is naturally suspicious, distrustful, or wrongly envious of the success of others. When used of God it denotes (1) that attribute that demands exclusive devotion (Ex 34:14; Dt 4:24; 5:9; 6:15), (2) that attitude of anger directed against all who oppose him (Nu 25:11; Dt 29:20; Ps 79:5; et al.), and (3) that energy he expended on vindicating his people (2Ki 19:31; Isa 9:7; 37:32; et al.). Thus all idolatry, which Scripture labels elsewhere as spiritual adultery, that raises up competitors or brooks any kind of rivalry to the honor, glory, and esteem due to the Lord will excite his zealousness for the consistency of his own character and being.
Children often repeat the sins of their fathers by personally hating God; hence they too are punished like their fathers. Moses made it plain in Dt 24:16 that such punishment is the result of the children’s own sin. The effects of disobedience last for some time, but the effects of loving God are far more extensive: “to a thousand [generations].”
7 The third commandment deals with the profession of the mouth in true adoration of God. The “name” (GK 9005) of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person (Ps 20:1; Lk 24:47; Jn 1:12), (2) his teaching or doctrine (Ps 22:22; Jn 17:6, 26), and (3) his moral and ethical teaching (Mic 4:5) (see ZPEB, 4:360–66).
To “take up” the name of the Lord on one’s lips “in vain” meant to “misuse” it, i.e., to use it for no purpose. Some vain uses of God’s name on the lips of his people (1) express mild surprise, (2) fill in the gaps in speeches or prayers, and (3) confirm something that is false. This commandment does not exclude legitimate oaths, for they appear frequently (e.g., Dt 6:13; Ps 63:11; Isa 45:23; Jer 4:2; 12:16; Ro 1:9; 9:1; 1Co 15:31; Php 1:8; Rev 10:5–6).
8–11 The fourth commandment invokes the remembrance of the Sabbath. The term “Sabbath” (GK 8701) is derived from the Hebrew verb “to rest or cease from work.” The Hebrews were to set aside each seventh day as belonging to the Lord their God. The command to remember the Sabbath is moral insofar as it requires of a person a due portion of his or her time dedicated to the worship and service of God, but it is ceremonial in that it prescribes the seventh day. The sanctity of the first day in honor of God’s new deliverance, which the Lord Jesus accomplished in his death and finally in his resurrection, was already signaled in the symbolism of the feasts in Lev 23—“the day after the Sabbath” (v.15); “on the first day hold a sacred assembly” (v.7); “the first day is a sacred assembly . . . on the eighth” (vv.35–36). Indeed, these were the very feasts that pointed forward to the same events that Christians now celebrate on Sunday!
The reason for memorializing this day rested on two works of God: one retrospective (v.11 links it with the Creation), which pointed to the new Rest of God in the end times; the other prospective in the plan of redemptive history (Dt 5:15 links it with the Exodus from Egypt), which pointed to a new Exodus in the final day. This interpretation is borne out by the fact that the Sabbath was another “sign” of the covenant (see on 31:12–17).
12 The fifth commandment, to “honor” (GK 3877) one’s parents, involves (1) prizing them highly (cf. Pr 4:8); (2) caring, showing affection for them (Ps 91:15); and (3) showing respect or fear, or revering them (Lev 19:3). Parents are to be shown honor, but nowhere is their word to rival or be a substitute for God’s word. The promise in Eph 6:2–3 attached to this commandment to revere one’s parents is unique, even though there is a sense in which the promise of life stands over all the commandments (Dt 4:1; 8:1; 16:20; 30:15–16). The captivity of Israel would be caused, in part, by a failure to honor their parents (Eze 22:7, 15).
13 The sixth commandment forbids murder. The ethical theology that lies behind this prohibition is that all humans have been created in the image of God (Ge 1:26–27; 9:6). While Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here (rasah; GK 8357) appears only forty-seven times in the OT. This is the one word that could signify “murder” where premeditation and intentionality are present. Thus this prohibition does not apply to beasts (Ge 9:3), to defending one’s home from night-time burglars (Ex 22:2), to accidental killings (Dt 19:5), to the execution of murderers by the state (Ge 9:6), or to involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e., suicide), to all accessories to murder (2Sa 12:9), and to those who have authority but fail to use it to punish known murderers (1Ki 21:19).
14 The seventh commandment forbids adultery. The verb “to commit adultery” can be used of either men or women. Since the punishment for adultery is death (Dt 22:22) while the penalty for the seduction of a virgin is an offer of marriage or money (Ex 22:16–17; Dt 22:23–29), adultery is distinguished from fornication in the OT.
15 The eighth commandment prohibits stealing either a person or an object. This commandment recognizes that the Lord owns everything (cf. Pss 24:1; 115:16), and only he can give it or take it away. Therefore no one must despotically enslave or kidnap his fellow human being or usurp the rights to property he has not owned or been given.
16 The ninth commandment calls for sanctity of truth in all areas of life, even though the vocabulary primarily reflects the legal process in Israel. To despise the truth was to despise God, whose very being and character are truth.
17 The tenth commandment disallows covetousness, namely, “to desire earnestly,” “to long after,” or “to covet” (GK 2773; cf. Dt 5:21). This commandment deals with one’s inner heart and shows that none of the previous nine commandments could be observed merely from an external or formal act. Every inner instinct that led up to the act itself was also included (cf. 1Ti 6:6).
D. The Reaction of the People to the Theophany (20:18–21)
18 The awe-inspiring phenomena that heralded the theophany (i.e., the appearance of God) terrified the people. What had been depicted in 19:16–19 is here restated anew from the perspective of the people’s reactions to these same phenomena. The “mountain [was] in smoke” because it was “ablaze with fire” (Dt 5:23).
19 The people suddenly had no desire to approach God’s holy presence (cf. Heb 12:19). They instinctively sensed their need for a mediating priesthood or representative person to approach God on their behalf. Out of this realized need came one of the greatest revelations in a long line of OT promises of the Messiah. He would be a “prophet” like Moses who would speak God’s word to them (see Dt 18:15–22). As a result of this arrangement, the people “stayed at a distance,” and Moses delivered God’s word to them.
20–21 “Do not be afraid,” Moses told the people (cf. 14:13); for God had not come to kill Israel (cf. Dt 5:24–25) but to test her. This verse contrasts two types of “fear”: tormenting fear (which comes from conscious guilt or unwarranted alarm and leads to bondage) or salutary fear (which promotes and demonstrates the presence of an attitude of complete trust and belief in God; cf. Ge 22:12). This second type will keep us from sinning (cf. Pr 1:7; Ecc 12:13; et al.).
Israel’s newly appointed mediator “drew near” or “approached” the thick darkness where God was and received the directives contained in the Book of the Covenant.
E. The Book of the Covenant (20:22–23:33)
The title for this section derives from 24:7. The laws may be arranged into two basic types. The conditional form, where the main condition and additional subheadings are introduced by “if” or “when,” is called the casuistic or case law (laws based on actual precedents: “if a person . . .” or “when a person . . .”) formulations. The second type takes a categorical, unconditional form and is in the second person (most frequently the singular), often with a negative command or prohibition. This is the form used for most of the Ten Commandments and called the apodictic (i.e., expressing what is always true) formulation.
Some scholars would isolate a third group of laws from within the apodictic. These laws are located in 21:12, 15–17; 22:19–20. They usually are very brief (around five short words), carry the death penalty, and all begin with a Hebrew participle. They are called the “Hebrew participial laws,” but actually they are unconditional and apodictic in function. We may speak, then, of two basic types of law in the covenant code.
1. The prologue (20:22–26)
22–23 The connection is this: Since all of you witnessed the Lord speaking from heaven even though you saw no visible shape, form, or representation, therefore totally abandon any thought of ever trying to embody me in a material image. First and foremost, then, the worship of God must be without idols (see 20:4–6; cf. Dt 4:14–16).
24–26 These modest earthen altars were temporary in form and occasional in usage (cf. Ge 12:7; 13:18; 22:9). Stone altars were not to be hewn with a “tool,” possibly so that no one could turn it into an image or some other fetish. Likewise, steps were not to be built up to the altars, to preclude the possibility of the worshiper exposing himself as he descended the steps. Later on, when altars with steps were allowed (Lev 9:22; Eze 43:13–17), the priests were instructed to wear linen undershorts (Ex 28:40–42; Eze 44:18).
2. Laws on slaves (21:1–11)
1 It is strange that the title (for v.1 appears to be such) comes after the section on the altar law (20:22–26). Since 22:18–23:19 consists mainly of moral and sapiential exhortations along with the ritual calendar in an appendix-like fashion, it is best to regard the title as referring to 21:2–22:17. These “laws” (or better, “judgments”) are given as precedents to guide Israel’s civil magistrates. While they deal mainly with temporal matters, they nevertheless are based on one or another express commandment in the Decalogue. It is most appropriate, therefore, that these judicial and political regulations should be set alongside the Decalogue.
2–4 Laws on the Hebrew slave are mentioned only in 21:1–11; Lev 25:39–43; Dt 15:12–18; and Jer 34:8–22. But there are differences in these laws. In Dt 15:12 the Hebrew slave is sold, while in Lev 25:39 he sells himself and the servitude is determined by the year of Jubilee. In Ex 21:2 and Dt 15:12, the servitude is for six years. In Ex 21:6 and Dt 15:17, it is for life when the slave desires it. The word “buy” (GK 7864) in judicial terms means to acquire as one’s own property. After six years of service, the slave is to go out “free” (GK 2390 & 3655). The term seems to mean a “freeman” in the sense that he was a citizen once again. A slave left his master either single or married depending on what he was when he entered. Where a wife had been given to a slave, that wife and any children that resulted from that union belonged to the master.
5–6 “I love my master . . . wife and children” has legal rather than romantic overtones (cf. Dt 21:15–17: “does not love,” i.e., “hates”). The “judges” changed the slave’s status from temporary to permanent by a ceremony at the doorpost of the master’s house. The perforation of the ear was a humiliating punishment in the Middle Assyrian Laws.
7–11 This pericope pertains to a girl who is sold by her father, not for slavery but for marriage. Nonetheless, she is designated a “servant.” Should the terms of marriage not be fulfilled, it is to be considered a breach of contract, and the purchaser must allow the girl to be redeemed; she must not be sold outside that family. Always she must be treated as a daughter or a free-born woman, or the forfeiture clause will be invoked.
3. Laws on homicide (21:12–17)
12–14 This is a list of offenses that demanded the death penalty: murder, striking ones parents, kidnapping, or cursing one’s parents. Homicide contravenes the divine order in Ge 9:6. Since humans are made in the image of God, no money or property settlement can atone for the premeditated destruction of the image of God in them. Accidental death is distinguished from intentional murder. In the case of accidental death, a place of asylum was to be provided (cf. Nu 35:6–34; Dt 19:1–13). But no sanctuary was to be given to the deliberate murderer. Notice the unusual first-person references to God.
15–17 Parental authority is so highly valued in biblical law that striking and cursing parents was a criminal and capital offense. Verses 15 and 17 are illustrations of the fifth commandment. Notice that the father and mother are mentioned together, thereby stressing their basic equality. Kidnapping draws a capital punishment because it is the theft of a human.
4. Laws on bodily injuries (21:18–32)
Following five cases that could involve the death penalty are five cases involving assault and bodily injury.
18–19 The first example concerns a man who is severely injured in a dispute but recovers sufficiently to be able to walk outdoors with the help of a cane or crutches. This injury will not carry the talionic punishment (cf. vv.23–25), but the assailant must recompense the injured for his “loss of time,” loss of income, and all medical expenses.
20–21 The second case concerns a slave who is struck by his master and then dies after lingering for “a day or two.” The master is given the benefit of the doubt and judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. When this law is considered alongside that in vv.26–27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master’s pocketbook, a whole new statement of the worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. The aim of this law was to restrict the master’s power over the salve.
22–25 The third situation describes a pregnant woman who gives birth prematurely as a result of an injury sustained from men who are fighting. This law envisions two alternatives: (1) “she gives birth but there is no serious injury,” and (2) “there is serious injury.”
Even though both mother and child survive, the offender must still pay some compensation (cf. vv.18–19). The fee would be set by the woman’s husband and approved by a decision of the court. Should the pregnant woman or her child suffer serious injury, equal recompense is invoked, demanding “life for life.” The talion principle invoked here appears to preclude exemption from death for an accident fatality as per v.13 because the punishment must match, but not exceed, the damage done. However, Nu 35:31 permits a substitute to ransom all capital offenses in the OT except in the one case of willful and premeditated murder. Thus the defendant must surrender to the deceased child’s father or wife’s husband the monetary value of each life (notice v.30) if either or both were harmed. The lex talionis does impose a strict limit on the amount of damages anyone could collect.
26–27 The fourth case concerns any slave who suffered a permanent injury from his owner; he won his freedom immediately (but cf. vv.20–21). Thus a slave was not to be treated as if he were mere chattel. The economic sanctions were designed to give the owner plenty of reason to resist any abusive tactics for the sake of his financial investment even if he totally disregarded the slave’s dignity and worth as a human.
28–32 A fifth example of bodily injury involved goring oxen. People were responsible for the injuries their oxen caused to other people. The Bible’s concern was not economic but moral and religious (cf. Ge 9:5–6). It made no difference what the age, social status, or gender of the person was.
5. Laws on property damages (21:33–22:15)
33–34 Culpable negligence (such as leaving a pit uncovered) that results in loss or damage to the property of another demands full restitution. The dead animal becomes the property of the person who is negligent and who must pay to replace that animal.
35–36 A second property damage case concerned a cattle fight, where one animal killed a neighbor’s animal. In this case they were to kill the surviving animal, sell its meat, and divide the price as well as the dead animal. But if the animal that survived had a reputation for goring, then its owner must take total responsibility for the animal.
22:1–4 This third example of property damage, which illustrates the morality of the eighth commandment, also contains a group of five cases. In cases of theft the penalty is much greater than those of negligence involving another person’s property. The reason for the fivefold penalty in the case of stealing an ox is probably because one man stole the means of another man’s subsistence. The principle would extend to any of the man’s livelihood implements.
Breaking and entering a home in the night could expose the intruder to the loss of his life (justifiable homicide), in which case the householder would not be held responsible (cf. Jer 2:34). Such invasion during the daylight hours would be a different situation since there would be witnesses and the scope of the intruder’s intentions (whether just to steal or also to kill) could be assessed.
When stolen goods have been sold or consumed and the thief has nothing with which to repay his crime, he must be sold into servitude—presumably until he has repaid the debt. But if the goods are still in his possession, then there is hope of repentance and voluntary restitution. At least the original owner can be reunited with his own animal, and the penalty would be that the thief must provide a similar animal. When the thief voluntarily confessed, Lev 6:4–5 required that he add only one-fifth to the theft (cf. Nu 5:6–7).
5–6 A fourth type of property damage involved letting livestock graze in another man’s field and letting a fire get out of control so that it burns over a neighbor’s field. Both v.5 and v.6 begin with “if,” meaning that they are treated as separate laws. Thus people are held responsible, not only for the harm they do, but also for the harm they occasion, even though they may not have purposely designed the damage that ensued. The restitution will be the top yield that that field has ever produced if the whole field was ruined, or, if not, the choicest sections left will be the standard for the whole field.
7–15 The last section on property damage treats four classes of goods entrusted to other persons for their custody or use.
The first case (vv.7–9) involves leaving valuable articles for safekeeping only to discover a thief stealing them. The thief is to make a double restitution (cf. v.4). The same situation appears in vv.8–9, only the identity of the thief is not known, and thus there is a suspicion that the keeper may have embezzled these securities. The bailee must appear before “the judges,” where a deposition of innocence is taken as an oath before God in court. Though this text does not specifically mention an oath, the term “whether” is used elsewhere so frequently as the oath formula that we cannot take it as anything else here (the oath is mentioned explicitly in v.11). Verse 8 is the general rule, and v.9 specifies charges of misappropriation or breach of trust.
The second case (vv.10–11) deals with animals entrusted to another that are mutilated in the pasture, injure themselves, or are driven off by robbers. The same oath in court is required since there are no witnesses and only God can finally decide the keeper’s culpability.
In the third case (vv.12–13), the animal given for safekeeping is stolen. Since the bailee is negligent in guarding the animal, he must make restitution by giving the owner an animal for the one stolen. But if the animal given for safekeeping is torn to pieces by wild animals, he need only produce the evidence of this fact, and no payment is required.
The last case (vv.14–15) treats the problem of a hired beast being injured or dying while the owner is not present. Since neglect is presumed, a full replacement is required. However, if the owner is present, the wages agreed on are regarded as sufficient to offset the hazard run by the owner in renting out his property; and his firsthand witness to the deed will take away all suspicion of negligence.
6. Laws on society (22:16–31)
16–17 The law on the seduction of a maiden not yet engaged is different from that dealing with the seduction of the betrothed girl in Dt 22:23, where violence is also involved. The penalty here is that the seducer must pay the bride-price and agree to marry her. Should this offer of marriage be rejected by the girl’s father, the man must still pay the bride-price. This payment and offer do not clear the guilt of sin committed, for cleansing is needed by repentance.
18 “Sorceress” is the feminine form of a Semitic word that means “magician” or “sorcerer.” The intensive form of the Hebrew verb means to use incantations, magic, sorcery, or the arts of witchcraft. Our English “witch” is alleged to have come from “to wit,” i.e., “to know.” The LXX rendered our word by pharmakos (“poisoners”), since sorcerers dealt in drugs and pharmaceutical potions.
19 This law forbids bestiality (cf. Lev 18:23; 20:15–16; Dt 27:21). The Hittite laws proscribed this evil with the threat of a sentence of death unless pardoned by the king. This offensive act apparently was prevalent among the Canaanites.
20 All who sacrifice to any god other than the Lord “will be dedicated for destruction” (pers. tr.). Notice Dt 17:2–5 for a parallel law.
21–27 These verses treat various forms of oppression against the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the alien. Since these have few or no natural protectors, they are to be shielded in their vulnerable estate. Both the sojourner or resident alien and the widows and orphans are to be protected (see 23:11; Lev 19:9–10; Dt 14:21; et al.).
The laws regulating interest on loaned money are dealt with more fully in Lev 25:35–37 and Dt 15:7; 23:19–20 (cf. Job 24:9; Pr 28:8; et al.). The righteous man may be defined as the one “who lends his money without usury” in Ps 15:5 and “does not lend at usury or take excessive interest” in Eze 18:8 (cf. vv.13, 17). On the other hand, Dt 23:20 declares, “You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite.” This law is not dealing with “usury” in our modern sense of the word, i.e., exorbitant or illegal interest, but interest of any kind to a fellow Israelite.
Apparently even an interest-free loan required some type of pledge or security, but retaining one’s outer garment (temporary collateral) overnight was strictly forbidden. This cloak or poncho, which doubled as a blanket at night, was needed when evening came.
28 Any word or deed that detracts from the glory of God is a reviling or cursing of his name (see on 20:7). Similarly, care must be taken not to curse any who are in authority, for the penalty for cursing God and the king is death (cf. Lev 24:15–16; 2Sa 16:9; 1Ki 2:8–9; 21:10).
29–30 The law of the firstfruits requires that “the fullness of your harvest and the outflow [lit., The tear’] of your presses” (lit. tr.), the firstborn of their children, and the firstborn of the cattle be offered to God. The children are to be redeemed by a money payment or by the substituted service of one Levite for each firstborn (13:13; Nu 3:46–48). They are not to “hold back” or “delay” to do these things, even though the text seems to be aware of a natural reluctance on the part of men. On the seven days that the young firstborn were allowed to stay with their mother, see Lev 22:27.
31 Underlining all these instructions on societal relations is this call to service: “You are to be my holy people.” Such a noble calling as the Lord’s firstborn son (4:22) or his “treasured possession . . . a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (see comments on 19:5–6) demands noble living. Animals killed by another are unclean because the carnivorous beasts that tear it are unclean and because the blood of such a slain animal would remain in its tissues, leaving it unclean. Such meat is to be fed to dogs. “Men of holiness” (lit. tr.) are to be separate in inward principle and outward practice—one of which is illustrated here.
7. Laws on justice and neighborliness (23:1–9)
1 This prohibition against slander (whether in court or not) is an amplification of the ninth commandment. Compare Lev 19:16 and the cases of Dt 22:13–19 and 1Ki 21:10–13. The clause “Do not help a wicked man” is the NIV’s rendering of “do not set your hand with.”
2–3 Justice demands impartiality rather than unwarranted compliance with the “many” (NIV, “crowd”) or favoritism to the poor (cf. Lev 19:15).
4–5 Deuteronomy 22:1–3 gives fuller details on a man’s responsibility to his brother in the matter of restoring a lost animal or helping someone in difficulty. This act of compassion is owed to another regardless of whether the man is an enemy or one who hates him (cf. Job 31:29; Pr 25:21–22).
6–8 Possibly “your poor people” is better understood here as “your opponent, adversary” (a synonym for “your enemy,” v.4, and “the one hating you,” v.5). Thus the suffix “your” is more easily understood and the meaning would be thus: When called to testify or to adjudicate between your enemy and someone else, do not pervert the judgment against your enemy just because he is your enemy. Justice demands that people distance themselves from any false charges (cf. v.1). God will not hold such persons or judges guiltless.
Verse 8 is repeated almost verbatim in Dt 16:19. Bribery must have been a common temptation, for numerous passages warn against it.
9 This verse is similar in wording and the motivation to 22:21, but it is placed here because this should be one of the great motivators for all Israelites to exercise justice: Remember how you felt when you were aliens (and all that that implies) in Egypt.
8. Laws on sacred seasons (23:10–19)
10–12 Every seventh year was to be a “Sabbath of sabbaths to the land, a sabbath to the LORD” (cf. Lev 25:4). The land was to lie fallow and to rest. The motivation for this legislation is to favor the poor and the wild animals. In Lev 25:1–7, 18–22, the reasons are more theological than civil: “a sabbath to the LORD” (25:4).
Verse 12 repeats the fourth commandment so that no one would gain the impression that once the sabbatical year was observed, all ordinary observances of the regular Sabbath would no longer be required. This repetition of 20:8–9 adds an additional reason for its observance: so that humans and animals alike might “be refreshed.”
13 The caution against idolatry here appears to summarize all the divine precepts given above: literally, “in all things that I have said to you.” “Do not let them be heard on your lips” is paralleled by “you shall not cause [all these things] to be remembered” (NIV, “do not invoke”). There would come a “day” when God would cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they would “be remembered” no more (Hos 2:17; Zec 13:2). This was the practice of David in Ps 16:4 (note Ex 20:3; Jos 23:7).
14–17 This section deals with the three great annual pilgrimage feasts: Unleavened Bread at the beginning of the barley harvest in the spring, commemorating the Exodus (v.15); Harvest (also called Weeks in 34:22) at the end of the spring harvest of grain, commemorating the giving of the law (v.16a); and Ingathering of the summer crops of olives and grapes in early autumn, commemorating the wilderness wanderings (v.16b; cf. 34:18–26; Lev 23). All three feasts were at once agricultural and historical, and required annual attendance of all men. On the Unleavened Bread Feast, see 12:34 and Lev 23:5–8, 10–14. This feast began with Passover and lasted seven days with a holy convocation on the first and last days. The rule for all the feasts was “No one is to appear before me empty-handed.”
Fifty days after the offering of the barley sheaf as the “firstfruits” of the harvest, the Feast of Harvest, known later as Pentecost, was to be celebrated (cf. Lev 23:15–22; Dt 16:9–11).
The Feast of Ingathering or Tabernacles (cf. Lev 23:33–36; Dt 16:13; 31:10; Jn 7:2) was a kind of thanksgiving festival. It was grossly neglected for many periods of Israel’s history (Ne 8:17).
18 The first part of this verse has nothing to do with eating anything leavened. Rather, it means that individual Israelites were not to kill the Passover lamb while leaven was still in their houses. The second half of the verse makes no reference to fat as such; but as the parallel verse in 34:25b says, the “sacrifice from the Passover Feast” (here lit., “sacrifice of my feast”) shall not “remain until morning” (cf. 12:10). If the word “fat” is retained over the parallel text in 34:25b, which would make “fat of my feast” parallel to “sacrifice of my feast,” then the householders are being told to destroy the intestinal fat by morning. But the first explanation (i.e., the presence of leaven) is preferred.
19 The law of firstfruits and its theology have already been discussed in 4:22; 11:5; and 12:29. This was to be brought into the house of God yet to be described.
The prohibition of cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk (see also 34:26; Dt 14:21b) has been explained since 1933 by a reference in a broken passage of a thirteenth-century B.C. Ugaritic text called “The Birth of the Gods Pleasant and Beautiful” (text 52, line 14). It is generally agreed that the reference is to a fertility rite that entails boiling a kid in milk; but there is no sure reference to the milk of its mother in the broken Ugaritic text. The matter is basically that the young dead kid is being cooked in the very milk that had sustained its life.
9. Epilogue (23:20–33)
An epilogue concludes the Covenant Code. Israel is promised the angel of God, every protection, and success, provided they remain faithful to the covenant (cf. 33.1–3; 34:11–16; Lev 26:3–11; Dt 7:13–15; 28:1–14).
20–22 The angel mentioned here cannot be Moses, God’s messenger, or an ordinary angel; for the expressions are too high for any of these: “he will not forgive your rebellion” (who can forgive sin but God alone?) and “my Name is in him.” This must be the Angel of the Covenant (cf. Isa 63:9; Mal 3:1), the Second Person of the Trinity. Just as the Lord’s name resided in his temple (Dt 12:5, 11; 1Ki 8:29), so this Angel with the authority and prestige of the name of God was evidence enough that God himself was present in his Son. Obedience to the Angel would result in all of the blessings listed in the text. Israel was commanded: “Do not rebel against him”; yet they did just that (Nu 14:11; Ps 78:17, 40, 56).
23–26 On the nations listed here, see comment on 3:8. All these nations God’s Angel would “wipe . . . out,” i.e., remove from their national, not necessarily personal, existence; for surely David had Hittites in his army (2Sa 23:39) and was friendly with a Jebusite (2Sa 24:18–24). It was the worship and practices of the gods of these nations that were strictly forbidden. Instead, Israel was to demolish these gods and smash their “sacred stones,” which apparently were free-standing stones that were associated with the veneration of deities, particularly the male deity.
The worship of God would affect the Israelites’ water and food. No wonder the prophets connected a series of agricultural reverses with the judgment of God on a particular culture (e.g., Hag 1:5–11). Moreover, unlike the wicked who fail to live out half their days (Ps 55:23), the worshiping obedient will have full life spans.
27–30 God promised (in addition to his Angel in vv.20, 23) to send panic and confusion to every nation that Israel would face. He would also send “the hornet,” a word that occurs only here, in Dt 7:20, and in Jos 24:12. Perhaps “the hornet” is a symbol of Egypt, just as Isa 7:18 uses the “fly” and the “bee” as symbols of Egypt and Assyria, respectively.
The speed of the conquest is stated differently in several texts. Like this one, Jdg 2:20–3:4 also argues for gradual progress in conquering the land; yet Dt 9:3 promises that it will be done “quickly.” The answer lies in noting that the general sweep of the land and its conquest in principle were accomplished speedily. Because of mopping-up operations, however, the need to have people settle in the areas rid of Canaanite influence, and the threat of wild animals infesting them (cf. 2Ki 17:25), the completion of that task would designedly be slow.
31–33 The borders God promised to establish would be from “the Red Sea” (here an eastern boundary), the Gulf of Aqaba with its port city of Elath; to the “Sea of the Philistines,” the Mediterranean Sea on the west; from the desert in the south, the Negeb; to “the River” in the north. Rather than equate the Euphrates with “the River,” it would appear better to equate it with a river that preserves the same name in Arabic today, currently serving as the boundary between Lebanon and Syria. This description traces out limits already given to Abraham in Ge 15:18 and comes close to matching the extent of the United Kingdom under David and Solomon (2Sa 8:3–14; 10:6–19; 1Ki 4:21, 24; 2Ch 9:26).
No covenant was to be made with these people (though the Gibeonites did succeed in making one, Jos 9:3–15). The potential snare of their gods, practices, and worship was too great; thus there was to be no peaceful coexistence between these nations and Israel in Canaan.
F. Ratification of the Covenant (24:1–18)
The narrative, temporarily interrupted for the contents of the “Book of the Covenant” (20:22–23:33), is resumed from 20:21. Moses and his aides were to ascend the mountain after the actions mentioned in vv.3–8 were completed.
1 Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s two eldest sons, would have been the next high priests in the line. They died, however, under God’s judgment (Nu 3:4) because of their perverse deed (Lev 10:1–2; Nu 3:4). The official “seventy elders” of Nu 11:16 had not been formally appointed yet. They were selected here to represent the twelve tribes, perhaps representing Jacob’s seventy descendants.
2 Moses alone was to function as the mediator between God and the Israelites, just as Christ is designated the second Moses in Heb 3:1–6 and thus is the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb 12:24).
3 When the people promised to obey and to observe all that the Lord had said, they did not exchange the blessings of promise for the law. The keeping of the “LORD’s words and laws” was to be based on the prior provision of sacrificial blood. The blood cleansed men and women so that “doing” and “obeying” became possible for them. This was not “doing” in order to merit favor or salvation.
4 This passage testifies to Moses’ direct involvement in the composition of the book of Exodus. That “Moses then wrote down everything” agrees with his recording the account of the war on Amalek (17:14) and the writing of the Ten Commandments by the “finger of God” (31:18) (see comment on 17:14). The “twelve stone pillars” represented the twelve tribes (Jos 4:5, 20; 1Ki 18:31).
5 The “young Israelite men” were the firstborn who officiated until the Levites were appointed in their place in Nu 3:41 (see 19:22, 24).
6 Both the altar and the people were sprinkled with half of the blood, each in an act of dedication or consecration. Hebrews 9:19 does not mention the altar but speaks of the “book” or “scroll” of the covenant as also being sprinkled with blood. It is probably not correct to speak, as some do, of the altar as representing the Lord (cf. Ge 15:9–10, 17). The rite mentioned here is a rite of purification (not the water, scarlet wool, and hyssop of Lev 14:6–7 and Heb 9:19–20). The division of the blood points to the twofold aspect of the blood of the covenant: The blood on the altar symbolizes God’s forgiveness and acceptance of the offering; the blood on the people points to a blood oath that binds them in obedience. In other words, the keeping of the words and laws was made possible by the sacrificial blood of the altar.
7 The Book of the Covenant includes in its narrowest meaning words from 20:22–23:33 but more fully, here, the contents of ch. 19, the Decalogue of ch. 20, and the case laws of 20:22–23:33.
8 The blood by which the covenant was ratified and sealed was the basis for the union between the Lord and the people. This phrase becomes most important in the NT (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; Heb 9:20; 10:29; also Heb 12:24; 13:20; 1Pe 1:2).
9–10 That Moses and his company “saw the God of Israel” at first appears to contradict 33:20; Jn 1:18; and 1Ti 6:16; but what they saw was a “form [‘similitude’] of the LORD” (Nu 12:8; cf. Eze 1:26; Isa 6:1). There is a deliberate obscurity in the form and details of the one who produced such a splendid, dazzling effect on these observers of God’s presence.
Under God’s feet was a “pavement made of sapphire,” a deep blue or, more accurately, lapis lazuli of Mesopotamia, an opaque blue precious stone speckled with a golden yellow-colored pyrite. True sapphire, the transparent crystalline of corundum, was unknown in Egypt around 1400 B.C. It symbolizes the heavens (cf. Eze 1:22).
11 “God did not raise his hand against [lit., stretch out his hand; cf. 9:15] these leaders” who saw him. “Leaders”(GK 722) probably comes from the verb “to be deeply rooted,” hence, “eminent ones,” “nobles,” or “chief men.” In one of the most amazing texts in the Bible, these men saw God. Verse 11 uses another word than v.10; here it stresses inward, spiritual, or prophetic vision.
“They ate and drank” describes a covenant meal celebrating the sealing of the covenant described in vv.3–8. There is, however, no mention of God’s participation in the eating or drinking!
12 Once again Moses was told to “come up” (cf. v.1). This is the first mention of the “tablets of stone.”
13–14 In response to the call of God to Moses, Joshua accompanied him as they went farther up the mountain. Aaron and Hur, appointed as Moses’ deputies in 17:10 and apparently as judges in 18:22, were left in charge. It is noteworthy that Hur does not appear in the golden calf incident (ch. 32).
15–16 As Moses ascended the mountain, all he could see was a cloud. When the glory of God “settled” on the mountain, the Bible uses the same word (shakan; GK 8905) as the one underlying the “shekinah” glory (cf. Jn 1:14, the Word “tabernacling” among us; see comment).
17 On “the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire,” see comment on 16:10. The three symbols of God’s glory, i.e., of his presence, are the cloud, the fire, and the voice of God. The radiance of his presence is like a fiery furnace (cf. Heb 12:18, 29).
18 Once Moses entered the “cloud,” he would not be seen again for “forty days and forty nights” (cf. Mt 4:2). During this time Moses received all the instructions on the tabernacle and its furnishings in chs. 25–31. Not until ch. 32 do Moses and Joshua come down to face Israel’s apostasy.
III. Divine Worship (25:1–40:38)
The final sixteen chapters of Exodus center on the worship of God. The only interruption of this theme is the episode of the golden calf (chs. 32–34), a section that contrasts the divinely appointed worship established in connection with the tabernacle with humanly devised worship that leads to debauchery.
The most important question about the tabernacle deals with its significance. My view is that the tabernacle primarily embodies the theology of worship. It thereby assumes that God is the Great King who reigns and is therefore worthy of our praise and adoration. Even more specifically, the meaning of the tabernacle is that God has come “to dwell,” “to tabernacle,” in the midst of Israel, as he would one day come in the Incarnation (Jn 1:14) and will come in the Second Advent (Rev 21:3). The Lord who dwelt in his visible glory in his sanctuary among his people (Ex 25:8) will one day come and dwell in all his glory among his saints forever.
A. The Tabernacle (25:1–31:18)
1. Collection of materials (25:1–9)
1–2 The “offering” (or “contribution”; GK 9556) mentioned here is not a “heave offering” (KJV, ASV mg.) but one separated for a sacred purpose as a gift to be consecrated to the Lord. See the translation “special gift” in Dt 12:6, 11, 17. It was also a voluntary gift, as v.2b stresses.
3–7 The fourteen components or materials that went into the tabernacle are listed. They include (1) gold, (2) silver, and (3) bronze. Then follow three colors of yarn. (4) “Blue” is derived from a dye of a shellfish, variously described as sky blue, deep dark blue, blue-purple, or bright violet. Its significance, though not stated, is perhaps of the heavenly character of Christ. (5) “Purple” is derived from the secretion of a gland of the murex snail and was supplied primarily by the Phoenicians. It is a purple-red and speaks of royalty. (6) “Scarlet,” or crimson, is derived from the eggs and bodies of the worm coccus ilicis, which attaches itself to the leaves of the holly plant. Their maggots are collected, dried, and pulverized; and the powder produces a bright red (or yellow-red) dye. It is a part of the contribution. It may refer to the earthly aspect of the Son of Man.
(7) “Fine linen” translates an Egyptian loan word in Hebrew. Some linen found in Egyptian tombs has 152 threads per inch in the warp as compared to only 86 threads per inch in the most finely woven modern techniques. It is usually white, representing purity and righteousness. (8) The “goat hair” came from long-haired goats and most likely was black. It was a coarse material often used to weave tents. Felt would be a modern equivalent. (9) The “ram skins” had all the wool removed and then were dyed red; they were like our morocco leather. (10) The “hides of sea cows” no doubt came from the East African sea cows (“porpoise” or “dolphin”) found in the Red Sea.
(11) “Acacia wood” is a species of the mimosa, whose wood is darker and harder than oak and therefore avoided by wood-eating insects. It is common in the Sinai Peninsula. (12) There was also “olive oil,” made from crushing the olives, for light. (13) The word for “spices” is derived from the Hebrew word basam (GK 1411; “to be fragrant”). The four best species for anointing oil are identified in 30:22–25 as “myrrh” (sap of a balsam bush), “cinnamon” (bark of the cinnamon tree), “cane” or sweet calamus (a pink-colored pith from the root of a reed plant), and “cassia” (from the dried flowers of the cinnamon tree). The four species for incense are identified in 30:34–38 as “gum resin” or “stacte” (KJV; a powder taken from the middle of the hardened drops of the myrrh bush, rare and very valuable), “onycha” (from the shell of a type of clam [mollusks] similar to the purple murex snail and found deep in the Red Sea), “galbanum” (a rubbery resin of thick milky juice from the roots of a flowering plant thriving in Syria and Persia), and “frankincense” (a resin from the bark of boswellia carteri growing in southern Arabia). The boswellia carteri resin dripped spontaneously from the plant in the fall and was “pure,” without any foreign matter—pure “white”—hence its Hebrew name “whiteness.”
(14) The “onyx stones” cannot be positively identified. The LXX translates it as “beryl,” mostly a sea-green color. Another suggestion is a chrysoprase quartz ranging in color from blue-green to yellow-green and apple-green. The Egyptians knew chrysoprase. For other gems mounted in the ephod and breastplate, see 28:6–25.
8 The “sanctuary” (GK 5219) means “holy” place or “the place set apart.” Everything about the tabernacle was holy. The same word in 1 and 2 Chronicles refers to the temple. Hebrews 9:1 calls the sanctuary “the sanctuary of this world” (NIV, “earthly sanctuary”).
9 The most important word about the sanctuary was that it was to be built according to the “pattern” God would show Moses. The word “pattern” (GK 9322) signals the fact that typology is present, for this is only a “model” or “pattern” of the real thing (see v.40).
The word “tabernacle” (GK 5438) appears here for the first time in the OT. It is from the word “to dwell” and is the place where God dwells among his people (cf. 29:42–46; Lev 26:9–12; Eze 37:26–28; and in the NT, Rev 21:2–3).
2. Ark and mercy seat (25:10–22)
The first item in Moses’ list of instructions in the tabernacle was the ark of God with its “atonement cover” (GK 4114). Tyndale rendered this word as “mercy seat.” However, the ark was the place of atonement or propitiation, hence the place where God was rendered favorable to his people.
10a The “chest” or “ark” (GK 778; English word from the Lat. area) is called “the ark [of] the Testimony” (v.15), “the ark of the covenant of the LORD of all the earth” (Jos 3:11), “the sacred ark” (2Ch 35:3), and “the ark of your might” (Ps 132:8). It is the throne of God. God begins at the heart of things rather than working from the outside in (cf. also Heb 9:4).
10b-17 The ark was 3¾ feet long by 2¼ feet wide and high. It was to be overlaid with “pure gold.” It had a type of “molding” or “collar” around it, and four gold rings were attached there. The “acacia wood” poles were slid through the rings for transporting the chest. The “Testimony” (GK 6343) or “laws” of the Ten Commandments were placed inside the ark. In Egypt, Babylonia, and the Hittite Empire, important documents were deposited in the sanctuary “at the feet” of the deity.
The verb that lies behind the noun “atonement” in the expression “atonement cover” (GK 4114) means “to ransom or deliver by means of a substitute.” (There is no word for “lid” or “cover” here.) The LXX has “propitiatory covering” or “mercy seat,” as does Heb 9:5 (see NIV note). This place of expiating the sins of humanity is an adumbration of Christ’s propitiatory work (Ro 3:25; Heb 9:23–24; 1Jn 2:2) and is at the heart of our worship of the one who died for us.
18–22 A cherub (pl. “cherubim”) is usually depicted as a composite creature with wings, a human head, and a body combining elements of an ox, a lion, or an eagle (cf. Ge 3:24; Eze 1; Rev 4). In Egypt the sphinx was prevalent. In Assyria the same root word was used to describe one who functioned as a temple guardian. The two cherubim were to be made from the cover itself and as part of it. These were hardly made in relief, since they were “looking toward the cover” (cf. 1Pe 1:12).
Verse 22 gives the theological relevance of the ark and cherubim, indeed, of all our worship of God: “There . . . I will meet with you.” The living God is continually present in his tabernacle and walks among his people there (Lev 26:11–12). It was from his throne above the cherubim that he spoke and met with his people (cf. 1Sa 4:4).
3. Table of the bread of the Presence (25:23–30)
The table of the Presence was one of three pieces of furniture in the Holy Place. It was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold on which twelve loaves of bread were placed. The table with its bread presented two sides of the same truth: a Godward side and a human side. First, it stood before God, reminding Israel that they were ever open to the omniscience and protection of God. Next, it was where the priests served and found their bread. That bread pointed to the Bread that would come down from heaven and give to men and women everlasting bread (cf. Jn 6).
23–28 The “table” measured 3 feet long by 1½ feet wide by 27 inches high. The table taken from the second temple by Antiochus Epiphanes is depicted on the Arch of Titus among the items the Romans took back to Rome in A.D. 70. The description of the table is similar to the ark, overlaid with gold, with a molding or encircling rim and four gold rings to hold the transporting poles.
29 “Its plates and dishes . . . its pitchers and bowls” were not for the purpose of serving God food as in pagan nations. Even the sacrifices set apart for God were not to be boiled or roasted; they were to come up before him in vapors and odors, not in substance or as food. Of course, some of the offerings were to be shared with the priests, and the fellowship offerings were shared in part with the people.
30 “The bread of the Presence” is referred to here and also in 1Sa 21:6 and 1Ki 7:48. In this phrase “Presence” (lit., “faces”; GK 7156) stands for the Divine Person himself, just as the “angel of his presence” (lit., “face[s]”) in Isa 63:9, or in Ex 33:14–15, “my Presence [lit., ‘my face’] shall go with you,” is an OT designation of Christ. The twelve loaves symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel as constantly being under the scrutiny, care, and preservation of God (cf. Jn 6:32–38). Just as that bread supplied the needs of priests on the Sabbath in the Holy Place (see Lev 24:5–9), so Jesus meets the needs of his children in this generation (Jn 6:32–35).
4. Golden lampstand (25:31–40)
31 The third article in the Holy Place was “a lampstand [menorah; GK 4963] of pure gold” fashioned all in one piece. It was placed on the south or left side of the Holy Place.
The lampstand’s design—“flowerlike cups, buds and blossoms”—was patterned after an almond tree (v.33), the first tree of spring in the Near East, awakening as early as mid-December and decking itself in radiant white blossoms before leafing. The triad of its parts cannot be identified with final certainty. The “cups” were either the calyx (outer covering of the flower; cf. the same word translated “cup” in Ge 44:2) or the almond nut whose medical and cosmetic properties are described as perfect. The “bud” is also rendered as the knop or bulb, the round object on the branch (same word as the capitals or chapiters on the pillars in Solomon’s temple, 1Ki 7:18). The “blossoms” of the almond tree render the same word used of Aaron’s almond rod that budded and blossomed (Nu 17:8).
The expression “hammer it out” is difficult. Josephus claims it was “cast gold [and] hollow,” made in a mold. The verb is used of fashioning the cherubim, the lampstand (vv.31, 36; 37:17, 22; Nu 8:4), and the two silver trumpets (Nu 10:2).
32–36 The total number of ornaments—i.e., “six branches . . . three cups . . . on the lampstand . . . four cups . . . one bud,” etc.—would be 69 (6 branches times 3 sets times 3 figures plus 1 branch times 4 sets times 3 figures plus 3 buds under each set of branches equals 69).
37–39 The ancient lamp was a kind of small, round (clay) saucer with the rim pinched together to form a spout from which protruded the top of the wick dipped in the oil of the saucer. Examples of seven-pinched-rim lamps come from the age of Moses (Late Bronze). Beth Shan and Meggiddo have supplied examples of metal pedestals designed to carry a lamp, consisting of an upright three-foot-long shaft dividing into three feet and joined in a ring to be placed on the ground on top of which is a ledge for the lamp. “A talent of pure gold” was about seventy-five pounds.
40 “According to the pattern [GK 9322]” is once again a key word warning Moses and all subsequent readers that what he was really building was only a model (see comment on v.9), not the real, or the archetype, that lay behind the model. Therefore, it was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Heb 10:1). Thus there was a built-in obsolescence in this revelation and the models exhibited in the whole tabernacle and its service as contained in Ex 25–Lev 9. The archetype remained with God while these earthly models merely pictured what was yet to come.
5. Curtains, framework, veil, and screen (26:1–37)
a. The tabernacle’s curtains (26:1–14)
There are two sets of coverings and two sets of curtains. The two coverings were an outer one of hides of sea cows and an inner one of ram skins dyed red. The two curtains were an outer set of goat hair and an inner set of fine linen with blue, purple, and scarlet yarn. Within the sanctuary, moving from the inside out, the curtains of fine linen were visible only to the priests who served in the presence of him who is purity and righteousness itself. The curtains of goats’ hair were reminders of the daily sin offering that was a kid from the goats (Nu 28:15) and of our cleansing from sin (Lev 16). The covering of rams’ skins also recalled the sacrifice used in consecrating the priesthood (Lev 8); and it was deliberately dyed red, showing that the priesthood was set apart by blood. Finally, the protective coating of the sea cows’ hides marked a protective separation between the dwelling place of God and the world.
1–3 On the “linen” see 25:4. Each of the “ten curtains of finely twisted linen” was about forty-two feet long and six feet wide. They were sewn together in two sets of five. The curtains were more important than the tabernacle’s frame, for they are described first—thus setting up the same priority we saw in the ordering of the description of all the tabernacle’s parts.
4–6 After stitching each five-sectioned curtain together, two curtains were coupled together by fifty loops on one side and fifty loops on the other side. These were then to be joined by fifty golden clasps or hooks (cf. v.11). The beauty of these white, fine linen curtains with blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (see 25:4) was enhanced with cherubim (see 25:18) embroidered on them.
7–13 Of the eleven “curtains of goat hair,” six were sewed in one portion and five in another, and again the fifty loops on one side were joined to the fifty loops on the other by fifty clasps. Goat hair in the Eastern world is black, not white (cf. SS 1:5; cf. on 25:4). Since the “tent curtains” were larger than the curtains of the tabernacle (vv.1–6), there would be material left on the end and on either side to “hang down the rear” and to “hang over the sides of the tabernacle so as to cover it.”
14 See comment on 25:5.
b. The tabernacle’s framework (26:15–30)
15–25 On “acacia wood” see comment on 25:5. The command to “make upright frames” (cf. vv.19, 26) introduces the three elements that made up the “walls.” The traditional rendering “boards” has led many to the idea that the walls were solid; but if this were so, it would have obscured the inner linen curtains from sight. These frames formed a trellis-like structure over which the four curtains were draped.
Each frame was to be 15 feet long by 2¼ feet wide. The framework of the tabernacle consisted of twenty boards each on the north and south sides with six on the western end with a post at each of the two corners. The “two projections” (lit., “hands”) are probably the two tenons at the bottom of each frame to be inserted into the bases. The frames were fitted into a foundation of “forty silver bases” or sockets on each side. Israel contributed one hundred talents of silver for these bases (38:25–28), which was described as atonement money (30:11–16). Thus it may be said that the foundation of the tabernacle rested on a ransom or redemption, just as the church was “bought with his own blood” (Ac 20:28).
The Hebrew word for “corner” apparently means “angle.” Thus one frame was cut down the center on a miter, and the two pieces would form the “corner” or “angle” frame on the two sides of the corner.
26–29 Fifteen “crossbars” were to be fitted on the outside of the structure to strengthen the trellis framework: five on each of the two sides (north and south) and five on the back (west). One of the five was full length down the middle of the wall; the other four extended only half the length of the wall, making three rows of bars on the outside of the frame. The “gold rings” were to serve as holders (lit., “houses”) for the bars (cf. 25:26–27).
30 Once more we are reminded that all was to be done “according to plan” (see comment on 25:40; cf. Heb 8:5).
c. The tabernacle’s veil (26:31–35)
31–35 The inner veil (NIV, “curtain”) separating the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was to be made of the same material and design as the inner curtain and was to be supported on four gold-covered acacia wood pillars. The “curtain” (GK 3749) is called the “veil of covering” or “shielding curtain” (39:34; 40:21; Nu 4:5) or the “curtain that is in front of the Testimony” (Ex 27:21). At the death of Christ, this inner curtain of the temple was torn in two, thereby giving the believer permanent access to the presence of God (Mt 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45; Heb 6:19; 9:3; 10:19–22).
d. The tabernacle’s screen (26:36–37)
36 “The entrance . . . curtain” was like the curtain dividing the two inner rooms (v.33) of the tabernacle and the inner curtain of v.1. The same Hebrew word is used for the curtain at the entrance to the courtyard (27:16) as the screen for the entrance to the tent (here).
37 Since this curtain went to the outside and to the corners of the wall, it had “five posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold” instead of just four (v.32).
6. Altar of burnt offering (27:1–8)
1–2 The first and largest piece of equipment that a worshiper would meet on entering the court of the tabernacle was the “altar” (GK 4640) the altar of burnt offering in Lev 4:7, 10, 18). Its position just inside the gate made it easily accessible, unavoidable, and unmistakable. It was made of acacia wood (see comment on 25:5) and measured 7½ feet square by 4½ feet high. It was overlaid with bronze. There was but one altar just as there is but one way of salvation, and this Jesus fulfilled (see Jn 1:29; Heb 9:13–14, 22–28). The “horns” (GK 7967), i.e., “a horn at each of the four corners,” were projections of the four corner posts but of one piece with the altar. They symbolized power, help, and sanctuary (cf. 1Sa 2:1, 10; 2Sa 22:3; 1Ki 1:50; 2:28; Pss 89:17; 112:9). The reason the horns symbolized the atoning power of the altar was that in the atonement ritual some of the blood was put on the horns before the rest was poured out at the base of the altar (29:12; Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 16:18).
3 The “pots” (or pans) were to hold the fat-soaked ashes when they were removed from the hearth by the “shovels.” The “sprinkling bowls” (or basins) were to catch the blood of the animals slain beside the altar to be sprinkled on the altar’s base later on. The three-pronged “meat forks” (fleshhooks) were for arranging the sacrifice or retracting the priests’ portion (1Sa 2:13). The “fire pans” (or possibly “censers”) were probably for carrying fire from the altar of incense inside the Holy Place (Lev 10:1; 16:12; 1Ki 7:50).
4–8 A “grating” was placed midway between the top and the bottom of the boxlike structure. This grating divided the altar into a lower and an upper part, a division necessitated by the sprinkling of the blood. Since any fire built inside the upper half would have eventually destroyed the altar from the intense heat, perhaps the altar box was designed to be filled with earth when it was in use. Perhaps this is why it was to be made “hollow.”
“A bronze ring at each of the four corners” was attached to the bronze grating through which the acacia wood staves were placed when the altar had to be moved. The “ledge” was a projection or a collar around the altar halfway up its side.
7. Court of the tabernacle (27:9–19)
9–11 The “courtyard for the tabernacle” was a perfect rectangle, 150 feet long by 75 feet wide. Its purposes were fourfold: (1) to prevent unlawful approach; (2) to keep out all wild animals; (3) to be a positive line of demarcation between the world and the holy presence of God; and (4) with its single gate, to be a way of approach to God.
The courtyard was to be shielded by a curtain made of the same fabric and colors (v.16) as the entrance, the dividing curtains, and the inner curtains of the tabernacle (26:31–33, 36–37). It was to be high enough (7½ feet, v.18) to block the view of all persons. Each long side was to have “twenty posts and twenty bronze bases.” In all there would be sixty posts (or fifty-six if the corner posts were counted twice as belonging to each side from an observer’s point of view). The posts were spaced 7½ feet apart, with a frame or rod going through the top of the silver capitals or “bands” (v.17), providing a frame or guy rod to give stability to the posts. They were also anchored by guy ropes and pegs.
12–19 The courtyard was divided in half. The tabernacle occupied the central position in the west half, and the altar and laver were probably somewhat centered in the eastern half (see the various pictures of the tabernacle). The entrance was invitingly wide; “curtains fifteen cubits long” were to flank the entrance, which would be about thirty feet wide (cf. 6:36–37). The entrance too marked a division between the world and the dwelling place of God. All the poles surrounding the courtyard had silver fillets or “bands,” which apparently were narrow strips of binding metal used as decoration.
8. Priesthood (27:20–28:5)
Only Aaron and his four sons were to serve as priests in standing before God. The priest was the indispensable mediator in the life of fellowship with God.
20–21 The “clear oil of pressed olives” was extracted from unripened olives that were beaten and pounded in a mortar rather than crushed in a mill. The pulpy mass was then placed in a basket; and the oil, without any mixture of other parts of the olive, dripped through the basket, giving a clear, pure oil that burned with little or no smoke. The lamps were to be kept burning “from evening till morning” (cf. 30:8; 1Sa 3:3). Significantly, the people were to provide this oil continuously; otherwise there would be darkness in the dwelling place of God.
1 Nadab and Abihu were two of Aaron’s four sons who later offered unauthorized fire before the Lord and were consumed (Lev 10:1–2), leaving only Eleazer and Ithamar. Aaron and his sons were to “serve . . . as priests.” They were to stand before the Lord (applied to all Levites in Dt 10:8) “to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” and “to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray” (Heb 5:1–2). They were to teach the people (Ne 8:2, 9) and serve as intercessors for them.
2–5 The garments of the high priest were “to give him dignity and honor,” i.e., they were to exalt the office and function of the high priest as well as beautify the worship of God. “The skilled men” were to make priestly garments for Aaron. Eight garments are mentioned: the four inner garments worn by all priests—tunics, linen undergarments or breeches, girdles or sashes, and headbands (vv.39–42). The four overgarments that were to be especially worn by Aaron were the breastpiece, ephod, robe, and turban (miter).
9. Garments of the priests (28:6–43)
6–14 The ephod probably was a high priestly waistcoat woven of blue, purple, scarlet, and white linen thread—all entwined with gold thread. Instead of having sleeves or being joined at the sides, it was hung from the shoulders by straps on which one onyx stone was mounted on each strap on top of a golden clasp with the names of the six younger sons of Israel engraved on one stone and the six elder sons engraved on the other stone. The names symbolize that the high priest represented all Israel when he ministered in the tabernacle. A “waistband” made of the same material and style as the ephod held the front and back of the ephod to the priest’s body. It had no significance of its own.
15–30 The “breastpiece,” a square piece of cloth made the same way as the ephod, was folded in half upward to form a sort of pouch in a square, 9 inches by 9 inches. Two rings at the inside lower corners attached the breastpiece to the rings of the ephod with a blue cord. Two golden rings on the top of the breastpiece fastened it to the shoulder pieces of the ephod with two golden chains. Twelve stones, one for each tribe, were set in four rows of three stones: the name of each son of Jacob was engraved on its respective stone in the proper birth order of the sons. Thus the nation was doubly represented before the Lord.
The “Urim and the Thummim” (lit., “lights and perfection”) often were used in times of crisis to determine the will of God (Nu 27:21), but just how they functioned and what they looked like are unknown. Perhaps they only symbolized the special revelation open to the high priest rather than being the necessary means of achieving that information. See also Lev 8:8; Nu 27:21; Dt 33:8; et al.
31–35 Under the ephod was a long, sleeveless blue “robe,” woven without a seam, which reached a little below the knees. It had slits for the arms and a hole for the head to pass through. Along the hem were blue, purple, and scarlet alternating pomegranates and golden bells. The bells, which jingled as the high priest served in the tabernacle, assured all who listened that he had not died in the Holy Place and that he continued to minister on their behalf.
36–39 The most conspicuous and important feature of the “turban” (miter) was the golden plate with the engraving “HOLY TO THE LORD.” The plate stretched over the forehead from ear to ear and was attached with a blue band going through two holes at the ends of the plate and then over the top of the head to a hole in the center of the plate.
The “tunic of fine linen” no doubt referred to a long white linen coat worn over the linen drawers or breeches (v.42), which perhaps reached down to the ankles and was close-fitted to the body as were the sleeves.
40–43 The attire for the ordinary priests is described next. Its purpose was to give “dignity and honor” (lit., “glory and beauty”) to them in their office. Verse 41 forms a transition to ch. 29, which speaks of the ordination of the priests. On the linen garments see comment on 20:26.
10. Ordination of the priests (29:1–46)
The instructions given to Moses in 28:41 are here elaborated in greater detail and are implemented in Lev 8. The consecration of Aaron and his sons in an act of ordination stressed the seriousness and central mission they had been given in the whole act of worship of our holy God.
1–9 Aaron and his sons were installed as high priest and ministering priests, respectively. This service of consecration uniquely marked them for the service of the tabernacle. The sacrifices for this occasion were to be “without defect” (cf. 12:5). Similarly, the consecrating sacrifice must be “without yeast” (cf. 12:15). Then Aaron and his sons were to be washed. The investiture of the high priest involved nine acts (Lev 8:7–9), but for ordinary priests it involved only three. Washing symbolized the removal of uncleanness resulting from sin (cf. 40:12–13; Lev 8:6–9; notice Heb 10:22).
Aaron and his sons were next dressed in the clothes described in ch. 28 and then anointed. The manner in which the high priest Aaron was anointed was different from that of his sons (cf. v.21; cf. also Lev 21:10). For the composition of the anointing oil, see comment on 30:22–25.
10–12 A bull was brought as a sin offering to atone for Aaron and his sons’ past sins. This was accomplished in symbol by laying their hands on the bull’s head, in effect transferring their sins to the sin-bearer (cf. Lev 4:1–5:13; 16:11, 15, 21). The bull was next slaughtered in the presence of the Lord as an act of appeasement. Applying blood to the horns and the base of the altar sanctified the offering place as well as the offering.
13–14 After the sacrifice was killed, the choicest parts were burned on the altar, the enveloping fat adding fuel to the fire (cf. Lev 3:4–5, 16; 7:23–25). The “flesh and its hide and its offal,” however, were thought of as being permeated with sin and were thus burned outside the camp. Similarly, Christ our Sacrifice offered up his spirit to the heavenly Father, but his flesh went into the tomb, outside the “camp” (cf. Heb 13:11–13).
15–18 As with the bull, Aaron and his sons were to identify with one of the rams by laying on their hands. This ram was completely offered to the Lord. Entire and wholehearted dedication of everything they were or hoped to be to God was called for. This constituted the “pleasing aroma” to the Lord (cf. Lev 1:9).
19–21 The second ram was also to be identified with, but it was to be used to consecrate Aaron and his sons. After slaughtering the ram, they were to “take some of its blood” and consecrate “the lobes of their [right] ears,” the organ that hears the Word of God. Next blood was to be applied to “the thumbs of their right hands,” organs by which the mediatorial work was to be performed on behalf of the people. Then Aaron and his sons were to apply blood to the “big toes of their right feet,” so that the sanctified walk of the priests would be examples to the people. Lastly, some of the blood of the altar was to be mixed with the anointing oil and sprinkled on Aaron and his sons and their clothes. This represented the full consecration of the priests.
22–26 The second ram was called “the ram for the ordination,” which is literally “the ram of filling.” The choice parts of this ram, along with the unleavened bread, oiled cake, and wafer, were to “fill” the hands of Aaron and his sons and to be used as a “wave offering.” The origin of the idiom “to fill the hand of” is unknown, but the idea of “filling” came to mean “ordination.” The waving was not from side to side but toward the altar and back, showing that the sacrifice was given to God and then received back by the priest for his use (cf. Lev 7:30; 23:20). Everything that had been waved except the “breast of the ram” was then to be burned on the altar.
27–28 “The breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented” of animals given as fellowship offerings were to be given to the priests.
29–30 The ordination garments of Aaron and his sons were to be passed down for future ordinations. The priest who would follow Aaron as high priest would wear these garments for seven days, perhaps symbolizing the completeness of his consecration.
31–34 The “ram for the ordination” (i.e., the breast and thigh, v.27) was to be cooked in a “sacred place,” namely, in the tabernacle courtyard. Then Aaron and his sons were to partake of the various foodstuffs in a type of communion meal. This was a closed communion, and all leftovers were to be burned and not passed on.
35–37 Again obedience is emphasized. The full consecration of the altar required the sacrifice of a bull for seven days running. After seven days of consecration, the altar would be “most holy,” as meaning that whatever touched it would likewise be made holy (cf. Mt 23:19).
38–41 Next Moses was instructed as to the nature of the daily offerings. Two yearling lambs a day were to be sacrificed, one in the morning and the other at evening (cf. Nu 28:3–8; cf. also 2Ki 16:15; Eze 46:13–15). The morning and the evening sacrifices were accompanied by a mixture of about two quarts of flour and one quarter of a hin of olive oil and a drink offering of a quart of wine. Once again the Lord reminded Moses that the offering was a pleasing aroma for him.
42–43 The Lord gave Moses a prophetic glimpse into Israel’s future by referring to the obligation “for the generations to come.” He promised to meet with the priests and Israel as regularly as the sacrifices were made. The Hebrew for “the place will be consecrated” is literally “it will be consecrated,” perhaps meaning that “Israel” would be sanctified, since fellowship was based on atonement.
44–46 After the Lord has consecrated the priests and paraphernalia, he “will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.” In fact, the divine side of the Exodus was so that God “might dwell among” his people. The real significance of the tabernacle theology is explicitly stated as God’s “tabernacling” or “dwelling” among people so that they could recognize that he indeed was God.
11. Altar of incense (30:1–10)
a. Building instructions (30:1–6)
The altar of incense also stood in the Holy Place. Whereas the altar inside the gate to the court was overlaid with bronze and was the place of continual bloodshed, this altar was overlaid with gold and had perpetual incense on it to symbolize continual intercession to God.
1–6 The altar was to be made of “acacia wood.” This square structure with horns on each corner was considerably smaller than the altar of burnt offering (cf. 27:1). The incense altar was to be overlaid with gold. The altar had the usual rings for the transporting poles. The altar was to be located directly in front of the curtain that shielded the “ark of the Testimony” from view.
b. Operating instructions (30:7–10)
7–10 The incense that was to be burned every morning and evening symbolized the prayers of the saints and communion with God (cf. Ps 141:2; Lk 1:10; Rev 5:8; 8:3–4). What was not to be used on the altar of incense is explicitly pointed out (v.9). Failure to follow this would result in the altar’s desecration. Also, it was necessary that once a year the altar be cleansed with blood from the atoning offering.
12. Census tax (30:11–16)
11–16 The precise reason for taking a census is not given. Perhaps it was to obtain a register of citizens for public duties in the Lord’s service. Previously 13:13 stated that the firstborn son belonged to God and had to be redeemed by a sacrifice. Likewise all firstborn belonged to God, and he accepted the tribe of Levi in lieu of all the firstborn (4:22; Nu 3:12). Verse 12 extends the principle. The word for “ransom” (GK 4111) or “atonement” signifies “to deliver or redeem by a substitute.” In this case the substitute was money by taking a census. Usually a census was equivalent to mustering troops; that is why it was so dangerous in David’s case (2Sa 24). It is clear, however, that those who were numbered under the proper circumstances would be under divine protection.
The “shekel” (GK 9203) was mentioned in 21:32. A “half shekel” would be about one-fifth of an ounce. This tax was to be paid by adults of military age. The fact that the rich were to give the same amount as the poor shows that it was not how much one had that obtained atonement for his life. The proceeds from the census tax were to be used by the Levites in their service for the Lord and were also to serve as a memorial for the Israelites (v.16).
13. Bronze basin, anointing oil, and incense (30:17–38)
17–21 The “bronze basin” was made from the bronze mirrors of the women (38:8) given as a freewill offering. Its exact shape is uncertain, but perhaps the “stand” was separate since it is always mentioned separately (cf. 31:9; 35:16; et al.). It was vital that the priests washed their hands and feet whenever they entered the “Tent of Meeting” and when they approached the altar to make an offering to the Lord by fire. Performing service to God in a state of ritual impurity risks death (cf. Lev 10:1–2).
22–38 On the spices and anointing oils, see comment on 25:6. The anointing of the various furniture pieces and other accoutrements served to consecrate them to the Lord’s service. The “sacred anointing oil” was to be unique, in both its makeup and its use. To merchandise it or duplicate it without proper authorization would result in excommunication from the nation. The incense was likewise to be unique and was considered most sacred. Failure to properly consider it would similarly result in excommunication from the nation.
14. Appointment of craftsmen (31:1–11)
1–11 Bezalel means “in the shadow of God’s [protection].” He was a descendant of Caleb (1Ch 2:19). His ability to work in the arts and his skills as a craftsman were gifts of the Holy Spirit. Oholiab, Bezalel’s assistant, was from the tribe of Dan. His name means “tent of the father” or “the (divine) father is my tent.” These two skilled craftsmen were responsible for all that pertained to the tabernacle and its service, though they themselves possibly only supervised the construction.
15. Sabbath rest (31:12–17)
12–17 Even though the construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings was a sacred work, the workmen were not to overlook the sacred institution of the Sabbath. “You must observe my Sabbaths” is emphatic. To violate the Sabbath even for the sake of working on the tabernacle would result in death. “Desecrates” contrasts sharply with “makes you holy.” As God’s covenant people, the Israelites were to carefully observe the sign of that covenant. The Sabbath was the sign of “a lasting covenant” (lit., “a perpetual covenant”), as were the rainbow (Ge 9:16), circumcision (Ge 17:7, 13, 19), and the table of the bread of the Presence (Lev 24:8). The Sabbath was thus a gift to Israel signifying their separateness as a people.
16. Conclusion to the instructions (31:18)
18 This verse is transitional to the golden calf scene. The forty days (see 24:18) had come to an end. The “two tablets of the Testimony” contained the Ten Commandments (cf. 32:15–16; 34:28; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 10:4). On the “finger of God,” see comment on 8:19.
B. False Worship of the Golden Calf (32:1–34:35)
1. Golden calf (32:1–29)
While chs. 32–34 continue the narrative interrupted after 24:18, their appearance at this point in the text deliberately contrasts the authorized worship of God set forth in the tabernacle instructions with the fabricated human worship of the golden calf. One could hardly conceive of two greater opposites. There is another contrast between what is taking place on the mountain and what is happening on the desert floor: the contrast between the presence of God and the insidious force of sin (cf. Dt 9:8–21; Ne 9:18; Ps 106:19–23). Therefore, chs. 32–34 form a terrible and ignominious interlude between the instructions on Israel’s worship and their implementation.
1 Without proper visible leadership, people fail. Sometimes even the holiest of men, such as Aaron, can be persuaded to do things contrary to their testimony. The people’s cry, “Come, make us gods who will go before us,” revealed their inadequate faith in a time of waiting. The clause “as for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt” is deliberately cast in coarse language, thus revealing the attitude of the people who had relegated God’s works to a mere mortal.
2–4 Aaron instructed the people to “take off” (lit., “tear off”) their “gold earrings.” No doubt these were part of the booty-gifts brought from Egypt (see 3:21–22; 11:2–3; 12:35–36). Aaron then “cast [them] in the shape of a calf,” probably by applying gold leaf over a wooden form, which thus could be burned (cf. 32:20). Or he may have rough cast it in solid gold and then shaped it by hand. The idol was a calf, i.e., a young bull, the symbol of virile power. On completion Aaron—and probably his sons—had the audacity to proclaim to Israel, “These are your gods,” a direct violation of the recently given second commandment (cf. 1Ki 12:28).
5–6 Apparently the altar built (of field stones and earth as in 20:24–25) in front of the calf and the “festival” were to act as sops for Aaron’s conscience. After making an attempt to honor the Lord with their offerings, the people satisfied their own desires and proceeded to “indulge in revelry,” namely, drunken, immoral orgies and sexual play (cf. Ge 26:8; 39:14, 17).
7–10 In response to Israel’s behavior, God charged Moses, “Your people whom you have brought up . . . have become corrupt.” God deliberately changed the possessive pronoun, thereby indicating that he was disowning Israel (contrast “my people” in 3:10 et al.). “Have become corrupt” (GK 8845) renders the same verb found in Ge 6:12 for the apostasy or corruption in Noah’s day; it means “to go to ruin or destruction” (cf. Dt 9:6; 10:16; Ps 75:5; Jer 17:23; Acts 7:51). The fact that they were “quick to turn away” shows Israel had apostatized from the revealed truth in word and events that they had witnessed. The “stiff-necked people” would not bow under God’s authority (cf. Jer 27:11–12), even though they had readily “bowed down” to the calf and worshiped it.
God was very angry with the people. The God who seemed unmerciful, however, is the same God who had mercifully prepared Moses for just such an occasion as this. So God said, by way of testing Moses, “Leave me alone.” But God would allow himself to be bound, as it were, by prepared persons doing prepared work in God’s way.
11–14 In his role as a divinely raised-up mediator, Moses appealed to the Lord. First, he reminded the Lord of his special covenantal relationship with his people, which he manifested in the Exodus. Then he appealed to God’s need to keep his name holy and trustworthy. Finally, he referred to the great patriarchal promises. As Moses championed the Lord’s cause, “the LORD relented [GK 5714].” God’s repentance or “relenting” shows that he can and does change in his actions and emotions to humans when given proper grounds for doing so, and thereby he does not change in his basic integrity or character (cf. Pss 99:6; 106:45; Jer 18:8; Am 7:3, 6; Jnh 3:10; Jas 5:16). In Scripture, three grounds are given for the Lord’s “repenting”: intercession (cf. Am 7:1–6); repentance of the people (Jer 18:3–11; Jnh 3:9–10); and compassion (Dt 32:36; Jdg 2:18).
15–16 This is the only passage that informs us that the “two tablets of the Testimony” were inscribed “on both sides.” That “the tablets were the work of God” emphasizes their divine origin. In 31:18 they are said to be “inscribed by the finger of God,” though 34:28 says that “Moses . . . wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments” (see comment on 34:1–3).
17–18 According to 24:13, Joshua had ascended the mountain with Moses, perhaps halfway up. Joshua mistook the “noise of the people shouting” for war cries. Moses, however, discerned otherwise. The phrase “sound of” is literally “the sound of answering.” There is a play on the word “answer” used in two senses: it was not the “shout” of the victor with its corresponding racket of the vanquished, but it was the antiphonal song of singers.
19–20 The wickedness of the people he had just pled to the Lord to preserve angered Moses when “he saw the calf and the dancing.” Not only were the stone tablets broken, symbolizing the breaking of God’s covenant by the people, but Moses quickly broke up the calf and the festivities, bringing an end to the people’s covenant with carnality. Moses took the calf and “burned it,” “ground it to powder,” and “scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it,” a fitting conclusion for a shameful act (cf. 2Ki 23:15).
22–24 Aaron had to do some quick thinking to extricate himself from guilt as an accomplice in the people’s reveling. He tried four excuses: (1) “you know how prone these people are to evil”; (2) “they said to me”; and (3) “we don’t know what has happened to [Moses].” The flimsiest excuse came last: (4) “out came this calf!” Was Aaron trying to say that a miracle had occurred?
25–26 The people had cast off all restraint (cf. Pr 29:18). The idea of “to cast off all restraints” is of loosening or uncovering. Apparently there was a type of religious prostitution connected with the people’s worship of the golden calf. Moses realized that decisive action was required. So he challenged the people (cf. Jos 24:14–15; 1Ki 18:21; Mt 6:24). “All” is undoubtedly a generalization, since Dt 33:9 implies that some Levites were slain in the action that followed (v.28).
27–29 The Levites who chose to follow God were commanded to arm themselves and “go back and forth . . . killing.” This was not the command of a prophet but of a holy God. No small number of people had to pay the consequences for their stiff-neckedness (cf. Ac 2:41). Following God now sometimes requires denying one’s family (cf. Lk 12:51–53; 14:26). A necessary part of consecration is being obedient to the Lord’s command, which always results in his blessings. The Levites wholeheartedly followed God (Jos 14:8) and counted other ties of kinship as nothing in comparison (Dt 33:9).
2. Mediation of Moses (32:30–35)
30 Even though the people had repented, atonement for sin was still needed. Moses would attempt to ransom or deliver the people from the certain judgment of their sin by offering a substitute—himself.
31–32 Moses ascended the mountain once again and proceeded to intercede in prayer on Israel’s behalf a second time. The sincerity of Moses’ devotion to his people is seen in his request: “Blot me out” (cf. Ro 9:1–3). The “book” or “scroll” is called the “book of the living” in Ps 69:28 and is referred to in Isa 4:3: “recorded among the living” (cf. Eze 13:9; Da 12:1; Mal 3:16; cf. Php 4:3; Rev 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27).
33–34 Moses’ offer was refused by the Lord, who replied, “Whoever has sinned . . . I will blot out of my book” (cf. Pss 9:5; 51:1). Thus the OT principle is reaffirmed: the person who sins is accountable for his or her own sin (cf. Dt 24:16; Eze 18:4, 13, 17). Whereas in the past the Lord had led (12:42, 51; 13:17; 15:13; 20:2) and Moses was only his servant, from then on Moses and an angel were to lead. “The time comes for me to punish” is literally “in the day of my visitation.” Perhaps this is the beginning of the “Day of the LORD” warnings.
35 The order of events is probably not in strict chronological sequence; hence the plague may well be the slaughter of the three thousand mentioned in v.28. The plague came on the people because they caused the calf to be made or asked for it. Frequently in Scripture events may be directly attributed to people when they only occasioned them since the one could implicate the many as a member of a community, just as today one traitor can compromise a whole army or nation.
3. Threatened separation and Moses’ prayer (33:1–3)
1–3 The Lord issued the command to move on, promising to “send an angel” before them (cf. 23:20, 23; 32:34). The angel promised here is altogether different from “the angel of his presence” in Isa 63:9, since God declared that his “Name is in him” (23:21). Thus that angel was a christophany, an appearance of Christ in the OT. Although the Lord promised to send his personal representative, he himself would “not go with [them].” This withdrawal of the divine presence assured in 23:20–23 was because of the presence of sin.
4–6 The people would rather risk the danger of divine chastisement than be deprived of the divine presence; hence “they began to mourn” and desisted from putting on any further ornaments. Reminded once more of their stubbornness, the people were asked to “take off [their] ornaments,” i.e., the ones they were already wearing, as a test of their repentance. Akin to putting on sackcloth and ashes, the people “stripped off their ornaments” as a sign of mourning for their sin (cf. Ge 35:4; Eze 26:16).
7–11 The “tent . . . outside the camp” was different from the tabernacle or “Tent of Meeting” with its ark and other furniture where the Lord permanently dwelt. This “tent of the meeting” was outside the camp, a temporary structure used until the more permanent shelter was constructed (cf. 27:21 et al.). The verbs in v.7 show that Moses customarily erected this tent. Moses visited this tent whenever he desired a meeting with the Lord. When Moses entered it, “the pillar of cloud would come down,” an indication that the Lord was communicating with him “as a man speaks with his friend” (cf. Nu 12:8; Dt 34:10). A similar descent later caps the completion of the tabernacle (40:33–34; see 13:21). The presence of the pillar of the cloud at the tent entrance evoked a spirit of worship from the people.
12–14 As the time approached for Moses to take up the lead of the Israelites, he became concerned as to the identity of the companion God had promised him (32:34; 33:2). He believed that a mere angel was no substitute for the presence of God. “I know you by name” is tantamount to saying, “I have singled you out” or “I have chosen/selected you.” Moses asked the Lord for a demonstration of his love so that he might know and serve him better. The Lord responded by promising, “My Presence [lit., ‘my face’; GK 7156] will go with you.” With this new word, the Lord reinstated the angel of his presence in whom he invested his “Name” (23:20–21) as the leader of Israel’s way to Canaan.
15–18 Moses beseeched God not to send the people out without his “Presence” to lead them. Moses knew that God’s presence was essential to Israel’s testimony, in order to keep them distinct from the rest of the world. That was the response the Lord was waiting for; but Moses sought one further thing: God’s “glory.”
19–20 In response to Moses’ request to see God’s “glory,” God said that he would “cause all [his] goodness to pass” before Moses. By his “goodness” (GK 3206) is meant his whole character and nature. A further aspect of God’s glory was the proclamation of his name. The name of God includes his nature, character, person (Ps 20:1; Lk 24:47; Jn 1:12), doctrine (Ps 22:22; Jn 17:6, 26), and standards of living (Mic 4:5). Here his name includes his “mercy” and his “compassion.” The one restriction was that Moses would not be permitted to see the Lord’s face. In fact, “no one may see me and live” (see Jn 1:18; 6:46; 1Ti 1:17; 1Jn 4:12).
21–23 To see God’s glory Moses was to stand on a “rock” (cf. Mt 7:24–27). When the glory passed by, Moses would be hid in the “cleft in the rock” and covered by the Lord’s hand. Then the hand of God would be removed so that Moses might see God’s back. But since God is Spirit and has no form, and since no one can see him and live (v.20), the word translated “back” could just as well and more accurately be rendered “the after-effects” of his radiant glory, which had just passed by.
4. Renewal of the covenant (34:1–35)
1–3 Since Moses had broken the former tablets (32:19), which “were the work of God” (32:16), it was appropriate that he “chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones.” No contradiction exists between God’s statement that he “will write on them the words that were on the first tablets” and vv.27–28, where Moses did the actual writing. Apparently these are alternate ways of saying the same thing. The law is the direct expression of the mind and will of God.
4–7 Moses obediently followed the Lord’s directions and prepared two new stone tablets. Early the next morning he brought them to the Lord on top of Mount Sinai. The Lord once more appeared before Moses and proclaimed his name: “the LORD” (see 33:19; cf. 20:2). Then the Lord “passed in front of Moses.” The Lord’s self-disclosure is prefaced by the repetition of his name, perhaps to emphasize his unchangeableness.
Verses 6b–7 are essentially repeated in Nu 14:18; 2Ch 30:9; Ne 9:17; Jnh 4:2; et al. On “compassionate” (GK 8157), see comment on 33:19. The “gracious [GK 2843] God” bestows his unmerited favor on those who have no claim whatsoever on it. His graciousness is explicated by “slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” But his grace is balanced, for “he does not leave the guilty unpunished.” His chastisement will be felt to the “third and fourth generation.” The full formula (see 20:5) includes the important qualifier “of those who hate me.”
8–9 The revelation of God’s person and character humbled Moses and caused him to once more plead for his grace to be given tq his people, even though they were stiff-necked and wicked.
10–14 The Lord’s statement “I am making a covenant with you” is not to be understood as the instituting of a second covenant in vv.10–27 but is best seen as a renewing of the same covenant after the events of ch. 33. The word “wonders” is used of the plagues sent on Egypt (3:20). They would be so outstanding that the people would be awestruck. For Israel to benefit from God’s miraculous display, however, they had to be obedient to his commands.
The Lord further warned the Israelites not to become involved in unholy alliances (cf. 2Co 6:14). More than that, they were to take the initiative and eliminate the pagan “altars, . . . sacred stones and . . . Asherah poles.” The Asherim were probably sacred trees or wooden poles placed alongside Baal’s altar (Jdg 6:25; 1Ki 15:13; 2Ki 21:7). With the pagan religious objects removed, there would be less temptation to “worship any other god.” The word “jealous” is mentioned twice for emphasis (see comment on 20:5). This particular Hebrew word is used only of God and illustrates the parallel between idolatry and adultery (cf. Dt 22:22).
15–16 Once more the warning against unholy alliances is sounded. This time some of the “snares” (cf. v.12) are given: (1) “they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices,” and (2) “you [will] choose . . . their daughters as wives.” Both actions lead to idolatry.
17 The prohibition against making “cast idols” is most relevant (cf. ch. 32; see also 20:4–6).
18–26 For these verses see comments on 23:14–19. The way of obedience balances prohibitions with admonitions: “Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread” (see comments on 12:14–20). For “the first offspring . . . belongs to me” see comments on 13:11–16. See comments on 20:8–11 for laboring six days and resting one. In 23:16 the “Feast of Weeks” is called the “Feast of Harvest.”
The Lord added a special promise for the pilgrim to the three annual feasts that required his presence. The Lord would protect the pilgrim’s land from his ungodly neighbor who might move the boundary markers or steal from the land while the pilgrim was absent. The statement “when you go up three times each year” looks forward to the time when the people were settled in the land; it need not imply that this verse was written later (cf. Dt 16:16). On v.25 see comment on 23:18. For the law and theology of “firstfruits,” see comment on 23:19 (cf. 4:22; 11:5; 12:29).
27–28 For the Lord’s commanding Moses to “write down these words,” see comment on v.1. For “forty days and forty nights,” see comment on 24:18. That Moses was able to go for this length of time without food or water was a miracle requiring the Lord’s supernatural care (cf. Dt 9:9, 18; Mt 4:2).
29–32 Spending an extended period of time in the Lord’s presence had a telling effect on Moses. The verb “to radiate” is related to the noun for “horn.” The Vulgate confused these two, which thus led to the representation in European medieval art of Moses wearing two horns! The manifestation of the divine countenance struck fear in the Israelites. A word from Moses, however, encouraged Aaron, the leaders, and all the Israelites to approach him; and he thus delivered the word of the Lord to them.
33–35 Moses’ radiance was only visible to the people when he was acting as the oracle of God. At other times he kept his face veiled. This was not a priest’s “mask,” for Moses left the veil off when speaking to the people as God’s messenger or when he was alone in the presence of God (cf. 2Co 3:7–18).
C. Building the Tabernacle (35:1–40:38)
1. Summons to build (35:1–19)
1–3 Since he had gathered the Israelites together, Moses relayed to them the commands of the Lord. The Sabbath, the sign of the covenant, was mentioned first, an indication of its importance. On “a Sabbath of rest,” see comments on 20:8–11 and 31:12–17. Although the prohibition against lighting a fire on the Sabbath is not mentioned elsewhere, it is implied in part in 16:23.
4 Almost every item in 25:1–30:10 is repeated in 35:4–40:38 in identical or similar words, except here the verbs are mainly in the past tense. In the ancient Near East it was customary to repeat the instructions by a literal repetition of the terms except for change in verb forms.
“This is what the LORD has commanded” repeats v.1 to revert back to the primary theme after the prefatory words about observing the Sabbath (cf. Lev 23:2, 4).
5–9 See comments on 25:3–7. The differences are negligible except for the introductory words in 25:3, which would have been out of place here.
10–19 See comments on 25.1–28:43; 30:1–10, 17–38; cf. 31:7–11.
2. Voluntary gifts (35:20–29)
20–29 After Moses’ instructions, the people left to set about doing their tasks. Those whose hearts were moved brought offerings for the tabernacle and its related service. The willingness of the people is mentioned repeatedly. “Men and women alike” are specifically mentioned to avoid the misapprehension that “everyone” excluded women even though vv.25–26 mention them in another connection. On the various gifts of the people, see 25:1–7.
3. Bezalel and his artisans (35:30–36:7)
For further comments on these verses, see also comments on 31:2–6.
30–35 God’s selection and equipping of Bezalel was so that he could “engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship” (lit., “engage in every work of thought”). This would include implementing the plan or thought previously given for the project (cf. 31:4–5). Verse 34 adds that Bezalel and Oholiab were given “the ability to teach others,” a capability of training and guiding assistants who would work with these two artificers. Verse 35 is almost entirely new.
36:1–7 The chapter division here is unfortunate, for no break is signified by the verb, as though the account now turns to the execution of the work by these craftsmen. The willingness of the people exceeded the requirements of the craftsmen; so the order was given to the people to make no further offerings for the sanctuary. This is a noteworthy illustration of generosity for the Lord’s work.
4. Progress of the work and Moses’ blessing (36:8–39:43)
8–19 The start of the actual work on the tabernacle begins here. The order is different from the order of the instructions. The work of the curtains repeats 26:1–13.
20–34 On the frames and crossbars, see comments on 26:15–30.
35–38 For the inner curtain, see comments on 26:31–35.
37:1–9 On the ark, see comments on 25:10–22. Bezalel is specifically mentioned with the work of the holiest of tabernacle objects.
10–16 On the table of the bread of the Presence, see comments on 25:23–30.
17–24 On the lampstand, see comments on 25:31–40.
25–29 On the altar of incense, see comments on 30:1–6. On the “sacred anointing oil,” see comments on 25:6.
38:1–7 On the altar of burnt offering, see comments on 27:1–8.
8 On the bronze basin, see comments on 30:17–21.
9–20 On the tabernacle courtyard, see comments on 27:9–19.
21–39:1 These verses are an inventory of the tabernacle materials. Verses 25–26 give an insight into the population of Israel at this time. There are 3,000 shekels to a talent; therefore 3,000 times 100 equals 300,000 plus 1,775 equals 301, 775. Since each man (from twenty years and older) was valued at a half shekel, the total number of men able to bear arms was over 600,000 (301, 775 times 2 equals 603, 550), a number very similar to the later count of Nu 1:46 (603, 550) or Nu 26:51 (601, 730). Such a tally for the army would more than justify estimates of 2 million for the total population.
“As the LORD commanded Moses” is the emphasis of chs. 39–40. The clause occurs nine times in ch. 39 and seven times in ch. 40.
2–31 See comments on 28:6–43. “The sacred diadem” is a new designation here, not found in 28:36–37.
32–41 The statement “so all the work . . . was completed” is reminiscent of Ge 2:1–2, the concluding words of the Creation account. This section emphasizes that the Israelites completed their work “just as the LORD commanded.” The workmen, on behalf of all the people of Isarael, “brought the tabernacle to Moses.” Once again the list of articles is repeated (cf. 35:11–19; a shortened form occurs in 31:7–11). “With its row of lamps” is a new term for the lamps set in order on the lampstand.
42–43 “Moses . . . saw that they had done it just as the LORD had commanded” is again parallel to the expression in Ge 1:31. The conclusion was, “So Moses blessed them” (cf. Ge 1:22, 28; 2:3).
5. Erection of the tabernacle (40:1–33)
1–5 The tabernacle was erected on the “first day of the first month.” Verse 17 adds that this was the beginning of the “second year” of the wilderness wanderings. Since the nation of Israel entered the Sinai Desert in the third month after the Exodus (19:1) and Moses was on Mount Sinai for two forty-day periods (24:18; 34:28) plus the events covered in 19:1–24:11 and chs. 32–33, the building of the tabernacle took less than six months to build.
Once again, as in 25:10–22, the ark, the most prominent object in the tabernacle, is first to be mentioned. This was God’s throne in the midst of Israel. The “curtain” and how it shielded the ark is further described in v.21 (cf. also 26:31–35; 36:35–38).
On the “table,” see comments on 25:23–30; 37:10–16; on the “lampstand,” see comments on 25:31–40; 37:17–24; on the “gold altar of incense,” see comments on 30:1–10, 34–38; 37:25–29.
6–8 On the “altar of burnt offering,” see comments on 27:1–8; 38:1–7; on the “basin,” see comments on 30:17–21; 38:8; on the “courtyard,” see comments on 27:9–19; 38:9–20.
9–11 On the “anointing oil,” see comments on 25:6; 30:22–33. These instructions were carried out in Lev 8:10–12. “Consecrate it” is literally “sanctify it” in the sense of setting it apart for the service of the Lord.
12–16 The anointing and consecrating of the priesthood included Aaron and his sons. The institution of the priesthood was “for all generations to come” (cf. 12:24; 27:21). Even though the hereditary priestly office of the Aaronic line ended, Christ would carry it out perpetually.
17–33 Verse 17 parallels v.2 in almost every detail. Verses 18–33 contain seven subsections, each concluding with the formula “as the LORD commanded him/Moses.”
1. “Moses set up the tabernacle.”
2. “He took the Testimony and placed it in the ark” (see 25:14, 16, 21).
3. “Moses placed the table” (26:35; 40:4).
4. “He placed the lampstand” (26:35; 40:4).
5. “Moses placed the gold altar” (30:6; 40:5).
6. “He put up the curtain” and “he set the altar of burnt offering.”
7. “He placed the basin” (30:18; 40:7).
6. Dedication of the tabernacle (40:34–38)
34–38 The tabernacle had been constructed and set in order as the Lord had commanded Moses; yet something was lacking. Form must be invested with divine life; so “the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” On the Lord’s glory, see comments on 16:7, 10; 24:16–17; 33:18, 22. With the arrival of the glory of the Lord, the nation of Israel was ready to move on. The promise of the divine messenger to lead the people was fulfilled (23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2). The Lord now lived in the midst of his people as their King, and he continued to lead them throughout the next forty years in the desert. The signal for them to continue their journey was “whenever the cloud lifted” (cf. 13:21; see also 17:1; 25:22).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Ex 1:8 | Ac 7:18 | King who did not know Joseph |
| Ex 2:14 | Ac 7:27–28, 35 | Moses in Egypt |
| Ex 3:5 | Ac 7:33 | Moses at the burning bush |
| Ex 3:6 | Mt 22:32; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37; Ac 7:32 | The living God |
| Ex 3:7–8, 10 | Ac 7:34 | God promises to deliver Israel |
| Ex 9:16 | Ro 9:17 | Purpose of Moses |
| Ex 12:46 | Jn 19:36 | No broken bones |
| Ex 13:2, 12 | Lk 2:23 | Dedication of the firstborn |
| Ex 16:4 | Jn 6:31 | Bread from heaven |
| Ex 16:18 | 2Co 8:15 | God provides enough |
| Ex 19:12–13 | Heb 12:20 | Not touching the mountain |
| Ex 20:11 | Ac 4:24; 14:15 | God the creator |
| Ex 20:12 | Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10; Eph 6:2–3 | Fifth commandment |
| Ex 20:13 | Mt 5:21; Ro 13:9; Jas 2:11 | Sixth commandment |
| Ex 20:14 | Mt 5:27; Ro 13:9; Jas 2:11 | Seventh commandment |
| Ex 20:15 | Ro 13:9 | Eighth commandment |
| Ex 20:17 | Ro 7:7; 13:9 | Tenth commandment |
| Ex 21:17 | Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10 | Cursing parents |
| Ex 21:24 | Mt 5:38 | Eye for Eye |
| Ex 22:28 | Ac 23:5 | Cursing rulers |
| Ex 24:8 | Heb 9:20 | The blood of the covenant |
| Ex 25:40 | Heb 8:5 | Pattern of the tabernacle |
| Ex 32:1, 23 | Ac 7:40 | Asking for idols |
| Ex 32:6 | 1Co 10:7 | Sin of idolatry |
| Ex 33:19 | Ro 9:15 | Mercy of God |
| Ex 34:33, 35 | 2Co 3:13 | Veil of Moses |