EXODUS.
THIS second book of the Pentateuch takes its modern name from its
principal event, the exodus of the Hebrew people――their marching forth
out of their house of bondage from the land of their oppression, to be
replanted under God’s gracious providence in the goodly land promised
to their fathers.――――This one main event as recorded in this book
includes many subordinate points, _e. g._
I. The _oppressions_ of the Hebrews by the Egyptians.
II. _Moses_, who became in the hand of God their great Deliverer; his
history; his early training and his call from the Lord to this great
work.
III. _The great mission of Moses to Egypt’s king_; his reception;
the ten successive plagues――miraculous judgments from the hand of God;
the case of the magicians; the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and the
ultimate result.
I. _The Oppression._
The narrative shows that this oppression consisted in part in the
exacting of terribly severe labors, especially in building, including
the making of brick, the preparation of mortar, the transportation of
these materials, and the erection of buildings. The ancient monuments
of Egypt confirm the statements of sacred history, showing that the
Egyptians employed national bondmen in the construction of their vast
national works; that they placed over them task-masters; that when the
workmen fell short of the required tale of brick, their masters put
them to more severe labors, and in some cases to labors of other sort.
It has been supposed by some that the ancient paintings represented
some of these laborers with the well-known physiognomy of the Hebrews.
It should be noted that this bondage differed from the slavery of
modern times in this one respect――that the bondmen were held by the
king and the nation in their national capacity and not by individuals.
The Hebrews were not held as private but as public property. The king
and the nation as such bore therefore the responsibility and guilt of
this oppression, and God let his judgments smite them for the most part
in such a way as to indicate their sin.
A second feature in this oppression was the king’s cruel edict to
murder the male infants. This was first enjoined upon the Hebrew
midwives. Fearing God more than Egypt’s king, they evaded obedience;
whereupon the king commanded all his people to cast the male infants
into the river.――――The reason assigned for both these measures was
_public policy_, to prevent the rapid increase of Hebrew population
which the king assumed might be dangerous to his throne and people
in case of a foreign invasion. Such a policy is at once short-sighted
and wicked; short-sighted, since kind treatment would have made this
rapidly growing people their fast friends and helpers; wicked, because
it violates common morality, insulting God, and provoking his wrath
by outraging all the obligations which he imposes on men toward their
fellows. Egypt’s king and court presently found themselves arrayed
against Almighty God and saw him take up the challenge in a fearful
conflict for mastery. We shall see in the final issue that the Lord
improved this occasion to illustrate some of the noblest principles
of his government over nations and indeed over individuals as well,
showing that he abhors oppression; takes the side of the oppressed;
hurls his fiercest thunderbolts against giant oppressors in every age;
and every-where holds men to the responsibility of using their power
to befriend and not to oppress their human brethren.
This oppression began with “a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph.”
It is generally held that these words indicate a new dynasty――one
royal line superseded by another, perhaps a foreign power coming in
to supplant the former dynasty. The points of historic contact between
Egyptian and Hebrew chronology may at some future day be adjusted with
reasonable certainty. They are not yet. The subject is undergoing a
somewhat thorough investigation with some prospect of ultimate success.
At present I am not prepared to express positive opinions.
Two of the disputed periods in Hebrew chronology are necessarily
involved;
(a.) The period of the Judges, which as shown above some reduce to 339
years; others extend to 450;
(b.) The period of the sojourn in Egypt, made by some 215 years; by
others, 430. Some of the theories which attempt to locate this new king
of Egypt in his relation to Hebrew history place the Exodus about B. C.
1600; others B. C. 1491. Some put the commencement of the sojourn in
Egypt B. C. 2030; others B. C. 1706; yet others B. C. 1815. I have
given my reasons for adopting the longer periods. It is possible that
Egyptian authorities may yet throw a strong influence upon the decision
of these much disputed points of Hebrew chronology.
The narrative shows that the Hebrews had become numerically strong
and were rapidly growing stronger. Joseph had been dead probably a
considerable time and all the men of his generation. Being 39 years old
when his father came into Egypt and dying at the age of 110, he lived
to protect his people 71 years. Moses was 80 years old when he came
before Pharaoh, bearing the command of the Almighty――“Let my people
go.” It is probable that the terrible edict to destroy all the male
infants did not long precede the birth of Moses. The interval between
the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses will depend on the duration
of the entire sojourn in Egypt, since from this entire sojourn we must
subtract the years of Joseph’s life after the sojourn began and the
years of Moses before it closed, _i. e._ 71 + 80 = 151. This sum must
be subtracted either from 215, leaving 64; or from 430, leaving 279.
The latter I assume to be the true period. It provides abundantly for
the great increase of the Hebrew people, and accounts for the fear felt
by Egypt’s “new king.”
II. MOSES.
We shall study the history of Moses without _the key_ if we overlook
the point made by the writer to the Hebrews (11: 23): “_By faith_ Moses
when he was born was hid three months because they saw that he was
a proper child, and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”
Faith in God made them fearless of Egypt’s cruel king. It would seem
also that they saw in the peculiar beauty of this child a sort of
prophecy of his future, something at least which raised expectation
and put them upon special ventures to save his life. Three months they
secreted him within their home. When this expedient could suffice no
longer, they prepared an ark of bulrushes――a little box, water-tight,
constructed to float――and moored it with its treasure among the flags
on the river’s bank. We may suppose that his mother knew the spot where
the king’s daughter was wont to take her baths, and that her faith and
prayer lay back of this venture to throw her darling infant upon the
compassion of a stranger woman’s heart. It need not be supposed that
she foresaw his future adoption into the royal family, his training
for forty years in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and his consequent
qualification to become the great Hebrew Lawgiver and Deliverer.
Suffice it that these results lay in the thought of God. She had faith
enough to commit her darling to God’s care and to leave all the future
unknown results to his adjustment.
The ways of God were mercifully kind toward this Hebrew mother. She
stationed his elder sister as a sentinel to watch the issue, and then
(let us presume) gave herself to prayer. When this elder sister with
palpitating heart saw the daughter of Pharaoh take the beautiful child
to her bosom, she felt that her time had come. Modestly advancing, she
said, “Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women that
she may nurse the child for thee”? Pharaoh’s daughter said, Go. How
joyfully did she go and call the child’s own mother! God’s finger was
there. The mother’s faith has come up as sweet incense before Him and
her heart is made glad, as only a praying mother’s can be. There was
no occasion to tell us that she consecrated this child to Israel’s God
for any service he might have for him in his after life. Such a mother,
drawn by her sweet faith into such relationship to God, could do
nothing less. Moreover, this was no barren consecration――was not a vow
once made and soon forgotten. Nothing can be more certain than that she
cared diligently for the moral training and culture of this marvelously
saved son. Else how could it happen that “when he was come to years,
he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather
to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures
of sin for a season; esteeming reproach for Christ greater riches than
all the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect to the recompense of the
reward” (Heb. 11: 24–26)? The seeds of this world-conquering faith must
have been dropped early into his tender mind. This hired Hebrew nurse,
permitted to come into the royal palace by some back-way, was indulged
this privilege freely, we know not precisely how long; but let us
presume that the same faith and prayer kept this door open, at least
for her occasional visits in his future years. How many testimonies of
God’s love to the fathers of their nation she dropped into his youthful
ear; how much she told him of God as “the exceeding great reward”
of his believing people; how well she put the contrast between “the
treasures of Egypt” and the treasures laid up for God’s then persecuted
people:――these points are rather left to our inference than definitely
stated; but we may be very sure that the faith of Moses took hold of
these grand truths of then extant revelation; fixed its hold early; and
held fast through all his future life.
We have three co-ordinate narratives of the early years of Moses: that
given in Heb. 11: 24–27, very brief, and touching only its specially
religious side; while that of Stephen (Acts 7: 20–29) is full, even
somewhat more full than the narrative in Ex. 2: 10–15. Particularly
Stephen adds that Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians
and mighty in words and in deeds”――a man like Joseph of immense
efficiency:――also that he was “full forty years old” when it came into
his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel――a statement
which shows that he distinctly recognized this relationship of brethren.
Seeing a brother Hebrew abused by an Egyptian he interposed, smote
the Egyptian dead, and buried him in the sand. Stephen’s words suggest
that this was not merely one of those quick, spontaneous impulses
felt by noble souls in view of outrageous wrong, but was a first step
toward a contemplated career of interposed force for the rescue of
his people from their oppression. “For he supposed his brethren would
have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them; but they
understood not” (Acts 7: 25). The whole of the fact seems to be that
the Lord was not yet ready and had not fully prepared Moses for this
great life-work of his yet, and certainly had not inaugurated him into
it.[27]――――Interposing the next day in a quarrel between two of his own
Hebrew brethren, he learned that his slaying of the Egyptian was known,
and immediately sought safety by flight to the land of Midian. The Lord
had more objects than one in turning his steps thither; not only his
then present safety, but the spiritual culture of so much solitude and
of long-continued, unbroken communion with God and of long tried faith,
coupled with the incidental advantage of becoming perfectly familiar
with that great wilderness through which he was to lead the hosts of
Israel for forty years.
Scarcely had he penetrated this desert land in his flight when he
made the acquaintance of a priest of Midian [Jethro], and of his seven
shepherdess daughters, one of whom became his wife. Like the somewhat
similar experience of Abraham, falling in with the priest of Salem,
♦Melchizedek, the circumstance suggests the inquiry how much of the
true knowledge and worship of God existed in those early ages outside
the line of Abraham’s family. The historical traces of such piety
are certainly very few, yet they recur so incidentally that we are
justified in the hope that these cases are not exhaustive; stood
not altogether alone. When we come to consider the history of Job we
shall take occasion to observe, that his location is certainly in this
great region of Arabia, and that his date must in all probability have
somewhat preceded this residence of Moses in the land of Midian. Here
Moses may have found the story in a traditional form; may perhaps have
seen Job’s immediate descendants; may possibly have put the story in
its present form as one of the pastimes of a literary shepherd’s life;
and then, retaining it in his possession during his subsequent years,
may have himself solved the problem――How came this book in the archives
of the Hebrew nation, on an equal footing as to inspired authority with
their historical books?
_The Great Mission of Moses._
Of the second forty-year period in the life of Moses, little is
reported save its first scenes and its last. Ex. 3 opens the latter.
Moses is keeping the flock of his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.
He has “led them to the back side of the desert”――_i. e._ to the
west side of it, for in designating the points of compass the Hebrews
always turned the face toward the east. The east is in front――_before_;
and of course the west is behind. Horeb and Sinai lay on the western
margin of the great Arabian desert.――――Here “the angel of the Lord
appeared to him” (v. 2), called “angel” however only as one who
comes or is sent with divine manifestations; for in every subsequent
mention he is called “the Lord” and “God” (vs. 4, 6, 7, 11, 13,
etc.)[28]――――Remarkably this visible manifestation was made by the
symbol of fire in a bush――the bush all aflame yet not consumed. This
strange sight attracted the attention of Moses, and he turned aside
to look into it more closely, when a voice from the bush called him
by name; warned him not to approach in the spirit of mere curiosity,
but to take off his shoes because the place on which he stood was holy
ground. The mystery before Moses’ mind is solved――the Lord is there!
His purpose in this appearing is soon told. He has heard the cry of
distress from his oppressed people, has come down to deliver them and
to bring them forth into Canaan. He has a mission for Moses in this
work. “Come” said he, “I will send thee to Pharaoh.” Moses knew the
power and the pride of Pharaoh, and saw at a glance the difficulties
of this enterprise. No wonder he shrank back saying――“Who am I that
I should do this”? God replied: “I will certainly be with thee”――a
sufficient answer to any amount of conscious weakness and faintness of
heart. The Lord added――“This shall be a token to thee that I have sent
thee; when thou hast brought the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve
[_i. e._ worship] God in this mountain.” From that moment this token
was God’s pledge to Moses of success in bringing the people forth from
Egypt; and when it was fulfilled in the scenes of national worship and
consecration on Horeb, it became doubly a sign to all the people that
the Lord their God was in this great movement.
Moses anticipates that the people will ask for the name of God, and he
therefore inquires――What shall I answer them? To which the Lord replies:
“_I am that I am_”; and then abbreviating the phrase, adds, “Thus shalt
thou say to Israel, _I am_ hath sent me to you.” What immediately
follows should be carefully noted. God said moreover to Moses (still
reiterating the same thought though in other and more familiar terms):
“Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord――_i. e._
Jehovah, God of your fathers, hath sent me unto you; this is my name
forever and this is my memorial through all generations.” This v. 15
is without doubt the key to the true sense of the names as previously
given――“_I am that I am_,” and in briefer form, “_I am_.” Their
true meaning is in the name _Jehovah_. This name contemplates God
as evermore existing, the same unchangeable God, and therefore ever
faithful to his promises. This view of God assumes that he reveals
himself personally as the God of his trustful people, entering into
covenant with them and never failing to remember and fulfill that
covenant.
In order to see the full force and pertinence of the passage, it should
be considered that by common Hebrew usage, the names of persons were
significant. They were words with a meaning. This is true of all the
names by which the true God is made known. And when Moses suggests that
the people will ask for God’s name, it is not implied that they had
never heard any name for God and did not know what to call him; but
this――They would know what new or special feature of his character was
to be manifested then. Their question was equivalent to asking――What
does God propose to do now? What new movement does he contemplate? What
new development of God may we expect?――――To the question so understood,
the Lord made a direct answer:――I have come to reveal my eternal
faithfulness to my covenant with your fathers. I pledged myself to
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I would bring their posterity into the
goodly land of Canaan: I have come down to fulfill that word and to put
into your national history an enduring testimony that my name is truly,
“I am that I am”――the immutable and eternal God, whose word of promise
faileth not forevermore.
The same course of thought appears again Ex. 6: 1–8――a passage
which should be studied in connection with this. “God said to Moses,
I am the Jehovah. I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob
by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known
unto them”――the meaning of which is, not that the name Jehovah was
never used by them, or given of God to them; but that its special
significance had not been manifested to them as he was then about to
make it manifest. His _power_ God had revealed――his power to protect
them in their perils, his power to fulfill to Abraham the promise of
a son; but such a glorious testimony to his faithfulness in fulfilling
promise as was then to be given, the patriarchs had never seen. The
redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage was destined to stand
through all the ages of their history as the crowning manifestation
of God’s faithfulness――the standard and unsurpassed testimony to the
significance of his most honored name _Jehovah_. By this shall ye know
that I am Jehovah your God when I bring you out from under the burdens
of the Egyptians and bring you into the land given by solemn oath to
your fathers and to their posterity for a heritage (vs. 7, 8).
* * * * *
In entering upon this redemption of his people the Lord understood well
the difficulties to be overcome and fully comprehended the situation.
If Moses saw them at a glance, so did the Lord also. It was not
possible that Moses could have a deeper sense or a juster view than
God had of Pharaoh’s great pride, of his consciousness of power and
stubbornness of purpose. The Lord expected a conflict; was ready for
it; and by no means disposed to shun it. “I am sure that the king of
Egypt will not let you go; no, not by a mighty hand”――not even under
fearful visitations of God’s supernatural power. The precise sense of
this seems to be that Pharaoh would resist God’s will _for a long time_
despite the inflictions of his mighty hand and would yield only in the
last extremity. In fact he never honestly yielded his will to God’s
will, but only bent for the moment before the blast, to rally again
with more desperate madness after it had swept by. When at length he
saw that the people were really gone, his unsubdued will rose again
in towering hardihood, to rush more madly than ever before against the
uplifted arm of the Almighty and meet his doom in the bottom of the Red
Sea!
This chapter closes (vs. 21, 22) with directions to the children
of Israel to _ask_ the Egyptians for gold, silver, and raiment.
The Lord promised to give them such favor with the people that they
would readily grant them what they asked. Our English version puts it
“_borrow_”――as if the Israelites at least tacitly promised to bring
these borrowed things back, or if nothing more, left the Egyptians to
expect this. But this English word “borrow” misrepresents the Hebrew
and consequently the sense of the passage. The Hebrew verb used here
never has the sense of _borrow_, but means simply to _ask_. Indeed
borrowing was out of the question because the Israelites were not
coming back again. It was never God’s thought that they should come
back. He had come down to deliver them from their bondage and to bring
them into Canaan. There is no reason to suppose that the Egyptians
expected them back again. They gave what Israel asked, therefore, not
as a loan, but because the Lord brought them into such relations to
Israel that they were glad to get them out of the country any way, and
perhaps hoped to avert more fearful plagues by these gifts to God’s
people. The historian in this case says (Ex. 12: 33)――“The Egyptians
were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the
land in haste; for they said――We be all dead men”; which the Psalmist
confirms (Ps. 105: 38)――“Egypt was glad when they departed, for the
fear of them fell upon them.” Manifestly the Lord counted it simple
justice that Egypt should pay her slaves for long years of unrequited
toil, and not send them away empty. Therefore he took measures to make
the old masters but too glad to do this tardy justice.
* * * * *
A new instrumentality of most vital importance now came to view,
designed to bring about the redemption of God’s people from Egypt,
viz. _supernatural agencies――miracles_ in the legitimate sense of the
word. Noticeably these miracles were two-fold in character and purpose;
one class designed to identify God to the people and be a witness to
his present hand, to confirm their faith in him as their Deliverer:
the other designed by terrible inflictions of calamity, to force upon
Pharaoh’s hardened heart the conviction of Jehovah’s power and compel
him to let God’s people go. These two objects were to be accomplished;
the Hebrew people were to be assured that their own God had indeed come;
Pharaoh must be made to know who Jehovah is; how fearful the judgments
of his uplifted hand are; and how vain it is for mortals, though on
thrones of human power, to lift up themselves against the Almighty.
In the list of miraculous signs sent to convince the Hebrew people, we
have (Ex. 4: 1–8) the rod of Moses turned to a serpent and then turned
back again to a rod; then his hand withdrawn from his bosom leprous,
white as snow; then again withdrawn, perfectly restored.
The narrative gives the reader a strong sense of the reluctance of
Moses to enter upon this new mission. Over and over again, in varying
forms, he pleads his want of adaptation; that he is slow of speech,
not eloquent; that he sees no improvement in this regard since the Lord
first spake to him; and finally he begs the Lord to send by any body
else he pleases, only (he implies) excuse me. Plainly he pushed this
plea for excuse not merely to the verge of modest propriety but beyond
it, for we read――“The anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.”
Yet he did so far regard the plea of Moses as to give him Aaron his
elder brother to speak in his behalf. “Thou shalt speak to him and put
words into his mouth; he shall be thy spokesman to the people,” and to
Pharaoh.
The way is now prepared for Moses and his family to return from
Midian to Egypt. He took his wife and his two sons and proceeded on
his journey. The scenes of the first night at the inn are recorded in
these words: “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD
met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and
cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast _it_ at his feet, and said,
Surely a bloody husband _art_ thou to me. So he let him go: then she
said, A bloody husband _thou art_, because of the circumcision.” This
account is very brief, leaving various points unexplained. Probably
the facts were substantially these. Of their two sons, one had been
circumcised; the other had not――the prescribed rite having been
disobeyed or at least neglected out of the deference of Moses to the
opposition or reluctance of his wife. But as Moses is now about to
assume the highest responsibilities between God and the Hebrew people,
it is vital that his example in this respect should be spotless.
The Lord therefore called him suddenly to account in this manner,
threatening his very life. The cause is instantly understood; the wife
of Moses yields and herself performs the rite, though perhaps not in
the most submissive and amiable spirit. After this transaction and the
developments attending it, we must suppose that Moses (prudently) sent
back his wife and the two children to remain with her father until the
redeemed Israelites should reach the home of Jethro. We hear no more of
her and her children till the narrative in Ex. 18 brings them to view
thus: “When Jethro had heard all that the Lord had done for Moses and
Israel, he took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, _after he had sent her back_,
and her two sons and brought them to Moses” etc.――――Shortly after this
scene at the inn, Aaron, sent of God for this purpose, meets Moses
yet in the wilderness and is introduced to his responsibilities in
the issues then pending before Pharaoh and the people. Their first
introduction to Pharaoh and the reception he gave to their message
(Ex. 5) revealed his character and gave pre-intimations of the conflict.
They put their case before him:――“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.”
“And Pharaoh said――Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to
let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” Am
not I king over all Egypt? Do you tell me there is some higher king
than I and bid me obey his command? I know nothing of your Jehovah: I
will never submit to his authority! And as if to show how fearlessly
he could resist their summons he at once puts heavier tasks upon
the people, in proud defiance, daring the vengeance of their Great
Defender! Verily the issues hasten to their crisis!
The suffering people are entirely disheartened and evince a painful
lack of faith in the God of their fathers. When Moses rehearsed to
them the inspiring words recorded Ex. 6: 1–8, “They hearkened not
unto Moses for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage.” Ah, how frail
is poor human nature! How weak is the faith of this long-oppressed
people! But God’s compassions are a great deep and he does not frown
severely upon them, broken down though they were in their manhood and
in their religious trust.――――Moses too seems to falter before this
stern reception from Pharaoh and this disheartening attitude of Israel
(6: 12); but the loving kindness of the Lord endures, despite of these
sad imperfections in his servants. For the glory of his own name and
not for the worthiness or virtue of his people, he has entered upon
this redeeming work and he will carry it through.
The narrative pauses a moment more (Ex. 6: 16–27) to give us the
genealogy of Levi, for the obvious purpose of showing the place of
Moses and of Aaron in this record; and then proceeds (Ex. 7 and onward)
with the impressive scenes of _the ten plagues on Pharaoh and on Egypt_.
* * * * *
A brief preliminary explanation of some of these plagues will be in
place, after which the following points will have special attention:
1. That these ten plagues on Egypt were really supernatural, miraculous.
2. That several of them were very specially adapted to Egypt.
3. The case of the magicians.
4. The divine purpose and policy in shaping the demand made upon
Pharaoh to let the people go.
5. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.
6. The final result as shown in the last of the ten plagues.
* * * * *
The ten plagues in their historical order stand thus:
1. Water turned to blood (Ex. 7: 14–25);
2. Frogs (8: 1–15);
3. Lice (8: 16–19);
4. Flies (8: 20–32);
5. Murrain upon cattle (9: 1–7);
6. Boils (9: 8–12);
7. Hail (9: 18–35);
8. Locusts (10: 4–20);
9. Darkness (10: 21–27);
10. Death of all first-born (11: 4–8, and 12: 12, 29–33).
References to these plagues by name may be seen in Ps. 78: 43–51, and
105: 27–38.
By way of preliminary explanation it should be said――that the turning
of water into blood should not be toned down to a mere discoloration
of the waters of Egypt――a reddening of such sort as customarily attends
the annual rise of the Nile, only carried in the present case somewhat
beyond the ordinary degree. For, be it noticed, the record is that the
waters were _turned to blood_; that fish could no longer live in it but
died (were the fish deceived by the mere appearance, the color?); that
the river became offensive to the smell; its waters could not be drank;
“there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” If this language
does not mean far more than a mere _discoloration_――something totally
different from a visual deception; in short, if it does not mean
“_turned to blood_,” then no language can be found to express it.
In the third plague, the Hebrew word for “lice”[29] were better
rendered _gnats_, yet an insect unknown to our country. Herodotus
(B. C. 400) speaks of the great trouble which they cause and of the
precautions used against them. Hartmann testifies: “All travelers speak
of these gnats as an ordinary plague of the country.”[30] “So small as
to be scarcely visible to the eye, their sting notwithstanding causes
a most painful irritation. They even creep into the eyes and nose, and
after harvest rise in great swarms from the inundated rice fields.”
(Keil.)
In the fourth plague, the word translated “swarms of flies”[31] does
not mean a mixed mass or swarm of various insects as our translators
assumed, but “a stinging, scorpion-like insect” [Fuerst], “so called
from its sucking the blood” [Gesenius]. Sonnini (in Hengstenberg’s
Moses, p. 117) says――“Men and animals are grievously tormented by them.
It is impossible to form an adequate conception of their fury when they
wish to fix themselves upon any part of the body. If they are driven
away they light again the same instant, and their pertinacity wearies
the most patient. They especially love to light in the corners of
the eyes or on the edge of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which they
are attracted by a slight moisture.” “They are much more numerous and
annoying than the gnats; and when enraged, they fasten themselves upon
the human body, especially upon the edge of the eyelids and become a
dreadful plague” [Keil].――――Obviously the American house-fly gives us
no adequate idea of this fourth plague on Egypt.
Of the sixth plague, “boils with blains,” it need only be said that
they were inflamed ulcers breaking forth into pustules, intensely
painful. The word for “boils” is the same which describes the plague
brought by Satan upon Job.
The seventh plague, _hail with lightning_, was not unknown in Egypt,
yet was by no means common, and was specially rare in Upper Egypt――more
frequent in Lower.――――The other plagues will be readily understood.
* * * * *
1. It is now in place to show that these plagues were really
_supernatural_――miraculous inflictions from the hand of the Almighty.
(1.) Note, they were wrought in response to Pharaoh’s challenge to
Moses and Aaron to “show a miracle for themselves” (Ex. 7: 9). The
Lord accepted this challenge. Of course the achievements wrought can
be nothing less than miracles. Given on the side of the Lord honesty
and power; then nothing less than miracles can follow.
His purpose in these terrible inflictions God announces to Pharaoh in
these words: “By this shalt thou know that I am the Lord” (Ex. 7: 19
and 9: 14). Events in the common course of nature do not suffice for
this purpose upon such a heart as Pharaoh’s. The case demands real
miracles――things done outside and apart from the ordinary laws of
nature.
(2.) The plagues came and went at the behest of Moses acting under
God; in some cases, at a definite time previously indicated. (9: 5,
18, 29, 33 and 10: 4); while some were removed at a time which Pharaoh
himself for his more full satisfaction was allowed to fix (8: 9, 10).
So I construe the somewhat disputed words (v. 8); “Moses said to
Pharaoh――Glory over me: When shall I entreat for thee,” etc. Moses
would say――I yield to you the honor of fixing the time: say when; and
I meet your time.――――Some critics translate simply――Explain; declare
yourself (Gesenius); or utter plainly, definitely (Fuerst); but the
usual sense of the verb, coupled with the preposition (“over”) which
follows, strongly favors the construction above given.
(3.) Most of these plagues if not all discriminated sharply between the
Hebrews in Goshen, and the Egyptians elsewhere in Egypt――_e. g._ flies
(8: 22, 23) and murrain (9: 4–7), etc. This discrimination assumes
that the plagues followed no general law of nature, but were altogether
special, _i. e._ were truly miraculous.
(4.) They surpassed and even totally eclipsed the achievements of
the magicians; in fact, routed them utterly from the field and showed
before all Egypt that the Almighty God was there!――――The case of the
magicians will be considered more fully below.
(5.) The conviction was forced upon Pharaoh and the confession extorted
from his lips (utterly against his will), that God’s hand wrought these
achievements; that these calamities came at his command, and could be
removed by his power and not otherwise. Hence over and over he begs
Moses to pray to his God for their removal. See this in the case of the
frogs (8: 8); of the flies (8: 28, 29); of the hail (9: 27–29); and the
locusts (10: 16–18). It is not easy to see how stronger testimony to
the reality of miracles can ever exist.
(6.) That these plagues were real miracles, direct from the hand of God,
it is unquestionably the intent of the whole narrative to set forth and
affirm. So much, no candid reader of the account has ever questioned.
Some may say, the narrator was himself deceived: none will deny that he
saw God’s finger there and meant to make all his readers see it. None
can deny that according to his account even proud Pharaoh saw and felt
the very finger of God in them. In fact the narrative makes this its
_main purpose_, viz. to show that these judgments were nothing less
than immediate visitations from the hand of the Almighty. Take out this
element and there is nothing left.
(7.) Or thus: If there is any truth in history, the children of Israel
were for a long period bondmen in Egypt. Ultimately the day of their
deliverance broke and they came forth free. _How came this to pass?_
Was it by forcible insurrection――the uprising of slaves cutting their
way out of bondage into freedom with brave hearts and strong arms
of their own? Or was it achieved by diplomacy? Or did Pharaoh relax
his grasp and let the people go, under the impulses of humanity, or
as a measure of political economy? All suppositions of this sort are
not only unhistorical but utterly chimerical. No solution of this
great problem――the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt――can ever
find rational support save the one given in this record, viz. that the
Almighty wrenched them from the grasp of Egypt’s proud and hardened
king by a series of terrible judgments launched upon him and his people
in quick and hot succession, until they were only too glad to hasten
and drive the people out lest they should all be dead men. They were
made to feel that the battle was against Almighty God and that they
could not succumb too soon.
The events of this wonderful conflict and victory were stamped into the
national life of Israel; they reappear all along the course of future
ages, interwoven into the very warp and woof of her national history
and into the moral forces which developed the nation’s piety. It might
as reasonably be maintained that there never was any Hebrew nation as
that God did not bring them forth out of Egypt with a high hand, first
loosing Pharaoh’s grasp by these ten plagues, and last, burying his
pursuing hosts and himself in the waters of the Red Sea.
The supernatural character of these plagues will stand out yet more
distinctly when we shall place them in contrast with the things done or
attempted by the magicians.
* * * * *
2. _Several of these plagues were very specially adapted to Egypt._
This does not mean that they were at all less miraculous than any
other supposable inflictions would have been; but only that they had
more or less special fitness to the ends God had in view and were made
to touch the sensibilities of Egypt and her king in tender points.
Thus, the Nile was Egypt’s pride and glory, indeed her very life, and
not improbably (as some maintain) was worshiped by the Egyptians as one
of their gods. How terrible then to wake in the morning to find it one
vast sea of blood!――to have only blood for themselves and their cattle
to drink; blood every-where for the eye to rest upon in place of the
glory of the Nile! How terribly suggestive of their national sin――of
the male infants of the Hebrews murdered there, and of the resources
of Israel’s God to punish the guilty!
So we must suppose that frogs were often inconveniently plenty in
Egyptian waters. This visitation of such masses of them brought
an evil by no means foreign to their experience. The miracle lay
in their numbers and was none the less a miracle because there had
been frogs there before. It must have been excessively annoying and
humiliating,――if the frog as a near neighbor is as unamiable in that
country as in this.
Essentially the same must be said of the lice [gnats]; of the flies;
and of boils. All these were forms of evil not unknown in Egyptian
life; but yet in the present case were truly miraculous and fearfully
afflictive.
Their cattle were so useful and so highly esteemed that some of them
were made objects of idolatrous worship. The golden calf of Hebrew
history was an Egyptian idea. There was special pertinence therefore
in this fearful slaughter among Egypt’s gods!
The hail, with most terrific lightning, was by far the more appalling
because rain rarely falls there; hail and lightning yet more rarely.
In the natural course of events, locusts are among the fearful
visitations of Oriental countries――not unknown in Egypt. In this case
the fearfulness of the plague lay in their numbers, and the miracle was
none the less because they had had some experience before of this form
of desolation.
* * * * *
3. _The case of the magicians._
The entire account of them is in these words. After Aaron had cast
down his rod before Pharaoh and it became a serpent, “Then Pharaoh
called the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of
Egypt, did so with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his
rod and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods”
(Ex. 7: 11, 12). Again, after the miracle of turning the water to blood,
“The magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments” (7: 22). After
the miracle of the frogs, “the magicians did so with their enchantments
and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt” (8: 7). Next, when all the
dust became lice “the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring
forth lice, _but they could not_: so there were lice upon man and upon
beast. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh――This is the finger of God”
(8: 18, 19). Finally, under the plague of boils, “The magicians could
not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boil was upon the
magicians and upon all the Egyptians” (9: 11). We hear of them in this
history no more.
The Hebrew word for “sorcerers” involves the practice of magic arts
and incantations. The word for “magicians of Egypt” contemplates them
originally as _writers_, the learned class, but couples with that the
idea of special skill in horoscopy――the interpretation of dreams and
the doing, or at least pretending to do, things beyond the skill of
the uninitiated. The word for “enchantments” originally suggests secret
arts, things covered, veiled from the public gaze.――――The passage
Deut. 18: 10–14, gives most if not all the nearly synonymous words by
which this class of men and their arts were designated, showing also
that they were regarded before the Lord with most intense abhorrence
as an abomination. By the Mosaic law the practice of these arts was
punishable with death (Ex. 22: 12).
In regard to the case of the magicians as presented in this history,
the point of chief interest will be this――Did they really perform
miracles? Did they in fact turn rods into serpents, and water
into blood, and produce some frogs in addition to what were there
before?――――I am not sure that we have data sufficient to determine
with certainty whether these things ascribed to them were simply tricks
of hand, arts of jugglery; or whether there was really some power
exerted, more and other than human.――――The cases were of a sort in
which deception was at least supposable. All the waters it would seem
were turned to blood before their effort was made. If so, they had to
do with what was already blood and had only to make it appear to be
water before they began operations.――――So of the frogs. When frogs were
every-where in such numbers, it would not be specially difficult to
make it appear that they produced yet more. The turning of rods into
serpents is not unknown in the tricks of jugglery the world over.
Of two facts we may be very sure. (1) They had no help from God. Their
wonders were not wrought by God’s power. We may put this denial on two
independent grounds:――――(a.) The moral purpose of their work utterly
forbids the least participation on God’s part. God never fights against
himself.――――(b.) Their power was infinitely less than divine. Compared
with God’s, it was shown to be simple weakness. “Aaron’s rod swallowed
up their rods.” Before the plague of lice they were compelled to
succumb, and (utterly against their will and against their interest)
they declare to Pharaoh――“This is the finger of God”! It utterly
distances all our skill. We can not approach it. Before the boils,
they writhed in agony. They could not even screen themselves from the
terrible infliction. Moreover it is made plain throughout the whole
transaction that they were powerless to remove even the slightest of
these plagues. If they had possessed this power Pharaoh would have put
them to this service. It is plain they shrank from even the attempt.
The whole scene was a competition between God’s power as manifested
through his servants, Moses and Aaron, and the power of Egypt’s
magicians――resulting in most overwhelming proof that the latter had not
the first element of God’s power in it.――――It follows therefore that
if the magicians had extra-human help――if they had any power beyond
human skill, _they obtained it from Satan_. We may readily suppose
they were in league with him, working according to his will. He may
have sharpened their wits by his influence, helped their arts by his
suggestions, and possibly may have given them superhuman aid in the
line of physical power. It is not given to us to know the exact limits
of his power to aid his servants. It is not essential that we should
know precisely where these limits are. We know enough to impress the
injunction――“Be sober, be vigilant, because of your adversary the
devil” (1 Pet. 5: 8). It may always be our consolation that whenever he
matches his power or his skill against the Almighty, he will come off,
as, in the case before us, utterly worsted in the fight, overwhelmed
with defeat and shame.
* * * * *
4. Some attention should be given to the divine purpose and policy
in shaping the demand made upon Pharaoh to let the people go.――――The
point of special importance here is one which has been thought to
involve the question of strict moral honesty――it being claimed that
the divine demand at first ran on this wise: “Let us go three days’
journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God”
(Ex. 3: 18)――leaving Pharaoh to assume that, this being granted, they
would return to his service.
The facts on this point are:
(1.) It was never promised or even intimated that they would return. If
Pharaoh construed the words of God and of Moses to imply this, he did
so on his own responsibility.
(2.) The demand made upon him that he should let the people go was
based in part at least on the religious duty of sacrificing to God in
the wilderness (Ex. 5: 1, 3)――an entirely appropriate demand――one which
Pharaoh ought to have appreciated, and one which would be more likely
to have weight with him than any other. For he was himself a worshiper
of his own gods; he knew the strength of the religious element in human
nature; he was able to recognize the universal rights of conscience
by which every man may claim to worship God according to his own
convictions of duty. If Pharaoh would not yield to this request he
would yield to none. The policy pursued was, therefore, the most
hopeful and the least likely to arouse opposition.
(3.) Even the severest honesty did not require that the Lord should put
this demand in its most revolting form in the outset. True, he might
have said from the beginning: “My people shall never return”; but this
would have at once foreclosed all hope of gaining Pharaoh’s consent.
(4.) If the question of the return of the people was thus left a very
little open――or more correctly, was not peremptorily closed, it served
the better to test the heart of Pharaoh. It left the way open to ply
him with inducements most likely to be successful; and at the same time
if he proved obstinate and self-willed, he might show it by bantering
over the conditions, higgling as tradesmen and their customers
sometimes do over the price, negotiating like diplomatists for the
most favorable terms. But this was the fault of Pharaoh, not of God.
(5.) Most frequently the demand was made in these significant words:
“Let my people go that they may serve me” (Ex. 8: 1, 20, and 9: 1, 13).
Israel is my son; his service is due to me and I claim it (Ex. 4: 22,
23). You have no right to his services; I demand therefore that you
let my son go that he may serve me.――――This is at least sufficiently
definite, and is by no means open to the slightest imputation of
lacking in the point of honesty.
5. _The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart._
In this topic, as in the one next preceding, the point of chief
interest is the moral one――that which locates the moral responsibility
for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart――that which defines and places
truthfully the really responsible agency in the case. Was this
hardening the work of God, by his immediate hand? Was it wrought by
his power so exclusively and in such modes as to overrule and throw
out of account Pharaoh’s own responsible agency?
Or was the responsible agency that of Pharaoh only, altogether his
and his alone? Did he harden his own heart, in the exercise of his
own free will, in carrying out the purpose and desire of his own soul,
essentially as other sinners and as all sinners do?
This question is one of immensely vital moment. Let us approach it with
both care and candor.
We may reach the true answer by studying,
(1.) The history of the case;
(2.) What is said of God’s purpose in this matter;
(3.) What he has taught us of his character, and of his agencies in the
existence of sin.
(1.) The history of the transaction will doubtless throw light on the
question――How came Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened? _How was it done?_
The history of the transaction, developing the steps of the process,
bears more vitally upon the question, Who is responsible?――than may at
first view be realized. For, let it be carefully considered: God’s ways
of working by his immediate, direct, exclusive agency will forever be
mysterious and inscrutable to us. It is idle for us to ask――_How_ does
God work a miracle? Of course it must be idle for us to inquire after
the natural law of such working because the very idea of a miracle is
that of a work _not_ wrought according to any known laws of nature. If
now the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart were wrought by God’s miraculous,
direct, immediate hand, we shall look in vain for the law of his
operations. It would be simply preposterous to inquire after the laws
of mind in accordance with which the thing was done――the supposition
being that it was done according to _no_ known laws of mind whatever.
On the other hand if Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there will be
no mystery about it. It so happens that we all know but too well how
sinners harden their own hearts. There is rarely the least difficulty
in tracing the operations of the human mind and the influences of
temptation which produce this result. Therefore, if the history of
the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart brings out the working of his mind,
according to the common modes of human sinning――if we see that his mind
worked as the minds of other proud sinners are wont to work under like
circumstances, then the whole question is settled at once and forever.
If we can actually _see_ how Pharaoh hardened his own heart and can
identify the whole process as being the very same which occurs in the
case of all proud sinners who resist God’s power and especially resist
the appeals of his love and mercy, what more can we ask? It were worse
than idle――it were impious to exonerate Pharaoh from the least portion
of the moral responsibility for his hardened heart and to seek to cast
it over upon God.
In entering upon the _history of the case_, it is well to note the
attitude of Pharaoh’s mind toward the God of Israel in the outset. We
have it brought out fully (Ex. 5: 1, 2): “Moses and Aaron went in and
told Pharaoh: ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; let my people go that
they may serve me.’ And Pharaoh said――_Who_ is the Lord that I should
obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I
let Israel go.”――――This is plain; he says he does not know this God; he
does not recognize his authority or admit his claims. His soul is full
of practical unbelief in God――a fact which commonly lies at the bottom
of all the hardening of sinners’ hearts in every age.――――Pharaoh did
not at first contemplate crossing swords and measuring strong arms
_with the Almighty God_. If he had taken this view of the case, he
might have paused awhile to consider.――――So it usually is with sinners.
Unbelief in God conduces to launch them upon this terrible conflict.
Once committed, they become more hardened; one sin leads on to more
sinning till sin becomes incurable――shall we say it? an uncontrollable
madness.
We may now fitly proceed to give attention to each particular case.
The first miracle (Ex. 7: 10–13) that of changing Aaron’s rod to
a serpent, was rather a _test_ than a _plague_. Pharaoh met it by
calling in his magicians to try their hand――his thought being, My men
can do that! They did _seem_ to do it, and though Aaron’s rod-serpent
swallowed up theirs, yet Pharaoh did not love to be convinced and
therefore was not. Under this result, which perhaps seemed to him
a partial victory, he braced himself against God this time.
Next, in the turning of water into blood we read (Ex. 7: 22) “The
magicians did so with their enchantments, and Pharaoh’s heart was
hardened.” This seemed to him a complete success for his side.
Naturally, therefore, his heart is hardened to withstand God yet.
Under the plague of frogs――not by any means one of the most
severe――Pharaoh seemed to yield; he at least begged the prayers of
Moses and Aaron; and promised to let the people go (Ex. 8: 8). To make
God’s hand the more distinctly visible, Moses said――Set your own time,
and I will pray that this plague may cease. Done: “but when Pharaoh
saw that there was _respite_, he hardened his heart and hearkened
not unto them” (8: 15). Alas, how he abused God’s mercy! God lifted
the plague――and up springs the old rebellion of his soul against God.
Perhaps he flatters himself that this is the last, or he hopes that
Moses will pray the rest away as he has this; or, as often happens, the
simple sense of respite without any particular reasoning in the case
makes him feel strong again to withstand God. Not the least sense of
gratitude for the favor――the mercy of removing the plague! O how many
of the sinners of our world have done this very thing! Stricken down
with sickness, have they not begged for life and besought the prayers
of all the good, and promised the Lord that with restoring mercy they
would give him their hearts and their lives? But when the respite came
their vows were forgotten; their hearts were hardened.
The plague of lice brings out another element of depraved hearts.
The magicians try, but make an utter failure, and (what is to Pharaoh
more provoking still) they frankly declare to him, “This is the finger
of God.” They retire from the contest, and leave Pharaoh to fight it
out alone. They can help him no longer. He is apparently vexed and
maddened, but not at all subdued. Rather, he rouses himself to greater
desperation, for the record puts these points in the closest connection:
the frank admission, “This is the finger of God”; and the stiffening of
Pharaoh’s rebellious will――“_And_ Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he
hearkened not unto them.”
The plague of flies brings out yet another element of human nature
which not unfrequently comes into play in the hardening of men’s
hearts against God――viz. the habit of bantering――shall we say dickering,
driving a bargain and quibbling over the terms and conditions of
God’s requirements. The flies are terribly annoying: Pharaoh sees
that something must be done; in fact he concludes he must make some
concessions: so he calls for Moses and Aaron and says――“Go ye,
sacrifice to your God _in the land_.” The last words were emphatic――in
_this_ land: stay here, and you shall have time to offer your
sacrifices. I can not let you go three days journey into the wilderness
lest ye never come back.――――Moses insists on the original terms; and
then Pharaoh concedes yet a little more: “I will let you go that ye may
sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness, only ye shall not go
very far away. Entreat for me”――_i. e._ entreat the Lord to take away
these flies――the same word being used here as in v. 8. Moses entreated:
the Lord removed the plague, and according to the record “Pharaoh
hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people
go.” Allowing himself to make terms with God and to banter him upon the
conditions, coupled with the respite――the temporary relief found in the
removal of the plague――are manifestly the causes and modes in this case
of his hardening his own heart.
Next is the plague of murrain――a terrible loss of their cattle. In
the antecedent threatening of this plague, Moses said to Pharaoh,
“The Lord will _sever_ between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of
Egypt: there shall nothing die of all that belongs to Israel.” So it
was; for we read――“Pharaoh sent [_i. e._ to inquire] and lo! not one
of the cattle of the Israelites was dead. And the heart of Pharaoh
was hardened, and he did not let the people go” (9: 1–7). This
discrimination gave a keener edge to the plague; it cut the deeper;
but in the result it only maddened him the more. It showed most clearly
that God’s hand was in these plagues and that he was on the side of
Israel; but Pharaoh was committed to the contest and seemed to have
but the one ruling purpose――to fight it out to the bitter end.
The plague of boils was a visitation of physical suffering, perhaps
somewhat adapted to make a fretful man irritable. The narrative notes
the circumstance that the magicians were completely broken down by this
plague: “They could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for
the boil was upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians” [not upon
the Israelites]. As to Pharaoh, all human help fails him; every man
among his people seems to quail and give up the contest; yet his proud
heart is only the more maddened and the more determined! It is said,
“The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh and he hearkened not unto them;”
but such mad infatuation is wont to appear in depraved human souls
without any miraculous infliction of hardness from the hand of God.
There is not the least occasion to assume any other influences than
those of a proud, maddened human heart, working out its own obstinate
will against God.
The hail with attendant thunder and lightning (next in order) were
fearfully appalling. All Egyptian hearts seemed to quiver with terror
under this infliction. Pharaoh is brought (shall we say) to his knees:
he sends hastily for Moses and Aaron and says to them: “I have sinned
this time; the Lord is righteous and I and my people are wicked.” Truly
this seems hopeful. For the first time he appears penitent. “Entreat
the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings
and hail; and I will let you go and ye shall stay no longer.”――――This
seems to be a final victory over the proud heart and the long time
inflexible will of Pharaoh. He confesses sin; he begs again for prayer;
he promises to yield to God’s entire demand and let the people go.
Consequently the plague was removed. “And when Pharaoh saw that the
rain and the hail and the thunder were ceased, he sinned yet more and
hardened his heart, he and his servants.”――――Alas for man’s perverse
and false nature――his proud heart and his lying lips! How readily he
relapses back into his old and much-loved sin and becomes more hardened
than ever! The judgments of God extort confessions and tears and
prayers; but God’s mercies let off this pressure and leave the guilty
soul to fly back to its old sins again. So it was with Pharaoh. God’s
mercies, abused, worked out his ruin. But it were simply monstrous
to say that this showing of mercy is on God’s part a moral wrong and
that it throws over upon him the moral responsibility of hardening the
sinner’s heart. Yet it was precisely in this way――perhaps more really
and potently than in any other――that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh.
The plague of locusts brings to view a new group of elements. Egypt
had known something about locusts before: so when this scourge was
announced, Pharaoh’s servants beg him to yield the contest. “How
long shall this man” [Moses] “be a snare unto us? Let the men go that
they may serve the Lord their God. Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is
destroyed”? (10: 7).――――Pharaoh yields to their entreaty only so far as
to send for Moses and Aaron, and again try his hand upon bantering with
them and with God over the conditions. “Go serve the Lord, said he; but
_who are they that shall go_”? Moses answers, Every thing must go; we
with our young and with our old; with sons and with daughters; with
flocks and with herds――all, absolutely _all_ must go.――――No indeed,
replies Pharaoh――with what we must take as his royal oath――with the
most fearful threat he could make and the most solemn asseveration――he
says, “_Not so_; go _ye that are men_ and serve the Lord, for that ye
did desire.” That was all ye asked at first: it is the utmost I shall
give! “And they were driven out of his presence.” Pharaoh is thoroughly
mad! This allowing himself to banter them as to the terms of the
arrangement helped him to a stronger feeling of his own importance. He
seemed to himself to be yet more a king on his throne, and why should
not he dictate the conditions?――――Soon the plague comes, and for the
moment it quite changes the face of affairs. “Pharaoh called for Moses
and Aaron in haste, and said” [again]――“I have sinned against the Lord
your God and against you. Now, therefore, forgive, I pray thee, my sin
only this once, and entreat the Lord your God that he may take away
from me this death only.” Apparently he remembers that once before
he confessed, and more than once has begged their prayers, and more
than once has promised to let the people go. So he labors to give
a little more emphasis to his beseechings this time by confessing
his sin against Moses, and especially by the limitation――“_for this
once_”――once more _do_ hear me――this time only. But he has been through
this very process once before; most of its points, many times before;
and it is much more easy for him to turn back upon every promise and
break every most solemn vow than it ever has been before. It is safe to
predict that any sinner who has broken so many solemn vows of amendment
will never do any thing better than break vows when God’s mercy lifts
off the plague. So Pharaoh’s heart is hardened yet again. The statement
is――“But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”――yet the way he did it,
here as before (9: 34), was by removing the plague; by hearing his
prayer for relief and apparently trusting his sacred promise to let
the people go. This was the way and these the agencies by which the
Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
The plague of darkness is next in order. Again Pharaoh sets himself to
negotiate as to the terms. He will consent that not only the men may go,
but their wives and their little ones; _but their flocks must be left
behind_. He must have some hostages――something left in his hands that
will bring his bondmen back. Moses says _No!_ we need our flocks for
sacrifice; not a hoof is to be left behind! Pharaoh is more mad than
ever: he not only drives Moses out from his presence, but adds――“Take
heed to thyself; see my face no more; for in the day thou seest my face
thou shalt die.” In this case it is said――“The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s
heart”; but these terrible uprisings and outbursts of madness well up
from the depths of a depraved sinner’s soul. No supernatural miracle
of divine hardening is at all needful to create them. Pharaoh is too
proud a king to bear such confrontings of his will. Shall he yield to
such a man as Moses, or even to the God of Moses? Not he. It stirs up
all the elements of his pride and madness to have his propositions of
compromise so peremptorily rejected. It is this in special that works
in this present case to the hardening of his heart.
There remains but one more plague――that awful night on Egypt when the
wailing cry rang out over all the land, “for there was not a house
where there was not one dead”! and that the _first-born_! Under this,
Pharaoh for the time really broke down; he called for Moses and Aaron
by night and said――“Go ye and all your people, and take your flocks
and herds as ye have said and be gone, and bless me also.” This
conceded everything, closing off with begging their blessing upon his
consciously guilty soul! The Egyptians too were all astir; they were
urgent upon the people to send them out of the land in haste; for
they said――“We be all dead men.” And the people of Israel do really
go.――――But strange as it may seem, when “it was told the king of Egypt
that the people had really gone, then the heart of Pharaoh and of his
servants was turned against the people and they said――Why have we done
this that we have let Israel go from serving us”?――――Forthwith armed
chariots are made ready and are off in hot pursuit;――till they find
themselves battling the mighty waves of the Red Sea, quailing before
the awful eye and under the uplifted arm of the Almighty!――――This
last instance of hardening the heart seems most like pure and simple
infatuation. No doubt Pharaoh and his servants had a fresh sense of
what they had lost in letting go such a host of hard working bondmen.
No doubt they also felt the mortification of having been worsted in
the long-fought struggle over this national question of letting the
people go; but after all they had seen and felt of God’s power to
curse and to plague and to crush them, nothing but the most senseless
infatuation can rationally account for this last desperate dash upon
Israel with the armed force of the nation. Yet no one will say that
such infatuation does not often appear in the history of human sinning.
In his own sphere many a poor sinner is just as madly infatuated as
Pharaoh and his people were――is altogether as senseless, as void of
wisdom, as reckless of the hot thunderbolts of the Almighty! It is an
awfully sad fact, a most humiliating confession as to the manner of
human sinning; but it is only too true! There is no need of assuming
any direct supernatural divine interposition to produce it.
Nothing more seems necessary to complete the argument from the history
of the case unless it be to suggest that when we have accounted for the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart satisfactorily on the one principle――the
well-known proclivities and activities of a proud, stubborn human heart,
it is entirely unphilosophical to bring in another principle, viz. the
miraculous, immediate, direct action of Almighty Power. When we have
proved the former power adequate to produce all the results, we have
virtually precluded the latter. There can be no reason whatever for
assuming a joint, co-ordinate action of both the natural laws of the
human mind and of the supernatural power of God. If the former suffices,
the latter is uncalled for. Miracles are never to be assumed where
non-miraculous agency is fully adequate.
If it be still argued that the very words declare, “God hardened
Pharaoh’s heart,” the answer is: God is said to do what he foresees
will be done by others and done under such arrangements of his
providence as make it possible and morally certain that they will do
it. Joseph said to his brethren (Gen. 45: 5, 7, 8), “Be not angry with
yourselves that ye sold me hither, for God did send me before you to
preserve life. So now it was not you that sent me hither but God.”
Yet it is simply impious to put the sin of selling Joseph into Egypt
over upon God. God did it only in the same sense in which he hardened
Pharaoh’s heart. He had a purpose to subserve by means of the sin of
Joseph’s brethren; and he did no doubt permit such circumstances to
occur in his providence as made that sin possible and as resulted in
their sinning and in the remote consequences which God anticipated.
It is of no particular use for us to find fault with the way in which
the Scriptures speak of God’s hand in the existence of sin. There is no
special mystery about it. It certainly does not involve the least moral
obliquity on God’s part; and it is therefore every way prudent and wise
to interpret such language in harmony with the common sense of the case
and with the well-known character of God.
* * * * *
2. We proceed to notice what is said of _God’s purpose_ in the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. It is the more important to speak of this
because an extreme view is sometimes taken of the central passage (Ex.
9: 14–16); “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up for
to show in thee my power,” etc. The extreme view referred to is that
God made Pharaoh a great king, put him on a high throne, for the avowed
purpose of displaying his own great power in his sin and punishment.
By consent of Hebrew lexicographers, the verb translated “_raised
up_” means in this case _preserved alive_――have _caused thee to stand_
or continue among the living. The previous context moreover seems not
to be quite accurately put in our English version. It should rather
be thus, beginning with v. 14: “For at this very time I am sending
[present tense] all my plagues to thine heart and upon thy servants and
upon thy people that thou mayest know that there is none like me in
all the earth. For I might now have stretched out my hand and smitten
thee and thy people with pestilence [_i. e._ might have smitten you all
dead], and thou wouldest have been cut off from the earth. But truly
for this very reason have I preserved thee alive to the end that thou
mightest show forth [make others see] my power, and for the sake of
proclaiming my name in all the earth.” To the same purport are the
words (Ex. 14: 17, 18) with reference to the final destruction of
Pharaoh’s host; “And I will get me honor upon Pharaoh and upon all
his host, etc. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I
shall have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh and upon his chariots and his
horsemen.” The great thought is that God turns to account the sin and
madness of Pharaoh for the purpose of making known his power to save
his people and to crush their foes. He shapes his ways of providence to
this end. He might have swept off Pharaoh and his people with the same
pestilence which destroyed so many of their cattle; but he had a wiser
purpose. He could make a better use of their sin and of their life; so
he spared them till he had wrought all his wonders upon Egypt before
all the nations of the earth; and then he let them plunge into the
mighty waves of the Red Sea and make their grave there!――――Now if
wicked men _will sin_, who shall object against God that he makes the
best possible use of it? Why may he not reveal his power thereby and
exalt his name as one “mighty to save” or to destroy?
3. It only remains to ask――What has God taught us of his character as
bearing on the question before us, and of his agencies in the existence
of sin?
Here few words ought to suffice. Nothing can be more plain than the
revelations of scripture concerning God’s character as infinitely pure
and holy――as a Being who not only can never sin himself but can never
be pleased to have others sin, and above all can never put forth his
power to _make them sin_. God can not be tempted with evil, “_neither
tempteth he any man_” (Jam. 1: 13). When he declares so solemnly and
so tenderly: “O do not that abominable thing which I hate”! shall it
still be said――But he puts men to sinning; pushes them on in their
sin; inclines their heart to sin and hardens them to more and guiltier
sinning? Never!
Shall it be claimed that with one hand God gives his Spirit to impress
the truth on human souls unto their salvation; and with the other sends
his Spirit to augment the forces of temptation and to harden men’s
hearts unto their damnation? Shall the same fountain send forth both
sweet water and bitter? Shall the same God renew some human hearts unto
holiness and harden other human hearts in sin――all by the same direct
and similarly purposed agency, each work being done under the same
impulses of infinite love?――――Surely there must be some egregious
misconception of God’s character involved in supposing him capable
of acts so fundamentally opposite and incompatible――not to say, in
supposing him capable of tempting men into more and greater sin!
The fact that He wisely and mightily over-rules sin to bring good forth
from it should never be construed to imply that he abhors sin any the
less because he can extort some good results from its existence.