IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett
The First Stages of Their Journey (12.37-13.22).
The journey from Egypt now commencing we are informed of the quantity of those leaving and the connection backwards with when they first entered Egypt. This is then followed by instructions concerning who in future will be able to participate in the Passover. This had become very important in view of the mixed multitude (peoples of many nations) who accompanied them. As a result of the Passover their firstborn sons and beasts had been spared so regulations concerning the firstborn are laid down, together with those concerning the accompanying feast which was even then in process. And following that we are given information about the initial stages of their journey.
It may be analysed as follows:
It will be noted that in ‘a’ the initial commencement of the journey is paralleled with its first stage, while in ‘b’ the regulations concerning who may eat the Passover are paralleled with connected regulations concerning the firstborn who had been saved by Yahweh during the Passover, together with the accompanying regulations concerning unleavened bread which was all a part of the Passover celebrations.
The Children of Israel Begin Their Journey (12.37-42).
As a result of the death of the firstborn, Pharaoh had commanded the children of Israel to go and serve Yahweh in the wilderness with all that they had. His words (12.31-32) had been urgent and gave the impression that he would not mind if he never saw them again. He wanted rid of them at any cost because of what their presence had brought on himself and his people, and what their presence might continue to bring. Egypt was devastated, and now on top of the disasters every family in Egypt had lost its firstborn sons through some mysterious means. But underneath he was still the same obstinate and evil man. We can see therefore why he changed his mind a little later on, when he reconsidered his words once the worst seemed to be over. He had never ever been thwarted like this before. It was not just that Egypt were losing such a quantity of slaves, although that was bad enough, it was the fact that he had been totally humiliated.
Note the parallels. In ‘a’ all of the children of Israel and more had left Egypt, thus in the parallel it was a night to be observed by all the children of Israel. In ‘b’ they had been thrust out of the land in haste, and in the parallel it was a night to be observed to Yahweh for this reason. In ‘c’ they had resided as aliens in Egypt for 430 years, and in the parallel now after 430 years He had brought them out.
12.37 ‘And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred ’eleph on foot that were men, beside children.’
Meanwhile the people of Yahweh began their journey on foot into the wilderness via Succoth leading towards Etham on the edge of the wilderness (13.20). The site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been made. It may be the fortress town of Tjeku mentioned in Egyptian sources. In these we learn, for example, of a chief of the archers sent to Tjeku to prevent certain slaves from running away, but arriving too late. They had been seen crossing the north wall of the fortress town of Seti-Merenptah. Another mentions some Libyan mercenaries who had tried to flee but were brought back to Tjeku. Thus Tjeku was on the route regularly taken by fugitives.
‘The children of Israel journeyed.’ Not necessarily in an orderly march. They had been given the date and were ready. Then they streamed towards Succoth near the border to gather for the march, the main body coming from around Rameses (or they may have gathered outside Rameses). The necessity for rapid movement would prevent too much overall organisation. The heads of each clan would be expected to ensure that their clan joined in and kept up. Organisation would come later.
From Rameses to Succoth.’ The word succoth means ‘booths’ or ‘tents’ (compare Genesis 33.17). Possibly originally it had been a city of tents, and the name had clung to it. Or possibly it was simply a Hebrew rendering of an Egyptian word that mean something different. But there is an ironic twist in the fact that the first stage of their journey is represented as being from the city of the great king to ‘the place of tents’, for this indicated their future. It parallels the journey of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan. (Indeed all who would serve God must go ‘from Rameses to Succoth’, from living for man’s glory to becoming a stranger and pilgrim in the world (1 Peter 2.11), counting what this world offers as nothing, for man’s glory offers nothing but bondage, while submission to God leads to freedom)
‘Six hundred ’eleph on foot who were men.’ Probably we should read ‘six hundred family or military units on foot who were men’. Much later ‘eleph’ became established as indicating ‘one thousand’ but at this stage it may well not have been quite so emphatically used and instead often have had a significance relating to its other meanings of ‘family group’ or ‘clan’, or even a ‘military unit’ (2 Samuel 18.1) of a certain size. In Judges 6.15 Gideon says ‘my ’eleph is the weakest in Manasseh’ and in 1 Samuel 10.19-21 we read ‘present yourselves by your tribes and by your families (’alpheycem from root ’eleph) where the parallel in verse 21 suggests it means family groups not thousands. Thus ’eleph could here have signified a considerably smaller number than a thousand.
To the Hebrew mind the ‘six hundred’ may also have indicated intensified completeness (three doubled times a hundred). We must not read back into them our numeracy, and streaming out from different parts of Goshen they would at the time have been in no position to be counted individually, whereas a note may well have been taken of the approximate number of groups that arrived as they all came together.
‘Besides children.’ Strictly the Hebrew indicates ‘as well as males under age’. The presence of the wives and daughters with them is assumed. The word for ‘children’, is in fact often distinguished from wives, but it is also sometimes used as indicating the whole family apart from the adult males (Genesis 43.8; 47.12).
Note On the Numbers Mentioned in the Pentateuch.
When considering numbers in the Pentateuch we should always be aware of the possibility that the number words used in this early literature may have been intended to give information other than numerical quantity. Numerical quantity would have meant little to most readers. They did not think numerically. Few could count. Nor did they use more than minimal numbers in daily life (say up to ten at the most and some only up to three as with many modern primitive tribespeople). What numbers conveyed to them was an impression of size and an indication of significance. Even in the time of Elijah ‘two’ could mean ‘a few’ (1 Kings 17.12).
But what really matters is that the significance of the events themselves is not affected by the numbers. Whether the number here literally means ‘six hundred thousand’ in our terms, or whether it indicates a large and complete number of family groupings, the miraculous deliverance was the same. We do not have to believe that the numbers should be taken with their modern significance if they do not, so as to prove our faith, nor do we need to reject them because they seem to produce difficulties. We should simply ask, what was the writer signifying? Sufficient evidence has been accumulated elsewhere in order to demonstrate that 2 million Israelites could have made the journey in view of God’s miraculous provisions. But the question is, given that fact, does the text say that they did?
Certainly when translating these large numbers we should note the following:
However, in this regard a question does arise as to who were numbered as firstborn. For example does it include fathers and grandfathers who were firstborn, or only the firstborn in each current family, that is, those who were sons of the heads of each smaller family grouping when the Passover took place, or even just those who were born since the first Passover? Furthermore, is it only the firstborn of the first wife in each family which is in mind, as Reuben alone is called the ‘firstborn’ (bechor) of Jacob’s family, while there were twelve sons bearing children, or is it all firstborns of all their wives? The former would seem the most probable, so that if polygamy was common at that time because at times so many men died, both through religious purges as in Exodus 1.22 and through ill-treatment in their bondage in times of the worst persecution, it would help to explain why there was a relatively small number of ‘firstborn’ (bechor) to the first wives. Families with girl firstborns would also be excluded and may have well exceeded the number of male firstborns still alive. Many male firstborns (those who opened the womb) would have died at birth or infancy, and it may be that firstborns of families were especially targeted by the Egyptian authorities as being prospective heads of their families. And so we could go on. So this is by no means conclusive.
These verses must therefore make us pause and consider any numbers that we are interpreting. On the other hand the fact that Pharaoh went after them in such force must be seen as demonstrating that their numbers were quite large, especially in view of the fact that they were not well-armed and were not trained fighting men. And the fact that the amount of the ransom of the males tallies with this number must also be seen as significant (38.25-27), although there we cannot be sure what the weights indicated at this period, and in fact have to recognise that the total weight of the silver, of both poll tax and freewill gifts, might well have determined the numerical description, rather than vice versa (see on those verses).
What we must further keep in mind is that Hebrew was at this time in its early stages as a developing language and that the children of Israel would not as a whole be a numerate people. They would not think in mathematical terms and that would be reflected in their limited use of ‘number’ words (see The Use of Numbers). Numbers were in fact regularly intended to signify more than just specific quantity. We can compare the huge numbers of the reigns of earliest Sumerian kings, in the hundreds of thousands, which can hardly be taken literally. This especially comes out in the numbers used in the Pentateuch which follow a certain pattern. They tend to end in nought, five, or less often seven, with thirty as an ending being popular. They do not give the impression of exact numerical accuracy in our terms. (See ‘The Use of Numbers’ above and also the introduction to our commentary on the Book of Numbers).
The special problem of the initial meaning of ’eleph in early Hebrew is highlighted in 1 Samuel 6.19 where we read ‘he smote of the people seventy men, fifty ’eleph men’. There the latter number must in some way surely tie in with the former which itself may be a round number indicating divine completeness. It is possibly saying that He smote ‘seventy’ men from fifty families of men (or even seventy men and fifty oxen of men, for ’eleph can mean ox). Cities in Canaan were not in general physically large enough to contain anywhere remotely near fifty thousand residents (Megiddo was a rare exception), so fifty thousand men gathered at Bethshemesh (and those only the ones killed) is extremely unlikely. Consider also for example that at the battle of Kadesh, against the mighty Hittites, Rameses II had an army of only twenty thousand men and it was his main force.
So numbers in these early books must be considered guardedly, and we would be wise not to be dogmatic. It is not a question of whether they are accurate or not, it is a question of what they indicate, what the Hebrew means. It may be that new discoveries will at some time make the position clearer. Nevertheless what we must not do is argue from the grounds of ‘impossibility’, for with God nothing is impossible. And the fact that the people constantly fed on the manna whose supply never failed until they reached the land must always be taken into account. However, we must certainly argue on the facts.
End of note.
12.38 ‘And a mixed multitude went up also with them, and flocks and herds, even very much cattle.’
This ‘mixed multitude’ would consist of other ‘foreigners’ who had connected themselves with them, from many nations. They were clearly large enough numerically for a separate mention. (If Numbers 11.4 refers to them their numbers were sufficient to be noted as dissidents, but it must be counted as doubtful whether in fact the mixed multitude were in mind in that passage in Numbers. The ones mentioned there were probably the rogue element in Israel that every nation possesses. The LXX interpretation probably resulted from a later exclusivist attitude). The battle of Moses with Pharaoh would naturally be widely known and many slaves and sojourners would by it have been encouraged to join this group of people who had such a powerful God, especially if it offered them a chance themselves to escape from oppression in Egypt. And there might well have been some, including Egyptians, who had been impressed by Israel’s God and had themselves observed the Passover stipulations. There were clearly a good number in this mixed multitude and they would all probably later be required to submit to Yahweh’s covenant. They would by that identify themselves as ‘children of Israel’, especially in the making of the covenant at Sinai. That this could be so is shortly legitimised (12.48-49). That the children of Israel were not all directly descended from Jacob was already true in that the ‘households’ of Jacob and his sons, which would include slaves and retainers, were also included. Now that expands even further. God’s mercy extends to all who will submit to Him and to His covenant (see verse 48).
Together with the mixed multitude were many herds and flocks. The description is here intended to indicate the large quantity of persons and animals who were on the move.
12.39 ‘And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt for it was not leavened because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not linger, nor had they prepared for themselves any victual.’
The total unpreparedness of the children of Israel is stressed. Because of the speed with which they were sent out of Egypt there had not been time to leaven the dough. This is an explanation of why unleavened bread was eaten during the seven days of what became the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and why God made unleavened bread a symbol of the feast and of the departure from Egypt. In their flight they no doubt observed the feast as best they could.
12.40-41 ‘Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, and it happened at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it happened, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt.’
The ‘sojourning’ of the children of Israel in Egypt is stated to have been for four hundred and thirty years. However this figure may be based on the ‘four hundred years’ of Genesis 15.13 (i.e. four generations - Genesis 15.16) with a complete ‘thirty’ years added. It is highly questionable, and would be totally without precedent, if a year by year calendar was kept of the passage of time. The thirty years may reflect a complete period (three intensified) added to the four hundred years to indicate the perfection of God’s working and timing. Alternately the thirty years may connect with some specific event which we are unaware of which was seen as the commencement of the deliverance. That could explain the reference to ‘the selfsame day’. But this latter may also be just a way of stressing that God worked to an exact timetable.
If it is to be taken literally then it would suggest the date of the Exodus to be 13th century BC, the fifteenth century date taking us back too far in time.
The position is complicated by the fact that here the LXX has a different reading for it reads ‘in Egypt and in Canaan’. This may have been the original text but it looks more like an attempt to solve a difficulty caused by the fact that Exodus 6.16-20 does contain four generations from Levi to Moses (compare Leviticus 10.4 also Numbers 26.5-9 of Korah. 1 Chronicles 6.1-3 is taken from here). However, that is probably not intended to be a complete genealogy. Note for example that there were a greater number of generations from Ephraim to Joshua (1 Chronicles 7.20-27).
Indeed we now know that in these genealogies it was often considered necessary only to put in the important names so that generations were omitted with no difficulty and ‘begat’ simply indicated ‘was the ancestor of’ and ‘son of’ meant ‘the descendant of’. This is archaeologically evidenced again and again in many cultures. The four generations of Moses and Aaron were most probably intended to signify tribe, sub-tribe, clan and family, or may have been selected in order to bring out the fact that they were in a foreign land, for four is the number indicating the world outside the covenant (consider four rivers outside Eden (Genesis 2), four kings from foreign parts against Abraham (Genesis 14), four beasts representing world empires (Daniel 2 and 7)). Thus Amram and Yochebed may have been only ‘descendants of’ Kohath or may even have been ancestors of Moses and not his direct father and mother. So we must be careful about attempting to apply our own criteria to figures and genealogies in the Old Testament. We must ask ourselves what they themselves meant, and remember that in the case of genealogies what mattered to them was the line from which they came.
‘Even the self same day.’ This probably refers back to verse 14, the self same day as the deliverance. This is confirmed by verse 42.
12.42 ‘It is a night of watching to Yahweh for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This same night is a night of watching to Yahweh for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.’
The importance of the night is linked to Yahweh’s watch over the people on Passover night. To Him it was ‘a night of watching’ as He watched over them to protect them and then to deliver them. And when they in future celebrated the Passover they too would be aware of Him watching over them, in the same way as this, throughout their generations, for they too were His people. The result will be that they too would ‘watch’ as they considered His goodness and mercy, on the anniversary of that night, into future generations.
We have here a reminder to us too that as we go forward with God on the journey to which He calls us He will be watching over us to protect and lead us, and to enable us to deal with the Enemy, and that we must always be watching Him.
The Mixed Multitude, And Those Who Will, Can Enter God’s Covenant and Share the Passover (12.42-50).
The extra instructions that follow were partly necessary because of the mixed multitude that had joined up with them, and they are thus introduced at this point. But they are also important as indicating the make up of ‘the children of Israel’. They are seen as including genuine descendants of Jacob and his sons, descendants of all family servants in their households who had been circumcised and their descendants, and all resident aliens who sought to enter the covenant through circumcision. It was in fact open to almost anyone to become one of the ‘children of Israel’ as long as they were willing to be committed to Yahweh.
With regard to ‘a’, the ordinance of the Passover was the ordinance of deliverance, thus in the parallel to keep it was to celebrate the bringing of the children of Israel out of Egypt by their hosts. In ‘b’ a resident alien who had not committed himself by being circumcised may not eat of it while a circumcised bought-in servant may, the parallel indicating that all will receive complete fairness of treatment, all will be treated the same according to these regulations, whether homeborn or foreign. The whole question of acceptability rests on whether they are willing to be circumcised into the covenant. In ‘c’ no foreigner may eat of it, nor in the parallel may any uncircumcised person. In ‘d’ it may not be taken outside the house nor may any bone of it be broken. It is a holy meal. It must be eaten entire within the household so that its holiness may be maintained. And in the parallel a household of foreigners may, as long as all the males are circumcised, partake of the holy meal, for then they will be as the homeborn and the holiness of the meal will be protected. Both ordinance are concerned to protect the holiness of the meal. And finally and centrally all the congregation of Israel must keep the Passover.
12.42-45 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover. No alien shall eat of it. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, once you have circumcised him, then shall he eat of it. A foreign settler and a hired servant shall not eat of it.” ’
When the Passover was kept those who partook could only be those who had entered the covenant community of ‘the children of Israel’. Thus a purchased man, once he was circumcised, could enter the covenant, and then belonged and could partake, because he was permanently among them. But those who were just passing through, such as a hired man who would one day leave, or a sojourner who was temporary (compare verse 48), could not eat of the Passover because they were not members of the covenant. They were not committed to Yahweh. But in verse 48 provision is made for them to enter the covenant if they were willing to become permanently committed by being circumcised.
‘No alien shall eat of it.’ That is, one who is outside the covenant (see verse 48). He will be a worshipper of other gods and belongs to another community.
‘A foreign settler.’ Someone who settles among them on a temporary basis. (The one who wishes to become permanent and enter the covenant can do so (verse 48)).
12.46-47 “It shall be eaten in one house. You shall not carry out any of the flesh outside from the house, nor shall you break a bone of it. All the congregation of Israel shall do it.”
Stress is laid on the fact that nothing of the Passover lamb may be taken out of the house in which it was killed. It must be burned inside (12.10). Furthermore no bone of it must be broken. This was because the flesh and body were seen as holy and perfect, and as belonging to Yahweh, and must be kept perfect. These sacrificial animals were His gift to His people but they remained His. They may eat of them in the place commanded but they were not to be seen as just ordinary food. They were sacrificial food in a way that other sacrifices eaten by the people, which did not all have to be eaten on the same day, were not, demonstrating that the people who partook were set apart for Him and unified with Him. That this is stressed again (compare 12.10) with the new addition of the preservation of the bones demonstrates how important it was seen to be. There must be no blemish even after death. (Compare John 19.6 where John applies this same idea to the death of Jesus. He was offered up in His perfection as God’s Passover Lamb and not a bone of Him was broken). The purpose in mentioning this here is to indicate why only those within the covenant may eat of it. It is especially holy, and it belongs to God.
‘All the congregation of Israel shall do it.’ There were to be no exemptions for the children of Israel. All of them must partake wherever possible. Like circumcision into the covenant the Passover was the sign of those who were His. ‘The congregation’. That is, all those who gather to worship Him because they are circumcised into the covenant and have submitted to Yahweh.
12.48-49 “And when a stranger sojourns with you and wants to keep the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it. And he shall be as one born in the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law shall be to him that is homeborn and to him that sojourns among you.”
But anyone who wished to enter into the privileges of Yahweh’s covenant with the fathers and eat the Passover might do so by commitment and circumcision. By this they would be declaring their intent to become ‘children of Israel’, and must be welcomed on equal terms. They could now partake of the holy meal because they had been made a part of the holy people, and were thus themselves holy to Yahweh. This is why the ‘mixed multitude’ (verse 38) could join the covenant, become members of the children of Israel, and keep the Passover. But in order to do so they must be committed to being circumcised.
‘As one born in the land.’ God is looking forward to that time when they have reached the land He has promised them (3.8 compare 13.5). It is then that strangers will regularly come among them and be faced with the choice described.
The importance of these words for our understanding of how the church fits in with Israel cannot be overemphasised. Jesus’ Apostles and the all Jewish church went out to call men to follow Jesus and join the community of the true Israel, ‘the true vine’ (John 15.1-6), and soon learned that Gentiles too could be welcomed into ‘the church of Christ’ (Matthew 16.18), which was built on the Apostles of Jerusalem not on the church of Rome. Indeed Rome could not have been in mind for the idea was to build a new ‘congregation (ekklesia) of Israel’, and this had to be founded on believing Jews. Believing Gentiles were thus grafted into the olive tree and became part of the Israel of God (Romans 11.17; Galatians 6.16; Ephesians 2.12-22), while unbelieving Jews were ‘cut off’. The church was seen as the renewed Israel, the genuine continuation of the Israel of God confirmed at Sinai. When Paul argued that they did not need to be circumcised it was not on the grounds that they were not entering Israel, it was on the grounds that they were already circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11, 13).
12.49 ‘Thus did all the children of Israel. As Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron so they did.’
Most probably this is a comment on the whole chapter stressing the obedience of Israel to God’s commandments through Moses, as verse 50 might be seen as confirming. Alternately, but less likely, it may connect only with the last section confirming that Israel later carried out Yahweh’s requirements concerning the Passover.
In the latter case it might be seen as confirming that the mixed multitude, who were now recognised as being potential children of Israel, did agree to fulfil God’s requirement and gave their commitment to be circumcised under the aegis of the ‘homeborn’. In the event it would have to await a suitable occasion when they could have time to recover, but the intention would be there and would be accepted. The impression given elsewhere is in fact that circumcision was not carried out in the wilderness, even for the children of the ‘homeborn’, something which had to be remedied when they arrived in the land (Joshua 5.2-9). But it would certainly seem that the mixed multitude were included at the covenant ceremony at Sinai. There is no suggestion anywhere that they were not.
12.50 ‘And it came about the selfsame day that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.’
This relates back to ‘the self same day’ in verse 41 confirming that the words of Yahweh to Moses and Aaron in verses 43-49 were given that day, and to verse 14 where it is the day of the Passover, and stressing that the deliverance began on the day that Yahweh had chosen. It is a triumphant declaration that Yahweh did what He had promised with none to thwart Him. This was what the celebration of the Passover was all about, the deliverance of their firstborn through the shedding of blood, and their own deliverance from Pharaoh through the power of Yahweh.
(Note for Christians.
We can imagine the joy of the Israelites as they streamed from the places where they had lived for so long, and had found themselves in bondage, to a new life. They knew little of what lay before them. All they knew was that because of the power of Yahweh Pharaoh had had to let them go, and they were free. Every true Christian has experienced that deliverance, although in our case the Passover was of Christ the Passover lamb sacrificed for us (John 1.29; 1 Corinthians 5.7), and the freedom was from the bondage of the guilt of sin. And we too have commenced our pilgrim journey (1 Peter 2.11). But the difference between us and them is that their trek leader was Moses, and while he was a great man of God, he was a man of like passions as they were, while our Trek Leader is the Lord Jesus Christ, made into a perfect Trek Leader through His own sufferings (Hebrews 2.10), and able to save to the uttermost those who come to God by Him because of His continual heavenly intercession for us. Do you sometimes begin to feel alone? Never forget that there is One Who always sees you, and continually makes intercession for you without ceasing (Hebrews 7.25).
End of note).
Chapter 13 Regulations Concerning the Firstborn and Unleavened Bread. The First Details of Their Journey
The instruction that follows covers what Israel’s immediate response was to be to what had happened on Passover night . They were to ‘sanctify the firstborn’ which had been spared, and to ‘continue to eat unleavened bread’ until the seven day feast was over. It then covers how both were to be commemorated in the future.
The command are not given haphazardly. They appear to be so to us because we are not used to the chiastic pattern. Note the careful chiastic pattern in the first part of the chapter.
Thus ‘a’ is expanded in its parallel, and ‘b’ the same.
As we consider this chapter we must remember the situation in mind. Israel have just experienced the amazing deliverance of the first Passover. That terrible night has passed and their firstborn alone have been spared of all the firstborn in Egypt. They have now begun their journey with grateful hearts in the midst of ‘the feast of unleavened bread’, looking with gratitude at the fact that their firstborn had been spared. Thus they are now given brief instruction on how they are to respond to this situation. Even in the midst of their flight they must not forget their present responsibility towards Yahweh. This is now dealt with in 13.1-4. The principles are then expanded on in order to tell them how they must similarly behave once they have reached the land God has promised them, so as to be continually reminded of it.
With regard to this second point it may be thought that the instructions were somewhat premature, for we think in terms of a delay of forty years. But we must consider that God wanted them right from the start to recognise that they must perpetually remember their life changing experience.
And we must remember that they were at this stage on the point of leaving Egypt for a journey which could, at least theoretically, have brought them to Canaan within a moon period, depending on how long they spent at their sacrificial feast in the wilderness and how speedily they moved on. For Canaan was theoretically only eleven days journey from Sinai (Deuteronomy 1.2).
So it was quite reasonable that at this stage Moses should encourage the people by indicating both what they should do immediately, the moment that they had the opportunity, and then what they must continue to do on arrival in the land as an indication of their dedication to Yahweh and of their gratitude for their deliverance, connecting it with their current situation. It would be a confirmation to them that their future was assured.
Moses would not, of course, at this point be aware of all that lay before them, nor of the problems and delays that lay ahead. He had himself after all arrived in Egypt from Midian fairly quickly, and he would not learn until later the very great difference there was between that and travelling when accompanied by a huge body of men, women and children with all their household possessions. Thus his view was probably that ‘it will not be long’.
The chapter in English divides into five sections, the initial command concerning what they must now do with regards to their firstborn as a result of the Passover deliverance that had just taken place (13.1-2), instructions concerning the feast of unleavened bread that was now in process (13.3-4), instruction as to how it was to be kept in better times (13.5-10), the detailed law of the firstborn as it was to apply in the future (13.11-16), and the initial first details of their journey (13.17-22).
Yahweh Lays Claim to the Firstborn of Israel (13.1)
The firstborn of the children of Israel had been spared by Yahweh, but now we learn that a price has to be paid. They have, as it were, to be ‘bought back’. This is because Yahweh had sanctified them to Himself by their deliverance (Numbers 3.13) and as a result had delivered them from His judgment and they had therefore become ‘holy’, set apart as uniquely His, to be devoted to Him, along with the firstborn of domestic animals. And the only way that this could be accomplished was by death or redemption through the death of a substitute and representative.
So in order that they may once more enter into the mundane world the firstborn sons had to redeemed by a substitutionary death, probably here by offering a lamb in their place, after which they would still be available to serve in the Tent of Meeting and later the Tabernacle. For the firstborn of clean domestic animals, however, there was no alternative. They had to be offered in death. Unclean domestic beasts had also to be redeemed by the provision of a substitute or else had to have their necks broken.
It should be noted that the firstborn represents the whole, for they were potential heads of their families. As such they would serve in the Tent of Meeting as representing the whole of Israel. Thus the whole of Israel were seen as involved in this sanctification (19.5-6).
The Sanctifying of the Firstborns and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (13.1-10)
The passage that follows is revealed to be a unity by the chiastic pattern:
In ‘a’ the command is given to sanctify the firstborn and in the parallel instructions are given concerning its future observance. In ‘b’ the command is given concerning not eating leavened bread at this time, and in the parallel instructions are given concerning its future observance.
13.1-2 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Sanctify to me all the firstborn. Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast, it is mine.”
So the command is now given, as a result of the deliverance of the firstborn that has just occurred, to ‘sanctify’ them, that is, to offer them to Yahweh, to set them apart as holy to Him. Yahweh has ‘sanctified them’ (set them apart as holy) to Himself and now His people must make that sanctification effective. Each firstborn of both man and beast that had been delivered was thus to be seen as ‘holy’ to Yahweh. They were to be seen as especially Yahweh’s because as a result of His actions He had spared them from judgment. In this context the firstborn beasts which had been spared were now to be set aside and offered as a sacrifice to Yahweh because they were holy to Him, with those that were unfit for sacrifice being redeemed or killed, while the firstborn sons were to be bought back by substituting a lamb (13.13-15). This was then to be a principle that would continue on into the future.
This sanctification of the firstborn had put the whole of Israel under obligation. From Passover onwards (and in each Passover celebration thereafter) Israel were Yahweh’s as never before. They had been declared to be His firstborn son (4.22) and as such had been redeemed, now they were His redeemed people.
We are not told at what point in their opening journey this initial ‘sanctification’ of the firstborn was to be carried out, but the instruction is recorded here so as vividly and directly to connect it with the Passover that had just taken place. Vividly aware that their firstborn had been spared, it was intended to bring home to them just what had happened, and what their reaction must immediately be. It was presumably to be carried out at the first point at which they felt that they were safe to do so. That may have been on arrival at Sinai which was the place at which they were to ‘serve Yahweh’ (3.12).
The decision was not just arbitrary. The point behind it was that Israel were now Yahweh’s people in a way that they had not even been before (compare 19.5-6), and their firstborn especially so. The firstborn were the heart of the nation, which was why they were to serve in the Tent of Meeting (until replaced by the Levites later). Instead of losing them by judgment, as the Egyptians had done, Israel would be offering them as a symbol of joy, gratitude and dedication to their covenant God, in loving worship.
Note that it is assumed that ‘males’ will be understood, (it does in fact later in the verse say ‘man’). The ancients were to some extent all chauvinistic and just assumed it. Compare 13.12 where ‘all that opens the womb’ is specifically qualified by ‘the males’. In Numbers 3.12 it speaks of ‘all the firstborn who open the womb’ and again ‘man’ and beast are mentioned. That it means males comes out in that it is compared with ‘all the firstborn in the land of Egypt’ which also meant males. Numbers 3.43 confirms that this means firstborn males. Females who opened the womb did not need to be redeemed. These firstborn were probably determined on the strict basis mentioned earlier, the firstborns of the first wife only.
We have in this fact of the ‘sanctification’ of the firstborn a reminder that all Israel were intended to be a kingdom of priests (19.6). God had delivered them because He had a purpose for them, that by being His servants to the nations they might bring the nations under His sway. They were not to live to themselves, but to Him Who had called and chosen them.
Moses Informs the People What God Had Ordained About The Feast of Unleavened Bread Previously Described In 12.15-20 (13.2-10).
Here we have a chiasmus within a chiasmus.
It will be noted that in ‘a’ Yahweh commands that they were to remember this day in which they came out of Egypt, while in the parallel the ordinance was to be kept year by year in its season. In ‘b’ The people were to ‘remember’ that they were delivered by the strength of the hand of Yahweh, while in the parallel it was to be a memorial of His deliverance of them by a strong hand. In ‘c’ the ‘service’ was to be kept in the month of Abib, whereas in the parallel the ‘service’ was to be explained to their sons. In ‘d’ they were to eat unleavened bread for seven days, with the seventh day a special feast and in the parallel they were to eat unleavened bread throughout their tents.
13.3-4 ‘And Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you came out of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen. For by strength of hand Yahweh brought you out from this place. There shall no leavened bread be eaten. This day in the month of Abib you go out.” ’
Moses then tells the people to remember this day in which they have been freed from bondage and ceased to be bondmen, and to remember that it was Yahweh Who by His strong arm has delivered them. This is what the eating of unleavened cakes, which they are to continue for the next few days, is to remind them of, the haste with which they have left Egypt, and the reason for that haste, their own salvation. This emphasis on deliverance from bondage will reoccur again and again. It was an essential part of the covenant (20.2).
‘By strength of hand.’ The reference is to all the signs and wonders that He has carried out.
‘This day in the month of Abib.’ Later the month would be called Nisan, but this is the more ancient name for the month. It indicates ‘greenness’ or ‘ripening of corn’. This was the ancient name in use from the time of the patriarchs, referring to the time of ripening corn in Canaan. The first bread fully made with newly ripened corn would then necessarily have been unleavened. It would only be by adding ‘old dough’ that they could have leavened it, and that would spoil the picture of the newness of the bread. So unleavened bread may have been connected with this month from those days and here simply be given a new significance.
13.5 “And it shall be that when Yahweh brings you into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Hivite and the Jebusite which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you will keep this service in this month.”
Moses had no doubt now that somehow Yahweh would ensure that they were going forward to freedom, to the land of plenty. Although he was not sure how He would bring it about, for they only had permission to enter the wilderness a short way in order to offer sacrifices. And the border posts would know where they were. But he knew Yahweh would find a way. He was only there to obey. And possibly he considered that the children of Israel were under no obligation to a Pharaoh who had turned them into bondmen and constantly broken his treaties concerning them. For the details in this verse see on 3.8.
‘You will keep this service.’ This means ‘observe this act of worship’.
It will be noted that only five nations are mentioned compared with the more usual six or seven. This may because here the description is within a covenant and five is the covenant number. Or it may be because, as we know from elsewhere, in Egypt five was seen as a number of completeness. This would stress the early nature of this section, being written while the influence of Egypt was still very much evident.
Note that the seeming deprivation resulting from bread being unleavened is counteracted by the description of the blessings that will be theirs, a land flowing with milk and honey.
13.6 “Seven days you will eat unleavened cakes, and in the seventh day will be a feast to Yahweh. Unleavened cakes will be eaten throughout the seven days, and no leavened bread will be seen with you, neither will leaven be seen with you in all your borders.”
This is a brief summary of the feast. It was spoken on the day that they left Egypt (13.4), which was the first day of the feast, which is why Moses does not mention the first day as a special day. They were already observing it (a clear indication that this was said at that time), and besides it was the day which continued the Passover and therefore clearly special and to be observed as a memorial into the future. It did not require further mention. What is stressed is that the seventh day is also a special day as God had previously told Moses (12.16).
All leaven was to be excluded from their dwellings. The word for ‘borders’ may simply mean the ‘bounds’ within which each family dwelt. To exclude leaven within the whole land would be very difficult as there would be traders passing through to say nothing of foreign settlers who would not (and were not allowed to) keep the feast of Passover. Nor is it expected for it is specifically said ‘with you’. If we take ‘borders’ to mean the borders of the land at any time, the ‘with you’ could still exclude universal application to non-Israelites.
The feast was in the month of Abib which has now been designated the first month of the year because of the deliverance from Egypt. It is possible that up to this time the New Year was seen as commencing in the Autumn. Thus in chapter 12 the emphasis is on the fact that this was now the first month (in March/April). Here it is assumed. The author knows he has already stressed it enough. Later in Canaan there will be a ‘new year’ celebration in the Autumn. This would arise because of their contact with the inhabitants of the land. There are indications that there was thereafter both an agricultural year, based on the observation by surrounding nations among whom they dwelt, and a festal year, based on the month of the Passover. At different times different ones would be emphasised. We should appreciate that in their ‘primitive’ state the Israelites would not be calendar minded and would be likely to fall in with whoever they lived among for their general calendar, while when at their best also observing Yahweh’s instructions. Calendars were theoretical. The Israelites were practical. The point about Abib being the first month of the year simply indicated that it would commence the round of feasts which it naturally continued to do. But as with many things Yahweh’s instructions were not specifically and rigidly applied once they had settled in the land, especially as they never actually rid the land of Canaanites.
‘And in the seventh day will be a feast to Yahweh.’ The whole seven days was to be a feast. This therefore means that the seventh day was to be a special feast, a day set apart. In the words of Yahweh it was ‘a holy assembly’ (12.16) in which no manner of work was to be done except what men must eat. Moses does not mention this latter fact to the people at this point but it has to be assumed that something made the day special as it is a feast to Yahweh, and as we shall see a rest day was part of Israel’s tradition. Moses was at this stage only summarising what Yahweh had said. The main aim was that the hearers who were listening to the narrative were reminded of the gist of what had been said before (the usual reason for so-called ‘doubletons’ which were common in ancient literature).
13.8 “And you will tell your son in that day, saying, “It is because of what Yahweh did for me when I came out of Egypt.”
The eating of unleavened cakes would raise questions among the young and they were then to be reminded of the deliverance from Egypt (compare 12.26; 13.14; also Joshua 4.6). Great stress was laid in Israel on communication to the young.
‘Did for me.’ For the first generation this would literally be true. But when that had died out these words would probably be used by custom with the idea that they had been delivered when their forebears were delivered. Had it not been for this deliverance they would still be slaves in Egypt. Each generation symbolically experienced the Passover and deliverance afresh, just as we symbolically experience the Lord’s death afresh in the Lord’s Supper.
13.9-10 “And it will be for a sign to you on your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the instruction of Yahweh may be in your mouth. For with a strong hand has Yahweh brought you out of Egypt. You will therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year.”
When they see the unleavened cakes in their hands and before their eyes it will speak to them of the great deliverance and remind them of what God has done. Thus the requirements were to be fulfilled year by year as a constant reminder of that deliverance, and instruction on them must be given as from Yahweh.
‘A sign to you on your hand and for a memorial between your eyes.’ They will see and will remember. The unleavened bread will also be the equivalent of a sign on the hand or a mark between the eyes demonstrating that they are the redeemed of Yahweh (compare Deuteronomy 6.8; 11.18). This probably had in mind that elsewhere men wore on their arms and foreheads symbols of their gods. This is elsewhere also applied spiritually in the Old Testament (compare Proverbs 3.3, 21-22). For Yahweh’s signs and wonders see Exodus 4.21;7.3. The Pharisees took this literally and carried parts of God’s word in cases bound between the eyes and on the left arm by leather straps. But by that it soon became a token of superiority and therefore lost its meaning.
Many ancient peoples (and some modern) also carried marks and tattoos which demonstrated their dedication to some deity or society, or carried as amulets spells in papyrus or rolled up cloth. But the main reference is possibly to special bangles and headbands, or may simply be metaphorical. Eating unleavened cakes is thus the ‘mark’ on the children of Israel showing that they belong to Yahweh. No physical marks were therefore required. Elsewhere they were forbidden as indicating subservience to other gods and superstitions (Leviticus 19.28).
The Redemption of the Firstborn Who Are Holy to Yahweh (13.11-16).
Further regulation and explanation concerning the firstborn is now laid down, with special reference to its being explained to their children. The analysis again follows the usual pattern:
In ‘a’ the bringing into the land of Canaan is paralleled with their being brought forth from Egypt. In ‘b’ all that opens the womb is to be sanctified to Yahweh and either sacrificed or redeemed, while in the parallel the explanation for this is given. In ‘c’ their sons will be told how Yahweh delivered them from bondage, and in the parallel it is brought home that Yahweh did it by slaying all the firstborn of Egypt.
13.11-12 “And it will be when Yahweh brings you into the land of the Canaanite, as he swore to you and to your fathers, and will give it to you, that you will hand over to Yahweh all that opens the womb, and every firstling which you have that comes from a beast. The males shall be Yahweh’s.”
There appears to be a deliberate connection here between God’s promise to their forefathers and the subsequent giving of the land, with the handing over of the male firstlings. This was to be their grateful response and tribute for what God had given them. Notice that ‘all that opens the womb’ is then restricted to ‘the males’. These belong to Yahweh and must be handed over to Him. This had the twofold purpose of reminding them of the deliverance of the Passover, and reminding them that they were tenants in God’s land. Then in the case of unclean animals and man they can be redeemed. But the clean animals must be sacrificed. Later part of these would then be given as food to the priests (Numbers 18.18) who were also ‘holy’. It is possible that here, when there was no unique, set apart priesthood, they were whole burnt offerings, completely given to Yahweh.
13.13 “And every firstling of an ass you will redeem with a lamb, and if you will not redeem it you will break its neck, and all the firstborn of man among your sons you will redeem.”
The ass was a valuable animal and its firstborn could be bought back from Yahweh by the offering of a lamb (of lesser value) in substitution. But if it was not bought back it had to be killed by breaking its neck for it belonged to Yahweh and was holy. This breaking of the neck might happen because it had been born disabled or weak. It could not be offered as a sacrifice for it was not seen as suitable for this purpose. It was ritually ‘unclean’. The breaking of the neck would not involve the shedding of blood and was therefore not a sacrifice. So the idea of ‘uncleanness’ was already present, distinguishing animals which could be sacrificed from those that could not (compare Genesis 7.2), although probably not in the detail explained later (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14).
With firstborn sons there was no option. They had to be redeemed, presumably at this stage in the same way as an ass by the ‘payment’ of the sacrifice of a lamb (later it would become five shekels - Numbers 18.15-16). This was to be a continual sign to all of how Yahweh had spared the firstborn of Israel when He had smitten all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. But having been redeemed from death they were still servants of Yahweh, for they were thereby ‘holy’.
Later in 22.29 it is stated that the sacrificing was not to take place until the eighth day after the birth; and in Deuteronomy 15.21-22 it is still further modified by the command that an animal which had any fault, and was either blind or lame, was not to be sacrificed, but to be slain and eaten at home, like other edible animals
13.14-15 “And it will be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is this?’, that you will say to him, ‘By strength of hand Yahweh brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondmen. And it came about that, when Pharaoh hardened himself against letting us go, Yahweh slew the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. That is why I sacrifice to Yahweh all that opens the womb, being males. But all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’ ”
Again we learn that one of the purposes of these sacrifices and redemptions was as a testimony to future generations. This idea of testimony to the young is constantly emphasised. It is seen as important that they know what Yahweh did for His people in revealing His strength against the might of Egypt and delivering them from bondage. It was a continual reminder to them of the power of their God and His love for His people. And the reminder (and warning) is also given that it was because of Pharaoh’s hardness of heart. It was a constant reminder of the danger of hardness of heart when facing Yahweh’s commands.
13.16 “And it will be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes, for by strength of hand Yahweh brought us out of Egypt.”
See on verse 9 where ‘frontlets’ were ‘memorials’. As with eating unleavened bread, so redeeming the firstborn was to be the equivalent of signs on the hands and some sign or mark on the forehead. And they would be a memorial of Yahweh’s strong deliverance. They were to be instead of such literal marks or signs.
(Note for Christians.
These ordinance had great significance for Israel, but the New Testament tells us that what underlay them had great significance for us. Paul makes clear that the Passover lamb was a ‘type’ of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, as our Passover lamb, was offered for us, and that just as the Israelites were to abstain from leavened bread so are we to avoid the leaven of malice and wickedness and partake of the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5.7-9). In Galatians 5.9 he uses the leavening of bread as a warning against insidious teaching.
We can compare with this how Jesus Christ Himself warned against the leaven (insidious teaching which can begin to work and spread) of the Pharisees and the Herodians (Mark 8.15).
In the sanctification of the firstborn we can see a picture of the dedication and consecration that God requires from His own. As those who like the firstborn have been redeemed by blood we should be fully set aside to His service.
End of note).
Yahweh Leads His People Out Of Egypt In Triumph (13.17-14.31).
The acknowledgement of Yahweh’s initial deliverance having been dealt with the narrative now moves on to the escape from Egypt. There is again a clear chiastic pattern:
The parallels are clear and powerful. In ‘a’ Yahweh leads His people out of Egypt and in the parallel we have the vivid description of how He finally did it. In ‘b’ He accompanies them with the pillar of cloud and fire and in the parallel it protects them from the Egyptians. In ‘c’ Yahweh says that He will get Himself honour over Pharaoh and in the parallel He does so. In ‘d’ the Egyptians bemoan losing their slaves, and in the parallel the slaves in fear indicate their willingness to return, a deliberate contrast with the triumph of the whole passage, confirming that the deliverance was in no way due to faltering Israel. In ‘e’ Pharaoh makes ready his chariot forces and takes them forward, and in the parallel Israel see them coming. In ‘f’ the pursuit begins and in the parallel Pharaoh gets Israel in his sights.
The whole narrative can then be split up into sections:
God Leads His People Out Of Egypt By The Pillar of Cloud and Fire (13.17-22).
The heart of God is revealed here. In ‘a’ we have explained what God did not do. He did not lead them by a fearsome route along a way dotted with Egyptian forts and which would arouse nations in front of them, for He was conscious of their weakness and their fears, and in the parallel He reveals a similar concern for them in that He did not take away from them the pillar of cloud and fire which was there in order to comfort and encourage them. In ‘b’ He takes them by a safer but more indirect ‘way’ through the wilderness and in the parallel the pillar of cloud and fire goes before them so as to lead them in the right ‘way’ and to give them light at night to speed them on their way. In ‘c’ the people went up in columns armed, and in the parallel took their journey from Succoth to Etham. In ‘d’ Moses took Joseph’s bones with them, and in the parallel did so in accordance with Joseph’s instructions.
13.17-18 ‘And it happened that when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearest, for God said, “In case perhaps they change their minds when they see fighting, and return to Egypt.” But God led the people by the way of the wilderness by the Sea of Reeds. And the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.’
There were different approaches to entering Canaan. There was the coastal road which was undoubtedly the quickest. This was the caravan route and used by the military. It commenced at the frontier post of Zilu and went straight up parallel to the coast and was at some stage called ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’. Early Philistines had had a trading presence there in the time of the patriarchs (Genesis 21.32). But this way was overseen by the Egyptian army and there were fortified posts along it, and it would later bring them face to face with the Canaanites, with their chariots, in heavily guarded territory without any element of surprise for it was the main trade route. Thus they would ‘see fighting’ before they were ready for it.
The safest way was to go on the ways through the wilderness. This was a more difficult journey but did not pose the same problems and would give them time to adjust to their new situation. They had almost certainly developed a slave mentality and needed to be gradually weaned from it. Furthermore it would bring them on Canaan unexpectedly so that they could take the Canaanites by surprise..
‘The way of the land of the Philistines’. Some see this as a later name, possibly representing an updating by a scribe of an earlier name on the grounds that the Philistine occupation had not yet taken place (updating was a common practise when copying manuscripts). But we should consider Genesis 21.32. In that passage there was a trading post at Gerar occupied by people from the Aegean coastlands who could certainly later be designated as ‘Philistines’ (Genesis 20), and possibly bore a similar name in the time of Abraham (compare Genesis 10.14. The name is ancient). In Genesis 21.32 ‘the land of the Philistines’ describes their centre in Palestine. If that was not an updating then the name may well have been attached to that part of the coastal road long before the time of Moses, referring to the substantial Aegean trading post.
The main Sea People invasion, which included the later Philistines who settled in the Coastal Plain, would not come until around 1200 BC. The Philistines (Egyptian - prst) were one of the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples came from Crete and the Aegean coastlands and settled in various places including the coastal plain of Canaan and it just happened that it was the name of the Philistines that later became attached to the land (so that we know it as Palestine). That in fact may have arisen from the fact that it already bore a similar name because of the early traders. For these Sea Peoples were a varied collection of peoples split into various groupings under different names of which Philistines was only one. We do not know the original name of this coastal road if it was not already called the way of the land of the Philistines.
‘The Sea of Reeds (yam suph).’ Not here necessarily the Red Sea proper, including the gulfs of Suez and Aqabah, although these may have extended further than they do today (compare 10.19; Numbers 14.25; 21.4 and elsewhere where these are in mind). This ‘Yam Suph’ (Sea of Reeds or Papyri) was possibly an inland sea which has since disappeared. It has, however, been linked with the reedy waters of the Bitter Lakes region east of Quantara which are opposite the Wilderness of Shur (Exodus 15.22). These have been known to be strongly affected by powerful east winds in a similar way to that described in 14.21. It should be noted that geographical terms were not then as precise as they are today and the watery areas to the north of Egypt may all have been called ‘Yam Suph’. Compare how in 15th century BC the name wadj-wer (the great green) was applied by the Egyptians to both the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and ta-neter (God’s land) to both Punt in particular and to eastern lands generally.
‘Went up armed (or ‘arrayed for battle by fives’).’ This was the beginning of emancipation. It was psychologically very important. The bearing of arms was probably forbidden them in Egypt but they had taken the opportunity of arming themselves with whatever they could lay their hands on or obtain from helpful Egyptians, a declaration that they saw themselves as a free people. The type of weapons that they had must not be exaggerated. They would be no match for a fully trained army and the Egyptian armaments and chariots. We find here also the suggestion of the beginnings of organisation (‘in fives’), although it may not have been true literally. It may simply mean ‘in order’.
13.19 ‘And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him for he had firmly put the children of Israel on oath saying, “God will surely visit you and you will carry my bones away from here with you.” ’
Joseph had made the children of Israel swear from the start that they would take his body with them when they left Egypt (see Genesis 50.25). His body would have been mummified. Presumably the whole mummy was taken. He would have been laid in a grand tomb and this was clearly known to Moses and the children of Israel. Joseph may well have made arrangements as to his place and type of burial in order to facilitate this action. He wanted in the end to be gathered to his fathers.
The fact that Joseph’s bones were taken confirms Moses’ expectation that they would not be returning to Egypt.
13.20 ‘And they took their journey from Succoth and encamped in Etham in the edge of the wilderness.’
Moses was still concerned to give the impression that they were going into the wilderness to worship Yahweh. He wanted to keep Pharaoh in two minds. The idea of going into the wilderness to worship Yahweh and the idea of going home to Canaan for good are continually held in tension throughout the text. The former was a genuine proposition challenging Pharaoh as to what he would do, the latter was the final intention which Yahweh would bring about in His own way. It was Pharaoh who humanly speaking finally chose to turn the one into the other when he broke his word to Yahweh and sent his army after the children of Israel in order to attack them and to prevent their fulfilling their objective of sacrificing in the wilderness, even though it was Yahweh’s intention all the time.
‘Etham’. Some suggest that this connects with the old Egyptian word for ‘fort’ (htm) a name given to several places. Others that it refers to a frontier city such as Sile.
13.21-22 ‘And Yahweh went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them in the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.’
God knew that the people would need physical reassurance. He wanted them to know that He was going with them and was guiding them in the best way home. So by day He manifested Himself in a pillar of cloud going on before them. It was a symbol of Yahweh’s presence unseen. And by night, that time that could bring terror to men’s hearts, He gave them comfort by providing light in a pillar of fire, which would remind them of His glory, and give them light to see by. And the pillar would remain with them constantly (see Numbers 10.34; 14.14; Deuteronomy 1.33 compare Exodus 40.34-38). They may well have done much night travelling in order to avoid the heat of the day (see Numbers 9.21).
Yahweh revealing Himself in clouds of smoke and fire is a constant Old Testament theme (3.2; 19.16, 18; 20.18; 24.17; 40.34-38 see Deuteronomy 4.33; Isaiah 4.5). It may here be likened to the smoke and signal fires sent up by scouts going ahead of an advancing army in order to direct their way, but it was not only that. It was an indication that Yahweh was with them and was watching over them. Here Yahweh was their scout and their guide, and was their protector as well.
Chapter 14. Yahweh Destroys the Forces of Egypt (14.1-31).
In this chapter we discover how Pharaoh changed his mind and determined to bring the Israelites back. Once the first grieving over the deaths of the firstborns was over things did not seem quite so black and, angry at being thwarted, he began to wonder why he had given in. So he gave chase with a comparatively powerful force. But this was all within Yahweh’s purpose and the destruction of his forces finally meant that the Israelites no longer had a fear of immediate pursuit.
The Pursuit By The Egyptians Will Result in Deliverance By Yahweh (14.1-14).
There is a further example of a chiasmus within a chiasmus in this passage which again brings out how Yahweh fulfils His promises:
Note how in ‘a’ Pharaoh will say they are entangled in the land and the wilderness has shut them in, a devastating situation, in the parallel Yahweh fights for them and they will confidently hold their peace. In ‘b’ Yahweh will get Himself honour on Pharaoh and all his hosts and the Egyptians will know that He is Yahweh, while in the parallel the salvation of Yahweh will be revealed, and the Egyptians will be seen no more (truly they now ‘know that He is Yahweh’). In ‘c’ the Egyptians say, ‘Why have we let Israel go from slaving for us?’, while in the parallel it is the Israelites who in craven fear cry out with a desire to slave for the Egyptians. In ‘d’ Pharaoh makes ready his chariot forces and takes them forward, while in the parallel the children of Israel lift up their eyes and see their forces. In ‘e’ Pharaoh pursues the children of Israel, while in the parallel the Egyptians pursue the children of Israel and get them in their sights.
14.1-4 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the children of Israel that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the sea before Baal-zephon. You will encamp over against it by the sea. And Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, ‘They are entangled in the land. The wilderness has shut them in.’ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will follow after them. And I will get for myself honour on Pharaoh and on all his host. And the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.” And they did so.’
The withdrawal from Etham, where they had encamped, was probably caused because the children of Israel panicked when they saw the border fortresses. So Yahweh graciously incorporated the withdrawal in His plan. They were to turn back and encamp at Pi-hahiroth. This would be reported back to Pharaoh by the men at the frontier forts who would then gloat as he realised that they were afraid and were trapped in the wilderness by the sea.
There could be no doubt that Pharaoh was seething. He had been humiliated in a way to which he was unaccustomed. Yahweh will thus use this to make him determine to humiliate the children of Israel and their God in turn. Because of false reports (verse 5) he will follow them and seek to drag them back by force, possibly after taking great revenge on their leaders. We must remember that to some extent he himself had been sheltered from the effects of the plagues. But this too was in Yahweh’s plan for He will defeat them, revealing once for all that He is Yahweh.
‘Pi-hahiroth’ --- ‘Migdol’ --- ‘Baal-zephon’. This defines their next encampment. As with all the cities and places mentioned identification is uncertain. Pi-hahiroth could mean ‘house of the goddess Hrt’, or ‘mouth of the canals’ (P’-hr was a canal near Raamses), connecting it with the watery borders of Egypt. Baal-zephon (‘lord of the north’) has been tentatively identified with Tahpahnes (Tell Dephne), but this is uncertain. This identification is based on a Phoenician letter of 6th century BC which refers to ‘Baal-zephon and all the gods of Tahpahnes’. Baal-zephon was a Canaanite god known to have been worshipped in lower Egypt. ‘Migdol’ means a tower and this was presumably a prominent tower on the border, but there were many Migdols.
‘I will get for myself honour.’ It was the boast of many ancient would-be conquerors that they would go out with their armies and ‘get themselves honour’ by the defeat of great foes. This thus refers to the defeat and humiliation of Pharaoh and his forces.
‘And the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.’ Yahweh’s revelation of Himself as the One Who acts continues. The Egyptians already know of Yahweh but they will have the revelation of what He is made abundantly clearer in the defeat of their armies (compare on 6.3). It is not only Israel who come to a deeper knowledge of the name of Yahweh by the experiencing of His power.
‘And they did so.’ The people did what Yahweh commanded.
14.5 ‘And the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled. And the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was changed towards the people, and they said, “What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?” ’
It is clear that the reports or rumours coming back to Pharaoh probably suggested that the children of Israel were not only going into the wilderness to worship but were showing signs of a permanent departure. This made him and his high officials finally rethink their position and they determined to bring them back immediately. The recognition that they may have lost so many useful slaves was more than they could bear.
‘Was told that the people had fled.’ That is, permanently. This was the suggestion made by suspicious minds. It was how they saw it. We must not accuse Moses of duplicity. It is probable that Moses intention was to follow out Yahweh’s orders whatever they were. Thus he had not made up his mind one way or the other. Whatever Yahweh said he would do it.
‘Israel’. Pharaoh mostly speaks of ‘the children of Israel’ as ‘Israel’ (5.2 but see 12.31).
14.6-9 ‘And he made ready his chariot and took his people with him. And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over all of them. And Yahweh made Pharaoh’s heart strong, and he pursued after the children of Israel, for the children of Israel went out with a high hand, and the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea beside Pi-hahiroth before Baal-zephon.’
Pharaoh’s preparations reveal that he was still in awe of Yahweh. He gathered a large force of Egyptians and pursued them, and eventually his scouts told him that they had been spotted in the distance and that they had ‘overtaken’ them, that is, had come within contactable range of them.
‘He made ready his chariot.’ Pharaoh was determined that he would personally go with his army. He had his chariot made ready.
‘He took six hundred chosen chariots.’ These were no doubt his elite force. The number six hundred indicates full completeness three doubled for intensity times ‘a hundred’). It is probably the writer’s intention that we see this as one to each of the groups of Israel (13.37). Each chariot would carry a driver and a fighting man. It may be that a ‘hundred’ represents a fighting group (compare 2 Samuel 18.1 and the ‘century’ under the centurion in the later Roman legions). Thus there would be six elite fighting groups.
‘And all the chariots of Egypt.’ Speed was necessary. But the elite chariot group was reinforced by summoning all other available chariots. Pharaoh was taking no chances. What a terrifying sight this would be to the children of Israel. What chance would they, untrained and badly armed slaves, have against this supreme force?
‘Captains over all of them.’ The word for captains can mean ‘a third’. However in its use it can clearly mean someone of some considerable importance militarily. In 2 Samuel 23.8 it is used of the mighty men of David. In 1 Kings 9.22 they come after ‘the princes’ and are superior to ‘the rulers of his chariots’. In 2 Kings 7.2 it refers to the man on whose arm the king leans. Thus Pharaoh is taking his elite commanders.
‘And his horsemen.’ Possibly although not necessarily those who drove the chariots rather than cavalry.
Possibly accompanying the chariots were part of the main Egyptian army. The latter, however, would have to follow behind the speedy chariots with a view to catching up later (see verse 23). They would be necessary in order to escort back what remained of the defeated and dispirited Israelites.
‘Yahweh made Pharaoh’s heart strong.’ Paradoxically this explains why he was able to overcome his dread of Yahweh. Yahweh’s act of hardening hearts is mentioned three times (verses 4, 8, 17) indicating the completeness of His activity.
‘For the children of Israel went out with a high hand.’ This was Pharaoh’s view of the position. They had become high handed and were taking the opportunity of deserting. Alternatively RSV translates ‘triumphantly’. Thus it may be a contrast to explain why Pharaoh took such a large force. He had to deal with a newly confident people. But the next verses suggest otherwise. Or it may signify that they went out by the hand of Yahweh.
14.10-12 ‘And when Pharaoh drew near the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians came after them, and they were terrified, and the children of Israel cried out to Yahweh. And they said to Moses, “Did you take us out to die in the wilderness because there were no graves in Egypt? Why have you dealt with us like this, to bring us out of Egypt? Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt saying, ‘Let us alone that we may serve the Egyptians.’ For it would be better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness.”
When the children of Israel saw the approaching Egyptian chariot forces they were terrified and cried out to Yahweh. But this was in fear, not in hope. They clearly expected no help for they then turned on Moses and criticised him bitterly. They forgot what Yahweh had already done through Moses. This serves to demonstrate how subservient they had become. They were cowed. They had no pride, only fear. It would take much to change their outlook on life. When we tend to criticise them we must remember how low they had come.
Their slave mentality then comes out. Rather than die proudly they were willing to cringe before their masters. They now regretted that they had not remained as slaves. How quickly their previous jubilation has turned to sourness and grief, for they believe that the wilderness in which they find themselves will now be their grave. Instead of jubilation they now remembered how they had constantly told Moses to leave them alone in their misery. They were a people without heart and in no condition to fight the Egyptians
Yet there was some justification for their fear. In front of them was an impassable stretch of water. Border fortresses and mountains were on both sides. Behind them were the powerful Egyptian chariotry. They had nowhere to go but into the sea.
14.13-14 ‘And Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand still and watch God’s deliverance, which he will accomplish for you today. For you will never ever see again the Egyptians whom you have seen this day. Yahweh will fight for you and you will hold your peace” ’
The contrast between the cringing people and the confident Moses is outstanding. He recognises their dilemma but He has no doubts that Yahweh will act and tells them that they will not need to fight. They have only to stand and watch, for Yahweh will fight for them. He is certain that the Egyptians will be dealt with in such a way that they will never again try to interfere with the journeying children of Israel. But he does not think of trying to cross the water for, while some might manage to get through, the majority will be stranded with their cattle and flocks and possessions.
Then having expressed his confidence he comes to Yahweh to ask Him to act on their behalf. He ‘cries to Yahweh’ as verse 15 indicates.
Yahweh Reveals His Power By Destroying the Egyptian Forces (14.15-31).
Note how in ‘a’ Israel is to go forward and Moses must lift up his staff over the sea and divide it, while in the parallel Israel will see what Yahweh has done and believe. In ‘b’ the children of Israel will go into the sea on dry ground, while in the parallel the children of Israel walk on dry land in the midst of the sea. In ‘c’ Yahweh will get Himself honour against Pharaoh and all his host, and in the parallel we have the description of how He did so. In ‘d’ Israel are protected and the Egyptians hindered by the pillar of cloud and fire, while in the parallel the pursuing Egyptians are discomfited by the pillar of fire and of cloud. In ‘e’ Moses stretches out his hand over the sea and Yahweh makes the sea dry land while in the parallel the children of Israel go into the midst of the on dry land.
14.15-18 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the children of Israel that they must go forward. And as for you, you lift up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, and the children of Israel will go into the middle of the sea on dry ground. And as for me, behold I will make the hearts of the Egyptians strong and they will go in after them. And I will get honour for myself on Pharaoh and on all his hosts, and the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh when I have achieved honour on Pharaoh, and on his chariots and on his horsemen.” ’
At Moses cry God made an enigmatic reply. It was not a rebuke but an assertion to increase his confidence. Why had Moses cried to Him? The time for calling on Him was past. His purpose was already guaranteed. What he should rather do is tell the people to go forward. Then He explains what He will do. Moses is to lift his staff over the sea and the sea will divide and let them through on ‘dry land’, that is, land from which the water has withdrawn, muddy but not waterlogged.
Furthermore He promises that the Egyptians will be made foolhardy enough to follow them. Then He, Yahweh, will gain honour for Himself by defeating them along with all Pharaoh’s mighty weapons of war, his army, his chariots and his horsemen.
‘And the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.’ Again we have one of the themes of the narrative. That Yahweh may be known as what He is. See 6.3.
14.19-20 ‘And the angel of God who went before the camp of Israel, altered his position and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud changed its position from before them and stood behind them. And it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel, and there was the cloud and the darkness, yet it gave light by night, and the one came not near the other all night.’
The writer brings home the nearness of God to them, and His personal presence with them. He comes as ‘the angel of God’, often called ‘the angel of Yahweh’, that unique and mysterious figure who is God and yet sometimes seems to stand over against God, whose presence means the special and intimate care of God (see Genesis 16.9-13; 21.17-21; 22.15-18; 31.11; Exodus 3.2; Numbers 22.22-35; Judges 2.4; 5.23; 6.12-21; 13.3-21). Thus is brought home that in the pillar of cloud and fire is the personal presence of an active and powerful God. He is the ‘angel of God (and not Yahweh)’ here because He confronts Pharaoh as a superior to an inferior, the intrinsically divine against the unquestionably human.
God had been ahead of them, leading them on in the way that was best for them, and because of that they should have had more confidence in Him. But now, knowing their terror, He visibly went behind them to stand between them and the Egyptians, seeking to reassure them.
‘And there was cloud and darkness, and it gave light by night.’ To the Egyptians the cloud brought even more intense darkness (compare Joshua 24.7), but to the children of Israel it gave light (13.21). This hindered the Egyptians and helped the children of Israel.
‘And it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel.’ God’s protection was visible and effective. For this use of ‘Israel’ in contrast with Egypt compare 9.4.
‘And the one came not near the other all night.’ The suggestion appears to be that the cloud somehow hindered the Egyptian advance, although it may be just a statement of fact. It would certainly not be easy, indeed would be unwise, especially in thick fog, for chariots to advance in the darkness, and as the children of Israel were trapped it would not have been seen as necessary. Why take the risk?
14.21 ‘And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and Yahweh caused the sea to go back by means of a strong east wind all the night, and he made the sea dry land and the waters were divided.’
But while the confident Egyptians waited God was at work. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, seemingly during the night, and a strong east wind arose and caused the waters to recede. It is stressed that this was the work of Yahweh. This phenomenon has to a lesser extent been witnessed in this area even in modern times. The major miracle was the timing of the event and its magnitude.
‘Made the sea dry land.’ That is, land from which the water had gone. It would still be muddy which would work to their advantage.
14.22 ‘And the children of Israel went into the middle of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.’
Overemphasis on this statement has caused all kinds of vivid but irrelevant pictures. The words are metaphorical not literal. We are not to see the sea as rising in two walls, but simply as acting as protecting barriers on both sides (compare 1 Samuel 25.16; Jeremiah 1.18), so that they knew that they could only be attacked from the rear. Furthermore there is a deliberate contrast between what the sea meant to them and what it meant to the Egyptians, for one side it was a protecting wall, for the other a means of destruction (verses 28-29).
As the children of Israel with their herds and flocks trudged during the night through the passageway made in the waters we can imagine the effect on the ground newly bereft of water. And there would undoubtedly be many grumbles. If only they had been led another way, and could have avoided all this mud. By the time they had passed through it would have been a sea of mud. How they hated that mud.
14.23 ‘And the Egyptians pursued and went in after them into the middle of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots and his horsemen.’
At first light the Egyptian troops were commanded to go forward. The sight of the disappearing children of Israel across where the sea had been must have infuriated and astonished them. But it is noteworthy that it does not say that Pharaoh went in with them. Had he done so it would surely have been pointed out. Indeed he may not himself have even taken part in the charge. He would follow on behind, ready to pick up the glory. 14.8, 10 may simply be referring to those who were acting on his command and in his name. We should note that even the poem written about the event does not suggest that Pharaoh was slain.
‘All Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots and his horsemen.’ This is not to be taken too literally. The point is that they were all commanded forward. Some may not have had the opportunity to advance too far before disaster struck.
14.24-25 ‘And so it was that in the morning watch Yahweh looked on the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of cloud, and brought confusion among the host of the Egyptians, and he took off their chariot wheels and made them drive heavily, so that the Egyptians said, ‘Let us flee from the face of Israel, for Yahweh fights for them against the Egyptians’.
As the Egyptians confidently advanced with their chariots and horsemen in morning light, probably at the charge, they advanced into disaster. ‘Through the pillar of fire and of cloud’ may suggest mist and storm, or the direct action of Yahweh revealing His glory through the mist. Either way they were disoriented. Then the already churned up ground began to cling to their chariot wheels and many of the wheels were unable to take the strain and were torn off. Others simply became clogged up in the mud. The proud elite chariots of Egypt were being rendered useless. If there were extra horsemen they would do little better, wallowing through the mud, hindered by the useless chariots, and finding progress impossible. In such conditions they would recognise that they would be an easy prey for the enemy. Their easy victory was turning into a catastrophe.
There could only be one result. They recognised that their position was hopeless and determined to turn back. Indeed they saw in it the hand of the fearsome God of the Hebrews. They now recognised that it was He they had to face. It was He Who had done this. And as ever He was against the Egyptians. They had come to ‘know that He was Yahweh’, the God Who is there and acts. And they were afraid.
‘The morning watch.’ The first period of light.
‘Through the pillar of fire and cloud.’ The personal presence of Yahweh is being emphasised. He not only saw, He was there.
‘Israel’. As always the Egyptian terminology for the children of Israel.
14.26-27 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea that the waters may come again on the Egyptians, and on their chariots and on their horsemen.” And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its strong flow when the morning appeared, and the Egyptians fled against it, and Yahweh overthrew the Egyptians in the middle of the sea.’
But further disaster awaited the Egyptian forces. For at Yahweh’s command Moses lifted up his hand, containing the staff of God (verse 16 with 21), over the sea, and the full flow of the waters returned in strength, and as the Egyptians struggled to free themselves from the mud and flee they ran into the returning waters and found them a barrier to them (‘against the waters’).
14.28 ‘And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even all the host of Pharaoh that went in after them into the sea. There remained not so much as one of them.’
The whole picture is vivid and suggests an eyewitness. The Egyptians clogged in the mud, struggling to get back, finding the waters which have arrived preventing them and then themselves being engulfed by further waters flowing down on them.
‘There remained not so much as one of them.’ They were all swept away before the astonished eyes of the children of Israel. This does not exclude the possibility that a few eventually survived and struggled out of the water. It is the impact that is described, not the minute detail. But in the end all that would remain would be a calm, flat sea which looked as though nothing had happened there at all (although it had to disgorge some of the dead first). Pharaoh’s elite troops had simply vanished and were no more. All the things we fear most leave little mark on history. Before the Lord of history they are as nothing.
14.29 ‘But the children of Israel walked on dry land in the middle of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right and on their left.’
This verse is in direct contrast with verse 28 and repeats what has been said earlier. For the one the waters returned, for the others the waters were a protection. For the one the ‘dry land’ was a trap, for the others it was a walkway.
‘Were a wall to them.’ Acted as a protection from any interference. All the danger was restricted to one direction.
14.30-31 ‘Thus Yahweh saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. And Israel saw the great work which Yahweh did on the Egyptians, and the people feared Yahweh, and they believed in Yahweh and in his servant Moses.’
From this moment on Israel had become a nation. The stress on ‘Israel’ rather than ‘the children of Israel’ (verses 30 (twice), 31, 15.22) is surely significant. Previously ‘Israel’ has always been the description used by Egypt (or to the Egyptians) to describe them, except when used genitivally. Now they proudly claim it for themselves.
‘Saw the Egyptians dead on the sea shore.’ As they watched the Egyptian forces arrived. But they arrived as the dead bodies of the cruel soldiers who would have mowed them down, swept up on to the seashore before their eyes. And they gazed at their potential slaughterers, and were filled with awe and feared Yahweh and believed in Him and in Moses, and no doubt collected whatever weapons came to shore.
It was probably not the first time that the Egyptians had lost large numbers of chariots in a battle, and it would not overall weaken Egypt as a fighting nation (large numbers of chariots would not have had time to arrive, and they still had much of their army). But it was the way in which it had happened that was shocking, and the fear of what further might happen if they again chased the all-powerful Moses. They no longer pursued, for they had lost heart for the fight.
‘Believed in Yahweh.’ This does not suggest that they had not believed in Him, only that their belief was strengthened. Compare 6.3 which did not mean that the Patriarchs had not known Him before, only that they had not known Him fully. Here there is a stronger believing, there there would be a stronger knowing. In both cases the verbs are intended to be seen as intensive. Their belief was made strong and personal, just as their knowledge of Him and His ways became strong and personal. They now knew Yahweh as they had never known Him before and trusted Him as never before.
‘And in Moses.’ Moses gained a new prestige in their eyes. Up to this point they had always had doubts about the situation but the sight of their dead enemy on the seashore was the final testimony they needed as to Moses’ validity. (Compare 4.1).
The central place that this deliverance took in the worship of Israel is reflected in Psalms 77.15-16, 19-20 and 136.13-15, and it is mentioned specifically in Isaiah 11.16 as common knowledge. For the fact of the deliverance from Egypt as a whole see 1 Kings 8.16, 21, 51, 53; Jeremiah 2.6 on; 23.7; Hosea 2.15; 11.1; Amos 2.10; 3.1; Micah 6.4; Psalm 135.8-12; 136.10-22.
Note on ‘Israel’.
As has been pointed out in previous narratives the writer generally calls the people ‘the children of Israel’. This directly connected them with Jacob and his household. They came from him and were thus within the covenant that God had made with him. There are exceptions when he speaks of ‘the elders of Israel’ (3.16, 18; 12.21), ‘the cattle of Israel’ (9.4), ‘the congregation of Israel’ (12.3, 6, 19, 47) and ‘the camp of Israel’ (14.19, 20), but all these uses are genitival (as with ‘the children of Israel’) and again bring them into direct connection with Jacob. ‘Israel’ in these cases is most specifically Jacob. The elders represent Jacob, the congregation parallels ‘the children’ and represents all those who identify themselves with Jacob and the covenant. ‘The camp of Israel’ can be seen in the same way. However, ‘the cattle of Israel’ and ‘the camp of Israel’ are phrases in direct contrast with ‘the cattle of Egypt’ and ‘the camp of Egypt’ and may thus be included in the next paragraph.
It is in relation to Pharaoh, to the Egyptians and to Egypt that the children of Israel are called ‘Israel’ (4.22; 5.1,2 consider also 9.7) and in contrast with them (9.4; 14.19, 20).
Thus this stress on the children of Israel as ‘Israel’ once they have crossed the water out of Egypt (14.30, 31; 15.22) is surely significant, indicating a new situation for the children of Israel. Once they have crossed the sea they are now a clear ‘people’ and can be called ‘Israel’ in their own right. They can see themselves as a nation, as Israel (see Exodus 18.1).
(End of note).
(Note for Christians.
In the New Testament Paul speaks of this deliverance at ‘the sea’ and likens it to baptism (1 Corinthians 10.1-2). The implication is that just as Israel were delivered through the sea, so are Christians delivered through Christ and by the Holy Spirit as exemplified in baptism (we are buried with Him in baptism unto death, so that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6.4)). The mighty forces of Pharaoh that were defeated can be compared with the mighty forces of evil that Jesus defeated through His death and resurrection (Colossians 2.15). At the Reed Sea the old Israel were delivered. At the cross it is all the true Israel who are delivered, whether old or new.
End of note).
Chapter 15 The Aftermath of the Battle Between Yahweh and Pharaoh’s Army.
As a result of Egypt’s defeat a song was composed. There is no good reason for denying that it was written at the time. Songs of a similar genre were found at Ugarit, where some of the ideas are also paralleled, although not with the same significance. Such were no doubt familiar to the patriarchal tribes as they moved around Canaan and in Aram. It may have been written by Moses (who wrote a song (see Deuteronomy 31.22) in one day, the song being found in Deuteronomy 32), by Miriam, or by some unknown songwriter.
While the second part looks with triumph towards the successful defeat of their future enemies and their settlement in the land this simply expresses the confidence and belief that has filled their hearts. It is in a sense seen as already accomplished now that they have crossed out of Egypt into Yahweh’s territory. The singer can now see that triumph is assured, and so speaks of it as already theirs.
The Worship of Moses and of the Children of Israel, and the Song of Miriam (15.1-21).
15.1a ‘Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song to Yahweh, and spoke saying.’
It was quite normal for a great victory to be celebrated in verse, and as happens with poetry it is in picturesque language not always to be taken literally. We are not told who wrote it (it is not described as ‘the Song of Moses, although he sang it), and here it was put to music to enhance the people’s worship. This song must therefore be seen as later sung at a great gathering of worship after it had been composed shortly after the victory and as becoming part of the regular worship of the children of Israel.
Its finalisation may have awaited Mount Sinai (verse 13) although it could well be that the wilderness as a whole, which they have now reached, was seen as ‘Yahweh’s abode’. That is where He had met Moses and that is where they had previously stated their intention of going to worship Him.
Reference to the inhabitants of Philistia, Edom, Moab and the inhabitants of Canaan as future foes (verses 14-15) confirm its early date. He sees them as quivering at the approach of people for whom Yahweh has done such great things, for what has happened in Egypt would not have passed unnoticed. When the reality occurred they were not quivering because too much time had passed due to Israel’s disobedience. They certainly did not stand there petrified like stone. No later writer would quite have written like this. It evidenced early faith.
Reference to Philistia may be an updating by a later scribe, but its inhabitants are spoken of as separate from the inhabitants of Canaan. The name or its equivalent was applied to and known in the area around Gerar in the time of Abraham, Genesis claims (compare Genesis 21.32-34; 26.1, 8, 14-15). Thus it may be these trading cities that are in mind rather than there being an updating to take into account the later Philistines. The song in fact suggests that the inhabitants of Philistia are seen as separate from the inhabitants of Canaan and are nearer to them.
Note the parallelism in the song, the second line of each sentence either carrying forward the idea of the first, or repeating it in a slightly different way. This is a characteristic of Hebrew poetry.
15.1b-2
The song is a celebration of Yahweh’s great victory at the sea of reeds. He has gloriously defeated the Egyptians and destroyed their elite chariot force. Thus the One Who has been, and still is, their strength, and the One they sing about, (how differently they see Yahweh now), has also become their Deliverer, and the result is their praise and worship. He is their God and their father’s God. Note the suggestion of looking back to the promises made to ‘their father’.
‘Yah.’ A shortened form of Yahweh. (Compare ‘hallelu Yah’ - ‘praise Yah’ - the opening to Psalms 146-150). Yah is also used in 17.16
‘My father’s God.’ Probably looking back to Jacob. Each ‘child of Israel’ would see Jacob as a father, and himself as within the covenant God made with Jacob.
15.3-7
The song declares Yahweh to be a competent soldier, revealed by nature as ‘The One Who is there to act’. Now they know indeed that His name is Yahweh. His excellency is revealed in what He has done to Pharaoh’s chariots, (the ‘host’ probably refers to the six hundred strong force), and to his commanders by drowning them in the sea. So has He demonstrated the victorious power of His right hand, and shown that He is able to deal with all Who rise against Him. When His anger is roused they are consumed like stubble burnt in the fields.
‘Yahweh is a man of war.’ Compare Psalm 24.8; Isaiah 42.13. The man of war was needed for protection from one’s enemies.
‘Yahweh is His name.’ This is what He is and has revealed Himself to be, ‘the One Who is there to act.’ They have seen the fullness of His name in what He has done.
‘His chosen captains.’ The same word for ‘captains’ is as in 14.7 (stressing the unity of the narrative). They are more than just captains, they are his champions and commanders.
‘They went down into the depths like a stone.’ Poetic licence. While the sea was deep enough to drown them it would probably not have been all that deep. But in their chariot armour, bronze plates sewn on a linen base, they would certainly sink like a stone. The vivid description suggests an eyewitness.
‘Your right hand.’ The main fighting hand.
‘You send out Your wrath.’ Having passed His judgment on sin and wrongdoing He exacts the penalty.
‘It consumes them as stubble.’ A vivid picture taken from agriculture of the burning of stubble in the fields once its usefulness was over.
15.8-11
Yahweh had blown with His east wind, ‘the blast of His nostrils’, on the waters and prepared a pathway for the children of Israel. Then the enemy, filled with bloodlust, boasted about what they would do to them (their nostrils were blasting too). So Yahweh blew again and they were destroyed in the waters. Thus was He revealed as superior to all ‘elohim’ (here the poetic form ‘elim’), to all that is supernatural.
‘With the blast of your nostrils.’ A vivid connecting of the strong east wind (14.21) with Yahweh.
‘The floods stood upright as a heap.’ Poetic licence demonstrating Yahweh’s power. The waters obeyed His will. It is not necessarily a literal description but taking up the metaphor of the seas as a wall (14.29).
‘The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.’ Again poetic licence. The idea would seem to be that they became solid so that the children of Israel could walk on them, or alternately that they became thickened and stopped flowing.
‘The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my bloodlust will be satisfied on them, I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.’ This is a vivid picture of soldiers fired up with bloodlust and greed for spoil as they career towards the enemy. The people who were before them were an easy target.
‘You blew with your wind, the sea covered them. They sank as lead in the mighty waters.’ Here was the magnificent anticlimax. Even while they yelled their war-cries the bloodthirsty warriors were blown away by Yahweh’s wind and waves, by His mighty breath, and sank like lead into the waters.
‘Who is like you among the gods.’ Yahweh is superior to all supernatural beings. He is unique and incomparable. In a vague way they recognised that in men’s eyes there was a world of gods (they were not philosophers) but those gods were helpless and powerless and as nothing before Yahweh. Yahweh was far above all. He stood alone and none compared with Him.
‘Glorious in holiness.’ Holiness is that which sets God off as apart from man, and from any other ‘gods’, His purity and ‘otherness’ (unlikeness to anything earthly). He is unique and different in nature. Thus when anything on earth is made holy it shares that uniqueness and is untouchable except by what is holy.
‘Fearful in praises, doing wonders.’ What Yahweh has done in the face of the gods of Egypt is clearly in mind. By His wonders He has demonstrated that they are helpless and powerless. Here He is seen as praised for His fearsome acts.
15.13
The idea here may well be that having passed through the waters on the border of Egypt they have reached the wilderness where they were to serve Yahweh. This in itself was to them a major achievement. They have crossed the sea and are, as it were, in Yahweh’s domain, where they are to worship Him at His mountain, His holy habitation, away from Egypt. Reaching the wilderness to worship Yahweh had constantly been their aim.
‘Whom you have redeemed.’ Deliverance by the payment of a price. The deliverance is not seen as without cost to Yahweh. He has expended His power in bringing it about.
‘Your holy habitation.’ Initially the wilderness where Moses met Him, and where they were to serve Him. Then it could apply to Mount Sinai where He would reveal Himself in fire and make His covenant with them. Then it applied to the land. And finally it would apply to the Tabernacle wherever it was set up, and the Temple. Each generation would interpret it differently according to their conditions and their experience of God.
15.14-16a
The song now looks forward to what lies ahead and depicts the future foes as waiting in terror. The children of Israel know now that they need not fear, for what God has done in Egypt will have petrified them and they will be still as a stone. This is again poetic licence.
The possible prominent foes are mentioned. Note that the inhabitants of Philistia come before Edom, Moab and the Canaanites. This may suggest that they are seen as the nearest, the first to be tackled, which would confirm that a smallish grouping in the South are in mind rather than the later Philistia. The name Philistia may be an updating, but archaeology may one day prove otherwise. If they were a smallish trading group in the South as in Genesis 21.32-34; 26.1, 8, 14-15, but still fierce, they would not tend to come to the notice of the great nations, but would be among the first to be reached by a traveller from Egypt.
We must recognise that the writer has no maps of what lies to the North. He speaks of the peoples he has heard about, starting with the nearest. Little was he to know how they would affect the progress of the children of Israel. (That they were not later quite so terrified when approached is evidence of the early date of the song).
‘The mighty men of Moab.’ Literally ‘the rams of Moab’. The men of Moab are seen in terms of powerful rams. Compare Isaiah 14.9 where the chief ones are described as ‘he-goats’.
‘By the greatness of your arm they are still as stone.’ As they consider the powerful arm of Yahweh these people freeze and become, as it were, literally petrified.
15 16b-18
The other peoples will be terror-stricken and petrified until the children of Israel have passed through, something still in the future. And then they, the people whom God had ‘obtained’, will arrive at and be planted in ‘the mountain of your inheritance’. A similar phrase is used of Baal’s dwelling-place in Ugaritic literature (16th century BC). Thus this refers to Yahweh’s dwelling place. But as it is the place where the people are to ‘be planted’ this probably refers to the whole promised land, along with its mountains, seen as ‘the mountain of God’, the dwelling place of God, a special land prepared for His people through whom the whole world will be blessed. It is a visionary picture of a hoped for ideal, the new Eden, where God will dwell with His people.
It is in other words God’s inheritance to His people (see 6.6-8), the place which God has made for Himself to dwell in and the sanctuary which He has established, seen as the whole promised land (Psalm 114.2). It is the prospective kingdom of God.
‘You have obtained.’ That is, obtained by redemption.
‘Plant them.’ The word is usually used of planting vegetation and trees. But compare 2 Samuel 7.10 ‘I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them that they may dwell in their own place’ (see also 1 Chronicles 17.9; Psalm 80.8, 15; Jeremiah 24.6). So the idea is of the people being permanently established in their own land.
‘The mountain of your inheritance.’ This probably refers to the whole of the mountain ranges together with the rest of the promised land seen as one. They are all seen as ‘God’s mountain’. This is His dwelling-place, given as an inheritance to His people (compare 6.6-8 - although a different word for inheritance is used). For Yahweh dwells among His people and ‘His mountain’ is where they are planted.
Alternately it has been seen as meaning ‘the mountain that is Yours’, with the emphasis on the place where God dwells and God’s central sanctuary. Certainly mountains and hills were seen as symbols of eternal continuance and stability (Deuteronomy 33.15; Habakkuk 3.6; Isaiah 54.10), so that worship was regularly offered on mountains (Genesis 22.2; Exodus 18.20; 1 Kings 18.19; Mark 9.2). And it is true that the gods were often connected with mountains.
But if this be so the thought is not of any particular mountain. It is whichever particular hill or mountain God chooses to set His name on (Deuteronomy 12.5) at any particular time. It would be assumed that the sanctuary of God would be on such a raised place (contrast Deuteronomy 12.2). Thus it could be applied to any of the places where the worship of Yahweh would be centralised (e.g. Shechem (Joshua 24.1 with 26), Shiloh (Joshua 18.1 and often), and later Jerusalem), and around which His people would live (be planted). But note that if this be so the central emphasis is not on the hill or mountain as such, but on the setting up of the dwelling place of God among His people (compare Genesis 28.16-17 with 35.7). There His altar would be erected, and around it His people would be united (see Exodus 23.19; 34.26; Deuteronomy 12.5).
However, as the hope of the people is set at this stage on a future land where Yahweh will rule, given as a heritage to His people (6.6-8; 3.8; 13.5), rather than on the specific establishing of a sanctuary for God, and they are to be ‘planted’ there, it is probably the wider view that should be taken. The whole land where He has ‘planted’ His people is seen as ‘God’s mountain’ and God’s dwelling-place. It is His sanctuary.
‘The sanctuary, Oh Lord, which your hands have established.’ Psalm 114.2 understands this of the land of Judah, and by inference (through parallelism) Israel. There it reads, “When Israel went forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion.” Compare also Isaiah 8.14. Furthermore Zechariah also looks forward to when the whole land will be a sanctuary (Zechariah 14.20-21). This would seem to confirm that ‘the sanctuary’ and ‘the mountain’ and ‘the place’ all refer to the whole land.
‘Yahweh will reign for ever and ever.’ This is a declaration of the everlasting rule of Yahweh. The gods of Egypt have been shown to be as nothing. Yahweh is over all. The world lies at His feet. In the context the thought may well be that from His land, through His people, all the nations of the world will be blessed (compare ‘Yahweh reigns’ (Psalm 97.1; 99.1)). Here already is the idea of the everlasting kingdom.
15.19
This is a summary note added to confirm the application of the song. This is why they sang, because of what God had done for the children of Israel in destroying the elite of the Egyptian army and providing a passage for the children of Israel through the sea. (Notice again how the suggestion that Pharaoh himself went in is avoided).
The Song of Miriam (15.20-21).
15.20 ‘And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
‘The prophetess.’ There are few mentions of prophetesses in the Old Testament but one or two made a significant contribution. Deborah was a tribal leader, ‘a judge’ (Judges 4.4), and she strengthened the hand of the war leader Barak. She too sang a song of victory (5.1). Huldah was consulted by important men to find the word of Yahweh (2 Kings 22.14). Noadiah was unhelpful to Nehemiah when, along with some prophets, she tried to influence him wrongly (Nehemiah 6.14). A prophetess was married to Isaiah (Isaiah 8.3). It is therefore clear that except when there were exceptional women like Deborah and Huldah they played a minor role, possibly mainly with women and in prophetic song.
‘The sister of Aaron.’ Aaron was the eldest son and probably head of the family. Thus Miriam would be known as the sister of Aaron. The description also kept her on the same level with Aaron and therefore inferior to Moses before God. It was possibly, but not necessarily, Miriam who had watched over the baby in the ark, and fetched his mother for the daughter of Pharaoh. If so she was very old.
‘Timbrels.’ These were kinds of tambourines held and struck with the hand. They appear to be used for worship and for joyous occasions and often to be associated with dancing (Psalm 149.3; 150.4).
‘With dances.’ Dancing was a common method of expressing joy, and praise and thanks (compare 2 Samuel 6.14; Psalm 149.3; 150.4).
15.21 ‘And Miriam answered them, “Sing you to Yahweh, for he has triumphed gloriously (or ‘is highly exalted’). The horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea.’
This is expressed as a reply to the song sung by Moses and the children of Israel. It is like a chorus, repeating the first refrain. The two songs would be sung together, the latter following the former.
This song is of great importance. Its early provenance is accepted by most scholars, and it contains within it much of the theology of Israel. It acknowledges the uniqueness of Yahweh (verse 11), it stresses that Israel are the people whom He has redeemed (verses 13, 16), it declares that Yahweh is bringing them to His land (‘the mountain of Your inheritance’) which He has set apart for them as His Sanctuary (verse 17), it clearly recognises the Holy War ahead (verses 14-16), and it proclaims that Yahweh will be King over them ‘for ever’ (verse 18). Note that here their father’s God is specifically said to be Yahweh (verse 2) not El Shaddai.
The Beginning of the Long March: Water Shortage Followed By Provision (15.22-27).
Note the interesting parallels. In ‘a’ they leave the wilderness of Shur and in the parallel arrive at the Wilderness of Sin. In ‘b’ they find no water in the parallel they find abundance of water. In ‘c’ the waters of Marah were bitter, and in the parallel Yahweh promises that if they obey Him life will not be bitter through diseases. In ‘d’ the people murmur as to what they are to drink, and in the parallel Yahweh ‘proves them’. In ‘e’ Yahweh makes provision for them by making the water sweet and in the parallel He makes provision for them by giving them statutes and ordinances which will make life sweet
15.22 ‘And Moses led Israel onward from the sea of reeds and they went out into the wilderness of Shur. And they went three days in the wilderness and found no water.’
It was now that they begin to learn the hardships of the way. Taking a wilderness route through the wilderness of Shur they travelled for three days through the hot sun and found no water. They had their first lesson that things would not be easy even though they were free.
‘The wilderness.’ The term wilderness can cover a number of types of ground from desert, to scrub land, to reasonable pasturage, and in many parts of the Sinai peninsula the water table is not far below the ground. Furthermore sheep and goats that have been well pastured can provide milk for some considerable time. So the children of Israel on their journey would pass over many types of ground and would usually be able to feed their cattle and flocks and to find water, substituting it where necessary with milk. But this area was clearly particularly difficult.
‘The wilderness of Shur.’ Passing through the wilderness of Shur, which stretched eastward from the coast, was ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’, guarded by a chain of Egyptian forts, which led northward along the coast, and the ‘way of the wilderness of Shur’ which led northward to Kadesh. This wilderness was the starting point as you leave Egypt. But ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’ was forbidden to the children of Israel, and they were in any case concerned to keep away from routes where they might be followed. They thus took another route which would lead them into the wilderness of Sinai, probably the road used by the Egyptians to the copper and turquoise mines of Sinai, which they worked mainly during January to March when Egyptian troops would be there. But by this time (early April) they would be absent. This led along by the Gulf of Suez. But one problem with this route was the shortage of water for the cattle and flocks.
An interesting discovery at these turquoise mines were the "proto- Sinaitic" inscriptions of the early 15th century B.C. which were just informal dedications, worknotes and brief epitaphs (for offerings) by Semitic captives from the Egyptian East Delta (or Memphis settlements) employed in the mines. They illustrate free use of that script by Semites under Egyptian rule before the time of Moses.
‘Three days.’ Possibly meaning ‘a few days’. During this period all attempts to find water failed.
15.23-25a ‘And when they came to Marah they could not drink of the waters of Marah because they were bitter. That is why the name of it was called Marah. And the people murmured against Moses saying, “What shall we drink?” And he cried to Yahweh, and Yahweh showed him a tree and he cast it into the waters and the waters were made sweet.’
After the period without water they came to the oasis at Marah, but the waters were too bitter to drink. Marah may well be the modern ‘Ayin Hawarah. This is a solitary spring of bitter water which now has stunted palm trees growing near it, although the quality of the water varies from time to time. When they saw water the children of Israel were no doubt ecstatic, but the desert waters were bitter compared with the sweet waters of the Nile valley and while their cattle and flocks may well have drunk of it the people themselves found that they could not stomach it. Their joy turning to disappointment they immediately turned on Moses. This led him to pray to Yahweh who directed him to a bush which was probably a kind of barberry, which is known to have the qualities described. And when this was thrown into the waters it was made sweet, that is, the bitterness was softened.
It may be that from his life in the wilderness with the Midianites he had learned the usefulness and effectiveness of this bush on such occasions, and that his prayer to Yahweh was for help in finding such bushes, a cry which was rewarded by Him showing him where he could indeed find some.
Note the contrast between Egypt with the sweet-water Nile made bitter, and the bitter water here made sweet. He Who had brought judgment on Egypt could in a similar way bring provision to Israel. And in the next verse this provision will include His statutes and His ordinances.
This the first of many times that we are told that the people murmured. We see immediately their slave conditioning. A few days before they had beheld a deliverance that would be remembered for generations to come, but now because of shortage of water they have already forgotten it. While it would certainly be hot, and the journey difficult, there had not really been time for the position to become desperate. The fact was that they had expected to find water, but had not. They were not used to not having water at hand. The Nile had always been near. They were not yet aware of what could be expected in wilderness conditions, and of trek discipline, and had been caught out. And immediately their buoyant spirits slumped.
The emphasis on the water shortage is a sign of genuineness. This above all would be what such a large group would immediately notice in the wilderness. The provision by natural means is also a sign of genuineness, and reminds us that God keeps his miracles (and Moses’ staff) for important occasions.
15.25b ‘There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them. And he said, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, and will do what is right in his eyes, and will give ear to what he commands, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians, for I am Yahweh your healer.” ’
‘There he made for them a statute and an ordinance.’ Here also is an attempt to make life sweet. We may see in this the first attempt of Moses, at the command of Yahweh, to lay down some pattern of behaviour by which the conglomerate peoples now making up ‘the children of Israel’ could be governed on their wilderness journey. The accompaniment by the mixed multitude had been an unexpected event and clearly some kind of agreement had to be reached about behaviour now that they were part of the children of Israel, so that all could be aware of their responsibilities and what was expected of them. They would not have the same customs as the original children of Israel. It was therefore necessary to lay down certain laws to be observed by all. This would enable the smooth running of the camp.
Humanly speaking these would be taken from his own experiences, his knowledge of Egyptian and Midianite laws, and the customs of his own people formulated under the wise guidance of the fathers. They would be written down to form a guide and pattern. This is then confirmed by Yahweh with the promise that obedience will result in good health. Such an attempt would be required in view of the inexperience of the people in living under such conditions and their wide differences in customs (the mixed multitude). The corollary is that if they did not obey they would come under judgment.
From Moses later behaviour we can presume that these also were put down in writing and read out to the people. They were a primitive beginning to the later laws. They were then no doubt put into the primitive Tent of Meeting as part of ‘the Testimony’ (see on 16.34).
‘There he proved them.’ This is Moses’ response to their murmuring. The verb was used of the testing of Abraham (Genesis 22.1). This may refer to the testing of the people by the bitter waters, a test which they failed. Or it may refer to the fact that He laid down these regulations described above through Moses and ‘proved’ them by seeing whether they were willing to respond to them by accepting them as the binding requirements of Yahweh. In view of the words that followed the latter seems more likely, although there may be a play on the two situations. It should be noted that Yahweh is said to ‘prove’ His people three times, here, in 16.4 and in 20.20. He is building up to Sinai.
However, in view of the words that follow where the second part at least is in the words of Yahweh, we may take the ‘He made for them’ and ‘He proved them’ words speaking about Yahweh. He had made the waters sweet, now He provided the guidance and laws which would enable life to go on sweetly. And He did it to test out whether, in spite of their murmurings, they were ready to be faithful to Him.
‘If you will diligently hear and obey the voice of Yahweh your God, and will do what is right in his eyes --- I will --.’ These are the direct words of Yahweh through Moses. The change from the third person to the first person occurs on a number of occasions in the Old Testament in words of Yahweh, reflecting the composite nature of God. The reward for obedience will be good health. Instead of bitterness there will be sweetness. He had healed the waters and he would heal them. The corollary was that flagrant disobedience would lead precisely to such diseases. It is in fact unquestionable that some of the provisions of the Law would enhance their physical wellbeing.
‘Diseases.’ They were to be kept from the diseases common in Egypt such as ophthalmia, dysentery, and a variety of skin diseases (see Deuteronomy 28.27). In the context this mention of diseases links with the bitterness of the water. If Israel are obedient they will be delivered from diseases, if they are not they will drink bitter water.
15.27 ‘And they came to Elim where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees and they encamped there by the waters.’
Their reward for their response was to arrive at an abundant oasis, a sign of Yahweh’s pleasure in it. ‘Twelve’ and ‘seventy’ are probably not to be taken literally. They probably indicate sufficiency, the ‘twelve’ springs of water indicating ample sufficiency of water for the twelve sub-tribes, and the ‘seventy’ palm trees indicating the divine sufficiency of the provision of palm trees with their fruits and shelter (what are a literal seventy palm trees among so many?), or even sufficiency for the clans of the seventy elders.
As with all the stops on the journey identification is uncertain but the Wadi Gharandel, a well-known watering place complete with tamarisks and palms, has been suggested.
The whole area is a comparatively fertile one, and contains three fertile wadis which have water most of the year, and many springs of water. The pasturage is fairly good, sometimes rich and luxuriant and there are an abundance of tamarisks, and a number of palm trees. After the dryness of the way it must have been a joy to behold, and they would be able to spread out to the other wadis and ensure that their flocks and herds were able to make up for the hard times that they had experienced.
16.1 ‘And they took their journey from Elim and all the congregation of the children of Israel came into the Wilderness of Sin which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.’
The analysis suggest that this verse closes the passage just completed. After a short stay they continued their journey. They had now been travelling for a full moon period. ‘The second month.’ Their year was now determined from the time of their release (12.2).
‘All the congregation of the children of Israel.’ Since leaving Egypt the group has been called ‘Israel’ (14.30, 31; 15.22) and ‘the people’ (15.24) although reference is made to ‘the children of Israel’ at worship in 15.1. (15.19 refers back to prior to the final deliverance). This is now defined here as ‘all the congregation of the children of Israel’, a new term found only here in Exodus (16.2, 9, 10; 17.1) and in 35.1, 4, 20, but consider ‘the congregation of Israel’ (12.3, 6, 19, 47). It is found in Leviticus 16.5 (without ‘all’); 19.2 and more regularly in Numbers. It has here no direct connection with cult worship and is therefore not yet a technical cult term. Rather it defines the constituency of the new Israel, all those who have joined the gathered people, including the mixed multitude, and emphasises the oneness of the whole (it is always in Exodus prefaced by ‘all’). They have become ‘children of Israel’ which is now used as an equivalent term (16.3, 6).
It is probable that they had to travel in smaller groups until they were able again all to meet up in the wilderness of Sin on the way to Sinai, and this would be a pattern on their journeys. We must not necessarily see the Israelites as always moving in one large group. The pattern became more organised when leaving Sinai in Numbers 1-4. Different sections would take slightly different routes, and in such places as they had just left they would spread out making good use of all the facilities. The flocks and herds having fed well at Elim and the surrounding area would be able to endure without water for a goodly period. The people too would be learning to survive on little water, especially under the guidance of Moses the experienced wilderness dweller, and sometimes they would find water by digging, for the water table is not far below the ground in certain parts of the Sinai peninsula (Numbers 21.16-18), or would survive on milk from their domestic animals.
(Note for Christians.
This incident at Marah reminds us that on our spiritual journey we must expect to come across bitter wells as well as sweet ones, but when we do we can be confident that our Lord can make the bitter sweet. And in His goodness He has provided for us a Law which is sweet to the taste (Psalm 19.10; 119.103). From the incident we are also to learn that one of the secrets of blessing is obedience. For as we continue in obedience we will discover that we are brought eventually to a place of springs and palm trees.
End of note).
Chapter 16 God Provides Manna and Quails for His People - The Sign of the Seventh Day (16.2-36).
In this chapter God provides both meat and ‘bread’ for His people. The passage continues to reveal chiastic patterns, a pattern which also appears in Leviticus and predominates in the book of Numbers (see our commentary). The chapter can be divided into two. Up to verse 15 it deals specifically with the promise of bread from heaven and the provision of the manna and the quails, and the remainder deals with various provisions and especially the institution of the Sabbath. This is then concluded in the final few verses by describing the storing up of the manna as a memorial.
The Promise of Bread From Heaven and the Provision of the Manna and the Quails (16.2-15).
The point behind the chiasmus is to stress how what Yahweh has promised He fulfils In ‘a’ they began by fearing that they would be killed with hunger and in the parallel finished up with a the food that Yahweh has given them to eat. In ‘b’ they were promised food from heaven, and in the parallel they receive food from heaven. In ‘c’ they will know that Yahweh has brought them out of the land of Egypt, and in the parallel they will know that He is Yahweh their God. In ‘d’ they were promised that they would see the glory of Yahweh and they did see the glory of Yahweh for He has heard their murmuring, and in the parallel they look towards the wilderness and see the glory of Yahweh Who has heard their murmurings. In ‘e’ we are simply informed that Yahweh has heard their murmurings.
16.2 ‘And all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness.’
On arrival in the wilderness of Sin the children of Israel again murmur against Moses and Aaron (compare 15.24; 17.3; Numbers 14.2, 36; 16.11, 41; 17.5, 10; Deuteronomy 1.27), this time because of lack of food. Their murmuring is prominent in the passage (16.8, 9, 12). It was an indication of hearts that were inward looking and servile, and had no confidence in God, and was a continuing problem. This is in stark contrast to the continual revelation of God’s power and provision. The one thing that is made clear is that they deserved nothing at His hand, and yet He continually provided for them. He was like a father watching over a petulant child (compare Deuteronomy 1.31). Murmuring is an indication of poverty of spirit.
16.3 ‘And the children of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of Yahweh in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, when we ate bread to the full. For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” ’
After leaving Elim they had moved along the coast of the Gulf of Sinai and again found the going tough. They found this wilderness life not to their liking. The land was barren, and shortage of pleasant food, having to preserve their supplies, shortage of water, and the constant trudging, not knowing what lay ahead, was more than they had expected. And when they arrived in the Wilderness of Sin things were no better. So they vented their feelings on Moses and his mouthpiece Aaron. They looked back with longing to what they thought of as the good and plentiful food of Egypt. It would have been better to have died there than to die here. It is easy in such circumstances to remember and exaggerate the best things and forget the worst.
Moses here suffers the common lot of leaders of large caravans who tend to be blamed for any shortcomings on the journey. It did not bode well for the future. But we must remember in mitigation that they had been slaves for many years and had lost any sense of enterprise or initiative.
‘By the hand of Yahweh.’ This may suggest that they were thinking of the judgment that would have come on them if they had disobeyed Him. But it may simply be a contrast between dying naturally in Egypt and being ‘killed’ (by starvation) by Moses in the wilderness. This is an exaggeration as they had their herds and flocks with them. They could survive if necessary, it was the little luxuries that they missed. We may be puzzled at the situation as we note that they had plentiful supplies of cattle and sheep. But they would not want to eat too many of their beasts. They had the future to think of. It does, however, bring home the fact that they were not really at the last extremity, and that their murmuring was therefore not excusable.
‘Flesh pots.’ Meat containers.
16.4-5 ‘Then Yahweh said to Moses, “See, I will rain food from heaven for you, and the people will go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may prove whether they will walk in my law or not. And it shall be that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.’
Moses had presumably sought Yahweh’s advice. It is noteworthy that His approaches to Yahweh are often assumed rather than stated (14.15 and here. Contrast 15.25). Yahweh’s reply is that He will send them food from heaven. And this will be provided in such a way that it will be a test for them. This is a second reference to the fact that God was proving them as to whether they would obey His law or not (compare 15.25). The purpose of testing was in order to strengthen them through their experiences. If we would but recognise that in our difficulties God is testing out our obedience, and that through them we are being strengthened if we respond in the right way, we might be more positive in our response to them.
‘I will rain food from heaven.’ This is described in verse 14 as ‘a small flake, small as the hoar frost on the ground’ which came with the dew. The dew, of course, fell from heaven literally. This ‘manna’ was white like coriander seed and it tasted like wafers made with honey (verse 31). It could clearly be ground and used in cooking and baking.
There have been a number of suggestions as to what the Manna consisted of. The sweet juice of the Tarfa which exudes from the tree and forms small white grains has been suggested, but the quantity required is against this, as are the other descriptions. The same applies to the honeydew excretions on tamarisk twigs produced by certain plant lice and scale insects which at night drop from the trees onto the ground where they remain until the heat of the sun brings out the ants which remove them. In favour is the fact that the Arabic word for plant lice is ‘man’, equivalent to the Hebrew for Manna. But these are seasonal and do not fit all the criteria (see on verse 31). We are not told whether the Manna was seasonal or not, although many consider it was permanent. (The Arabic word may actually have resulted from this story).
More pertinently examples have also been cited of an unidentified white substance which one morning covered a fairly large area of ground in Natal and was eaten by the natives, and also of falls of whitish, odourless, tasteless matter in Southern Algeria which, at a time of unusual weather conditions, covered tents and vegetation each morning. While not being the same as the Manna, or lasting over so long a period, these do indicate the kind of natural phenomena which God may have used to bring about His miracle, for it was clearly a time of unusual weather conditions as demonstrated by the plagues of Egypt. But we must remember that the Manna lasted for forty years (16.35; Joshua 5.12), did not appear on the seventh day, and continued from the Wilderness of Sin to the entry into Canaan in all manner of environments.
‘Gather a day’s portion every day.’ This was a test to see if there were those who would disobey and gather too much through fear of its non-arrival on the following day (‘that I may prove them’). Then on the sixth day they were to gather twice as much as there would be none on the seventh day. The reason for this will be explained later (verse 23).
16.6-8 ‘And Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, “In the evening, then you will know that Yahweh has brought you out from the land of Egypt, and in the morning, then you will see the glory of Yahweh, in that he hears your murmurings against Yahweh. And what are we that you murmur against us?”. And Moses said, “So it will be when Yahweh will give you flesh to eat in the evening and bread to the full in the morning in that Yahweh hears your murmurings which you murmur against him. And what are we? Your murmurings are not against us but against Yahweh.” ’
Firstly Aaron, as the mouth of Moses, spoke to the children of Israel telling them that in the evening they would know that it was Yahweh, ‘the God Who is there to act’, Who had delivered them, and that in the morning they would see the revealing of His glory. Then Moses himself declared how Yahweh would reveal the significance of His name and His glory, in that in the evening they would have meat to eat and in the morning they would have bread to the full. This was His direct reply to their longings for the meat and bread of Egypt (16.3). And it was because Yahweh had heard their murmurings against Him.
‘Moses and Aaron.’ Aaron speaks but he speaks the words of Moses. Yet his words are slightly enigmatic, so in the second part Moses clarifies them for the people. The repetition is a typical technique of ancient literature to bring home an important point to the listeners
‘In the evening then you will know ---.’ We could paraphrase what follows as - ‘you will know that it is YAHWEH Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt’. The thought is again of ‘knowing Yahweh’ (see on 6.3) as He is revealed in His beneficent provision of meat and plentiful bread in response to their murmurings against Him. Thus will they see His glory.
‘What are we that you murmur against us?’ They must realise that when they murmur against Moses and Aaron they murmur against Yahweh, for they as the mouthpieces are nothing, it is The Speaker Who matters. Thus Moses can warn them, ‘your murmurings are not against us but against Yahweh’.
‘Flesh to eat --- bread to the full.’ Compare ‘we sat by the flesh pots -- we did eat bread to the full’ (verse 3). This is God’s response. They may have both flesh and bread.
Yahweh Fulfils His Promise That They Will See His Glory and Receive Food From Heaven (16.9-15).
16.9 ‘And Moses said to Aaron, “Say to all the congregation of the children of Israel, “Come near before Yahweh for he has heard your murmurings.”
Aaron again acts as Moses’ mouthpiece. It is a touching sign of Moses’ human weakness that he so often calls on Aaron to speak for him. At times he is bold but at others he feels insufficient (just as the Apostle Peter would be later). In view of the importance and prestige of Moses this delegating of the right to speak God’s instruction (God’s ‘law’) is significant and an evidence of the genuineness of the narrative.
‘Come near before Yahweh.’ This is a call to an act of worship, humility and submission in view of the fact that Yahweh had heard their murmurings. This would be connected with Yahweh’s visible, but hidden, presence in the cloud that accompanied them (see verse 10; compare 13.21-22) or possibly with the old Tent of Meeting (33.7-11).
It is clear that the murmuring of the people were not looked on lightly. They were a clear sign of lack of faith and of unwillingness to face even the least hardship. They were indicative of ungrateful hearts and a desire for self-indulgence.
16.10 ‘And so it was that, as Aaron spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, they looked towards the wilderness, and behold, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud.’
Being called to worship and humble submission the people look towards the cloud which revealed to them the presence of Yahweh (13.21-22; 14.19; Deuteronomy 1.33), the cloud which led the way before them, which was nearby in the wilderness. Perhaps they had got too used to it and were seeing it as only a symbol. And ‘the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud’. In some way Yahweh revealed His glory in the cloud so that its appearance altered and for a while they became aware of His immediate and glorious presence.
Yahweh constantly revealed His presence to them by that cloud, and by the fire at night. It was a hidden presence and yet very real. But now for a time that presence was openly revealed and they saw something of His glory. This cloud would ascend Mount Sinai (19.16; 24.16) and would later descend on the Dwellingplace (Tabernacle) (40.34-35), a reminder of the continuing presence of God. They were not aware of the fact but He was preparing them for the greater revelation of His glory on Mount Sinai.
‘Looked towards the wilderness.’ It was in the wilderness that He had first revealed Himself to Moses (3.1-2) and to the wilderness that they intended to go to worship Him (3.18 and often). Thus at this stage it may be they saw the wilderness as being in a sense the dwelling-place of Yahweh.
16.11-12 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses saying, “I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘In the evening you will eat flesh, and in the morning you will be filled with bread, and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.’ ” ’
The constant reference to the murmurings (verses 2, 7, 8, 9,12) shows how important they were seen to be. Their murmurings could not be treated lightly. And yet God graciously responds to them. He has heard their murmurings and yet there is no specific condemnation but an attempt to satisfy their needs. God is very patient with them. He recognises that they have to learn to know Him as the God Who acts.
‘You shall know that I am Yahweh your God.’ The knowing of Yahweh as He is, is a constant theme of Exodus (see 6.3). The provision of meat and bread in the wilderness will be absolute evidence of Who and What He is, the One Who is there and acts.
Notice the reversal in idea of verses 10 and 12 compared with verses 6 and 7. In verse 6 ‘you shall know that it is Yahweh who--’ and in verse 7 ‘you shall see the glory of Yahweh ---’. Here the glory of Yahweh is revealed in verse 10 and they will know that He is Yahweh in verse 12. But the revelation of the glory in verse 10 is not directly that in verse 6 for the latter would be in the morning when the bread from heaven came. Thus He reveals His glory in the cloud, then He reveals His glory in a different way in the giving of the bread from heaven.
16.13-14 ‘And so it was that in the evening quails came up and covered the camp, and in the morning dew lay round the camp, and when the dew that lay had gone up, behold, on the face of the wilderness a small flake (or ‘round thing’), small as the hoar frost on the ground.’
This was the fulfilment of Yahweh’s promise, meat and bread to the full. For the ‘small flakes’ see on verse 4. The quails were a type of partridge, valued as a delicacy. In spring they migrate from Africa to the north and some, although not vast numbers, fly over the Sinai peninsula. They fly low and, tired with their long journey, will often land on the ground exhausted, when they are easy to catch. Here they ‘covered the camp’. Thus were the children of Israel able to fill their flesh pots. This was then followed the next day by the fall of small round flakes to the ground with the morning dew.
16.15 ‘And when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” (or ‘it is man’). For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the food which Yahweh has given you to eat.’
‘They said ‘man hu’.’ The use of ‘man’ for ‘what’ is Aramaic rather than Hebrew although this may indicate that it was so used in early Hebrew. So the question ‘what is this?’ becomes the derivation for the name. Alternately this may be translated “this is ‘man’.” This might suggest that it resembled something they had known in Egypt, ‘man’ then being the transliteration of an Egyptian word. This would explain why they called this new thing ‘man’ (Hebrew for Manna - see verse 31). Alternately, as mentioned earlier, the Arabic for the plant lice was ‘man’. If this was so in early Hebrew this might explain the name if they recognised that as its source. But reading back from the Arabic is not always wise (even though sometimes it is all we have to help us).
Moses brings home the lesson, reminding them of how they had murmured against Yahweh. “It is the food which Yahweh has given you to eat.’ Rather than forsaking them He had provided in abundance.
The Gathering of the Manna and the Establishing of the Sabbath (16.16-36).
Instructions are given with regard to the gathering of the manna and with regard to the Sabbath which is seemingly now instituted for all Israel.
In ‘a’ the command is given to gather an omer a head, and in the parallel an omer is defined. In ‘b’ they gather the manna as commanded and in the parallel continue to gather and eat it for forty years. In ‘c’ they were to gather the manna in portions of an omer, and in the parallel an omer is preserved for the future before the testimony. In ‘d’ they did not listen to Moses about leaving none until the morning, while in the parallel Yahweh complains that they will not obey His commandments., and that they must learn to obey. In ‘e’ when the sun came up the manna melted (and none was therefore left), while in the parallel those who went out on the sabbath found none. In ‘f’ on the sixth day they gathered twice as much (for the sabbath), while in the parallel they may gather for six days but on the sabbath there will be none. In ‘g’ the next day was to be a holy sabbath to Yahweh, while in the parallel Moses declares, ‘Today is a sabbath to Yahweh’. In ‘h’ they may lay manna over until the morning, and in the parallel they laid it up until the morning and it did not smell.
16.16-18 ‘This is what Yahweh has commanded. You gather of it every man according to his eating. An omer a head, according to the number of your persons you will take it, every man for those who are in his tent. And the children of Israel did so, some more, some less. And when they measured it out with an omer he who gathered much had nothing over and he who gathered little had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating.’
The people are commanded by Yahweh to gather an omer of manna per head. But the fact that they may take according to their eating may suggest not so much the use of an exact measurement as an indication of the size of vessel to use per person. But ‘according to their eating’ may simply mean according to how many there are who will need to eat. For the overall impression is of an omer a head. And as it turned out that provided sufficiency for all with nothing left over.
‘An omer.’ This is only found here. It was probably a small bowl which contained the tenth part of an ephah (verse 36).
‘An omer a head.’ This exact measurement suggests that ‘every man according to his eating’ means according to the eating requirements of his whole family at an omer a head. That is, that he collected an omer for each family member, and not that every man gathered according to how much he wanted.
‘They measured it out with an omer. He who gathered much had nothing over and he who gathered little had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating.’ This probably means that those who had large families and those who were only a small entity, both found that they had sufficiency. Some have suggested that it means that those who had gathered too much gave any excess to those who had not gathered enough.
16.19-20 ‘And Moses said to them, “Let no man leave of it until the morning.” In spite of this they did not listen to Moses but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them.’
Each days supply was to be for that day alone, and Moses ordered them not to leave any over until the morning. But some, having learned in the wilderness to preserve food supplies, were disobedient and kept some for the next day. Then to their horror they found it teeming with worms (or ants - the Hebrew word is a general one and can be used of ants or any number of wriggling creatures) and smelling. This counts against seeing it as the excretion of plant lice as, while that is gathered by ants, it does not smell horribly.
16.21 ‘And they gathered it morning by morning, every man according to his eating, and when the sun grew hot it melted.’
Each morning they gathered an omer per person according to the number in each tent. And ‘when the sun grew hot it melted’. While this does not exclude ants as partly consuming it, it demonstrates that it was not mainly ants which disposed of it.
16.22 ‘And it happened on the sixth day that they gathered twice as much food, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.’
The gathering of twice as much was in accordance with the instruction in verse 5. It is noteworthy that Moses was keeping a close watch on what was happening, for the ‘rulers’, the chiefs, reported back what was happening.
‘The rulers of the congregation.’ As with ‘children of Israel’ which was abbreviated to ‘Israel’ when applied genitivally to ‘the elders’ (3.16, 18), so ‘all the congregation of the children of Israel’ can be abbreviated to ‘congregation’ when used genitivally with ‘the rulers’. The ‘rulers’ or ‘princes’ are the leaders of the sub-tribes (Numbers 2.3 etc). The ‘congregation’ means here the children of Israel as a whole.
The subject the rulers wanted to discuss was presumably as to what they should do about the extra that had been gathered. If they were fully familiar with the law of the Sabbath this is surprising as in that case they would have been expecting that food for the Sabbath had to be prepared the day before. (This is the first mention of the Sabbath in Scripture). Many therefore see this as suggesting that the Sabbath was not yet a recognised institution at this point in time. And this might be seen as backed up by Moses’ explanation. Note that he speaks of ‘a sabbath’ not ‘the Sabbath’.
16.23 ‘And he said to them, “This is that which Yahweh spoke. Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy sabbath to Yahweh. Bake what you will bake and seethe what you will seethe and all that remains over lay up for yourselves to be kept until the morning.” ’
The impression given here is that Moses is imparting new information. He explains that the seventh day is to be a holy sabbath, and therefore also every seventh day after that. It may well therefore be that this is in fact the time when the regular seventh day sabbath was first established, in order to commemorate the giving of the Manna as something better than the bread of Egypt. Previously holy rest days had been mentioned (12.16) although not called sabbaths.
Because it is a sabbath (shabbath) they are to rest on it. It is a holy rest (shabbathon). This would hardly need to be explained if they were familiar with it. Moses elsewhere tells us that the reason why God commanded the observance of the regular seventh day sabbath was because He had delivered them from the land of Egypt (in Deuteronomy 5.15). This also would tie in with a post-deliverance establishment of the Sabbath. The Creation account says nothing about the Sabbath.
‘Shabbathon’, ‘a solemn rest’ is a word only used of observance of the Sabbath (shabbath).
So while no indication is specifically given as to whether this is a new observance on each seventh day or the perpetuation of what was already the custom, the probability seem to lie with the former. The sabbath has not previously been mentioned, and the only mention of a seventh day feast previously is 13.6 and there it would not in future be on the same day of ‘the week’ each year, as it was tied to the 14th-21st of Abib, and new moons did not follow an exact twenty eight day pattern. And in that feast there was also a special feast on the first day of the feast as well as the seventh. It may well be therefore that this incident of the Manna is the first establishing of the strict seven day week pattern and of the regular Sabbath. Previously they may simply have utilised periods of the moon for recording time, or simply followed the ways of the Egyptians.
Indeed had the Sabbath and the seven day week already been a well recognised feature we might have expected that those who broke it (verse 27) would be put to death (see Numbers 15.32-36). Instead they were only rebuked for having disobeyed the command not to gather.
It is also interesting to note that there is no specific emphasis here of doing no work, although it may possibly be seen as implied in verse 23 and verses 26-27, the latter only being stated, however, after the failure to observe the Sabbath. This may again be why they were only rebuked.
But its introduction was probably made easier by the fact that ‘seven days’ (not then directly related to our week) was often seen as a holy period (see Genesis 7.4, 10; 8.10, 12, 29; 29.27-28; 50.10; Exodus 7.25; 12.15, 19; 13.6-7 and often). Seven was the number of divine perfection. Thus from now on their life was in a sense to be made up of many holy periods in which God provided their food. Instead of being controlled by sun and moon, their time was now divinely controlled.
It is true that in Genesis 2.1-3 God stopped working on ‘the seventh day’ from all His activity in creation, but that is not applied there to the requirement for man to observe it, and had it been a requirement when that was written we would have expected it to be mentioned. Nor is the seventh day there called the sabbath (although shabbath is related to shabath, to stop, be at a standstill, stop working which is used there). Later in Exodus 20.10 (see also 31.17) this example is given as proving that the idea of the seventh day was something which God has blessed but there is no necessary suggestion or indication that the sabbath itself was inaugurated at the time of creation. As we have seen, in Deuteronomy 5.14-15 it is the deliverance from Egypt that is given as the reason why God instituted the Sabbath. The bondmen had become free and in gladness and gratitude would honour Yahweh by dedicating a work-free day to Him.
Attempts have been made to link the sabbath with the Babylonian ‘sabbatum’, but that was on the day of the full moon and not a day of rest or cessation from work, (this is revealed by contract tablets), and they had a five-day week. Ceasing of work on certain days in the Assyrian period by certain limited important people such as kings and priests was simply due to a desire to ward off bad luck.
‘Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil.’ This makes clear that the Manna was cooked before eating. On the sixth day they would presumably do all the cooking, and set aside what had not been eaten for the morrow.
16.24 ‘And they laid it up until the morning as Moses ordered them, and it did not smell nor was there any worm in it.’
When they laid up Manna for the seventh day it did not go bad. It may be that it had been cooked on the previous day and that that prevented this. (Cooking was certainly later forbidden on the Sabbath - 35.3).
16.25 ‘And Moses said, “Eat that today. For today is a sabbath in honour of Yahweh. Today you will not find it in the surrounding area (field, countryside). Six days you will gather it, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath, in it there will be none.” And so it was that on the seventh day some of the people went out in order to gather, and they found none.’
No Manna could be gathered on the Sabbath because there was none available. It was ‘a Sabbath unto Yahweh’, a day of quietness for the purpose of honouring and worshipping Him. Yet inevitably some went out to see what they could find. But they found none as they had been told. There can be no explanation for this except the hand of Yahweh. It is a reminder that God often controls the natural, as He had done in Egypt, rather than doing spectacular miracles.
16.28 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?”
Yahweh rebukes the disobedient people through Moses but there is no penalty. This can surely only be because it was a new institution. The cry of Yahweh hear is reflected in every generation. How He longs that His people will obey Him.
16.29-30 “See. Because Yahweh has given you the Sabbath, that is why he gives you on the sixth day food for two days. Let every man of you remain in his place. Let no man go out of his place on the Sabbath day.” So the people rested on the seventh day.’
The purpose of the solemn Sabbath is so that every man will remain in his place, presumably his tent, although the minimum need for the tending of the herds and flocks will be necessary. This gives them a chance to rest and to think and to remember Yahweh’s doings. This is the primitive Sabbath. It would remind them of their bondage in Egypt and of the giving of the manna. Later these requirements would be amplified to forbid all forms of work.
‘How long do you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?’ The incident is seen as reminding Yahweh of the many times they have disobeyed Him. Once again they have set a command of His at variance. All the previous failures come flooding back. The rebuke is for their general attitude as revealed by the particular misdemeanour.
‘Because Yahweh has given you the Sabbath.’ The Sabbath was not to be seen as a hard duty but as a gift. Only those whose lives are those of constant toil can appreciate how great a gift it was in those days. Those who ignore it do so to their own disadvantage.
‘So the people rested on the seventh day.’ This would hardly need to have been stated if it was already the normal state of affairs. It was to be a new convention.
The Manna Preserved As a Memorial For the Future (16.31-34).
16.31 ‘And the house of Israel called its name Manna (Hebrew ‘man’), and it was white like coriander seed, and its taste was like wafers made with honey.’
Note the unusual ‘house of Israel’, only found in Exodus here and in 40.38, but compare ‘house of Jacob’ which parallels ‘children of Israel’ (19.3). It contains an extra emphasis that Israel are one ‘household’.
We may sum up the information about the Manna.
This tends to exclude the popular examples of what it was and where it came from but leaves room for a natural explanation with a miraculous element, which is typical of many Old Testament miracles.
16.32 ‘And Moses said, “This is what Yahweh has commanded. Let an omerful of it be kept for your generations that they may see the food with which I fed you in the wilderness when I brought you forth out of the land of Egypt.”
Moses now explains, presumably to the elders of the people, that Yahweh has commanded that an omerful (a day’s provision for one person) be kept as a reminder to future generations so that they might be able to see the food with which Yahweh had fed them in the wilderness when He had brought them forth out of the land of Egypt.
Yahweh’s Commandment Is Obeyed (16.33-36).
Resulting from Yahweh’ previously expressed commandment to lay up an omerful for future generations Moses makes provision accordingly.
16.33 ‘And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a pot and put an omerful of Manna in it, and lay it up before Yahweh to be kept for your generations.”
As Yahweh had commanded, an omerful of the Manna was put by Aaron into a pot to be preserved for the future. This was probably cooked which helped to preserve it and prevent it from melting. If it was placed in an earthenware jar, possibly later replaced by a golden one (Hebrews 9.4), this would also help to keep it cool (or it may have been put in a gold one from the start). It was to be a permanent reminder of God’s miraculous provision. It was probably put in the old Tent of Meeting. It was later put in the Ark (Hebrews 9.4), but by the time of Solomon it had disappeared (1 Kings 8.9).
16.34 ‘As Yahweh commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony to be kept.’
‘The Testimony’ means ‘the record of God’s covenant with His people’. So even prior to the covenant of Sinai there is a ‘Testimony’ which was kept, presumably in the Tent of Meeting (33.7-11) which would later be replaced by the Dwellingplace (Tabernacle). At this stage it may well have been a container or containers containing the various covenant documents with respect to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which would make up much of Genesis (which Moses may have been putting in more completed form, along with the history of Joseph), reminders of God’s covenant with His people, together with the laws formulated by Moses and backed by Yahweh (15.25). Being kept in the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 33.7-11), they would provide a focus for worshippers who sought Yahweh, who would know that they were there and represented God’s covenants with His people. This would then later be replaced by the Ark of the Covenant which also contained a covenant record, this time the covenant of the ten words (The Ten Commandments). But the old container with its sacred associations would almost certainly be preserved.
By the time of Solomon the pot and any other sacred objects which were kept in the Ark, other than the two tables of stone, had been lost (1 Kings 8.9). But these records may in fact never have been put in the Ark, being preserved in some other way, possibly in their old container. The central focus then being on the Sinai covenant.
Alternately we may see this as saying that Aaron, having preserved the pot containing the Manna, later put it ‘before the Testimony’ to be kept. But it seems more probable that there was already something called the Testimony on which the later references were patterned, the new Testimony replacing the old in importance at the time of the founding of the new nation.
‘The Testimony’ initially means the record of God’s covenant with His people. Thus after the making of the covenant at Sinai the ‘ten words’ on the tablets of stone are called ‘the Testimony’ (Exodus 25.16, 21; 31.18; 32.15; 34.29; 40.20; Leviticus 16.13; Number 9.15; 10.11). Then the Ark of the covenant which contains them is called the Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25.22; 26.34; 30.6, 26; 31.7; 39.35; 40.3, 5, 21; Numbers 4.5; 7.89; Joshua 4.16) and then by abbreviation ‘the Testimony’ as containing and including the Testimony (Exodus 27.21; 30.36; Leviticus 24.3; Numbers 17.4). The Tabernacle is also called the Tent or Tabernacle of the Testimony (Exodus 38.21; Numbers 1.50, 53; 9.15; 10.11). This demonstrates the supreme importance later given to the Sinai covenant so that it was not felt necessary or important to mention the other records.
It is significant that we know nothing of objects around which worship centred in the centuries prior to the Tabernacle and its contents. Once they were replaced or amalgamated they ceased to be of importance in ancient eyes. But there must have been some central object, on which their worship focused. This may well have been the Tent of Meeting mentioned in Exodus 33.7-11, which probably contained sacred objects, and would contain among other things the ancient covenant records and the primitive statutes laid down by Moses (15.25).
16.35 ‘And the children of Israel ate the Manna forty years until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the Manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan.’
The Manna came for forty years and at times the children of Israel got sick of it (Numbers 11.6). But we are not told that it came every day summer and winter alike although that is often the assumption (but see Nehemiah 9.20). The question is, if it did not what other supplies were there? They would, of course, eat meat from sacrificial offerings and they may have traded at various times for other food, especially when at Kadesh. They may well have spent some time at different places in the wilderness, and thus been able to some extent to grow their own crops, both in the more fertile parts of the wilderness, and later when travelling through Transjordan, for we are told so little about the thirty eight years in the wilderness that we do not know how long they remained at the various places visited. But certainly the Manna was there at the end as at the beginning (Joshua 5.12).
Note that the writer knows that they had been able to eat it for forty years up to the border of Canaan, but does not say that it ceased there. He is remembering the past but making no comment about the future, as we would expect if the record was made by Moses and he died shortly after.
The analysis reveals how there is in Moses’ mind a connection between the Sabbath rest and the entry into Canaan.
16.36 ‘Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.’
The omer is only mentioned in this passage. This may therefore be a learned note added by a later scribe when the omer had gone out of use, but the chiasmus suggests that it is an integral part of the narrative. ‘An omer’ may have been the name of a standard vessel regularly in use. An ephah was a large cereal measure large enough to hold a person (Zechariah 5.6-10) and was an exact measure (Leviticus 19.36), being one tenth of a homer (Ezekiel 45.11). Its liquid equivalent the bath could contain about twenty two or so litres.
(Note to Christians.
The theme behind this passage appears regularly in the New Testament and is specifically referred to by Jesus Himself in John 6. We would expect this to be so for bread is regularly a symbol of spiritual life and blessing. In John 6 Jesus tells us that He had come as the bread of life, so that those who came to Him would never hunger, and those who believed on Him would never thirst. By receiving Him as the bread of God men receive eternal life through the Spirit. Compare also 1 Corinthians 10.3.
There may be times of drought when that Bread seems far away, but in those times we must remember that He is ever near, and that they are often allowed in order to test us and strengthen our faith. What we must not do is murmur like the Israelites do (although many of us have had times in our lives when we have fully understood them). For we can be sure that just as happened with the Israelites here, He will eventually come to us and show us His glory.
The theme of the Sabbath reminds us that in gratitude for His giving of Himself for us and to us we should ensure that we keep a time as set aside in which to serve Him and glorify Him. For the Sabbath was given for men’s benefit (Mark 2.27-28), although not to do as they liked with. He did not abrogate the Sabbath and we must remember that He, and He alone, is the Lord of the Sabbath. But later in the New Testament Paul stresses that it is not which day we keep that matters, but ensuring that we do have time set aside for Him (Romans 14.5-6). Whether Sabbath or Sunday (or any other day) Jesus made clear that such a day was for works of compassion as well as for worship. It is especially a day for doing good and remembering those worse off than ourselves.
End of note).
Water From the Rock (17.1-7).
The children of Israel leave the wilderness of Sinai and encamp in Rephidim. Its site is uncertain. There they find themselves without water. Considering the continual shortage of water in the wilderness when they were not at oases or wells, a situation which they must have become used to, this comment must be taken to mean that they had reached a desperate state. Their mouths were parched, their water skins were dry, they were dehydrating and they saw no hope of finding water. And once again they murmur. And they turn to Moses their only hope. Behind all their belligerence lies the confidence that they have that Moses can somehow do something. Their only hope lay in deliverance from Yahweh.
Moses is therefore told to take the elders of Israel with him to a place which Yahweh will show him, and then Yahweh will stand before them on the rock in Horeb and when he smites the rock the water will flood out so that all may drink. All we are then told is that Moses did so. But we note that the emphasis is not on the provision of water but on the fact that the people tempted God, asking whether He was among them or not.
So the children of Israel have now been tested by water three times. Firstly after their first three days when there was no water (15.22), secondly at Marah, where it was bitter (15.23), and now here at Rephidim, where there was again none. Yahweh’s testings are always complete. Note that the people first ‘strove with Moses’ (verse 2), and then ‘murmured’ against Moses (verse 3). It would appear that the situation lasted for some time and that the people were getting more and more belligerent (verse 4).
Note in ‘a’ that the people wrangle with Moses and Moses asks why they put Yahweh to the test, while in the parallel he names the place Massah and Meribah because that is what they people did. In ‘b’ there is a contrast between a disobedient people crying out in anger and distress, certain that they will die, and the confident Moses doing what Yahweh has commanded him which results in life-giving water for the people (assumed from the narrative). In ‘c’ Moses cries to Yahweh and in the parallel Yahweh answers him. Instead of stoning him, they will drink. Central to the narrative is that Moses goes forward into the barren wilderness, taking the unbelieving elders of Israel, and the mighty staff with which the waters of the Reed Sea had been parted. On the one hand is fear on the other is power. In this will the whole problem be rectified.
17.1 ‘And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the Wilderness of Sin by their stages according to the commandment of Yahweh, and pitched in Rephidim. And there was no water for the people to drink.’
The journey towards Sinai continued. Prior to reaching Rephidim they passed through Dophkah (possibly meaning ‘smeltery’, a reminder of the copper workings found in a number of places in South-central Sinai) and Alush (Numbers 33.12-13). Neither can be specifically identified. And then they reached Rephidim. A regular feature of such a wilderness journey is shortage of water, especially for so large a group. Thus in order to be mentioned the situation here must have become desperate. Their waterskins were empty and their mouths were parched. It is not said at this stage that their cattle and sheep needed water. They could survive far longer without it.
‘Rephidim.’ The site of Rephidim is not certain although the Wadi Refayid in south west Sinai has been suggested. The fact that these sites are unidentifiable is a striking feature of their accuracy. Had a later writer invented the journey the places would have been identifiable.
However 17.6 speaks of ‘the rock in Horeb’ to which the elders go from Rephidim. It is thus fairly close to Mount Sinai (Horeb and Mount Sinai are almost interchangeable terms, although the former refers to a slightly wider area). Compare how 18.5 describes being ‘at the mount of God’, that is Mount Sinai
17.2-3 ‘For this reason the people strove with Moss and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you strive with me? Why do you put Yahweh to the test?” And the people thirsted for water. And the people murmured against Moses and said, “Why have you brought us out of Egypt to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?”
Because their situation was getting desperate the people came to Moses in their desperation, crying out for water. But Moses too was parched and thirsty, yet he struggled on with confidence in Yahweh. Thus he challenged them as to their lack of faith. They too should share his confidence.
‘Why do you strive with me?’ The word means ‘to wrangle, to engage in controversy’. It was clear that they were in a very angry mood, even ready to attack him (verse 4) and he challenged what they were intending to do in order to diffuse the situation. Why were they doing it? he asked. The situation was not his fault. It was a consequence of desert journeying. They knew the position as well as he did and he possibly felt that they should have shown the same resilience as he did.
‘Why do you put Yahweh to the test?’ But worse he pointed out to them that what they were really doing was challenging Yahweh. They should have been continuing on in confident faith waiting for Yahweh to act on their behalf, not blaming His representative. It was Yahweh that they were really confronting. Let them remember with Whom they were dealing. Compare 15.25; 16.4. There Yahweh had ‘proved’ them, now they were ‘proving’ Yahweh They had clearly not learned their lesson from those incidents.
‘And the people murmured against Moses.’ The controversy has now resulted in incipient rebellion. Their feeling are growing stronger.
‘And the people thirsted for water.’ The repetition shows that the shortage continued and grew worse. There they were in that excessively hot, barren place with water supplies run out. Their children and cattle were crying out for water, and in their desperation they were beginning to feel that death was inevitable (compare 16.3; Numbers 16.13). And they accused him of being responsible for it. If he had not brought them out of Egypt they would never have been in this situation. They forgot the joy they had had in their deliverance. What good was that if they now died of thirst?
17.4 ‘And Moses cried to Yahweh saying, “What shall I do to this people. They are almost ready to stone me?”
Moses himself was getting desperate, not at the shortage of water but because of the angry belligerence of the people. And he cried to Yahweh for help, possibly in the Tent where the covenant tablets of his fathers were held, or in front of the cloud which represented the presence of God.
17.5 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, and take with you the elders of Israel. And take in your hand the staff with which you smote the Nile, and go. Behold I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb, and you will smite the rock and water will come out of it so that the people might drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.’
Yahweh answers Moses. This time Moses must take not only Aaron, but also all the elders of Israel. They too must now become involved in the finding of solutions that they might learn to trust in Yahweh. Note that on the one hand he has with him the weak and trembling elders, and on the other the mighty staff of God. The contrast is striking. On the one hand fears, on the other the perfect answer. But only Moses was aware of it.
‘Take in your hand the staff with which you smote the Nile.’ There the staff made the water undrinkable. Now it was to be used to provide drinkable water. It was not just a staff of judgment but one of mercy to those who followed Yahweh. The staff was the symbol of Moses’ authority and its use therefore confirmed his position before the elders and the people. Yahweh is here revealed as the great controller of waters.
‘I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb.’ This would seem to have been a rock reasonably well known to Moses from his previous time in the area, and he had possibly heard stories of water coming from the rock. We are probably to see here that the cloud will move over this famous rock to denote Yahweh’s presence. Horeb is closely connected with Mount Sinai, and to some extent equated with it. Thus they were to go close to Sinai.
And Yahweh would stand there on it. All the elders would see was a barren rock, but Moses would know that Yahweh was there. Although it may be that the cloud descended on it. Either way Horeb was to be the place of Yahweh’s blessing.
‘And you will smite the rock and water will come out of it.’ The limestone rocks in the area absorbed water and it has been known for water to come from such rocks when they are knocked. But in this case the particular rock must have been over a large spring in view of the amount of water that came from it.
The actual carrying out of his assignment is described in a sentence, ‘and Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.’ The mentioning of the elders as witnesses suggests a recognition of the importance of having such witnesses to what happened, which suggests a contemporary narrative. They would inform the people of all that had happened.
Notice that no attempt is made to bring out a miraculous element. What is considered important is not that it was a miracle but that it was Yahweh Who provided water for His people after they had challenged why He had done nothing and had put Him to the test. He had provided water at Marah (15.25), He had provided water at Elim (15.27), now He provided water at Horeb (17.6).
17.7 ‘And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah because of the striving of the children of Israel and because they tested out Yahweh saying,. “Is Yahweh among us or not?” ’
Moses was clearly very concerned at the behaviour of the people and he expressed this concern by applying two names to the area (he is not said to have done this in other places so it is clearly seen as significant). This was possibly because there were two prominent landmarks to which he gave each a name. One he called Massah, which means ‘tempting, proving’, and the other he called Meribah, ‘chiding, striving’. These would be forever a symbol and reminder of the behaviour of the people. They were to be a monument to rebellious doubt and lack of faith.
‘Is Yahweh among us or not?’ This was not the doubt of unbelief but the muttering of rebellion. They saw His cloud. But what use was that, they asked, if He did not provide for them? In other words they were disgruntled at the way He behaved.
(Note for Christians.
Paul likens the rock from which the water flowed to Christ (1 Corinthians 10.4) Who provides His people with living water (John 4.10, 14-15; 7.37-38). He does not there mean that the rock was literally Christ (any more than baptismal water was from the Red Sea) but that the water from the rock came from the same source as the living water we receive through Christ, from the heart of God Himself. Thus just as the people of Israel drank water from the rock, so we can drink spiritual water from Him.
(End of note).
A Sudden Attack From an Unexpected Foe (17.8-16).
Up to this point the problems of the journey have been physical problems arising from the environment, but now the children of Israel are reminded of other dangers, the dangers arising from people who resent their presence. This would seem not just to be a raiding party but a determined attack to prevent their progress. A sub-tribe of Amalekites had no doubt spotted them and reported their presence and their large numbers, to the wider elements of the Amalekites, who were Bedouin tribesmen and who would see this area as their territory, and under invasion. The Bedouin roamed widely in the semi-desert seeking pasturage, food and water. They were fierce warriors and very independent. This was probably an amalgamation of a number of their sub-tribes for a determined attack No doubt they also hoped to gather much spoil. It does not mean that they had permanent residence in this area.
Note that in ‘a’ Amalek come and fight with Israel in Rephidim, while in the parallel Yahweh will continually war with Amalek from then on. They had been foolish to interfere with His people. In ‘b’ Joshua has to select men to fight with Amalek, and in the parallel Yahweh is their banner. In ‘c’ Moses stands on the top of the hill with the staff of God in his hand, and in the parallel Yahweh tells Moses to record what happened in a written record as a memorial and remind Joshua of it constantly, that He would blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. Moses’ intercession had been so effective that it has reached even into heaven, and into future generations yet to come. In ‘d’ Joshua fought with Amalek, and in the parallel he discomfited them with the edge of the sword. In ‘e’ the raised hand of Moses causes Israel to prevail, whereas when it falls Amalek prevail, while in the parallel his hands are successfully supported by Aaron and Hur all day (so that Israel finally prevail).
17.8 ‘Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim.’
The short terse phrase ‘then came Amalek’ stresses the unexpected and surprise nature of their attack. The Amalekites had connections with the sons of Esau from whom they possibly took their name (Genesis 36.12). (‘All the country of the Amalekites’ in Genesis 14.7 may be a scribal updating of a previous description. Alternately Esau’s son’s name may have been taken from Amalek).
They are described by Balaam in Numbers 24.20 as ‘the first of the nations’ and he forecast their destruction. This probably means the first of the nations to attack the children of Israel after they left Egypt, or the first to attack them on their reaching Kadesh (Numbers 14.45). Or it may suggest an admiration for their nomadic way of life seeing them as nearest to the lives of the ancients.
This verse probably refers to their first attack, for in Deuteronomy 25.17-19 we are told that the first that the children of Israel knew of their presence was when they attacked the rear of the party, where the weakest and most feeble were found, at a time when they were all weary. It would leave them stunned and apprehensive. This treacherous behaviour ensured the Amalekites’ later condemnation.
‘In Rephidim.’ The rock from which the water came was in Horeb. But at this point only the elders had been to that rock. Thus this attack may well have taken place when the elders returned from the rock and when the people started off to move there to take advantage of the water (the Amalekites attacked the tail of the caravan). The final movement of the children of Israel to Horeb to take advantage of the water from the rock is not mentioned, it is assumed, and by 18.5 they are encamped ‘at the Mount of God’ in Horeb. We have seen previously how sometimes Yahweh commanded something and its occurrence was then assumed. But before that they have to deal with this menace.
17.9 ‘And Moses said to Joshua, “Choose us out men and go out and fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.” ’
It is possible that the Amalekites, having made their presence felt and having realised the largeness of the numbers they were against, then approached and demanded that the children of Israel turn back, with the warning that if they did not do so they would be attacked again in force. But whatever the case Moses, having no doubt sent out spies to ascertain the source of the attack, recognised that the large force they had detected meant that they had a fight on their hands. Joshua may well have been one of those spies.
The Amalekites were not to know that the children of Israel were inexperienced warriors. But in fact they were so, for we must remember that the children of Israel had done no fighting either before or since being delivered. There can, however, be little doubt that Moses would have ensured that they had some military training while on the journey, for it would have been folly not to have done so. And he was presumably aided in this by Joshua whom he no doubt found to be a willing pupil, and who was a ‘young man’ (Exodus 33.11). It was the young men who would have been most willing to do the military training and there were no experienced older men to assist with it (although their numbers may have included ex-mercenaries). Moses may well have been the only one trained to handle arms, unless possibly they had with them some Israelites who had been mercenaries, or some ex-mercenaries were included in the ‘mixed multitude’ of 12.38.
Thus we should not be surprised to find such a young man being given the responsibility of leading the troops. The fact that he is mentioned without introduction need also not surprise us. His name is at this point simply mentioned as the one chosen to select the best fighters, whom he would know from training, and to lead the attack, possibly because he was the spy who reported back on the situation. It was only later that he received a permanent appointment, although he may even by this stage have been in charge of the Tent of Meeting (33.11). Besides the incident was specifically recorded in writing (verse 14) and the compiler probably copied this down without addition. At the time it was first recorded Joshua would be the hero and would need no introduction. He would be known to all.
‘Joshua’ is sometimes called Hoshea (Numbers 13.8 - dropping the Yah prefix). He is later called a young man and becomes the servant (aide-de-camp) of Moses (Exodus 33.11).
‘I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.’ Once more Moses’ staff is called ‘the staff of God’ (compare 4.20). It was the sign that Moses’ authority came from Yahweh. Thus it demonstrated that Yahweh would fight for them. Note Moses confidence, ‘I will stand’. It would not be long before he would have to sit. The battle was to be longer than he expected, and his confidence in his own strength was too great. But the fact that he was there with the staff of God would be a huge confidence booster to Joshua.
17.10-11 ‘So Joshua did as Moses had said to him and fought with Amalek. And Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And so it was that when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed.’
The length of the battle emphasises the size of the Amalekite forces, and the inexperienced Joshua with his inexperienced troops had a real fight on their hands. Meanwhile Moses went with Aaron and Hur to the top of the hill, probably so that he could be seen by his troops. This incident reminds us how old he was. We tend to forget that he was now an old man. Hur is mentioned again along with Aaron in 24.14 (see also 31.2) which emphasises his authoritative position.
‘And when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed.’ This was, of course, with the staff of God in his hand. This was no doubt seen as because this ensured the assistance of Yahweh. But there can be no doubt that such a belief would have given the troops new life whenever they saw it. And when his hand fell the reverse would be the case. They were not seasoned fighters like the Amalekites and their only hope lay in their larger numbers, and in Yahweh.
Note the description of the battle - ‘Joshua -- fought with Amalek’, then ‘when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed’, then ‘when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed, then - ‘Joshua discomfited Amalek’. It is made quite plain Who was the source of the victory.
17.12-13 ‘But Moses’ hands were heavy, and they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. And Aaron and Hur held up his hands, the one on the one side and the other on the other side, and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua mowed down (Hebrew ‘prostrated’) Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.’
This brings out the genuineness of the account. Moses was not seen as a superhuman figure but revealed as a weary old man unable to last out the day, simply because it was so. This was a contemporary record. Yet his importance comes out in that without him the battle would have been lost. Inexperienced troops need such incentives as he provided if they are to succeed in a tough battle. They needed to know that Moses and the staff of God were in action.
The lifting up of the hand was the sign of entering into a solemn oath (Genesis 14.22; Exodus 6.8; 17.16) and the raising of both hands may have symbolised the fact that Moses was calling on the throne of Yahweh for Him to be faithful to His covenant oath. But the final idea is clear. All depended on Yahweh.
The length of the battle emphasises the size of the Amalekite force, but in the end they were ‘prostrated’ before Israel. Their superior experience could not combat the size of the opposing Israelite force when its morale was maintained by knowing that Yahweh fought for them. God wrought for them but He also expected them to fight for themselves.
The battle would be an important lesson for the future. It gave them their first experience of victory, and it let them know that with Yahweh fighting for them they were invincible. They had seen it against the Egyptians but now they experienced it in live battle. The next time this would make them stronger.
17.14 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a document, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembering of Amalek from under heaven.’
The instruction to write the details of what had happened is given because Yahweh wants His covenant concerning Amalek to be read and reread to Joshua. This confirms the practise, which we gathered from an examination of Genesis, that important covenant documents were written out in this way ‘for a memorial’, with the reading out of the covenant to those involved in view.
‘For a memorial.’ To act as a constant reminder.
‘I will utterly blot out the remembering of Amalek from under heaven.’ The crimes of Amalek were firstly, that they were the first to attack the children of Israel after they left Egypt, and secondly, that they did so in a cowardly way, attacking the weakest and most helpless of Yahweh’s people. We are constantly reminded throughout the Old Testament of Yahweh’s great concern for the weak and helpless, the widow and the orphan and suchlike.
17.15-16 ‘And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Yahweh-nissi (Yahweh is my banner) and he said, “Truly with a hand to the throne of Yah I swear, ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’.” ’
The altar would be built for the purpose of offering sacrifice, and we note that Moses is said to have built it (been responsible for its building) and not Aaron. Moses was still looked to as the tribal priest. Its name was ‘Yahweh is my banner’. This may look back to his activity on the hilltop with the idea that his staff was like a banner, although the parallel in the analysis also connects it with the going into battle, but its main meaning is that Yahweh will always go with Israel into war as their banner, in this case against Amalek.
‘Truly with a hand to the throne (or ‘to the banner’) of Yah I swear.’ The Hebrew is uncertain. The word translated throne (kes) is not known elsewhere but can be taken as another form of kisse (throne). The raising of the hand was a strong form of oath (Genesis 14.22; Exodus 6.8). However Hebrew n is very similar to k and in context we may possibly read ‘nes’ (as in verse 15) meaning banner suggesting a very early copying error. But we are always loath to suggest such errors without evidence.
‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek.’ There would be no lasting truce with the Amalekites. They had proved their treacherous nature by their actions here. They dwelt ‘in the land of the south’ (Numbers 13.29 compare Genesis 12.9 where this means the Negev) and would cause further trouble to the children of Israel when they were at Kadesh, an oasis in the south lands. They were a constant problem to Israel when Israel was weak (Judges 3.13; 6.3-5, 33; 7.12; 10.12) and Samuel sought their destruction on the grounds of what had happened here at Rephidim which possibly patterned contemporary behaviour (1 Samuel 15). The remnant of the Amalekites were finally destroyed at their stronghold in Mount Seir in the days of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4.43).
‘From generation to generation.’ The blotting out was not to take place immediately. It would be a process through a number of generations.
Note for Christians.
In this passage the people of God were attacked by an enemy after they had been saved from Egypt and were on their way to live under the Kingly Rule of God. From that point of view they can be seen as a type of the Christian, who is saved from ‘the world’ and is a pilgrim on his way to the heavenly Kingdom of God. For the assault of evil on the people of righteousness has been true in all ages, and never more so than in our spiritual warfare today. And the way of deliverance is the same in all cases. It is through trust in God, and standing firm against the enemy. It is especially interesting here that the general who saved the people was called ‘Yahweh is salvation’ or ‘Yahweh saves’.
We may note here that technically Moses did not pray. He did not need to pray. His confidence in Yahweh was such that he knew that all that he had to do was indicate Yahweh’s presence as there on their behalf, and Yahweh would do the rest. Prayer would only have been necessary if Israel had sinned. We also need to learn that sometimes it is not prayer that is required, but confidence in God. There comes a time when prayer is not necessary because we already have God’s promise. Then instead we may praise in confident expectancy of what He will do. It was said of Praying Hyde that he gave up much of his time to praise because he found that it was the more effective in bringing down the blessing of God.
End of note).
Jethro Visits and Advises Moses (18.1-27)..
There is little doubt that under God Jethro’s visit saved Moses from being on the verge of nervous exhaustion. In return Moses will bring enlightenment to Jethro about the things of God. God often uses the most unexpected sources in order to help His servants. But there is an indication of how necessary Moses training and expertise was for Israel.
Jethro Arrives With Moses’ Wife and Children and Is Warmly Welcomed And Learns of All That Yahweh Has Done (18.1-9).
As the children of Israel approached Sinai they would come within the vicinity of the Midianite group to which Moses belonged, who would soon learn of their approach. Indeed it must be seen as very probable that Moses sent them notification.
Note in the parallels how in ‘a’ Jethro had heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, and how Yahweh had brought them out of the land of Egypt and in the parallel Moses tells Jethro of all that Yahweh had done for Israel’s sake. In ‘b’ we are told of Moses’ trials in his exile and how God had saved him from the hands of Pharaoh, and in the parallel we are told of what Yahweh had done to Pharaoh and how He had delivered Israel from all their trials. In ‘c’ Jethro bring Moses’ wife and children with him to the camp, and in the parallel Moses warmly welcomes Jethro (and all his party) and takes them to his tent. Central to the passage is that Moses’ tribal leader and father-in-law Jethro has come bringing Moses’ wife and children. This central position brings out that Moses did not overlook the coming of his wife, even though it was not important in the ensuing narrative.
18.1 ‘Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, how that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt.’
The news about what God had done for Moses would have come from Moses himself, who would no doubt have sent a fast messenger with the news of the deliverance. It was incumbent on him to keep his tribal leader informed. Note the change to ‘God’ (Elohim) in the first phrase. It has been noteworthy that up to this point the use of the word Elohim (God) by itself has been notably lacking from the narrative since leaving Egypt. The emphasis has been on Yahweh. In fact Elohim (God) has only been used in the technical term ‘the staff of God’ (17.9) and to define Yahweh as ‘your God’ (15.26; 16.12). Thus this opening use of Elohim (God) is very much against the idea that Jethro worshipped Yahweh. Had he done so the sentence would surely have begun with ‘Yahweh’.
Note the use in this verse. Jethro hears of ‘all that God has done’. Thus he equates it with the activity of ‘God’ as he knows Him. But then when the deliverance from Egypt is mentioned it is referred to Yahweh. This distinction applies throughout the chapter demonstrating its unity.
This distinction is especially observed when we compare how the word Elohim (God) is also used when defining Jethro’s sacrifices (verse 12) and in general conversation with Jethro (verse 15), as well as when he gives his advice (verses 17-23). It is only when speaking of the deliverance from Egypt that the name of Yahweh comes into prominence (18.1b, 8-11). This also ties in with the fact that Moses’ second son’s name contains El and not Yah. In view of this it would seem clear that Jethro was not a dedicated worshipper of Yahweh, and certainly not a priest of Yahweh, while being willing to acknowledge that Yahweh was God and even greater than all the gods (verse 11), by which he mainly meant the gods of Egypt of whose defeat he had heard. He quite possibly identified his own god with Yahweh, for Moses had spent forty years with the tribe. But if so the association was secondary for he speaks of him as Elohim.
18.2-4 ‘And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her away, and her two sons, the name of one of whom was Gershom, for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a strange land”, and the name of the other was Eliezer, for he said, “The God of my father was my help and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”.’
This summary brings us up to date on Moses’ family position. Moses had clearly sent his wife back to the family tribe while he was having his contest with Pharaoh. This was probably in order to ensure her safety and the safety of her two sons and to prevent them from being used by Pharaoh as a bargaining tool. It has ever been the policy of tyrants to get back at or control their enemies by attacking their families. But it may partly have been because a Midianite wife and two foreign sons were causing dissension among certain of the children of Israel (although such racial discrimination was not usual. It was only marriage to Canaanites that was frowned on because of their perverted sexual rites. There is no direct suggestion here or anywhere that Moses’ marriage was frowned on). And Jethro had accepted her and her sons back under his care. He had ‘taken’ her.
The details of Moses’ two sons are also given. They were mentioned in 4.20, and the fact of Gershom’s birth and naming in 2.22. This is now mentioned again, along with the naming of his second son Eliezer, important here because of its meaning.
‘Gershom.’ ‘Ger’ means a foreigner, a sojourner, a stranger. Moses construed the name here as meaning ‘a stranger there’, the regular play on words common with both tribal and Egyptian names. Moses’ comment suggested how hardly he understandably had felt his exile.
‘Eliezer.’ ‘My God is help.’ 4.20 suggests that Eliezer was born in Midian before Moses left for Egypt. His name was basically a statement of faith, that God would be Moses’ helper. And Moses especially related this to his escape from execution when he fled from Egypt with God’s help. He now compares it in verse 8 (see analysis) with their recent deliverance. In fact both sons may well now be grown up.
18.5 ‘And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came to Moses with his sons and his wife, into the wilderness where he was encamped at the Mount of God.’
At this nearest point to the Midianite camp Jethro arrived bringing Moses’ wife and his two sons. Note the constant emphasis on his ‘father-in-law’ (verses 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 24, 27). This was considered necessary in order to make what happened here acceptable. It was precisely because Jethro was in a position of primacy over Moses as his father-in-law, as one who had taken the place of a father to him (compare Jacob and Laban where Jacob acknowledged the authority of Laban), and as his patriarch, that he was called on to offer sacrifices (verse 12) and was in a position to give patriarchal advice to Moses. All would recognise his right to do so.
‘Where he was encamped at the mount of God.’ The movement of the whole tribe to Horeb, to the water gushing from the rock, has not been mentioned, but it is assumed (in 17.1-7 it is only the elders who have been to the rock). Why else was the rock in Horeb revealed? The writer was concerned more with the glory of Yahweh than with the minor details of the doings of the children of Israel. (We can compare, for example, how in 7.15-18; 8.1-4; 8.20-23; 9.1-5 Moses is told to go to Pharaoh but the going and its consequence is actually not mentioned but assumed. The narrative continues on the basis that it has been done).
This movement is hinted at in 19.2 where we read, ‘when they were departed from Rephidim and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they pitched in the wilderness, and there Israel camped before the Mount of God.’ This latter is a dating summary, which see. So now they are in Horeb. They will need the plentiful supply of water for their comparatively long stay there.
‘The mount of God.’ This description was probably given to it after the events that follow. It may, however, have been earlier looked on as sacred by the Midianites due to its austere grandeur (compare 3.1)
18.6-7 ‘And he said to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am come to you, and your wife and your two sons with her.” And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law , and bowed to him and kissed him, and they asked each other of their welfare, and they came into the tent.’
Jethro took Moses’ wife and sons to Moses, and they greeted each other warmly and came back to Moses’ tent.
‘He said.’ That is via a messenger. It explains the formality of the message. While friendly it is patriarchal. The leader of his clan is coming to meet him.
‘Went out --- and bowed to him.’ Moses pays him the honour due to him with full formality, and Jethro responds accordingly, but the detail suggests it is friendly.
18.8 ‘And Moses told his father-in-law all that Yahweh had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the travail that had come on them by the way, and how Yahweh had delivered them.’
Moses had, of course, a responsibility to report events back to his tribal leader, from whom he had officially previously sought permission to go to Egypt (4.18), but the communication goes beyond that. Moses is concerned that his father-in-law should now see that he is tied to the children of Israel by Yahweh’s activities and demands. Jethro’s rejoicing in the goodness of Yahweh demonstrates that he is gladly willing to accept the situation and to release Moses from his tribal loyalty.
He speaks of the wonders performed against Pharaoh and the Egyptians, as well as His powerful provision made in the later difficult period in the wilderness, in which Yahweh had again revealed His glory ‘for Israel’s sake’. These wonders and gracious acts bring glory to Yahweh.
Jethro Rejoices In Yahweh With The Leaders of Israel (18.9-12).
Note in ‘a’ how Jethro’s acknowledgement of the goodness of Yahweh and of His doings results in the parallel in Aaron and the elders of Israel coming to eat with him. While in ‘b’ He blesses Yahweh and His declaration of the supremacy of Yahweh results in his offering a whole burnt offering and sacrifices to God, and thus in his ‘blessing’ Him. In ‘c’ He has been caught up with Israel in Israel’s God and acknowledges His overall superiority.
18.9 ‘And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which Yahweh had done to Israel in that he had delivered them out of the hands of the Egyptians.’
Here it is the deliverance that Jethro concentrates on. He had not seen the wonders but he does understand fully the one outstanding fact of the wonderful deliverance out of Egyptian hands. What amazed him was that Yahweh had delivered Israel from the powerful Egyptians, and he could only rejoice in it.
18.10-11 ‘And Jethro said, “Blessed be Yahweh who has delivered you out of the hands of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who has delivered his people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all the gods, yes in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them.”
Jethro praises Yahweh for what He has done in delivering Israel. The repetition of ‘who has delivered’ emphasises his wonder at what has happened. With verse 9 the deliverance is emphasised three times. Egypt was notorious as the region’s super-power, ruled by a god and with powerful gods. But this has not prevented Yahweh from setting them at nought. Note the contrast with verse 8. Here it is ‘delivered --- Egyptians --- Pharaoh.’ There it is ‘Pharaoh --- Egyptians --- delivered.’ The unity of these verses is clear.
‘Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all the gods.’ Here he means the gods of Egypt, not his own god whom he possibly equates with Moses’ God, Yahweh (compare the situation with El Elyon - Genesis 14.18-22). We cannot, however, see him as directly a worshipper of Yahweh or verse 12 would say so. Here Jethro speaks of Yahweh and not Elohim (God) because he has been told what Yahweh had done.
‘Yes in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them.’ Nehemiah 9.10 suggests that this means ‘in the things in which the Israelites, through their God Yahweh, dealt proudly (with superiority) against the Egyptians’, but in context here it must include the Egyptians and their gods as having acted proudly against Israel.
18.12 ‘And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat food with Moses’ father-in-law before God.’
This is in Jethro’s territory and he is Moses’ clan leader and priest of the area, ‘the priest of Midian’ (18.1). It was therefore natural that Jethro should offer the sacrifices, both of the whole burnt offering which was presumably (as later) wholly burnt up and of other sacrifices, thank offerings, of which the flesh was available to eat. Note that these are offered to ‘Elohim’ not Yahweh. The Midianites may well have worshipped El under some title, whom they could all equate with Yahweh, as Abraham equated El Elyon with Yahweh (Genesis 14.22).
‘To eat food with --- before God’. This was an act of worship and acknowledgement of submission to ‘Elohim’ (God). There is no suggestion that Jethro taught them anything. When he did, as his clan leader, seek to guide Moses, we are specifically told so, but it had nothing to do with religion. It was the senior administrator passing on his advice to his son-in-law. Moses who had been with the tribe of Jethro for many years, and seemingly had worshipped with him, clearly saw the God whom Jethro worshipped as equatable with Yahweh.
We can compare how Melchizedek, who as king of Salem and its surrounding area would have rights over Abraham, who paid him tithes as a user of his lands, provided the food and wine for a feast on the return of Abraham, he did so as a priest of El Elyon, and Abraham received them in the name of ‘Yahweh, El Elyon’. (Genesis 14.18-24). The situation is somewhat similar.
Note how here the text has changed from using ‘Yahweh’ to using ‘God’. A ‘stranger’ is among them. To him Yahweh is not all. Thus while making quite clear to Jethro that it is Yahweh Who has delivered Israel, he condescends to his father-in-law by mainly speaking of ‘God’ throughout the passage.
Jethro Advises Moses On How To Judge The People And Moses Acts on His Advice (18.13-26).
Note that in ‘a’ the situation is described concerning Moses’ judging of the people, and in the parallel having, sorted out the situation Jethro returns to his own land. In ‘b’ Jethro asks him why he does this to the people, and why he sits alone, and all the people stand around him from morning until evening, in the parallel the task is now shared. In ‘c’ Moses replies, ‘Because the people come to me to enquire of God’. When they come to him he judges between a man and his neighbour and makes known to them the statutes of God and His laws’ and in the parallel he chooses out able men to assist him in the task. In ‘d’ Moses’ father-in-law tells him that it is not good, for he will wear himself away and also his people who have to wait around and in the parallel Moses listens and does what he has suggested. In ‘e’ he is told he cannot expect to bear this burden just by himself alone, and in the parallel he is told that if he does what Jethro suggests, and God commands him so, then he will be able to survive intact and all his people will go to their place in peace. In ‘f’ he is advised that he should be for the people Godward, and bring their causes to God, and teach them the statutes and laws, and show them they way in which they should walk, and the work that they must do, and in the parallel it is explained that the new judges must judge the people at all seasons. Every great matter shall be brought to Moses but every smaller matter they will judge. Thus will it be easier for Moses and they will share his burden with him In ‘g’ the system is laid out. He must provide out of all the people able men of the type who fear God, men of truth hating unjust gain, and place them over the people to be rulers of sub-tribes (thousands), clans (hundreds), wider families (fifties) and households (tens).
We see also what we have noted before that in the second part of the chiasmus there is a repetition, ‘rulers of sub-tribes (thousands), clans (hundreds), wider families (fifties) and households (tens), they (let them) judge the people at all seasons’ (compare 18.21b-22a with 18.25b-26a).
For a similar patteern of a chiasmus containing a repetition in the second part see Numbers 18.4 with 7, 23 with 24; and Deuteronomy 2.21 with 22.
18.13-14 ‘And it happened on the morrow that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. And when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, “What is this thing that you do for the people? Why do you yourself sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning until evening?”
Moses set aside days in which he would judge individual cases of complaint. It would seem that the people stood around while the cases came before him and then he would pass judgment on them. This amazed the experienced priest of Midian who recognised that it would finally prove too much for Moses. He asks why he does it. Is this the way he does things all the time?
18.15-16 ‘And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to enquire of God. When they have a matter they come to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.”
Moses replies that it is to enable the people to settle disagreements in such a way that they are satisfied that they have obtained justice before God. (Moses courteously uses the term for God that Jethro will recognise and accept in his jurisdiction). And they gather round so that all may come to understand the requirements of God as Moses adds his comments to the decisions.
In 15.25b Moses spent some time in making for the people ‘a statute and an ordinance.’ It is probable that those represented various laws, both legal and ritual, which were put down in writing and read out to the people. They were probably part of ‘the Testimony’ of 16.34. The people were then promised that obedience to them would prevent God’s judgment and ensure good health (15.26 compare 16.28). And by these regular scenes of the dispensing of justice those laws were brought home to the people and expanded by the decisions made, possibly with amendment to the written record when necessary, when new decisions had been made about things that were not yet provided for. So was Moses preparing for his great work of writing the Torah (the foundation work of the Pentateuch).
18.17-18 ‘And Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you do is not good. You will surely wear away both you yourself and this people who are with you. For the thing is too much of a burden for you. You are not able to do it yourself alone.” ’
Once again we notice that Jethro uses Elohim (God) and not Yahweh. Jethro spots immediately the problem with Moses approach. Moses is dealing with even the smallest and simplest cases. This means that he is overloaded. It also means that the people are having to listen to cases from which they can learn nothing. Thus both he and the people will eventually be worn down, and unable, or unwilling, to cope.
18.19-20 “Listen to what I say (to my voice), I will give you advice, and God be with you. You be for the people towards God, and you bring the causes to God. And you will teach them the statutes and the laws, and will show them the way in which they must walk and the work that they must do.”
So what he advises is that Moses only take on the more complicated cases, especially the cases where God’s guidance is needed. For these the people will gather to hear the cases and the judgments. He will also deal with God on behalf of the people, and will be responsible for teaching God’s laws and statutes. He will be responsible for guiding their behaviour. But the straightforward smaller cases will be dealt with by others using the guidelines laid down by Moses.
While later the sacred lot (the Urim and Thummim - see on 28.30) would be the basis of such judgments as Moses has to make, there is no suggestion of that here. As we discover later, Moses’ connection with God is unique, like that of a man talking with his friend (33.11).
This guidance from Jethro, based on common sense and experience, is good advice but it is not a command that Moses must obey. Jethro is not exercising jurisdiction over Moses, he is simply trying to help him. While Moses may have been his clansman he knows that he himself has no authority over the children of Israel. To suggest otherwise is to avoid the clear meaning of the passage. But a deeper significance may lie behind it. This may well be the moment that Jethro finally recognises that he must let Moses go. He is now ruler over his own people.
‘God be with you.’ He recognises the guidance Moses needs from God. But continually the name of Yahweh is avoided. Jethro speaks as one who usually worships Elohim (God) not Yahweh.
‘The statutes and laws’. These will mainly be based on the customs of Israel as passed on by the fathers, and the revelations given to them, but in the end divine assistance will be needed in detailing and finalising them. There can really be little doubt that the basis of these was already in writing (15.25).
A number of law codes such as the codes of Lipit-Ishtar, the laws of Eshnunna, the laws of Hammurabi, Hittite laws and so on have been discovered. These contained details of many laws and customs. But they were probably simply a guide and not a statement of laws strictly to be used to dispense justice. They seem to often represent case law, examples of how cases have been decided. However, Moses was in a unique situation. He was trying to bind together a number of conglomerate peoples. In his case a written law would be invaluable so that the people could learn from them as they were read out to them, and so that they could be pointed to in case of dispute.
18.21 “Moreover you shall provide out of the people able men such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain, and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all seasons, and it will be that every great matter they will bring to you, but every small matter they will judge themselves. So will it be easier for you and they will bear the burden with you.”
This suggestion must not be distorted. These are not civil judges as such, they are delegates of Moses. They are as much involved in religious judgment as Moses is but not to the same level. Moses will still be the chief judge and will deal with all major or complicated cases where God’s specific judgment is required. What will differ is that minor cases will not be brought to him. They can be decided on the basis of God’s revelation as revealed in the statutes already laid down by Moses. These are already God’s judgments and His guidance does not need to be sought again. It is laid down in the statutes. If they cannot be so decided they will be brought to him.
The point is that Moses has been dealing with every single dispute, however small. Now it is suggested that these could be dealt with by someone who knows the parties better because they have closer connections with them.
We must remember that Moses is to some extent learning as he goes. A system does not just fall down from heaven. He had had experience in Egyptian administration but that was very different from here. As a prince he would not have been involved in judging a people. At first he was not aware of the capabilities of the elders of Israel. He has, however, by now become aware of what capabilities the elders of Israel had, and the judges will be made up mainly of these. They will already have had some experience in judging. Thus he has up to this point been feeling his way.
But now he knows more about the capabilities of the elders, and more, from experience, of what matters could be dealt with by others. Thus this suggestion came at a very timely moment. Later an even more developed system will be set up where more ‘senior’ judges will be appointed who themselves are guided by the Spirit of God (Numbers 11.16-17, 23-29). But that is not yet.
‘Able men who fear God, are men of truth and hate unjust gain.’ Moses has to assess the possibilities and take character and ability into account. The three requirements are important. To fear the higher Judge of all, to be men of truth and not to be open to bribery. There could be no better recommendation.
‘Rulers of thousands (or sub-clans), rulers of hundreds (or family units), rulers of fifties (smaller family units) and rulers of tens (individual families).’ Depending on the importance of the case and the likelihood of appeal would be who was responsible for judging. The numbers are not to be taken literally. The point is that there are to be layers of ‘judges’ at different levels so that appeals can be taken to higher levels, and more serious cases can be dealt with at a higher level. It is not only the judgment that will matter but the willingness of those being judged to accept the authority of the judge. No doubt this was the system used among the Midianites. But the Midianites were more split up and widespread so for Israel the system would later require modification.
This system would, of course, take some time to set up, but it is only the basis of the idea that has to be decided on. Its full implementation could take time. But it would take a huge burden from Moses’ shoulders and lay it on others.
It is noteworthy that in Arabic ‘a ten’ can mean a family.
18.23 “If you will do this thing, and God command you so, then you will be able to endure and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”
Jethro tactfully agreed that what Moses decided to do must be subject to the judgment and guidance of God. (Had he been the priest of Yahweh he himself could have given that guidance). This was important for the people must know that the arrangement had the sanction of Yahweh. But he pointed out the advantages. Moses would not be worn out as he was being now (it was probably obvious to an experienced leader how much Moses was suffering from his efforts). And the people also would not be overburdened with watching petty judgments (he had probably detected their boredom). It is the outsider who often sees most when it comes to such things.
‘They shall go to their house in peace.’ Because they have not been required to stand there for such a long, and often boring, time connected with cases easily decided and involving people unknown to them.
18.24 ‘So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons. The hard cases they brought to Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.”
This is basically telling us that Moses acted fully on the suggestions of his father-in-law. It did not, of course, mean that it was fully implemented next day. It would take time to set up. But the beginnings could be put in place immediately. In a patriarchal society there would already be authoritative people in charge at different levels of tribal life, men to whom the people looked up and whose authority they accepted. Some could be appointed immediately. Probably the most difficult were the middle levels, and the absorbing fully into the system of the mixed multitude. These undoubtedly would take more time. The methods he used are outlined in Deuteronomy 1.13-17. Wisely he left much of the choosing to the people. They would be more likely to honour men of their own choosing.
‘Did all that he had said.’ This would happen over time, but the basis would be established immediately.
18.27 ‘And Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way into his own land.’
Having brought Moses his family, and having shared worship and hospitality with the children of Israel, Jethro returned home amicably, recognising that Moses now has in front of him his own destiny. The Egyptian plucked from the desert and given a welcome has become the ruler and guide of Yahweh’s people.
It is probable that originally this was the end of a scroll or tablet. Chapter 19.1-2 bears all the marks of being an introduction to a new tablet, summarising the final part of this previous one.
(Note for Christians.
The prime lesson from this passage is that of using wisdom in doing the work of God. We must be ready to learn wisdom from anyone, once we are satisfied that it really is wisdom. Moses might have bristled with pride against his father-in-law and pointed out that he was only the leader of a small wandering tribe, while he had this great mass of people to deal with. But the only loser would have been Moses. It is also an indication of the importance of putting in a word at the right time, and of doing it gently and tactfully.
End of note).
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
Passover,unleavened,bread,Red,Sea,Migdol,Isaac,Jacob,Israel,Genesis,
Canaan,Egypt,Pharaoh,Aaron,Levite,Jethro,Reuel,Zipporah, Numbers,
Midian,Midianite,Yahweh,God,fathers,Abraham,Horeb,Sinai,
Succoth,Baal-zephon,wilderness,tent,meeting,cloud,pillar,Rameses,
Elim,quails,manna,Rephidim,Amalek,Amalekites,Amram.Jochebed
