THE HISTORIC CONNECTIONS OF MOSES WITH PHARAOH AND EGYPT.
THE thread of our history having now reached a point where we leave
Egypt and have seen the last of that one particular Pharaoh, it is in
place to take a final review of the questions――Who was this Pharaoh?
Can he be identified in the annals of Egyptian antiquities? Have any
points of chronological contact between the records of Egypt and the
records of Moses been fixed reliably so that the one system can be laid
alongside of the other and positive correspondence be made out?
Comparing the Hebrew records with Egyptian monuments and history, the
following points of coincidence may be regarded as established.
1. That (as already observed) the kingdom of Egypt was thoroughly
organized, was powerful, and had, apparently, the ripeness of age,
in the times of Joseph and of Moses. In all these respects it was
far in advance of the adjacent populations of Northern Africa and of
South-western Asia.
2. That the state of the arts, the attainments of the learned in
science, the usages of the people, the reign of law and of social
order, indicated a state of civilization much in advance of any thing
else known in that age.
3. That all the minute references in sacred history to the common
life of the people, to their occupations, to their skill in the arts,
to the productions of the country, to their political relations with
outside powers, are abundantly verified in the numerous monuments and
authorities which testify what the Egypt of that age really was. The
reference to many of these points in the history of the ten plagues
admits of most ample verification from the ancient Egyptian authorities.
4. Particularly we find in Egyptian history the means of explaining how
a new king might arise who “knew not Joseph” (change of dynasty being
a chronic infirmity); and how the monarch of an empire so magnificant,
wielding a sway so despotic, might be tempted to defy Jehovah and
proudly scorn to obey his command to “let the people go.”
5. Yet again as to the sort of labor exacted unmercifully of the Hebrew
people the evidence from Egyptian antiquities is fully corroborative.
“They built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses,” and were
put to the severest toil in making brick; in the erection of buildings,
including the transportation of the heaviest materials; and to “all
manner of service in the field” (Ex. 1: 11, 14).――――These treasure
cities are identified with a high degree of certainty; and proximately
some of the very kings by whom this service was exacted. Mons.
Chabas[34] thinks he has found the Hebrews under name in official
Egyptian records. He argues well that it must be in vain to look in the
public monuments [_e. g._ in their temples] for any thing disastrous
to the king or to his people――those monuments being consecrated to the
triumphs and glories of the kingdom――official bulletins for this very
purpose. This consideration rules out the ten plagues; the escape of
the Hebrews; the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Events
so disreputable and disastrous to Egypt need not be looked for on her
sacred monuments.――――But the records on papyrus, consisting of both
official and private correspondence, military reports, surveys of
public works, financial accounts, etc., may furnish their name. The
Hebrews were an important colony, held forcibly upon the soil of Egypt,
employed largely upon her public works. Consequently some notice of
them may be reasonably looked for in the class of documents pertaining
to the business of the realm.――――Mons. Chabas maintains very sensibly
that we should look for this people under the name “_Hebrews_;” not
“children of Israel”――this being rather a religious than an ethnic
designation; not “Israelites”――this name not having then come into use;
not Jews, this name being first used many centuries later.
Three documents have been recently discovered which speak of a
foreign race under the hieroglyphic name “Aperiu.” On principles of
comparative philology, Mons. Chabas makes this word the equivalent of
_Hebrew_.――――In the first document the scribe Kanisar reports to his
superior: “I have obeyed the command which my master gave me to provide
subsistence for the soldiers and also for the Aperiu who carry stone
for the great Bekhen of King Rameses. I have given them rations every
month according to the excellent instructions of my master.”[35]――――The
second is similar: “I have furnished rations to the soldiers and also
to the Aperiu who carry stone for the sun of [the temple of] the sun,
Rameses Meriamen, to the south of Memphis.”
Furthermore, Egyptian records show that they put their prisoners of
war to such labors; for their kings record on the temples the number
of captives they have taken to labor upon the temples of their gods.
Two of these documents on papyri belong to the reign of Rameses II,
whom Mons. Chabas assumes to be the king whose daughter adopted Moses
and whose son and successor, Mei-en-ptah, experienced the ten plagues
and fell in the Red Sea. (Bib. Sacra, Oct., 1865, p. 685.)
6. It is a well-established fact of history that at one period――not
yet located definitely――Lower Egypt was subdued and held by a Shepherd
race, called by Josephus, “Hyksos,” supposed to have come from adjacent
provinces of Arabia or from Phenicia or both, and to have held the
country from 350 to 500 years――a Vandal race, savagely desolating the
noble monuments of Egyptian art and civilization, and known by the
native Egyptians as “the Scourge.” This Shepherd race was ultimately
driven out by the kings of Upper Egypt (a Theban dynasty)――probably
before the age of Moses; perhaps before Jacob went down into Egypt. It
may be considered certain that Josephus and others err in confounding
them with the Hebrew people.――――Geo. Rawlinson [in Aids to Faith,
p. 293] says――“The period of the Shepherd Kings is estimated variously
as continuing 500, 600, 900, and even 2,000 years; that historic
monuments were generally destroyed during their dominion; that no
reliable historic records exist older than the beginning of the
eighteenth dynasty which expelled the Shepherd Kings; and that
previously to their times, ‘Association’ in Royalty was practiced,
two or even three kings sitting on the same throne at the same time,
dividing its labors and its honors between themselves.”
As to the date of this Shepherd rule, the diversity in opinion
among the best informed students of Egyptian antiquity is by no means
comforting or assuring. Dr. Lepsius and others have placed their
invasion of Egypt directly after the twelfth dynasty (B. C. 2101), and
their expulsion about B. C. 1591. In his chronology, Jacob went down
into Egypt B. C. 1414; Moses led the people out B. C. 1314――neither
date having the least regard to the scripture chronology.――――Mons.
Mariette dates it in the eighteenth century B. C., _i. e._ between
B. C. 1700 and B. C. 1800. With this we might compare the sojourn
of the Israelites in Egypt from B. C. 2033 to B. C. 1603; or on the
chronology of Usher, from B. C. 1706 to B. C. 1491.――――Brugsch dates
their incursion B. C. 2115, and supposes them to have been Arabs from
Arabia Petraea.――――Bunsen’s latest recension places their invasion
B. C. 1983; their expulsion, B. C. 1548; and the Exodus of the Hebrews
B. C. 1320――the last date being certainly wide of the truth.――――The
evidence is conclusive that their expulsion preceded the resplendent
eighteenth dynasty whose kings ruled over all Egypt, and among whom was
the Pharaoh “who would not let the people go.” Dr. Thompson argues at
considerable length that the entire occupation of Lower Egypt by the
Hyksos must have _preceded_ the residence of the Hebrews there; but
feels the difficulties of the problem. He says――“As yet the _terminus
a quo_ remains in obscurity” [the point at which their occupation
begins]; “while the _terminus ad quem_ is beginning to take a fixed
place in history.” The date of their expulsion is mostly relieved
of doubt. The war which resulted in their expulsion was begun by
Seneken-Ra, about the commencement of the 18th dynasty of Thebes [Upper
Egypt], and was prosecuted by Ahmes I, otherwise called Nebpeh-Ra, in
whose fifth year they were finally expelled. The reign of Ahmes I is
proximately assigned to the 17th century B. C., _i. e._ from B. C. 1600
to B. C. 1700.――――A curious inscription has recently been discovered
by Mons. Dumischen, referring to a brilliant triumph over the Lybians,
achieved by a certain king Menephtah――this war being dated nearly
400 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. The scribe appended the
remark――“One could not have seen the like in the time of the kings of
Lower Egypt when the country of Egypt was held by the ‘_Scourge_,’ and
the kings of Upper Egypt could not drive them out.”――――This authority
seems to prove that the Hyksos held only Lower Egypt; that Upper Egypt
was under another dynasty, for a time unable to expel the Shepherd race,
but ultimately successful, and subsequently attaining much greater
military power; also that the Hyksos people were accounted a savage and
barbarous race.
In conclusion I am constrained to say that the study of Egyptian
antiquities, though richly remunerative and satisfactory in regard to
almost every thing else, is still very dubious and perplexing in the
point of _definite chronology_. The views of the ablest scholars are
widely conflicting; the original authorities still wait for some master
mind to put them into system, or what is perhaps nearer the truth, for
the discovery of competent data from which a system can be constructed
which shall harmonize all the authorities in the case. We want to know
the Pharaoh to whom the Lord sent Moses, whose reign synchronizes with
the Exodus. We find a series of powerful monarchs in the eighteenth
dynasty and also in the nineteenth; but which of them answers to
this particular Pharaoh, it seems yet impossible to determine with
satisfactory certainty. Rameses II, all agree, was a powerful king;
built immense public works; reigned at least sixty, perhaps sixty-six
years;――but some authorities place him in the eighteenth and some in
the nineteenth dynasty, and the extreme difference in the assigned
dates for his reign is three hundred years.
The difficulties that invest Egyptian dates and dynasties seem at
present to be aggravated rather than relieved by the progress of modern
discoveries. Thus we find in the Bib. Sacra, Oct. 1867, (pp. 773 and
774) four parallel lists of the first three Egyptian dynasties, viz:
(1.) That of Manetho; (2.) The Turin Papyrus; (3.) The Tablet of Sethos;
(4.) The Tablet of Sakharah or Memphis. Compared with Manetho, the last
three are of quite recent discovery. They are somewhat defective; yet
it is not specially difficult to discover a striking similarity and
in many cases an obvious identity in the names given. But the names
in Manetho’s list almost utterly lack even similarity; much more do
they refuse to come into identity. The authority of the last three
must, it seems to me, be decidedly greater than that of Manetho.――――The
same difficulty appears when we compare Manetho’s names in the later
dynasties (_e. g._ 18th–20th) with names constantly coming to light
in recently discovered Egyptian monuments. I know not how this fact
affects other minds. It can not but lessen my confidence in the
lists of Manetho. It certainly goes far to lessen their practical
value.――――It is somewhat disheartening that these chronological
difficulties clear up so slowly. It still remains to be hoped that
light will yet break in and that conclusions will be reached in which
all important authorities will be shown to concur.[36]
It would be a very great acquisition historically if we might know
what Egypt was doing while the Hebrews were wandering in the wilderness
forty years. Various circumstances conspire to favor the opinion that
during this period her king made a vast military crusade upon Palestine
and the regions farther north, occupying several years and greatly
crippling the powerful tribes [kingdoms so called] then in possession
of the land of Canaan. Both Josephus and Herodotus give accounts of
a great military expedition of this sort――leaving, however, the main
chronological problem _When?_ to be determined.――――As to the great
power of the kings of Canaan, the Lord said to Moses, “I will send a
hornet before you to drive them out,” _i. e._ to break down their power
and facilitate the subjection of the country before the arms of Joshua.
The original word translated “hornet” does not suggest the insect
now commonly known by that name; but is equivalent to _scourge_, yet
not precisely defining of what sort. It is supposable that Egypt and
her next kin after the Exodus, were more maddened than subdued by the
escape of Israel and by the humbling disaster at the Red Sea; that this
great expedition was inspired by the expectation of finding the Hebrew
people in Canaan and of punishing them there; that God’s providence
shielded them with perfect protection in the great Arabian desert
where no Egyptian host could follow them or even subsist; and then with
that marvelous wisdom which so often turns the wrath of man to his own
praise, used their prowess in arms to break down the military strength
of Canaan and prepare that land for easy conquest before the arms of
Joshua. It seems obvious that in point of military strength a great
change had come over the tribes of Canaan between the visit of the
spies and the conquest by Israel. Did the Lord use the chariots and
horsemen of Egypt to produce this result? To have done so would be
quite in keeping with that great law of his operations in this sinning
world under which he so often turns the wrath of wicked men to account
most signally and even gloriously to promote the ends of his own
kingdom.
♦CHAPTER XV.
THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI.
_The Manna._
THE divine plan of leading Israel to Canaan by the way of the great
desert involved the question of _subsistence_――bread and water for
such a host through so long a journey. It was perfectly obvious that
the ordinary resources of this desert were entirely inadequate, so
that the alternative was simply, miracle, or starvation. In the choice
of miracle God had in view not only physical subsistence but moral
culture――the perpetual impression upon the millions of Israel that
their covenant-keeping God was feeding them every day with bread
immediately from his own hand.
This bread took the name “manna” from the question asked by the people
when they found it upon the ground in the morning――_What_ is this?
Their Hebrew words were――Man-hu; what this? All the ancient versions
and most ancient authorities concur in deriving the name “manna” from
this original question as put in Ex. 16: 15. [Our English version has
the only correct rendering in the margin.]
The manna fell by night as the dew falls, and it would seem, fell with
and in the dew so that when the dew evaporated under the morning sun,
there remained this very fine deposit――“a small round thing, as small
as the hoar frost upon the ground.” “It was like coriander seed, white,
and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey” (Ex. 16: 13–15,
31). A subsequent description (Num. 11: 7–9) adds――“The manna was as
coriander seed and the color thereof as the color of bdellium. And
the people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat
it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and the
taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. And when the dew fell upon
the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.”――――The gathering, the
preparation of it for cooking, and the cooking itself, cost labor,
yet obviously none too much for the health and morals of the million.
The physiological facts to be noticed are that it was sufficiently
palatable for all practical purposes and had the necessary elements
for the real bread――the staff of life――for a whole nation during
forty years of wilderness life, with its alternations of marchings and
encampments; of labor and of rest.
The points which evinced the miraculous hand of God were――that it came
from no known or possible source of supply in the kingdom of nature;
that it fell in the full amount needed for the thousands of Israel;
fell on each of six mornings but not at all on the seventh, the Sabbath;
that the average amount on five of these mornings was a supply for one
day, while on the morning next preceding the Sabbath, a double quantity
fell, being a supply for two days; that the gathering for the first
five days of the week could be kept only one day, but the double supply
of the sixth day remained sweet and pure for two days; and moreover, a
quantity laid up by God’s command in the sacred ark remained unchanged
for many generations. Thus wonderfully did the Almighty impress his
hand upon every feature of this bread from heaven![37]
The allusions to manna in the Scriptures take note of the fact that
“God _suffered them to hunger_” before he sent them this supply (Deut.
8: 3, 16). The record (Ex. 16: 1) states that it was already the
fifteenth day of the second month since they came out of Egypt when the
whole congregation murmured for bread and seemed to themselves about
to perish of hunger in the wilderness. One month and a half must have
quite exhausted the hasty and scanty supplies which they brought from
Egypt. The marvel is how they could have subsisted upon this so long,
even though coupled with all the supplies possible in that desert.
That “God suffered them to hunger” is however only in harmony with his
usual method of dealing with his people――subjecting them to a certain
pressure of want for purposes of moral trial――the object being to test
their faith in himself; to draw out their soul in prayer for help and
in trust under darkness and in straits; and to make the blessing when
given doubly precious. What Christian has ever lived long under any
circumstances of this earthly life without some discipline under this
great law of the Christian life――“He suffered thee to hunger” and then
“fed thee with angels’ food”?
Moses (Deut. 8: 16) makes a special point of the fact that this bread
was such as neither they nor their fathers had ever known before. The
Psalmist (Ps. 78: 24, 25) takes the lofty poetic view of this great
gift of God: “He commanded the clouds from above and opened the doors
of heaven and rained down manna upon them to eat and gave them of
the corn of heaven. Man did eat angels’ food: he sent them meat to
the full.”――――Josh. 5: 12 shows that the manna ceased as abruptly as
it began, precisely when it was needed no longer. The people having
arrived in Canaan and supplies being within reach from the old corn
of the land, the manna ceased and fell no more.
An article of commerce known under the name of “manna,” produced in
the Arabian desert and in other Oriental regions, has scarcely any
points in common with the manna of Scripture save the name. It exudes
from shrubs; does not fall from the lower heavens in and with the dew;
it is obtained at the utmost only about four months of the year; is
most abundant in wet seasons――fails in the dry; is somewhat useful as
a condiment and a medicine, but can never take the place of bread; and
never has been known in such quantities as would supply bread for the
hosts of Israel.
How long the pot of manna was preserved in the ark of the covenant
can not be known definitely. We have the fact that the Lord directed
its preservation there (Ex. 16: 32–34); and the further fact that
when the ark was placed in the new temple of Solomon there was nothing
in it save the two tables of stone (1 Kings 8: 9). It was doubtless
kept long enough to subserve all the valuable purposes of a memorial
to the generations of Israel. It has been embalmed in the Christian
consciousness of the Christian age by its symbolical use in the
teachings of our Lord in which it represents his flesh which he gave
for the life of the world――the far more real bread of life from heaven
(John 6: 31–35, 47–58).
_Water Supplied by Miracle._
The subsistence of the Israelites during forty years in the desert of
Arabia involved not only a supply of bread but of _water_ also. On two
distinct occasions――the first at Rephidim, close to Horeb, during the
last half of the second month from Egypt; and the second at Kadesh, in
the northern border of the great desert, and during the first month of
the fortieth year from Egypt,[38] water was supplied them by miracle.
So great a multitude of people, including their animals, must have
required a large supply of water. Nothing therefore is more probable
than that the supply should often be short, and sometimes utterly fail.
At Rephidim the people most unreasonably chode with Moses as if he
alone was responsible for bringing them out of Egypt and for the lack
of water, and as if their sufferings were so great as altogether to
eclipse all the blessings of that great deliverance. Moses had no help
but in the Lord his God. In answer to prayer the Lord provided for a
miracle, to be well attested by the presence of a body of the elders of
the people. “Take them with thee,” saith the Lord, “and take also thy
rod wherewith thou smitest the river” (the Nile) “and go. I will stand
before thee there upon the rock in Horeb and thou shalt smite the rock,
and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink.”――――The
names given were significant――“Massah” of their _tempting_ the Lord by
their unbelief; Meribah, of their _chiding_ and _strife_ as to Moses.
The scenes at Kadesh (Num. 20) were almost forty years subsequent, and
consequently involved another generation. The spirit of their complaint
was quite the same however――chiding Moses most unreasonably, petulantly
wishing they had died before the Lord as so many of their brethren
who had fallen under God’s judgments in the wilderness since the
unbelieving report of the spies and the consequent wrath of God upon
the people. Sadly we must note here that this unreasonable and even
cruel reflection upon Moses stirred his indignation, excited him unduly,
and found expression in ill-advised words from his lips. The Lord
had told him to take Aaron his brother, to gather the people together
before the rock, and then _speak_ to the rock before their eyes and
it should give forth water. When the eventful moment came, Moses,
instead of saying――Ye have sinned against the Lord your God, yet in
his mercy he will give you rivers of water from this rock upon the
word of command from his servant――said as in the record――“Hear now, ye
rebels, must _we_ fetch you water out of this rock”? In circumstances
where man should be nothing and God all in all――man only a consciously
unworthy instrument, and God the Supreme and ever to be honored Power,
it was one of the sad infirmities of the best of men to put himself
so prominently forward and thrust the Great God so ungratefully into
the back-ground. Then, moved by the same excited passion, instead of
speaking to the rock, he smote it with his rod, not once only but twice.
Yet the Lord did not rebuke him with failure, but despite of his bad
spirit, gave forth water abundantly. The rebuke upon both Moses and
Aaron came shortly after in the form of an absolute prohibition upon
their entering the land of promise. They had _so_ dishonored the Lord
in this case at Kadesh that he must needs express his disapprobation
by denying to both of them the long-desired consummation of entering
the goodly land.――――If the Lord’s rebuke of Moses seem severe, let it
be considered that his sin was very great because he had been admitted
into so near communion with God――such communion as had never been
granted to any other man. If the guilt of sin be as the light sinned
against, we are not likely to overestimate the guilt of his. The Lord
speaks of it as rebellion (Num. 27: 14). And manifestly his sin was
so public as well as so flagrant that it became vital to the honor of
God’s name and government to rebuke it unmistakably.
The exclusion from Canaan fell sorely upon the heart of Moses. He
prayed earnestly that God would reverse this decree, but in vain. The
Lord shut off all hope, saying, “Let it suffice thee; speak no more
unto me of this matter” (Deut. 3: 23–27). Sorrowful are the words of
Moses: “I must die in this land; I must not go over Jordan” (Deut.
4: 21).
The question arises naturally: Were these two cases――at Rephidim and at
Kadesh――the only supplies by miracle during those forty years? One of
them occurred during the first year of the forty; the other, during the
last: was the whole intervening period barren of all miraculous supply?
Or were these two cases put on record rather as specimens than as
exhaustive history?――――Yet another question comes up: How long did the
supply in each of these two cases continue? Rephidim was adjacent to
Sinai, and the hosts of Israel remained before and near that mountain
many days. Did the supply from the Rephidim rock hold good during this
entire period? Did it follow them along their journey in the wilderness
still further?
To these questions the first answer is――that the history is silent as
to the duration of the supply in either case. Moses might have told us
definitely, but he has not.――――Beyond this it only remains to take note
of the allusions to this supply, made elsewhere in the Scriptures, and
to suggest the probabilities of the case.――――The writer of Ps. 78 sings:
“He clave the rock in the wilderness and gave them drink as out of the
great depths. He brought streams also out of the rock and caused waters
to run down like rivers” (vs. 15, 16). In Ps. 114: 8, we read――“Who
turned the rock into a standing water; the flint, into a fountain of
water.” These words imply a great abundance for the time and seem to
assume an ample supply so long as the hosts of Israel remained in those
places. They do not necessarily imply that the waters followed them as
a river in their journey onward from Rephidim or from Kadesh.――――The
allusions in Isa. 43: 19, 20, and 48: 21 are decisive as to the
temporary supply but indefinite as to its duration.――――The words of
Paul (1 Cor. 10: 4) should be noted. “Our fathers all drank the same
spiritual drink (for they drank of that spiritual Rock that _followed_
them and that Rock was Christ).”――――In this passage, drinking of the
Rock can be nothing else than drinking _of the waters_ that issued
from the rock. The only question of importance exegetically is――whether
the words “followed them” refer to the waters or to the presence of
Christ as in the pillar of cloud and of fire. The former seems the more
obvious and natural reference, and, in so far, favors the view that
these waters, furnished miraculously, did follow them to some extent
on their journey――perhaps in the way of fresh supplies provided for
them in a similar manner. It can not be doubted that the hosts of
Israel _had water_ through all their journeyings; they could not have
subsisted long without it. The natural supply must have been vastly
greater in that age than in this if it sufficed for this great host at
all other points of their journey save at Rephidim and at Kadesh. The
fact of a constant supply of bread by miracle favors the assumption of
water miraculously provided whenever the supply from natural sources
failed to meet their necessities. This is perhaps the utmost we can say
in the way of probabilities.
_The Battle With Amalek._
While Israel was on the march near Rephidim, the Amalekites fell
savagely upon their rear in a dastardly, unprovoked assault, described
by Moses (Deut. 25: 17, 18): “Remember what Amalek did to thee by
the way when ye were come forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the
way and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind
thee when thou was faint and weary; and he feared not God.” The day
following, Moses summoned Joshua to choose men for war and go out
against Amalek, proposing for himself to take his stand upon a hill
adjacent with the rod of God in his hand. His uplifted hand and rod
became the symbol or rather the visible manifestation of prayer. While
held up aloft, Israel prevailed; let down, Amalek prevailed. To achieve
victory despite of the weariness of Moses, a stone was placed for
him to sit upon; then Aaron and Hur on either side held up his hands
until the going down of the sun. Thus victory was achieved; Amalek
was defeated, and what is specially to be noted, a signal illustration
was afforded of the power of prayer and a sublime testimony placed
on record before all Israel that in God they were mighty against
their foes and could have nothing to fear. So important were these
great moral lessons that the Lord directed Moses to “write this for
a memorial in _the_ book” [not merely _a_ book]――the well-known public
record in which the wonderful works of God for Israel were to be
permanently preserved.――――Another reason for the record was that Amalek
was doomed for this outrage, and the future kings and warriors of
Israel received from time to time their divine commission to execute
this sentence of extermination. (See Deut. 25: 19, and 1 Sam. 15,
etc., etc.)
There are some differences of opinion as to the history and
geographical location of these Amalekites. The name “Amalek” appears
(Gen. 36: 12) as the grandson of Esau; whence some have found the
origin, genealogically, of this people there; but they appear much
earlier (Gen. 14: 7).――――As to their _home_ geographically, their
nomadic habits require a somewhat wide range of territory within which
they may be found. The passages 1 Sam. 15: 7, and 27: 8, locate them in
the district lying between the Philistines and Egypt, along the eastern
shore of the Mediterranean in Arabia Petrea. We find them repeatedly
associated with the Midianites, Moabites, and Ammonites in raids upon
the children of Israel during the time of the Judges and onward to the
reign of David (Judg. 3: 12, 13, and 6: 3, and 1 Sam. 30: 1). They come
to view in the visions of Balaam (Num. 24: 20), spoken of there as “the
first of the nations”――a phrase which can scarcely refer to their high
antiquity (though this construction is barely possible); more probably
it refers to the fact that they were the first to make war upon
Israel after the latter assumed her distinctly national character. So
understood, the description of Amalek looked historically back to the
facts before us Ex. 17. Balaam foresaw their early destruction――their
case being in this respect solemnly admonitory to the king of Moab.
Let us not pass this historic fragment without a passing allusion
to its admirable fitness as the opening scene in Israel’s relation
to hostile foreign powers. She had and was destined to have national
enemies. It was clearly in the policy of the Lord her God that she
should fight these enemies with arms in deadly combat. Hence it was
vital that she should be taught in the outset where her strength
for victory actually lay. This onslaught of Amalek upon her rear and
the ensuing battle, terminating in victory through prayer without
ceasing――the uplifted arms of their Moses sustained till the sun set
upon the victorious arms of Joshua――became their standard lesson――the
first and the permanent example to show them the fountain of their
strength――the ground of assured victory while they lived in obedience
to God and trusted his arm alone.――――It scarcely need be said that
all the spiritual conflicts of God’s people with sin and Satan fall
under the same general law――victory through prayer sustained and
unfaltering――victory in the strength of Israel’s God alone.
_Jethro._
In Ex. 18, Moses narrates a visit from his father-in-law who brought
to him his wife and children, left in his care ever since the scenes
of which we read Ex. 4: 18–26. Jethro is before us here as both a good
and a wise man――_good_ in that his heart is shown to be with God and
with God’s people, “rejoicing for all the goodness which the Lord had
done to Israel whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians”
(18: 9); and _wise_ in that he saw at a glance that the burdens then
borne by Moses in the administration of justice among the people would
soon break him down; and in his admirable suggestions of a better
method which from that day became established among the Hebrew people.
For both reasons such a visit deserved a permanent record. It refreshes
us to think of that good man who had known Moses forty years as his
worthy son-in-law, yet moving only in the humble sphere of a shepherd’s
wilderness life; but now meeting him God’s recognized Leader of the
thousands of Israel and hearing from his lips the wonders God had
wrought on Egypt and on Pharaoh; the deliverance from national bondage;
the passage of the Red Sea and the entrance upon a wilderness march
underneath the cloudy pillar; subsisting on the “corn of heaven” and
on rivers of water from the rock of Rephidim; and withal having just
then achieved their first victory over the first foreign power that
dared assail them:――all this recital from the lips of such a son must
have moved the aged father’s heart with unwonted emotions. We are not
surprised that he should exclaim: “Blessed be the Lord” [your nation’s
own Jehovah] “who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians
and out of the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that the Lord is greater
than all gods, for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was
above them” (18: 10, 11).――――Then, being a priest, [“priest of Midian”
Ex. 2: 16 and 18: 1], he proceeded to offer sacrifices in the manner
which had come down traditionally from the earliest fathers. “He took
a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came and all the
elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God”
(v. 12). The term “burnt offering” is usually applied to a sacrifice
which is burnt entire upon the altar. The phrase “sacrifice for God,”
refers here to a peace-offering upon portions of which the worshipers
partook in the manner of a religious feast――an act at once religious
toward God and social toward man.
The next day Moses resumed his accustomed routine of labor, sitting for
the administration of justice to the people from morning till evening.
The spirit which we see in Moses where he appears first in active life
(Ex. 2: 11–13) would naturally put him to this service. His prestige
as the recognized Leader of Israel under God would turn the eyes of all
the people to him as their Judge. Hence naturally this overwhelming
burden, from which relief came through the wise suggestion of Jethro.
This was that a gradation of subordinate courts be instituted so
that cases of lesser magnitude and difficulty might be administered
by others, and only the more difficult be brought before Moses. The
guiding principle in the classification was at first both tribal and
numerical――following their division into tribes and their numbers.
After their location in Canaan the numerical element gave place to
the geographical. Judges had their province and their responsibility
limited, not by thousands and hundreds directly but by cities and
localities. With this modification the system passed into established
usage among the Hebrews.――――In a parallel passage (Deut. 1: 9–18)
Moses recites the same transaction, omitting all allusion to his
father-in-law, and giving prominence to the qualities requisite in
judges, and to the principles of justice and righteousness by which
they were to be governed.――――At the close of this brief interview
Jethro returned to his home and people. His son Hobab, brother-in-law
of Moses, appears in the history somewhat later (Num. 10: 29–32), and
seems to have consented to act as guide to Moses and Israel in their
march from Sinai to Kadesh, and not improbably until they reached the
Jordan. The home of the family had been on the East and South of Horeb.
In the period of the Judges and onward they are in the Northern border
of the great Arabian desert. (See Judg. 1: 16 and 4: 11 and 1 Sam.
15: 6).
THE SCENES AT SINAI.
_The National Covenant and the Giving of the Law._
Events of most vital bearing upon the national life of the Hebrew
people are now before us. No longer one family as in Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob; no longer a mere tribe, clustering several families under
one or more patriarchs, but a group of many tribes, enlarging fast
toward the proportions of a great nation;――and what is more, a people
no longer under the emasculating incubus of bondage, but emancipated,
and free to rise and assume the duties of self-government with all its
possibilities of growth and improvement, personal and national――this
great people, were at this point summoned of God to enter into solemn
national covenant with himself. In its spirit and significance this
covenant differed in no essential point from that which God made with
Abraham more than six hundred years before. In that earlier covenant
Abraham spake for himself, and so far as it was naturally possible,
for his posterity as well; and God on his part promised to be a God not
to him only but to his seed after him; yet when this seed of Abraham
became a great people, there was special fitness in summoning them to
renew this covenant _for themselves_. Precisely this was done before
Sinai.
The Lord reminded them most appropriately of what he had so recently
done for them. “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I
bare you on eagle’s wings and brought you unto myself.” It was as if
he had lifted them up from earth toward heaven and borne them forth and
out from their national bondage――as the eagle might take up her young
and bear them aloft beyond the reach of whatsoever hostile power were
tied down upon the earth’s surface. God had done this for the definite
purpose of _bringing them to himself_. “Now, therefore, (he proceeds)
if ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then ye shall be
a peculiar treasure to me above all people, for all the earth is mine;
and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex.
19: 4–6). In this divine proposal the central word, translated here
“peculiar treasure,” appears in Ps. 135: 4 translated in the same way;
but in Deut. 7: 6 with a different translation――“A _special people_
unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
The sense is――a special property――a people by the choice of God and
by their own voluntary consecration, made peculiarly his own. Moses in
Deuteronomy (as above) labors to impress upon the people the thought
and purpose of God in this covenant relation: “The Lord did not set his
love upon you nor choose you because ye were more in number than any
[other] people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the
Lord loved you and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn
unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and
hath redeemed you out of the house of bondmen from the hand of Pharaoh
king of Egypt.” Of kindred significance are the other phrases used to
express their new proposed relation to God――“A kingdom of priests and
a holy nation.” This strong language――“a kingdom of priests”――gives
us the thought of a _whole people_――every man in all the nation,
personally consecrated to God, as if the nation were made up of priests
and of such only. God would have them understand that the holiness he
required of them was not the professional service of a chosen few, but
the free-will offering of every man’s own heart and life. The whole
people――every individual man――was summoned to come into this national
covenant. Would they come?
Moses called for the elders――who acted as the representatives of the
whole people and “laid before their faces all these words from the
Lord.” At once all the people answered together and said――“All that
the Lord hath spoken we will do.”――――Let us hope that a fair proportion,
including at least many of the representative men of the nation, were
thoroughly sincere in this profession. It would be grateful to our
feelings to believe that they all both understood and meant what they
said. But, alas! subsequent developments forbid this belief. It was
however the formal consent of the nation. As a whole people they gave
their voice to this definite proposal from the Lord their God――that he
would be their God and that they would be his people.
* * * * *
The next thing in order, is the _giving of the law_. A people who
propose to be the Lord’s and to obey his voice, should be made
acquainted with his will in the form of _law_. They must be informed
what he would have them _do_. Rules of heart and life, precepts
defining the reverent homage and worship due to God, and the acts
required or forbidden as toward their fellow-men should be made
unmistakably plain. Preparations are accordingly made for the formal
and solemn promulgation of this great moral law. It is noticeable that
in these preparations nothing seems to be omitted that might conduce
to a deep and solemn impression. The people are specially enjoined to
sanctify themselves, and two full days are set apart for this purpose.
They were commanded to “wash their clothes”――significant of the
personal purity of heart which God required.――――Then the surroundings
were of the most imposing and impressive character. The whole people
were gathered in an open plain which lay at the foot of Sinai. The most
stringent precautions forbade all curious, irreverent approach. Not a
man or beast might touch the mountain on pain of death. Definite bounds
were set for the people over which no one might pass. There before them
full in view stood the awful mount――rugged, grand, cleft with fissures,
broken with deep ravines, towering in sublime height and all enwrapped
in thick clouds out of which lightnings flashed――the whole mountain
rocking under the footsteps of the Almighty and reverberating with
his awful thunder, and the voice of trumpet exceeding loud so that all
the people in the camp trembled. The written description of this scene
gives us a sense of its ineffable grandeur and sublimity. “Mount Sinai
was altogether on a smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire;
and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole
mount quaked greatly. When the voice of the trumpet sounded long and
waxed louder and louder, Moses spake and the God answered him by a
voice.”――――Essentially the same descriptive points are repeated after
the record of the law as promulged from Sinai (Ex. 20: 18–21). “All
the people saw the thunderings and the lightnings and the noise of
the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they
removed and stood afar off, and said to Moses: Speak thou with us and
we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die.” See also the
renewed mention of this scene in Deut. 4: 10–12.[39]
_The Moral Law as given from Sinai._
Passing from the natural surroundings and scenes of Sinai to
the law itself, let it be observed carefully that this law of ten
commandments (Ex. 20: 1–17 and Deut. 5: 6–21) is to be somewhat broadly
distinguished from the other “statutes and judgments,” whether civil
or religious, which the Lord gave to Israel by the hand of Moses;――this
distinction being apparent in the following points and for the reasons
which they suggest:
1. It was proclaimed by God himself in a most public and solemn manner
in the hearing not of Moses alone, but of the elders of the people at
least, if not of the people en masse, assembled before and around the
glorious mount.
2. It was given under circumstances of most appalling majesty and
sublimity――the mountain being enveloped with clouds and thick darkness,
yet at some moments all ablaze with the lightning’s flash and rocking
beneath Jehovah’s feet.
3. It was written by the finger of God on two tables of stone (Deut.
5: 22).
4. It differed from any and all other laws given to Israel in that it
was comprehensive and general rather than specific and particular.
5. It was complete, being one finished whole to which nothing was to be
added――from which nothing was ever taken away. (“And he added no more”
Deut. 5: 22. See also Mat. 5: 18). The other statutes, as we shall see,
were subjected to future modification.
6. The law of the ten commandments was honored by Jesus Christ as
embodying the substance of the law of God enjoined upon man. With
a master’s hand he grasped and brought out its two great principles,
underlying all the precepts: Love supreme to God: love equal and
unselfish toward fellow-men. “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy
heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Mat. 22: 36–40, and 19: 18, 19
and Mk. 12: 28–34).
7. It can scarcely be doubted that Jesus had his eye specially
if not exclusively on this law (Mat. 5: 18) as _one never to be
repealed_――from which not one jot or tittle should ever pass away.
To this great moral law of ten commandments we now give special
attention and note――That its introduction (Ex. 20: 2), “I am the Lord
thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt――out of the
house of bondage”――is special――not general and universal; is adapted
to the circumstances of Israel, and gives a special reason why _they_
should honor this law as coming from the God of their national covenant,
the Redeemer and Savior of their nation. On the one hand this special
reason why Israel should render supreme homage to Jehovah as their
Deliverer from Egyptian bondage neither applies specifically to all
mankind, nor does it imply that this law is not binding on other people
than Israel. It was pertinent that as given originally to them it
should be preceded and introduced by this special consideration, so
pertinent to their case. Yet it should be thoughtfully considered――God
might have said most truly to every child of his great human family――I
am He who gave thee thy being and every good; and therefore I claim
thy supreme love and homage.――――I see no reason to question that this
clause was put on the two tables of stone――its special introduction as
given to the children of Israel.
I. In the first precept, the words “before me” are construed variously.
The most usual and obvious translation of the Hebrew words is――_before
my face_. In some connections the preposition might mean _upon_ or
_above_. “My face” is thought by some to be merely equivalent to
_myself_. Keil translates――“literally _beyond me_, or in addition
to me, equivalent to except me, or by the side of me.” He rejects
the construction, “before me” (in my presence) as incorrect, and
also condemns _against me_――in opposition to me. Fuerst has it “above
_i. e._ except me.” Murphy says――“before me” is literally “upon my
face.” It supposes those other gods to be set up _before_ the true
God as antagonists in the eye of God and as casting a shade over his
eternal being and incommunicable glory in the eye of worshipers.――――The
two constructions――_beyond_ me and _above_ me――are open to the
objection that they seem tacitly to admit other gods provided they
are inferior and that God is supreme. I prefer as the more obvious and
natural construction――_before my face_. Thus the precept forbids homage
to any other god in the presence of the supreme and omniscient Jehovah;
and by consequence, forbids divine honor to any other being or thing
whatsoever. “Thou shalt have no other gods _before my face_” seems
to imply that the least acknowledgment of other gods is in its very
nature an insult to Jehovah, as if it thrust those gods into his
very face――held them up before his eye as more worthy of homage than
he. Moreover, as no possible worship of other gods can escape his
eye, or be otherwise than thrust up before his face, the prohibition
necessarily shuts off all such worship. You may never worship other
gods than the One Supreme Being, for it is simply impossible that any
such worship can elude his eye, and you must not put it before his face.
II. The second command prohibits the making and worshiping of images
designed to represent idol gods――imaginary powers, supposed to have
more or less control over human welfare. It equally prohibits images
designed to represent the true God. All such sensuous conceptions of
God are necessarily debasing. They rest on false views of God; tend
to fearful and fatal degeneracy; and must therefore be forbidden under
most stringent penalties. The whole history of our race witnesses to
the infinite mischief wrought by such sensuous conceptions of God, as
well as by the notion of subordinate powers, lower than the one supreme
yet more than human. This has been one of Satan’s devices to rule God
out of his universe and transfer to other objects the worship due to
God alone.
This prohibition as it stands here is not enforced by specific
penalties, but in a way far more impressive it bears us back to the
very heart of God, revealing his holy _jealousy_ of any rival to his
throne who would wrest and steal away from him the supreme love and
homage of his creatures, and give it to supposed gods that are no Gods
at all. “For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me.”――――By the very law of the family relation, the great sins
of the father send their curse down upon his children. He makes them
heirs to an inheritance of shame and sorrow. He entails calamity upon
his offspring. Godless and idolatrous himself, he makes his family also
godless and idolatrous. The influence of his sin will naturally and
almost inevitably blight the morals and the souls of his children after
him, and of his children’s children. Let this fact throw its shield
like a wall of fire around him and his family, so that, if not for his
own sake, at least for the sake of his unborn offspring, he will most
sacredly obey this command and abstain from the least infringement of
it in spirit or in letter.
“Visiting iniquity” and “showing mercy” are set over against each
other――the penal visitations of judgment for this sin warning men
against it; and the great promises of mercy to the obedient alluring
them to its most diligent observance. Judgment is God’s strange
work, while mercy is his delight. Therefore we have here the forceful
antithesis――the visiting of the iniquities of fathers upon children
to the third and fourth generation, but the showing of mercy unto
thousands of generations of them that love and obey. To a Hebrew mind
this last clause of the second command would naturally suggest God’s
mercies to Abraham, the well-known friend of God, upon whose posterity
God was shedding forth his blessings to thousands of generations. So
richly does the loving God reward his dutiful and trustful children! So
much more grateful to his heart it is to bless even to the thousandth
generation than to visit iniquity even so far as to the third and
fourth!
It should be carefully noted that the visiting of the iniquities of
fathers upon sons falls only _upon those who hate him_. If sons in
any future generation turn from their sinning to the love of God,
his merciful loving-kindness to them is sure. The curse visits only
those who persist in the sin of their fathers despite of all the
warning judgments that should admonish them to fear God. (See Ezek.
18).――――This injunction against image-making and worship would
naturally suggest to the men of Israel the idolatrous Egyptians. Their
early fathers received from Noah the knowledge of the one only true
God. But they did not love this knowledge, nor the God whom it revealed;
therefore, not liking to retain these views of the pure and holy God,
they chose to think of him as being like some of his works and began to
worship such imaginary gods; or they put in his place some lower beings
or powers as objects of worship. Hence the terrible judgments which the
children of Israel had seen falling upon Egypt and her idols.
“Upon those that love me” is delightfully suggestive of the great
truth that the essence of all acceptable worship is love. God looks
complacently on his human children when they delight in his glory, love
his character, rejoice in his blessedness, and make it the best joy of
their souls to please him by doing all his will. Such love legitimately
flows out in reverent worship and adoring homage. Over against this the
worship of idols in place of God is congenial only to the souls that
hate God. This command assumes that those who worship other gods really
hate the one Supreme Jehovah. Therefore it is that his jealousy burns
against them. They withhold from him the love and the homage of their
hearts.
III. In the third command the exegetical question is whether it refers
primarily and properly to perjury, or to profanity, _i. e._ whether the
Hebrew word for “_in vain_”[40] is precisely falsehood, or emptiness, a
nothing, a thing of no worth. The current of critical opinion (Gesenius,
Fuerst, etc.) goes for the former, falsehood; and makes the precept in
its strict sense condemn perjury. Thou shalt not take up the name of
Jehovah to a falsehood――shalt not use it to affirm the more solemnly
what is false. Yet as what is false has no foundation in fact, and in
point of truth is nothing――is only an emptiness――it comes to pass that
this Hebrew word takes not infrequently this secondary sense; what is
_empty_, _vain_. Hence some able critics [_e. g._ Keil] construe this
precept to prohibit “all employment of the name of God for vain and
unworthy objects so as to include not only false swearing, but trivial
swearing in the ordinary intercourse of life and every use of the
name of God in the service of untruth and lying――for imprecations,
witchcraft, or conjuring.”――――The construction of Keil, being the
more broad and comprehensive, and withal being clearly within the
established usage of the original word, is to be preferred. The
doctrine of inspiration is――“Thy commandment is exceeding broad” (Ps.
119: 96).――――The _name_ of God is associated closely with the idea and
thought of God. Hence all irreverent use of this name naturally begets
irreverence of spirit toward God, and must be fearfully pernicious.
Using God’s sacred name to affirm the more solemnly a falsehood is more
than mere irreverence, and must incur his highest displeasure.
The fourth command――the law of the Sabbath――has been already treated
somewhat fully in connection with the original institution of the
Sabbath in Eden. I must dissent entirely from those critics who deny
the existence of any Sabbath law prior to Sinai. To “bless the seventh
day and sanctify it” (as said in Gen. 2: 3) has no meaning if it do
not mean that God required the day to be one of rest from labor――a day
of holy time, devoted to other than ordinary uses.――――Fully in harmony
with this construction of these words is the allusion to the Sabbath
in the history of the manna (Ex. 16: 22–30), and also the _form_ of
the precept here (Ex. 20: 8), which is not precisely――Thou shalt do
all thy work during six days, but none on the seventh;――but it is this:
“_Remember_ the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” The implied injunction
of the words spoken in Eden was――make it a holy day. God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy: now, therefore, _remember_ that original
injunction. To remember a previous day made holy, must surely imply a
precept setting it apart as holy time.
As given here the law of the Sabbath is expanded into its
legitimate details. The prohibition of labor is applied to children,
to servants, to cattle and to strangers. Then the reason for the
command, essentially as given in Eden, is reiterated; “For in six days
the Lord made heaven, earth, sea, and all creatures; but rested on
the seventh day; therefore he blessed and hallowed this Sabbath-day.”
Noticeably, the statement following “therefore,” uses the same Hebrew
verbs――“bless,” and “sanctify” [or “hallow”] which are used Gen.
2: 3.――――It seems plainly implied that God places before men his own
example of creative work during six day-periods and of rest from this
work on the seventh as a reason or motive for their observance of the
Sabbath――one day of rest after six of toil. A secondary consideration
is doubtless that by this arrangement the Sabbath would be perpetually
suggestive of man’s relation to God as his Infinite Creator and Father.
The linking of the Sabbath to God’s creative work and rest would
naturally make that work a fact ever present to human thought――blending
its influence with the sacredness and with all the employments of this
holy day. Man desists from labor. Why? Because God did. After what
labor? That of making the heavens and the earth and man. Therefore let
man remember God as his Creator and render him the homage of obedience
and the homage of adoration, gratitude and praise. Thus the historic
origin of the precept became suggestive of the thoughts, the words, and
the divine worship appropriate to this holy day.
It is scarcely in place here to discuss the Christian change from the
seventh to the first day of the week, further than to remark that a
similar suggestive influence came in as the purpose and object――_the
choice of the day suggesting the resurrection of Christ_. The original
reference to God as Creator need not be practically lost: but we
may practically gain a second group of suggestive and most vital
truths――those which cluster round the resurrection of our Lord.
V. The fifth command consecrates its strength to the family relation.
Addressed to children it requires them to honor their father and their
mother, and makes obedience the condition of long life and prosperity
in the land of their promised inheritance. As read in Ex. 20: 12 the
command specifies only long life, but as repeated in Deut. 5: 16,
“that it may go well with thee”――is added. General prosperity is
however involved and implied in length of days.――――Obviously this
honor carries with it obedience as well as due respect. Such honor is
vital to the happiness and the value of the family relation. Without it
no foundation can ever be laid for a useful and worthy after-life. It
should not be overlooked that the earliest training of the infant mind
Godward should begin with cultivating the honor and obedience due to
father and mother. Through all the earliest developments of the infant
and youthful mind, the parent is to the child in the place of God.
The same qualities of character, the same obedience, respect, and
deference, which God requires toward himself are to be first implanted
and developed in the mind toward the human parent. Failing of their due
development in this antecedent relation, they are almost certain never
to be developed toward God: a fatal defect in character is fastened
upon the child; a cast of mind is determined which but too surely ends
in hopeless ruin.――――It is noticeable that this very association of
ideas, uniting the homage due to parentage and years with the honor
due to God appears in the Mosaic law (Lev. 19: 32); “Thou shalt rise
up before the hoary head and honor the face of the old man; and _fear
thy God_: I am the Lord.”
VI. The next four precepts are a series beginning with the most vital,
designed to protect the rights of person and life; of chastity; of
property; and of reputation. The precepts forbid murder, adultery,
theft, false witness, or defamation. The prohibition of murder must
be construed broadly enough to forbid personal injuries on the one
hand; and on the other all those passions――hate, malice prepense――which
naturally lead on toward violence and murder.――――The prohibition of
adultery in like manner forbids not only all illicit sexual connection,
but even unchaste desire (Matt. 5: 27, 28). So the prohibition of theft
devolves the duty of caring for our neighbor’s property so far as the
law of loving our neighbor as ourself would require. It is not enough
that we do not take his property and appropriate it to our own use.
We must protect his right to his property as he should ours. In like
manner the law forbidding the bearing of false witness against our
neighbor involves the duty of protecting and cherishing his reputation.
We may never forget that our neighbor’s good name is a treasure to him
which we not only must not steal away, but must so far as in us lies
guard and defend as if his good were worth as much as our own. The one
comprehensive principle which embraces all these points of law toward
our neighbor and determines their true interpretation is given in the
law of Moses as well as in the law of Christ――“Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself” (Lev. 19: 34 and Matt. 22: 39 and 19: 19). As to
this passage from Moses it should be noted that _in terms_ it speaks
not precisely of one’s neighbor but of the _stranger_――one toward
whom you are wont to think your obligations less than toward any other
human being; for he is not a brother born of the same father――not a
relative of the same tribe――not a citizen of the same commonwealth
or nationality; but an alien, a foreigner, a stranger toward whom you
recognize no other relation than that of a fellow-being of human kind.
Of such an one the law holds――“The stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you, and _thou shalt love him as
thyself_; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord
your God”――and I enjoin upon you this all-embracing love for the lowest
of human kind.
It should be carefully noted that although this group of four commands
(6–9) in each case specifies the extreme form of the sin, the law
by no means limits its prohibition to this extreme form. Killing is
the extreme of personal violence; adultery (strictly the crime of the
married) is the most aggravated form of unchastity; theft is more than
simply being reckless of your neighbor’s property; and false witness
naturally contemplates a case in court――public, formal, and of most
grave and momentous consequences;――yet in each and every one of these
prohibitions it behooves us to remember that God looks at the heart;
that the spirit is more than the letter; that the law which specifies
the extreme form of a special sin forbids with its full force all
the lower grades and all the less flagrant and revolting forms of the
same sin. We wrong ourselves most fearfully when we labor to ease our
conscience by limiting the prohibitions of God’s law to the extreme
forms of sin which may be named in the statute. It is always our
highest wisdom to deal very honestly with our own conscience as before
God in the construction and application of his law.
The tenth and last commandment is peculiar, as compared with all others
of the second table, in this point――that it specifies no external act
whatever but lays its prohibition directly _upon the heart_. “Thou
shalt not covet”――shalt not allow thyself to _desire_ in such a way as
might tempt thee to try to obtain――thy neighbor’s house, wife, servants,
cattle, or any thing that he has. This law aims to forestall temptation.
It strikes at the root of such sins as theft and adultery by forbidding
any such desire as might move you toward the sin. It may be regarded
as shielding both of the two parties; the one who might commit the
sin, and the one against whom the sin might be committed. It throws
its shield over him who might otherwise be tempted, and it also becomes
in so far a safeguard around him who holds treasures which lustful eyes
might covet.
Let us not omit to notice that it was this precept which opened the
spiritual eye of Paul and gave him a new view of the breadth and true
significance of God’s law. “I had not known sin, (said he) but by the
law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet” (Rom. 7: 7). His Pharisaic training (we may suppose) had been
scrupulous over the tenth part of the mint and anise and cummin――had
taken even ostentatious care of the external matters of the law;
but, alas! had _left the heart out_. Here at the close of the
law of Sinai――last among the precepts that treat of duty to our
neighbor――stands one which puts its finger squarely upon the _heart_.
It says――“Thou shalt not _covet_.” It not only suggests that God
looks within the soul of man for sin, but it demands that every man
shall look there too and put his own restraining hand directly upon
those rising desires which, indulged, would push him into overt sin.
Moreover, this one precept may be supposed to have suggested to the
mind of Paul that the whole law of God must be construed on this
heart-principle――that every precept it contains goes beyond the letter
to the spirit――pushes its demand deeper than the outward act, even to
the inner thought, passion, and purpose of the soul. This view put the
law of God in a new light――we might even say――revealed a new law to his
soul. It gave him a new field for self-examination; brought up new sins
never seen or dreamed of before, and at once demolished hopes of favor
before God and of salvation on which he had perilously leaned through
all his Pharisaic life.――――“Thy commandment” (said one of the Psalmists)
“is exceeding broad” (Ps. 119: 96). We are not to think of all the Old
Testament saints as Pharisees. Let us rather hope that many of them
read in the law of Sinai the law of love, and adjusted to it, not the
outward life only but the very heart as well.
_Progress in the Revelation of God to Man._
The first twenty chapters of Exodus cover a period eminently rich in
point of _progress_ in revealing God to the race.――――More fully than
ever before God manifested those special elements of his character
which are unfolded in the new name Jehovah――I am that I Am (Ex. 3: 14).
He had given promises before; then he came forth to _fulfill_ them. He
had talked with the patriarchs about faith, and had sought to inspire
it in their souls. In these great deeds for his people he gave them
demonstrations of his eternal faithfulness――a basis on which their
faith might rest, and also the faith of every child of his through all
the future ages. God came exceedingly near to his afflicted people in
Egypt, and never missed any opportunity of suggesting and impressing
the idea that these tender testimonies of his love were in proof of
his _fidelity to promise_――were the very acts which his covenant with
Abraham involved and called for――called for of their covenant God not
in vain.
Again, we see here the _possibility of very great intimacy of communion
between God and man_. As bearing on this point the reader will review
the scene between Moses and the Lord at the burning bush; in his
mission to Pharaoh; in the special directions given him in regard to
the sending of each several plague, and usually as to its removal as
well. Did ever earthly Potentate stand on more intimate terms with his
prime minister? Or military chieftain with his subordinate officer? If
Moses was at any point reluctant, under a conscious sense of capacities
unequal to the work and of difficulties he could not surmount, did he
not bring the matter before the Lord with at least as much freedom as
the case could justify?――――Especially when we think of Moses coming
so near to Jehovah in his majesty wielding the terrific agencies of
flood and storm and fire, of darkness and lightning and the voice of
trumpet exceeding loud――Mt. Sinai rocking beneath his feet, and Moses
alone drawing near the Awful Presence and talking with God face to face
there――what shall we say of the possibilities of communion between man
and his Maker? Whatever speculations we may have as to the means and
methods by which the thought of God was borne to the mind of Moses and
the thought of Moses to the mind of God, the great fact of _communion_
of mind with mind――thought meeting thought――of command from the
superior party, received and obeyed by the inferior――is on the outer
face of the whole history and admits of no question. God can speak to
man so that man shall know the voice to be his and comprehend perfectly
its significance. Relations of obedience, confidence, and love on the
part of man toward his Maker are established, and God meets them with
appropriate manifestations of his favor.
This great fact is one of telling significance in the whole province
of Christian experience. Its significance can not terminate with the
present life but must pass on to be unfolded far more gloriously in
the revelations of the eternal world. “It doth not yet appear” [in all
points] “what we shall be”――but it does appear that God has made us
capable of exceedingly intimate relations to himself――as we shall know
more perfectly when we shall see as we are seen and know as also we are
known.
Yet again; This portion of historic revelation _abounds with
testimonies to the power of prayer_ and to its place in the relations
of God to man and of man to God. We see these revelations in the
history of the plagues on Egypt. So palpably manifest was the power
of Moses with God in prayer that even proud Pharaoh saw and recognized
it. Over and over again the king besought the prayers of the man of
God――apparently with unlimited confidence that God would grant whatever
he should ask. Though he never had seen such power in prayer before,
the force of the facts was too great to be resisted. For once he became
so far a believer in the communion of man with God, and also in the
power of God to work wonders which man’s power alone could never reach.
The war scenes with Amalek and the prayer which turned the victory
to Israel’s side will be readily recalled. As already suggested, this
specimen case, brought out so perfectly in the first national conflict
of arms, was well adapted to send down to future ages the great secret
of success against their national enemies. How happy for Israel if
it had never been forgotten! How well for the Christian world if the
lessons of that scene were faithfully transferred and applied in all
spiritual conflicts against foes within and foes without which pertain
to this ever militant state!
It is scarcely necessary to speak in fuller detail of the revelations
of God to man _through miracle_. Every page of this history teems with
miracles. Take the miracles away, and truly there would be nothing left.
The revelations of God’s will to Moses; the judgments on Egypt; the
redemption of his people from bondage there; the scenes at the Red Sea;
the bread and the water for his needy people; the pillar of cloud and
of fire; the glories of Sinai and the giving of his law in voice of
majesty:――what are all these but miracles――the Great God over-stepping
the ordinary course of nature to impress himself, the power of his arm,
the mandates of his will――upon human minds? No other such chapter on
miracles appears in the Old Testament. Nowhere else do they cluster
so grandly; not elsewhere do they so much supersede the common laws
of nature and give character to the entire course of the divine
administration. Most abundantly do they testify that the arm of the
Lord is equal to any result which his wisdom may devise. If he has
purposes to accomplish he can not lack the means or the power necessary.
The age of miracles can be brought round again if so he wills it. But
more to our purpose is the inference to the adequacy of his resources
in general, whether with or without miracle.――――Yet let us not miss
the more vital truth that this cluster of miracles aimed to witness
to God’s present hand working with Moses, endorsing his mission and
accrediting his words from the most High. God was then specially active
in “making history” (shall we say?)――_making history to put into his
Bible_. The Bible was growing; the great crisis which developed into
the birth of the Hebrew nation was then transpiring; God’s plans for
training a people who should be holy to himself――the repository of his
truth――the church of the living God――were then rapidly unfolding; and
no vital step in this process could spare the agency of miracle.
Yet again; In this portion of sacred history much new light has been
thrown upon _God’s management of great sinners_. Pharaoh was a standard
case of this sort. As already suggested, there are many aspects of this
management. On one side we see the strong arm, putting his hook into
the jaws of Leviathan――curbing his spirit, breaking down his power;
burying him and his hosts in the sea. On another side are unfolded
the nice relations of even this resistless power to the free moral
activities of the great sinner; the wonderful blending of mercies with
judgments; the patient waiting――if possibly these manifestations of
God’s hand may bring the proud king to real submission; and coupled
with this, the steady purpose on God’s part to turn all Pharaoh’s pride
and guilt and moral obduracy to best possible account――setting forth
his mode of dealing with wicked men in making known his power to save
his people and to crush their foes, and his unfailing wisdom in making
the wrath of the proudest of mortals evolve his own glory and praise.
* * * * *
_The scenes of Sinai_ were a long and magnificent step of progress in
the revelations of God to men. We may think here not so much of the
external surroundings――the bringing into service of all the grandest
agencies of nature to impress men with reverence and fear and awe, and
so to plant the more deeply in their souls the idea of law as emanating
unmistakably from the Infinite One; but we may consider the _great
fact itself of a revealed law_. It is surely a point in the progress
of God’s revelations of himself second to nothing that has gone
before――second to nothing in all the ages save the greater mission of
his Son for the purposes of redemption. God revealing to man a rule of
duty; expressing it in terms at once so simple and so comprehensive;
including the duties we owe to God on the one hand and to fellow-beings
on the other; putting it on permanent record; accompanying it with
demonstrations of majesty and glory, endorsing it so surely and so
sublimely; adjusting it so nicely in harmony with the intelligent
convictions of rational minds, and so commending it to every
man’s conscience as intrinsically and eternally right:――truly the
promulgation of such a law through such agencies is surpassingly grand
and glorious; and, in the line of our present thought, is one of the
great epochs in the march of God’s revelations of himself to mortals.
We pause before it to take in the value of this revealed law; the new
relations into which the race are brought thereby toward their Great
Father; and the bearings of this law upon the whole plan of God’s moral
administration toward our fallen race.