Chapter XII: Exodus (1)

THIS second book of the Pentateuch takes its modern name from its principal event, the exodus of the Hebrew people――their marching forth out of their house of bondage from the land of their oppression, to be replanted under God’s gracious providence in the goodly land promised to their fathers.――――This one main event as recorded in this book includes many subordinate points, _e. g._

I. The _oppressions_ of the Hebrews by the Egyptians.

II. _Moses_, who became in the hand of God their great Deliverer; his history; his early training and his call from the Lord to this great work.

III. _The great mission of Moses to Egypt’s king_; his reception; the ten successive plagues――miraculous judgments from the hand of God; the case of the magicians; the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and the ultimate result.

I. _The Oppression._

The narrative shows that this oppression consisted in part in the exacting of terribly severe labors, especially in building, including the making of brick, the preparation of mortar, the transportation of these materials, and the erection of buildings. The ancient monuments of Egypt confirm the statements of sacred history, showing that the Egyptians employed national bondmen in the construction of their vast national works; that they placed over them task-masters; that when the workmen fell short of the required tale of brick, their masters put them to more severe labors, and in some cases to labors of other sort. It has been supposed by some that the ancient paintings represented some of these laborers with the well-known physiognomy of the Hebrews.

It should be noted that this bondage differed from the slavery of modern times in this one respect――that the bondmen were held by the king and the nation in their national capacity and not by individuals. The Hebrews were not held as private but as public property. The king and the nation as such bore therefore the responsibility and guilt of this oppression, and God let his judgments smite them for the most part in such a way as to indicate their sin.

A second feature in this oppression was the king’s cruel edict to murder the male infants. This was first enjoined upon the Hebrew midwives. Fearing God more than Egypt’s king, they evaded obedience; whereupon the king commanded all his people to cast the male infants into the river.――――The reason assigned for both these measures was _public policy_, to prevent the rapid increase of Hebrew population which the king assumed might be dangerous to his throne and people in case of a foreign invasion. Such a policy is at once short-sighted and wicked; short-sighted, since kind treatment would have made this rapidly growing people their fast friends and helpers; wicked, because it violates common morality, insulting God, and provoking his wrath by outraging all the obligations which he imposes on men toward their fellows. Egypt’s king and court presently found themselves arrayed against Almighty God and saw him take up the challenge in a fearful conflict for mastery. We shall see in the final issue that the Lord improved this occasion to illustrate some of the noblest principles of his government over nations and indeed over individuals as well, showing that he abhors oppression; takes the side of the oppressed; hurls his fiercest thunderbolts against giant oppressors in every age; and every-where holds men to the responsibility of using their power to befriend and not to oppress their human brethren.

This oppression began with “a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph.” It is generally held that these words indicate a new dynasty――one royal line superseded by another, perhaps a foreign power coming in to supplant the former dynasty. The points of historic contact between Egyptian and Hebrew chronology may at some future day be adjusted with reasonable certainty. They are not yet. The subject is undergoing a somewhat thorough investigation with some prospect of ultimate success. At present I am not prepared to express positive opinions.

Two of the disputed periods in Hebrew chronology are necessarily involved;

(a.) The period of the Judges, which as shown above some reduce to 339 years; others extend to 450;

(b.) The period of the sojourn in Egypt, made by some 215 years; by others, 430. Some of the theories which attempt to locate this new king of Egypt in his relation to Hebrew history place the Exodus about B. C. 1600; others B. C. 1491. Some put the commencement of the sojourn in Egypt B. C. 2030; others B. C. 1706; yet others B. C. 1815. I have given my reasons for adopting the longer periods. It is possible that Egyptian authorities may yet throw a strong influence upon the decision of these much disputed points of Hebrew chronology.

The narrative shows that the Hebrews had become numerically strong and were rapidly growing stronger. Joseph had been dead probably a considerable time and all the men of his generation. Being 39 years old when his father came into Egypt and dying at the age of 110, he lived to protect his people 71 years. Moses was 80 years old when he came before Pharaoh, bearing the command of the Almighty――“Let my people go.” It is probable that the terrible edict to destroy all the male infants did not long precede the birth of Moses. The interval between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses will depend on the duration of the entire sojourn in Egypt, since from this entire sojourn we must subtract the years of Joseph’s life after the sojourn began and the years of Moses before it closed, _i. e._ 71 + 80 = 151. This sum must be subtracted either from 215, leaving 64; or from 430, leaving 279. The latter I assume to be the true period. It provides abundantly for the great increase of the Hebrew people, and accounts for the fear felt by Egypt’s “new king.”

II. MOSES.

We shall study the history of Moses without _the key_ if we overlook the point made by the writer to the Hebrews (11: 23): “_By faith_ Moses when he was born was hid three months because they saw that he was a proper child, and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.” Faith in God made them fearless of Egypt’s cruel king. It would seem also that they saw in the peculiar beauty of this child a sort of prophecy of his future, something at least which raised expectation and put them upon special ventures to save his life. Three months they secreted him within their home. When this expedient could suffice no longer, they prepared an ark of bulrushes――a little box, water-tight, constructed to float――and moored it with its treasure among the flags on the river’s bank. We may suppose that his mother knew the spot where the king’s daughter was wont to take her baths, and that her faith and prayer lay back of this venture to throw her darling infant upon the compassion of a stranger woman’s heart. It need not be supposed that she foresaw his future adoption into the royal family, his training for forty years in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and his consequent qualification to become the great Hebrew Lawgiver and Deliverer. Suffice it that these results lay in the thought of God. She had faith enough to commit her darling to God’s care and to leave all the future unknown results to his adjustment.

The ways of God were mercifully kind toward this Hebrew mother. She stationed his elder sister as a sentinel to watch the issue, and then (let us presume) gave herself to prayer. When this elder sister with palpitating heart saw the daughter of Pharaoh take the beautiful child to her bosom, she felt that her time had come. Modestly advancing, she said, “Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women that she may nurse the child for thee”? Pharaoh’s daughter said, Go. How joyfully did she go and call the child’s own mother! God’s finger was there. The mother’s faith has come up as sweet incense before Him and her heart is made glad, as only a praying mother’s can be. There was no occasion to tell us that she consecrated this child to Israel’s God for any service he might have for him in his after life. Such a mother, drawn by her sweet faith into such relationship to God, could do nothing less. Moreover, this was no barren consecration――was not a vow once made and soon forgotten. Nothing can be more certain than that she cared diligently for the moral training and culture of this marvelously saved son. Else how could it happen that “when he was come to years, he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming reproach for Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect to the recompense of the reward” (Heb. 11: 24–26)? The seeds of this world-conquering faith must have been dropped early into his tender mind. This hired Hebrew nurse, permitted to come into the royal palace by some back-way, was indulged this privilege freely, we know not precisely how long; but let us presume that the same faith and prayer kept this door open, at least for her occasional visits in his future years. How many testimonies of God’s love to the fathers of their nation she dropped into his youthful ear; how much she told him of God as “the exceeding great reward” of his believing people; how well she put the contrast between “the treasures of Egypt” and the treasures laid up for God’s then persecuted people:――these points are rather left to our inference than definitely stated; but we may be very sure that the faith of Moses took hold of these grand truths of then extant revelation; fixed its hold early; and held fast through all his future life.

We have three co-ordinate narratives of the early years of Moses: that given in Heb. 11: 24–27, very brief, and touching only its specially religious side; while that of Stephen (Acts 7: 20–29) is full, even somewhat more full than the narrative in Ex. 2: 10–15. Particularly Stephen adds that Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and mighty in words and in deeds”――a man like Joseph of immense efficiency:――also that he was “full forty years old” when it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel――a statement which shows that he distinctly recognized this relationship of brethren. Seeing a brother Hebrew abused by an Egyptian he interposed, smote the Egyptian dead, and buried him in the sand. Stephen’s words suggest that this was not merely one of those quick, spontaneous impulses felt by noble souls in view of outrageous wrong, but was a first step toward a contemplated career of interposed force for the rescue of his people from their oppression. “For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them; but they understood not” (Acts 7: 25). The whole of the fact seems to be that the Lord was not yet ready and had not fully prepared Moses for this great life-work of his yet, and certainly had not inaugurated him into it.[27]――――Interposing the next day in a quarrel between two of his own Hebrew brethren, he learned that his slaying of the Egyptian was known, and immediately sought safety by flight to the land of Midian. The Lord had more objects than one in turning his steps thither; not only his then present safety, but the spiritual culture of so much solitude and of long-continued, unbroken communion with God and of long tried faith, coupled with the incidental advantage of becoming perfectly familiar with that great wilderness through which he was to lead the hosts of Israel for forty years.

Scarcely had he penetrated this desert land in his flight when he made the acquaintance of a priest of Midian [Jethro], and of his seven shepherdess daughters, one of whom became his wife. Like the somewhat similar experience of Abraham, falling in with the priest of Salem, ♦Melchizedek, the circumstance suggests the inquiry how much of the true knowledge and worship of God existed in those early ages outside the line of Abraham’s family. The historical traces of such piety are certainly very few, yet they recur so incidentally that we are justified in the hope that these cases are not exhaustive; stood not altogether alone. When we come to consider the history of Job we shall take occasion to observe, that his location is certainly in this great region of Arabia, and that his date must in all probability have somewhat preceded this residence of Moses in the land of Midian. Here Moses may have found the story in a traditional form; may perhaps have seen Job’s immediate descendants; may possibly have put the story in its present form as one of the pastimes of a literary shepherd’s life; and then, retaining it in his possession during his subsequent years, may have himself solved the problem――How came this book in the archives of the Hebrew nation, on an equal footing as to inspired authority with their historical books?

_The Great Mission of Moses._

Of the second forty-year period in the life of Moses, little is reported save its first scenes and its last. Ex. 3 opens the latter. Moses is keeping the flock of his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. He has “led them to the back side of the desert”――_i. e._ to the west side of it, for in designating the points of compass the Hebrews always turned the face toward the east. The east is in front――_before_; and of course the west is behind. Horeb and Sinai lay on the western margin of the great Arabian desert.――――Here “the angel of the Lord appeared to him” (v. 2), called “angel” however only as one who comes or is sent with divine manifestations; for in every subsequent mention he is called “the Lord” and “God” (vs. 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, etc.)[28]――――Remarkably this visible manifestation was made by the symbol of fire in a bush――the bush all aflame yet not consumed. This strange sight attracted the attention of Moses, and he turned aside to look into it more closely, when a voice from the bush called him by name; warned him not to approach in the spirit of mere curiosity, but to take off his shoes because the place on which he stood was holy ground. The mystery before Moses’ mind is solved――the Lord is there! His purpose in this appearing is soon told. He has heard the cry of distress from his oppressed people, has come down to deliver them and to bring them forth into Canaan. He has a mission for Moses in this work. “Come” said he, “I will send thee to Pharaoh.” Moses knew the power and the pride of Pharaoh, and saw at a glance the difficulties of this enterprise. No wonder he shrank back saying――“Who am I that I should do this”? God replied: “I will certainly be with thee”――a sufficient answer to any amount of conscious weakness and faintness of heart. The Lord added――“This shall be a token to thee that I have sent thee; when thou hast brought the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve [_i. e._ worship] God in this mountain.” From that moment this token was God’s pledge to Moses of success in bringing the people forth from Egypt; and when it was fulfilled in the scenes of national worship and consecration on Horeb, it became doubly a sign to all the people that the Lord their God was in this great movement.

Moses anticipates that the people will ask for the name of God, and he therefore inquires――What shall I answer them? To which the Lord replies: “_I am that I am_”; and then abbreviating the phrase, adds, “Thus shalt thou say to Israel, _I am_ hath sent me to you.” What immediately follows should be carefully noted. God said moreover to Moses (still reiterating the same thought though in other and more familiar terms): “Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord――_i. e._ Jehovah, God of your fathers, hath sent me unto you; this is my name forever and this is my memorial through all generations.” This v. 15 is without doubt the key to the true sense of the names as previously given――“_I am that I am_,” and in briefer form, “_I am_.” Their true meaning is in the name _Jehovah_. This name contemplates God as evermore existing, the same unchangeable God, and therefore ever faithful to his promises. This view of God assumes that he reveals himself personally as the God of his trustful people, entering into covenant with them and never failing to remember and fulfill that covenant.

In order to see the full force and pertinence of the passage, it should be considered that by common Hebrew usage, the names of persons were significant. They were words with a meaning. This is true of all the names by which the true God is made known. And when Moses suggests that the people will ask for God’s name, it is not implied that they had never heard any name for God and did not know what to call him; but this――They would know what new or special feature of his character was to be manifested then. Their question was equivalent to asking――What does God propose to do now? What new movement does he contemplate? What new development of God may we expect?――――To the question so understood, the Lord made a direct answer:――I have come to reveal my eternal faithfulness to my covenant with your fathers. I pledged myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I would bring their posterity into the goodly land of Canaan: I have come down to fulfill that word and to put into your national history an enduring testimony that my name is truly, “I am that I am”――the immutable and eternal God, whose word of promise faileth not forevermore.

The same course of thought appears again Ex. 6: 1–8――a passage which should be studied in connection with this. “God said to Moses, I am the Jehovah. I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them”――the meaning of which is, not that the name Jehovah was never used by them, or given of God to them; but that its special significance had not been manifested to them as he was then about to make it manifest. His _power_ God had revealed――his power to protect them in their perils, his power to fulfill to Abraham the promise of a son; but such a glorious testimony to his faithfulness in fulfilling promise as was then to be given, the patriarchs had never seen. The redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage was destined to stand through all the ages of their history as the crowning manifestation of God’s faithfulness――the standard and unsurpassed testimony to the significance of his most honored name _Jehovah_. By this shall ye know that I am Jehovah your God when I bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and bring you into the land given by solemn oath to your fathers and to their posterity for a heritage (vs. 7, 8).

* * * * *

In entering upon this redemption of his people the Lord understood well the difficulties to be overcome and fully comprehended the situation. If Moses saw them at a glance, so did the Lord also. It was not possible that Moses could have a deeper sense or a juster view than God had of Pharaoh’s great pride, of his consciousness of power and stubbornness of purpose. The Lord expected a conflict; was ready for it; and by no means disposed to shun it. “I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go; no, not by a mighty hand”――not even under fearful visitations of God’s supernatural power. The precise sense of this seems to be that Pharaoh would resist God’s will _for a long time_ despite the inflictions of his mighty hand and would yield only in the last extremity. In fact he never honestly yielded his will to God’s will, but only bent for the moment before the blast, to rally again with more desperate madness after it had swept by. When at length he saw that the people were really gone, his unsubdued will rose again in towering hardihood, to rush more madly than ever before against the uplifted arm of the Almighty and meet his doom in the bottom of the Red Sea!

This chapter closes (vs. 21, 22) with directions to the children of Israel to _ask_ the Egyptians for gold, silver, and raiment. The Lord promised to give them such favor with the people that they would readily grant them what they asked. Our English version puts it “_borrow_”――as if the Israelites at least tacitly promised to bring these borrowed things back, or if nothing more, left the Egyptians to expect this. But this English word “borrow” misrepresents the Hebrew and consequently the sense of the passage. The Hebrew verb used here never has the sense of _borrow_, but means simply to _ask_. Indeed borrowing was out of the question because the Israelites were not coming back again. It was never God’s thought that they should come back. He had come down to deliver them from their bondage and to bring them into Canaan. There is no reason to suppose that the Egyptians expected them back again. They gave what Israel asked, therefore, not as a loan, but because the Lord brought them into such relations to Israel that they were glad to get them out of the country any way, and perhaps hoped to avert more fearful plagues by these gifts to God’s people. The historian in this case says (Ex. 12: 33)――“The Egyptians were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said――We be all dead men”; which the Psalmist confirms (Ps. 105: 38)――“Egypt was glad when they departed, for the fear of them fell upon them.” Manifestly the Lord counted it simple justice that Egypt should pay her slaves for long years of unrequited toil, and not send them away empty. Therefore he took measures to make the old masters but too glad to do this tardy justice.

* * * * *

A new instrumentality of most vital importance now came to view, designed to bring about the redemption of God’s people from Egypt, viz. _supernatural agencies――miracles_ in the legitimate sense of the word. Noticeably these miracles were two-fold in character and purpose; one class designed to identify God to the people and be a witness to his present hand, to confirm their faith in him as their Deliverer: the other designed by terrible inflictions of calamity, to force upon Pharaoh’s hardened heart the conviction of Jehovah’s power and compel him to let God’s people go. These two objects were to be accomplished; the Hebrew people were to be assured that their own God had indeed come; Pharaoh must be made to know who Jehovah is; how fearful the judgments of his uplifted hand are; and how vain it is for mortals, though on thrones of human power, to lift up themselves against the Almighty.

In the list of miraculous signs sent to convince the Hebrew people, we have (Ex. 4: 1–8) the rod of Moses turned to a serpent and then turned back again to a rod; then his hand withdrawn from his bosom leprous, white as snow; then again withdrawn, perfectly restored.

The narrative gives the reader a strong sense of the reluctance of Moses to enter upon this new mission. Over and over again, in varying forms, he pleads his want of adaptation; that he is slow of speech, not eloquent; that he sees no improvement in this regard since the Lord first spake to him; and finally he begs the Lord to send by any body else he pleases, only (he implies) excuse me. Plainly he pushed this plea for excuse not merely to the verge of modest propriety but beyond it, for we read――“The anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.” Yet he did so far regard the plea of Moses as to give him Aaron his elder brother to speak in his behalf. “Thou shalt speak to him and put words into his mouth; he shall be thy spokesman to the people,” and to Pharaoh.

The way is now prepared for Moses and his family to return from Midian to Egypt. He took his wife and his two sons and proceeded on his journey. The scenes of the first night at the inn are recorded in these words: “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast _it_ at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband _art_ thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband _thou art_, because of the circumcision.” This account is very brief, leaving various points unexplained. Probably the facts were substantially these. Of their two sons, one had been circumcised; the other had not――the prescribed rite having been disobeyed or at least neglected out of the deference of Moses to the opposition or reluctance of his wife. But as Moses is now about to assume the highest responsibilities between God and the Hebrew people, it is vital that his example in this respect should be spotless. The Lord therefore called him suddenly to account in this manner, threatening his very life. The cause is instantly understood; the wife of Moses yields and herself performs the rite, though perhaps not in the most submissive and amiable spirit. After this transaction and the developments attending it, we must suppose that Moses (prudently) sent back his wife and the two children to remain with her father until the redeemed Israelites should reach the home of Jethro. We hear no more of her and her children till the narrative in Ex. 18 brings them to view thus: “When Jethro had heard all that the Lord had done for Moses and Israel, he took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, _after he had sent her back_, and her two sons and brought them to Moses” etc.――――Shortly after this scene at the inn, Aaron, sent of God for this purpose, meets Moses yet in the wilderness and is introduced to his responsibilities in the issues then pending before Pharaoh and the people. Their first introduction to Pharaoh and the reception he gave to their message (Ex. 5) revealed his character and gave pre-intimations of the conflict. They put their case before him:――“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.” “And Pharaoh said――Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” Am not I king over all Egypt? Do you tell me there is some higher king than I and bid me obey his command? I know nothing of your Jehovah: I will never submit to his authority! And as if to show how fearlessly he could resist their summons he at once puts heavier tasks upon the people, in proud defiance, daring the vengeance of their Great Defender! Verily the issues hasten to their crisis!

The suffering people are entirely disheartened and evince a painful lack of faith in the God of their fathers. When Moses rehearsed to them the inspiring words recorded Ex. 6: 1–8, “They hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage.” Ah, how frail is poor human nature! How weak is the faith of this long-oppressed people! But God’s compassions are a great deep and he does not frown severely upon them, broken down though they were in their manhood and in their religious trust.――――Moses too seems to falter before this stern reception from Pharaoh and this disheartening attitude of Israel (6: 12); but the loving kindness of the Lord endures, despite of these sad imperfections in his servants. For the glory of his own name and not for the worthiness or virtue of his people, he has entered upon this redeeming work and he will carry it through.

The narrative pauses a moment more (Ex. 6: 16–27) to give us the genealogy of Levi, for the obvious purpose of showing the place of Moses and of Aaron in this record; and then proceeds (Ex. 7 and onward) with the impressive scenes of _the ten plagues on Pharaoh and on Egypt_.

* * * * *

A brief preliminary explanation of some of these plagues will be in place, after which the following points will have special attention:

1. That these ten plagues on Egypt were really supernatural, miraculous.

2. That several of them were very specially adapted to Egypt.

3. The case of the magicians.

4. The divine purpose and policy in shaping the demand made upon Pharaoh to let the people go.

5. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.

6. The final result as shown in the last of the ten plagues.

* * * * *

The ten plagues in their historical order stand thus:

1. Water turned to blood (Ex. 7: 14–25);

2. Frogs (8: 1–15);

3. Lice (8: 16–19);

4. Flies (8: 20–32);

5. Murrain upon cattle (9: 1–7);

6. Boils (9: 8–12);

7. Hail (9: 18–35);

8. Locusts (10: 4–20);

9. Darkness (10: 21–27);

10. Death of all first-born (11: 4–8, and 12: 12, 29–33).

References to these plagues by name may be seen in Ps. 78: 43–51, and 105: 27–38.

By way of preliminary explanation it should be said――that the turning of water into blood should not be toned down to a mere discoloration of the waters of Egypt――a reddening of such sort as customarily attends the annual rise of the Nile, only carried in the present case somewhat beyond the ordinary degree. For, be it noticed, the record is that the waters were _turned to blood_; that fish could no longer live in it but died (were the fish deceived by the mere appearance, the color?); that the river became offensive to the smell; its waters could not be drank; “there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” If this language does not mean far more than a mere _discoloration_――something totally different from a visual deception; in short, if it does not mean “_turned to blood_,” then no language can be found to express it.

In the third plague, the Hebrew word for “lice”[29] were better rendered _gnats_, yet an insect unknown to our country. Herodotus (B. C. 400) speaks of the great trouble which they cause and of the precautions used against them. Hartmann testifies: “All travelers speak of these gnats as an ordinary plague of the country.”[30] “So small as to be scarcely visible to the eye, their sting notwithstanding causes a most painful irritation. They even creep into the eyes and nose, and after harvest rise in great swarms from the inundated rice fields.” (Keil.)

In the fourth plague, the word translated “swarms of flies”[31] does not mean a mixed mass or swarm of various insects as our translators assumed, but “a stinging, scorpion-like insect” [Fuerst], “so called from its sucking the blood” [Gesenius]. Sonnini (in Hengstenberg’s Moses, p. 117) says――“Men and animals are grievously tormented by them. It is impossible to form an adequate conception of their fury when they wish to fix themselves upon any part of the body. If they are driven away they light again the same instant, and their pertinacity wearies the most patient. They especially love to light in the corners of the eyes or on the edge of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which they are attracted by a slight moisture.” “They are much more numerous and annoying than the gnats; and when enraged, they fasten themselves upon the human body, especially upon the edge of the eyelids and become a dreadful plague” [Keil].――――Obviously the American house-fly gives us no adequate idea of this fourth plague on Egypt.

Of the sixth plague, “boils with blains,” it need only be said that they were inflamed ulcers breaking forth into pustules, intensely painful. The word for “boils” is the same which describes the plague brought by Satan upon Job.

The seventh plague, _hail with lightning_, was not unknown in Egypt, yet was by no means common, and was specially rare in Upper Egypt――more frequent in Lower.――――The other plagues will be readily understood.

* * * * *

1. It is now in place to show that these plagues were really _supernatural_――miraculous inflictions from the hand of the Almighty.

(1.) Note, they were wrought in response to Pharaoh’s challenge to Moses and Aaron to “show a miracle for themselves” (Ex. 7: 9). The Lord accepted this challenge. Of course the achievements wrought can be nothing less than miracles. Given on the side of the Lord honesty and power; then nothing less than miracles can follow.

His purpose in these terrible inflictions God announces to Pharaoh in these words: “By this shalt thou know that I am the Lord” (Ex. 7: 19 and 9: 14). Events in the common course of nature do not suffice for this purpose upon such a heart as Pharaoh’s. The case demands real miracles――things done outside and apart from the ordinary laws of nature.

(2.) The plagues came and went at the behest of Moses acting under God; in some cases, at a definite time previously indicated. (9: 5, 18, 29, 33 and 10: 4); while some were removed at a time which Pharaoh himself for his more full satisfaction was allowed to fix (8: 9, 10). So I construe the somewhat disputed words (v. 8); “Moses said to Pharaoh――Glory over me: When shall I entreat for thee,” etc. Moses would say――I yield to you the honor of fixing the time: say when; and I meet your time.――――Some critics translate simply――Explain; declare yourself (Gesenius); or utter plainly, definitely (Fuerst); but the usual sense of the verb, coupled with the preposition (“over”) which follows, strongly favors the construction above given.

(3.) Most of these plagues if not all discriminated sharply between the Hebrews in Goshen, and the Egyptians elsewhere in Egypt――_e. g._ flies (8: 22, 23) and murrain (9: 4–7), etc. This discrimination assumes that the plagues followed no general law of nature, but were altogether special, _i. e._ were truly miraculous.

(4.) They surpassed and even totally eclipsed the achievements of the magicians; in fact, routed them utterly from the field and showed before all Egypt that the Almighty God was there!――――The case of the magicians will be considered more fully below.

(5.) The conviction was forced upon Pharaoh and the confession extorted from his lips (utterly against his will), that God’s hand wrought these achievements; that these calamities came at his command, and could be removed by his power and not otherwise. Hence over and over he begs Moses to pray to his God for their removal. See this in the case of the frogs (8: 8); of the flies (8: 28, 29); of the hail (9: 27–29); and the locusts (10: 16–18). It is not easy to see how stronger testimony to the reality of miracles can ever exist.

(6.) That these plagues were real miracles, direct from the hand of God, it is unquestionably the intent of the whole narrative to set forth and affirm. So much, no candid reader of the account has ever questioned. Some may say, the narrator was himself deceived: none will deny that he saw God’s finger there and meant to make all his readers see it. None can deny that according to his account even proud Pharaoh saw and felt the very finger of God in them. In fact the narrative makes this its _main purpose_, viz. to show that these judgments were nothing less than immediate visitations from the hand of the Almighty. Take out this element and there is nothing left.

(7.) Or thus: If there is any truth in history, the children of Israel were for a long period bondmen in Egypt. Ultimately the day of their deliverance broke and they came forth free. _How came this to pass?_ Was it by forcible insurrection――the uprising of slaves cutting their way out of bondage into freedom with brave hearts and strong arms of their own? Or was it achieved by diplomacy? Or did Pharaoh relax his grasp and let the people go, under the impulses of humanity, or as a measure of political economy? All suppositions of this sort are not only unhistorical but utterly chimerical. No solution of this great problem――the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt――can ever find rational support save the one given in this record, viz. that the Almighty wrenched them from the grasp of Egypt’s proud and hardened king by a series of terrible judgments launched upon him and his people in quick and hot succession, until they were only too glad to hasten and drive the people out lest they should all be dead men. They were made to feel that the battle was against Almighty God and that they could not succumb too soon.

The events of this wonderful conflict and victory were stamped into the national life of Israel; they reappear all along the course of future ages, interwoven into the very warp and woof of her national history and into the moral forces which developed the nation’s piety. It might as reasonably be maintained that there never was any Hebrew nation as that God did not bring them forth out of Egypt with a high hand, first loosing Pharaoh’s grasp by these ten plagues, and last, burying his pursuing hosts and himself in the waters of the Red Sea.

The supernatural character of these plagues will stand out yet more distinctly when we shall place them in contrast with the things done or attempted by the magicians.

* * * * *

2. _Several of these plagues were very specially adapted to Egypt._

This does not mean that they were at all less miraculous than any other supposable inflictions would have been; but only that they had more or less special fitness to the ends God had in view and were made to touch the sensibilities of Egypt and her king in tender points. Thus, the Nile was Egypt’s pride and glory, indeed her very life, and not improbably (as some maintain) was worshiped by the Egyptians as one of their gods. How terrible then to wake in the morning to find it one vast sea of blood!――to have only blood for themselves and their cattle to drink; blood every-where for the eye to rest upon in place of the glory of the Nile! How terribly suggestive of their national sin――of the male infants of the Hebrews murdered there, and of the resources of Israel’s God to punish the guilty!

So we must suppose that frogs were often inconveniently plenty in Egyptian waters. This visitation of such masses of them brought an evil by no means foreign to their experience. The miracle lay in their numbers and was none the less a miracle because there had been frogs there before. It must have been excessively annoying and humiliating,――if the frog as a near neighbor is as unamiable in that country as in this.

Essentially the same must be said of the lice [gnats]; of the flies; and of boils. All these were forms of evil not unknown in Egyptian life; but yet in the present case were truly miraculous and fearfully afflictive.

Their cattle were so useful and so highly esteemed that some of them were made objects of idolatrous worship. The golden calf of Hebrew history was an Egyptian idea. There was special pertinence therefore in this fearful slaughter among Egypt’s gods!

The hail, with most terrific lightning, was by far the more appalling because rain rarely falls there; hail and lightning yet more rarely.

In the natural course of events, locusts are among the fearful visitations of Oriental countries――not unknown in Egypt. In this case the fearfulness of the plague lay in their numbers, and the miracle was none the less because they had had some experience before of this form of desolation.

* * * * *

3. _The case of the magicians._

The entire account of them is in these words. After Aaron had cast down his rod before Pharaoh and it became a serpent, “Then Pharaoh called the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did so with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods” (Ex. 7: 11, 12). Again, after the miracle of turning the water to blood, “The magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments” (7: 22). After the miracle of the frogs, “the magicians did so with their enchantments and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt” (8: 7). Next, when all the dust became lice “the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, _but they could not_: so there were lice upon man and upon beast. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh――This is the finger of God” (8: 18, 19). Finally, under the plague of boils, “The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boil was upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians” (9: 11). We hear of them in this history no more.

The Hebrew word for “sorcerers” involves the practice of magic arts and incantations. The word for “magicians of Egypt” contemplates them originally as _writers_, the learned class, but couples with that the idea of special skill in horoscopy――the interpretation of dreams and the doing, or at least pretending to do, things beyond the skill of the uninitiated. The word for “enchantments” originally suggests secret arts, things covered, veiled from the public gaze.――――The passage Deut. 18: 10–14, gives most if not all the nearly synonymous words by which this class of men and their arts were designated, showing also that they were regarded before the Lord with most intense abhorrence as an abomination. By the Mosaic law the practice of these arts was punishable with death (Ex. 22: 12).

In regard to the case of the magicians as presented in this history, the point of chief interest will be this――Did they really perform miracles? Did they in fact turn rods into serpents, and water into blood, and produce some frogs in addition to what were there before?――――I am not sure that we have data sufficient to determine with certainty whether these things ascribed to them were simply tricks of hand, arts of jugglery; or whether there was really some power exerted, more and other than human.――――The cases were of a sort in which deception was at least supposable. All the waters it would seem were turned to blood before their effort was made. If so, they had to do with what was already blood and had only to make it appear to be water before they began operations.――――So of the frogs. When frogs were every-where in such numbers, it would not be specially difficult to make it appear that they produced yet more. The turning of rods into serpents is not unknown in the tricks of jugglery the world over.

Of two facts we may be very sure. (1) They had no help from God. Their wonders were not wrought by God’s power. We may put this denial on two independent grounds:――――(a.) The moral purpose of their work utterly forbids the least participation on God’s part. God never fights against himself.――――(b.) Their power was infinitely less than divine. Compared with God’s, it was shown to be simple weakness. “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” Before the plague of lice they were compelled to succumb, and (utterly against their will and against their interest) they declare to Pharaoh――“This is the finger of God”! It utterly distances all our skill. We can not approach it. Before the boils, they writhed in agony. They could not even screen themselves from the terrible infliction. Moreover it is made plain throughout the whole transaction that they were powerless to remove even the slightest of these plagues. If they had possessed this power Pharaoh would have put them to this service. It is plain they shrank from even the attempt. The whole scene was a competition between God’s power as manifested through his servants, Moses and Aaron, and the power of Egypt’s magicians――resulting in most overwhelming proof that the latter had not the first element of God’s power in it.――――It follows therefore that if the magicians had extra-human help――if they had any power beyond human skill, _they obtained it from Satan_. We may readily suppose they were in league with him, working according to his will. He may have sharpened their wits by his influence, helped their arts by his suggestions, and possibly may have given them superhuman aid in the line of physical power. It is not given to us to know the exact limits of his power to aid his servants. It is not essential that we should know precisely where these limits are. We know enough to impress the injunction――“Be sober, be vigilant, because of your adversary the devil” (1 Pet. 5: 8). It may always be our consolation that whenever he matches his power or his skill against the Almighty, he will come off, as, in the case before us, utterly worsted in the fight, overwhelmed with defeat and shame.

* * * * *

4. Some attention should be given to the divine purpose and policy in shaping the demand made upon Pharaoh to let the people go.――――The point of special importance here is one which has been thought to involve the question of strict moral honesty――it being claimed that the divine demand at first ran on this wise: “Let us go three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Ex. 3: 18)――leaving Pharaoh to assume that, this being granted, they would return to his service.

The facts on this point are:

(1.) It was never promised or even intimated that they would return. If Pharaoh construed the words of God and of Moses to imply this, he did so on his own responsibility.

(2.) The demand made upon him that he should let the people go was based in part at least on the religious duty of sacrificing to God in the wilderness (Ex. 5: 1, 3)――an entirely appropriate demand――one which Pharaoh ought to have appreciated, and one which would be more likely to have weight with him than any other. For he was himself a worshiper of his own gods; he knew the strength of the religious element in human nature; he was able to recognize the universal rights of conscience by which every man may claim to worship God according to his own convictions of duty. If Pharaoh would not yield to this request he would yield to none. The policy pursued was, therefore, the most hopeful and the least likely to arouse opposition.

(3.) Even the severest honesty did not require that the Lord should put this demand in its most revolting form in the outset. True, he might have said from the beginning: “My people shall never return”; but this would have at once foreclosed all hope of gaining Pharaoh’s consent.

(4.) If the question of the return of the people was thus left a very little open――or more correctly, was not peremptorily closed, it served the better to test the heart of Pharaoh. It left the way open to ply him with inducements most likely to be successful; and at the same time if he proved obstinate and self-willed, he might show it by bantering over the conditions, higgling as tradesmen and their customers sometimes do over the price, negotiating like diplomatists for the most favorable terms. But this was the fault of Pharaoh, not of God.

(5.) Most frequently the demand was made in these significant words: “Let my people go that they may serve me” (Ex. 8: 1, 20, and 9: 1, 13). Israel is my son; his service is due to me and I claim it (Ex. 4: 22, 23). You have no right to his services; I demand therefore that you let my son go that he may serve me.――――This is at least sufficiently definite, and is by no means open to the slightest imputation of lacking in the point of honesty.

5. _The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart._

In this topic, as in the one next preceding, the point of chief interest is the moral one――that which locates the moral responsibility for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart――that which defines and places truthfully the really responsible agency in the case. Was this hardening the work of God, by his immediate hand? Was it wrought by his power so exclusively and in such modes as to overrule and throw out of account Pharaoh’s own responsible agency?

Or was the responsible agency that of Pharaoh only, altogether his and his alone? Did he harden his own heart, in the exercise of his own free will, in carrying out the purpose and desire of his own soul, essentially as other sinners and as all sinners do?

This question is one of immensely vital moment. Let us approach it with both care and candor.

We may reach the true answer by studying,

(1.) The history of the case;

(2.) What is said of God’s purpose in this matter;

(3.) What he has taught us of his character, and of his agencies in the existence of sin.

(1.) The history of the transaction will doubtless throw light on the question――How came Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened? _How was it done?_

The history of the transaction, developing the steps of the process, bears more vitally upon the question, Who is responsible?――than may at first view be realized. For, let it be carefully considered: God’s ways of working by his immediate, direct, exclusive agency will forever be mysterious and inscrutable to us. It is idle for us to ask――_How_ does God work a miracle? Of course it must be idle for us to inquire after the natural law of such working because the very idea of a miracle is that of a work _not_ wrought according to any known laws of nature. If now the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart were wrought by God’s miraculous, direct, immediate hand, we shall look in vain for the law of his operations. It would be simply preposterous to inquire after the laws of mind in accordance with which the thing was done――the supposition being that it was done according to _no_ known laws of mind whatever.

On the other hand if Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there will be no mystery about it. It so happens that we all know but too well how sinners harden their own hearts. There is rarely the least difficulty in tracing the operations of the human mind and the influences of temptation which produce this result. Therefore, if the history of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart brings out the working of his mind, according to the common modes of human sinning――if we see that his mind worked as the minds of other proud sinners are wont to work under like circumstances, then the whole question is settled at once and forever. If we can actually _see_ how Pharaoh hardened his own heart and can identify the whole process as being the very same which occurs in the case of all proud sinners who resist God’s power and especially resist the appeals of his love and mercy, what more can we ask? It were worse than idle――it were impious to exonerate Pharaoh from the least portion of the moral responsibility for his hardened heart and to seek to cast it over upon God.

In entering upon the _history of the case_, it is well to note the attitude of Pharaoh’s mind toward the God of Israel in the outset. We have it brought out fully (Ex. 5: 1, 2): “Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh: ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; let my people go that they may serve me.’ And Pharaoh said――_Who_ is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.”――――This is plain; he says he does not know this God; he does not recognize his authority or admit his claims. His soul is full of practical unbelief in God――a fact which commonly lies at the bottom of all the hardening of sinners’ hearts in every age.――――Pharaoh did not at first contemplate crossing swords and measuring strong arms _with the Almighty God_. If he had taken this view of the case, he might have paused awhile to consider.――――So it usually is with sinners. Unbelief in God conduces to launch them upon this terrible conflict. Once committed, they become more hardened; one sin leads on to more sinning till sin becomes incurable――shall we say it? an uncontrollable madness.

We may now fitly proceed to give attention to each particular case.